Who is Jesus?

Answers that Tempt You to Say

“You’re Kidding.”

In this message we will  look at some of the interpretations of Jesus that have gotten media attention during the past few years.  We can’t assume people will ignore these views, so we won’t.

Matthew 20:13-16

I’ve decided to begin this series on “Who is Jesus?” with some answers that are popular enough to get media attention and maybe be on TV but don’t quite ring true.  These notions are appearing so quickly that I’m sure I’ve missed some and will have to amend the list sometime in the future.  It’s hard to know just what new interpretation will capture the public’s attention.  However, I’m quite sure that in the week or so before Easter we won’t see a Time or Newsweek cover declaring, “The Orthodox Jesus—Christians Right All Along.”

So, let’s consider just some of these attempts which have appeared in the past decades or so.’

Let’s begin by showing that this game isn’t really all that new.  Going back to Nicholas Notovitch in The Unknown Life of Jesus, first published in 1894 and Elizabeth Claire Prophet's 1984 book The Lost Years of Jesus several writers have attempted to prove Jesus traveled to India as a young man and learned from Hindus and Buddhists. That he incorporated these thoughts into his teachings. Some even claim That Jesus survived the crucifixion and later died in India.

There is no historical or textual evidence to support these claims.  Jesus did not teach reformed Buddhism.

Who was Jesus?  A vegetarian, holistic healer.

In 1937 Edmond Szekety published a manuscript called The Essene Gospel of Peace which he said he found in secret archive of The Vatican library in the mid-1920s. This Gospel presents a r different picture of Jesus than we find in The New Testament. Just consider these points:

--Jesus healed primarily by teaching people how to use natural medicines.   As this “gospel” says:  “…many unclean and sick followed Jesus' words and sought the banks of the murmuring streams. They put off their clothing [in a kind of early nudist camps], they fasted, and they gave up their bodies to the angels of the air, of water, and of sunshine.”

--Jesus called people to respect “the Earthly Mother” and “the Heavenly Father.”  He was a bi-theist.

--Jesus called people to vegetarianism.

--He did not save mankind, but showed mankind the path to salvation because each must save himself; no one else can save him.

It’s been concluded that Szekely had totally forged the document, that he maintained the fraud for years, even adding embellishment from his so-called additional researches.

Yet, his portrait of Jesus is attractive to many. For example, Shirley MacLaine mentions it in her book Going Within.

Who was Jesus?  The man who never was.

Of course, there are others who deal with Jesus by saying he never lived.  I hadn’t planned on mentioning this but, at a local book store, I found a volume published by a Canadian author who said Jesus was a myth.  A few years ago, a Dispatch article reported on a Columbus resident who planned a book making the same claim.  Suffice it to say these writers are in a clear minority.  Even radical thinkers like John Hick, author of The Myth of God Incarnate,  and Bart Ehrman, author of Misquoting Jesus, refuse to say the man Jesus of Nazareth never lived.

Most historians—believer and non-believer—accept that Jesus was truly a historical figure in the first century. 

Indeed, in the early centuries of the church’s history, none of the opponents of Christianity seemed to have denied Jesus’ existence.

In fact, Josephus (who died in 100) and a handful of other ancient non-Christian writers make reference to Jesus very early on.  From their writings we can draw this sketch of Jesus.

·         Jesus lived during the rule of Tiberius Caesar.

·         He lived a virtuous life.

·         He was reputed to be a wonder-worker.

·         He had a brother named James.

·         He was acclaimed to be the Messiah (of course, none of these non-Christian writers would have agreed, if they understood who the Messiah was.).

·         He was crucified on the order of Pilate.

·         He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

·         Darkness and an earthquake reputedly happened when he died.

·         His disciples believed he rose from the dead.

·         His disciples were willing to die for their beliefs.

·         Christianity spread rapidly to Rome.

·         His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshipped Jesus as God.

The claim that Jesus never lived is just wrong, probably inspired by wishful thinking.

Who was Jesus?  Rival of John the Baptist

Back in 1992, Australian writer Barbara Thiering, in her best-selling book Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls, presented an amazing picture of Jesus and his life. She claims Jesus was an opponent of The Teacher of Righteousness (whom we know as John The Baptist) at Qumran (the community which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls); eventually the community split into two factions one led by Jesus, the other by John. In time, John's faction prevailed and Jesus was crucified at Qumran.

According to Thiering, Jesus was crucified along with Judas Iscariot and Simon Magus (the magician who appears in Acts).  Although the perpetrators were convinced all three had died on their crosses, in fact, each survived.  After being placed in their tombs Simon and Judas revived; Simon used his medical knowledge to help Jesus revive. 

Now, picture this.  Thiering imagines a radically Jewish sect, using a Roman method of execution.  And, while it might be possible that one crucified person might survive the ordeal; Jesus’ enemies so botched the job that all three survived.

Jesus then left Palestine and went to Rome where he died at an advanced age. Thiering even suggests Jesus had fathered three children with his wife Mary Magdalene, whom he would later divorce.

Thiering claims she was able to discover this because she found that The New Testament was written as pesher document. That is, it was written in code, using the interpretive scheme popular with the Essenes. As a result, nothing in the text is what it seems. She says, for example, that the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000 were stories of early Christian ordinations told in graphic style.

While The Essenes and others used the pesher method to interpret existing texts there is no evidence they ever used the method to create a text.

Did I mention this was a best-selling book? N. T. Wright says, the only scholar who takes Thiering's theory with any seriousness is Thiering herself.  It's amazing that some would prefer this account to the biblical story.

Who was Jesus? A nice guy who finished last

About the same time as Thiering was publishing her book, A. N. Wilson published Jesus: A Life.  Wilson’s treatment of Jesus has been described as “simultaneously sympathetic to and critical of religious belief.”  While Wilson is a well-known biographer and journalist  in the UK, he is also a novelist.  Those skills came in handy.  Wilson’s Jesus attempted to call people to a higher way of life and ended up crucified for his efforts.  Back in Galilee, James attempted to comfort his brother’s devastated followers by reminding them that this tragedy was foreseen by God and written about in the Prophets.  Apparently not everyone knew who James was and, seeing the family resemblance, assumed Jesus had risen from the dead.  They then began to tell the Easter story.

Earlier in his life, Wilson had become an atheist.  The author of a popular biography of C. S. Lewis, Wilson says that reading Lewis’ Mere Christianity led him to atheism (you heard that correctly).  He became a powerful mocker of Christianity and religion in general.

Interestingly, in 2009 British newspapers began reporting that Wilson had been converted.  He had embraced the account of Jesus’ resurrection as the Bible presents it.  I’m always hesitant to report stories like this but some very reputable sources are telling it.  So, I offer it in the spirit of hoping for the best.

How did he go from believer to non-believer to believer?  I’m sure the story is multilayered but here’s a partial explanation.

Part of the reason was that atheism and atheists in his words, “[miss] out on some very basic experiences of life.” He described listening to Bach or reading the works of Christian authors and realizing that their “perception of life was deeper, wiser, more rounded than [his] own.” seeing the world through the eyes of faith is “much more interesting” he said, than the alternatives.

Then there was the low esteem in which Darwinism holds man. The people who insist that we are “simply anthropoid apes” can’t account for something as basic as language. The “existence of language,” love and music, to name but a few, convinced Wilson that we are “spiritual beings.”

Then there’s what he regards the “an even stronger argument”: “the way that Christian faith transforms individual lives.” From “Bonhoeffer’s serenity before he was hanged” to the person next to you at church, Christians bear witness to the truth of Christianity and that as a “working blueprint for life” and “template against which to measure experience, it fits.”

I haven’t seen a revised version of Jesus: A Life but maybe he’s working on it.  In any case, Wison’s story reminds us of C. S. Lewis’ warning that “A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.”

Who was Jesus?  Anyone we say except the Son of God

More recently The scholars of the so-called Jesus Seminar have tried to rewrite the story of Jesus..

If you read about the seminar in Time or Newsweek you know that it is comprised of a group of scholars who have sliced and diced the gospel accounts in order to get to what they consider to be an accurate portrait of Jesus and what he said.

These scholars study the various sayings of and stories about Jesus and Then meet to vote on their authenticity. Each scholar votes by dropping a colored bend into a box. Red or pink if They believe The account is genuine or nearly genuine, black if they doubt its validity, and gray if they just aren't sure.

One of The reasons The Jesus Seminar is attracting so much attention is the fact that its conclusions are associated with the names of individuals reputed to be scholars. But, in this case, what does that really mean

Theoretically, a scholar participating in the seminar could lose every vote and still put his endorsement upon a conclusion with which he had disagreed five minutes before. How's that for intellectual integrity?

The Jesus Seminar is just the latest—and perhaps beet publicized—example of an approach to the Bible which begins with the assumption that it cannot be accurate.

What to those  who doubt The New Testament account of Jesus' life believe. Members of The Jesus Seminar, along with other scholars, can't accept the story of the resurrection. So They try to come up with alternative explanations. The best-known of these says the body of Jesus was placed in a shallow grave where it was quickly eaten by dogs. Upon returning to the grave and finding it empty, the disciples assumed Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Needless to say, if they can't accept the story of the first Easter, They're not going to accept The story of the first Christmas.

Even among those who don’t go as far as the seminar does in discounting the New Testament portrayal of the life of Jesus, there is great skepticism about the Christmas story. They argue not only that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem but that he was most likely the illegitimate offspring of an affair between Mary and a Roman soldier.

It’s amazing the people who have been taken in by this account.  In an ABC news report, aired in June 2000, the late Peter Jennings stated that the Gospel of John says 'no one knows who His father was and an anti- Christian writer in the second century mentions a rumor that a Roman soldier made Mary pregnant.' The truth is John says the very opposite. Amazed at his teaching, the crowd said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? (John 6:42 (ESV))

The only other verse Jesus could conceivably be referring to has nothing to do with Jesus earthly parentage.

And depending upon an enemy of Christianity for reliable reports about Jesus is about as fair as depending solely on Ann Coulter for your information about Barack Obama or depending solely on Michael Moore for your information about …well anything.

The same report, Marcus Borg argued against Jesus having been born  in Bethlehem. Part of the evidence Borg cited was the fact that Matthew says Jesus was born at home.  Matthew's gospel, while not mentioning Bethlehem, certainty does not say Jesus was born at home. As Hank Honegraaf says, 'Borg simply fabricates this statement.'             

Who is Jesus?  The lottery winner.

Recently we’ve been hearing a lot about the work of Bart Ehrman.  A prolific writer, Ehrman attacks orthodox Christianity relentlessly.  Perhaps his most persistent claim is that Christianity as we know it was simply the winner in a furious contest of orthodoxies or perspectives on Jesus popular in the early centuries following Jesus’ death.  Orthodoxy won when the newly converted Emperor Constantine, early in the fourth century, endorsed is as the official position. 

Perhaps I should point out that Ehrman was raised in a traditional Christian church and attended a fundamentalist college where the discover that there were debated readings in some New Testament texts, ultimately led to his rejection of his faith. 

Like many of the modern critics of the orthodox Jesus, Ehrman is fascinated with the many alternative “gospels” that were circulating in the early years of the church.  He claims there is no reaon why these gospels shouldn’t be as acceptable as the so-called canonical gospels:  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. 

For example, Ehrman (like Elaine Pagels) is very interested in the Gospel of Thomas, claiming it was probably written about AD 50, making it one of the earliest Christian writings.  That is a fantastic claim.  Thomas quotes almost every book in the New Testament and cites a Syriac version of the Gospels was not published until the middle of the second century!  It simply isn’t a gospel written less than a generation after Jesus lived.  At the same time, many early Christian writers mentioned the existence of a gospel of Thomas but none of them believed it was really written by the apostle.

I’m not familiar with all that Ehrman has written but I’ll offer two generalizations. 

First, a lot of what he says isn’t new or original.  Some of the same arguments were made years ago.  Made and refuted. 

Second, his suggestions that the church has tried to hide the alternative gospels or the problems with the New Testament text simply isn’t true.  For at least as long as I’ve been studying theology, you could go into any seminary library and find copies of some of these alternative gospels.  Yes, some of them were not found until the last century of so.  But that’s not because they were suppressed, as Ehrman claims.  Within just a few centuries, copies of the New Testament gospels were to be found wherever the church had found.  By the way, wherever they were found, the gospels were always attributed to the same four writers—never to anyone else.  This, even though the gospels are anonymous.

By the way, the existence of textual problems has been known for centuries.  In the sixteenth century, Erasmus wrestled with the variant texts to try to discover the authentic text.  As a result of his work and that of countless other scholars, we believe are about 99% certain of the original text.  None of the remaining discrepancies impact any Christian doctrine.  Has the church tried to hide these issues?  Most Bibles, including editions of the King James Version, have footnotes announcing that there are questions about some texts. 

Not everything Ehrman says is wrong.  He’s right about some things.  But the problems occur when he combines those facts with specious claims to paint a questionable picture of Jesus and the church.

Conclusion

There is probably a variety of reasons why people reject the New Testament portrait of Jesus. Two may be most important.

I)   These notions are often rooted in a rejection of supernaturalism. Those who say that miracles can't take place must reject the reports of the New Testament. This prejudice leads them to treat The New Testament as they would treat no other book. The authors of one book which presented a radical new iife' of Jesus said as much. They explained that in order to support their conclusions they were “obliged to read between the lines, fill in certain gaps....”

Other writers, no less imaginative, simply reject the New Testament version. For example, the writers who prefer The Gospel of Thomas to The Gospel of John.

2) A desire to escape the consequences of acknowledging the real Jesus What Doug Groothius has to say about the work of Szekely probably applies to many

Szekely’s Essene Jesus is attractive to many, Shirley MacLaine among them, because the sting of the biblical Jesus is entirely lacking. The Essene Jesus provokes no controversy, makes no enemies, issues no ethical demands, and never divides the world into Those who are for him and those who we against him. He…bears no cross, sheds no blood, and startles no disciples as the resurrected Lord.

Many would prefer a Jesus who loves them but doesn’t interfere with their lives, a Jesus who taught people to just get along rather than a Jesus who called on them to repent ,whose crucifixion reminds them of the depth of their sin and rebellion.  This is not the New Testament Jesus.

In the weeks to come, we are going to look further at that New Testrament Jesus. That’s the best place to find the answer to the question, Who is Jesus? 

For the most part, we’ll stick with the Biblical materials with only an occasional look at historical and creedal material. 

The Jesus of the New Testament is the Jesus who will make a difference in our lives.  But as long as men and women deny their need for a Redeemer they will continue to diminish and attack him.

As long as men and women see their need for a Redeemer they may have their spiritual needs met by the one who was born in Bethlehem.

Arrogant? Not So Much

    After preaching this sermon I was asked if I had preached it because of the current political scene in the US where several individuals are attempting become the Republican Presidential candidate.  Very simply, no.  I was inspired by media portrayals of Christians.  For anyone outside the US who might be reading this message, the individuals mentioned in the opening are characters on American TV.

Romans 1:16-17, 3:23-27a

I used to complain that any Christian portrayed on TV or in the movies was sheepish, timid, and fearful—a stammering Caspar Milquetoast type. (Caspar’s creator said he “spoke softly and was beaten with a big stick.”)  Think a very “mild-mannered” Clark Kent who when he strips off his glasses, just walks into a wall.  These Christians were weak, ineffectual, uncertain, and generally tepid—and just brought in for comic relief. 

Now, I’d almost enjoy seeing such a Christian on the screen.  Today’s onscreen Christian is brash to the point of being rude, boorish.  Think Gregory House or Sue Sylvester without the charm.

The picture of such arrogant Christians implies we look down our noses at others, believing we are better than anyone else. 

Well, it would be arrogant of me to suggest the charge isn’t sometimes true.  Occasionally, we behave in an arrogant manner.

Before I explain, let me say that if the charge is that we are arrogant simply because we believe we are right, I have to disagree.

·         It hardly seems fair to lay that charge on us if every other religion believes the same thing about itself.  This invites us to investigate the truth claims, not to simply say they are all right or they are all wrong.  Don’t charge us Christians with arrogance unless you plan to charge every other religious person with arrogance.

·         It hardly seems fair to charge us Christians with arrogance if you are displaying your own brand of arrogance.  To say Christians are arrogant because we believe we are right ignores the fact that you, apparently, believe you are right and Christians are wrong.  Now, you might be right and Christians might be wrong, but the mere fact we believe we are right doesn’t make us wrong.  Don’t charge us Christians with arrogance, unless you plan to charge yourself.

Still, we Christians have sometimes displayed a degree of arrogance.

Sometimes we have displayed a cultural arrogance.  We have confused Western culture with the gospel.  We have suggested that men and women must become western before they can be Christian.  Wherever that has happened, it was a mistake.

Sometimes we have displayed a racial arrogance.  We have behaved in a paternalistic manner toward those we tried to reach.  We have treated grown men and women like children, refusing to allow them to take the leadership of their own churches.  We have learned better.

Sometimes we have displayed a denominational arrogance.  I once heard a story about an older woman who was a very committed Baptist.  Her pastor once teasingly asked her, “Grandma, what will you say if Jesus comes back and he isn’t a Baptist?”  The older woman answered, “I’d know it wasn’t Him.”

There is nothing wrong with being committed to our traditions and our distinctive understanding of how to do church.  But we have sometimes refused to cooperate and appreciate other brothers and sisters in Christ to the degree that a watching world has wondered how we can claim to love one another.

We’ve probably been arrogant in other ways but they say confession is good for the soul, but hard on the reputation.  That being so, I’ll stop confessing right now.  I believe we Christians try hard to avoid the kind of arrogance I’ve mentioned.  But the most important question remains, Does Christianity lead Christians to become arrogant?

Let’s consider that question…

How can we be arrogant when we say we each have a problem we cannot solve?

Paul’s statement about the comprehensive presence of sin in humanity couldn’t be clearer:  “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” 

Letters from Albert Einstein have been made public which revealed something of what the famous genius thought of some religious questions.  You’ve probably heard Einstein said he did not believe the Jews were a “chosen people.”  Remember, this came from a man who was once offered the presidency of the newly formed nation of Israel.  His remark would have surprised most Jews of Paul’s day;   they were convinced they were God’s chosen people.  Some—by no means all—but some of Paul’s fellow citizens would have interpreted this to mean they were a cut above the rest of humanity.  Their arrogance prompted them to describe non-Jews as “Gentile dogs.”

Officially, these students of the Old Testament would have agreed that all are sinners but they might have added a footnote that said, “All have sinned, but the Jews, not so much.”  But when Paul said, “For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” he was saying it doesn’t matter who you are or what your religious tradition, we are all in the same condition.  Peterson’s rendering of the verse is on the mark:  “…we’ve compiled this long and sorry record as sinners (both us [Jews] and them [non-Jews]) and proved that we are utterly incapable of living the glorious lives God wills for us….”

We know there is no room for arrogance.    In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said,  "Blessed are those who feel poor in spiritual things, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.” (Matthew 5:3)  In a world that flatters us with the belief we are all spiritual giants, we say we need to admit we are all spiritual paupers. 

Don’t get me wrong, we Christians encourage our children to have a healthy self-esteem, but we don’t do so by pretending they’re blinding us with the brightness of their halos. 

The Brazilian government reported on finding a previously unknown tribe or people group, in the western Amazon jungle near the Chilean border.  Immediately, various organizations became concerned that the tribe would be endangered if logging operations entered the area, forcing them to evacuate.

The report showed pictures of several individuals looking up at the helicopter as it buzzed the village.  In one picture, a man appeared to be firing an arrow at the copter.  We can imagine the poor guy being frightened out of his wits at the sight.  In another, it looked as if a man were thinking, “I wish I had one of those;   it would make getting around a lot easier.”  Okay, maybe not.  But you can be sure that no matter how simple and uncomplicated the lives of these people, there is greed, envy, hate.  No one escapes it.

Sin is a universal problem.  None of us escapes it.  We Christians are the first to admit it.  Sometimes we are the last to insist on it.

Where is the arrogance in this? 

How can we be arrogant when we say God alone could solve our problem?

Disabled by the fact of our sin, we cannot make ourselves fit to be acceptable to God.  The hope of a solution is out of our hands.  This is why what Paul has to say is so important.

[We] are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.

We Christians believe that at the heart of the gospel lies the initiative and ingenuity of God.

Our hope of salvation is linked to the identity and work of Jesus Christ.  As God in the flesh, Jesus did what we could not do for ourselves.  The word-pictures Paul uses all stress God’s role in solving the problem we could not solve.

Paul says Jesus played the role of “a sacrifice of atonement” (“propitiation” in some translations).  The picture suggests we came to the temple empty-handed.  With no sacrifice adequate for our sins, we could not enter the presence of God;   access to him was denied.  But Jesus became that sacrifice for us.  He made possible our access to God.

Paul says Jesus provided our “redemption.”  The word comes from the slave market.  It invites us to imagine ourselves as slaves, bound and chained.  We had nothing with which to purchase our freedom.  But God, through Christ, liberated us.  He paid what was necessary to remove our chains.  Because of Christ we have been set free.  We are free from guilt.  Free from shame.

Paul says Jesus made possible our “justification.”  The image places us in a court of law.  We are justly accused of a crime.  The evidence against us is irrefutable.  Suddenly, the judge declares us not guilty.  He does so because Christ has taken our penalty for us.

How can God do this?  He can do so because, in the death of Christ, the Judge becomes the judged.  He remains “righteous” because he does not ignore our sin;   he deals with it decisively.  At the same time, he is able to “justify” those who place their faith in Christ.  The Judge (God) is able to bring the guilty into a new relationship with him because he, himself, took the penalty of our crime.

God did for us what we could not do for ourselves.

What does this do with our very human tendency to boast of our accomplishments, even our spiritual accomplishments?  As Paul asks, “what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded.”  When we understand the gospel, there is no ground for arrogance.

How can we be arrogant when we admit the only reason for pride is in what God has done?

In the opening chapter of Romans, Paul states the theme he will unfold throughout the letter.  He says,

For ^I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is

^the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,

 to the Jew ^first and also to ^the Greek^[1]

In the original language, Paul’s statement, “I am not ashamed of the gospel,” is stated so forcefully that it has the effect of his saying, “I am proud of the gospel.”  The New Century Version actually translates the verse as, “I am proud of the Good News, because it is the power God uses to save everyone who believes…”^[2]

Paul’s “pride” is not arrogance.  It is confidence in the effectiveness of his message.  The Gospel does what it promises:  it brings those who accept it into a right relationship with God.  It invites us to lay aside our pride, our self-confidence and accept that we are accepted, simply because of what Jesus has done.

Paul’s confidence in the gospel prompted him to share it wherever he went.  He knew the whole world needed to hear it.  The church grew because men and women who discovered the reality of the gospel couldn’t keep quiet about it.  Would that we had that kind of confidence today.

Conclusion

To our shame, sometimes we Christians have been arrogant.  A good dose of the gospel is a great cure for arrogance.

Yet, the most dangerous arrogance is that arrogance that hears the gospel and says, “I don’t need it.”

---

^[1] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. Ro 1:16

^[2] The Holy Bible : New Century Version , Containing the Old and New Testaments. Dallas, TX : Word Bibles, 1991, S. Ro 1:16

Committed

Romans 8:26-39

Back in 1985 Pat and I participated in a partnership mission in Australia.  Several teams from Texas travelled to New South Wales to work with Baptist churches in Australia’s most populous state.  We were assigned to the Tumut Baptist Church in Tumut, NSW, a small town about 250 miles west of Sydney.   It’s on the edge of the Blue Mountains where The Man from Snowy River was filmed.  They are called that because of the bluish cast to the mist surrounding all the Eucalyptus trees.

 When we left our hosts gave us a gift, a two-record collection of Australian folksongs.  It had several pieces by Andrew “Banjo” Patterson including “The Man from Snowy River,” “Clancy of the Overflow,” and, of course, “Waltzing Matilda.” (In fact, I think there were about four versions of Australia’s unofficial national anthem.)  The records also included some excerpts from a radio show popular in Australia during the Depression, The Road to Gundagai. (That title is also taken from another song by Patterson and we actually saw that famous road.)

Anyway, I recall a couple jokes from the show.  A swagman (tramp, to you and me) was telling about his problems.  He knocked on one door and when a man answered he said, “Pardon me, mister, do you have some old clothes to give me.”  The man looked him over and said, “What’s the matter aren’t them you’re wearing old enough.”  The swagman then told this story, “I knocked on a door and quickly got down on me hands and knees to eat grass off the lawn.  When the lady opened the door, I said, ‘Lady, I’m so hungry I could eat grass,’ and she says, ‘O you poor man, go around back, the grass is much longer there.’”  The swagman concluded by saying, “Things are crook, things are crook all over.”

We might agree that “things are crook all over;” we’re facing some tough times.  I won’t list all the problems we’re facing together because you know them.  They’re changing the outlook of the best of us.  We’ve come to the point where a pessimist believes the world is going to end tomorrow while an optimist believes it will probably last until next week.

At the same time, as individuals we are facing challenges.  Some may involve our health, some our jobs, some our families, some our finances.  We try hard to laugh rather than cry but sometimes the laughter turns to crying.

This morning I want to talk about commitment.  Certainly we need to be committed to our faith, to our families, to our churches.  But that’s not the commitment I want to talk about. 

Almost anyone who has been around the church long knows that Romans 12 presents a picture of the Christian’s commitment to God.  But we need to keep in mind that Romans 8 pictures God’s commitment to us.

Paul’s lofty words present God’s commitment.

God is Committed to Hear Us.

Paul says:

26. In the same way the Spirit also takes hold with us in our weakness, for we know not how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

27. And the Searcher of Hearts knows what the Spirit's meaning is, because his intercessions for the saints are according to the will of God.

I don't understand all Paul is saying here.  Clearly Paul is saying God wants to hear us but it's also clear Paul's talking about an experience which is very precious, private, and sacred. I do know there are occasions when we are wrestling with our persistent failures, when we don't know what to do next, when we don't know what direction to go; yet, deep within, we know we want what God wants for us. Paul seems to be saying that on such occasions, if we open ourselves to the Spirit, He may enable us bring before God the yearnings we can't verbalize.

I believe it's possible to pray contrary to the will of God.  At the same time, I think it's very unlikely that anyone might pray against their own will. We're just not made that way. Yet, those who sincerely desire God's will to prevail admit there are times when they just don't know how to pray. Beyond a simple, "Thy will be done," they are unable to put that desire into words.

Perhaps, the Spirit helps us pray in such a way that our inmost desire to embody God's will in our lives finds expression.  Or, perhaps the Spirit doesn’t need words to know our desire.

In Bruce Almighty, Jim Carrey plays Bruce, a TV reporter who is temporarily allowed to take over God’s responsibilities in Buffalo, NY.  In one scene Bruce suddenly begins to hear the voices of the thousands of men, women, and children who are praying to God.  It’s a cacophony; Bruce can’t make sense of any of it.  If we believe God can distinguish your voice and my voice from all the others calling out to him, then surely he doesn’t need to “hear” voices at all.

In essence, Paul is saying our weaknesses, our lack of knowledge, our pitiful insight can be overruled by God's presence in our lives.

God is Committed to Benefit Us.

Someone has called Romans 8:28 “a soft pillow for a weary soul.”  Although this verse has been misapplied to some tragedies and even used to make sufferers feel guilty for mourning the loss of a love one, it still contains a great promise.

It promises that nothing happening to us can keep God from accomplishing his good work in us, from finishing the work of redemption Paul has been describing in the previous verses.  The ultimate “good” is to become like his Son.  In the end, whatever life may throw our way, whatever the world may do to us because of our commitment to Christ, whatever the depth of our personal pain, if we remain attuned to His Spirit, God will do his good work in us.  That good work will be seen as we become more and more like Christ who redeemed us.

We usually apply this verse to God’s overruling the impact of bad things that happen to us.   That’s certainly legitimate.  But it may have wider application.  We can see the reality of God’s commitment to do us good when he trumps the power of our own foolish decision.

I’ve been looking at the life of Samuel Sewall.  Sewall was a politician and judge who lived in New England during the late 17^th and early 18^th centuries.  During the last thirty years of his life, he actively supported missionary efforts, he argued for the basic rights of Native Americans, he was among the earliest non-Quaker writers against slavery; and he was a pioneer in arguing for greater freedom and legal protection for women.

For all of this, you might have never heard of Samuel Sewall if he hadn’t been involved in an event that took place almost forty years before his death in 1730.  In 1692, Samuel Sewall was one of the presiding judges at the Salem witch trials.  He helped condemn some nineteen persons to be hanged.  Then, five years later, in 1697, Sewall publically repented of his involvement with the hysteria and asked for God’s forgiveness.  He was the only judge to do so.

God is so committed to us that, if we open ourselves to him, even our own failures can’t keep him from working out his good in our lives.

God is Committed to Love Us.

Paul opens his final arguments by asking us to be reasonable.  There’s a kind of logic at work here.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

He asks us to consider the logical implications of what he’s been saying since chapter one.

If you’re ever tempted to question God’s commitment to you, look at the cross.  If you’re ever tempted to think some enemy will overwhelm you, look at who’s on your side.  If you’re ever tempted to let your own guilt at your failure or tempted to allow some accuser to shame you, look at who’s justified you, the Judge of the highest court in the universe.  If you’re ever tempted to believe you have to do more to earn God’s favor, look at who died for you.

Now, Paul turns to those things that sometimes happen to us, things which we might imagine to threaten to keep God's "good" from becoming a reality in our lives.  It’s quite an inventory of trials, troubles, and adversity.

Listen to Paul’s great claim, this time from the New Living Translation.  

Can anything ever separate us from Christ’s love? Does it mean he no longer loves us if we have trouble or calamity, or are persecuted, or hungry, or destitute, or in danger, or threatened with death?
(As the Scriptures say, “For your sake we are killed every day; we are being slaughtered like sheep.”)
     No, despite all these things, overwhelming victory is ours through Christ, who loved us.
     And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love.
     No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The phrase “or anything else” provides an interesting thought.  It embraces anything that might happen to us.  One commentator wrote, “Paul is suggesting that if he has omitted anything in his catalog …, then the reader can fill in the blanks with any other problem. Paul is convinced that nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

It’s still sometimes a puzzle about why God allows things to happen that might cause us to question his love, his goodness, his control.  But maybe when we’ve experienced these things and come away with the assurance of God’s love intact, we have a clearer view of his commitment to us.

One writer likened God to a master chef who takes various ingredients and produces a wonderful meal.

Very often, when Pat is preparing a new recipe she warns me that it includes some ingredient I don't particularly like—onions, green chilies, celery—and then adds, "But you won't be able to taste it."

I usually respond, "Seems like a waste to put it in."

She, of course, argues that the dish wouldn't be the same without the ingredient. Now, I have to admit, most of the time it works; the dish is good.

You and I may wonder how God can take some objectionable experiences—experiences we’d like to avoid, mix them with a lifetime of other experiences, both mundane and joyous, to produce a wondrous result—the image of Christ in our individual lives.  But that's what our loving God is committed to do.

Conclusion

If you were here last week, you heard the story of Kethia Sirena.  She’s the Haitian teen who was severely burned when she was three and as a result her upper arm was scarred and fused to her side.

Then a couple years ago she came to the attention of volunteers from Blacksburg, Virginia, who were doing mission work in her remote village in the Haitian highlands.  One of those volunteers had helped build a bridge and a school for her village, a school named after Austin Cloyd, a student killed in the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007.

Here’s the story from a Blacksburg news outlet.

Bryan Cloyd and Pastor Reggie Tuck went on a mission trip to Haiti in July of 2009. It was in a small hut of a church that he first met, then 11-year old Kethia Sirene.

"She was severely burned. Her right arm was totally not useful. She could move her fingers a little bit, but had no other use of her arm,” said Cloyd.

When he got home to Blacksburg, Cloyd told Kethia's story to another church member who's a doctor at Lewisgale. [That’s Dr Rick Boyle]  He helped get the hospital on board to pay for a surgery to free her arm.

After years of planning and jumping through hoops, like getting a temporary visa for Kethia, he says he can't believe she's finally here.

"I get kind of choked up, get tears in my eyes just thinking about the enormity of the individual contributions,” said Cloyd.

Cloyd's daughter Austin was on the victims of April 16th. It was her death that inspired him to first go to Haiti to help.

I asked him “The reason you have been doing so much in Haiti is because of your daughter. What would she think of this?”

After a pause he responded, “Jarett I think these are the sorts of things Austin would have really loved to do. She was able to do some as a high school kid, but I guess these are the sorts of things she would have loved to spend her life doing. I'm glad to be able to do some part of that and I hope that she's praying along with us.”

You should know that Kethia has had her surgery and is recovering.  The cooperation of the Baptist and the United Methodist churches in Blacksburg has inspired the whole community to pitch in to help.  But right now, I want to focus on the Cloyd’s who lost their daughter in the Virginia Tech attacks.

No right thinking person would point to this story and say, “See, the killings were a good thing.”  That’s not what this passage is about.  I’m sure the Cloyd’s wouldn’t say this compensates for their daughter being murdered.

But what the Cloyd’s story does show is that the certainty of God’s commitment to us can keep us from being consumed by any tragedy. 

Whatever challenge you’re facing, face it knowing God is committed to you.