Thanks for the Good News

This message was preached 20 November but was not posted until today since I have been unable to access the blog. 

Mark 1:14-15

After John had been put in prison, Jesus went to Galilee and preached the Good News from God.
“The right time has come,” he said, “and the Kingdom of God is near! Turn away from your sins and believe the Good News!”

Listen to this statement that I’ve edited  for length and clarity..

[The day of his birth] is a day which we may justly count as equivalent to the beginning of everything—inasmuch as it has restored the shape of everything that was failing and turning into misfortune, and has given a new look to the Universe at a time when it would gladly have welcomed destruction….  [We honor him because he was filled with virtue] for doing the work of a benefactor  among men and [so was], as it were, a savior for us and those who come after us, to make war to cease and to create order everywhere, [his birthday] was the beginning for the world of the glad tidings that have come to men through him….”

In that passage, the word translated “glad tidings” was euangelion, the Greek word that we translate as “gospel.”  The words I read are from a proclamation made by Paulus Fabius Maximus, the proconsul of the province of Asia in about the year 9 B.C.  The proconsul was celebrating the birthday of Caesar Augustus. 

Before I mention another proclamation of good news made only a couple years later, let me talk a bit more about this word euangelion. 

While this is a religious use of the term “gospel,” the word is not exclusively religious.  It is a term that refers to any kind of good news, really good news.  The Greeks might have described the introduction of the iPad2 as good news, but it wouldn’t have been euangelion unless they were two for $49.99. 

Seriously, euangelion (gospel) was life-changing news.  Things wouldn’t be the same after this news broke.  It might be news of a great victory or news of some personal event in an individual’s life.

While that’s the Greek use of the term, a similar idea was present in the Old Testament as the psalmist celebrated God’s victories over his enemies and the prophets celebrated the new era brought by God . 

Listen to Isaiah describe the news of Yahweh’s reign.

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.”

No wonder Jesus becomes the embodiment of the gospel, the good news.   Because Jesus is the focus of this good news it has no boundaries, national, ethnic, social, or otherwise.

A couple months ago we marked the tenth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001.  The attacks of 9/11 were history making news.  But were they good news?

Before you answer, remember the videos coming out within just a couple days of the attacks?  They showed images of people dancing in the streets at the news of the destruction of the World Trade Center and the damage to the Pentagon.  These same people were praising God at the reports of nearly 3,000 deaths in the attacks.  Obviously, for those people the news of the attacks was good news. 

Now what about the rest of us, those of us who watched in horror as the towers collapsed?  Some say most Americans know someone who knows someone who knew someone who worked at the towers.  You might doubt that,  but consider this Mary Boyle’s son Tim works for a company that had offices in the center, occasionally he worked there himself.   A few months after the attacks, Tim told me how draining it was attending all the memorial services for friends and co-workers.  For people like tim and most of us, the attacks were hardly good news.  

What may be good news for some may be bad news for others.  The gospel is good news for everyone.

Next week we enter the Advent season.  We’ll hear about the angels’ visit to the shepherds.  We’ll hear about their proclamation to those frightened men.  Remember their words of comfort to the shepherds.

They were terrified,
but the angel reassured them. “Don’t be afraid!” he said. “I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people.

The angel used a verb form of euangelion.  The good news the angels brought was world-changing news.   The good news they brought wasn’t good news for just one nation or people, it wasn’t good news only for the west, it was good news for the entire world. 

Tim Keller points out that the center of Christianity long ago moved from the Middle East where the religion was born.  This makes it unlike almost any other world religion.  Most world religions have their greatest strength in the region where they originated.  Not Christianity.  In fact, Christianity’s center of activity is always moving.  It’s center has been in the west for a few centuries but it seems to be moving to the global south.  The good news of Christ is good news for everyone.

Of course, when you first hear the gospel you might think it’s bad news.  After all, it declares us all to be sinners, all worthy of God’s wrath, all with nothing to commend us to God.

And that’s hard to do.  We so much want to be able to say God sees good in us, that we’re really  pretty decent and only need a little help to be worthy of heaven.  We picture ourselves standing in line for a ticket to some beautiful place like Hawaii and we find we’re a little short, maybe just a dollar or two.  You fear you’ll never board that plane but then a wealthy stranger hands you a couple dollars and tells you to enjoy the trip.

That’s not way the gospel works.  The gospel tells us our pockets are empty.  Worse than that, if we somehow managed to slip into that paradise we’d ruin it. 

But think of this.  When we really hear the gospel, we realize that are really liberating.  The gospel sets us free from the frustration of fruitlessly trying to earn our place in heaven, sets us free from the fear of knowing we’ve never done enough, sets us free from self-centered good works, that turn our good deeds into self-serving efforts to win God’s favor.

The good news is that when we accept the gospel’s terms, God provides everything we need.

The good news is that when we admit we are sinners, God provides forgiveness.

The good news is that when we admit we are broken, God provides healing.

The good news is that when we admit we are vile, God provides cleansing.

The good news is that when we admit we are weak, God provides strength.

The good news is that when we admit we are lost, God provides direction.

The good news is that when we admit we are aimless, God provides purpose.

This is why the gospel is such good news.  But what are we supposed to do with this good news?

First, we need to make it our own.

Mark tells us that Jesus’ ministry began with a call for people to embrace the gospel.  He puts it this way, “Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “’he time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel.’”

We make the gospel our own, we order our lives in light of the gospel by repenting and believing its message.

It might seem that Jesus is talking about two steps we need to take in response to the gospel.  Late, preachers like Paul, will simply call those who wish to become Christians to “Believe.” Has he  pared away some of what Jesus said?  No.

The truth is, if we truly repent, we will inevitably come to believe.  If we truly believe, we will inevitably come to repent.  To repent means we have a profound change of mind, we think in a new way about God and about ourselves—this new way of thinking is so profound that our very behavior is changed.  At the same time, when we embrace this new way of thinking, we will come to see the beauty of the gospel and believe it. 

If we believe what the gospel tells us about God and our need, we will repent, we will turn our lives around because of what the gospel tells us.

In any case, it’s clear that making the gospel our own becomes a daily task for we must always struggle against the tendency to think we must somehow supplement what Christ has done for us.  Making the gospel our own calls for daily believing and daily repenting.

Second, we need to help others make the gospel their own.

From the beginning of the church’s history Christians have believed the gospel was such good news that it couldn’t be kept to themselves.  Following Christ’s great commission, the church went forward to carry the gospel beyond the homeland of Jesus.

Consider these highlights from the first three-hundred years of the church’s history.  You’ll note I’m omitting missionary activity listed in the Bible.

·         30 - Pentecost and birth of the Christian church

·         42 - Mark reportedly goes to Egypt to preach.

·         52 - Apostle Thomas reportedly arrives in India and founds church that subsequently becomes Indian Orthodox Church (and its various descendants).   This tradition is at least 1400 years old.

·         66 -Thaddeus establishes the Christian church of Armenia

·         100 - First Christians are reported in Monaco, Algeria, and Sri Lanka

·         174 - First Christians reported in Austria

·         197 - Tertullian writes that Christianity had penetrated all ranks of society in North Africa

·         200 - First Christians are reported in Switzerland and Belgium

·         206 - Abgar, King of Edessa, embraces the Christian faith

·         208 - Tertullian writes that Christ has followers on the far side of the Roman wall in Britain where Roman legions have not yet penetrated

·         250 - Denis (or Denys or Dionysius) is sent from Rome along with six other missionaries to establish the church in Paris

·         300 - First Christians reported in Greater Khorasan (a region including Afghanistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan); an estimated 10% of the world's population is now Christian; the Bible is available in 10 different languages

What sent these Christians forward was not arrogance but love, love for God and love for the those who did not know Christ.  It’s a love we need, a love we remind ourselves to act on each year at this time.

I often heard my parents tell a story when I grew up, especially when we had just learned that a relative or friend had been diagnosed with cancer.  The story looked back to the 1920s when they lived in central Missouri.  They told of how men and women would come from all over the Ozarks to see a doctor in their little.  It seems this doctor had a reputation for knowing how to cure cancer.  At that time and for years to come, a cancer diagnosis was a death sentence.

My parents talked of how the doctor never left their town and never told anyone his secret.  When I asked why, my parents told me that other doctors laughed at the healer there in the Ozarks and so he refused to share his secret.  So, pride kept him from sharing life-saving news.  Fear of ridicule made him keep the good news to himself.

It happens with the good news of the gospel as well.  We allow pride, fear, and a desire to be liked to keep us from sharing the life-changing news.  

As we think about missions, it’s an ideal time to ask if we really believe the gospel is good news.  If we do, shouldn’t we share it with a world that needs to hear it?

Wouldn’t we do that if we were really thankful for the good news?

Identity Theft

Our worldview is obviously shaped by our understanding of God; it is also shaped by our understanding of who we are.

Psalm 8

I want to talk about identity theft.  Now, when I mention identity theft you may think of that kind of crime that is so much a part of our computer age.  Somehow an unscrupulous person gets hold of some crucial number, such as your social security number, and assumes your identity.  This person then buys things in your name, opens credit card accounts, rents cars, all the while ruining your hard-won credit rating.  Of course, since our newborns are assigned social security numbers before they go home from the hospital, some clever thieves steal the identities of our children or grandchildren.  As a result, one day you discover your six-year-old grandson has run up quite a tab at a casino in New Jersey.

Of course, even if you’re not directly a victim of this kind of identity theft, you’re still impacted.  We have to be on guard against eavesdropping shoppers when we check out at the department store, make sure we have an effective firewall on our computer, and find ourselves wishing we had invested in a company making shredders.  So, let me encourage you to be careful this season.

I say that because I am going to talk about another identity theft, one that began well before the computer age.  This kind of identity theft may even be more insidious than the better known form.  The first kind of identity theft reaches into our bank accounts, the second reaches into our souls—all the while the thieves are denying the existence of our souls.

Phillip Johnson describes how the theft took place in what he describes as “the grand story” that permeates our culture.  It is the fact that this story is so pervasive that makes it tough to be a Christian in our culture.  The story, as Johnson tells it, has a familiar ring.

In the beginning were the particles and the impersonal laws of physics.

And the particles somehow became complex living stuff;

And the stuff imagined God;

But then discovered evolution.

It wasn’t long before we discovered our identity had been stolen.

But maybe I should stop to make an important distinction.  “Evolution,” as Johnson uses the term, is Darwinism.  Evolution is the term describing the process by which simple forms become more complex.  Charles Darwin imposed his thinking on the process that other writers had already described.  Darwin contribution was to say the process was unguided.  If there was a ruling principle behind evolution it was natural selection or what is sometimes called “survival of the fittest.” 

Many Christians are willing to accept evolution, they cannot accept Darwin.  Whether those Christians are right in saying God might have used evolution to create the world is for books and journal articles to debate.  For now, I’m just clarifying terms.

The problem is that so many evolutionists are also Darwinists.  As a consequence, they freely admit—sometimes after a cocktail or two—that humankind was something of an accident; that we humans have no purpose. 

Darwin was probably an atheist who, for the sake of his believing wife, claimed to be an agnostic.  But many of his most vocal followers were outspoken atheists who took his ideas to their natural conclusion.  These would include Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Hitler, Margaret Mead, and Alfred Kinsey.    These are among the most prominent of the identity thieves who have been at work.

As a result of their work, many of us only know the identity that has replaced our original.  We might put our new identity this way: 

Humans are members of a species of mammalian bipeds, closely related to but not descended from the great apes; though not physically impressive, humans have a highly developed brain with intelligence higher even than that of the dolphins, though not possessing the marine mammal’s charm and placid nature.   Humans have evolved with certain unusual traits.  For example, unlike almost every other species, humans generally have an aversion to cannibalism.   Even more unusual, many humans are convinced they are the favored creation of a Supreme Being who exists outside the bounds of the universe; fortunately, education has prompted many humans to abandon this notion.                             

In fact, since the identity thieves have been so effective I might need to remind you of what they have stolen. After all, they have been so effective you might not know the old answer to the question, Who am I?

If we could haul out our original identity papers, what would they say?

They would we are the special creation of God, created with the singular distinction of reflecting a semblance of our Creator, which semblance, though marred by sin, continues to impart value and purpose to the human race.

What does the psalmist say?  He says we were created “a little lower than the angels.”  The term “lower than the angels” can be translated as “a little lower than God.” The phrase could also be translated “a little lower than the angles for now.”  That suggests there may be a greater day coming.  In any case, David points to human beings possessing “honor and majesty.”  Humankind, in the words of the older theologians, is the crown of God’s creation.

Drawn from the biblical materials, the implications of the Christian view of humankind are many and touch on a variety of pertinent issues.

While acknowledging that Humankind has a kinship with the animals, the Christian world-view insists that we humans are distinct from the animals.

To speak of the "human animal" is offensive to some, yet we have an undeniable kinship with animals.  Like them we must breath oxygen, drink water, eat food.  Cardiologists warn us about eating too much pork yet, until more recent developments, a valve from a pig's heart could be used to replace a faulty valve in an ailing human heart. The Christian world-view acknowledges our kinship with the animals but insists that we are more than mammalian bipeds.

After every step of Creation, God pronounced the product "good".  Only after the creation of humankind did He say it was "very good".  Eric Sauer named his study of humanity, The King of the Earth.  He was underscoring the Bible's teaching that the Man and the Woman were given superintendence over the Creation.  No other creature was given that commission. The AV's "subdue" doesn't do justice to what God intended Adam and Eve to do.  They were being given a stewardship over creation.   Adam and Eve were invited to enjoy, not exploit the creation.  Though the Creation was perfect, somehow the work of Humankind could enrich it.

While acknowledging Humankind's uniqueness, the Christian World-view recognizes our dependence upon God.

Like all of Creation, we are dependent upon God for our existence; beyond that, we are dependent upon God for meaning and purpose in life.

It is this truth that prompted Augustine to say "there is a God-shaped vacuum in every man..."

Much of Humankind's spiritual history may be written as the story of our quest to be independent of the Creator.  It is a story bound to end in folly and failure.

Consider this: every one of those thinkers I mentioned earlier-- Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Hitler, Mead, and Kinsey—were rabid atheists.  Every one of them gleefully led the way to abandoning the old story of who we are.  Marx believed religion was a tool of oppression, Nietzsche believed God was dead (meaning the very idea of God no longer had meaning), Freud believed God was a illusion created my men who both loved and wanted to kill their fathers, and Hitler was willing to sound like a Christian when it suited him but he hated Christianity with its sympathy for the weak.

We might imagine such thinkers as the masterminds behind the theft of our identity, masterminds who have used countless minions teaching on campuses, writing novels, making movies, and singing songs.  They have been so effective we scarcely noticed the theft had taken place.  But if we check carefully we will discover it has.

Those who have stolen our identity have erased our distinction and denied our purpose.

Consider this assessment written by one of the most influential men of the 20th century, a man who early in his life abandoned any meaningful belief in God.

I have found little that is “good” about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think.

Sigmund Freud wrote those words in a letter to a friend in 1918.  Freud would redefine the way many understood human beings, suggesting that we are to be defined in terms of our sexual drives.

Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said, "Six million Jews died in concentration camps but six billion boiler chickens will die here in slaughterhouses."  That startling comparison between the slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust and the slaughter of chickens for food is unnerving.  How could she make such a comparison?  She has abandoned the notion that there is a difference between humans and animals.

As long ago as 1938, journalist Walter Lippmann recognized the danger of the naturalistic view of humanity, the view which says we are the product of impersonal forces of nature and not the purposeful act of the Creator.

            The decay of decency in the modern age, the rebellion against law and good faith, the treatment of human beings as things, as the mere instruments of power and ambition, is without a doubt the consequence of the decay of the belief in man as something more than an animal animated by highly conditioned reflexes and chemical reactions. For, unless man is something more than that, he has no rights that anyone is bound to respect, and there are no limitations upon his conduct which he is bound to obey.

This brings us to another result of the theft of our identity.

Those who have stolen our identity have left us with a morality that is tentative and purely utilitarian.

Not everyone who participated in the theft was a moral degenerate, but they may have succeeded in living above the implications of their morality.  Yet some of these identity thieves rewrote the book on morality.  Mead and Kinsey were key examples.

Margaret Mead and Alfred Kinsey probably share the honors of being in the vanguard of the sexual revolution.  Both seemed to embrace the notion that whatever is done, sexually, is normal and ought to be allowed.  While our culture may have resisted Kinsey’s endorsement of bestiality, it has certainly heard Mead’s approval of adolescent experimentation.

Whenever you hear someone say “If it feels good, do it,” you are hearing the echo of one of these identity thieves.

Of course, no society can live without some kind of ethical standard; even it’s simply one they have agreed upon by common consent.  Such a standard will keep order at least until the common consent changes. 

Daniel Calahan offers what he calls “minimalist ethics.”  Stripped of religious trappings and any suggestion of our obligation to any Divine Being, this ethic simply says, “One may act in any way one chooses so far as one does not do harm to others.”  At one level this probably sounds appealing.  After all we are freedom-loving people and this is certainly a liberating viewpoint.  But this economy-model ethic has some problems.

 Certainly any such ethic begs the question:  Why should I restrict my freedom simply because my behavior might harm another?  What if I envision myself to be more intelligent, more gifted, more significant than the person who might be hurt by my behavior?   If Marie and her husband have one child they are raising while my wife and I have three children we’re raising, why shouldn’t I steal Marie’s idea and claim it as my own so I will get the promotion and the raise?

When the standard isn’t really fixed, I can always rationalize exceptions to its demands.  Couldn’t Jack the Ripper have argued, “These prostitutes are doomed to a life of poverty and misery, they will almost certainly contract some dreaded disease that will make their final days a time of pain and suffering; by dispatching them with my blade am I not acting benevolently toward them?”

Couldn’t Hitler have argued that the survival of the Aryan race was so essential to the future of civilization that the elimination of “inferior” races was excusable?  Wait. That’s what he did argue.

Couldn’t we argue that this ethic rests on possessing the freedom to “act in any way one chooses” and thus those without that freedom are so severely handicapped the benevolent course would be to remove them?  Indeed, since those who don’t possess such freedom are likely to impinge upon the liberty of those who do, wouldn’t eliminating them prevent their harming others by this impingement?  Of course, wouldn’t this call for policies allowing us to eliminate such limited persons before they are born or after they have become too sick or old to live truly free lives?  Wait.  No, that’s just being paranoid.

Those who have stolen our identity have closed the door on hope beyond the grave.

I recently saw a television story in which a dying woman asked that her ashes might be used as fertilizer for a newly planted tree.  That way, she would live on in the tree.

The identity thieves have brought us to this place.  The grave or the crematory is the end.  In the strange post-theft world, we have a complicated attitude toward death.  On the one hand, our culture fights against death; on the other hand we declare death to be a friend, a “natural” part of life. 

Bertrand Russell, mathematician, philosopher, writer, and atheist summed up the logical conclusion of those who conspire to steal our identity. 

I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego shall survive.  I am not young, and I love life.  But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation.  Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting.  Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold; surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about man’s place in the world.[1]

I could probably say more about the impact of the great identity theft.  Instead, I want to say something about what would happen if our proper identity were restored.

If our proper identity were restored we would discover that there is a fundamental unity in humankind.  Darwin believed there were inferior races that would eventually disappear, the document attesting to our proper identity tells us that there is a solidarity to humankind, for as Paul said of God as the Creator who gave us our identity, "From one man [Adam] He made every nation of mankind to live all over the earth."

I could say a good deal but let me focus on just one point.

If our identity were restored we would discover we that we human beings reflect the image of God.

The foundation for this assertion is found in the Bible's insistence that Humankind was "created in the image of God", a statement made of no other creature.   On two occasions in the opening chapters of Genesis we are told that God created Humankind in his image. 

 GE 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,* and over all the creatures that move along the ground."  GE 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

*****

 GE 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

The term "likeness" is equivalent in meaning to "image" and is used in the following verses:    GE 5:1 When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God and James 3:9 where [James tells us it is wrong to curse] men, who have been made in God's likeness.

Christians have debated the exact meaning of "image of God" and have not yet reached a firm consensus other than to generally deny it refers to any physical likeness. (This is why orthodox Christians object to the Mormon view of God possessing a physical body.)

  Rather, they have said it refers to spiritual characteristics which somehow "mirror" some of God's characteristics.  As a result the "image of God" is thought to refer to some combination of our intellectual, moral, spiritual, and volitional qualities.

Complicating the search for a precise meaning is the fact of the Fall.  Humankind is not what God intended it to be.  Though most Christian thinkers concede that the image is marred because of sin, they nevertheless insist that Humankind still bears the image of God.

Possessing the image of God means we Human Beings were created as privileged creatures.  The Westminster Shorter Catechism asserts "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever."

There's a strangeness to the notion of enjoying God forever.  We don't think of "enjoying God", we think of fearing God, of obeying God, but not enjoying him.

The identity thieves tell us, "Man's chief end is to outgrow God and deny him forever."

Surely all Creation brings glory to God, but we humans have the privilege to actively participating in glorifying God.  We have the privilege of enjoying him.

Possessing the image of God means we Human Beings were created as spiritual beings.

The man and the woman were created with the capacity to have rich and wondrous fellowship with the Creator.   The language of the Creation story suggests that they could walk and talk with God freely and without hesitation.  Only after the Fall was there a barrier between the Creature and the Creator.

Despite the best efforts of the identity thieves, most of our fellow humans still possess a consciousness of some Higher Power and a yearning to have a relationship with that Power.  As Augustine observed, "Our heart is restless until it finds rest in you, O Lord."

The myriad religions of the world are a token of that spiritual nature questing for God.  The venerable Southern Baptist theologian W. T. Conner goes as far as to suggest that even those who deny the existence of God tend to "personify Humanity, or Nature, or the Universe."  Look at the writings of many of the identity thieves and you'll find Nature capitalized.

We are spiritual beings and our restored identity speaks to that part of our make-up.     It tells us we were created with a special freedom.                

We have the freedom to know and respond to our Creator, to have a fulfilling relationship with the One who gave us our identity. At the same time, we have the freedom to deny and reject the Creator’s love.  The identity thieves have told us that is the way to fulfillment.  But, again, thieves are not known for their honesty.           

CONCLUSION

We humans still bear the image of God, still possess a God-imparted value and worth, yet that image is distorted and marred.  Because of this, we’re susceptible to identity thieves.

How can we make ourselves a little less susceptible?

--Ask serious questions about the shoddy thinking of the identity thieves.  Statements like “Only that which can be tested in a laboratory is real,” can’t be tested in a laboratory—it’s a faith statement.

--Ask serious questions about the scarcity of evidence for the thieves’ claims.  Where is the evidence that we have no souls, that the universe just happened?  Where is the evidence for Sagan’s famous claim “the cosmos is all there is?”

--Ask serious questions about the motives of the thieves.  Did the best-known identity thieves have a special interest in denying the existence of God and the claims of morality, especially sexual morality?  

In the end, only one man was never confused about Who he was, Jesus Christ.  When we trust him, we can begin become who God intended us to be.  We can recover our stolen identity.

---

[1]  Linda Edwards, A Brief Guide to Beliefs:  Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, and Movements, Louisville:  Westminster-John Knox Press, 2001, p. 509.

CHRISTIANS AND STUFF

This message continues the series on Being Christian:  It's Not as Easy as It Seems.   

Acts 2:42-47

A few weeks ago I illustrated a point from a film starring The Three Stooges.  With that in mind, I hope no one is particularly shocked if I quote one of the best known songs from the end of the 20^th century.  It begins…

Some boys kiss me, some boys hug me

I think they’re okay

If they don’t give me proper credit

I just walk away.

They can beg and they can plead

But they can’t see the light, that’s right, that’s

right

‘Cause the boy with cold hard cash

Is always Mister Right.

‘Cause we are living in a material world

And I am a material girl….

Madonna not only raked in a lot of cold hard cash for her song, she also made bit by allowing a major department store to market a clothing line for young girls called, “Material Girl.”  I won’t mention the store’s name but you might catch it if you watch any Thanksgiving Day parades or “Miracle on 34^th Street” this Christmas.

Of course, Madonna didn’t create materialism she was just so blatant about acknowledging it.  At the same time, she unintentionally points out one of the reasons why it’s sometimes tough to be a Christian.  We Christians live in a material world.

We might think we could escape it by fleeing to a monastery but that’s an illusion.  Historically the monasteries may have begun with the best of intentions but the forces of materialism are very strong.  That’s one of the reasons why Henry VIII was so eager to dissolve the monasteries in 16^th century England.  He wanted to add their immense wealth to the royal coffers.

The temptations of a material world are still potent and Christians still fall prey to them.  A few years ago, the story broke about a scandal at a Christian ministry that was focused on feeding the world’s poor.  It seems the head of the ministry felt he couldn’t do his job without an $11,000 desk and other extravagant furnishing for his office.  The material world is enticing.  

What are some of the signs we may have become “Material Christians?”

We may have become Material Christians when we begin to believe God’s blessing can only be measured by the stuff we have.

It’s an ancient but very persistent view that wealth is a sign of God’s approval.  That is why the disciples were so shocked when Jesus said a camel would go through the eye of a needle before a rich man could enter heaven.   (Jesus, of course, was talking about the rich who might put their hope of heaven in their riches, rather than in the grace of God.)

Martin Luther once observed, “Riches are the least worthy gifts which God can give to man. What are they to God’s Word, to bodily gifts, such as beauty and health, or to the gifts of the mind, such as understanding, skill, wisdom! Yet men toil for them day and night and take no rest.”

I have no doubt that God’s blessings do come in material form—Jesus said God knows we have need of such things as food, shelter, clothing.  But surely God’s best blessings can’t be measured by material standards.  Joy, peace, fellowship, hope, a sense of purpose, are all blessings we just can’t put a price tag on.

We have become Material Christians if we measure our happiness by the stuff we have.

Someone once asked John D. Rockefeller, one of the richest Americans at that time, how much money was enough.  Rockefeller replied, “Just a little more.” 

Just a little more applies to stuff, too.  We will be content if we have a newer car, a more up-to-date computer, a new dress, the top-of-the-line whatever.  Of course, advertisers are more than happy to tell you that their products are just the thing you need to be happy, content, fulfilled, or successful.

But this can be true?

If so, centuries of wisdom have been wrong. 

There is an old story of a king who was, despite his wealth, very unhappy.  So he went to the wisest man in the kingdom and asked what he should do.  The wise man said, “Find a happy man and wear his coat.”  So the king went off to find a happy man.  He went first to his richest subjects but none of them could say they were truly happy.  At long last, as his rode down a dusty road, he saw a peasant who was building a stone wall.  It was hot and the work was hard, but the peasant was singing!  Surely this man was happy.  So the king dismounted and asked the startled peasant if he was happy. 

“Yes, Sire, I am very happy,” he replied.

“Then, give me your coat,” the king said, then added, “I can pay whatever you want for it.”

The peasant laughed, “Sire, I would gladly give it to you but I have no coat.”

We don’t know how much singing the coatless peasant may have done on a midwinter’s night, but the point remains: stuff doesn’t make us happy.

We have a need for material stuff and non-material stuff.  We know that.  Didn’t Someone once say something like, “You weren’t made to live by material stuff alone?”  Both the materialist and the mystic foolishly forget that little word, “alone.”

In fact, we may have become Material Christians when we reduce all our needs to the material or physical.

Some of you may have studied the ideas of Abraham Maslow.  Maslow argued that there exists a hierarchy of human needs, ranging from physiological needs, like food, to the need for what Maslow called self-actualization, a state that allows us to give vent to our creativity.   Not everyone agrees with Maslow but he makes a good point that something is wrong if we get stuck in the pursuit of meeting one of these needs. Or if we convince ourselves that meeting our material needs will lead to meeting all the others.

Steve Wilkins and Mark Sanford point out some of the ways this might happen.

… consumerism encounters serious problems when needs arise that cannot be resolved by money. This forces consumerism to make substitutions. Since virtue cannot be purchased, consumerism tells us that a lot of money will make us socially respectable. Immortality is not for sale, but health care, life insurance and large headstones are. You can't pay enough to buy God, but a solid church budget can guarantee that you can get a preacher who can talk about God in an engaging way.

Of course, the problem with buying substitutes is that they do not address our real needs. When we try to get love, friendship, genuine respect and spiritual vitality from consumer goods, we find that they cannot deliver. The real need is still there. This is why consumerism is so closely linked with a relentless demand for a little bit more. Consumerism tells us that the holes in our lives will be filled if we just have more. Getting just a bit more proves to be unsatisfying, however, because money never fills legitimate needs for intellectual growth, moral virtue, love, true esteem and God. A counterfeit never replaces the real thing.[1]

I like to think that most of us who bother to crawl out of bed on a Sunday morning to come to church know this.  We may not be as quick to see we can have other erroneous attitudes toward stuff.

A few years ago I sat in on a preaching class where a young seminary student delivered a sermon to the class as an assignment.  He did a good job with his delivery and the sermon was generally well prepared.  But one illustration troubled me. 

As an example of piety or spirituality he pointed to his pastor.  Although I can never imagine anyone dropping my name into a similar illustration, that’s not what troubled me.  I was troubled because the only evidence he gave of his pastor’s spirituality was the fact he drove a fourteen year old car.  Now, I can think of several reasons—apart from spirituality—why a pastor might drive an older car.

·         The church might not have paid the pastor enough to buy a new car.

·         The pastor might have been too cheap to buy a new car.

·         The pastor might have enjoyed driving a car with sentimental value.

·         The pastor might have enjoyed driving a car with such classic handling.

·         The pastor might have enjoyed driving his wife and kids crazy by holding onto such an embarrassing heap.

The point is:  we need to be very careful about judging the state of a person’s spirituality by the amount of stuff they have—or don’t have.

This is why the Bible presents neither a blanket condemnation of the rich nor a blanket commendation of the rich.  Some were scoundrels like Laban who swindled Jacob; some were heroes like the generous Joseph of Arimathea. 

Luke’s comment about the attitude and practice of the earliest Christians models the kind of attitude we need.

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.
And all who believed were together and had all things in common.
And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.
And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

In the past, some have looked at this passage and claimed the early church practiced a kind of communism.  Yet, a deeper look at the New Testament shows that the practice at Jerusalem was a unique situation.  It was temporary, born of the special needs the church had in dealing with thousands of converts, many of whom were far from home and unable to provide for themselves.

What is remarkable here is not the solution to the problem but the attitude the believers had toward their stuff.  They held onto it lightly.  None of them said, “What’s mine is mine and I’m not about to let go of it.”

In time, the church seemed to develop a view of affluence that saw wealth as a blessed opportunity to make a difference.  Christians who were blessed with more stuff than others were to pray that they might best use what God had given them.  At the same time, those who had less stuff were to recognize that they might still have enough to do good as well.

At no time was the general principle, give your Christian leaders everything you have and they will decide what you need.  Instead the operating principle was, let God guide you in using what you have and you’ll bring him glory as a wise steward.   The first is a principle favored by the cults, the second is a principle favored by a church that sees all believers as possessing God’s Spirit who leads and guides each member.

Having said that let me suggest some ways I think the Spirit might lead Christians in this material world.

I think the Spirit would lead us to always make clear to onlookers that our sense of well-being comes not from our stuff but from our relationships, especially our relationship with God.

I think the Spirit would lead us to think twice before listening to the enticements of the advertizing world.  Do you know that some churches are considering allowing local businesses to put small ads in their bulletins or newsletters?  We need to learn to turn a blind eye or deaf ear to some of those ads.

I think the Spirit would have us resist the temptation to judge others by their stuff and reject the judgments of those who judge us by our stuff.

I think the Spirit would encourage us to distinguish between what we need and what we believe might boost our status before a watching world. 

I think the Spirit would have us avoid a judgmental attitude toward our fellow believers.  In the past few years both major political parties have tried to use class envy to sway voters.  We can’t allow that kind of thinking into the church. 

Conclusion:  Back in 1985 Pat and I went to Australia on a partnership mission with hundreds of other Texas Baptists.  We were assigned to the small city of Tumut NSW, about 250 miles from Sydney.  After a week of special meetings in homes, schools, and the church we met to say a final goodbye to our new friends.  As we moved around greeting the people, an old man approached Pat and thrust out his hand to give her a tissue with something wrapped in it.  He muttered something and quickly moved on.  He had given her several small rocks; some of them were chipped, revealing a shiny interior.

Perhaps I should say, revealing an opalescent interior.  You see, the pastor told Pat that the man, Old Peter as he was known, had given her some uncut opals.  He had probably found them when he worked in an opal mine.  They were too small to be of much value, but they were valuable to him since he had dug them out of the ground.

The pastor went on to explain that Old Peter lived in a one-room apartment, with few niceties. People around town knew little about him since he was so very shy.  But one thing the pastor did know. Except for what little Old Peter used for rent and food, he gave whatever money he had to missions.  A man who might have been easily overlooked on the streets of Tumut was making an impact on the world far beyond its boundaries.

Now move ahead several years to a youth mission trip to Delbarton, West Virginia.  Some of our youth and parents will remember that trip.  In the falling-down houses, hungry children, and boarded up stores, we saw the impact of poverty and a failed local economy.  For young people from a community like Worthington, it was an eye-opening experience.

On the edge of town, a short distance from the condemned school building where we were staying, there was a mansion.  It wasn’t a Biltmore but it stood out in Delbarton.  Naturally, our hosts felt they had to explain. 

The home belonged to the CEO of a major food-services company.  A Christian, he gave generously to help his adopted community and led the company to support a variety of Christian causes across the country, to provide scholarships to needy children, and to help struggling schools.

I never learned the CEO’s name but, like Old Peter, he was making a difference.  Old Peter could have never stood in front of a group of wealthy business men and encourage them to reach deep and give generously to help the poor.  He would have been tongue-tied.  That was a job for a confident CEO. 

These two men, as different as you can imagine, had a proper attitude toward their stuff.

---

[1]  Hidden Worldviews:  Eight Cultural Stories That Shape Our Lives, Downers Grove:  Inter-Varsity Press, 2009, p. 54.  The authors add, “Money won't buy love, but it can pay for sex.”