Which Team Are You On? (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43)

SCRIPTURE

Matthew 13:24-30
He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ​‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

Matthew 13:36-43
Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

LANGUAGE
Vs 24  good - καλός kalos; beautiful, but chiefly (figuratively) good (literally or morally), i.e. valuable or virtuous (for appearance or use, and thus distinguished from 18, which is properly intrinsic)
Vs 25  weeds - ζιζάνιον zizanion; false grain: — tares.

BACKGROUND

Just prior to telling this parable, Jesus tells the Parable of Soils, in which he speaks of 4 different types of sol and how they represent the various responses to the Gospel. He then is questioned by his disciples as to why He speaks in parables. He states, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people's heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’
But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it."

There seems to be a sense of understanding being given to some and not to others. While I struggle with understanding this, and again have many questions about these verses, I must most worry about my own heart and level of understanding, and pray that I am not among those who are dull or hard of hearing.

COMMENT

Today I just want to stick to what I see as the main idea of this parable, that being that in the kingdom of God on earth, the church, there will be sinners and saints, there will be those who are saved and those who are not, there will be true Christians and those who perhaps just believe themselves to be Christians OR are not really Christians at all. We don't know who is genuine and who is not, so for us to attempt to weed out the bad would inevitably tear out some of the real thing in the process. (See Matt 7:21-23)

This past Sunday, I sat in Sunday School, and the leader asked us to name some heroes. One person named Mark Batterson, a preacher and author you may or may not be familiar with. My personal opinion regarding this man is that he falls into the category of Prosperity Gospel preachers, and is one that I would identify as not a Christian, or perhaps even a wolf among Christians. What to do! Do I start a discussion about this man and his theology or let it go? If I do say something, am I ripping up some wheat with the weeds? I chose to remain silent, yet this choice still eats at me.

Sometimes you have to call a wolf a wolf. Scripture is clear about this. But I still am not sure that that was the time and place to do this. I think we have let God's people down as we have flocked to the feet of many wolves such as Joel Osteen, Mark Batterson, or Steven Furtick, making them millionaires grasping at a gospel that is not really a gospel at all. But perhaps even among the vast field of weeds that follow such teachers are stalks of wheat.

The main point Jesus is making here is that in the church there will be sheep and goats. While it is important for us to deal with this, it is not within our purview to label who is which. I notice that Jesus does not say treat all of the wheat and the weeds the same, but this would almost have to be the case in some instances. Maybe it is more about what we teach than about knocking someone who does not fall in line with our specific set of beliefs. God is the ultimate judge. Come harvest time, the wheat and weeds will no longer be treated the same. In the end, weeds are burned and wheat will shine like the sun. That is a hard teaching for someone who likes things to be neat and clean most of the time.  

Confused

I sit here this morning with a bit of time on my hands after traveling 10 hours in the car. I had an opportunity to listen to a couple of Chandler and Keller sermons.

So I ask, what does God want from me? These men both hammer on the evangelical church, saying that mere "religion" is not enough. Yet most Christians would either disagree or say, "Huh? How can you call yourself a Christian if you are not religious?"

I see their point (Chandler and Keller), and I believe that they back it up with sound exegesis. And I agree that many evangelical churches fall into a blindness where they think they get it, but in reality they seem to only confirm what is preached. Just how narrow is that road, Jesus?

Why do we have to have classes on evangelism? Answer: To help grow the church. But if instead we just taught about the beauty of God and why he is worthy of all our love, wouldn't evangelism be a natural by-product of a changed life? And is the reason we don't teach more about the latter is because we just don't get it? Yet Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart!

I don't think he was wrong.

Changes

My life has endured a lot of changes lately, in several areas. But I want to focus on the spiritual side today.

I used to go to church and just agree with everything said, and defend it against anyone who thought differently. Yes, I was one of them. But then I started asking some questions, and when I met one of them, I found that I didn't care for that kind of response. I wanted honestly and truth, not pat answers and conformity. That attitude got me into trouble with the powers that be.

I saw this statement in another blog (here) and it has stuck with me since.

The Pharisees’ entire religious system was built on what man esteems. Everything they did was done to receive glory, honor and praise from man. They got it, even the disciples thought the Pharisees were top rung guys.

Most churches that I see represent this in one way or another. When I walk into a service, I feel I can quickly discern what the main focus of a congregation is all about. Maybe it is all about the preacher, a building project, pride in their friendliness or some other aspect of their personality, maybe it is about their giving to missions or the community, the list goes on. But what I want to find is a church that is flat out in love with God. Not the god who rubber stamps their dreams and wishes, but the God of the universe who loves us and saves us, and sometimes in ways that we do not understand.

When I look at this quote, one thing that strikes me is "even the disciples thought the Pharisees were top rung guys." Is this an issue today? (Rhetorical question, of course it is.) I noticed on the website of one of the churches I attended a sermon titled, "Detour Around Legalism." While I do not know the content of the message (and don't care to), my previous experience with this congregation tells me that it was either a pat on the back of themselves or a blind foray into the depths of a topic that they really need to dig deeper into.

Even the disciples thought the Pharisees were the "it" guys. That is so scary. Like Tim Keller and many others, I believe that Jesus came to destroy this kind of thinking. Note that it is the thinking that Jesus wanted to destroy, and not the Pharisees. Somehow, I have to figure out how to do that if I want to be like Him. Not an easy job.

Leaving church

Video found here.



After my last experience, I am ready to leave the church, at least the one that I am attending. I listened to most of the sermon I missed this week. It is taken from Acts 5, the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Of course, he takes the easy road, the surface road, and makes it about me and my giving. He even brings in the concept of tithing. But don't worry, the elders have assured me that they believe in grace and not works. After listening, I find myself asking, "Is it no wonder that people are leaving the church left and right, when all we have to offer is a prescription for behavior? While money is involved in this story, I don't think this was included in the books of Acts to get us to fork over a few more bucks. I see more of a story about how God still wants to be taken seriously in all areas, and he doesn't want us coming to Him with a false sense of confidence in ourselves, thinking we can fool him or thinking that he owes us because of what we have done. Kind of a "works without faith" attitude. But if they preached that at University Christian Church of Muncie, Indiana, then they would have to take a closer look in the mirror. And I don't think that they are ready to do that.

This video talks about the dechurched and unchurched. He states how the unchurched are hostile to the church. Why shouldn't they be, when so many churches preach themselves and their glory rather than God's glory. He also talks about how this will probably turn into an indifference in the future. Isn't that what happens when one hears the same baloney over and over, we just reach a point where we want to turn and say, "Whatever!"

I appreciate the ministries of men like Matt Chandler, Tim Keller and others who are gospel centered preachers. I hope to find such a church someday. But like Bono, I still haven't found what I'm looking for.

I'll have a side of idols, please.

Idolatry is a problem of man. It is wrong to think that idolatry was only a problem for man "back in the day." I have often heard idolatry defined as "making anything other than God ultimate." that means that even good things can be idols. Idolatry has alwasy been and will always be a problem for man.

Except in church, right? NOT! Tim Keller in Counterfeit Gods writes, "Idolatry is so pervasive that it dominates this area (religion) as well."

As I think back to the past several months and how things have gone with our church leadership, I find a depth of understanding in some of the words Dr. Keller writes. (See chapter 5) Let me share...

• The sign that you have slipped into this form of self-justification is that you become what the book of Proverbs calls a “scoffer.” Scoffers always show contempt and disdain for opponents rather than graciousness. When we approached the pastor, we did it in confidence and compassion. Alone, in his office. But I cannot think of a better phrase than "scoffed at" to represent how we feel we have been treated. It is as if there is no way that we can have anything of value to say. No compassion, no open ear to listen or to offer guidance, no discussion, just a cold shoulder inviting us to leave or asking that we stop wasting their time.
• Another form of idolatry within religious communities turns spiritual gifts and ministry success into a counterfeit god. Spiritual gifts (talent, ability, performance, growth) are often mistaken for what the Bible calls spiritual “fruit” (love, joy, patience, humility, courage, gentleness). I cannot count how many times we have been told that one of the reasons that they refuse to listen is because the church is growing, as if growth equals pleasing to God. If that were true, no false religion would ever take root. So let's hear it for the Mormons, Muslims, and Joel Osteen. And I thought it was the narrow path that led to heaven.
• the default mode of the human heart is to seek to control God and others through our moral performance. Because we have lived virtuous lives we feel that God (and the people we meet) owe us respect and support. Though we may give lip service to Jesus as our example and inspiration, we are still looking to ourselves and our own moral striving for salvation. Maybe that is why the pastor was so upset that we did not mention our profound gratitude because he had sent us a postcard. Postcard, 10 cents, postage, 32 cents, morality points, priceless. Or why we have been told the facts of how the church has grown in the past 10 years, or how this past year's Easter attendance set a new record. But what numbers aren't we sharing? We never hear about how many have left the church. And if last Easter's attendance was so great, what does that say about the rest of the year? I could go on, but you know what they say...85% of all statistics are made up anyway. Or was that 63%?
• Making an idol out of doctrinal accuracy, ministry success, or moral rectitude leads to constant internal conflict, arrogance and self-righteousness, and oppression of those whose views differ. Do we feel oppressed? Does a bear... Do birds sing? How are we supposed to feel when we are told that sermon discussion is "out of bounds?" I thought only the Pope was infallible. Guess I was wrong.

I guess I owe someone an apology. If I could just find my postcards and stamps.

Good Stuff...

Found on Jared C. Wilson's blog...

My dear friends, most churches make the mistake of selecting as leaders the confident, the competent, and the successful. But what you most need in a leader is someone who has been broken by the knowledge of his or her sin, and even greater knowledge of Jesus’ costly grace. The number one leaders in every church ought to be the people who repent the most fully without excuses, because you don’t need any now; the most easily without bitterness; the most publicly and the most joyfully. They know their standing isn’t based on their performance.

--Tim Keller

Doesn't that seem to be how God chose His leaders?

Found this quote here.

Nonbelievers need to hear the gospel to believe it and be saved. Believers need to be reminded of the gospel so they can grow deeper in Christ. There is really no distinction, you see, between what believers need to hear and what unbelievers need to hear. Both believers and unbelievers need to get a glimpse of God’s majestic glory, a taste of His surpassing beauty, and a sense of how much grace God has shown toward them in Christ. Both believers and unbelievers need to be rebuked for their pride and self-sufficiency, to be reminded of the all-surpassing beauty of God. They both need to be stirred up to faith. The gospel is the center of the message no matter who you are talking to. It is everything. Christ is all.

--J. D. Greear

Love it.

Who needs the law?

Jared C. Wilson in his book, Your Jesus is Too Safe, makes this statement. "We don't follow the Law to get saved, we follow the Law because we are saved."

So, the answer to the question, "Do I need to hear the Law?" is an absolute "Yes!" But, that answer must be qualified because the law is not a means, it is an end. It is what we do because we are saved. It makes no sense to preach the Law in any shape or form without the cause, which is our salvation as found in Jesus Christ. Paul did not say "I preach the Law"  (although his writings are full of examples of what our new behavior should look like), but he said that "we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." (1 Cor 1:23) Look at any example of Paul's preaching of any type of behavior, and then look at what precedes it, a Gospel message, a proclamation of Christ. The two are never apart.

Head on over to the Sermon on the Mount for a minute. In it, Jesus tells us plenty of things to do. Or does He? Is He giving us a list of "to do's," or is He telling us what we  should be? Is He introducing a new form of legalism or is He trying to reshape the way people think of religion? I believe it is the latter.

In one of Tim Keller's sermons, he talks about the conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount, the Wise and Foolish builders, and how we normally interpret them. We see the foolish builder as one who does not obey Christ in any sense, a rebel who rejects Him. But does that conclusion make sense in light of a sermon where Jesus has just contrasted two types of people who say they believe? One who follows the law (as in Mt. 5:27-29) and says "I have never commited adultery!" and the other who lives by Jesus's challenge, that "everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Or Matthew 5:43-44, where he tells us to love our enemies, because God sends His rain on the just and the unjust, in spite of the fact that they have heard that they should love their neighbors and hate their enemies. There are many other examples of this contrasting found in Matthew chapters 5-7 as well, too many to list. So what he concludes with is two houses, both look the same on the outside. Both follow the Law, but only one house will stand. And that is the house on the rock. Not the one that looks good but is attached to the sand of self and accomplishments. Not that one for it relies on the sand works to save it. No, it is the house on the rock that stands. The one whose foundation reaches deep into the teachings and knowledge of God. The one who, out of a deep understanding of the Gospel and therefore a deep love for Christ, not only follows the letter of the law, but the spirit of it as well.

Who needs the Law? I do, for it reveals my sinfulness and need for Christ.

Religion verses Gospel

There is a popular video making the rounds by a young man named Jefferson Bethke. In it, he slams religion, saying that it is not what Jesus came to bring us. There are a lot of strong feelings on both sides of the issue.

Tim Keller, in his Gospel in Life study guide has created a chart where he compares religion with the Gospel. The first comparison is this: Religion says, "I obey, therefore I'm accepted." The Gospel says, "I'm accepted, therefore I obey."

Before we jump on the "Okay, I am safe because I fall on the gospel side of this" side of the argument, look more closely. The Gospel is all about what God has accomplished for us in Christ. The Gospel is never about what we bring to God.

I am sitting here, looking at the front cover of UCC's directory (University Christian Church of Muncie, Indiana) as I type. According to the sign on the church building on the front cover of the directory, UCC is "A Place Where Life Change Happens." So is our distinction the fact that life change happens here (Look at me, Look at what I do for God!) or is our distinction "Look at what Christ has done for me!" I believe it was B.J. Thomas who sang, "What a difference He's made in my life," and not "What a difference we make in the lives of others." Or look at UCC's mission statement, "University Christian Church exists for winning souls and nurturing spiritual growth." While that sounds wonderful, what is at the center of it? Is it what we do for God or what God has done for us? Are we going to be the Pharisee who stands and prays about his spiritual accomplishments, or are we going to be the tax-collector who beats his breast and says, "God, forgive me, a sinner." (Luke 18:9-13) Some may see this as splitting hairs, I see it as revealing a possible spiritual illness. If this makes anyone angry, let me share another of Keller's differences between Gospel and religion.

Religion says, "When I am criticized I am furious or devastated because it is critical that I think of myself as a 'good person.' Threats to that self-image must be destroyed at all costs." The Gospel says, "When I am criticized, I can take it. I struggle, but it is not critical for me to think of myself as a 'good person.' My identity is not built on my record or my performance but on God's love for me in Christ. I can take criticism."

It is never about what I do for Christ or what I bring to Him, but always about what He has done for me and what He brings to me. Or to put it another way, consider the words of the hymn, "Rock of Ages"

"Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to the cross I cling;
naked, come to thee for dress; helpless, look to thee for grace;
foul, I to the fountain fly; wash me, Savior, or I die.

The Gospel makes Christ beautiful, not me or my church or anything else for that matter. That is because even on my best day, I am a sinner in need of a Savior. And it is not only my sin that falls short, it is also my goodness since "all our righteous acts are like filthy rags." (Isaiah 64:6)

To quote Jefferson Bethke, the church is "not a museum for good people, it's a hospital for the broken." At least, that is what it is supposed to be.

Sermon 1/8/2012 "The Power of the Word" (Part 2)

Find sermon here.

Find Part 1 here.

This "me centered" theology continues throughout the message. At about the 15:55 mark the question is posed, "But what would happen if the disciples would have disobeyed Jesus?" He infers that they would not have received the promised Holy Spirit and would not have turned the world up-side-down. He backs this up with several examples from the Bible where God disciplines those who disobey. Let's take a look at just one of those examples, Jonah.

JONAH <--Click to go to Book of Jonah

The word of the Lord came to Jonah to preach to Nineveh. (1:1) Jonah ran in the other direction. (1:3) Then, after a series of events, including being swallowed and then vomited up by a fish, God again tells Jonah to go to Nineveh. (3:1) This time, Jonah obeys. (3:3) Or does he? Perhaps he does on the outside, but his heart is not in it. (4:1-3)

The point is, when God wants something done, it will get done. Do we really think that by our disobedience we can thwart God's plans? Or do we see God as the one who is sovereign and will accomplish His plans regardless of us and our behaviors? (Prov. 16:9  "In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps.")

Perhaps one of the more frustrating statements, at least for me, came around the 17:20 mark. He states, "When we pull away from God through disobedience, it is like pulling an electrical plug from an appliance out of the wall outlet. We are disconnected from the power source...It is very important for us to understand that there is a direct link between our obedience to God and our being plugged in to the power of God." Is this what the Bible confirms, that our disobedience disconnects us from God? Or, is it a lack of faith? Jesus never said, "Your obedience has healed you, but he does say "your faith has healed you." (Mt 9:22, 15:28, Mark 5:34, 10:52, Luke 8:48, 18:42. Also, see Acts 3:16 and 14:9) As far as obedience is concerned, there were none more obedient than the Pharisees, yet Jesus called them a "brood of vipers" and "white-washed tombs." What about Peter's disobedience in denying Christ 3 times? Yes, he felt guilt and remorse, but it did not disconnect him from God. Or the Rich Young Ruler, who told Jesus that he had kept all of the commandments, yet would walk away when asked to sell his possessions and follow Him, Scripture says that "Jesus looked at him and loved him." (Mark 10:17-22)

Or consider for a moment the parable of the Prodigal Son. While his disobedience cost him greatly, it never disconnected him from his father. One of the big points of the parable is that even in his disobedience, the father still loved and longed for him, In fact, if we look at the cultural implications of the son's request, we find that the son asking for his share of the inheritance was an extreme slap in the face to his father, one for which his father could have had him stoned! Yet instead, he hands him 1/3 of the estate! (For a more detailed rendering of this parable, read Tim Keller's book, "The Prodigal God.") And at the end, what earns the son a place back in the family? Nothing that the son does, for the father runs to him when he sees him at a distance, long before the son can ask forgiveness and a place as a hired hand. That is beauty. That is the Gospel.

Next post: Something I agree with!