Muddy Waters, Mercy and the Fifth Beatitude

Posted on January 26, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

While Jesus was dining at a Pharisee’s house, a woman of questionable reputation came in and worshipped Jesus by washing his feet with her tears and anointing them with perfume. A dialog ensued between the Pharisee and Jesus as recorded in Luke 7:36-50. Jesus concludes his discussion with the Pharisee by informing him that those who have been forgiven much, love much. Those who have been forgiven little, love little.

The fifth Beatitude tells us that those who are merciful will receive mercy. At first reading this sounds right to us. If you do good to others they will do good to you. It seem natural, like the popular concept of karma.

Yet reality tells us that on a strictly human level, this beatitude often proves false. Did those who hid the Jews receive mercy from the Nazis? How many missionaries and social workers have been wounded or killed while trying to treat disease and bring comfort to the suffering? How many parents have been torn apart by wayward children that they nurtured? How many children have been wounded by parents while trying to be good boys or girls?

To validate the truth of this Beatitude we must look beyond our physical existence to a larger reality. We can’t make it work in a purely naturalistic understanding of the world. I don’t even know how you arrive at a concept of mercy in a purely naturalistic system.

If nature is indeed red in tooth and claw then why place a value on mercy? Why were Hitler and Stalin wrong if naturalism is the explanation of the world? Naturalism tells us that we are products of random electro-chemical reactions and that the way we are is determined by our DNA. If this is the case, why worry about being merciful or loving? If the world is the product of random reactions and I have the power to give or withhold mercy why should one value one choice over the other?

I am not arguing that atheists cannot be merciful and moral. I’ve known many that have compassion that puts me to shame. I am arguing that you cannot find an intellectual basis or motivation to mercy in naturalism. Ayn Rand would seem to agree since in her novels she portrays mercy as a weakness and selfishness as a virtue.

Circle back to the opening story. The prostitute’s worship is accepted by Jesus. Jesus pronounced her forgiven and on the basis of this forgiveness, she had a greater love for the one who had forgiven her.

Without the work of Jesus on our behalf, we should not expect mercy from God or from anyone else. We cannot earn the mercy from God, it is a gift. But on the basis of the mercy that we have received, we are called to exhibit that mercy to others. Therefore I understand this Beatitude to be saying that display of mercy is evidence of having received mercy. Those who display mercy have gotten and will continue to get mercy both as a cause and a result.

As Muddy Waters said in an old blues song, “you can’t spend what you ain’t got.” It is difficult to show mercy if you’ve never received it. If you’d like to receive God’s mercy, drop me a line and I will tell you how. Then you will indeed be blessed.

Why I Hate Religion – Reaction to a Reaction

Posted on January 24, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre 16 Comments

I don’t spend a lot of time on YouTube so I am coming to this discussion a little late. I had the chance to see this video in Church this past Sunday where it was shown before the sermon. I really like what Jefferson Bethke has to say. The full text of the poem can be found here so that you can read it for yourself.

If you look at the ministry of the prophets in the Old Testament, one of their functions was to challenge the Israelites to reexamine their lives in light of Scripture. One of the problems that the prophets addressed was that the religious observance in Israel often did not translate into changed lives. The rituals did not bring righteousness. Perhaps this is the best way of taking Jeremiah Bethke’s video, as a call to reexamine our lives in light of Scripture.

There is much in the church today that should be challenged and examined. We certainly cannot operate as if the Church is what it could be or should be. I know this because I am part of the church and I am neither what I could be or should be with regard to my walk with Jesus.

I am haunted by the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 7:21-23 where he tells us that many who claim relationship with Jesus will be turned away from Heaven. Those turned away by Jesus point to their works as proof of their status. This is a reminder that religion doesn’t save anyone, Jesus does. So I get where Mr. Bethke is coming from in much of his poem. We are challenged to be in the relationship with Jesus first and foremost.

I also appreciate Kevin DeYoung’s Reaction to the video and the follow-up post including a response from Mr. Bethke. Kevin searches for balance and goes point by point through the poem pointing out some parts that potentially cause confusion.

DeYoung’s point is well taken that God’s program is with the Church, imperfect as she is. We cannot pursue a relationship with Christ apart from the Church. The Church is an institution founded by Christ and when she is functioning as she ought, the Church is also in submission to Christ. So while parts of the visible church are failing in their mission, we cannot escape our responsibility to allow God to transform us and our Church into what he wants us to be.

Mr. Bethke’s poem should be taken as food for thought. We should examine what Scripture says about the issues he presents and how our churches should respond. We should examine Scripture and consider how we should respond individually to the issues the poem presents. We should seek God to change us individually and transform our Church into an institution that is above reproach, that takes Scripture seriously, that lives out the Gospel and reaches out to a world that desperately needs good news.

Thank you Jefferson Bethke and Kevin DeYoung for a healthy dialog.

What is your reaction to the video and Kevin DeYoung’s response?

On wineskins, graves, garlic, leeks and onions

Posted on January 22, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre 5 Comments

When a new work is started, the newness brings with it a level of discomfort. We often refer to the old system as tried-and-true, even if the results were less than optimal. The danger is that the new work will be hobbled by those who are determined to force the new work into the old pattern. I have seen this tendency in industry and I’ve seen it in the church.

In Exodus 14:11, shortly after the Israelites left Egypt, it appeared that the Egyptians would wipe them out (discomforting thought). In response, the Israelites cried to Moses “were there no graves in Egypt?”, the assumption being that that death was immanent and that by staying in Egypt they would have avoided that death. They preferred the relative safety of the old way even though it included slavery.

Later on in the Exodus story, the Israelites longed for the “leeks, onions and garlic” that they had in Egypt (Numbers 11:5). During the insecurity of pursuing the new way, it is easy to distort the memory of the wold way an make it seem better than it was. God offers them freedom (with some risk and difficulty) and they prefer slavery.

Jesus spoke against the desire for the old when he warned us against putting new wine into old wineskins (Matthew 9:17, Mark 2:22 and Luke 5:37). We should not try to force a new work into an old pattern.

I have been involved in church plants and the church I currently attend was founded somewhere around 13 years ago. I observe in myself and others a tendency to want to bring pieces of previous church experience into the new church. While this is not all bad, a dogged expectation that the new church will provide a similar experience to the previous church experience can be a source of irritation and can even lead to open hostility.

Should we learn from previous experience and continue the pieces of that experience that work well? Yes! If there are methods that are effective, they should be continued. At the same time, we need to be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit which may take us in new directions. Learn from the past, but don’t be handcuffed by it.

It is also important to choose your battles wisely. It is one thing to argue for a discipleship method that worked well. It is entirely different to argue over a music style, dress code or other preference issue. The methods can be measured and evaluated. With some issues there is no means of evaluating them and it comes down to personal preference.

The point of this is to ask that we all be wary about prefacing a comment or suggestion with, “At my old church . . . .” There may be good ideas coming out of that experience, but a determination to stick with that experience may cause you to miss out on something even better. The words of James 1:19 come to mind:

But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.

What do you think?

Grace, Truth and Difficult People

Posted on January 18, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre 1 Comment

It may not be a universal experience, but most of us are forced to interact with a difficult person in either our personal or professional life.

There are a variety of sources for the difficulty.

Some are difficult because they don’t perceive feedback about how they impact others. This is the person who continues the story when all the people in the room give indication of being bored or hostile. This is the guy who thinks he’s doing well in the presentation when all the attendees are checking their smart phones, chatting or sleeping.
Some are difficult because they are so worried about offending others that they are amorphous, it is hard to discern the real person inside them. These are so tuned in to feedback that they often overreact to it. They are hard to interact with because anything you say might prove overwhelming to them.
Some are difficult because they are self-absorbed; it is indeed all about them. The self-absorbed take every difficulty that arises as a personal attack. If a friend is distracted for an unrelated reason, the self-absorbed will take that as evidence of rejection. The self-absorbed will latch on to any sympathetic ear and fill it with a catalog of injustices done to him.
Some are difficult because they are unabashedly selfish. These are similar to the self-absorbed, but this self-absorption is intentional. These will do whatever they think they can get away with to get what they want.

I’m sure there are other categories of difficult people but these four come immediately to mind.

Jesus tells in Matthew 5:44 that we are to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. John 13:35 tells us that love is to be the mark that identifies us as Christians. In Ephesians 4:15, Paul tells us we are to speak the truth in love.

Nowhere in my Bible does it give me any indication that this is easy to do, nor does it give any indication that love is optional. I am called to love difficult people, people who often do not want, or struggle to receive that love.

How do we go about this then? I think that the evangelist gives us a clue when he describes Jesus as “full of grace and truth” in John 1:14. In his dealings with mankind, the difficult and the loving, Jesus was both gracious and truthful. He always told the truth but the truth was softened with grace and acceptance.

Jesus’ ability to do this is directly attributable to his being God. His divinity and sinlessness gave him the power to maintain this balance perfectly. I, on the other hand, do this imperfectly at best and often do not maintain the balance at all.

In our imperfection and based on our personality, we will tend to err on one side or the other. Some of you are more likely to err or the side of truth. “He had it coming to him” may be your motto after imparting a dose of truth to someone who you thought desperately needed it. Others, like myself, will try to avoid the difficulty, erring on the side of grace.

Grace without truth leaves the difficult person in his difficulty with no-one to guide him out. Truth without grace often makes the truth-giver feel a little bit better but the lack of grace can impede reception of the truth.

The two combined, grace AND truth, as we see it modeled by Jesus can be used by God to positively impact the difficult person. We love best when it is done with both grace and truth.

Question 1: What other types of difficult people have you encountered?
Question 2: Do you have any stories of how the combination of grace and truth positively impacted the situation?

Muddy Waters, Mercy and the Fifth Beatitude

Why I Hate Religion – Reaction to a Reaction

On wineskins, graves, garlic, leeks and onions

Grace, Truth and Difficult People

Categories

Archives