An Unholy Alliance: Pharisees and Herodians

Posted on June 17, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

An Unholy Alliance

We are moving toward a presidential election year in the United States. As a result, the political pundits are ramping up their efforts to develop a market for their predictions. With this backdrop, when I read Mark this morning, Mark 3:6 grabbed my attention. In this verse there is a simple statement that the Herodians and the Pharisees formed an alliance to see if they could get rid of a common problem. That problem was Jesus.

The Pharisees and the Herodians each sought to partner with and use the other for their own ends. To the Herodians Jesus was a political nuisance; to the Pharisees he was a religious one. To both, he was a threat to their power and influence.

The Politicos

The Herodians were the pragmatic politicos of the day. They were for anything that would allow their patron, Herod, to remain in power. Sound familiar? We have hundreds of modern day Herodians in office today. Purporting to be public servants, they protect their political power often at the expense of the truth and the people they represent.

The Religious Elite

The Pharisees were the religious leaders. Not all of them had wrong motives, but their zeal to appear holy often put them at odds with Jesus. Their legalistic mindset caused them to misunderstand God’s program. They did not recognize Jesus because they were certain of their own understanding of God and Scripture. There is a sense that many of the Pharisees were also more concerned about their power and position than the truth. One doesn’t have to look very hard in Christendom to find such as these today.

The True Church

We know that governments exist because God has granted them authority (Romans 13:1). Yet it is through the Church and not through governments that God chooses to work out his plan for humanity. The church should be very wary of seeking or using political power to advance its agenda.

The church is the chosen instrument of God to bring the good news of Jesus Christ to a world which desperately needs it. It is through the preaching of the gospel that men can be brought into relationship with Jesus Christ. A person who is brought into relationship with Jesus Christ will be changed in the way he lives and ultimately in the way he votes. The church should have this type of indirect influence on the political landscape. She should not seek to have a direct influence by organizing a political pressure group or any other such efforts.

Why? The temptation to use political power for seemingly good ends is a dangerous proposition for the church. Every time the organized church has gained political power, it has gone badly for the church and society. I have written about his before in Thinking out loud – The Church and Political Process.

I am not saying that the church should be silent on the issues facing society today. We should be speaking clearly on what the Bible says on these issues. What I am saying is that as these issues are discussed, the focus should be on commending individuals to submit to the truth of God’s word.

We need to keep in mind that the problem in our society is not a political one, it is a spiritual one. To address the political process without first addressing the core issue of sin is to treat the symptom instead of the cause of the disease.

What do you think?

Absent From the Great Banquet

Posted on June 13, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 1 Comment

The Banquet Table is Set

Luke 14:16-24 records the parable of the Great Banquet. The main point of the story is that the invited guests gave lame excuses as to why they could not attend. In the place of the original invitees, the dregs of society are then persuaded to enter into the feast. Jesus concludes the parable by saying that “none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.”

The banquet is illustrative of a personal relationship. To sit down and have a meal with someone implies a bond of fellowship. Those invited were to dine with the house master and be in relationship.

The Pharisees clearly understood that the parable was intended to present the Pharisees as the ones with the lame excuses. It’s very hard to miss this point. I understood this even as a child when I read or heard this parable taught. The Pharisees missed out on relationship with God because of their limited understanding and hard hearts. They presented lame excuses as to why they would not enter into this relationship.

The connection that I didn’t make until recently is that not only were the Pharisees to enter into this relationship, they were to bring others in also. Isaiah 42:6 shows us that God intended Israel to be a light to the Gentiles. In Exodus 19:6, God tells the Israelites that they were to be a “kingdom of priests” to the world. The nation was to be an example of how and why one should be in relationship with the Creator God. They failed to accomplish this mission and were punished as a result.

Perfect Theology and a Hard Heart

It is very easy to heap condemnation on the Pharisees without making the effort to understand the root of their problem and take steps to avoid following their example.

This past weekend, I attended a block party in Philadelphia which was sponsored by a local church. The crowd was ethnically diverse and the social issues that challenge cities in America were on display. I found myself walking the length of the block party praying for the needs of the people. Interaction with some of the people was an encouragement to me. Some others clearly showed needs that I found overwhelming. Yet, how many years have these problems been going on and the church (myself included) has been largely absent, leaving the needs unmet.

The danger I see in the church is that like the Pharisees, we can dot every theological “i” and cross every doctrinal “t” and ignore the needs of the people in society around us. We can be so caught up in determining the correctness of the teaching that we miss opportunities to minister to those who are most open to the gospel. I know that I can get so caught up in being right that I miss the needs of the people around me.

I’m not saying that doctrine and correct theology are not important; they are. I am saying that we can use our quest for doctrinal integrity as an excuse to avoid the messy business of reaching out to those who most need the gospel. It is possible to have a perfect understanding of theology and have a hard heart. Our theology should drive us to the cross as we understand our own need of a savior. This should result in a passionate drive to bring others into relationship with Jesus. Correct theology should soften our hearts and make us, like Jesus, aware of the needs that God is calling us to meet.

You Have to Have It to Give It Away

Jesus, in Matthew 7:21-23 warns us that it is all about relationship and not about what we know and do. Yet having that relationship will drive us to be willing to be used by God to minister to all kinds of people. I’m reminded of a Muddy Waters lyric that says “you can’t spend what you ain’t got, you can’t loose what you ain’t never had.” In other words, you can’t bring people into relationship with someone you don’t even know.

The emphasis needs to be on relationship first and then on meeting the needs of the people. If we don’t deepen our own relationship with Jesus, we will struggle to give people what they most need. Yet, absence of the drive to minister to people may be an indication of problems with our own relationship with God. I am more like the Pharisees than I would like to acknowledge.

Discussion Question

What do you do to maintain awareness of the needs around you and sharpen the focus on bringing people into relationship with Jesus Christ?

Gutenberg, Google and the Church

Posted on June 8, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 2 Comments

The Retweet

http://twitter.com/#!/coryhasabeard/status/78146081514459136

The Question

http://twitter.com/#!/uSlackr/status/78215933755273217

The Response

I’m not sure what Cory had in mind when he tweeted, but here is what his tweet made me think of.

There are those in Christendom who have an aversion or a distrust of anything new. Part of this I understand. It is easy to settle into a pattern of church life and anything that upsets that pattern can be viewed as an annoyance. There is a sense in which new things should be evaluated and not automatically accepted. Some level of distrust is healthy.

But the aversion to new things can become pathological. In many congregations a change in the order of service will prompt a flurry of notes to the pastor indicating that the old order was better.

The distrust of new things leads to some curious practices. One of my favorite church curiosities is the practice of segregating worshipers into traditional and contemporary by having separate services for each group. I know that it is OK to have preferences and traditional is not better or worse than contemporary. How does this segregation enhance overall body life? How does splitting into two groups bring unity?

My point is that change is not inherently good nor bad; change must be evaluated as to its benefit in moving the church toward her goal of making disciples (Matthew 28:19-20). It does not benefit the church to hold to old paths just because they are old and familiar.

Gutenberg could not have imagined the speed with which information can be disseminated in 2011. The internet and social media are tools which can be used to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. These new tools of communication should be used by the Church to proclaim the message. So the point I take from the tweet is that the Church should be investing in developing a web presence.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if the church had sought to work on good television programming in the 60’s and 70’s instead of decrying the “one eyed monster” or the “boob tube.” We are starting to see some well produced and well acted movies with a Christian message, what would have happened if we had started doing this 50 years ago?

The internet and social media are not going away barring major damage to our infrastructure. We, the church, need work within these systems to provide opportunity for people to hear the voice of Jesus calling them to come home.

Going Out as Wolf Food – Baaaaaaaa!

Posted on June 6, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 2 Comments

Sent Out As Wolf Food

In Matthew 10:16, Jesus commissioned his disciples by sending them out as sheep among wolves. Those of us who have grown up in the church have heard this many times, so the phrase may not impact us the way it would have impacted the disciples when they first heard it.

I have had little exposure to sheep, but my few encounters have given me the idea that sheep are not particularly aggressive. I also am under the impression that they are not very capable in the self defense department. The disciples would have understood this better than an American suburbanite; they would have understood that Jesus was informing them that they were being sent out as wolf food.

This is a curious motivational strategy, one not often used today. We prefer to send people out with thoughts of victory and success rather than thoughts of defeat and perhaps death. Can you envision this as the next great church growth program? “Come and learn to be wolf food!”

Defenseless But Not Undefended

Was Jesus sending them out to certain defeat? 2,000 years of Church history prove otherwise. The same disciples that Jesus first sent out began the spiritual revolution that turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6).

If defeat was not what he had in mind, what then is Jesus saying? I think that Jesus is letting his disciples (of all times and all places) know that we are to go out with the understanding that we are defenseless on our own. Paul tells us in Ephesians 6:12 that our battle is not a normal human battle. It is a spiritual one, one that we cannot fight with normal human wisdom and power. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, has promised to be with us the whole way. We are not left unprotected. I need only to follow the Shepherd, Jesus will take charge of the results.

Another aspect of being sheep among wolves is that we are to be gentle. Sheep will not deal harshly with wolves. Jesus also tells his disciples to be as innocent as doves, another not-so-fearsome animal. Along this line, Peter tells is in 1 Peter 3:15 that we are to give an answer to those who question us, but do it with gentleness and respect.

Implications For Today

The point I take from this is that Jesus sent the disciples out with the knowledge that the they were not responsible for the success of the venture. Sheep cannot intimidate wolves into changing their behavior. Sheep by themselves will have no impact on the wolves. In the same way, we are not called to harangue, argue or bribe anyone into the Kingdom of Heaven. We are to give testimony to the truth of the Gospel with both our speech and our actions.

Can we, as the church, learn to be OK with being sheep and let the wolves be wolves? Can we give up the apparent need to label everything and everyone with whom we don’t agree? Can we not feel pressured to mount a crusade against every company that implements policies which we find offensive? Can we learn to display God’s love for those who are not yet in relationship with him?

I know that even if we lived out Jesus’ teaching perfectly, there would still be people offended by us. But then, the offense would be the gospel itself, not the way we demonstrate it by our words and actions.

Can we make a run at living in such a way as to invite people into relationship with Jesus? What do you think?

An Unholy Alliance: Pharisees and Herodians