Working It Out

SERMON: 2014-07-27--ac14139--working-it-out-part-3 SOURCE DURATION: 00:40:07.000 PROPOSED CUTS: 1 CONFIDENCE: 1.00 APPROVED: false REASON: The entire provided material from segment [0] to segment [421] constitutes continuous theological exposition and pastoral application related to scripture readings (Acts 15 and Romans 15). No non-sermon material is identified at either edge. Acoustic segmentation found sustained music at the end edge and moved the boundary to the adjacent transcript segment. ACOUSTIC EVIDENCE: available ACOUSTIC MUSIC INTERVALS: 00:30:19.700-00:30:25.040 ACOUSTIC SPEECH OVERLAP: yes ACOUSTIC BOUNDARIES APPLIED: end Inline CUT markers identify each proposed audio boundary after the relevant word. --- ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT WITH PROPOSED CUTS MARKED --- Well, we've been looking of late at the practical implications of the Council of Jerusalem's decision in Acts chapter 15 that the Gentile believers did not have to observe the law of Moses, but were nevertheless strongly encouraged to observe four Old Testament practices, three of which at least sounded suspiciously like the law of Moses. They were not to eat food, sacrifice to idols, they were to abstain from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. The reason for that we've been seeing together is not so much that the apostles wanted the Gentiles to return under the law of Moses because they had just decided that they didn't need to, but rather it was an accommodation to the sensitivities of the Jewish people in the communities where they lived and where the gospel was being preached. Since the days of Moses, the gospel or the law of Moses had been preached and the Jewish people were steeped in their traditions and for the Gentiles to just ignore them under the guise of Christian liberty would cause tremendous friction between those two groups and would ultimately lead to a split in the church. But this is indeed the correct interpretation of the council's decision is evident as we saw last week, not only from the way Paul put it into practice in Romans chapter 14 where he deals with the subject of questionable practices, the gray area, and where he talks about the mature laying aside their rights on behalf of those who are weaker, but it also really comes to expression here in Acts chapter 16 in the fact that he insists young Timothy be circumcised. Listen again to how scripture puts it here, Acts chapter 16 verse 3, Paul wanted to take Timothy along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area for they all knew that his father was a Greek. I'll come back to that verse in just a moment because that's the focus of my reflections with you this morning, but before we do that, let's review the backstory a little bit. Once the Jerusalem council had reached its decision, passed it on to the church in Antioch, life in the church settled into routine, the conflict was avoided, and it occurred to Paul that this would be a good time to revisit the churches that he had planted earlier in Asia Minor, in Galatia in particular. The reason for wanting to revisit those churches was twofold, number one to see how they were doing and number two to pass along to them the decision that had been reached by the council of Jerusalem because it had far reaching consequences for Jewish gentile relationships. So he discusses this with Barnabas who is on board with revisiting these churches but then as they begin to plan the details, a problem arises and a contentious issue gets brought to the foreground that they end up not being able to resolve and that has to do with John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. You may remember that on their first missionary journey, John Mark, who is also the author of Mark's Gospel by the way, had come along with them but then half ways through in the province of Pamphylia to which they had traveled from Cyprus, he bailed on them. John Mark was a bit of a softy, raised in a well-to-do environment, couldn't handle the pressure of the first missionary journey and bailed and Paul was not impressed. And so when in this story Barnabas wants to take John Mark along a second time, Paul digs in his heels and it becomes a huge controversy. The Bible says it became a sharp disagreement, so much so that they ended up parting ways. You can imagine this. They ended up parting ways. And so now Barnabas takes John Mark and he goes to Cyprus. Who remembers why he goes to Cyprus? Because he was a native of Cyprus. Paul takes along Silas, who remembers Silas, anybody? Silas was one of the two delegates sent by the church in Jerusalem to accompany Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch with the letter indicating the Council of Jerusalem's decision. So he was a Greek Jew, evident from the rest of the New Testament and therefore, like Barnabas, well suited for cross-cultural gospel communication. Well, we'll come back to that too in just a moment or so because we'll look at how this missionary journey shapes up. But some time back I talked at some length about this conflict between Barnabas and the Apostle Paul because here you have two very mature Christian leaders and they get into a conflict that they are unable to resolve. And the tendency, of course, is for you and me to look at that kind of conflict and to say, well, you know, I wonder who's at fault. Is it Barnabas because he places relationship with his cousin over the importance of the mission? Is it Paul because he is impatient and doesn't want to give somebody a second chance? Why this conflict and who is at fault? And I shared with you some time back then that there was a third possibility. Maybe nobody was at fault. Maybe it was just the outworking of very different gifting and very different passion. Barnabas' name means "son of encouragement," you will recall. It was Barnabas who first welcomed Paul into the fellowship of the church when nobody else wanted anything to do with him. Folks were important to Barnabas. Paul on the other hand was a man on a mission. He had a job to do and because he had a job to do was impatient perhaps with the complexities of relationships. And if you put it in the context of what we've looked before, these particular three circles, if you think of the Christian church as a combination of community, cause, and corporation, then you'll understand more clearly why the two of them were at odds with each other. Barnabas was committed to community where relationships matter and where the most important person is the weakest because in families, who gets the attention? It is the baby who gets the attention. Paul was committed to the cause of the gospel. In that particular circle, the person who most matters is the one who brings the most strength to the table and that's why you have this conflict. Ideally, there ought to be room for both but in a particular mission, you value what you value on account of your gifting and your calling. Corporation deals with the organization. What counts there is how much gifting do you have? What is your organizational skill? So what's good about this story is that despite this huge conflict, eventually they managed to get it settled and as the New Testament continues to develop, we read that these relationships have become reconciled. But in the meantime, it plays havoc with their plans and so as I said earlier, Barnabas and John Mark, they go to Cyprus and Barnabas disappears pretty much from the biblical narrative. He shows up, I think, one more time in the book of Galatians but apart from that, that is the last we hear of Barnabas. The Apostle Paul, on the other hand, with Silas, begins his second missionary journey and I want to show you this map for just a moment to show you how that journey developed. The first missionary, here's Antioch, which is the missionary church because it was a Gentile church and they had a heart for missions in a way that the Jerusalem church never really did. So their first missionary journey, they went to Cyprus and then up to Perga, this is where John Mark abandoned them through Lystra and Iconium and Derbe and then back again to Antioch. So Barnabas went this way, which left this way for Paul and for Silas. So they go first to Tarsus, which was Saul's hometown and then they travel on to Derbe and to Iconium and to Lystra and that is where they meet up with young Timothy. One Timothy's mother was a Jewess, his father was Greek and it is evident from Paul's writing to second Timothy that Timothy had witnessed what Paul went through in Lystra and in Derbe and it's very likely that he had come to faith on that first missionary journey. He was a very keen young man, he grew quickly and rapidly in the Lord so much that the brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. And so when Paul meets up with him, Paul says, "You know, I want you to travel with me on this missionary journey." But before he does that, he does the most unusual thing, he gets him circumcised. Listen to it again, verse 3 of chapter 16, "So he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. He circumcised him." Now I want you to think that through with me because it's easy to read over that and miss the implications of it. Remember the Council of Jerusalem had just decided that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, right? Furthermore the Apostle Paul writing to the Galatians says that if you choose to be circumcised, you put yourself under the law, you make grace in vain, you are caught off from Christ, you now have to keep the whole law, so he is aghast at the notion of circumcision and yet here he is and he says to Timothy, "Oh well, by the way, you know, it's going to cost you if you're going to travel with me." Oh, not fun. And it says a lot about Timothy's character that he submits himself to this process, don't you think? It's an amazing thing. So why? Well, obviously because this Paul is practicing what he preaches. He knows that he will not get to first base ministering to Jews or even Jews that have become Christian as long as Timothy is with him as a Gentile who is uncircumcised. And if you doubt that, I mean, you get this picture of the incredibly deep passions associated with this when in chapter 21 Paul gets arrested and that becomes the, you know, the start or the end of his journey, it is because he had been seen in town with a Greek young man by the name of Trophimus and they assumed he had brought him into the temple. Paul's reputation for not honoring Jewish distinctives surrounded him wherever he had and he knew this would be a huge liability in terms of ministry. So what does he do? He gets Timothy circumcised so that they can together be all things to all men. The reason is clearly given to us in this text. We just read it together. Let's put it back up. So he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. So what we have here is Paul practicing what he's been preaching, that the strong are to lay aside their liberties and their rights on behalf of the weak. And I love the way that he describes it in more detail in 1 Corinthians 9, the verses 19 to 23, he says concerning himself, "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone." Get the contrast there. He says, "I'm free. I can do what I want to do." But he says, "I lay that liberty aside to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew. To win the Jews, to those under the law, I became like one under the law, though I myself am not under the law, so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law, I became like one not having the law, though I am not free from God's law, but am under Christ's law, so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak. To win the weak I have become all things to all men, so that by all possible means I might save some. I do this all for the sake of the gospel that I may share in its blessings." "That," says Paul, "is how a mature Christian ought to behave." He or she lays aside his or her own freedom, so as to make sure that the weaker brother or the weaker sister not only doesn't stumble, but is able to come to faith in Christ. Now in the time that remains, I want to walk through two very practical examples with you of what that might look like in modern life. I use these two examples not because I have a bone to pick with anybody, or because I have some hidden message in mind, or even because I think that that's a particular issue that we face as a congregation. None of those is true. I bring these up because after the service lesson in the morning, I had conversations with a man and a woman who brought up these particular issues for consideration. So let me walk you through this in the time that we have. The first involves the drinking of alcoholic beverages, booze. Should or should not a Christian drink alcohol? Should you have a case of beer sitting in your fridge or in your porch? Should you serve wine at dinner when you have guests? And should you take a shot of whiskey or rye when you are stressed out before you go to bed? Well different Christians and different Christian groups have very different views on that. There are some who think any consumption of alcohol is bad and forbidden in Scripture, and there are others who think there is nothing wrong with it and may even drink to excess. And the fact of course is that Scripture nowhere to the best of my knowledge forbids the drinking of alcohol. It is one of these questionable or dubious areas. The Bible has a lot to say about drunkenness. The Bible has a lot to say about overindulging and the damage that causes, but it really doesn't ever say that you cannot consume alcohol and in fact Paul tells young Timothy later on because of his weak stomach to use wine for medicinal purposes. Well I know an awful lot of people who would claim to drink for medicinal purposes and now of course it also applies to marijuana so who knows where society ends up with. So last week after the service when we touched on Christian liberty and laying down our rights on behalf of other people, one of the guys from our congregation came to me and he shared with me two stories that I thought was the perfect example of what it was that we were talking about. Let me share those with you. One, he said at the end of a hard day's work he likes to relax with a beer in hand and has no compunctions about that, feels that that's perfectly alright as I know many of you here do, but he says my father-in-law is a teetotaller and my father-in-law doesn't think that Christians should drink at all. In fact his father-in-law belongs to the school of interpretation that says that the wine of which scripture speaks was never alcoholic. That's how extreme his father-in-law views that. And so his father-in-law doesn't think that his son-in-law ought to be drinking and gets rather annoyed when he does. So now here's the question, should he modify his drinking behavior because of his father-in-law's objections yes or no? Let's take a vote on that. How many of you think that he should be listening to his father-in-law because his father-in-law does not think that he ought to be drinking and he is irritated and offended when his son-in-law drinks? Does he take care for this? A scattering of votes here and there. How many of you think that he should just ignore what his father-in-law says and drink to his heart's content? That's a bad way of phrasing the question. I know. Let me see some hands. See a lot of you are not brave enough to vote either way. I can tell that. I know the wording is very prejudicial, so I apologize for that. But let's think through what the issues are, right? Is his father a weaker brother? No. Why not? Because he has been a staunch Christian all his life, leader in the Christian community, he knows what his values are. Will his father lose faith if his son-in-law drinks a beer? No he will not. So he doesn't fall under the qualification of the weaker brother who is stumbling to the point of losing faith. Will he be irritated at his son-in-law's drinking? Probably yes. But irritation, you will remember, is not the same as stumbling so as to lose faith. So the son-in-law is free to drink. He doesn't have to. He might want to consider his father-in-law's sensitivities, but that's a whole other issue. He is free to do what he is doing under the biblical guidelines. Now roll the clock forward, this same young man is at a youth conference with a bunch of other youth leaders where they occupy a leadership position. The conference is finished and they're going out for dinner. And one of them says, "Hey, let's order drinks, it's over, let's relax." The question is, should they or should they not? So they have this discussion. Because what are the issues? Well the issues are, first of all, they're now in a public place, secondly, they have occupied a public leadership position up front and who knows how many of those same young people that were at this conference are in this restaurant observing what these leaders are doing. The danger is that some will be the weaker brethren and sisters, will be scandalized by the liberty of these leaders and stumble in their faith. And so wisely, in their conversation together, this group of young men and women decided, no, in this setting we will not buy drinks for the sake of not causing somebody to stumble. See the difference between the two things? There's always a question of what does love look like? The biblical principle, of course, that Paul talks about is this, "Therefore if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again so that I will not cause him to fall." The test of your maturity in Christ is your willingness to lay down what you believe you have a right to do so that somebody else does not stumble over your actions. How far that is removed from the Christian who says, "Well I can do what I want to do, I don't care whether you like it or whether you don't." Or the Christian who says, "Well I live in fear because of your disapproval and so therefore I'm going to live in constant fear, I can be myself because I don't want you to be irritated." All right, one more example that was also brought up to me last week and that is the question of dress code. Ever since Adam and Eve fell into sin, clothed themselves with fig leaves, the human race has dressed itself in clothes. Now how much of their bodies they cover is determined in part to where you live geographically and also the culture that you are part of. And we live in a world where views on dress vary tremendously from the one extreme where everything is covered up as we see in some of the Muslim dress to virtually everything is exposed as we see in the Western world. And where is the Christian and where is the Christian family who doesn't at some point or another struggle with the question where does the balance lie between these two extremes? What mother or father hasn't said to their teenager or their pre-teen, "And you think you're going out on the street in that outfit?" And how many good church-going folks haven't at least raised an eyebrow at what somebody was or wasn't wearing in their presence, isn't that true? We live in a time of tremendous confusion. And just to stage for that, here's a little clip from CBN News, a news reporter by the name of Jennifer Wishon. She is CBN correspondent to the White House, and she did a little piece for CBN News just a couple of days ago. Take a look at this. If you look around, it's easy to think modesty is dead. Everywhere images tell us less is more, and the pressure for young girls to look sexy has never been more potent. I think the media promotes sexiness. They're wearing the eight-inch heels. It's very hard as a parent to try to raise your child in this society that we have right now with some rules and with some structure. I know that the reason why most girls dress like that is because they're trying to get attention for boys. We met Stephanie at an event in Virginia designed to show young girls modesty is hot. It all has to do with beauty, but beauty should really come from the inside out, and unfortunately the generation that we're living in says the less you wear, the more hot and beautiful you are. But there's something really beautiful to mystery. Jim Goshen is the creator of Modest is Hottest. She's a worship leader who never dreamed she'd be preaching demureness. But just look around, she says, even in the church, and you'll see it's needed. I didn't come to know the Lord until I was much older. I was 21. I didn't grow up in youth groups or doing any of that. So when I became growing in Christ and knowing Jesus, I realized, wow, why are we dressing the same way I used to dress in the clubs? Instead of kind of throwing the rule book at them, it's sort of a way of explaining like it's out of love, you know, you love the Lord, he loves you. And so this is kind of how you respond. It's out of modesty. What is modesty? Modesty, you know, that's an interesting topic. If you look at the scriptures, modesty is self-control and how you present yourself externally so that people can see your heart. The Bible teaches that our primary role, the reason we're on this planet is to glorify God. Anytime we dress immodestly or we dress to show off our bodies, we're bringing glory to ourselves. That's the greatest, I think, sin of immodesty is that we're saying, look at me, instead of saying, look at God. [PROPOSED CUT 1 START at 00:30:19.700; remove through 00:40:07.000] Fresh [CUT] is one of the experts. Her ministry, Secret Keeper Girl, travels the country teaching girls and their moms about modesty and why it's important. She's also written books about modesty and knows it can be controversial, even within the church. And the tough thing is there aren't any exact rules, right? No. God didn't spell it out in black and white for us. Instead He's asked us to search with our hearts. Interesting little piece, I thought. In the time that remains, allow me to give you just very quickly three principles that I think are helpful for Christian families to know and to observe. Because as I said, we live in a world where the pull is huge and the opportunity for causing people to stumble is even bigger. Just very quickly, guidelines to help us navigate the field of fashion today. Did you know, by the way, just as a point of illustration, she goes on in that clip to point out that in the last three years, eyeliner and mascara sales for 10-year-old girls have doubled. And if you listen closely to the advertising, the age of getting dolled up is getting younger and younger and younger to the point that 8, 9, and 10-year-olds are now being pushed into fashions which are beyond their own appropriate age. And one of the most predictable factors in how a girl turns out, whether she can maintain sexual purity in her teenage years, is does she dress older than what she is and is she giving off the wrong kind of vibe. So very quickly on this, number one, dress appropriately for the occasion. Obviously, what you wear in church is going to be different from what you wear on the beach, is going to be different from what you wear at work. I think the video clip explained it well. It echoes my personal conviction, is that what you and I wear ought not to detract from what it is that we're about in the kingdom of God. And if we're merely drawing attention to ourselves, we have already missed the boat. And I believe that we ought to neither overdress or underdress so that nothing gets in the way of what it is that we're trying to do or trying to communicate. Number two, do not aim to stir up what you cannot legitimately satisfy. There's a really old-fashioned word for this that is used in the King James. It has sort of fallen by the wayside of late, it's the word concupiscence. Anybody here remember that term? Concupiscence means stirring up a strong or an ardent desire, usually of a sexual nature. And one of the reasons there is such a divergent view of dress in Christian community and in society is because there are different underlying philosophies of sexuality. One reason why in some cultures women hide their bodies is for the protection from men who are thought not to be able to control themselves, and this is one way. And likewise, one reason why in our society people will argue that what a woman wears has no bearing on how she is treated by men goes to the opposite extreme, because that argument is that it's all men's responsibility and the woman has no contribution to make to the discussion. I think both extremes are unbiblical. Truth lies in the middle. Man, a man is responsible at all times to exercise self-control and no excuse that what a woman wears or doesn't wear is no excuse for crossing boundaries. Let's be very clear about that. At the same time, men do respond to visually sexual stimulation, and it's unfair for a woman to use her assets to stir up something in a man that she then cannot or will not legitimately satisfy. That's being a tease, and people who are teases get themselves into trouble. Don't excuse what men do, but it is a realistic understanding of how the world works, and here again is a piece of that same clip report that puts this, I think, in very good perspective. Watch this. And what about boys and men? The Bible doesn't offer any modesty instructions for them. Gresh suggests it's because men are more vulnerable to the beauty of women than women are to the allure of men. Do women have a responsibility to help protect the eyes of men who tend to be more visual? The way that a man treats a woman is entirely his responsibility, period. However, a woman is called to exemplify the fruit of the spirit. One of the fruits of the spirit is self-control, and I think we need to be able to exemplify that in the way that we dress and the way that we present ourselves. Do men have a responsibility to be modest? Well, sure, men have a responsibility, and I wish we could get some dudes to start talking about that, like the Abercrombie guy is so naked. I think men have the same responsibility for us to be able to see their good works, for us to be able to see the inner qualities and strengths that God has put in them, not their bodies. As I said, that report is put together by Jennifer Wishon, the White House Correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network. One more quick point before we wrap this up, and that is this, let me see if we can find it here. Always remember the weaker brother or sister. What you wear may be perfectly appropriate, how you behave may be perfectly appropriate in normal settings and normal situations, but there are weaker brothers and there are weaker sisters. It depends on their history, it depends on what they've gone through, and it's always wise to think in terms of what am I communicating and how am I coming across, because that is what Jesus did and that is what Jesus invites us to do. So let me end this morning once again by reading with you these words of Paul, Romans 15, 1, 2, and 3, "We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up, for even Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, the insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." Jesus left the glories of heaven and suffered untold abuse, sacrificed himself, died on the cross, and he did it so that you and I could come to life. The good thing for us to reflect on at any given time is, what does that look like for me? Where are the places where my selfishness gets in the way of other people's liberty or other people's walk with Christ, and then am I ready to lay down even the legitimate things that I might be able to do because I love my neighbor as I love myself? [CUT] [PROPOSED CUT 1 END at 00:40:07.000; resume after this marked segment]