Religion

The Thirties – Part 5 (What About The Church?)

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

The question I brought into my reading of ACG’s book was more specific than society.  I wanted to know what was happening in the church during those years of transition to tyranny.  And is there anything we can learn for our tumultuous times?

The Catholic Church agreed a concordat with the Nazi party in 1933.  It gave the church a lot of freedom and protection.  But at a cost. “Catholic clergy were deprived of their civil rights. Political activity was forbidden.” (p205)  Ironically, they kept their position of influence in society, while relinquishing their ability to say anything constructive.  I have watched many wrestle with this tension in recent years.  Should we strive to keep our “voice” in society by following the rules imposed by the media, or do we speak out about concerns and thereby invite society’s opposition? 

“To oppose the encroachments by the Third Reich, the churches should have united and fought jointly the common danger, but here as in the political field, the spirit as well as the prerequisites to such unity were sadly lacking. As to the Protestant Church, the wealthy parishioners and the Protestant middle class were in favor of the Nazi regime. …Neither then nor later did the Protestant clergy show a common will and determination in defense of their rights.” (p206)  It is intriguing that those with some societal standing (in terms of their wealth status) are identified as supporting the regime.  Surely, if the benefits are to be weighed in terms of income and status, that should be a warning flag that the motives may be somewhat corrupted.

Is it possible to imagine a church in our time that goes along with a rogue government or popular narrative in order to keep its voice in society?  But what if it already has little to no voice?  What is it protecting?

“The Nazi aim in the field of religion is the establishment of a co-ordinated German church under party supervision. … Their publicly proclaimed thesis is “The word of Adolf Hitler is the word of God and has the authority of God.” (p206)  It was not just moral madness that should have been opposed, but also the religious heresy of the time.

Even within the 1930’s, there was a growing religious fervor in silent protests against the Nazi regime.  What if they had not capitulated initially to take the easy path and keep their influence?  What if the church had been willing to take a stand from the start?

There was a concerted effort to undermine the church’s influence in society.  The black-shirts, the elite guards, were forbidden to belong to any religion.  The Hitler Youth movement estranged a generation from churches. “Church services are held under observation of the Gestapo, the state secret police. Clergymen who have held services outside the church confines in order to escape police supervision have been arrested and sent to concentration camps.” (p208)

Church leaders and members were subjected to every possible charge and slander. “They are accused of immorality, corruption and violation of government regulations. . . . Occasional cases of law violations are blatantly generalized.” (p208)  It is hard to stand for what is right and true, but is that not what all believers are called to do in this fallen world?  We represent Jesus and the Gospel.  Always with grace and love, but sometimes with courage and a willingness to pay the ultimate price.  And when we capitulate in order to have a voice in society, what happens when society wakes up to the truth and then wonders why the church didn’t say anything? 

Is it better to have a voice, or to use it? 

I don’t want to condemn the church in the 1930s without acknowledging how easily cowed the church in the 2020s might prove to be.  As Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously wrote, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

The Thirties – Part 4 (How Did it Happen?)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The tyrannical Nazi Reich toppled the German Republic in just fourteen years.  It is historically fascinating to trace the transition.  More than that, we must learn from history to avoid repeating it.  So, how did it happen? 

There were all sorts of players involved.  Lots of people had vested interests.  There was plenty of historical baggage everywhere you look.  And complex political wranglings tugged at the emerging storyline.  It would take a long book to lay bare the complex reasons for the change.  However, there are some pertinent points that a series of blog posts can consider to enlighten our thinking for our world today.

ACG repeatedly points to a critical underlying issue – a lack of willingness to resist.  For example, he writes, “Yes, it ought to be said again and again, that the iron will necessary to maintain the authority of the state, to guard jealously the inalienable rights of the people, and to fight in defense of democracy, was sadly lacking.” (p142)

When people were openly attempting to destroy democracy and bring in a dictatorship, there should have been a response from “energetic authorities” – but there was not.

While the outside world was concerned about the “saber-rattling speeches” from the Nazis, “The republic, however, and its statesmen continued to view the manifestations of reaction and renewed militarism with unconcern.” (p145)

“When Nazis took power, people had done nothing, but felt it was too late to take a stand.” So sad.  And yet, it is so believable as we watch human nature in recent history.  In the early 1930s, they still had the numbers and the means to stop it, but the will to resist had already dissipated. 

Once the Nazis were in power, the rules changed.  They introduced a worker’s passport to control the labour force for government purposes.  People couldn’t change jobs without permission, which kept the masses from moving to the cities and away from the armaments factories.  Tyranny, by definition, needs to impose control over individuals.

It would be unfair to say that the people merely turned away from reality. “Everything is prepared in the Third Reich by means of a thoroughly co-ordinated press and radio.” (p192)  There was massive propaganda pressure against the people.  The most heinous example of this was the national pressure against Jews and the normalization of hatred against a class of people.  During 1936-37, 870 Jews were convicted of racial crimes, turning the screw even more.  They could not receive protection because of the hostility of the police and the courts.  In our times, we are repeatedly seeing how quickly a society can be turned against a race, class or group of people (consider medical dissenters since 2021 or Jews in recent months, for just two examples).  And sadly, the majority of people either do not see it or refuse to see it. 

“The annexation of Austria was accompanied by all the horrible happenings known from 1933 when Nazism conquered power in Germany.  At that time the world was unwilling to believe its own eyes and prepared to forget the horrors as quickly as possible.” (p336-7)  I wonder how often the combination of narrative control by the media and self-imposed blindness in key people leads to greater harm to the world.

I started ACG’s book expecting only to find hints of what was to follow during the Second World War, and especially the horrors of the holocaust.  But the concentration camps, the numerous “suicides”, and the killing sprees were all already present and known in the thirties.  Living in a world that is unwilling to believe its own eyes is scary!

Society may be conditioned to support an approved narrative, but we are called to be men and women of truth.  In the next post, I want to get to the heart of my concern: what was the church doing in the transition to Nazi rule?  Does the church matter?  Do our voices make a difference?

The Thirties – Part 3 (The Threats Identified)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In the last post, I noted a few parallels between the 1930s and our times.  But what about the threat itself?  The Nazi threat was totalitarian, oppressive, ideological and quasi-religious.  Since the fall of the Third Reich, the world has been more focused on Communism, supposedly coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum.  Also, on the expansion of militant religion, and latterly, activist agendas driven and funded by globalist ideologues.   While the media seems to scream “Nazi!” quite freely as an insult, there appears to be an eerie ignorance of where the threat lies for our society today.  What would be the cost in both freedom and lives if we continue to push in the direction of the utopian dreams being touted?

Interestingly, the ideologies swirling in the 1930s seem to come from both ends of the traditional political spectrum as people understand it. 

“Hardly had the republic been established, when the enemies started to attack in earnest.  From the left . . . the communists savagely pounded away at the people’s state and its institutions . . . fighting and belittling everything created by the republic. . . . Propelled by the insane belief in a world revolution, the communists caused millions of gold rubles to flow into Germany for the fight against the republic.” It is interesting to read how “time and again [the communists] joined forces with the Nationalists and Nazis in parliament.  They cast their vote against democratic government and, together with the Nazis, did immeasurable harm to the dignity of parliament by turning it into a place of political rowdyism and unheard-of brawls.” ACG was not surprised to see communists joining the brown-shirted storm troop army by the thousands, nor “the most radical communist districts . . . becoming strongholds of the National Socialist movement and its sluggers.” (p361) 

In another place, he notes how “Some SA formations had as many as thirty per cent communists in their ranks.  This was not at all surprising. Both the Nazi SA and the communists had much in common; above all, their hatred of democracy and especially of the social democracy.” (p252)

Wait, we are constantly told that the Nazis and the Communists represent opposite extremes on the political spectrum.  Instead of focusing all our attention on Left versus Right, we should instead contrast control and freedom.  Tyranny is tyranny, whatever uniform it wears.  And perhaps tyranny is the threat to liberal democracy and human freedom that lingers and re-asserts itself time and again.

Suppose the constitutional rights of the individual are not protected. In that case, any solution offered for any actual or imaginary crisis will prove to be a force of control.  In other words, self-proclaimed saviours tend to become tyrants.

 ACG finished his 1939 book with a prescient finale:

“National Socialism stands for the propagation of a system aimed at the destruction of individualism, the enslaving of other peoples, and barbarism. Civilization gives way to the law of the jungle. Wherever Hitler goes, the four horsemen of the Nazi Apocalypse follow. National Socialism is synonymous with war, devouring uncounted millions of lives, destroying culture and civilization. Hitler consciously or unconsciously is driving toward this goal. He is taking Germany and with her, all Europe and the whole world on the road to disaster.” (p367)

We would do well to understand what is meant by the political “left” and “right” but also to grasp that the real battle might be between control and freedom.  As preachers, our calling is not to preach a party political message.  The pulpit is not a soapbox; we have something much more important to proclaim.  But let us not bury our heads in the sand and live in ignorance of what is happening in the world around us. 

In the next post, I want to explore how the great shift happened so quickly and whether that may be helpful for our awareness today.

The Thirties – Part 2 (A Rapid Shift)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

The shift from the German Republic founded in 1919 to the Nazi’s Third Reich in 1933 was colossal.  Clearly, it was possible for things to shift so rapidly in that society.  Are there any parallels between then and now?  As I read ACG’s Inside Germany, so many statements jumped out to me:

  • “The state, in my opinion, belongs to the people only if all the people take part in the exercise of government and public authority.” (p120)  Is there not an increasing feeling of disconnect between the population and the people with ultimate power in our day? 
  • “The best laws are of little value when carried out haphazardly or reluctantly.” (p120)  Confidence in a great legal system can drain away when it seems like there are different rules for different people.
  • “Knives, pistols and explosives are dangerous weapons. To those, however, who are guided by ideals and who, in the political struggle, have not lost sight of human dignity and integrity, the weapons of slander, abuse and insidious intrigues are far more dangerous.” (p122) ACG resigned as Minister of the Interior of Prussia in 1930following a targeted hate campaign by communist and national socialist agitators.  A politically motivated cancel culture is not a new phenomenon, but it is a concerning one.
  • We might assume that the people of Germany in the 1930s knew all too well the history of the war in the 1910s.  And yet, it doesn’t take long for a generation to rise who are ignorant or deliberately misinformed.  Those born during, or just before, the Great War became the youngsters who were so uninformed and so easily steered towards serving Hitler’s goals just two decades later. “What did those youngsters know of the struggles, miseries and sacrifices in the bitter war years?  Those youths from whom the truth was deliberately withheld had not the slightest inkling of the splendid response of the Social Democrats, the Jews and others to the war needs of the nation.  How many of the young men and women who swallow the lies and deceits of the National Socialist propaganda, hook, line and sinker know . . .” (p362) How confident can we be today that the younger generation is properly educated about the threats to our society from political, ideological or religious groups?  The evidence would suggest that too many know all too little.
  • In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote that “A lie, if big enough, always has an excellent chance . . . . The masses with their primitive and one-sided minds are more susceptible to a big lie than a little one.” It is troubling to see how confident many are today that they are not the victim of any big lies.  They might acknowledge the possibility, or even the likelihood, of lies being the fare of politicians and the media.  But could they be the victim of a big lie?  Of course not, because they would know if they were.  It is a strange self-delusion, and our world is full of it.

There are so many parallels between then and now.  More will emerge in subsequent posts, but this is a starter list to ponder and prayerfully consider.  And the question that hangs over it all, like a Zeppelin, is what could and should the church pastors do in a society that is leaning in a dangerous direction?

The Thirties – Part 1 (A Seismic Shift)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

At the height of restrictions during the times of Covid, I made a comment to a friend.  His response has stayed with me.  My comment made a specific comparison of a contemporary trend with 1930s Germany.  He immediately reacted and told me that we should never make such a comparison because it implied that the motives of certain influential people were as evil as Hitler himself.  I find censorship to be a huge red flag, and I felt like my thought process was being shut down.  A few years later, whether the situation warranted my comment is still up for discussion.  Perhaps, over time, we will know.  But my interest in 1930s Germany has continued.

What did they know?  And significantly, how did they respond during an era of multiplying warning flags?

Recently, I discovered Inside Germany, a book written by Albert C. Grzesinksi [herein ACG] – a member of the Social Democratic Party who helped to found the German Republic after the First World War.  Intriguingly, he published the book in 1939 without the benefit of hindsight.  After six years of the Third Reich, he wrote without knowing what would unfold in the next six years. The horrors of Nazi Germany during the Second World War, especially the “Final Solution” to the “Jewish problem,” were eventually revealed to the world.  But what about before the war?  How did the German Republic become the Third Reich?  How did so many accept such a rapid transition from liberal democracy to tyrannical evil?  It is a fascinating read.  And maybe, a century later, there could be lessons for us as we pray for our world, influence Christians and lead churches in a time of potentially tectonic political shifts.

The German Republic was quite an achievement after the devastation of the Great War of 1914-18.  On the 31st of July, 1919, the National Assembly in Weimer “gave the German people a constitution that was one of the most liberal, progressive and inspiring documents in the history of the world.  On the 23rd of March, 1933, the parliament of the same republic passed an empowering act which concentrated all powers in the hands of Hitler, and which wrote finis to German democracy and the liberal republic.” (p357)  Strikingly,  ACG wrote, “Those two dates . . . mark Germany’s road to Golgotha, the road to the crucifixion of the German people under the Nazi swastika.” (ibid.)

It would be easy to assume that Germany, after WWI, simply rebuilt itself, leading to WWII.  Not so.  The Germany of 1919 had to be radically changed to become the Third Reich of 1933 and following. “Seemingly by a stroke of the pen, political liberties were achieved which not even the boldest optimists and democratic dreamers of Germany had dared to envision. Germany became a state of, by and for the people; a democratic fatherland dedicated to the needs and aspirations of the working masses.” (p358)  And it is that seismic shift from liberal democracy to totalitarian tyranny that intrigues me.  How can that happen so quickly?  And, if you will indulge a series of posts about Nazi Germany, I’d like to ponder what it might mean for how we preach and influence both church and society in our tumultuous times?

7 Defining Moments in Your Sermon – Part Three

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

We have thought about the pre-sermon moments that impact the preaching event and considered a couple of aspects of the introduction.  Now, let’s consider a couple of moments that can define the impact of the message from within the body of the sermon.  Obviously, the points are important, the text’s explanation is critical, and so on, but that is what we tend to focus on.  Here are two surprisingly significant moments to consider:

5. Every transition – It could be argued that transitions separate good communicators from average ones.  It is natural to focus on the content of the points, but it is a step up to be aware of how you move from one to the next.  It is like having a passenger riding behind you on a motorcycle.  They will tend to stay with you in a straight line, unless you accelerate too fast.  But you really need to slow down through the turns.  The same is true when you preach.  A good transition can achieve so many good things: a review of what’s been said, an encouraging conclusion to a point, a reminder of progress in the message, a preview of what is to come, a chance to re-engage for the distracted listener, an opportunity to reinforce the main idea, a moment of pause for an overwhelmed listener, and so on.  Or you can clumsily jump into your next point and leave people confused as to what happened to the other point, why you are talking about this, how it relates, and so on.  Pay attention to every transition; your message will be more helpful for more people.

6. The Interruption or Surprise – We do not preach in a vacuum-sealed box that can be completely controlled.  It is an environment with many variables.  Let’s categorise them as either public or private.  The public ones interrupt everyone’s experience.  The phone ringing, the child crying, the jackhammer starting, the gunshot (hopefully not).  Some are minor, some are more significant.  You have to decide at the moment how to handle it.  Be careful not to draw attention to someone feeling awkward about their phone or baby or to press on through something worthy of a pause.  I’ve seen a preacher totally undermine his credibility and sermon by a harsh and unkind response to an accidental interruption.  I’ve also seen a preacher try to press on, oblivious to the passed-out person being carried out of the congregation.  The first should have been more gentle, the second would have done well to notice, pause and pray for the person.  I don’t remember either of the sermons, but years later, I remember the interruptions and the response from the preacher.

Then there are the private interruptions.  That is the thought that suddenly presents as you are preaching.  Maybe a new illustration.  Maybe a warning flag about using a planned illustration.  Perhaps an extra thought that could be added, or a new direction for the application.  A beginning preacher may not be able to imagine any internal dialogue while preaching because the whole experience is so consuming and overwhelming.  But actually, there can be quite a wrestle going on inside a preacher while the sermon continues to be preached.  Don’t automatically discount every thought and press on through the notes.  Neither should you take every thought as a Spirit-led and anointed change of direction.  You have to prayerfully and humbly process as you go.  You won’t always get it right, but you will do well to lean towards the love of God and others in every decision you make (and keep an eye on the clock, too, as an act of love for the children’s workers and people who brought a first-time guest!)

7 Defining Moments in Your Sermon – Part Two

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

As we work through this list of seven defining moments in the sermon, we have so far thought only about the unseen preparation of all involved and the first impressions before the sermon really starts.  Now let’s consider two that are part of the introduction to the message:

3. The motivation to listen – Most sermons will have the same elements: a beginning, a middle, an end, a Bible passage explained and applied, and some illustrative material to help communicate.  Now, all of these standard elements can be better or worse.  But they tend to be present.  However, the motivation to listen is by no means guaranteed.  It is not guaranteed from the listener’s side, and it is not guaranteed in the details of the sermon.  How could it be missed?  Easily.  Too many preachers assume that their listeners are interested in Elijah’s encounter with a widow or Paul’s answer to the church’s question.  And too many introductions offer something less than motivation. 

We can easily settle for familiarity or interest.  Familiarity introductions are the ones that refer to something we all experience – you know, going upstairs and forgetting what you went up to get.  Everyone smiles and relaxes a bit.  Then, the message continues as if that connection is enough.  Or interest introductions are the ones that raise eyebrows with an interesting tidbit – you know, that it is impossible to lick your own elbow.  Some knew that, some didn’t, some try it, etc.  And the message moves on.  Familiarity introductions and interesting introductions are probably better than just launching into 1 Kings 19 and its background, but better by far would be an introduction that makes listeners want to hear what is coming. 

Inasmuch as you are able, motivate listeners to listen.  Robinson used to talk about surfacing a need in your listeners that the passage would then be able to address.  Use your introduction to grab their attention, convince them that they need what this passage is going to show them, and win their hearts to be open to you as you lead them into the passage.

4. The overview – At the end of the introduction, it is easy to skip the overview.  Generally, you should not skip it.  Give people a sense of the shape of the message.  We are going to see the problem described, and then the solution.  Or Paul gives three truths that we will look at together.  Or the passage comes to us in two chunks, verses 1-5 and verses 6-9.  Or we will see the transformation we need is coming, the triumph over death is certain, and the therefore that changes how we live – the transformation, the triumph, and the therefore.  The overview can be detailed or a very high-level glimpse, but if it is missing, the listeners are slightly in the dark as to where the message is headed.  If your message is an inductive shape, then make sure the question that is going to be answered is clear: what is the critical ingredient that we need if we are to have a ministry like the master?

Feel free to comment about introductions – what works well?  What do you hear that doesn’t connect or help the listener?  Introductions are critical to the effectiveness of a sermon.  Next time, we will look at two more defining moments in the sermon.

The Echo of Easter

/ Peter Mead / 3 Comments

I recently imagined a global tour that could be called the “tour of the tombs.”  That might not sound too exciting, but it would include great cities in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and North America!  Were we to travel that itinerary, we would see the burial sites of philosophers and Pharaohs, Kings and Emperors, religious leaders and mass murderers.  It would be quite the tour!  And along the way, we would get an inadvertent “tour of the troubles.”  After all, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, etc., are all marked by political protests, persecution, death, wars, and terrorism.  The world of today is not so different from the world of our history books.

In the first century, the events of one Sunday led to one of the greatest books ever written.  Imagine being John, possibly the youngest of Jesus’ disciples.  For three years, being with Jesus had transformed his life.  He was there when Jesus taught, healed, and shook the world.  John was there when Jesus was arrested and crucified.  He was there the day Jesus rose from the dead and met with his disciples.  John was there when Jesus met the group by the Sea of Galilee, when he uttered the Great Commission, and when he ascended into heaven.

The three years were over, but for the next six decades, John served his beloved Jesus.  He saw the gospel spreading in Jerusalem and the persecution that arose.  He saw his brother and the other disciples systematically slaughtered over the following decades.  He lived beyond the destruction of Jerusalem, the dispersion of the Jewish people, and the rise of nasty Emperor Domitian.  John lived for six decades serving Jesus.  And it was for preaching Jesus that John was sent to the penal colony of Patmos in his old age.

Then, one Sunday morning towards the end of the first century, John heard the voice of the risen Jesus (see Revelation 1:9-11).  The voice commissioned him to write everything he saw so that the Revelation of Jesus might be sent to the seven churches John cared about in Asia Minor.

If you look at the introduction to that book, the book of Revelation (1:1-8), you will find that John believed it to be a uniquely special book.  In a dark and troubling world, it offered grace and peace from the eternal God, especially the risen and victorious Son, Jesus Christ.  John underlined how Jesus revealed the Father, has risen from the dead, rules over the kings of the Earth, has rescued sinners from this world, and, in the future, will return.  The Revelation of Jesus Christ was exactly what the aged John needed.  It is what we need, too.

So what was it that John saw?  When we read through Revelation 1:12-20, how Jesus is portrayed is striking. 

The risen Jesus is impressively powerful.  He is impressively dressed, with a God-like description of his features.  There is the eternal wisdom seen in the white hair, the penetrating eyes, the judging feet and mouth, the thundering voice, and the brighter-than-the-sun face.  It might be really obvious, but this is no description of a corpse.  Jesus is very much alive and impressively powerful.  If we think of the tour of the troubles in this world, what hope do we find in the many tombs of emperors and kings?  None.  But one tomb is empty, and death has been defeated – Jesus holds the keys of death and Hades!  We all need to be gripped by the wondrous vision of Revelation 1.  But don’t skim through the description too quickly.  Jesus is not only impressively powerful, but he also explains the cryptic imagery of lampstands and stars that appear in that vision, leading us to reconsider all those powerful features.

The risen Jesus is intimately present. I wonder how many times John had remembered Jesus’ words, “I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20)  Surely, those words had meant a lot during the difficult days when the apostles were being killed, when the Middle East was being rearranged, when John’s ministry in Asia was being opposed, when persecution was rising, and when John suffered on the prison island, kept away from the people he loved.  Jesus had promised to be present, and he was.  And now, this entire book was pointed in the direction of those seven churches.  When John turned, he saw Jesus walking in the midst of the lampstands, that is, the churches.  Jesus was present with John and with the churches.

Specifically, Jesus wore the clothing of a high priest (Rev. 1:13).  We can surmise that he was praying for the churches.  His features point to the purifying work of this high priest (Rev. 1:14-15) – the penetrating eyes, the feet ready to stamp out sin, etc.  And his thunderous voice proclaims boldly to the church (Rev. 1:15-16).  It is interesting that this is no whisper, but like the sound of many waters pounding on the shore – it makes me wonder how many of those churches had closed their ears to the words of Christ by closing their Bibles.  How many churches today are doing the same?

Jesus is risen; he is alive.  The Easter truth transforms our experience of this troubled world.  And the vision described in Revelation 1 declares a vital message.  The risen Jesus is both impressively powerful, and intimately present in the church today.  We need not despair at what we see around us.  We can look back to the empty tomb.  We can look forward to the return of Christ.  And we can look up, knowing that our great High Priest is praying for us, purifying his church, and proclaiming his word to this day.  Easter echoes down through the years. He is risen.  He is alive.  He is powerful and present.

Food and Following (Matthew 9:9-17)

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

It seems like food is significant in every culture.  Whether a culture is known internationally for its food or not, something about sitting down together to eat carries more significance than the mere fuelling of the body or renting restaurant space for a meeting.  In Jesus’ time, it is evident that table fellowship mattered greatly.

In Matthew 9:9, Jesus called Matthew from the tax booth to a new life as a follower of Jesus.  That may seem like a familiar idea to us, but having such despised sinners as followers was a radical act by Jesus.  Who deserves to be his follower?  Who deserves to be his apprentice, learn from him, become like him, relate to him, and be launched into a life of ministry representing him?  Did Matthew deserve it?  Do you or I deserve it?  May we never lose the wonder of the call to be his followers!

Immediately, we read of Jesus reclining at the table with many tax collectors and sinners.  Luke’s account points out that Matthew laid out a “great feast,” although Matthew was too humble to mention that detail.  (Luke 5:29)

The Fellowship Question (Matthew 9:10-13) – The meal sparked a fairly obvious food-related question – who should Jesus eat with?  To the religious evaluators, it was obvious that Jesus should not be eating with tax collectors and sinners. Indeed, they were the ones who’d earned the invite to the special meal.

I was recently with a pastor whose church seeks to reach out to the marginalized and the maligned of society.  He took my family to dinner, and we enjoyed a wonderful meal together at his favourite restaurant.  He told us how, when his church had started, they hired this restaurant and filled it with people who may never have eaten in a restaurant before.  The feast was a gift.  The gift was not just the food; it was a fantastic way to get to know a Jesus who would sit and eat with societal nobodies like Matthew’s friends.

It is interesting how Jesus responded to the question.  He differentiated between those who are healthy and those who are sick.  It is the sick who know they need the help of the physician.  After all, whoever says, “Let me allow my broken ankle to heal, and then I will head for the hospital,” or “Let me wait for this abdominal pain to pass before I go and get checked out?”  It makes no sense to hold back when you know you need help.

Jesus called the religious to soften their hearts toward those who knew their spiritual need.

The Fasting Question (Matthew 9:14-17) – Matthew follows up with another food-related question.  Why do Jesus’ followers eat?  Some of John the Baptist’s disciples wanted to know about fasting.  After all, the Pharisees were promoters of the Old Testament Law and promoted fasting.  Then, they were followers of the final Old Testament prophet and were into fasting, too.  So, indeed, if Jesus were a step forward religiously, he would promote fasting even more.  The Law, the Prophets, and now came Jesus; therefore, his followers should be fasting extra!  But they missed something: Jesus was not just another step forward. He was the goal of it all!

Jesus spoke in wedding terms.  A wedding day is not a normal day.  You never walk into a wedding reception and expect to find people fasting.  It is a day of feasting!  It cannot be a typical day when the bridegroom is present! 

Jesus went on to give two everyday examples to make a point.  Nobody would put a piece of unshrunk cloth onto an old garment because it would self-destruct when it got wet and dried again.  Everyone knew that.  Likewise, nobody would put new wine into old, hard, shrunk, leathery wineskins.  Again, it would self-destruct when the wine fermented and expanded.  Everyone knew that, too.  So, to Jesus’ point – his work was not just another step forward in the Old Testament line of promise.  It was the launch of something profoundly new that could not be contained in the old framework.

We may not be from a Jewish background and tempted to try to squeeze the radically new gift of New Covenant life into the framework of the Old Covenant.  But actually, we are all tempted to try to add the new life Jesus offers into the old way of religious effort that always characterizes humanity.  It is so easy to think that becoming a Christian adds a few more responsibilities onto my to-do list of moral efforts for respectable living.  However, that is not how it works.  It is a radically new life.

Jesus came to transform our lives by his presence.  He calls us to live a radically new life as his followers.  We are called to be with him, enjoy time together, learn from him, and be transformed from inside to out.  We are called to feast in joy because he has come.  We are called to fast in earnest because he is currently away.  Jesus is not asking you to become more religious; he is offering something far more radical than that.

As our thoughts are drawn to the first Easter, remember the radical nature of all that Jesus has done for us.  And then don’t settle for a modified version of religious living.  We get to follow the risen Christ through the year ahead.  Jesus offers a radically new life to really needy folks like you and me.

Nowhere, Now!

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

What is the greatest commitment we see in our world today?  Is it the commitment of a classical musician, or a sports professional?  They say it takes 10,000 hours of practice to really master any skill.  Apparently, it takes nine to twelve months of specialist training to be ready to attempt to climb Mt Everest. While the idea of commitment may be dismissed by so many in our society, there are still countless people dedicating themselves to various pursuits.

In Matthew 8:18-22, Jesus speaks about commitment at an extraordinary level.  After three chapters of the Sermon on the Mount (chapters 5-7), Matthew seems to be shifting to an all-action presentation of Jesus performing healing miracles.  He heals the leper, the centurion’s servant, and Peter’s mother-in-law.  It feels like we have left the teaching block behind and settled down for an action-adventure section of the Gospel.  But then we come to these few verses and two powerful sayings of Jesus about commitment.  

Essentially, Jesus declares that to follow him means to belong nowhere and the demand is to follow now.

Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” 

Matthew 8:18-20

Belong Nowhere! – The scribe sounded so committed.  He would follow Jesus anywhere!  But Jesus pointed to the rhythm of creaturely life.  A fox?  It gets up and puts in a night shift touring its territory, marking the boundaries, catching a vole or two, enjoying some worms and bugs, even feasting on some berries if the opportunity arises.  Then, when its work is done, it returns to its hole and lays down its head to sleep.  Work done, it heads for home.

Just to reinforce the point, Jesus mentions birds too.  They wake up nice and early, some get in a singing practice before dawn, then head out and fly the skies looking for food.  Some catch flies mid-air, others swoop down for voles and mice, while others prefer seeds and worms.  Then, when their work is done, they return to their nest and lay down their heads to sleep.  Work done, they head for home.

Every creature is the same.  Including humans.  Wake up, work, head home, and sleep.  But not Jesus.  His work never seemed to be done.  When he finished healing Peter’s mother-in-law, then many more were brought to him late into the evening.  When he headed out early to a deserted place, he sometimes found crowds looking to get more from him there too.  And Jesus was not home.  We never read of him heading back to Nazareth for a home-cooked meal with mother Mary. 

To follow Jesus is not about a shift and then back to base for some relaxation and creaturely comforts.  To follow Jesus means to belong nowhere in this world.  It means we are not really at home in our home town, nor if we move to the other side of the world in missionary service.  If we follow Jesus, then our citizenship is in heaven, and our home town is still in the future (Philippians 3:18-21; Hebrews 11:13-16). 

These are challenging words, especially if we have grown too much at home in this world.

Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”  And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”

Matthew 8:21-22

Follow Now! – The disciple’s request seems reasonable.  Surely, Jesus is not against family funerals, is he?  I don’t believe he is.  The point here is a striking one.  Nothing can come before following him.  Not a funeral that is scheduled for next week, nor a Jewish reburial in a few months, or even an anticipated death in order to collect an inheritance (all are explanations given for this cryptic moment in the text).  As Jesus said elsewhere, if we are to follow him, then we must first hate everything we hold dear.  Jesus wants his followers to honor their parents and so hatred seems extreme, but that is the point.  There can be nothing that comes first.

How often we can fall into the same problem?  Not so much with funerals, but with other things.  “I will be completely committed to Jesus, but first I . . . “  What?  What comes first?  Career first?  Promotion first?  Payrise and then folks will see my dedication to Jesus?  Or maybe family first?  Once married, once there are children, once they are grown, then the commitment will show?  Of what about fun first?  So many say they will live a little and be committed to Jesus when only a little life is left in this world.  Bucket lists get elevated to the level of an idol as Jesus is left to wait his turn.

No.  To follow Jesus at all means that we need to follow him now.  Not later.  Not after.  Now.

Reasonable Demand? – How can Jesus be so demanding and expect us to belong nowhere and follow now?  The demand is so extreme.  But the key is to look at who is saying the words.

Jesus had no home in this world.  He left his eternal home and entered into this world in the most humble of circumstances.  He was born in a peasant town and laid in a manger.  He was an infant refugee in Egypt, then grew up in Nazareth – a place with a rubbish reputation.  Nazareth was a rest stop on the way to somewhere better.  And then, once he launched into his ministry years, he had no home of his own in this world. 

Jesus’ work never seemed to be done.  He had nowhere to lay his head, not only because of a lack of address, but also because his work demanded so much.  There was always another person to heal, another demon to cast out, another crowd to feed, another dispute among the disciples to unpick, another conflicted conversation to navigate.  His work, his mission demanded so much.  Actually, it demanded everything.

As we read through the Gospels we find that Jesus did eventually lay down his head.  When was that?  It was in John 19:30, when his mission was accomplished, when he cried out “It is finished!” and then lay down his head and gave up his spirit.

The reason that we should take Jesus’ demand so seriously is because his mission cost him everything.  Since he gave his all for us, his call is for us to give everything in response.  Belong nowhere in this world, and follow now.  Nothing else would make sense in light of who said it.