Would Your Church Call Jesus to Be Its Pastor?
by Herbert Douglass
I know, that question may appear to be a joke! But it has caused me to think for more than a mere few minutes.
Most people reading these words would call themselves “Christian.” That is, Jesus Christ is their spiritual hero, not Buddha! They choose to let people know that Christ is the most important person who has ever lived on Planet Earth.
But how does that actually play out?
Remember when the Jewish power boys “saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13, NKJV). And so did many others, hundreds, then thousands, then millions replicated the witness of Peter and John.
So what would a stranger think if he/she attended your local church? What would they learn about Jesus? Would they really care? Or, would it be Some Other Jesus that was being proclaimed? (Remember, Paul had to nail down Some Other Jesus that the Galatians had come to believe with these words: “Let him be accursed.”)
So you are looking for a pastor and someone gives you this resumé:
• Never murdered, raped, robbed, accosted or committed a felony crime.
• Never swindled, cheated or got a speeding or parking ticket as far as we know.
• He broke the Sanhedrin's Law by working on the Sabbath to feed the hungry.
• He probably committed a couple of misdemeanors when he turned the tables over in the temple and withered the fig tree, and maybe even more when he drowned 2,000 pigs.
• The religious hierarchy accused him of heresy and the civil authorities accused him of treason or, at least, of being a troublemaker.
But someone on the Search Committee asks why did the bunch, from the top down, want to kill Him–“What kind of a person was He?” And so the observations were made:
• He never married.
• He was a partygoer, seemed never to miss a good party, often with publicans and sinners.
• He made wine.
• He befriended the outcast, helped the poor, wanted to free prisoners and turn the other cheek when confronted.
• He made only 12 appointments, one of which was his undoing.
• His fellowship of believers held everything in common.
• He was a faith healer.
• He was critical of church leaders, telling them they didn't have a chance of making a passing grade. He was also tough on the wealthy; they, too, did not grade well.
• He clearly supported separation of church and state and fidelity to both.
• He was relevant, ministering too thers where faith meets life. He tried to build a kingdom based on this model.
• Letters to the editor questioned and criticized Him daily—seemed to have church, politics and the poor all jumbled up. His associations and lifestyle were questionable.
• He taught that His kingdom was not of this world.
• He taught that everyone was either becoming wheat or weeds and that character had eternal consequences.
• He taught that He had come to tell the Truth about our Heavenly Father.
• He said that whoever is not for Him, is against Him.
• He said that marriage is between a man and a woman.
• He said that no one can serve two masters.
• He said that each person will be known by his/her “fruit.”
• He warned that many people who say they are His friends will discover that He never knew them for what they said they were.
• He said that He sent His followers into the world for the same reason that He was sent into the world—to tell the truth about God.
• For saying all this, He was not widely popular.
So, with this record, would your church call Jesus as pastor? What would happen to attendance in a month’s time? Contributions? Would He make so many members so mad so quickly with his theology, priorities, lifestyle and involvements that the future of the church would be threatened?
Or, would the Search Committee write to the Conference president and ask for a different Jesus model!
I suppose the Search Committee has only three choices: 1) Work with Jesus; 2) Compose a different job description; 3) Crucify Him.
(Of course, He would love the Search Committee and forgive them and their church family anyway, knowing that they know not what they do. Come to think of it, that would be the Jesus model!)
(For prompting this question, I am indebted to Gerald W. Johnson, Auburn University emeritus professor of political science.)
Herb,
Wow! That's a challenge to more than think about, one that should cause some serious change.
Many years ago I heard a similar question posed with a story about a pastoral candidate who had been arrested, beaten and jailed for breaking the law, caused a riot in more than one place, committed murder and tortured others, etc. It was the Apostle Paul.
The good news is that Jesus would agree to be our pastor. That probably means more than whether or not we would call him. Or maybe not.
Herb, that is quite a resume. New Hope Adventist Chuch is looking for a new senior pastor as I retire the end of June. We are a pretty progressive church but some might have trouble with some of those characteristics on the list. It really is something to think about.
The resume is misleading, as are many similar ones I've seen.
He was not a party-goer in the usual sense of the word, and this misrepresents what He was like. He was present at social gatherings, but they were not the kind we think of with the booze and foolishness.
I hardly think that allowing demons to destroy a herd of pigs, which were not supposed to be part of the Jewish economy, could be considered a misdemeanor. Nor was purging His own temple of the riffraff an act of mischief.
He did not make wine; He made fresh grape juice. The modern use of the word virtually always refers to an alcoholic drink, which Jesus would have never made nor drunk.
And he was tough on the wealthy only to the extent that they worshiped their wealth. He had no bad things to say about the extremely wealthy nomad, Abraham.
That being said, I don't think most churches would want Jesus as their pastor, because He would preach a "straight testimony," which has never been popular among God's professed people.
Horace,
I guess you would translate 1 Timothy 3:8
8Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine (grape juice), not greedy of filthy lucre;
God's word is very, very consistent in condeming drunkeness, but always stop short of forbidding all "wine". Either we view the Bible as the authentic revelation of God's will or we twist to say what "we" think it should say.
Its thought provoking to realize that the ones who opposed Jesus teaching and eventually plotted to kill Him, were the same ones who pressed the Sabbath command beyond God's intent.
Rudy, "you do err, not knowing the Scriptures." The word for wine in both the OT and the NT can mean either pure grape juice or fermented grape juice, Context must determine how to understand it. Given what we know about the negative effects of alcohol on the brain and other parts of the body (one drink can cause impairment of the mental faculties), and given the condemnation of drunkeness in the Bible, it is unthinkable that Jesus would have ingested anything that would have lessened His mental acuity. I will admit that I Tim. 3:8, presents some challenges, but one difficult text cannot be used to contradict what the rest of Scipture so clearly states.
Do you believe that Jesus drank fermented wine at the Last Supper?
It seems odd that the person in chage of the feast equates the wine Jesus made with wine that makes people drunk. I am still not entirely convinced that a Greek hearing 'oinos' would conclude that it was grape juice. The fact that most Greeks through the ages haven't somewhat argues against it being a natural conclusion. I would agree with Rudy on this one. The fact that Bacchiocchi felt that we needed a 'clear' biblical command if we were to argue SDAs shouldn't drink wine shows how muddles our thinking is at times. If research and common sense says that drinking alcohol is not good for us, why do we need a biblical command?
Horace,
The Bible condemns drunkenness and admonishes us to sobriety. However, without refrigeration there was no way to prevent grape juice from fermenting. There is no proof in scripture to support your claim that the wine Jesus created at the wedding feast was fresh grape juice. Neither is there proof that it wasn't fresh grape juice, so the issue is moot. Further, there is instruction in Leviticus for the drinking of strong drink (likely deliberately femented) at the annual festivals. What is more, there are societal changes between then and now. You couldn't get into as much legal trouble back then riding your donkey while under the influence as you can today if caught driving a car under the influence!
Herb, you have written something interesting and thought provoking and I hope it makes us all think about what it means to be a devoted follower, disciple, of Jesus.
Cheers!.
You guys are a joy to "listen to" because we are all in our soup together! Horace is ight–I did take lierary liberties just for effect–and I guess I succeeded (in a way). I am not a frivolous observer and I don't think you folk are. But really–would EGW recognize many of our churches today? What do you think has caused the enormous divisions among us? Or should Adventists be known for a clear statement of its job description? Where would Jesus start if He became our pastor today? Cheers, Herb
Herb,
The divisions have grown as we have become less and less "people of the word" and more focused on seeking leadership that makes us feel comfortable instead of leading us to God.
Horace, you made some excellent points. Preachers seem to often to delight in making outrageous statements to gain a reaction from the audience. In this HD succeeded.
I doubt that most churches would like a straight talking preacher today. Let's see — when is the last time you heard a sermon about chastity? About appropriate dress, about– one could go on and on I suspect.
As a matter of fact I would like to ask HD whether he ever preaches on sensitive subjects.
You're correct, Truth Seeker; most churches want to hear "smooth things." I cannot recall ever having heard a sermon, from the pulpit of a church, on chastity or modesty. And I think we can see the results of not having educated our youth (or new converts, for that matter) on the principles of modesty or chastity. It used to be said that one could tell an Adventist by how they dressed. Not anymore. Go to just about any campmeeting, and you'll see that many people are dressed like those who make no profession of being Christians.
Do you really think anyone does not know what the church teaches on those subjects? Or that one more sermon just might make a difference? Perhaps pointing people to Jesus and trusting God to change them works better in the long run.
Horace,
You may use the length of a woman's skirt (or lack thereof) and the depth of her neckline as a measure of reduced spirituality and condemn them for it. Or, you may choose to behave like Jesus and reflect His love to them so their relationship with Him will resolve those issues.
Will all the emphasis on being like Jesus, and pointing people to Him, while playing down externals in recent times, one would have thought that those issues would have been resolved long ago. Instead, modesty has declined dramatically over the past 40 years.
Behaving like Jesus and reflecting His love does not mean that we ignore the problems. Some things are not learned by osmosis.
And no, Kevin, I don't think a lot of people know what the Christian ideals for modesty are anymore. Where is it taught? I don't mean how long a dress should be or how high a neckline should be, but, rather, the principles of what constitutes modesty. Men won't touch it because they're afraid of being called "dirty old men," and the women are apparently not addressing it, either.
Elaine says that God looks on the heart, rather than the outward appearance, and that's true, but she's using it the wrong context. If God didn't care about our outward appearance He would have left Adam and Eve in fig leaves, rather than making clothes for them.
Adam and Eve were ashamed because they were naked and used fig leaves for covering. Nowhere in the Genesis story does it say that God cares about our outward appearance. God was not ashamed or he wouldn't have created them nude. Man is concerned on outward appearance.
Are you suggesting we abandon all dress standards; maybe come to church naked during the warmer seasons? You seem to be bending over backwards to belittle our doctrines, no matter how much sense they make, or how grounded in Scripture they are.
Truth Seeker , I dont think you know Dr. Douglass . get one of his books at the ABC and then you will find if he speaks on " sensitive subjects " . Friends , we can speak on dress etc ,and we might be " succesful " and women can wear those long dresses etc . outside is easy to change .The only hope for change is the love of God , when we see the demostration of his love ( Romans 5:8 ) we will change from the inside out . we are not saved by wearing Long dresses , not drinking wine , Sabbath observance,paying tithe etc , we are saved by Jesus perfect obidience . Going back to the issue , Interesting , not sure if Jesus would recognize what the conferences have become in these days , more like business corporations and to get in in pastoral minsitry in most places is based on who you know or who's your daddy .We need to study more closely the life of Christ and with the help of the Holy Spirit to allow him to make us more like him .
Those who wish more attention paid to the outward appearances, forgets that God does not look on outward appearances, but the heart. Obsession with such picayune matters indicates the picture of a very small God who would be seriously concerned with one's appearance. Such a shallow view of Christianity sends a very clear message: "you will never be accepted here with us saints."
Elaine: You are right as usual but sometimes I sense that you are baiting your friends. Of course, God looks not only on the outward appearance, etc. But He doesn't think in terms like so many earthlings that think only with either OR, etc. God teaches us with the ellipse principle, with the HOLY "and." Like Paul speaking to t Timothy 2:9–"In like matter also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing." Christians connect, use the Holy And, the two elemnts that we often reduce to the objective and the subjective. Truth never separates the inseparable. Cheers, Herb