Douglas Young

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go a mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”

Matthew 5:38-42

Was, and is, Jesus really serious here? If so, you’d hardly guess it  by how we live; especially, here in the states. In America, we fight for what is ours. God has endowed us with life, liberty and property. The Declaration and our Constitution establish such. The Gadsden flag reads, “Don’t Tread On Me.”

Jesus sure seems to pour cold water on Christianity as it functions in America. Apparently, the kingdom heart wasn’t designed to buy into the gospel we sell around here. Stuff is stuff. It’s all a gift of God. But none of it is enduring. So then why do we cling to it like it is?

Inevitably, someone is going suggest that “theft is condemned in the scriptures,” and it most certainly is. Therefore, private property rights are inherent of God. I agree, to a degree. Jesus though isn’t discussing the issue of property rights. He’s discussing how we view property.

Invariably, someone is going to say, “But what about self-defense?”. Once again, I am not convinced that Jesus is talking about the right of self-defense here. Too, regardless of what one might infer from elsewhere in Scripture, we still have to ask, “Did Jesus then not mean what he said?” Or, as I have posed, “Is he serious?” Keep in mind, he offers no exceptions or qualifications. How would his hearers have understood him?

I see this passage as the test of how much stuff, time, or a reputation means to us.  Must we always have the upper hand? Must we always have the last say? Are our possessions really ours?

Is Jesus really serious about turning the other cheek? Is Jesus really serious about going the extra mile, even when it comes to property? Is Jesus really serious about giving to beggars or maybe panhandlers, and not refusing those who would borrow from us?

It was all he could do, but it was beautiful to my ears.

Last Friday morning, I lead singing at a  local nursing home devotional service conducted by members of 16th & Pile. To my right was a man who lay the entire time reclined in chair. I never once saw him open his eyes. Upon my initial recognition of him, I presumed he was asleep. As we sang, though, I noted a distinct sound coming from his direction. His eyes remained closed and his mouth stayed shut, but the sound clearly came from him. He was humming the tune, never missing a beat. He continued the trend for all six songs I lead.

There’s something about worship in song that stimulates us when nothing else can. It brings us to life. It energizes us from lethargy and awakens us from slumber. It generates a response from us when nothing else might. That’s the amazing power of song!

After we were done, the  man continue to lay there with his eyes closed. He never responded to anything else anyone around him was doing. But when united in song, he apparently did all he could do and it was beautiful to my ears.

The Sermon on the Mount, I believe, is both loved by us and in ways lost to us. We need it in more than we can imagine. From it we understand our roles as “salt” and “light” (5:13-16). Deep-seated convictions are carved from it (cf. Matthew 5:31-32). Without question, from both the remote and specific contexts of Matthew, The Sermon on the Mount is the essence of living in God’s kingdom.

But I’ve noticed the tendency to be very selective with where we tread in The Sermon, as well as with how hard we push its precepts. In our world especially, it’s hard to push too hard and remain consistent. Take for instance, Matthew 6:19-34.

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon the earth…” Here we have verb action that is Greek present tense and in the imperative mood. Jesus is being very specific here. Essentially, he is saying, “You must not lay up stores of treasures here on the earth.” But we do. All of us. And we will go to great lengths to justify it. But is he serious?

Later he says, “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?” (vv. 25-26). The key word throughout the remainder of the section is anxious. He reiterates and reinforces his point. But when are we not thinking about these kinds of things? People experience tons of anxiety over these matters. But is he serious?

Are we really supposed to “not worry” about our lives (v. 25, NKJV)? Is he serious? Have we sinned if we do? Before responding, remember that he offers no caveats whatsoever. If he didn’t want them to get the wrong impression, I think he would have issued a caveat.

Scripture humbles us. It shows us how little we know and how little we are. Believe it or not, I’ve grown to love Scripture for that reason.

Those for whom Scripture is important have their favorite passages, and our fidelity to the text is important to us. And it should be. But before we emphasize this over that, we need to be certain that there is a certain level of consistency to our treatment of God’s Holy Word.

An honest consideration of the sayings of Jesus should leave us frequently asking, “Is he serious?”  His message was that hard-hitting. It was radical in so many ways. But before we label some of his statements as hyperbolic, let’s think about them.

So I’d like to look at a few and discuss them. I hope you’ll join me.

Jesus was accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub the “prince of demons” (Mark 3:22), a sign of the great lengths to which his adversaries would go to discredit him. It was an absurd notion void of all common sense. Jesus, though, seized it and illustrated its foolishness with:

How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.  And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.  And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first bind the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house. Mark 3:23-27.

You’d think the scribes would’ve liked to have taken that accusation back, given how irrational it was, but rationality in their treatment of Jesus seemed hardly their concern. I envision them walking away pouting, eyes fixed on the ground under which they walked and minds already redirected on how they could entrap the Messiah without looking so foolish in the process.

We all have those “open mouth, insert foot” moments that we’d love to have back but can’t. The comment was uttered. “Send” was already clicked. The enveloped was already dropped in the blue mailbox at the post office. In those situations, hindsight really stinks!

I suppose this is why God would encourage us to think before we act (Proverbs 4:23-27). It’s altogether too easy to be thoughtless given how we live our lives. Thinking takes time, and time is a precious commodity lost in the commotion of everything that bides for it. But we are doing ourselves any favors by not taking the time to think through things before we act. We are setting ourselves up for embarrassment and regret. Maybe through contemplative forethought, we won’t have to live with the grief that shadows thoughtless actions!

It’s time to move forward. As God told Moses and the Israelites at Horeb, “You have stayed at this mountain long enough. Resume your journey…” (Deuteronomy 1:6-7, HCSB), so also is it time to move on and away from what’s gone on here for the last several days.

This morning I was reading through Acts 6 and I was struck by the life of Stephen. He was one of the “seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom” selected to tend to the Grecian widows who’d been neglected in the daily distribution. He was also described as “full of faith” (v. 5). Still later, we read of Stephen as “full of grace and power…performing great wonders and signs among the people” (v. 8). He met formidable opposition from those of the Freedman’s Synagogue, but “they were not able to stand up against the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke” (v. 10). Ultimately, his history lesson of Israel’s rejections of God’s prophets over the years, which culminated in the rejection of the Messiah, got him killed. But what a compelling argument he was for the faith of Christ!

The guy chosen to “wait on tables” (v. 2) apparently had much more to offer. And he did. Inside of him was a heart for souls. His ministry was about meeting the needs of others. If by food distribution, so be it. He offered food that met physical needs, but he was also willing to serve food “that lasts for eternal life” (John 6:27).

Service, in whatever form, is mighty ministry. Jesus boldly proclaimed the “living word” with passion and urgency; yet, washing his disciples’s feet was no less ministry, and no less significant.

Like Jesus, Stephen wasn’t a one talent man. His selection for a specific work didn’t mean he wasn’t fit for anything else. In a sense, I think it helped groom him for more. Unfortunately, it seems to have been a life cut short, but like others who have gone on before, “though he is dead, he still speaks” (Hebrews 11:4).

In my last post, I wrote of the inherent risk involved in having an internet presence. If you read the ensuing comments of that post, there was good discussion that followed. One comment, in particular, as one poster put it, may very well have proved the point of the post.

There is another element to this discussion deserving of treatment. Often those who post the most critical of comments, for whatever reason, will do so anonymously.  It’s an approach that strikes me as interesting.  If one has something to say, but is concerned about revealing his/her identity, maybe its better left unsaid? I know, there may be a legitimate reason to post something anonymously, but “hit and run” hecklers “in the name of Jesus” use the technique quite often. Personally, I think it reflects poorly on the one who uses it.

But there’s even a more sinister technique used by hecklers “in the name of Jesus.” Some, with a penchant for deception and lying, post comments under pseudonyms. Just supply the field with a false name and a phony email address and post away. What might that say about a person?

This happens more often than you’d imagine. I think it’s happened here very recently. That I’ve enquired of a person’s identity and the invalidity of the email address that was supplied with his comment, but have gotten no response as yet, is telling. You see, this is not the first time that I’ve gotten a comment from this person, but it is the first one that I’ve allowed through. Wordpress.org supplies the IP address with the comment that is posted. IP addresses are specific to a person’s computer/network. A simple search allowed me to discover from what city the post/posts originated. This coupled with the fact that I know of no one by the poster’s name and the email address supplied isn’t a valid email address, has forced me to believe that the poster was using a pseudonym. Too, for another reason, I have a sneaking suspicion that I know who the poster is. The question is…will the person own up to it? I doubt it. Pride keeps us from doing a lot of things we know we should.

There is a possibility that I might be wrong, but I don’t think so. If I am, I will own up to it. What I am certain of, though, is that this kind of thing goes on regularly. I know of others who have experienced similar situations. How honorable is it to use deception as a cloak for cowardice?

Having a personal website, a blog , or even a Facebook page comes with a price. A person is putting himself or herself out there for the world to see, and often those who stop by have an agenda. Thankfully, blog softwares generally all have comment moderating capabilities. Sites like Facebook have the means of blocking users from personal profiles. This is good but it’s also unfortunate.

I love reading blogs, especially the ones by those who are dealing with substantive life issues. They are providing us a service, opening our eyes to the dark realities of ministry work. I read blogs to understand people, not to get what I believe. I definitely don’t read blogs so that I can dig up dirt on other people. But some do.

I know this because some are proud enough to admit it. I know this because word gets around quickly. I know this because people like to chase rabbits. Don’t join the wrong Facebook group or befriend the wrong person; we all know what that means!

The sad reality is that good people are leaving local ministry because of the beatings they take. Good writers are shutting down blogs because they are sick of hecklers “in the name of Jesus.” They are sick of having to apologize to friends and family for hecklers “in the name of Jesus.” It’s unfortunate, but its reality. What a shame!

It seems to me that the infant, first century church learned a lot about itself through its experiences, both good and bad. Most obvious is the bad; namely, that racial tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians developed (Acts 10-15; Romans 1-2; 14-15). The most astounding of the good developed prior to the ensuing racial tensions.

Take, for instance, the manifestation of agape one for another in Acts 2-4. In fact, the essence of the good is expressly summarized by Luke himself,

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Acts 4:32-35, ESV.

What was responsible for sacrifice of that magnitude? The answer lies in the “great grace” that “was upon them all.” Kindness manifested through benevolent action was the embodiment of God’s grace in action (2 Corinthians 8:1ff).

The grace we receive from God becomes a catalyst for us to offer the same (1 Peter 2:1-3). Our growth in grace (2 Peter 3:18) is manifested through the actions of the Christian graces (2 Peter 1:5ff). As recipients of God’s grace, we become the bestowers thereof.

Can it be said that “great grace” is upon us?

It becomes painstakingly obvious, both through perception of others and personal experience, that relationships can be messy. Marriage. Parental. Friendships. Church. You name it. Humans make relationships messy.

2 Corinthians 12:11-21 is a passage I find terribly saddening. That Paul felt compelled to bring the epistle to a close with such words is so unfortunate. Once again, it’s proof that relationships can be incredibly messy.

I can think of only one relationship that is devoid of such dysfunction: Father, Son and Spirit. And yet Christ prayed as if it were possible for his followers to actually function in divine harmony,

I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe on me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them as you loved me. John 17:20-23.

The trinity sets the precedent for relational harmony. This is why living by the Spirit and walking by the Spirit (Galatians 5:25) is requisite. Our relationship with the divine paves the way for harmonious accord in the body (Romans 8:5-11; Romans 12:4-8). Where the divine is absent in human relationships, so is the potential for perfect oneness one with another.