This blog thread is designed for feedback and discussion related to the presentation “Congregational Rebirth” presented by Dr. Nieporte during the 2009 Central Virginia Baptist Ministries “Leadership Development Conference.”
To request a copy of the PowerPoint presentation, please send an email to
pastor@pattersonavenuebaptist.com?subject=PowerPoint
Mark 9:30-37
Let’s be honest. Sometimes Jesus says things that we really don’t like.
It happens in today’s scripture reading – right there in verse thirty-five. “If anyone wants to be first, they need to move to the back of the line!”
We don’t like that.
Those who are last are called losers in our society – in virtually any society.
Those who are last are seldom heard. When they do get a hearing, their views are typically put-down and disrespected. They are poked fun at and teased – not in some fun-loving, good-natured way – but manners that are cruel and lacking in any sense of mercy
So, when Jesus says, “If anyone wants to be first, they need to move to the back of the line!” we don’t like it for several reasons!
First, our society teaches us just the opposite. Nobody says to the Washington Redskins, “Your ambition for this season is to lose all of your games.” Oh, it might happen, but that’s not what the team aims for. In sports, at work, at school, in life – we are taught to be number one and to look out for the interests of number one.
Second, if Jesus is serious, it means that we have to change our opinion of those at the back of the line. We have to change our opinion of those who are poor, weak, strange, and odd. We’ve got to realize that these are kinds of people – these people that we don’t think so much of – these are the very people whom Jesus lifts up as significant.
We don’t like that too much.
Thirds, we don’t like what Jesus has to say, because it means that if we are truly going to be about the business of the Kingdom, we are going to have to put ourselves up and move to the back of the line.
That means we have to give up any pretense towards greatness.
That means we are going to have to give up on the notion of always getting our way.
That means that we are going to have to give up our possessions.
That means we are going to have to own up to our vices and dishonesty.
That means that we have to give up our stubborn pride.
That means we are going to have to befriend people we’d normally avoid.
That means we’ll stop shrinking away from suffering and injustice.
That means we won’t be afraid to go into dangerous and dark places.
That means we will need to stop our obsessions with what is trivial.
That means we will need to get over ourselves.
That means we will have to die to self.
Let’s face it; we don’t like this kind of talk.
Here’s the thing. Jesus’ statement is clear and unequivocal. There is no sense of nuance or any hint of fine distinction. Jesus says what he means in no uncertain terms.
“If anyone wants to be first, they need to move to the back of the line!”
The disciples didn’t like it much. In fact, there is a long stretch of scripture here in the middle section of Marks’ Gospel that the disciples didn’t like very much at all. It’s all this talk about Jesus being betrayed, arrested, beaten, abused, and murdered that really got to them.
They had this idea that being Messiah meant you were the big cheese, the top dog, large and in charge. In fact, this is what seemed to prompt their traveling.
As you listened to the Gospel lesson from Mark, I imagine that you might have developed an immediate sense of what I might preach. It is a familiar text and I know that when I first read it in preparation for this sermon, I had an immediate sense of the direction in which I would be preaching – probably the same direction that you would from today’s scripture.
Jesus and his disciples are walking from village to village, making their way toward Jerusalem and toward the cross. Jesus has previously told them as much.
In Mark 8, Jesus says, “The Son of Man is going to suffer and bleed and die – and on the third day rise again.”
Today he says, “In today’s lesson he says pretty much the same thing: “The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again.”
Mark reports to us that the disciples did not understand what Jesus was saying. I am sure that’s true, but I have a sneaking suspicion that they did not want to understand. They were looking for Jesus to ride into Jerusalem, drive out their Roman oppressors, and establish himself as King. That was the common assumption the culture carried as to what the “Messiah” would look like.
So, they didn’t understand – - they didn’t comprehend – they couldn’t really accept the notion that the Messiah would be betrayed, killed, and then rise from the dead. It did not fit into their template.
“I’m going to be betrayed and murdered and then raised from the dead!”
“Huh? We don’t get it!” they thought to themselves, and then they started arguing about who would be the greatest, the most important, the most influential among them when they arrived in Jerusalem and Jesus set up his Kingdom.
They traveled down the road a bit till they arrived at Capernaum. They probably stopped at Peter’s home for a day or two of rest. When they arrived, Jesus asked, “What were you fellows arguing about?”
They really didn’t want to tell him. They might not have understood – have comprehended – everything Jesus was saying, but they knew enough to know that Jesus didn’t like this kind of talk. Still, they couldn’t help themselves. There was something in them – something in us – that wants to be at the front of the line.
We hate it when somebody jumps a place in front of us, don’t we?
Somebody jumps in front of us in the lunch line.
Somebody pushes their way in front of us in the checkout line.
Somebody swerves in traffic to get the spot in front of us at the traffic light.
We hate it. It bugs us all day. That was our rightful place. We belong at the front of the line. We feel like we’ve earned it. We’ve put in our time. We’ve worked hard. We’ve paid our dues. Now it’s our turn to shine. That’s our spot up there.
That’s what Peter thought! “Jesus calls me ‘The Rock.’” Peter said. “ He knows I am loyal and faithful and that he can trust be to be right at his side to the very end. I am the greatest!”
That’s what James and John thought. “When Jesus comes into in glory, he’s going to two strong personal body guards. We’ve been with him from the start and we will be with him to the end, one on his right hand and the other on his left. We are the greatest.”
That’s what Judas thought. “Jesus is going to need a general for his army, and who better than a battle tested zealot like me. I am the greatest.”
That’s what Matthew though. “Setting up a new government is hard work. Jesus will need somebody who knows how to keep the books, collect taxes, and take care of administrative tasks like that. Jesus is going to need somebody like me! I am the greatest.”
Folks still act that way today. Folks want to move to the front of the line.
“A good education is the foundation prosperous society. That’s why educators are so very important,” say the teachers.
“We provide release and relaxation from stress and strain of life, that’s why we are so very important to the well-being of our society,” say the entertainers.
“Without us, you’d not have the freedom’s you enjoy. We are the brightest and the best,” say those who serve in military.
“When you are sick or injured, who provides treatment and healing? It is me, the doctor! Try to get along without folks in the medical profession for too long and you’ll see that we are the most important segment of society.”
“Everything else in society is meaningless without some sense of morality and an understanding of the deeper spiritual life. What everyone else does is important, but what we preachers talk about is ultimate meaning,” say the clergy.
Jesus replies, “Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.”
Yes, yes, we get that. Be a servant. Do some good deeds. When you find yourself at the front of the line, don’t forget where you came from. Do something nice for all those poor souls you’ve left behind, just not too much. Don’t do so much that you lose your position or privilege and prominence at the front of the line.
No, Jesus doesn’t let them (or us) slip by so easily. He illustrates exactly what he means with actions and words.
“And then Jesus took a little child and put it among them; and taking it in his arms, he said to them, ‘Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me, welcomes not me, but the one who sent me.”
I wish I could show you some pictures. There are dozens of pictures illustrating this scene. There is Jesus, every hair combed neatly in place, his beard trim and tidy. Then there are the children. He is surrounded by children. Fit young people who appear to be the perfect picture of good health and good hygiene. Jesus grabs one of these children up in his arms, hugs them, and places them in the center of the room. Then he says, “Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me, welcomes not me, but the one who sent me.”
I wish I could show you these pictures because I don’t think they really represent how the scene played out.
Have you seen those pictures that come to us from time to time in mission magazines or news broadcast from remote sections of the world where are unkempt and unclean? Have you seen those pictures of children who are hungry and malnourished, victims of poverty and injustice? I want you to put those children in your mental picture of what happened in the text because it is much more accurate and meaningful than the pretty pictures we so often see and paint in our minds.
In the days of Jesus, more than half of the children born never lived to become adults. Many were killed at birth (particularly girl children). Others were simply put out in the field to starve to death. In times of shortages of food, children were fed last.
It was not a good time to be a child. They were viewed as chattel – as unproductive, burdensome, and simply another mouth to be fed. Among the religious elite of the day, they ranked right below tax-collectors. That’s a pretty a pretty low ranking in any society.
It’s a child who looks like this that Jesus swoops up in his arms. It is a child that poor, hungry, starving, needy, abuse, misused, forgotten and considered of little or no value. That’s who Jesus sets in the center of the room where the disciples sit after arguing about “who’s the greatest” and “who’s the most important.” Then Jesus looks at the disciples and says:
“Whoever receive a little child like this, receives me and the one who sent me.”
I heard a fellow speak recently about reading the Bible. This young man is a fairly new convert to Christianity. He said, “The more I read the Bible the more I feel I have to unlearn everything I’d previously learned.”
Would that those of us who have been around Christianity for a while to read the Bible that way. We’ve domesticated the Bible. We’ve smooth out the rough edges. We read it in such a way that it confirms what we already know, believe, and do. We read it in such a way as to allow it to politely inform and educate and education. I don’t think that’s why God gave us the Bible. The Bible is there to help us unlearn everything the world teaches us about what valuable and important. The Bible is a radical book that challenges our assumptions and seeks to lead us toward total life transformation.
We see that in this story. When Jesus lifts up the child and places it in the center of the room, he is calling his disciples to a radical new vision of what the Kingdom of God is all about.
The disciples were busy arguing over who would be the greatest! Who has time for such bickering in God’s Kingdom? There are people to be loved, a gospel to be preached, and ministry to be done. There are hungry folks to be fed, orphans to be cared for, homeless to be sheltered, elderly to be visited, and poor folks who need justice and a job. Who has time to argue over whose more important in a world such as ours?
We are drawn to the argument because it allows us to escape responsibility and avoid action. Jesus wants his disciples to have nothing to do with such foolishness.
Jesus embraced a small child and said, “Whoever receives on such child receives me and the one who sent me.” Most people would overlook a child, but not Jesus. If we want to receive the kingdom, we must receive the King. If you want to receive the Kingdom, you must embrace the poor and needy and neglected and forgotten. That’s where you’ll find Jesus. That’s where you’ll see the image of God in this world.
“Whoever receives one of these little ones receives me and the one who sent me.”
I don’t know about you, but when I read this story, it brings to minds some things I need to unlearn. It teaches me that the greatest act of worship comes when we reach out to the down and out. It teaches me that Christian piety is best expressed when we love and accept others, regardless of race, or class, or religion, or economics, or culture. It teaches me that welcoming God into our midst means welcoming those who are a bit odd and a little strange because that’s how Jesus did things – and we are his followers.
Jesus said, ‘Whoever welcomes the little ones in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me, welcomes not me, but the one who sent me.”
Am I a liberal?
I’ve been called a liberal by many people – family, colleagues, critics, and detractors.
Am I a liberal?
For this posting, I want to avoid addressing this topic from a “political” perspective – i.e. am I a democrat, who did I voted for in the last election, what is my opinion on health care reform, etc.
Instead, I want to talk in terms of my theology. After all, I am a pastor – so the classification of my theological viewpoints seems to be of interest to many people, including myself.
Am I a liberal?
I’ve been called a liberal by many people – family, colleagues, critics, and detractors. The most recent accusation came from a fellow pastor.
The discussion started with a disagreement about the “Rapture” – the belief of many Christians that at some point in the future, God is going to mysteriously snatch all believers off the planet. Following that, all *heck* is literally going to break out for about seven years until the second coming of Jesus.
Now understand that this particular theological framework is not clearly defined or described in the scripture and was not even a part of Christian theology until the concept was invented by a fellow named by John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren in 1827. Darby came up with the notion that there will not be one, but two “second comings” of Jesus.
(For a brief article outlining Darbey’s notions of this subject, visit http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/cathouse/darby.htm)
Personally, I am unconvinced that the scripture teaches anything close to Darby’s doctrine of the “rapture.” I grew up hearing it preached allmost every Sunday. Then there would be the series of sermons on “end times.” Then there were the books by guys like Hal Lindsey. There were and remain those who imply or outright predict when this event is going to happen.
Could I be wrong? Sure! But I don’t think I am! The more I have studied the scripture, however, the l more I have become convinced that is it the creation of people, superimposed on the scripture.
Okay, so we might have to agree to disagree on this subject, right? Not for this fellow. The accusations came fast and furious. My belief in the authority of scripture was challenged. What I found particularly interesting is that the seminary this fellow thought I attended became a focal point.
It seems that this fellow had recently contacted the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond to request a doctrinal statement. I found this odd, since this seminary has a reputation with “fundamentalists” like this man as a extremely liberal seminary. So I wondered why he had contacted them requesting such a statement. Was he thinking about taking classes? Was he considering hiring a student to become and Associate Pastor on the staff of his church? I’ve asked, but have no answer. I know that the seminary gets these requests from people all the time who are simply looking for fodder for the next week’s sermon describing what they are opposed to this week. I hope I am wrong!
Now, I have never taken a class at BTSR, but I know many of the faculty as well as President Ron Crawford, who has preached in my church. I also attend a lectionary Bible study each week with several other pastors, led by Dr. Mark Biddle (Old Testament Professor) and Dr. Scott Spencer (New Testament Professor). So, while I have no direct knowledge of what is taught in the class, I have seen these two professors interact with the scripture. I have also heard many of the faculty preach in my church and the community. Additionally, I supervise two Student Interns on staff at Patterson Avenue Baptist. So that allows me to see and hear firsthand the impact of what is being taught to these students.
These interns have brought a great deal of passion and excitement for the Kingdom of God into my church – and the result has been growth (both numeric and spiritual) in the church.
Does the seminary have a doctrinal statement? No! As an institution it has a declared purpose statement:
“Baptist freedom is a hallmark of BTSR: freedom to question, freedom to discover, freedom to learn, and freedom to serve in Jesus’ name.”
Now I will admit, freedom is dangerous. That said I like that kind of talk about freedom because I trust the Holy Spirit. This freedom is a gift of the Gospel (see Galatians 5) and I am pleased that this school allows for the freedom in inquiry. This is obviously a sore spot for my preacher friend. He’s from Liberty Baptist in Lynchburg, Virginia. That school and BTSR have a difference in educational philosophy. Liberty attempts to indoctrinate students to affirm a certain set of propositional statements they have predetermined to be true. BTSR attempts to educate students to develop their own personalize understanding of the Christian faith. You might not like that difference in philosophy, but I think it goes way too far to label it as liberal.
Typically, fundamentalist SAY that there are certain basic doctrines (propositional statements) that must be affirmed as truth, otherwise you are a liberal or worse (non-believer, heretic, page, whatever). Among these truths are things like the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the virgin birth, the authority of scripture.
Here’s the kicker: I believe all of these things.
I believe that Jesus Christ was crucified and raised from the dead on the third day.
I believe that Jesus was conceived in Mary (a virgin) by the Holy Spirit. (I once heard a feminist theologian affirm the virgin birth, saying, “It’s great to know that God can do something in this world that does not involve a man.”)
I accept the Bible as authoritative for faith and practice. I try not to use hard to define concepts like “inerrancy” to describe the Bible. In my opinion, this has only served to muddy the waters and divide people who might otherwise share common beliefs and convictions on 98% of Christian doctrine.
Fundamentalist say that we can have differences on other matters, but things like the resurrection, virgin birth, and the authority of scripture are “essentials.” Yet despite the fact that I affirm these essentials, I am still viewed as a “liberal.”
I have been accused of liberalism for the following issues:
Not using the King James Version of the Bible
Affirming the Role of women as leaders in all aspect of church ministry
Being married to a woman who has filled the pulpit as a preacher
Following the Revised Common Lectionary when preaching.
Going dancing with my friends when I was younger and my body could still move
Allows a “Senior Adult” dance to take place in my church
Allowing my kids to watch “Barney” when they were younger
Using birth control early in our marriage when we were not ready for children
Having some progressive political views (which I think are biblical)
Being associated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
Serving on the Virginia Baptist Mission Board
Reading some books – that’s right – reading has caused me to be labeled a liberal
Being ecumenically minded and willing to partner with other Christian faith traditions
Not taking a “hard line” against drinking alcohol
Not supporting a “community tent revival/crusade” in my last place of ministry
Attending “The Sothern Baptist Theological Seminary” before the fundamentalist takeover of that school and the rise of the current president.
Attending a “Methodist” seminary to do my doctoral work
Having friends who “really are” theological liberals who don’t believe in things like the virgin birth” or the “bodily resurrection of Jesus.”
Really, I could go on and on!
One of the funniest (but sad) attacks was that liberal churches (like mine is accused of being for having women deacons, interns from BTSR, and a guy like me as pastor) are NOT growing BECAUSE WE HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER.
Tell that to the 25 or so who have joined already this year (a number that equals about 25% of average worship attendance of a year ago).
Tell that to the Sunday School ministry in my church that has nearly doubled in the last 12 months.
Tell that to the youth ministry in my church that has doubled over the last three months (thanks to one of those BTSR interns).
Not bad for a church some would call liberal.
What made the accusation funny/sad was that I had just read “On Mission Magazine” (a publication of the Southern Baptist Convention). The article points out that the SBC is in a several year steep decline in membership, new converts, and new church starts. This does not bode well for the “fundamentalistic SBC.” If the claim is that liberal churches are not growing because of their theology, I would propose that the same is true for the fundamentalist theology which dominates the SBC. The SBC is declining because of “fundamentalism.”
Here’s the real core for me. Any attempt to retain the essence of Christianity must be Christological in nature. In other words, what ties us together and is essential is a belief that in some way, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has taken care of the sin issue for us.
The difference between Fundamentalism and mainline Christianity (with all respect, I do believe that Fundamentalism is WAY out of step with Christian orthodoxy) is that Fundamentalism believes there to be additional core issues.
I agree that the finished work of Christ is a core matter and foundational issue to our faith. However, once we move beyond that shared truth, there are differences over many issues but none of them are central to the meaning of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Recently I communicated with another friend who has also been accused of being a liberal on many occasions. Never mind the fact that he is an inerrantist. Never mind the fact that he holds to a Reformed (almost Calvinistic) theology. The bottom line is that his attitude of grace and generousity towards those who believe differently than he has still earned him the label “liberal” but many fundamentalists. My friend wrote,
“Bill, I believe that an authentic expression of grace in our lives will cause us to recognize that none of us have a perfectly clear understanding of those peripheral issues and therefore will cause us to treat each other with loving respect and not vilify each other for having differing opinions. One of the greatest troubling aspects of Fundamentalists are their absolute certainty over their position on matters that well respected, scholarly, Christ-honoring believers have differed for over two millennia. Humility will cause a person to hold some viewpoints with recognition that our understanding isn’t infallible. For most fundamentalist that I have encountered, however, a liberal is anyone perceived left on them on any subject.”
So am I a liberal? Evidently yes, because I am to the left of most (probably all) fundamentalists on some issue – which I illustrated earlier with the list of things that have put me “outside” the faith and labeled me as a “liberal” in the eyes of some.
In a prior community were I served, a new pastor moved to town. I stopped by to welcome him to the area. I knew that we had some theological differences. His father, in fact, was a member of my chuch and a dear friend. Despite our differences, however, I still held out hope that our common faith in Jesus to be a unifying factor that could overcome a few differences of conviction. In the discussion, you volunteered this statement: “If you don’t believe in the virgin birth that would be a cause to break fellowship.”
That struck me as odd on several accounts.
First, breaking fellowship with a fellow Christian does not honor Christ but rather rejects the unity that the scriptures declare IS OURS (we don’t built it – it is our by the work of the Spirit).
Second, if you disagree, why break fellowship? It would seem better to build friendship and trust the Holy Spirit to use to bring correction.
Third, it seemed to proceed from the assumption that since we had some differences in theology (for example, the ordination of women), that somehow I was theologically suspect and somehow mere steps away from being cut off.
Fourth, and finally, it was just plain rude to bring that up when I had just stopped to say hello and welcome the man to the community.
That man is one of the people who have implied that I am a liberal in recent weeks. Despite the fact that on the essentials we agree, my associations with BTSR, my beliefs about what I believe to be the made up doctrine of the *rapture,” and something like the fact that my church ordains women as deacons and pastors, caused a wedge and labeled me “liberal.”
Somebody I once heard said that liberalism has lost its authority in our culture and fundamentalism (legalism) has lost its relevance, so that neither really has anything to offer anymore. IN many respects, I think that’s true.
Am I a liberal?
Hey, I’ve been called one on many occasions. Depending on whose dictionary is being used, I suppose I am. When I look at people like Walter Rauschenbusch, Harry Emerson Fosdick, and others who have bore that label, okay! I’ll accept it.
The problem, for me, it one of attitude. The fundamentalist that I have know have almost always gone beyond the so-called “essentials” and labeled me and people like me as “liberal” because I am to the left of them on some issue. They reflect a sort of legalism that would made a Pharisee proud.
Many modern day liberals can be just as dogmatic. As such, the difference between modern day liberalism and the heresy called fundamentalism is like the differences between cow manure and horse manure. They both have one thing in common.
If I have to pick a crowd to hang out with, it will be the folks in my church. They seem to be finding a way out of the legalism of either the liberals or fundamentalists. Instead, they are allowing the Spirit of God to build them into a community of grace, love, peace, and acceptance. That’s why this church is growing and the Kingdom is being advanced.
