Jesus Heals What His Followers Break

Mike Leake

1024px-The_capture_of_Christ_mg_1674Malchus, running his finger through his hair, makes contact with his ear.

His ear.

It shouldn’t be there. Just a few weeks ago it was lopped off by one of those Jesus’ followers. Peter was his name. This revolutionary saw the hoard and believed it was time to fight. Malchus, commissioned by the high priest, was doing his job. He was loyal to the institution. Peter believed that Jesus was building a different kingdom—one which stood against both Rome and the present temple leaders. For Peter it was time to fight.

Malchus bore the pain of Peter’s misapplied conclusions about the Messiah. He’d only been a few steps behind Judas, the betrayer, when he heard the question. “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” Suddenly, Malchus felt a sharp pain while all the voices around him became faint and distant. Pain and confusion marked those moments as this Jesus-follower had struck him with a sword.

It’s what happened next that had Malchus remembering that day whenever he’d touched his ear. Jesus, the one who was supposed to be guilty of overthrowing Rome and the temple, picked up the bloody ear of this lowly servant and restored it. He restored what his disciple had wrecked.

Thankfully, Jesus is still in the business of doing this. How many believers and unbelievers have endured harm at the hands of an aggressive and misinformed disciple of Jesus? How many have endured harm from those who are bearing the name of Jesus but wielding swords of their own fury and personal brokenness? It’s incredibly good news for those of us who have bloodied ears. Jesus even fixes what his disciples break.

But we’re also Peter in this story. We know that Jesus is gentle and lowly. We know that when a hoard of evil-doers comes after His kingdom that he’s likely to turn the other cheek instead of ball up his fist. And so we fain asking for permission while we swing our swords. After all, the kingdom must be protected. When the gentle and lowly Jesus is attacked we assume it He who is vulnerable and not our own conceptions of Him, so we go into attack mode. We think we’re defending Jesus but really we’re defending our own insecurities.

It’s telling that only a few hours after this attack will Peter actually deny the very One he claimed to be protecting. It’s always easier to fight for Jesus than it is to follow Him to Golgotha. When Peter himself was exposed and endangered at the hands of a mere servant girl he couldn’t bear his position. So he denied Christ.

When roosters crow, Peter remembers pain and grace. Pain from his own foolish disobedience. Pain from his pride. Pain from his own betrayal. But grace from the one who touched Peter at the very core of his being and restored him. Grace to call such a betrayer to further kingdom by stooping and feeding lowly sheep and not lopping off ear lobes.

When he touches his intact ear lobe, Malchus remembers pain and grace. Pain from the hands of a Jesus-follower. Yes, even pain from being on the side of Judas. Pain from one bearing a sword in the name of the crucified. But grace from the One who heals even those on the betrayer’s side.

We’re probably all a mixture of Peter and Malchus. At times we’re the ones doling out the pain—at other times we’re the ones receiving. At times both are present even in the same action. But one thing in common, we need and receive Jesus and his healing.

Jesus heals what his followers break, even if it’s their own hearts.

Here’s my ear, Lord.

Here’s my sword.

Will We Turn Off the Lights Or Hire An Exterminator?

Mike Leake

london-sewer-rat-1024x683

“A scoffer does not like to be reproved; he will not go to the wise.” –Proverbs 15:12

This verse jumped out at me this morning. As I found myself interacting with the text I pictured the necessity of being an open book for people. Of willingly allowing myself and my ideas to be put under a microscope. I thought of C.S. Lewis’ scurrying rats:

On the other hand, surely what a man does when he is taken off his guard is the best evidence for what sort of a man he is? Surely what pops out before the man has time to put on a disguise is the truth? If there are rats in the cellar you are most likely to see them if you go in very suddenly. But the suddenness does not create the rats: it only prevents them from hiding. In the same way the suddenness of the provocation does not make me an ill-tempered man; it only shows me what an ill-tempered man I am. The rats are always there in the cellar, but if you go in shouting and noisily they will have taken cover before you switch on the light.” (Lewis, 164-65)

Lewis’ point is certainly fitting. When we are surprised by the light which comes into our lives we are often taken aback by what is exposed. Certainly, we must be people of integrity who are the same in the light as we are in the dark. But as I kept meditating on this text I realized that it’s saying something quite different.

This Proverb isn’t only encouraging us to be people of integrity so that if somebody were to rummage through our lives with a flashlight we’d embarrassed by their findings. Actually this verse is encouraging us to hire the flashlight brigade. Notice the movement of the text. A scoffer refuses to go to the wise. It says nothing about his integrity if exposed. It tells us that a person of wisdom will actually pursue those who would reprove us.

Then I started thinking about the SBC and our seeming unwillingness to pursue an independent counsel to look into our handling of sexual abuse cases. It’s not only that we’re afraid of the scurrying rats if the light was thrown on. It’s that we’re evidencing our standing as a “scoffer” by not willingly and vigorously pursuing those who might reprove our handling of sexual abuse victims within our denomination. The way of wisdom would call us to actually invite such exposure.

I found these words from Diane Langberg to be quite insightful and powerful:

We also dread the harm of exposure. What will happen if this truth is known? It will ruin the reputation of the group. Or worse, it will damage the name of Christ. ‘This is his work; we cannot ruin it.’ We believe institutions such as church and family are God ordained and therefore must be protected at all costs. So we cover and deny. (Langberg, 81)

So in our desire to protect our institution (to protect the name of Christ) we take the path of the scoffer. In the name of Jesus we block out the light and steel ourselves against the potential of reproof. The results are that we become hardened against the vulnerable and angry against those who would encourage us to walk in the truth. Langberg continues:

We would rather believe a reassuring lie than an utterly inconvenient and disturbing truth. We protect the system by shielding the accused. We say we do not want to falsely accuse. But we are not as adamant about the failure to protect victims. Vulnerable humans need protection in every human system. There is no system so godly that this is not true. Vulnerable ones need a voice, yet they’re easily discounted by virtue of their vulnerability. We give credibility to those who are not afraid, have confidence, and seem important to sustaining the system. We give more credibility to power. (Langberg, 81)

It would do us well, as institutions and individuals, to consider what areas of our lives and our systems that we’re not willing to run towards the microscope. If we’ll listen to our anger it can help us. Often it is those truth-tellers which stir us up to anger that will give us the key to understanding our blind spots.

The wise will pursue reproof. Scoffers will hide. Which are we? Will we turn off the lights and try to pretend the rats aren’t there? Or will we hire exterminators to not only shine a light but actually help us fix the issue? I fear that if we turn off the light of truth over our denomination, many of our churches within will be turning off their own lights.

Why You Don’t Want Your Own Personal Jesus

Mike Leake

artworks-000309561942-mlfbtm-t500x500

Reach out and touch faith
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who cares
Your own personal Jesus

-Depeche Mode, Personal Jesus

Personal Jesus is a song originally recorded by Depeche Mode in 1989. But it hit a new audience in 2002 when Johnny Cash covered the song. Cash said, “I heard that as a gospel song,” he later stated. “I don’t know that the writer ever meant it to be that, but that’s what it is.” It was covered in 2004 by Marilyn Manson for it’s “sex appeal” and “hypnotic feel”.

The song, though, was more inspired by Elvis than it was Jesus. Martin Gore, the lead singer of Depeche Mode, explained that he was inspired by the love between Elvis and Priscilla Presley.

It’s a song about being a Jesus for somebody else, someone to give you hope and care. It’s about how Elvis Presley was her man and her mentor and how often that happens in love relationships…(Source)

Gore’s point is that we can dangerously make another person a savior in our life, we can make them something they are not, we mold people into who we want them to be. Which I find a tad ironic that both Cash and Manson made the song “theirs”. I suppose that’s part of artistic freedom, but what happens when we do this with Jesus.

Personal Jesus has an actual meaning given to us from it’s actual author. It’s not subjective. It carries with it the meaning the author intended. There is a danger for us in doing the same thing with the gospel—or better, with the person of Jesus.

Consider these words of 1 John.

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our[a] joy may be complete.

John wrote these words to a church which had been brought to turmoil by a group of false teachers. These teachers held that Jesus only appeared to be human, he was God—but he wasn’t really a human. They taught a sharp distinction between the spirit and the flesh. Their Jesus was disembodied.

A disembodied Jesus becomes your own personal Jesus. Some may like this. After all, this means you can wrap Jesus up, take him anywhere, make him whomever you desire him to be for whatever situation. Jesus becomes yours.

The Good News of An Embodied Jesus

But this is not the Jesus of the gospel. The Jesus which is good news for us is an embodied Jesus. He is. This is John’s point in the first four verses of 1 John. If they will have fellowship with the apostles—and ultimately fellowship with the Father—it will only come through the embodied Jesus. This is the Jesus who was heard, seen, touched; real.

This is actually phenomenally good news for us. If Jesus were a disembodied idea—a thing of our own personal creations—then his very being would be dependent upon us. This would mean that his ability to redeem would be contingent upon our ability to make him a redeemer. His power would be dependent upon our view of Him as powerful. Such a Jesus could only respond when we “get him correct”.

But an embodied Jesus, a real living and self-existing Jesus, is able to redeem even when we understand him wrongly. His redemption isn’t dependent upon us. This is why we can read Scriptures like “if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself.”

Conclusion

You don’t want your own personal Jesus, you want Jesus. Jesus as he really is. It is not “right ideas” which gives us fellowship with the Father. It’s not “disembodied” words of life which bridge the gap between the Father and us. It’s the real embodied Word of life in the Person of Jesus Christ. It is through union with Christ, the living embodied touch with your hands Jesus, that we have access to the Father. And this is wonderful news.

John Newton and “Christian” Slave-Traders

Mike Leake

imagesYesterday, we looked at the slow-movement of John Newton from slave-trader to anti-slavery to abolitionist. It would certainly make me more comfortable to believe that once Newton became a believer that he immediately moved towards a position of abominating a practice so obviously erroneous as man-stealing. But he didn’t.

I would also note that I’m not incredibly comfortable with how long it has taken me to reject certain falsehoods or to embrace particular glories. Sanctification seems to always be a bit slower than we would prefer. But this slowness (or even at times absence) of sanctification in some areas causes us no little consternation when assessing our heroes (or villains) of the past.

Could a Christian be a slave-trader or a slave-holder?

That is a pressing question in our day as we look back upon the racism of our not so distant past. It has implications for our handling of monuments, naming of buildings, and a host of other issues. Today I want to engage this question through the lens of John Newton. How would he answer this question?

You will note that this question is not whether or not slave-trading (or holding) is consistent with Christian redemption? This question is really asking whether or not one professing belief in Jesus can hold a theological position or engage in activity which is inconsistent with Christian redemption.

I should also say from the very beginning that I doubt Newton would even answer a question framed this way. He’d likely say, “Let’s let the Lord decide”. He would probably prefer a question like, “What do we say of a person professing Jesus but living or believing in a way contrary to the faith?”

The Role of the Conscience

To such a question I believe that Newton would ask, “does he know that it’s wrong?” The conscience played a mighty role in the way Newton thought about the Christian life and making decisions. He believed that “Christ alone is the Lord of the conscience” (Vol. 6, 229) and that Christianity erred greatly when “by a fierce and rancorous superstition” the Church began to tyrannize “over the conscience, liberties, and the lives of men.” As Newton would write to a friend: 

The experience of past years has taught me to distinguish between ignorance and disobedience. The Lord is gracious to the weakness of his people; many involuntary mistakes will not interrupt their communion with him; he pities their infirmity, and teaches them to do better. But if they dispute his known will, and act against the dictates of conscience, they will surely suffer for it. This will weaken their hands, and bring distress into their hearts. Wilful sin sadly perplexes and retards our progress. May the Lord keep us from it! It raises a dark cloud, and hides the Sun of Righteousness from our view; and till he is pleased freely to shine forth again, we can do nothing; and for this perhaps he will make us wait, and cry out often, “How long, O Lord! how long?” (Vol. 1, p. 316).

There is a difference between disputing the Lord’s known will and between ignorantly living in sin. Even though I believe his assessment was not wholly accurate this is why he was able to say in 1794 that the slave-trade was not a national sin. He believed they were living in ignorance. But by 1797 he was convinced that they were willfully going against their conscience. 

Back to our question of slave-trading or slave-holding. This is why I believe Newton’s first question would be, “does he know that it’s wrong”? What foundation is this person reasoning from?

It is different for a person to say, “I know that the Bible teaches that this is wrong but I’m going to do it anyway,” and saying, “I do not believe the Bible teaches this is wrong”. The action itself may still be sin but one man is going against the “light of his conscience” and the other is not. There is a bit of a difference in how you engage such a person as well as how you assess the situation.

For both people, Newton would proceed to share the truth as he understood it in Jesus. But would ultimately leave that person up to the Lord’s care. He was very careful not to force notions into people’s hearts because, “notions resting in the head will only feed the flesh” (From Manna Horded).

What if they never repent?

What happens, though, if you continue to share the truth of Jesus with someone and they never come around to your understanding of the Bible? Or worse, what if they continue in something such as an abominable slave-trade. Should we then label them as unbelievers?

Newton was very skeptical of drawing lines. He was far more comfortable leaving folks to the Lord to decide. But it is interesting how he was able to move from not calling it a national sin in 1794 to then saying “I fear this is a national sin” in 1797.

Newton had far more patience and grace than most people. It is shocking to me that even in 1794 he could still think that people were mostly motivated by ignorance. That was six years after his Thoughts on the Slave Trade and the repeated efforts of William Wilberforce. I believe Newton had many conversations and this topic was on the forefront of discussion for those many years. Eventually Newton was able to come to the conclusion that people understood they just did not care. Here his view of the role of conscience would also come into play.

Preachers were adamant about preaching to the conscience in this period. They believed that this was a means that God used to convert sinners. But they also believed that repeatedly going against your conscience would leave you in a dire state. This is why as he pleaded with his adopted daughter to come to Christ he would encourage her to “attend to his voice in your conscience”. (Vol. 6, 322) He knew that to go against this light would cause her heart to become seared. And it was this that he eventually believed was happening all across England. Because their sin was now willful he would begin calling people to repentance on this matter.

Conclusion:

Let’s circle back to around to our central question. Can one professing faith in Jesus hold a theological position or engage in activity which is inconsistent with Christian redemption? I believe Newton would say, “absolutely!” Christians often hold theological positions and engage in activity inconsistent with redemption.

But the answer takes a darker turn when we ask whether or not a Christian can knowingly and willfully hold positions and engage in activity they know are inconsistent with redemption. Newton would have far more concern with the latter over the former. And I believe we should as well.

I realize this does not specifically answer the question of what to do with someone like Jonathan Edwards or George Whitefield. But I believe it adds a layer to the questions that we need to ask when assessing. And that added layer, I believe, will help us to view our own position with a bit less certainty. And maybe this way of thinking can also help us give more grace to those who are engaging in present sin or error.

—

I would also suggest reading this piece by Marty Duren