Jun_19_05 Not For Love Nor Money (Rev 2_12-29)
Long Branch Baptist Church
Halfway, Virginia; est. 1786
Sunday, June 19th, 2005
Enter to Worship
| ! Prelude
| ! …………………………………………………………..………
| ! David Witt
|
| ! Invocation
| ! …………………………………………………………..………
| ! Michael Hollinger
|
| ! Opening Hymn*
| ! …………………………………………………………..………
| ! #48
|
| ! “Fairest Lord Jesus”
|
| ! Welcome and Announcements
|
| ! Morning Prayer
| ! ………………..………
| ! Mr. Hollinger
|
| ! Responsive Reading
| ! [See Right]
|
| ! Offertory Hymn*
| ! …………………………………………………………..………
| ! #198
|
| ! “Turn your eyes upon Jesus”
|
| ! Offertory
| ! …………………………………………………………..………
| ! Mr. Witt
|
| ! Doxology
|
| ! Scripture
| !
| ! Rev 2:12-29
|
| ! Sermon
| !
| ! Mr. Hollinger
|
| ! “Not for Love nor Money”
|
| ! Concluding Hymn
| ! #158
|
| ! “Nothing But the Blood of Jesus”
|
| ! Benediction*
|
| ! Congregational Response
| !
| !
|
| ! Postlude*
| ! …………………………………………………………..………
| ! Mr. Witt
|
- Congregation, please stand.
Depart To Serve
Responsive Reading
Hear the word of the Lord, O people of Israel;
for the Lord has an indictment against the inhabitants of the land.
There is no faithfulness or loyalty,
and no knowledge of God in the land.
Yet let no one contend, and let none accuse, for with you is my contention, O priest.
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;
because you have rejected knowledge,
I reject you from being a priest to me.
Therefore, I will now allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her.
From there I will give her her vineyards, and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. There she shall respond as in the days of her youth, as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.
On that day, says the Lord, you will call me, “My husband,” and no longer will you call me, “My Baal.”
For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be mentioned by name no more.
I will make for you a covenant on that day;
I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land; and I will make you lie down in safety. And I will take you for my wife forever;
I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord."
- Hosea 4:1,6, Hosea 2:13-20
Title: Not for Love nor Money
Text: Rev 2:12-29
FCF: Because our God is so much more loving than any other god, we must hold fast to him.
SO: Last week’s Free Church Sermon could easily have been seen as an invitation to more broadly define Christianity – so broadly as to include Muslims, etc… To the extent that he was saying that so that we could work together and accomplish good things, I’ll buy some of it – But the danger is that in being so “inclusive” we’ll end up mixing gods – and that’s pretty clear you don’t want to do that…
Text MP: Purity.
Hymns I want:
- Nothing But the Blood of Jesus (Invitation) ( 158)
Others:
- Are you Washed in the Blood
- Fairest Lord Jesus (48)
- Turn your eyes upon Jesus (198)
Last week, if you attended the Free Church Homecoming, you heard a beautiful sermon. It was well organized, powerfully delivered, and elegant in the way it both provoked thought and led to a warm conclusion. I had only one problem with it – it was a message that came straight from hell.
I don’t mean to say that the speaker was intentionally trying to mislead for nefarious intent; I have it on good authority that he is a strong Christian, and I believe firmly he was doing his best to present what he saw as “the spirit of the Bible.” I just think that the message he delivered showed the dangers of reading even large themes of the Bible in isolation, ignoring those that are unpopular. Basically, last week, Dr. Seltser’s the me was this – we as Christians need to stop drawing circles around what we call “Christianity.” And, in several senses he is right. We are not called to be God’s Gestapo, and attempting to become that is to be a Pharisee at best and Demon at worst. I think you can also read into his suggestion that as Christians we need to work together as much as we can – and possibly even go beyond the bounds of what we see as the Orthodox Church in order to accomplish certain tasks. I’d even argue that he is right that we are not responsible for determining the eternal state of anyone save ourselves.
But, the gist of his message was well explained when he stated, “We need to consider where we draw circles around our faith. Does it include Mormons & Unitarians? Muslims & Jews?” What he was advocating was nothing less than the idea that we should abandon all discernment when it comes to defining religion. Ecumenicalism should trump doctrine was the message I heard. Again – to be fair, he still argued that we could worship separately to suit our own preferences, but the danger I saw in his message was that most people would have heard this: Don’t worry about doctrine.
Well, I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to read the Old Testament for more than a few pages without running across things like “I the Lord your God am a jealous God. Have no other gods before me.” Just about every prophet will boil down to two themes: “(1) Stop messing with idols & Other Gods, and (2) do justice, because I am God unlike any other.” When Jeremiah laments, “Can a nation change its gods, but they are not gods at all!” you hear not some need to “protect the faith,” but a realization that our God is as good it gets.
Now, I’m sure some are saying, “Oh, but that’s the OT god. He’s bad and vengeful anyway. I’m a NT Christian. Well, aside from the fact that anyone who believes that is following in the footsteps of a heretic named Marcion, the truth of the matter is, this call to purity is a NT issue too.
You know that I’ve been talking about the messages to the churches in Rev, and last week I said my sermon was in preparation for this week. Well, the Spirit works in wonderful ways, because I think this text is exactly what we needed to hear in creative tension with last week’s sermon. It’s a call precisely to understand what purity is, and what our Jesus has called us to. The danger in both of these churches was this – people coming into the church and teaching false doctrine. In both cases, the answer is the same – Repent! Be exclusive! Hold fast and faithful to your true love.
Would you follow along with me?
<READ>
In Washington, it’s said that if you want to bring down a Republican, you need a sex scandal, and if you want to bring down a Democrat, you need a money scandal. Empirically, this has been borne out. I suspect the answer has to do with the fact that we expect Republicans to be rapacious – greedy but somehow tied into the Money system, and so money scandals are to be expected. But, when it comes to the moral issues of the day, we still cling to a naïve hope of purity.
In contrast, the truth of the matter is that most people do not view democrats as holding the moral high ground. When our illustrious former president was caught, quite literally, with his pants down, it didn’t shock us. Contrast that to the following year’s VA gubernatorial election his accuser’s lawyer – Gil Davis was caught on camera, drunk, making sexual comments to a woman who was not his wife. His wife – Pam Davis – was actually the woman who got me into politics when I was younger. We expect Democrats to be pure when it comes to standing up for the little guy – so a money scandal like Jim Wright brings him down. But Bill Clinton, well, unlike another CEO, nothing happens.
Purity in party politics is a selective thing. Thankfully, in the church we realize both are issues. Clergy sex abuse? That’s a scandal – and Catholic or Protestant it is rightly so. Jim Baker and a host of other shady televangelists growing rich from the Lord’s offering? That too brings them down. The world expects purity in the church both in sex and money. In fact, the world longs to see a church pure in all matters – a bride dressed in white, even if only to enjoy seeing her fall.
The obvious impurities of sex and money do not belong in the church, but I’d like to argue this morning that these are merely symptoms of a greater problem – an impurity of doctrine that brainwashes the church – entices it away from the God it loves.
And that is the point of this morning’s reading. In two different churches, an impurity has seized hold of two different churches, here in Pergamum and Thyatria, and this error must be corrected.
Now, of all the messages to the churches, I think these two are frankly the most difficult to understand. They are difficult to understand, because they require personal knowledge of personal people. But, once you know the stories involved, I think the problem becomes clear. In these two churches, there are three people who are mentioned: Balaam, Jezebel, and a sect called the Nicolaitans. Let me given you a brief introduction to them:
- Balaam, who, for money counseled the King of the Moabites to protect against the children of Israel, should get them to intermarry (Numbers 31) [EXPAND ON THIS STORY W/THE DONKEY, show the money]
- Jezebel, who, after being married to King Ahab, enticed Israel to follow Baal. [EXPAND ON THIS STORY WITH Elijah & the prophets of Baal]
- Nicolaitans, of whom we know nothing, except that they held a doctrine that nobody knows anything about any more. It is an interesting observation that there will always be “faddish” doctrines that will wither like grass. But, the word of Lord remains forever. In the meantime, these false doctrines may be hurtful to people and the church, but ultimately, this too shall pass.
I said this was a difficult passage precisely because it is so personal. In the context of the Old Testament, however, it becomes clear. Balaam – money, Jezebel – sex. Both are spoken of in terms of adultery, and adultery as a whole is a very common theme throughout the OT. But, understand this – while the physical, sexual act of adultery is a bad thing (and it is) the fact that it keeps being pointed out again and again in the Bible is not because of the fornication angle. Adultery may be sexual – but the real offense is the betrayal of a confidence.
I am proud to say that I have never gone after another woman – because I love my wife passionately. You know that I don’t even make jokes about her, because I know that to do anything that would attack my wife or betray her confidence would hurt her in the only way possible. I never want to do that. You’ll notice I didn’t say “I could never do that,” because I could. I’d be dead the next morning, but I could do it. (Susan’s not that vicious!) But to do so would be to betray myself – my relationship with her is that personal.
Adultery, by its very definition, has to be a personal thing. It is an affair of personages who come together in ways that are not appropriate. It is like mixing oil and water. When the captain of the Exxon Valdez was mixing driving and being the captain of his ship – bad things happened. The oil contaminated the entire Prince William Sound, precisely because the two things never were supposed to mix.
Adultery is also the favorite metaphor of the Old Testament to talk about that mixing of gods too. Theologians have a fancy term for it – “Syncretism.” You know what it means to synchronize your watch – you make your watch look more like some other watch – hopefully a good one – that says, “This is what time it really is.” Well, syncretism is like that, only with gods. You make your belief system look more like someone else’s. When you synchronize your watch, you do so in the hope that you are synchronizing it with a clock that is more accurate than your own. The danger of syncretism is that when you make your God look more like everyone else’s, you’ve chosen a bad watch to synchronize against.
If you read the Old Testament especially, you cannot help to see that the biggest sin out there was idolatry – the worship of gods other than God.
Let me put a definition out there for the sake of argument – a definition of a ‘god,’ without respect to a true or false god. A god is simply an entity whose simple essence is so powerful and so compelling that it demands adherence to or compliance with its desires, simply on account of its greatness. Put another way – a god says, ‘Do what I say, be what I want you to be, for I am a god.’ In these value-neutral terms, perhaps, it is clearer that any God is simply the thing that is in control. So, the question is, who is going to be in control?
Our God, the true God, is the creator God, and he is a god who loves. “I know the plans I have for you,” he says, “– plans to prosper you and not to harm you.” All other gods speak to power – raw and visceral power – and that is a scary thing. Molech, the god of the Ammonites was a god who demanded child sacrifice. Baal was appeased with blood. Our gods today speak to this raw power as well.
Mammon – wealth, says “Do whatever is necessary to acquire me, for I am power. If that means lying on the books, taking liberties than deny fairness to others in respect to their finances, or neglecting your family – in effect sacrificing your time with your children for me, Mammon – then do it.” It is an evil god who demands its way. Molech may have been more bloody, but is Mammon any less destructive? After all, Molech only asked that you sacrifice your child once.
I’d argue the god of the nation of the United States is “Tolerance.” Not tolerance in the form that says “prudence demands patience,” but rather a tolerance that says, “Under no circumstances use the God-given gift of discernment you have within you.” Power, this god of tolerance demands, is the right to do what you want do – never mind anyone else. This is a dangerous god because it says, “Never interfere.” Is your brother lying in a ditch, the victim of a rampage, raped and abused by the world and its pleasures? Leave him there. He may be bleeding, he may be trapped in drugs or alcohol or by money and the pressure to be, or unkind to his family, or locked in sexual sin – it doesn’t matter.
Even a secular movie like The Incredibles knows to mock this. At the beginning of the movie, a man is trying to commit suicide when he saved by a superhero, who knows he has to do something. Parodying the litigious nature of our age, however, the rescued man sues Mr. Incredible who, and I quote here, “Interfered with my right to kill myself!” True love – true concern for the dignity of every man obviously demands that you do what you can – even as tolerance sits on the sidelines and says, “Do what you want. I don’t care.”
The god of total toleration says this; “Your prime directive is simply, “Leave others alone.’ You wouldn’t want anyone else to exercise their power over you!” Like Cain in the wilderness, you are to ask derisively, “Am I my brothers’ keeper?” God forbid you come to the realization that the answer is “Yes!”
Why would a god say this? Behind this “right to do what I please” is a desire to deny consequences. It’s my “right” to have sex with whomever I want, right? After all, I’m just an animal, doing what comes “naturally” and maximizing my evolutionary chances, right? We talk about sex in strictly sensual terms, stripping it of its spiritual side, only seeking the self-gratification that we think we hope to accumulate for ourselves. We neglect intimacy and seek merely intercourse. When we speak of it as “natural,” I doubt we’re thinking about the sex lives, of oh say, Preying Mantises or tarantulas who eat their mates after reproduction, or salmon who die after sex, or even of parents who, after having a child will sacrifice all they are to protect their children. No, we’re thinking about the pleasures we can heap up to ourselves – and forget the consequences. After all, abortion is our right not to have the “natural” result of sex. Sexually transmitted diseases are merely an aberration to be cured rather than prevented. And the “natural” bond that develops between any two people who have been so intimately involved? Well, we just try to ignore that. And, if she fails to turn us for an extended period of time? Well, divorce is my right. Don’t worry about the emotional scar it will do to her or my children, and above all don’t mention what it did to me! That’s weakness.
My point here is that sexuality is not a consequence free act. When we stand in the breach to say, “Be careful,” this god of tolerance and rights can’t stand the fact that we are right. And so, it says, “Leave me alone. Let me do what I want.” It doesn’t want to be “looked after” because it thinks that the short term gain is all there is, and the bargain of love that says, “No, you are better” is no god at all.
Well, I don’t know about you, but the God I worship is too much of a realist to think that the creation he designed could ever be so “perfect” as not to need the help of others. Indeed, our God’s power is made known in our weakness. We show the love of our God precisely when we choose to “interfere” in the finances of a hungry family who needs a meal. We are good people when we intervene with the hopelessly addicted brother and say, “I love you too much to simply stand by and watch you kill yourself.”
No, our God is in fact, a god of love. That’s why he says, “I know the plans I have for you,” he says, “– plans to prosper you and not to harm you.” But because our God is a God of love, he knows that other gods will try to harm us – use us for their gain. That is why, in perfect love he can demand, “I the Lord your God am a jealous God!” That’s why the very first commandment he gives us is “Thou shalt have no other gods before me!” It’s not some God-complex vanity. It’s simply common sense to a God who has been around the block and knows how things work.
These gods are in it for themselves – I’m in it for you. Look, here’s my son. All day long he stretches out his hands to a stubborn and obstinate people. For all the talk of this “vengeful OT God,” they should read Isaiah 65:1-3: I was ready to be sought out by those who did not ask, to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, “Here I am, here I am,” to a nation that did not call on my name. 2 I held out my hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that is not good, following their own devices; 3 a people who provoke me to my face continually, sacrificing in gardens and offering incense on bricks;)
And he did. For God so loved the world that all day long his son did stretch out his hands. Like this [like on a cross]. Is a little bit of true fidelity to a God who loves us too much to ask?
This is a God who not demands faithfulness, not because of some theological principle or power play, but one who earned my love in an act of kindness I never repay. Adding any other god to the mix negates the beauty and love of that act. It diminishes the ultimate sacrifice.
My wife knows that I love her. She knows that I am faithful to her. How could I then say, “I love you,” but I also love … you fill in the blank. God’s love and power are the same. God’s love has already given me more than I could ever hope or want. What more could I possibly need?
Pray with me please.
