Busybody

     A busybody is defined in Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996), page 246, as a meddling person, one who officiously concerns himself with the affairs of others. This fits perfectly with First Peter 4.15, "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters." Of course, a busybody meddling in my affairs will doubtless take issue with me for citing Webster's definition of a busybody before pointing out a corroborating Bible verse. However, that is precisely my point. Gospel ministers quickly learn to deal with busybodies in their congregations. However, busybodies who are themselves gospel ministers is inexplicable.
     The Apostle Paul provided guidelines for Timothy's leadership in other pastor's lives in First Timothy 5.19-21:
19  Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
20  Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
21  I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.
Verse 19 seems to clearly forbid allowing someone to tattle about an elder, unless two or three witnesses provide corroboration. Verse 20 shows that confrontation and a public rebuke is called for, with Matthew 18.15ff providing the basis for asserting that this discipline take place within a congregational context (Baptist churches are autonomous, each tending to their own matters of discipline). Verse 21 is Paul's charge that such dealings with elders be impartial, suggesting that personal vendettas are ruled out, as is taking issue with one man's relatively minor matter while overlooking another's more serious matter.
     The problem with busybodies is not a new one. The Lord Jesus Christ dismissed the effort of the Apostle John in Luke 9.49-50: "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." If I may be permitted to use the Waldrip paraphrase, "Lord, he is not doing his ministry the way I think he should!" The Master responded by saying, in effect, "Leave him alone, for he that is not against us is for us." I am sure some gospel ministers wished busybodies would just leave them alone. I sometimes wish gnats would leave me alone to enjoy my solitude in the wilderness as the sun goes down, but they are determined to buzz about and distract me.
     However, the problem with busybodies can be observed even during the lifetime of Moses, some eighteen centuries before our Lord's earthly ministry. Numbers 11.26 records that two young men prophesied in the camp. Numbers 11.27 tells us "there ran a young man, and told Moses" (he tattled). According to verses 28-29, Joshua the son of Nun then said, "My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!" Busybodies have always been about the business of stifling the speech of those who say or do things in a way they do not approve of.
     Even the Apostle Paul had to deal with busybodies. Shortly after his arrival in Rome he wrote to the Philippian congregation and made mention of some in Rome. Notice his inspired account of their actions in Philippians 1.16: "The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds." Think there is not a bit of busybody intimated in Paul's comment? Why else would gospel ministers so order their preaching to be contentious, being insincere, and hoping to make Paul's situation worse unless they are busybodies?
     May I make mention of two problems related to busybodies that I conclude from my thirty-seven years of gospel ministry? First, the busybody knows no limitations or boundaries to his business. He thinks anything that he takes notice of is his business and that everything that is the Lord's business is necessarily his business. He is mistaken. He needs to mind his own business. However, if he minded his own business he would not be a busybody, would he? Second, the busybody is in gross violation (and may be profoundly ignorant, as well) of a well-established Biblical principle, requiring the testimony of two or three witnesses to ascertain a finding of fact. That is, according to God's Word a fact is not established unless and until it is corroborated by two or three witnesses.
     Allow me to establish the validity of that principle:
Numbers 35.30:  "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die."
Deuteronomy 17.6:  "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death."
Deuteronomy 19.15:  "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."
Matthew 18.16:  "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."
John 8.18:  "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me."
2 Corinthians 13.1:  "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
Hebrews 10.28:  "He that despised Moses law died without mercy under two or three witnesses."
1 John 5.7-8:  7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
                     8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
     Is it not interesting that the principle of establishing fact by two or three witnesses is not only the foundation upon which our own legal system is based, but it can be found throughout God's Word with respect to men's dealings with men in accordance with God's will, with respect to a church's dealings with the sins of church members, and with the way gospel ministers are to be dealt with (1 Timothy 5.19)? However, I am most impressed of the importance of this principle by virtue of the fact that Jesus insisted on applying the principle to the verification of His own credibility, and the Apostle John's assertion that the principle applies to the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, as well.
     Are we to conclude that the principle of two or three witnesses was only applied by believers where it is specifically referred to in the biblical record of men's dealings with other men?  That would be quite an assertion in light of what we have discovered in our brief musings. Consideration should also be given to subtle application of the principle that is less obvious, such as in Matthew 11.2-5, where the imprisoned John the Baptist's faith wavers and he seeks verification of Christ's identity. Jesus responds in a manner entirely consistent with the proper application of this principle.
     In conclusion, the busybody needs to mind his own business because another's business is none of his business. He simply does not have the jurisdiction to snoop and then to act (unless he abandons Baptist principles entirely). As well, the busybody needs to mind his own business because he does not have the requisite attestation to establish as fact what he desperately wants to act on. Does another's servant conduct himself slightly differently than the busybody does? That is perfectly acceptable, and will someday be dealt with by his master.

Real Enemies

     In Romans 5.10, the Apostle Paul writes what most agree is a categorical description of himself and all lost people, "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." Though Paul was a most sincere religionist he came to recognize that he, like everyone else who is unconverted, was God's enemy. Little thought is given to this reality, though our confessions and our theology certainly recognizes the estrangement of the lost and their animosity toward God, His Son, and His cause. Add to that the Savior's comment in Matthew 10.36, "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." His statement was not newly revealed truth, but a restatement of Micah 7.6, and echoes Psalm 41.9 and Psalm 55.12-14.
     These things being so, the believer is well-advised to recognize that his/her unsaved spouse cannot be a trusted ally in the spiritual conflict. They two have different lords, different allegiances, and different natures. They cannot be compatible whilst one of them remains lost and undone. One is predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ and the other is careening toward perdition. The same dynamic is at work in the case of Christians with unsaved children. How are the children well-served by parents who make no mention of the great disparity? How are they helped by moms and dads who speak peace, peace when there is no peace?
     I am not suggesting that believers introduce contention into their homes. I am wondering why so few speak directly to real issues that exist. Please explain to me why the forgiveness of your sins is unimportant to you. Help me to understand what it is about Jesus that is not attractive to you. How can it be that I bear no fruit that attracts you to the True Vine who is my life? Things simply must be said by the conscientious Christian to keep before the lost their lostness, to remind them of their hopelessness, to urge upon them the means of grace.
     These enemies we love, our family members and friends, love the world and are persuaded by the world in which they live that what is false is true, what is true is false. We are likely to be the only ones who can and will minister grace to them, Ephesians 4.29. Therefore, we must.

Procrastination

     It is likely that you can look back on your days in school and remember your tendency to put off the necessary work on classroom assignments and projects until too near the due date. This is because most people are not only natural procrastinators, but also because we are so often slaves to the tyranny of the urgent. We frequently have the best of intentions, but since we have so little control over so many of the events of life we find ourselves distracted and actually shelving more important matters to quickly address less important but more immediately pressing matters. This tendency to procrastinate is reflected in one's responsiveness to the gospel.
     Those who know me know my opposition to most forms of contemporary evangelism, believing it to be for the most part manipulative and ignorant of the real nature of the human heart as revealed in scripture. In addition to those reasons for opposing most contemporary approaches to reaching the lost, allow me to add the emphasis that is placed on going to heaven. If you are going to emphasize one thing to the sinner about the consequences of his lost condition and estrangement from God, I would urge that preparing for the day he dies so that he might go to heaven is not what should be emphasized, and here is why: Assuming the target of your prayers and efforts to bring an unbeliever is forty-five years of age, how long does he expect to live before he dies? Forty years? Thirty-five? At least. Therefore, if that person is anything like most of us he will procrastinate for decades before he begins to concern himself with his eternal destiny.
     Thus, pointing to God's future wrath (I am a Hell-fire preacher) is far less effective in persuading the average procrastinator than an entirely different (and I think more scriptural) approach. I urge focusing on the sinner's present estrangement from God. After all, even if someone lives for forty, fifty, or in the case of a teen some sixty more years before entering eternity, he is presently an enemy of God (Romans 5.10) and God is presently visiting judgment upon his life (Romans 1.24, 26, 28). That the Apostle Paul lists "disobedient to parents" among those sins that give evidence of God's judgment, a powerful argument can be made that some forms of God's judgment are even visited upon wicked children. Such things need to be pointed out to the lost.
     The gospel is not a fire escape from Hell.  Neither did Jesus Christ suffer the death of the cross merely to enable believers to go to heaven when they die. The gospel is good news on many fronts, not the least of which is the forgiveness, the new life in Christ, and the divine enablement to live in communion with God in service for Christ for years before dying and going to heaven. Contrary to popular opinion in the world today, and even among many who name the name of Christ, there is a direct correlation between holiness and happiness, with the child of God who loves and lives for his Savior is among the happiest of people on earth, rejoicing in hope of the glory of God because of the joy of sins forgiveness, knowing his relationship with God is established and sustained, and with communion with God thoroughly enjoyed.
     Christians need to emphasize the present more in their witnessing, pointing to the lost their present distress as God's enemies, and exhibiting for all to see our present delights as God's children.

Legalism

In 1857 Charles Spurgeon preached a sermon titled “The Uses of the Law.”[1] His text was Galatians 3.19, “wherefore serveth the law?” In his sermon, he lists five uses of the Law:

“The first use of the law is to manifest to man his guilt. When God intends to save a man, the first thing he does with him is to send the law to him, to show him how guilty, how vile, how ruined he is, and in how dangerous a position. . . . The spirit of the law condemns us. And this is its useful property; it humbles us, makes us know we are guilty, and so are we led to receive the Savior.”

“Now, the second. The law serves to slay all hope of salvation of a reformed life. Most men when they discover themselves to be guilty, avow that they will reform. They say, ‘I have been guilty and have deserved God’s wrath, but for the future I will seek to win a stock of merits which shall counterbalance all my old sins.’ In steps the law, puts its hand on the sinner’s mouth, and says, ‘Stop, you cannot do that, it is impossible.’ I will show you how the law does this. It does it partly thus, by reminding the man that future obedience can be no atonement for past guilt.”

“And now, a step further. You that know the grace of God can follow me in this next step. The law is intended to show man the misery which will fall upon him through his sin. . . . The law was sent on purpose to do that. But, you will ask, ‘Why that misery?’ I answer, that misery was sent for this reason: that I might then be made to cry to Jesus. Our heavenly Father does not usually make us seek Jesus till he has whipped us clean out of all our confidence; he cannot make us in earnest after heaven till he has made us feel something of the intolerable tortures of an aching conscience, which has foretaste of hell.”

Fourth, “It was sent into the world to shew the value of a Saviour. . . . the law makes Christ appear the fairer and more heavenly. I hear the law of God curse, but how harsh its voice. Jesus says, ‘come unto me;’ oh, what music! all the more musical after the discord of the law. I see the law condemns; I behold Christ obeying it. Oh! how ponderous that price - when I know how weighty was the demand! I read the commandments, and I find them strict and awfully severe - oh! how holy must Christ have been to obey all these for me! Nothing makes me value my Savior more than seeing the law condemn me. When I know this law stands in my way, and like a flaming cherubim will not let me enter paradise, then I can tell how sweetly precious must Jesus Christ’s righteousness be, which is a passport to heaven, and gives me grace to enter there.”

Fifth, “And, lastly, ‘Wherefore serveth the law.’ It was sent into the world to keep Christian men from self-righteousness. Christian men - do they ever get self-righteous? Yes, that they do. The best Christian man in the world will find it hard work to keep himself from boasting, and from being self righteous.” Thank you, Mr. Spurgeon. It is this last use of the law that pertains to our subject of antinomianism, the use of the law to keep Christian men from self-righteousness.

BIBLICALLY, legalism is keeping the law for salvation. Some charge that anyone that keeps a list of do’s and don’ts is a legalist. NOT SO! God keeps a list of do’s and don’ts in the Word, and He is not a legalist. Lists are not wrong! If a person is attempting to gain salvation by keeping those lists, then they are legalistic.”[2] Derickson is correct in what he says. Legalism is primarily the attempt to keep the law to gain salvation, and in Galatians 3.2 Paul rebukes the Galatians, genuinely converted people, who allowed themselves to come under the influence of legalists who confused them about how they had themselves gotten converted: “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?”

In addition, a secondary legalism plagues Christians. It is not the view that a sinner is saved by works of the law, but the view that a Christian is spiritual by works of the law, or that a Christian becomes spiritually mature by works of the law. The very next verse, Galatians 3.3, addresses that error: “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” In other words, “Are you so foolish that you think what the Spirit started the flesh can finish, that the law can bring about your maturity even though it could not bring about your conversion?” Therefore, legalism, in both its forms, is an attempt to use the law in an unauthorized and illegitimate way, a way that is not sanctioned by scripture, a way that interferes with and excludes the vital work of the Holy Spirit, a way that relies upon one’s own flesh to accomplish what only the Spirit of God is capable of doing, either in regenerating the lost man or in maturing the believer.

To restate, since so many these days are confused over this issue, legalism is not the use of the law. There are legitimate uses of the law. Legalism is the misuse of the law to obtain salvation or the misuse of the law to obtain spirituality and Christian growth.

________

[1] Charles H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 3, Sermon 128, (Pasadena, Texas: Pilgrim Publishers).

[2] Stanley Derickson, Derickson’s Notes On Theology, (Albany, OR: AGES Software, Version 1.0, 1997)

False Hopes

     False hopes are wrong conclusions drawn by the unconverted with respect to their relationship with Jesus Christ. False hopes take place whenever a sinner thinks he has passed from death to life when he has not. Are false hopes a serious problem? You had better believe it in light of Biblical warnings concerning false hopes. Judas Iscariot entertained a false hope. Simon the magician entertained a false hope. The Corinthian fornicator (1 Cor 5) entertained a false hope. In light of 1 John 2.15-16, the Apostle Paul's remark that Demas had forsaken him because he loved this present world (2 Tim 4.10), one might wonder if he, too, had entertained a false hope.
     In addition to the men who entertained false hopes, there are two other indications in the New Testament of the seriousness of this issue. First, consider Jesus' parable of the sower found in Matthew 13.3-8, 18-23, in which the Word of God is represented by seed that is cast onto various types of ground that symbolizes sinners' receptivities. Of the four soils only the final type, where fruit is actually born, is an example of real conversion and evidence of spiritual life. The first three soils represent false hopes. Even a joyful response to the Word can be present in a false hope, verse 20. Next, consider our Lord's instructions for dealing with sin in the church in Matthew 18.15-22. Though the process of reconciliation and restoration described by the Lord is effective as a means of bringing a sinning church member to repentance when sin is confessed and forsaken (with appropriate restitution), that same procedure is simultaneously the means by which someone with a false hope is dismissed from the church so that conviction leading to genuine conversion becomes a prayed for possibility.
     In light of the fact that false hopes are set forth in well known examples, false hopes are warned about in what is frequently acknowledged to be the most important of the parables Jesus taught, and false hopes are one of the issues addressed by Christ's three-step formula for dealing with sins committed by a church member, no one who is sensible can easily dismiss false hopes as a genuine problem to be seriously addressed. That being the case, why is the matter of false hopes dealt with so infrequently by contemporary Christian leaders? After all, most church goers know someone who came to Christ after having a false hope. What about those who thought they were saved but who did not later come to Christ? Is that not a legitimate concern?
     In my own experience as a pastor who himself entertained a false hope as a youngster, I have seen three types of outcomes from false hopes: First, the false hope is thankfully recognized for what it is, an experience of some kind that did not result in conversion and a new life in Christ. Second, the false hope is sadly not recognized for what it is, with the lost professor wrongly concluding that his experience shows Christianity to be fraudulent. This wrong conclusion can produce cynics and apostates. Third, the false hope is once more not recognized for what it is, and the lost professor concludes that while Christianity is real he wrongly concludes that he will never know the joy of sins forgiven and communion with Christ. This reaction often produces despondency and profound discouragement.
     Each of these three conclusions arrived at by those entertaining false hopes are based upon the still unconverted person's own conclusions about God's nature. If God's goodness, justice and graciousness is not questioned the individual with a false hope will blame himself for not truly coming to Christ (and rightly so) and may, in fact, be truly saved in time. However, many with false hopes fall into the error of thinking that Christianity is at fault or that God is somehow to blame in His dealings with His creatures. Such thinking inevitably places blame for the false hope on God rather than self. Of course, such thinking can be deadly because it denies God's holiness and love toward sinful men.
     Great harm can be avoided in a gospel minister's dealings with the lost by bringing three truths to the attention of those he ministers to: First, everyone should be reminded that false hopes are held by professors and that many so-called Christians who experience consistent spiritual failure are actually false professors who entertain false hopes. Second, folks need to be reminded that man really is depraved and Jesus really is despised and rejected by men, resulting in sinners denying Jesus even while convincing themselves that they are embracing Him. This is a danger that needs to be watched for whenever ministers deal with hopeful converts. Third, serious conversations between ministers and those professing an interest in Christ are vital because they enable important questions to be asked and answered that sometimes expose false hopes and lead to a genuine conversions.
     False hopes are sometimes held by the most sincere among us. As a result, false hopes frequently lead to unsaved people becoming church members who can compromise a congregation's Christian testimony from within. False hopes also confuse onlookers and our own children into thinking those they see sinning are Christians. This can result in the Christian faith being viewed with suspicion and disapproval by those without discernment. Thus, ministers would do well to take the matter of false hopes seriously and lead their congregations to implement 1 Peter 3.15, which calls on all who profess Christ to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you a reason of the hope that is within you with meekness and fear. My own experience is that I am thrilled when I am asked if I am a Christian or what is the basis for my conviction that my sins are forgiven.
     False hopes are an almost forgotten issue in our day. We are all the worse off for forgetting to teach about false hopes and deal with false hopes.

Honor

     I am so pleased that my mother trained her sons to show honor to others. We were raised to ask permission to be excused from the dinner table to sit in the living room until the adults were finished eating. When the adults entered the living room, children were expected to stand and offer their seats so adults could choose to sit anywhere they chose. As well, we were coached to greet and offer firm handshakes to adults as a means of showing respect. Though not raised in a Christian home, I look back on those days from my many years in the gospel ministry and see the influence of God's Word on the culture of that day and in my own family.
     Honor is profoundly important in God's scheme of things. God Himself has directed His creatures to honor Him in many passages, as well as with our substance and with the firstfruits of our increase, Proverbs 3.9. Thus, honoring God is far more than displaying an attitude of reverence, though it should not be thought God can be honored without reverence. It costs to honor God. In like manner, when widows and spiritual leaders are honored more is called for than a simple display of respect, 1 Timothy 5. 2 and 17.
     Certainly, the most important directive for honoring other people is the command found in Exodus 20.12, "Honour thy father and thy mother," the first commandment with promise. Of all those people God directs one to honor the prominence of place goes to the honoring of father and mother. With the first four of the Ten Commandments related to one's relationship with God, the final six are related to one's relationship with other people, and the first on the second tablet calling for the honoring of parents. Interestingly, the command to honor father and mother occupies more prominence of place than the command protecting one's relationship with his spouse. This is not to say that wives should not be honored (1 Peter 3.7), but that God directed men to honor their parents before He directed men to honor their wives.
     It is obvious that God's will is for us to honor Him, and for us to honor qualified widows and ministers. It is also clear that God wants us to honor our parents and our spouses. In fact, believers are to honor all men (1 Peter 2.17). It is not difficult to understand the importance of us honoring God and our fellow man, since each of us yearns to be honored.
     This understood, what are we to think when attempts are made to prevent us from honoring those we should honor? Specifically, what are we to think when attempts are made to prevent us from honoring God, or our parents, or our spouses? When wisdom and discrimination is exercised there is no conflict when honor is properly rendered. Thus, despite the protests of those who would hinder our expressions of honor to God, to parents, to spouses, and to others, it does not detract from one's honor of his wife to properly honor his father. When someone protests or seeks to interfere with your attempt to honor your father or mother you should be alarmed. The same is true whenever you are discouraged from honoring your spouse.
     Honoring is like love in this respect. No matter how much you love someone; there is no diminishing of love for others. To honor your father does not diminish in any way your ability to honor your wife. In fact, the counter argument can be made. As you love one you become more loving and able to love others more fully. In like manner, by honoring one you become more capable of honoring others. Honor is not a commodity that one depletes with use, but a grace that becomes more abundant with use.
     Honor God. Honor your father. Honor your mother. Honor your spouse. Honor those to whom honor is due. Honor all men. Honor your pastor. Recognize the great wickedness of anyone's attempt to discourage your efforts to honor anyone.

Ostentatious Christianity?

Ostentation is defined as the act of making an ambitious display, a pretentious or vain show, a display of anything dictated by vanity or intended to invite praise or flattery.^[1] How many of you saw news reports of Kim Jong Il’s funeral procession in North Korea recently? Would you not say that it was ostentatious; an ambitious display entirely dictated by vanity and intended to invite praise and flattery? Yes, it was at the very least ostentatious. However, this is not uncommon these days, is it? Consider all the awards ceremonies that take place in show business each year; the Academy Awards, the Golden Globes, the Emmy’s, the Tony Awards, the ESPY awards, the Country Music Awards, the Kennedy Center Awards, and on it goes. Do not misunderstand me. I am not at all opposed to giving honor to whom honor is due, but these are all entirely about inflating the importance of those giving and receiving the awards, and in turn inflating profits. There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Just be honest about what you are really doing and do not call it honoring or recognizing achievement.

Of course, you expect that kind of behavior from the lost of this world. However, it tragically spilled over into the realm of Christendom centuries ago, with the vulgar pageantries of the Roman Catholic Church, the various Orthodox Churches, and eventually we see it in the crass materialism on display with most of the televangelists such as Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, and the entire TBN network. Is Christianity really well-represented by the imagery of great wealth they present? When asked for alms from a poor beggar while he was entering the Temple, the Apostle Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.”^[2] The Apostle Paul did not even make his appearance a focal point of his gospel ministry. Nor did the Apostle Peter. Is there any indication in God’s Word that the servants of God focused any attention on their clothing or drew attention to themselves in this way? Throughout the Bible, God’s men have never been given to ostentatious display. In church history, you will notice that organized Christianity moved toward ostentatious display as it moved away from doctrinal purity and obedience to God’s Word. Though I cannot recollect for sure where I read it, I am quite sure that David Martyn Lloyd-Jones once observed a correlation between the doctrinal accuracy of most preaching and the simplicity of the auditorium in which the gospel truth is declared. I would agree with him on this, since spiritual Christianity typically avoids ostentatious displays.

Can you tell the focus of this message from God’s Word? Despite what so many who claim to be Christians feel about this, Bible-based Christianity is not ostentatious. It is not about ambitious display, a pretentious show or a production of anything that is dictated by vanity or that is intended to invite praise or flattery. The Crystal Cathedral was never a proper place of Christian of worship because of its ostentation, just as the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris or Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome are no more places of genuine worship than the various Mormon or Baha’i temples or the Taj Mahal. I have always recoiled with every fiber of my being when pageantry is used to express ambition, to invite praise, or to brag on oneself. I just do not like that stuff and find that spiritual Christianity, which you might suppose should reflect the Lord Jesus Christ to some extent, is not compatible with ostentation. No Christian should ever say anything like “Our church is best,” or should claim, “Our pastor is best.” As well, churches should exercise caution lest they fall into the trap of ostentation in any area of expression.

Allow me to establish this principle in your thinking by reviewing some things about our Lord Jesus Christ:

First, IT IS CLEAR THAT HIS INCARNATION WAS NOT OSTENTATIOUS

Was there anything about the Second Person’s assumption of human nature or of the Virgin Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Ghost that was done to invite praise or to brag? Was there any pageantry associated with the incarnation? The answer to both of these questions is an emphatic “No.” It is difficult to assert ostentation when there are only two human beings privy to a secret; Mary when she was informed and Joseph when he was told of the virgin birth. When we study the birth of Jesus, we find nothing about the coming of the Creator from the throne room of heaven to the womb of a young Jewish virgin was ostentatious.

Next, THE BIRTH OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WAS NOT OSTENTATIOUS

For something to be ostentatious there has to be an attention getting aspect surrounding the event. There has to be something that is trumpeted, announced, or done to capture the attention of an audience. Do we have any of that associated with the birth of Christ? We reviewed the Christmas story every year. On those occasions, I specifically remind children that the Bible indicated Christ was going to be born, indicated where He was going to be born, and then indicated that He had been born. However, the event of Christ’s birth is nowhere described and the place of His birth was unattended by anyone until after it took place. Should you suggest that the announcement to the shepherds and the praise of the heavenly choir was an ostentatious display, I am afraid I would have to disagree with you and prove you wrong. Ostentation would not announce the birth of Christ to shepherds, but to kings. It would not place the birth of Christ in a small village, but in Jerusalem. Ostentation would not wait hours to announce the afternoon birth of Christ late at night. Nor would it allow for an angelic choir out in the countryside, but in the city in front of throngs of people, or better yet, at the Temple. The angelic announcement to the shepherds and then the appearance and praise of the host of angels was not ostentatious. Rather, it was the necessary but much muted declaration by angels that the culmination of a stupendous miracle had occurred some hours before. It was not a proclamation dictated by vanity or designed to invite flattery. If it was it would not have taken place where it did with the only audience being those poor shepherds.

Third, HIS PRESENTATION WAS NOT OSTENTATIOUS

Most people take no note of Christ’s presentation at the Temple in accordance with the Law of Moses after His circumcision and so that His mother Mary could make the atonement for her sins that was required.^[3] You would think that occasion, taking place as it did in Jerusalem and at the Temple, would be the perfect time and place for a big “to do.” However, that did not happen. Rather than the whole city learning that the Messiah had arrived on the scene, God’s plan was to reveal the event to only two people; a man named Simeon and an old woman named Anna.^[4] You would expect them to tell everyone they knew. And Anna did. But did that cause a big scene? Not that we are told in the Biblical record. It is likely that Mary and her baby disappeared into the sea of humanity after these encounters. Thus, Christ’s presentation at the Temple was executed without ostentation.

Fourth, HIS MATURATION WAS NOT OSTENTATIOUS

The Roman Catholic Church has contrived legends of the baby Jesus and the boy Jesus working miracles, as well as all sorts of mystical things taking place during His growing up years. However, the only mention of Jesus in the Bible during His young years in Nazareth came on the occasion when He was discovered in the Temple listening to teachers and asking them questions.^[5] That was not ostentatious because it neither attracted an audience nor led to Christ having anything more than passing notoriety as a twelve year old. As for Christ working miracles during His childhood, I read the Apostle John commenting on Jesus turning the water into wine at the marriage feast after His baptism. John 2.11: “This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” The Bible shows that Christ’s miracles began at the marriage feast, meaning there were no miracles performed by Him before His public ministry began. But I risk getting ahead of myself.

Fifth, CHRIST’S BAPTISM WAS NOT OSTENTATIOUS

I will leave it to you to confirm the accuracy of my insistence that although He grew up in Nazareth, in Galilee, which is in the north of the country, Jesus traveled to the south end of the Jordan River to be baptized by John the Baptist. His baptism by John the Baptist was the beginning of His public ministry, at which time John bore “witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me,” John 1.15. This was not an ostentatious display. Turn to John 1.32, where we read of Christ’s baptism from John’s perspective:

³²     And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

³³     And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

³⁴     And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

³⁵     Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

³⁶     And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

³⁷     And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

Only John the Baptist actually saw the Spirit descending on Jesus and abiding on Him and heard God the Father speak. Matthew 3.16-17 gives us a bit more detail:

¹⁶     And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

¹⁷     And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Let me say again, the reason it was left to John the Baptist to identify Jesus to two of his disciples is because only John saw the Spirit descend upon Him in the form of a dove and only John heard the Father say, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Thus, the Lord Jesus Christ’s baptism at the hand of John the Baptist was not ostentatious. It could not have been crowd-pleasing since the crowd did not know of it. In turn, John the Baptist announced Christ’s identity at that time to only two men, John and Andrew.

Sixth, HIS EARTHLY MINISTRY WAS NOT OSTENTATIOUS

Did Jesus heal the sick, give sight to the blind, make the lame to walk again, cleanse lepers, and raise the dead? Yes, He did. He also cast out demons, walked on water, plucked a coin from a fish’s mouth, and fed thousands from small portions of food on two different occasions. That said, His ministry was still not ostentatious. I read from Matthew 12.15-16: “great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; And charged them that they should not make him known.” Understand that although He sought to persuade sinners to look to Him for salvation and forgiveness, He did not do so in a pretentious or ostentatious way. On many occasions, He left crowds behind. On other occasions, He angered crowds so that they followed Him no more. On one occasion He left a multitude who wanted to follow Him, but for the wrong reason. They wanted to make Him their king, but what they wanted in a king was not what He is as the King.^[6] It might strike you that the occasion when He was atop a mountain and was transfigured so that His face shined as the sun and He held court with Moses and Elijah was a bit ostentatious, Matthew 17.1-9. Not so. Only James, Peter and John were witness to the event, and they were told to mention it to no one until after the resurrection. This is the very opposite of ostentation.

Seventh, HIS TRIUMPHAL ENTRY WAS NOT OSTENTATIOUS

Though the great throng of people who surrounded Him and cheered as He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey colt was certainly a big event and grabbed the attention of many people, there was nothing about the Savior’s actions that could be remotely construed as ambitious display, a pretentious or vain show, a display dictated by vanity or that it was intended to invite praise or flattery. Quite the contrary. Though identified by blind Bartimaeus as the Son of David in Jericho, Jesus separated Himself from the other pilgrims walking to Jerusalem as they approached the city. He would not have done this if He were seeking crowd approval.^[7] Then several days later when He rode into Jerusalem in that fashion to fulfill prophecy, He did not rally the crowd or attempt to stir their passions. On the contrary, He was overcome with sadness and wept over the city.^[8] On that occasion, the people of Jerusalem were already tense with excitement because the rumor mill was running amok. News had spread that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, and there were too many witnesses to deny the fact. Then what happened a couple of days before in Jericho with Bartimaeus calling Him the Son of David, a Messianic title, was bound to stir up the crowd. They all wanted the Messiah to come and put the Romans to flight. However, that does not mean Jesus was in any way ostentatious when He entered the city.

Eighth, HIS INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER WAS NOT OSTENTATIOUS

Consider that instituting the communion of the Lord’s Supper began as a private Passover meal consisting of Jesus and His twelve apostles and no one else. At the beginning of the evening, Jesus washed His disciples’ feet. When He announced that one at the table would betray Him, the disciples became anxious and wondered among themselves who it might be. Then during the course of the evening Judas Iscariot was dismissed to betray Him. Jesus met in private with only His twelve apostles, washing their feet, and then announced His betrayal to them. Does any of that sound to you like the actions of someone who is attempting to curry favor, build up His reputation or elicit the praise of others? On the contrary. He had been telling His disciples for weeks at this point that He would soon be offered as a sacrifice and die. Hardly an ostentatious celebration.

Ninth, HIS SACRIFICE WAS NOT OSTENTATIOUS

Ostentation is all about pride and the attempt to exalt yourself in respect to others. Was there anything like that associated with the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ? Did He not know when He became sin for us that He would be despised and rejected of men? How is being humiliated and beaten related to bolstering the opinions others have of you? The opposite of ostentation, my Savior was ridiculed, tormented, beaten, spat upon, scourged without mercy, blindfolded, and then buffeted. This is not to mention His nakedness and the injustice of all that He went through, culminating in His death on the cross situated between two thieves. Such would not make anyone famous, but infamous.

Tenth, HIS RESURRECTION WAS NOT OSTENTATIOUS

This might be a surprise to you until you remember the details of His resurrection. It occurred with no witnesses. Think about it. No one was witness to His resurrection. Oh yes, there were witnesses that He had risen from the dead. In other words, while hundreds saw Him after He had risen from the dead, proving His resurrection had taken place, no one saw Him actually leave the tomb as some had seen Lazarus do. Do not misunderstand what I am saying. Christ’s resurrection from the dead after three days and three nights, His demonstration of victory over sin, death, Hell and the grave was one of the greatest of all miracles ever wrought. However, no one saw it. Hundreds saw that it had occurred because they saw the resurrected Savior but no one saw it actually take place. So, with no witnesses of the actual event, besides the angels of course, the resurrection could not have been an ostentatious display.

Eleventh, and Finally, CHRIST’S ASCENSION WAS NOT OSTENTATIOUS

I speak of Christ’s departure from His disciples recorded in Acts 1.9 moments after His final charge to them. “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.” Notice that there was no pageantry when this occurred. There was no drum roll, no music and no flashes or bangs. He just went up and they watched Him until a cloud blocked their view and they could no longer see Him. Did Jesus ascend to put on an ambitious display, to be pretentious or vain, to display His vanity or to invite praise or flattery? No. He ascended to occupy His throne at the right hand of the Majesty on high until the time of His second coming in power and in great glory.

Is it not obvious from what we have seen that there was nothing about the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ that suggested He did anything merely for show? Ostentation is about pride and puff but everything the Lord Jesus Christ showed during His earthly ministry was the opposite. So much the opposite that the Apostle Paul stated that Jesus made Himself of no reputation, took upon Himself the form of a servant, and humbled Himself, Philippians 2.7-8. Will Jesus always be that way? My heavens, no. Paul goes on to write, in Philippians 2.9-11,

⁹      Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

¹⁰     That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

¹¹     And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Recognize that Jesus is most awe inspiring, being at present terrible in majesty. When He comes again, Jesus will be most regal and impressive as the King of kings and the Lord of lords. However, that is not ostentation. That is propriety. That is appropriate. That is befitting His status and nature. Keep in mind that Paul tells us God exalted Him rather than Jesus exalting Himself.

How should what we have considered this evening affect the way we worship, the way we serve, the way we do church, the way we do our Christianity, the way we put on Christmas programs, the way we publicize our church to the surrounding community, and even the way we observe the pastor’s birthday? We should learn from our Savior not to be in any way ostentatious. We should never seek to wow anyone, to impress anyone or to leave anyone in awe of anyone in our church. Our goal is to show people how impressive Jesus is. We should recognize that what we have seen in God’s Word undermines any basis some might think they have who seek to represent the Lord Jesus Christ and serve Him using ostentatious displays and pageantry in their preaching, in their communion, in their baptizing or in any part of their presentation of the gospel ministry.

Is it possible that we will err in our efforts to exalt the Savior and represent our God as majestic and regal and give some the impression that we are engaged in ostentation? Yes, it is possible. However, it should never be our intent. There should be no affectation and no pretense about us. Rather, let us seek always to be real and genuine as we represent our Savior and our God. In so doing, we may find ourselves increasingly distant from other ministries that resort to ostentation in their attempts to impress people. So be it. By God’s grace, that is not a place we want to go.

---

^[1] Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996), page 1266.

^[2] Acts 3.6

^[3] Luke 2.21-24; Leviticus 12

^[4] Luke 2.25-38

^[5] Luke 2.41-52

^[6] John 6.15

^[7] Matthew 20.29-34

^[8] Matthew 23.37

Old Friend's Sermon In Deeds

     I miss my old friend, Jim Johnston, who was promoted to glory about this time several years ago. I thought about him yesterday before preaching a message about children on the 39th anniversary of the despicable Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case legalizing abortion on demand when they found a right to privacy in the Constitution no one had seen there before. In my message I raised the issue of some people loving their children but having no love for anyone else's children (and that such a qualified 'love' is likely not love at all, in reality).
     What I remembered about my dear preacher friend and his love for children was illustrated by an incident that spoke volumes when he hosted a preacher at the church where he was pastor for special evangelistic services. I was in attendance that evening, as were a number of children whose parents did not attend church. One, in particular, was a dirty little boy who was somewhat disruptive from what appeared to be a cold that bothered him. The service was already underway, with my friend Jim Johnston sitting with me in the third or fourth row where we could see the guest preacher and the audience (as preachers are wont to do).
     As the little boy became increasingly disruptive because he did not feel good, my pastor friend left his seat and went to the first row where he scooped the little boy up and cradled him for the rest of the service. At first surprised, the boy soon realized he was in the arms of a friend, a big man who loved him. The rest of the service proceeded smoothly, though I remember little of it. I was caught up in the sermon of deeds preached by my friend Jim Johnston, who showed the love of Christ to that little boy.
     Some men have no love for children and consider them bothersome and disruptive, having little patience for them. Other men love only their own children, yet have no interest save in their own blood kin. Then there are those Christian men who love all children. They love them because they bear the image of God. They love them because they are constrained by the love of Christ. That was the kind of man Jim Johnston was. Oh, how I miss him.

The Crises

     A friend recently mentioned to me that there are five main events or passages in life that take someone out of church or sidelines him from anything approaching effective participation in church ministry. Those events are high school graduation, college graduation, marriage, career change (transfer, promotion, etc.), the birth of a child. I might add divorce to that list of crises, but you get the point.
     For the most part, sin's essence is self. Therefore, when a crisis event occurs in the various seasons of life a challenge is presented by God so that He can be greatly glorified by the choices one makes to deny self in preference to Him. Jesus echoed this principle when He said, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me," Matthew 16.24. So, what crisis event will take you out of play, so to speak? Will it be the new freedom that comes to a high school graduate? Will it be the even greater freedom you experience as a college graduate? Perhaps it will be the diversion of a spouse or a child. It may also be a new career or a promotion or transfer. Sometimes the heartache of divorce or the freedom from a horrible marriage provokes one to stop attending church or to begin attending elsewhere.
     Someone once spoke of character being related to what it takes to stop you. I have often spoken of spiritual behavior typically being planned behavior. As you anticipate a crisis event in your life (or as you prepare for the unanticipated), decide that nothing will be allowed to break your stride, be it a graduation, a marriage, a birth, a divorce, or something job-related. For God's glory and for Jesus' sake, you will press on in service and ministry in your church.