Podcast: Play in new window | Download (16.4MB)
Here we go again. Pastor Stephen Furtick of “Elevation Church” is just the latest high-profile Christian leader to be under fire for questionable ministerial ethics (supposed ‘spontaneous’ baptisms that weren’t so spontaneous and a lavish personal lifestyle), and the church he pastors just the latest in a litany of ministries that have been sullied by allegations of misconduct of one kind or another. And, predictably, people are choosing up sides. Some of his parishoners are defending him to the last, while others are seizing the opportunity to denounce him. And before that it was Bishop Eddie Long, and before that it was Ted Haggard, and before that it was Paula White, and before that Paul Crouch and before that Rev. Henry Lyons and before that Jimmy Swaggart… And every time some high-profile Christian leader is the subject of scandal, people choose up sides. My point is that the scandals themselves are the least of the problem. First of all, Scripture warns us that there would be false apostles and con-artists operating under a pretense of faith in Yeshua in the Last Days, and I fully expect such people to be outed at some point. Secondly, Satan loves nothing more than to bring the Faith into ridicule if it will keep some people from ever encountering Yeshua and being saved. Third, in some cases, it was their own pride that brought these people down.
So what is the bigger problem? It’s us.
As I see it, the crux of the problem is that we have been following the pattern of the world, and are now personality-driven instead of principle-driven. It is symptomatic of immaturity and conceit that we latch onto charismatic individuals and their institutions and it has led to factionalism. In many ways we are the laughingstock of the world, and it isn’t because we follow Jesus (which would be legitimate, since the world hates Him). Rather, it’s because we, who ought to know better, have put certain men up on pedestals and when it is revealed that they have feet of clay, we are embarrassed and rather than admit we were wrong, in our pride we defend them and rationalize their wrong-doing. It creates friction among ourselves, and while we argue with each other, the world watches and the Faith we represent comes under ridicule.
We rally around personalities and it separates us from one another. What comes to mind are Paul’s words to the believers in Corinth. If he were writing the letter today, I could just hear him say: Word has it that the assembly is filled with strife; you’re squabbling with each other, saying things like, “I am of MacArthur,” and “I of Sproul,”and “I of Driscoll,” and “I of Bell,” and “I of Warren,” and “I of Wallis” and “I of Hybels.” (see 1 Corinthians 1:11-13).
I fear that we have bought into religion according to Saul.
You may recall that it displeased Samuel that the people of Israel clamored for a king. I should say, they clamored for another king, since we already had a King – the Lord of Hosts. Why? Why was it necessary to have a human monarch? One word: respectability. All the other nations had kings over them. Maybe the people of Israel had grown weary of being ridiculed about their invisible God. In any case, we wanted a king, and God was going to give us what we asked for… oh, great. Let’s read all about it. I invite you to turn to 1 Samuel 9. While you’re turning, let me share with you a brief excerpt from an article that appeared in TIME Magazine a few years ago:
On the morning of September 26, 1960, John F. Kennedy was a relatively unknown senator from Massachusetts. He was young and Catholic — neither of which helped his image — and facing off against an incumbent. But by the end of the evening, he was a star.
It’s now common knowledge that without the nation’s first televised presidential debate… Kennedy would never have been president. But beyond securing his presidential career, the 60-minute duel between the handsome Irish-American senator and Vice President Richard Nixon fundamentally altered political campaigns, television media and America’s political history… What happened after the two candidates took the stage is a familiar tale. Nixon, pale and underweight from a recent hospitalization, appeared sickly and sweaty, while Kennedy appeared calm and confident. As the story goes, those who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won. But those listeners were in the minority. By 1960, 88% of American households had televisions…[1]
This, in fact, is the origin of the term we often hear today: telegenic. But it was by no means the first time good looks had people hoodwinked.
Now there was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Becorath, the son of Aphiah, the son of a Benjamite, a mighty man of valor. He had a son whose name was Saul, a choice and handsome man, and there was not a more handsome person than he among the sons of Israel; from his shoulders and up he was taller than any of the people (1 Samuel 9:1-2).
Saul was Israel’s first king. Humanly speaking, he was an impressive sight. Saul was exceptionally tall, singularly handsome, and from a good family in Benjamin. But those who know the Scriptures, know that he was a failure. To Samuel’s continual dismay, Saul seemed incapable of doing things according to God’s instructions. He was impetuous, impatient and headstrong. Saul frequently reinterpreted God’s directives, and took matters into his own hands.
First, he offered up unauthorized sacrifices in a panic, instead of waiting for Samuel, as he had been told. Next he imposed a foolish mandatory fast and a burdensome oath on his tired, hungry army. Finally, he disobeyed God’s directive to utterly annihilate the Amalekites and all their sheep and cattle, but instead spared their king and kept some of the best of their livestock. Saul grieved the heart of God and deeply grieved Samuel; and God vowed to rip the kingdom away from him and from his family. God was going to give the kingdom into the hands of a more worthy person – someone who would listen to and obey Him. That brings us to our next reading. Turn with me to chapter 16.
1 Samuel 16
The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”
Samuel was afraid that if Saul heard about it, he would kill him. What does that say about Saul’s character? A handsome exterior masked a wicked heart. God told Samuel to go toBethlehem under the pretext of offering a sacrifice to the Lord – the equivalent of a community-wide supper (or a church picnic, if it suits you better). God then said to him:
“You shall invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; and you shall anoint for Me the one whom I designate to you.” So Samuel did what the Lord said, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the city came trembling to meet him and said, “Do you come in peace?” He said, “In peace; I have come to sacrifice to the Lord. Consecrate yourselves and come with me to the sacrifice.”
The people were justifiably afraid. Samuel was a prophet of God. If he came to you with a message of judgment it would not go well for you. So they asked, “Do you come in peace?” Gratefully, the answer was “Peace”.
The text continues: He also consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice. When they entered, he looked at Eliab and thought, “Surely the Lord’s anointed is before Him.”
Now Samuel was a righteous and holy man and a prophet, but that doesn’t mean he was perfect. He saw Jesse’s oldest son and was immediately impressed. He thought to himself “Hey, now here’s a strapping young man! This has got to be the one!” His thinking, while flawed, had a certain human logic to it. After all, if Israel’s first king was very tall and handsome, shouldn’t the next king be at least that? Do we really have to “settle” for an ordinary person?
Eliav apparently made a very good first impression, and Samuel was ready to pull out his horn of oil and get right to it, but Samuel had been given instructions to anoint the one God designated. The matter of who was to be ruler in Israel was far too important to be relegated to a nice face or a powerful physique. And hadn’t we already learned that lesson? Look at God’s response to Samuel:
The Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, and it was ix-nay for all of them. No doubt they were presented in their birth order, and I can just imagine Samuel’s growing dismay, as each one that walked by was younger and smaller than the one before him. Finally, Samuel asked, “Is that it? Are there no others? God hasn’t chosen any of these!” Jesse replied that there was one other son, but he couldn’t possibly be the one Samuel was looking for. I mean, the little pitskeleh, David? He’s the one who tends the sheep, for goodness sake! (which, by the way, in ancient times was the job typically given the littlest runt in the family).
And of course Samuel insists that they send for him, and when little David appears, God tells Samuel, “Arise, anoint him, for this is the one”. And that ought to be the one and only criterion for the choice of a man to lead the people of God; neither stature nor winsome appearance, impressive credentials, great oratory skills, popular appeal. Simply put, the right choice is God’s choice. Brace yourselves for the possibility that His choice is not what you would choose. Are you prepared to let God override your personal preferences?
In fact, let me suggest that Israel’s first two kings are symbols of the difference between walking by sight (tall and handsome Saul) and walking by faith (young, unlikely David). We cannot afford to be practicing religion according to Saul. Desiring the respect of the mainstream culture is the path away from godliness. And if the contrast between David and Saul wasn’t sufficient, consider how unlikely and undesirable Messiah Yeshua must have appeared.
Walking by sight vs. Walking by faith
Saul David
Nice exterior Godly interior
Approval of men Choice of God
Sow to the flesh Sow to the Spirit
Failure Faithfulness
Have you ever wondered why the prophet Isaiah began his famous messianic prophecy by saying, “Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”? It is because no one would have believed it! The Anointed One of God, the Messiah would come in a manner so inconsistent with the expectations of men that we needed to be prepared to be caught completely off-guard. And that is characteristic of how different God’s ways are from our own. As He told Samuel, man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart. Listen to the words of Isaiah:
Just as many were astonished at you, My people, so His appearance was marred more than any man and His form more than the sons of men… Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him(Isaiah 52:14 / 53:1-2).
There was to be nothing extraordinary about Messiah’s human appearance. He would not have stately bearing or be born into a family of nobility. He would not be numbered among the learned academicians and scholars, nor would He appear as a charismatic general at the head of a vast and powerful army. More than once in the Gospels we read that those who knew of Yeshua and His family background were astonished at the power and depth of His teaching. Where did He get such wisdom? He didn’t attend any of the renowned yeshivas. He hadn’t studied under any of the premier rabbis. He was the son of the local carpenter, or so it was thought. And people took offense at Him.
Even at the time of Jesus’ being baptized at the Jordan, John the Baptist admitted that, humanly speaking, he wouldn’t have figured Yeshua to be the One. Turn with me to John chapter one, and notice what the prophet said about the instructions God gave him.
The next day he saw Yeshua coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.”
John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God” (John 1:29-34).
John no doubt knew Yeshua well. They were, after all, first cousins. So when he said “I did not recognize Him” twice, he wasn’t saying he didn’t know who He was. What he meant was that, by outward appearance, he would not have figured Yeshua to be God’s Messiah.
So many aspects of David’s life foreshadowed events that would take place in the life of Yeshua, and I believe this is one of them. Just as, on first blush, Samuel wouldn’t have figured David to be the one, so John wouldn’t have figured Yeshua to be the One. But it was not their choice. God chose the king of Israel, and God chose the KING of Israel, and none of their contemporaries would have figured either of them to have been the choice.
If you think you would have had more insight than did Samuel or John, you’re kidding yourself. I suspect we too would have overlooked David’s on account of his youth and overlooked Yeshua on account of His humble background. By human standards neither one appeared to be the stuff of which kings are made. Look, our culture is obsessed with image, power and notoriety, and that is to be expected. But the people of God are not supposed to imitate the culture. We are supposed to confront it with the Good News.
So why is that every time there’s a natural disaster or a terrorist attack reporters foolishly flock to some individual who supposedly represents all evangelical Christians – a Pat Robertson or a Rick Warren, to get their opinion about it, and these guys always have an opinion and they’re eager to let you know what it is, and it’s seldom well-thought out. (For their part, the reporters know they’ll get something really scandalous from Pat Robertson, which they then can exploit to show how loony evangelical Christians are). The conceit of such men only lends to the problem.
But hear me – the problem originates with us – our desire to have high-profile leaders so that we might have some respect. It’s our own insecurity and conceit. It’s the same reason we get so giddy when we hear that a well-known athlete or Hollywood actor is professing faith in Jesus. We think that at last we’ll have some respectability. It also explains why we are dismayed when those same celebrities later make compromises to the Faith.
I believe we must repent of religion according to Saul. Let us abandon the pursuit of peer approval, and recognize that we are small potatoes, and simply preach the Good News regardless of what others think of us. It’s the desire for respectability that the Scriptures callYirat Adam – the fear of man. We’ve been rallying around men when we ought to be rallying around Messiah, which, instead of leading to infighting, would actually bring us closer together! Historically speaking, the cure for division among God’s people has been adversity; either economic calamity or else the onset of violent persecution of Yeshua’s people. It worked in Corinth, anyway. Is that what it will take for us to learn? This is one instance in which I’ll take Book learning over the school of hard knocks any day!
[1] See full article at: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html