Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Extraordinary Measures


Introduction

            I’ll confess right up front that I stole that title. It comes from a great movie I watched recently. The movie is based on a true story about a man, John Crowley, who was an executive for the pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers. Crowley was a talented and successful businessman specializing in raising venture capital funds for new research and development projects. Normally, life couldn’t have been better but nothing about Crowley’s life was normal because two of his children suffered from Pompe Disease. Pompe Disease is a genetic disorder where children are missing an important enzyme. As a result, complex sugars build up in the body’s cells and gradually destroys the organs. Children diagnosed with the disease have a life expectance of no more than nine years. After his daughter nearly dies from a routine cold, Crowley begins to research the scientific work done by Dr. Robert Stonehill from the University of Nebraska that might lead to a cure of Pompe Disease. Crowley convinces Stonehill that he would be able to raise the capital to establish a laboratory to take Stonehill’s research from academic theory to research and development of an enzyme to replace the enzyme missing in Pompe Disease victims. Crowley was successful in securing venture capital funding and the company Prio-zine was formed. Crowley leaves his position at Bristol-Myers and Stonehill leaves his position at the University of Nebraska and the two embark, with the help of eager young scientists and graduate students, on a path to perfect a serum to combat Pompe Disease. The group makes progress but not fast enough for the investors in the company and eventually, Prio-zine was forced to sell out to its competitor, Zymagen. Zymagen, a massive and successful pharmaceutical company, takes on Crowley as an executive and Stonehill as the founding scientist. Eventually, using Stonehill’s scientific theory as the foundation, a serum is identified as suitable for the next phase which was human clinical trials. The oversight committee for Zymagen determines that only infants should be included in the study because they have experienced less cellular damage and have a longer available study period. Ultimately, Crowley and Stonehill convince the oversight committee to include Crowley’s kids in the study because they are considered a special study group as siblings with the same disease. At the end of the movie, both of Crowley’s kids receive treatment and both begin to respond to the treatments. It is a tremendous story about the Extraordinary Measures Crowley took in order to save his children. As a dad of two girls that mean the world to me, I would do anything and everything for them. But something else happened in the movie that keeps gnawing at me. Before the oversight committee made the serum available for human clinical trials, they were discussing the business aspects of the study. One of the topics that had to be address was something they called the “acceptable rate of loss.” This is a pre-determined, quantifiable measurement that was to be used to determine if the serum was properly effective for large-scale manufacturing. I understand this from a business perspective but is that the only perspective? For some it is; but was that the perspective of Crowley? What was the “acceptable rate of loss” for Crowley? I gonna say it’s somewhere around exactly zero! What do you think? You see, the higher the value of those lost, the lower the “acceptable rate of loss.” I wonder, if all the men on the oversight committee for Zymagen had a child with Pompe Disease, would the “acceptable rate of loss” have been affected?

            I had lunch with a friend and former pastor this week and we talked about how the concept of “acceptable rate of loss” has infiltrated our churches today. He took the position that pastors just can’t take responsibility for people whose lives don’t reflect what they say they believe and that God is still in charge of the Church. I’ve been thinking long and hard about some of the things my friend said and in some respects I agree, but I can’t let it go. Some want to lay this problem entirely at the doorstep of large churches but I speak from first-hand experience in very small, medium and very large churches and all could give you a “biblical” answer as to why they have adopted an “acceptable rate of loss” mentality even if they refuse to identify it as such. Many small churches only care about the core members. They would like more members but as long as their core stays intact, all others are part of an “acceptable rate of loss.” Many large churches only care that attendance stays ahead of attrition, those who leave, either physically or spiritually, are just part of an “acceptable rate of loss.”  And you guessed it, many medium size churches incorporate both views. Does this bother you? Should it? Well, I’m sure this won’t shock you, but it bothers me. It bothers me more than I can even tell you. But my friend started to get me thinking that maybe it’s just me. Maybe. But maybe you’ve been part of the “acceptable rate of loss” from some church and now you’re bitter about the Church because you feel like you’ve been forgotten or abandoned to face life alone. I want you to consider something: The Church is identified as Christ’s Bride. Please don’t be bitter toward Christ’s Bride. You can be angry at the Church’s leadership but be angry because of your love for the Church. There is a better way and Jesus demonstrates that better way but it will take Extraordinary Measures. Jesus told his disciples about the Shepherd who was responsible for 100 sheep when one got separated from the others. Let’s look at the parable together.

Subject Text

Matthew 18:12-14

            12 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13 And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.


Context

The context for these verses is important to understanding our subject text because v.14 of our subject text references a lesson Jesus began teaching in v. 2. At the beginning of chapter 18, Jesus’ disciples came to him asking who would be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Not necessarily an awful question I suppose—although isn’t the answer rather obvious? Isn’t God the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Well if we take a look at the same account in Mark’s gospel, it is recorded that the disciples were actually arguing amongst themselves about who was the greatest (Mk 9:33-34). Hmmm, no mention of the “kingdom of heaven.” The issue still hasn’t reached the level of ridiculous until we get to the same incident recorded in Luke’s gospel. There Luke tells us that they were arguing about which one of them was considered the greatest! And there you have it—the bottom of the barrel! So before we move on with Matthew’s account, let’s just keep in mind how this all began. The disciples are actually asking Jesus: “Who’s number one?” Sometimes, not usually, but sometimes, the disciples behave so badly that they make me feel good about me! Anyway, Jesus answers their question by bringing a small child into their company and telling them that they need to change because only those with faith like a child will see the kingdom of heaven and only the one with the humility of a child will be considered greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “In first century thought children were often very little esteemed. Jesus ascribes to them great value, but here his more immediate point is that would-be disciples must share their condition of utter dependence, in this case, on God. Without a recognition of one’s fundamental inability to save oneself and without a subsequent complete reliance on God’s mercy, no one can enter the kingdom of heaven. Conversely, those who most clearly perceive their helplessness and who respond accordingly are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”[1] Jesus has put the disciples in their place; he’s put us in our place. In the disciples’ world, children would have fallen into the “acceptable rate of loss” group; just not that important to be overly concerned about. But do you want to know Jesus’ “acceptable rate of loss?” Zero! But in order to be accepted; in order to gain entrance to the prized kingdom of heaven, it will take something completely contrary to our usual understanding of the things that are important in this world; no more “acceptable rate of loss”; it will take Extraordinary Measures and that leads us right to our subject text.

Text Analysis

            I so wish we could read Jesus’ question in v.12 for the first time without being able to read ahead or without having read it countless times before because we already know what the answer is going to be. But I want you to try and think about what Jesus is asking. How about you teachers out there—you’re on a field trip in downtown Los Angeles, California with 100 first graders when suddenly you realize that one of them is missing. What do you do with the other 99? Take them with you? Leave them there by themselves? The longer you wait, the more lost the one will become and the greater danger the one will be in. Too hard to relate to your life? Ok let’s try this—you’re shopping in downtown Los Angeles with just 5 kids ranging from an infant in a stroller to a 10 year old. You’ve had it under control for most of the time but around lunchtime everyone is pulling at you to decide what to do about lunch and the baby is crying and the 5 year old needs to go to the bathroom and the 10 year old wants to go home when suddenly you realize the 3 year old is gone. Oh and did I mention that they’re your kids this time. Now what do you do? No time to lose, you have to backtrack as fast as you can and see if you can find the lost one but you’re also responsible for the screaming baby in the stroller and the 5 year old that has now wet himself and is also crying and the two older kids are now completely freaked out and screaming. Come on, think! What do you do? Do you leave the four and go after the one? Do you drag the four with you and risk not getting to the lost one in time? Which is more important—the four together or the lost one alone? Do you see now why I say that Jesus’ “acceptable rate of loss” is zero? How do you protect the four together yet retreive the one alone? Only by taking Extraordinary Measures!

            Jesus says that a shepherd would leave 99 sheep and go after the one that has wandered away. It’s not really obvious from the text but Jesus is the shepherd in the story. “At the time when disaster was breaking loose, the title of shepherd suddenly appeared as a designation of the future Davidic messiah. At first the references were to ‘shepherds’, in the plur. Nevertheless, these prophecies pointed to the figure of a single shepherd (Jer. 3:13; 23:4; Ezek. 34:23; 37:22, 24).”[2] It appears immediately obvious that the 100 sheep belong to this particular shepherd. The text, in no way, leads us to consider that the shepherd was caring for another’s flock. Consequently, “As the shepherd stands for their—Lord, so the flock, the sum total of his sheep, stands for his people.”[3] Who the one sheep is intended to represent has been variously understood. Some understand this particular sheep to be an unbeliever that the shepherd is seeking to rescue. However, I have a difficult time accepting this interpretation from Matthew’s account (cf. Lk 15:3-7). The text reads that the one sheep “wandered off”. That necessarily implies that the sheep belonged to the flock at one point. Some have argued that all sheep (people) ultimately belong to the shepherd (God) but that some have “wandered off”. Well that certainly sounds plausible except for one thing: John records an encounter between Jesus and the Jews who were questioning him and insisting that he just tell them plainly whether or not he was the Christ. “Jesus answered, ‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one’ (Jn 10:25-30).” That seems to be the fly in the ointment of the idea that all sheep (people) belong to the shepherd (Lord). Of course all things belong to the Lord in the context that he is the sovereign creator. However, this context implies relational belonging. Therefore, it is likely that the sheep that has wandered off represents a believer that is no longer part of the flock which represents the ideal of an environment of safety, nurture and growth. It is also important to remember that the remainder of chapter 18 is devoted to dealing with the proper way of relating to believers that sin. Reaching out to and facilitating the reconciliation of unbelievers is not specifically in view here in chapter 18 even if the reconciliation of unbelievers is generally always relevant in Scripture.

            I’ve just spent a significant amount of time writing, and you’ve spent a significant time reading, about the one sheep that has wandered away which is certainly appropriate because the focus is on the one sheep that has wandered away. But how many of you have wondered during that time: “What about the other 99 sheep?” The illustration I presented at the beginning of this section is not perfectly analogous because it presents what many consider a “lose-lose” situation. That was really not my point. My point was to illustrate that the situation can’t be either/or. That would be adopting “an acceptable rate of loss” attitude. As I’ve already said, this is not Jesus’ attitude. With respect to the remaining 99 sheep in Jesus’ story, the implication is that they are safe because they obediently remain united as a flock. “Contemporary evidence indicates that shepherds and cowherds did leave their flocks or herds to search for lost animals; often shepherds would leave sheep with other shepherds.”[4] This is an important observation in terms of practical application in our churches today with “workable implementation demands carefully structured and monitored networks of undershepherds, small groups, and ministries of visitations.”[5] The “lose-lose” dilemma I used at the beginning is specifically perilous because it requires one person to function in two different roles simultaneously—in-place caretaker and search and rescuer. Failing to recognize this dilemma often facilitates tragic, practical consequences for all involved. “At a spiritual level, of course, God is able to search for the wanderer even while still protecting those who have not strayed.”[6]

            Unlike v. 12, v. 13 doesn’t have many interpretive complexities. Nevertheless, it contains a number of very important principles to consider. Before you continue reading this lesson, go back and read v. 13 and see if you can pick out the first important principle that we can derive from this verse. You probably saw it right away. It’s a little word with huge implications. The word is: “If”! It is, of course, possible for a shepherd to go searching and never find a lone sheep that has wandered off. There were countless possibilities ranging from falling into a cistern to being eaten by a predator. But what if we remember that the shepherd in the story is Jesus? What does the “if” mean then? Shouldn’t the “if” really be “when”? What are we talking about here? Is it possible that Jesus can’t find us if we wander away from him? Here is the principle to learn from this: “Human freedom permits some people to hide from God, and he will not force them to return against their will.”[7] God knows this, which is the reason for the response found in the remainder of the verse. The shepherd (God) is happier with the one sheep that is found than he is in the 99 that didn’t stray because the one who wandered away had the choice of not being found. There are two theological principles I would like to address from this verse.

            First, should we glean from the text that we should all go astray so that we can be a source of happiness and joy for God when he finds us? I know—it’s a stupid question! But the concept must have come up in another context because Paul deals with it in his letter to the Romans. Paul says that where sin increases, grace increases all the more. Therefore in order to constantly receive God’s grace in ever increasing measures, should we continue to sin? The answer then is the same as the answer now: No! (Rom 5:20-6:2). Instead, we should consider this story by Jesus in the same vein as the story of the Prodigal Son. When the son returned, the father and his whole household rejoiced because “what was once lost was now found.” The older brother of the prodigal was indignant that his father would celebrate the return of his disrespectful, foolish and irresponsible brother. The older brother wanted to be celebrated as well. The father assured him that his faithfulness and obedience were never taken for granted and everything belonging to the father belonged also to him. But the father had to celebrate the return of the prodigal because for the father, there was no “acceptable rate of loss.” (See previous post—Title: Finding Grace in the Lost and Found). “The reality of human existence is that greater joy often does follow the recovery of those who had previously caused greater distress. There is enough joy, however, for everybody, and ideally the disciples should display a steady constancy in their walk with the Lord, even if it does not elicit as great extremes of emotion.”[8]

            The second theological component to this particular text is the belief that whoever God calls has no choice but to come. This is technically understood as the Calvinist view of calling and salvation. God’s call is considered “irresistible” grace and that all who are called will be saved because they will respond to that call. The other view, and the one to which I subscribe, is the Arminian view of calling and salvation. According to this view, God’s call is considered “prevenient” grace and makes it possible for those called to accept God’s offer of salvation. In other words, those called, can accept or refuse to respond to that call. This seems clear from our subject text in the use of the conditional “if” clause of v. 13. Consequently, there is a tension because of what is at stake both positively and negatively; what’s the point of celebrating if the one called has no choice but to come?

            Finally in v. 14 Jesus is saying that in the same way a shepherd takes Extraordinary Measures to retrieve a single sheep that has wandered away, the Father is unwilling to lose any believers even if Extraordinary Measures are required. This is what makes this teaching by Jesus so very important and why it should move us, as believers, to action. God has revealed his heart to us and he is saying that his “acceptable rate of loss” is zero even as he stipulates that not all might be saved. If we say we want to be obedient to the will of the Father then our “acceptable rate of loss” better be zero as well even if we know or suspect that there may very well be some who are lost. Furthermore, if we are unwilling to take Extraordinary Measures to pursue those who have wander away then we have, by default, adopted an “acceptable rate of lose” mentality and not a mentality of obedience to the Father’s will.

Application

            Unfortunately, many who read this biblical text immediately make a correlation between the one sheep that has wandered away and someone who leaves the local church. While it might include that person, there are far more people who fit that description who are sitting in the pews all around us every week; they have wandered away spiritually. There is a fundamental flaw in our thinking about “church.” Sheep have wandered away and we either don’t know or don’t care. As usual, some of you are rolling your eyes at me because you think I’m being hyperbolic or dramatic. Well let me illustrate with some statistical information gleaned from a survey of churchgoing, born-again Christians:

  • The biweekly attendance at worship service is, by believers’ own admission, generally the only time they worship God.
  • Only one out of every four churched believers says when they worship God, they expect him to be the primary beneficiary of their worship. (Most people say they expect to get the most from the experience.)
  • The typical churched believer will die without leading a single person to a lifesaving knowledge of and relationship with Jesus Christ.
  • Only 9 percent of all born-again adults have a biblical worldview—meaning that less than one out of every ten Christians age eighteen or older believes that absolute moral truth exists, believes that such truth is contained in the Bible, and possesses a handful of core beliefs that reflect such truth. Those beliefs include a certainty that the Bible is accurate in its teachings; Jesus lived a sinless life on earth; Satan is real, not symbolic; all believers are responsible for sharing their faith in Christ with others; God is the all-knowing and all-powerful creator of the universe who still rules today.
  • When given the opportunity to state how they want to be know by others, fewer than one out of ten believers mentioned descriptions that reflect their relationship with God.
  • Churched Christians give away an average of about 3 percent of their income in a typical year—and feel pleased at their “sacrificial” generosity.
  • In a typical week, only one out of every four believers will allocate some time to serving other people. Most of that time is dedicated to volunteering in church programs that serve congregants; little effort is invested in serving needy people outside the congregation.
  • Fewer than one out of every six churched believers has a relationship with another believer through which spiritual accountability is provided.
  • Although the typical believer contends that the Bible is accurate in what it teaches, he or she spends less time reading the Bible in a year than watching television, listening to music, reading other books and publications, or conversing about personal hobbies and leisure interests.
  • A large majority of churched believers rely upon their church, rather than their family, to train their children to become spiritually mature.[9]
I could give you countless other statistics but I suppose you get my point. So what are the consequences of the realities that these statistics indicate? A watching, critical, cynical and unbelieving world can’t tell the difference between believers and unbelievers. Churchgoing Christians are foul-mouth drunkards just like their unbelieving counterparts, churchgoing Christians openly engage in premarital sexual relations just like their unbelieving counterparts, churchgoing Christians are as likely to be addicted to pornography as their unbelieving counterparts and churchgoing Christians are just as likely to divorce as their unbelieving counterparts. We must begin to change our attitude about “church.”

“There is nothing inherently wrong with being involved in a local church. But realize that being part of a group that calls itself a “church” does not make you saved, holy, righteous, or godly any more than being in Yankee Stadium makes you a professional baseball player. Participating in church-based activities does not necessarily draw you closer to God or prepare you for a life that satisfies Him or enhances your existence. Being a member of a congregation does not make you spiritually righteous any more than being a member of the Democratic Party makes you a liberal wing nut.
Being in right relationship with God and His people is what matters. Scripture teaches us that devoting your life to loving God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul is what honors Him. Being part of a local church may facilitate that. Or it might not.
Many centuries ago religious leaders created the prevalent form of ‘church’ that is so widespread in our society to help people be better followers of Christ. But the local church many have come to cherish—the services, offices, programs, buildings, ceremonies—is neither biblical nor unbiblical. It is abiblical—that is, such an organization is not addressed in the Bible.”[10]

What is my point in telling you this? Do you think I’m the only pastor who knows the statistics I cited above or other statistics that are substantially equivalent to those I cited? If so, then every vocational pastor in America should be fired because their sheep have wandered off and they either don’t know it or don’t care! I think they know these statistics and many more. Don’t kid yourself, next to politicians, pastors are “statistic/trend” freaks! Knowing sociological trends are a key element in ministry planning and outreach; what excites people and what turns people off. It seems clear, based on these and other statistics, that shepherds, either due to ignorance or complacency, are not going to go after the sheep that have wandered off. So should we just shrug out shoulders and resign ourselves to the reality that there’s nothing we can do about pastors who can’t or won’t do their jobs? Do we just have to adopt an “acceptable rate of loss” mentality and move along? No! No! No! It’s time for all of us to do what is necessary to go after and retrieve those who have wandered away; it’s time to model a different way of life; it’s time for change; it’s time to be a revolutionary; it’s time we recognize ourselves as the Church, instead of people who go to church. Here’s what I challenge each of you to do whether you are a regular churchgoer or not: “Do whatever it takes to get closer to God and to help others to do the same. Obliterate any obstacle that prevents you from honoring God with every breath you take. Be such an outstanding example of the Christian faith that no one will question your heart or lifestyle—except those who see institutional survival as equally or more important than the alleged influence of the institution they defend.”[11]

Remember the story at the beginning and the difference in attitude between the clinical scientists and the father when it came to the idea of what is an “acceptable rate of loss?” Love changes our perspective. When you love people with the same heart that God loves people then your “acceptable rate of loss” will be zero as well. That takes a special kind of love; the kind of love a shepherd has for his or her sheep, the kind of love a Father has for his child; the kind of love Christ has for the Church. If you want a picture of that love, it’s the Cross. And do you want to know what the Cross represents? Extreme Measures! What will be your Extreme Measures?


[1] Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), p. 273.
[2] Colin Brown, ed., Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), p. 566.
[3] Ibid., p. 567.
[4] Craig S. Keener, Matthew, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), pp. 286-287.
[5] Blomberg, Matthew, p. 277.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] George Barna, Revolution: Finding vibrant faith beyond the walls of the sanctuary, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishing, 2005), p. 31-35.
[10] Ibid., pp. 36-37.
[11] Ibid., p. 39.

No comments:

Post a Comment