(Audio version; Music: "When A Heart Breaks" by: Ben Rector and "Where You Are" by: Mandi Mapes)
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 giant, 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 destroy its vital organs. Children diagnosed
with the disease have a life expectance of no more than nine years. After his
daughter nearly died from a routine cold, Crowley began to research the
scientific work done by Dr. Robert Stonehill from the University of Nebraska
that might lead to a cure for Pompe Disease. Crowley convinced Stonehill that
he would be able to raise the capital to establish a laboratory to take
Stonehill’s research from academic theory to the development stage 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 left his position at Bristol-Myers and Stonehill left his position at
the University of Nebraska and the two embarked, with the help of eager young
scientists and graduate students, on a path to perfect a serum to combat Pompe
Disease.
Although the group made
progress, it wasn’t fast enough for the investors in the company and
eventually, Prio-zine was forced to sell its research to Zymagen. Zymagen, a
massive and successful pharmaceutical company, took on Crowley as an executive
and Stonehill as the founding scientist. Eventually, using Stonehill’s
scientific theory as the foundation, a serum was identified as suitable for the
next phase, which was human clinical trials. The oversight committee for
Zymagen determined that only infants should be included in the study because
they have experienced less cellular damage from the disease and have a longer
available study period (before they die). Ultimately, Crowley and Stonehill
convinced the oversight committee to include Crowley’s kids in the study
because they represented a special study group as siblings with the same
disease. At the end of the movie, both of Crowley’s kids received treatment and
both began to respond to those treatments.
As you might imagine, it is
a moving story about the Extraordinary Measures a father 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 addressed was something they
called the “acceptable rate of loss.” It is a pre-determined, quantifiable
measurement that was to be used to determine if the serum was properly
effective for large-scale manufacturing. In other words, how many deaths were
acceptable before the study should be abandoned as either too expensive or
ineffective. I understand this from a business perspective but is that the only
perspective? For some it is. But was that Crowley’s perspective? What was the “acceptable
rate of loss” for Crowley? I bet it was somewhere around exactly zero! What do
you think? You see, the higher the value of those that could be 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’ll venture a guess that it would have
dramatically affected their perspective on the “acceptable rate of loss.”
I had
lunch with a friend and former pastor a while ago 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 really care about their 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 it is just me, 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.
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!
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 can actually 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 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
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?
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 the heart of a crowded city 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. Is that too hard to relate to your life? Ok
let’s try this—you’re shopping in the heart of a crowded city 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 retrieve 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 [during Israel’s
early history], the title of shepherd suddenly appeared as a designation of the
future Davidic messiah…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 someone else’s sheep. 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 focusing on the one sheep that has
wandered away, which is certainly appropriate because the focus of the parable 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]
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.
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 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.” “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?
14 In the same way your Father in
heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.
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 don’t want to be found. 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 loss” 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 sitting
in the pews all around you 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 known 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 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.
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being
made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled
himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross (Phil 2:6-8)!
The cross
represents God’s Extraordinary Measures. With Jesus as your example of a
Shepherd willing to do anything to retrieve a lost sheep, what will be your Extraordinary
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.
You are welcome!
ReplyDelete