There are normally (for good pastors) certain teachings that are especially uncomfortable to deliver, tithing for example. Teachings of this capacity are emotionally laden with baggage from the past and fears of the future. People fear the possible existence of ulterior motives that are other than noble.

The Church just wants money and power. The preacher just wants money and power.

A teaching on the Scriptural purpose of pastoral ministry against this backdrop is always an uncomfortable endeavor—for the pastors of good character, who eschew even a hint of power grabs. Secondly, this teaching is given in a denomination (The Southern Methodist Church) in general and in two churches in particular with raw histories of nasty conflict between the “clergy and laity.” Thirdly, the answer to the question of the purpose of pastoral ministry is more obvious to those outside of the particular denomination and churches in which this teaching was given (thus the dire need for this teaching in this denomination).

At any rate this teaching in this context is especially difficult for me. I tread with humility and an honest appeal to my known character in giving this teaching. I am not grabbing for power. In fact I am giving up what tiny bit of non-existent power I might have in July, when I formally relinquish my duties to return to school.

Anyone that wishes may read what the official guidelines of pastoral duties and leadership duties are available on paper. These are not my concern. I am concerned with actual practice. The actual practice of the two churches in which I serve and the denomination in which I serve, like the rest of South Carolinian culture, is to render the “leader” / “pastor” a powerless figurehead who is present at ribbon cutting ceremonies with delightful smiles and “God bless yous.”

At this point I’m not passing judgment on this “interesting” practice. Rather, I’m going to give a brief thumbnail historical sketch of how we got here. Then I’m going to outline a very brief Scriptural sketch of pastoral authority and responsibility. Finally I’m going to ask the question of my beloved co-denominationalists, “Is this really what we want?”

A Brief Historical Sketch

At the birth of the church, authority was quite top-heavy, being located almost absolutely within the central Apostolic leadership. The Apostles were the ones to cut the bloody umbilical cord of the church from the heart of God. So-called “congregational church government,” historically-speaking, is a very recent innovation. We see the top-heavy church leadership in Acts 15, when the Apostles wrestle with “The Gentile Question.” Normal, everyday people looked on, as the Apostles wrestled with the matter, but it was James, the Father of the Jerusalem Church to finally bring debate and discussion to a close. No congregational vote was taken. No polling was conducted. The Apostles crafted a decision that can still be read in Acts 15:22-29, and that can still be felt today, as most Christians are former Gentiles.

We take for granted today many items, such as the New Testament, the Apostles’ Creed, even the belief that Jesus is fully God and yet fully Man. However, these theological gems are the fruit of top-heavy Church leadership. The question of who and what a Christian is, the nature of Salvation, the nature of God, etc. were not fully realized and appreciated in Jesus’s day much less two to three hundred years after Christ. These things were still being apprehended by the Church.

One controversy in particular stands out: The Arian Controversy. (No, I’m no referring to Hitler and his quest to create a super race.) The Arian Controversy stems from a very, very popular Church leader, Arius, who came to believe that Jesus could not have been fully God. He believed, though God created Jesus to be His God-Son, Jesus was the first thing that God the Father created. (This belief is quite similar to the modern-day Watchtower/Jehovah’s Witnesses theology.) Arius, quite the popular church leader came very close to moving the Church to adopting this heretical understanding of Jesus. People actually rioted in the streets in favor of Arius and his belief. Had the Church been democratic in Her government, we would have been something akin to the Jehovah’s Witnesses today. The Church Fathers, in particular a Father named Athanasius, fought not for public opinion. They fought for Truth, making a command decision in the Fourth Century. The top-heavy Church authority did not decide or create Truth. The top-heavy Church authority decided in the sense of realizing or apprehending self-existing Truth. When we recite the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc. we recite and celebrate the Fathers’ authoritarian realization and apprehending of self-existing Truth.

This top-heavy approach to Church leadership continued for another 1,200 years or so until about the 1500s. Many people, both common and elite (church and state) leaders came to realize that absolute authority had been radically abused. From this moment growing sentiment began asking the question, how do we keep authority in Church and State accountable? This was the heart of Martin Luther’s leadership in the Protestant Reformation. I believe all of the wars and revolutions in Europe and the New World centered around this one question, including our own American Revolution. Power in the Protestant Church began to mirror that of the evolution of the distribution of power in the State.

John and Charles Wesley helped to birth a Spirit-born revival in the Church in the English-speaking world. Many thousands of new believers were birthed into the Anglican Church. Yet, a phenomenon developed. While these believers began to form churches and accountability and prayer and study groups, they never fully integrated into the Anglican Church. They remained under the authority of the Anglican bishops. Wesley encouraged them to partake of Communion from their bishops. Yet two trends served to set this Methodist movement on the road to its own denomination.

The Anglican hierarchy would not formally recognize the leaders John Wesley, himself, trained. Thus, while these Wesleyan groups continued to remain under the spiritual authority of the Anglican bishops, they were being “spiritually fed” by traveling preachers. These Wesleyan groups, often simply took matters into their own hands, which took leadership burdens off of the traveling preachers (who might not see their “flocks” again, after preaching one Sunday, for several weeks).

The second trend driving the Methodists into building their own denominational home was the growing tension between England and the American colonies. The thought of serving the English King was bad enough. Are we to serve an English-popish figure, as well?—or so went the sentiment of the times. Many American churches—Methodist or Anglican—rarely saw an English bishop. Thus, yet again, the natives had to see to church affairs for themselves.

Eventually the Methodist and Anglican Churches became two distinctly recognized bodies, with the Methodist trending towards “low-church” leadership (ie the laity take care of things themselves). Yet the Methodists retained a flavor of an episcopal church structure.

The War between the States rifted deeply intimate folks. The Methodists were no different, breaking up into many distinct bodies. Following the War the Methodist bodies began a path towards reconciliation with one another that culminated in the early part of the 20^th Century with the formation of the United Methodist Church. However, several distinct Methodist groups chose remain independent, including what would become the Southern Methodist Church (the denomination in which this teaching was given).

With the divorce between the United Methodist church and the Southern Methodist Church fully complete, the SMC took a decidedly Congregational approach to Church government, locating near-absolute authority at the local level. The congregation would govern the affairs of church property and life. The “preacher” would “lead” the “spiritual” life of the church. In practice the congregation has absolute power over the affairs of church property, life, the so-called spiritual life of the church, and over the preacher.

At this point I’m not making a judgment call over this current practice of church leadership. I’ve merely charted, ever so briefly, how we got to where we (in the Southern Methodist Church) are at today. Let us take a look at the Scriptural understanding of Church leadership, in particular pastoral leadership.

A Brief Scriptural Sketch

John 2:13-22 (I am indebted to Rev. Peter J. Leithart, writing in Touchstone Magazine, “Flesh of Hope & Glory,” March/April 2010, p. 5, for this understanding of this passage.)

In this passage Jesus cleanses the Temple. He is questioned by the authorities over the nature of why He did this. Jesus claims authority over the Temple to such an extent that the Jews understand Him to claim the absolute authority belonging to God alone—the ability to raze and raise the Temple. The Jewish leadership crucified Him for this. We Christians know He was claiming a far greater authority than that—the authority to replace the Temple with none other than Himself and then place a people under that authority—the Church.

Hebrews 3:1-6

In this passage the author reiterates the teaching of John. Jesus is the head over the house of God. The house of God is no longer the Temple. The house of God is the Church. Moses was the greatest servant in the house of God. Yet Jesus is far greater than Moses, being no mere servant, but rather the Son, the inheritor of the house that God built.

So at this point, we have Jesus as Head over the Church. We could say He is the Great Shepherd over the Church.

I Peter 5:1-11

Peter writes to the leadership in this group of churches, as one fellow elder to the group of elders in leadership under him. He is not writing to the congregation, though they are welcome to listen to his message to the elders. He is encouraging the elders, as under-shepherds of the Chief Shepherd, Jesus, to “shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight (authority)….” The congregation is the flock. The congregation is to receive authoritative leadership. The elders are the under-shepherds of Jesus. They are to exercise authoritative leadership. (And yes, they are to do so in the gentle spirit of humility.) The shepherding role is the role of the pastor; notice the play on words, which is no mere fru-fru without substance. The metaphor is the same throughout and is full of real substance. This authority, biblically-speaking, is the privilege of the pastoral leadership.

Ephesians 4:1-16

While the above passage is the privilege of pastoral authority, this passage sums up the responsibility of pastoral leadership into the pithy statement: equip the saints. This concept is couched in the call to transform vile, violent pagans into a peaceful community of God mirroring the perfect love and harmony of the sinless of the Oneness of the Trinity: Father, Son & Spirit.

A Simple Question

So let’s summarize what has been covered thus far. Historically-speaking, the Church globally once held total power centrally. Over the years, the desire to find a way to hold leaders in check to prevent the abuse of authority splintered the global Church. I currently find myself in a denomination that in practice locates absolute authority (including any so-called “spiritual” authority) at the bottom, with the congregation. The Scriptural teaching calls for a different practice, locating authority centrally with the Apostles and their representatives, the pastors, under the absolute authority of the Chief Shepherd, Jesus. However, with this privilege of authority comes the responsibility of providing care and nurture for the congregation in all areas of life.

Let us consider the dire condition of the Southern Methodist Church. Most of our churches are facing the unfavorable prospect of simply dying out, due to a severe (near absolute) lack of evangelism and discipleship. American society is rapidly changing, and what worked in yesteryear in our denomination does not work now (if it really every worked). Our people need to be equipped to deal with this situation in which we find ourselves.

Here is my simple question: Do we really want it this way? Do we really want to continue the Church structure/government we have?

The privilege of authority in the Church carries with it the responsibility of equipping the saints. Equipping the saints calls with the knowledge and wisdom of successful engagement with the world and growing church. Where you find authority (the congregation), you find the responsibility of the Gospel. How many average members in our local congregations are equipped to equip the fellow church people to effective reach the lost?

Do we really it want this way?

While the current practice may well be for the congregation to hold onto all authoritative and purse strings, while shifting carefully measured doses of responsibility to the preacher, is this practice Scriptural? Scripturally-speaking, where you see the practice of authority in the Church, there you see the position of Pastor. The problem is, that under this understanding, the Congregation holds the position of Pastor, while employing a preacher fulfill whatever undesirable Pastoral duties there may be (but with little or no respect and authority to execute these duties).

Do we really it want this way?

If we are to be consistent, when the sick need visiting, when that Sunday School lesson needs to be expounded upon, I suggest we call the “pastor,” not the “preacher”—for the position of pastor  in our case is being filled by the congregation, not the preacher. Where you see the authority in the Church, you will find the responsibility for ministry in the Church. The congregation is in practice the pastor with the preacher a mere “hireling.”

Do we really it want this way?

The congregation will only rise to the level of “spiritual” maturity as that of the leadership within the congregation. Where you see the authority in the Church, you will find the responsibility for ministry in the Church. The leadership of the congregation is held by the pastor of the congregation. In our case the congregation steadfastly holds the position of pastor, while employing a preacher.

Do we really it want this way?

Exodus 3:1-12

In this vignette we see a Moses who is Shepherd Milquetoast. The one who would speak face to face with God now hangs his head, shying away. “Who am I that I should ….” Moses is not exactly inspirational is he? Yet, I argue that Moses has not always, nor will always be Shepherd Milquetoast.

Exodus 2:11-22

This vignette offers a “slightly” different picture of Moses than that on The Mountain. Moses is Captain Courageous, a Hollywood-swashbuckling-ladies-man.

Consider that Moses grew up as Pharoah’s son. He would have received the best education in the world. Since he is 40 at the time of this incident, he would certainly have had military leadership experience, not to mention political suave and acumen. Consider now later in Moses’s life. Moses comes down from The Mountain, fresh with the Ten Commandments engraved by the finger of God. He sees their idolatry and smashes the stones in anger. Later still, the people complain once again, and instead of speaking to the rock for water (as God had directed) Moses out of anger smashes his staff into the rock.

Now consider Exodus 2:11-22 again in the light of the above paragraph. A fire begins burning in his heart for his people. He will be their deliverer. So, he jumps out one day and daringly guts an Egyptian. The next day he happens upon two Hebrews fighting and attempts to be their peace-maker-deliverer. Their sarcastic response drives a wooden stake into his swash-buckling adventures in deliverance. He flees his homeland and is able to defend helpless ladies against ruffian shepherds (shepherds are hated by high-class Egyptians, of which Moses was one). Perhaps this added to the weight of Pharoah seeking Moses’s life, influencing him to stay.

Is it possible that Moses was consumed with passion and rage in desiring to deliver his people? Is it possible that Moses was simply consumed?

Now let us return to that fateful scene upon The Mountain. God asks Moses to be his instrument of deliverance, to which Moses responds, “who am I that I should?” I believe when God asked Moses this question, all he heard in the background was the sarcasm of those two Hebrews he meant to help: “Who made you prince and a judge over us?” I believe Moses’s attitude was at least flavored a little with snark: “They don’t want me to be their deliverer.”

Sound familiar?

• These people in this church better be glad I’m not the preacher!!!
• They better be glad I’m not their boss!!!

I believe Moses, that swash-buckling hero of a ladies-man held no lack of self-confidence. Rather I believe Moses was scared of his own tendencies towards all-consuming passion. Is it not interesting that the form God speaks to Moses in is a fire that covers a bush, yet does not consume the bush. God burns, yet is fully self-controlled. Moses burns and is consumed. The promise Moses receives is that God would be with Him. Consider one more vignette of Moses.

Numbers 12

Moses is challenged–yet again–by his own people. However, this time the challenge is from his own kin. How hurtful and shameful. This is no ordinary challenge, this is in essence a coup d’état. What is Moses’s response? I know what my response would be: I’d burn them in my wrath. Yet, Moses interceded for Miriam.

While in the first vignette Moses is featured as Shepherd Milquetoast, and in the second as Hollywood, in this vignette he is featured as meek. Contrary to popular misconception, meek does not mean weak. Rather, like the fire all over the bush, while not consuming it, meekness means strength under control.

From the time of Hollywood Moses to the time of Shepherd Milquetoast to the time of Shepherd Meekness, God was at work on Moses. As Moses walked with God, God transformed him into what He needed Moses to be for his people. Are we courageous enough to believe that God will equip His called-ones for the needs of the ones with whom these “called-ones” are placed to serve? God transformed Hollywood Moses into Undershepherd Moses. He will do the same for us.

In the last sermon we spent most of our time in Colossians 1, ending with verse 23. Paul became a “minister” of the Gospel. My contention was that when Paul speaks of his becoming a “minister,” he is not referring to his Apostleship specifically. He is referring to his general call to active service for the Gospel. This general call is one that has been made to all believers. Paul’s specific ministry is as an Apostle. Paul’s general ministry is as a Christian, as saint. In this sermon I will continue his thought process through the end of Colossians 1.

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me (Col 1:24-29; ESV).

Here Paul more specifically describes his general ministry as “mak(ing) the word of God fully known.” Of course the specific “word of God,” of which Paul teaches is the mission of God to “mature” everyone “in Christ.”

There is a problem, though. What are we to make of Paul’s declaration that he is “filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body”? Is there something deficient or “lacking” about Jesus’s work of Salvation on the Cross? When Jesus cried out “It is finished” on the Cross, was He delusional from the mutilation the Cross wrought on his flesh?

Here is a question. Were these Colossian believers following in the dust of Rabbi Jesus, during His life in the flesh on earth? No. They are vastly removed from the authentic Jesus. There is a gap between Jesus and them. Paul is standing in that gap with his teaching and his lifestyle. Paul is being Jesus to them. Thus, we can quip–Paul is helping them to cross that gap and come into maturity in Christ.

Paul is doing this as an Apostle, but I suggest that this is the calling of every minister of the Gospel (which is every believer). Every Christian/minister is called to stand in the gap, fill up what is lacking, for the folks around them. What if every Christian were driven to church by the following question: “How can I fill in the gap between Jesus and you today? Paul did it as an Apostle. The ways in which we can do this are legion.

Consider the following passages:

• Romans 12:3-8
• Ephesians 4:1-16
• I Corinthians 12

These are but a few of the ways in which the Spirit of God may use us to fill in the gap between Jesus and the world–the Church and State, the Nations and the neighborhoods. I Corinthians 12:7 is quite a telling definition of spiritual gifts (ie. the ways in which the Spirit of God may use us to fill in the gap between Jesus and the world):

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good (ESV).

Let us pray that the Spirit of God will give us an entrepreneurial spirit for ministry.

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:1 & 2; ESV).

However, objections are raised by most Christians in Traditional Southern Christianity to the apex of we pay “the minister” to do all our ministry stuff. Below are some objections offered up by many ordinary Christians unwilling to accept the title, “minister.”

• feelings of incompetence
• feelings of non-holiness
• feelings of guilt and shame
• feelings of intimidation
• (Dare I say it?) (Yes, I dare say it.) LAZINESS

Yet, if we follow Paul’s flow through chapters 12 & 13 of Romans, we see that Paul envisions no professional type of Christianity. Chapter 12 began with “therefore,” which alluded to chapters 9-11 concerning Grace in God’s election of Israel and the Church. “Therefore,” because of this grace, minister with gifts of grace in this grace (12:3 – 8), love, bless, give to, understand & respect one another and outsiders in grace fueled by this grace (12:9-21), bless the state in this grace with this grace (13:1-7), and do the same to all (13:8-14).

So, in other words, are only reverends required to pay taxes to Caesar? Are only reverends required to have genuine love? Are only reverends required to bless their enemies? If the answer is an emphatic no, then how do we get away with saying that only reverends are “gifted” for ministry?

Colossians 1:3-23

In this passage we will notice a progression/pattern. There is deliverance from “the domain of darkness to the kingdom of darkness … to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (1:13; ESV). Certainly this was Paul’s testimony. Paul says this was the testimony of the church at Colossae. Consider verses 21 & 22:

And you, who one were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him (ESV).

This was the testimony of this Colossian church. Certainly this was also Paul’s testimony. Thus the progression so far is (A) deliverance from Satan’s dominion to (B) the Kingdom of the Beloved Son, wherein we find forgiveness. Unfortunately, we often stop at this point in the progression. Fortunately, Paul does not stop. There is one more place beyond receiving forgiveness upon deliverance to the Kingdom of the Beloved Son:

Being Equipped for Ministry

Thus the progression would look like so–for the normal, everyday, believer:

Deliverance from Satan’s dominion–} Deliverance to Jesus’s Kingdom–} Being equipped the Holy Spirit for redemptive ministry

Paul speaks of the Gospel, itself, bearing fruit and growing (vs. 6). He is thankful that they have obeyed the Gospel (verse 6), which is bearing fruit and growing among them. He then prays for “all spiritual wisdom and understanding” for them so that they might, like the Gospel, bear fruit in every good work (vv 9-10).  This, dear folks, is a call to ministry. Paul speaks of himself as having ”became a minister” of this Gospel (verse 23).  

Immediately, people will hone in on the word, “minister,” and assume Paul is speaking of his Apostleship. Yet, as I demonstrate from the contextual flow, this cannot be the case. Paul is speaking of his becoming a minister — in general. This is the third phase in our Colossians 1 progression: deliverance from, deliverance to, equipping/anointing for ministry. It is true that Paul was an Apostle, a great one at that. Yet before Paul was an Apostle, Paul is a minister, which simply is a word for servant under authority for mission. Paul is a general minister, and his specific ministry is his Apostleship.

The whole of the Colossian church was called into “the ministry.” In actuality, we cannot say “the ministry,” for there is not just “one” ministry. The question is not were the Colossians/are we called into “ministry?” Rather the appropriate question is, “into which ministry(ies) are we called?”

Verse 23 is rather scary:

if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel in all creation under heaven (ESV)

This verse speaks to the very real possibility of not “continuing in the faith, stable and steadfast.” To me this verse is not so much scary, as it is filled with a wide door of opportunity for various flavors of ministries of grace gifts. If we are to continue in the faith, we will need the normal, everyday people of God, the ministers of God, as our support. Of course pastors, as a certain type of minister, have responsibility in this area, but they do not have the total responsibility, as our list from Romans 12:3-8 suggests.

Thus, we are beginning a new series, “Ministry,” to explore this seemingly radical idea of “every Christian an anointed minister of God.”

• What effects do each of our senses have on our souls?
• How might the Spirit of God use these senses to work in our lives?
• What effects do we have upon the physical senses of those around us for Jesus? (ie. What vision of God do we cast before others?)

In this sermon we are considering the sense of smell. What effect does smell have on our souls? How might the Spirit of God use smell to work in our lives? What effect do we have on the sense of smell of those around us for Jesus? In order to answer these seemingly silly questions, let us first consider what smell does to our wherewithal.

Let’s pretend we’ve been working in the yard all day. It’s 90 degrees outside. We’ve washed up and are now driving down town, when it hits us. Before we get there, we “smell” the smokey-goodness beckoning us to sojourn in the local BBQ-steak house.

Let’s pretend further. We park at the BBQ-steak house and walk in to be seated. At the door we don’t fully recognize it, but something faint has awoken us from the smokey BBQ daydream. As we are carried further and further back into the dining area, that something that rudely vanquished our daydream becomes increasingly painfully-pungent. We are unfortunate enough to arrive just in time to see the manager pulling a dead mouse out from under a box-seat booth. Yes, you are right, we will no doubt find another restaurant to day-dream in; if we even eat at all.

What does smell do for us? It either draws us in, or it repels us. Consider the following passages from Leviticus.

Leviticus 1:1-9

No doubt, as you were meandering through this “thick” passage concerning burnt offerings you were overcome with “highway hypnosis.” However, at the end of verse 9 is this very interesting declaration:

And the priest shall burn all of it on the altar, as a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD (ESV).

With so much emphasis in the Evangelical world about God’s never-changing, we are inclined to believe that God is never affected by what we do. What God does is entirely independent of any influence we might otherwise have on Him. Yet, the Scriptures are clear that we lowly beings of human flesh do affect God. God is a person (Or really three persons) with real feelings. This passage is but one of the indications that we affect God. The aroma lifting from the altar would be a “pleasing” aroma to Him.

Leviticus 4:1-12

Did you catch the aromatic phrase? In this midst of this rather gory passage, resides the phrase:

And the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense before the LORD that is in the tent of meeting (Leviticus 4:7; ESV).

The fragrant incense is offered up to God, and I sincerely believe this act of worship is alluring to Him. Now, who is it that is performing these rituals but the priests? With that in mind let us consider Paul’s use of this imagery in his teachings.

II Corinthians 1:3-11

In this passage Paul introduces one of his more personal letters. Paul’s ministry had encountered tremendous amounts of suffering in the line of ministry-fire. They are blessed by the Father of ”all mercies” with comfort during their sufferings so they might be able to comfort others during their sufferings. Paul speaks of mutual intercession.

II Corinthians 2:12-17

Now the picture is pungent. Though they are encountering tremendous suffering and shame, the greater reality is that God is leading them in victory. They are the “fragrance of Christ” to those around them, and suffering creates a more pungent fragrance. Let us hearken back to our Leviticus priestly image. The priest, who was set apart as holy, offered up the burnt offerings and fragrant incense to God. In these passages it is as if Paul is saying that his ministry team is the offering of fragrant incense. If we season this imagery with mutual intercession, Paul is quite possibly saying that his team and the Corinthians church are engaging in mutual priestly duties.

Romans 12:1 & 2

Yes, it is very clear. Paul is saying that as Christians we are sacrifices. He is not speaking to the reverends, priests, bishops, etc. He is speaking to ordinary Christians. We are to live on the barbeque of God. We are living sacrifices. We can smell the Levitical priestly imagery in the backdrop. In this passage we are to discern God’s will. Following these two verses, we are graced with gifts for ministry to the world–both to the Church and to the State. Flavor this with mutual intercession from the II Corinthians passages, and Paul is saying that as ordinary, everyday Christians, we are priest and sacrifice all wrapped into one. We are God’s priest and sacrifice for the world–both the Church and the State.

Revelation 5

Considering this imagery of priest and sacrifice for the world–both the Church and the State, let us look at a painfully pungent example in Revelation. Revelation 1 introduces us to John’s larger work. Revelation 2 -3 address specific local churches going through tremendous suffering, trials, and tribulation. Revelation 4 gives us a peek into Heaven at the time of the tremendous suffering of God’s people on earth. Worship in heaven of the King, who rules eternally and constantly, never ceases. Worship in heaven is never shaken by what occurs on earth. Now specifically consider Verse 8:

And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints (ESV; underlining mine).

These prayers are lifted up during immense persecution. They are incense. They are incense lifted fragrantly by people who are priest and sacrifice all wrapped into one for the world (which happens to be persecuting them) –both church and state.

Back to our questions:

• What effect(s) does the sense of smell have on our souls?

I believe smell can immediately soothe the soul and invite it to deeper healing recesses. It can also repeal the soul.

• How might the Spirit of God use these senses to work in our lives?

Metaphorically, our lives smell. We are fragrances of Christ. The Spirit of God may use the ministry of others to soothe our souls, inviting us to deeper healing recesses for greater perseverance and production in Jesus’s name.

• What effects do we have upon the sense of smell of those around us for Jesus? (ie. What vision of God do we cast before others?)

I believe the second question greatly overlaps this one. Just as the Spirit of God may use the ministry of others to soothe our souls, we might be the ones next thrown upon God’s barbee to sizzle for Him and provide healing for others. Additionally, our fragrant aroma from our lives as priest and sacrifice wrapped into one in the secular world is designed to soothe unbelievers, inviting them to deeper healing recesses in Christ.

These answers are in the ideal form. Alas I cannot answer for you. Only you can truly answer them.

What effect does taste have on the physical body? Let’s pretend for a moment. We’ve had a brunch (10:30-ish). We’ve worked in the garden all day. It’s pushing 5:00 pm. We’ve taken a shower and now have to drive 35 minutes to meet some friends at Applebee’s. We turn onto “Restaurant Row” and must drive 1.5 miles to get to Applebee’s. What do we smell, passing Logan’s Roadhouse, Longhorn Steakhouse, Western Sizzlin’ and Golden Corral. By the time we’ve arrived at Applebee’s, we’ve gotten 3 speeding tickets, while we’ve been “tasting” their Bourbon Street Steak. Once seated we give the waitress our full order without needing a menu. (Although, we must borrow money to pay for our dinner, because of our 3 speeding tickets!!! Murphy strikes again!)

Taste motivates. Taste motivates the body. Taste motivates the soul. Delectable taste draws us in. Putrid taste repels us forever. How many of us have items we refuse to eat today, because years ago these were the items we “tasted again, after getting sick? Consider David’s invitation:

Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!
     Blessed is the man who takes refuge
          in him!
Oh, fear the LORD, you his saints,
     for those who fear him have no lack!
The young lions suffer want and hunger;
     but those who seek the LORD lack no
          good thing (Psalm 34:8-10; ESV).

There is a metaphor here that is perhaps the key to this paragraph in this beautiful Psalm: “The young lions suffer want and hunger.” Young lions are famous for their first attempts at hunting, after leaving mommie, to be boogered up. Yet, they don’t give up. They continue to hunt until they perfect their carnivorous craft. What drives them to persist through those boggled first hunting attempts, but their remembrance of the dainty, bloody meat mommie used to bring home? Hunger and remembered taste fire-grill their bodies to continue to practice hunting until perfection.

Below that metaphor is this comparison: “but those who seek the LORD lack no good thing.” Saints are compared to young lions. Like young lions and hunting, saints must “seek” or hunt the LORD. Now it is true that God is considered the Hound of Heaven, and this is quite appropriate. However, this is only one side of the relational equation. It is bound up in our spiritual DNA that we are to “seek” or hunt the LORD.

How hungry are we for God? “Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!” This is a call to active, not passive, interaction with God. Our taste, or the remembrance thereof, is our motivator during trial, tribulations, sicknesses, death, disease, hardships, unemployment, rejection, oppression, etc. To taste God, we must seek Him. We must hunt Him; persistently at that.

John 6:22-71

This teaching, which follows Jesus’s feeding of the multitudes, is one of the most profound invitations to authentic and faithful discipleship. Jesus is profoundly rejected. Most preachers teach that the crowd rejected Jesus because they ignorantly thought He was advocating cannibalism. They thought nothing of the sorts.

Many faithful Jews of the time hungrily anticipated the arrival of a special deliverer, known as the Son of Man. This was based on the teaching in Daniel 7. This superhero would destroy the world powers oppressing God’s faithful. He was certainly one of the messiahs they anticipated. Many rabbis taught that when the Son of Man appears, we would devour him. We would devour him in the sense of devouring every syllable of his teachings. Wherever he would go, we would go.

On either end of Jesus’s teaching here, the crowd seeks Jesus and then rejects Him, because they cannot accept Him fully. They are certainly not ignorant of what He was claiming to be. They simply rejected Him as the Son of Man. This crowd ending up being cafeteria groupies, believing Jesus to be the ultimate lunch lady:

Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves (John 6:26; ESV).

What about us? Will we abandon ourselves to Jesus completely as Peter marvelously proclaimed:

So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:67-69; ESV).

Pain and suffering are not absolutely bad. We hunger for better days, and are invited to “taste and see that the LORD is good.” This requires us to actively pursue God with perseverance, with our hunger and taste working in conjunction with one another. Yet, in hunting God, we are not invited to the JC Cafeteria, where Jesus is our ultimate lunch lady. We are called to devour all of Him with abandon.

When we mingle with people, what “taste” of God do we leave with them? Do we whet the appetites of others for God, or repel them with an overpowering sense of the putrid?

We good Conservative Christians often pride ourselves on how much stock we put into our statements of faith, our Bible knowledge, and our struggles against modernity, postmodernity, liberalism and secular humanism. Here are some questions for us:

Do we really know God, or do we simply know about Him?

Do we engage with others in our neighborhoods and Nations with our experiential knowing of God?

Do we in the simple process of living life invite others to a deeper walk with God?

Mark 10:32-45

In the flow of these stories Mark moves us from Jesus bearing his grieving heart to his closest companions to two of them asking Him for special privileges. They have been with Him for three years, and these two are not able to know Jesus at His moment of need. They are not able to know Jesus to such a depth as to have pity or sympathy for Him on His terms in His struggles. They know about Him but apparently do not know Him. He bluntly tells them in verse 38:

You do not know what you are asking (ESV; underlining mine).

He invites them to know Him in a fellowship of sorts: the fellowship of suffering servant leadership for the world in verse 42:

You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them (ESV; underlining mine).

Psalm 31:6-8

David rejoices because God has “seen my affliction; you have known the distress of my soul” (verse 7; ESV; underlining mine). The mere fact that God has the fact of David’s distress in His mind is not what comforts David here. What restores David’s soul and empowers him to press on in faith is that God knows David so intimately that God has pity and sympathy on David in his distress; so that God delivers him.

Exodus 1:8

This pharaoh who comes into power does not know Joseph. Now, this statement is ridiculous if the meaning of know is to know as a personal acquaintence or to know about. Of course this pharaoh could not have been been personally acquainted with Joseph, as the king was not 400 years old. Nor is it likely that this pharaoh had no knowledge of Joseph. The only way in which this verse makes sense, as Rabbi Abraham Heschel teaches in his work, God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism, is that this pharoh did not have pity on Joseph and Joseph’s people.

Hosea 1, 2 & 4:1-6

Hosea is typically seen as the prophet who took a whore for a wife as a prophetic example to Israel for their prostitutional abandonment of God. However, the better way to understand Hosea is as the only man in his day who to truly know God at such an intimate depth as to be able to have pity on and sympathize with God in His struggles for His people. These passages feature an emotional roller coaster. God is ready to kick His people to the curb absolutely. Then God remembers His covenental bond with Israel:

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” it shall be said to them, “Children of the living God” (1:10; ESV).

God knows His people and longs for His people to know Him, intimately, experientially. He longs for His people to be moved to sympathy and compassion for God in His struggles out of the depths of their intimate, experientially knowing of Him. After pronouncing judgment and restoration of His people in deeply intimate terms:

And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me “My husband,” and no longer will you call me “My Baal” (2:16; ESV)

God climaxes with this promise: “And you shall know the LORD” (2:20; ESV; italics mine). God promised He would so radically transform them that they would desire to know Him from their heart of hearts and be moved to sympathy and pity and compassion for Him.

Mark 10:17-31

In this famous story Jesus is approached by a man, who Mark tells us He loves (10:20). This man knows the commandments and ways of God. But this man is unwilling to sell his distractions to know Jesus through experience. The disciples are astonished at Jesus’s remark about those wealthy in distractions. Jesus reassures them that God is fully capable to save people willing to sell all their distractions for lifestyles of authentic experientially knowing Jesus. They would come to intimately know God’s power to provide.

Mark 10:13-16

Strangely, this story features the disciples as the antagonists who fail in their knowing of Jesus’s heart. He rebukes them, saying that the kingdom of Heaven is only for those who become like children. I do not believe Jesus is referring to the naiveté of children. Rather I believe the context demands that we understand Jesus to mean that we must become like children in the sense of total abandonment in knowing people intimately.

John 17:3

Jesus tells us that Salvation is knowing God and Jesus.

Philippians 3:10

Paul tells us that he longs to know Jesus, the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings.

Hebrews 13:7-16

The author asks the readers to imitate their leaders, who spoke the Word of God to them. The flow of the letter demands we understand their leaders to be both their local elders, their apostolic fathers, and the saints of the Old Testament. He them makes one last comparison between the sacrificial system of the Temple and Jesus. Just like the sacrifices for sin are burnt outside the camp, so Jesus was taken to be crucified for the sin fo the world outside Jerusalem. The author compels us to go to Jesus “outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured” (13:13; ESV). This is the fellowship of His sufferings that Paul talked about. We are invited to know Jesus in this way as a lifestyle of worship.

As believers, do we know God or simply know about Him? Let us consider a provocative statement by Rabbi Heschel:

Religious thinking, believing, feeling are among the most deceptive activities of the human spirit. We often assume it is God we believe in, but in reality it may be a symbol of personal interests that we dwell upon. We may assume that we feel drawn to God, but in reality it may be a power within the world that is the object of our adoration. We may assume it is God we care for, but it may be our own ego we are concerned with. To examine our religious existence is, therefore, a task to be performed constantly (from God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism).

We certainly have a friend in Jesus, as the old hymn goes, but does Jesus have a friend in us?

One thing that sets physical touch apart from the other senses, except perhaps taste, is that physical touch is active as well as passive. Passively, you can feel the clothes on your body, the touch of another invading your space and changes in the temperature. No effort is required to feel these things. Yet there is an active aspect to physical touch. In order for me to feel money, I must get off my rump and work for it. In order for me to touch my wife sensually, I must love her as she needs to be loved.

What happens when the body does not move to actively experience different sensations? Bed sores. I believe the same can be said for the human soul. Certainly the same can be said for authentic faith. Faith is belief that spurs one to action for a purpose. Beliefs without action lead to a Christian life of bed sores.

Matthew 9:18-27

There are two remarkable stories here: That of the perpetually bleeding woman and that of the two blind men. In both of these stories the sick people actively, physically push past adversity to touch Jesus. They did not wait on Jesus to come to them; they went to Him. He touched them.

Matthew 9:9-17

In both of these stories Jesus is criticized. In the first story Jesus is criticized for his voluntary and extended physical contact with undesirables. In the second story Jesus touches food, while John’s disciples and Pharisees regularly abstain from touching food for extended periods of time. In the first story Jesus explains to his critics that He was touching the heart of the prophets by touching needy souls, while they are missing the heart of God. In the second story Jesus explains that their old attitudes and ways of doing things (the old wine skins) must be replaced by new attitudes and ways of doing things (new wine skins) in order to receive the fresh wine from God. Keep in mind Jesus is not speaking about replacing Torah (Matthew 5:17-20). Rather He is hoping to return their hearts and moods back to the heart of the prophets and God.

Thus, Jesus is truly doing new things (Matthew 9:32-34). He desires to bring new, fresh wine through the Holy Spirit constantly. The question is are we willing to constantly physically seek out Jesus to touch Him, constantly giving Him our old wineskins for new ones? When we enc0unter people in the neighborhoods and Nations, do we whet their appetites and create itches that need to be scratched by the Spirit of God?

In this particular sermon-synopsis let us explore “feeling.” Feeling has a number of connotations. When I eat ice cream from Cold Stone Creamery, I feel awesome, and later full. When the creamy goodness melts on my tongue I can feel the sweet delicacy slinking down my throat.

Yet, in this post I want to consider feeling in the sense of the particular audio-visual tape that consumes our minds and hearts as we encounter life. Again this is a bit different from feelings deriving from physical touch and feelings deriving from particular encounters with people, things, and events. I am considering the global attitude/mood that governs our interactions with the world.

In short as Christians, what is our prevailing mood when it comes to engaging with the world? What governing attitude drips from our minds and hearts onto the tastebuds of the souls in the neighborhoods and Nations? What impression about God is engraved in the hearts and minds of those souls when they encounter us in the neighborhoods and Nations?

Ephesians 2:1-10

We have been saved with a powerful Salvation by a powerful God for powerful ministry in the neighborhoods and Nations.

Ephesians 1:15-23

If One who saved us, Jesus, is truly seated above all powers and principalities, then why do we fear the powers and principalities? When needy souls encounter us, what does our faith-mood engrave on their hearts and minds about God, the world and life?

Ephesians 6:10-20

Truly, Jesus rules over all powers and principalities. Truly, we need not fear those powers and principalities, though they make take our lives. God does not intend for us to founder in faith in the world. God intends for us, as Christians, to boldly war against those powers and principalities for the people in the neighborhoods and Nations. He desires the audio-visual tape perpetually playing in our hearts and minds to be one of courageous and enterprising faith. He desires this faith-mood to flow into the needy believing souls of others. He desires to whet the appetites of unbelievers with the drip of our faith mood.

Mark 5:1-20

What did hearing do for this pitiful man’s soul? What was it like to perpetually hear the demonic voices raking his soul over earthly hell’s coals? What was it for him to perpetually hear the reaction of the “normal” folks to his dastardliness?

What did hearing the Word of God, Jesus, bringing deliverance with His words do for his soul? What was it like to finally hear … nothing … silence?

Ephesians 5:15-21

How melodious is the debauched life? Quite cacophonous I would say. Paul in this passage contrasts the debauched life with the lifestyle of being perpetually drunk with the Holy Spirit. The debauched life is one of the soul held in bondage to chaos and alienation. The life of perpetual drunkeness with the Holy Spirit brings redemptive order to dastard chaos. God spoke the Creation into existence and sent His Word to heal the Creation. This lifestyle is one of ministering in legion ways the melodious Word of God to needy souls in the Church, neighborhoods and Nations. When people hear us, what do they hear from God?