A couple of weeks ago our congregation celebrated
Communion. And, as is the custom in Seventh-day Adventist churches, we
ritualistically re-enacted the footwashing described in John chapter 13.
I’d like to review and expand upon some of the things noted during
Communion.
"It was just before the Passover Feast," John tells us. "Jesus knew that
the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father.
Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the
full extent of his love" (John 13:1, emphasis mine).
It’s not perfectly clear whether John here refers
to Jesus’ death on the cross—which isn’t described until several
chapters later—or whether he refers to what Jesus did in washing the
feet of His disciples (when he says Jesus demonstrated the "full extent
of his love"). But, for a moment at least, let’s assume that he’s
referring to Jesus’ act of washing His disciples’ feet.
Is it possible that John is saying that being willing to serve
others—day in and day out, through good times and bad, when appreciated
and when scorned, tirelessly, unflaggingly, year after year—is actually
a greater demonstration of love than even the heroic gesture of
sacrificing one’s life on behalf of another?
It’s a question worth contemplating. But let’s go on.
John next says: "Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his
power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so
he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a
towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and
began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was
wrapped around him" (John 13:3-5, emphasis mine).
The behavior Jesus asks of His followers turns normal wisdom on its
head. For example, instead of striking back when slapped, He advocates
turning the other cheek. Instead of seeking recognition for our good
deeds, He advocates doing them so inconspicuously that no one even knows
who should get the credit. Instead of seeking the highest positions, He
advocates servanthood.
Understandably, such counter-intuitive commands aren’t easy to carry
out. In fact, it can happen only when one buys in wholeheartedly to the
radically different paradigm Jesus promoted. Such a stunning departure
from long-established norms is possible only when people have an
overwhelming sense of who they are and the superiority of the
alternative value system to which they subscribe.
And that’s exactly what the Bible says about Jesus: He knew with
absolute certainty the nature of His relationship with God, "so"
He was able to play the servant role for His disciples. That little word
"so" isn’t insignificant. It bridges the two parts of the sentence. It
says this made that possible.
I believe Communion helps us identify and celebrate both the "this" and
the "that." In inviting sinful humans to His table of grace, Jesus
assures us, just as He assured Zaccheus, that we are indeed His
children. So, with that wondrous truth embedded in our minds and
hearts, we can go forth to serve humanity just as He did.
Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor
Why
Did Jesus Come?
Recently I reread something I wrote a couple of years
ago and have decided to share it again, because I think it’s important.
I would argue that the single most important fact with
which we need to come to grips is the character of God. If we have the
wrong picture of God, we’re going to have the wrong picture of what
humanity should be. Not only were we created in God’s image, but we grow
into the image of the God we perceive. So how we view God has enormous
consequences.
That’s why I’m uncomfortable with the dualistic,
angry-God/loving-God depictions about the respective character of God
the Father and His Son Jesus.
Needless to say, when I read in an Easter presentation
that Jesus "made peace on behalf of humanity with an angry God," I
cringed. In fact, I felt some anger. "You have no right to talk about my
loving heavenly Father that way," I wanted to scream.
I have no question that God hates sin. He hates the
state of alienation that leads to bad behavior. He hates the bad
behavior itself. He hates the appalling results that spring from the bad
behavior. Indeed, God must be angry about all that has happened in the
course of the great controversy that’s raging between good and evil. But
God loves humans. He loves those who are both affected and infected by
sin. And that’s all of us.
God doesn’t need to be convinced to love us or accept
us. The father of the prodigal son was ready and waiting. It was the son
who needed convincing. It was when he came to his senses that the love
of the father could actually make a difference in his life. Before then,
all the love in the world was useless.
So why did Jesus come to this earth? Was it to make
peace on behalf of humanity with an angry God? Or was it to make peace
on behalf of a loving God with a rebellious and angry humanity? The
question has huge implications about the character of God.
The Bible employs a long list of metaphors to give us
confidence and certainty. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, solicitously
caring for His sheep. Jesus is the faithful relative who pays an
enormous debt on our behalf so we can have a new start. Jesus is the
mother hen who protects her chicks. Jesus is the one who bears our
punishment so we can go free. Jesus is all this and much more.
But when we so slavishly apply a metaphor that we
portray an angry God who has to be appeased—who demands so much
punishment for so much infraction—I think we’ve missed the clear intent
of Scripture. Sin separates us from God and from each other. God’s love
unites us with Him and with each other. It’s our only hope. Jesus came to convince us to accept God—not to
convince God to accept us.
That’s what Christmas should be all
about.Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor
A Lesson We Can Learn From
"Politics"
First the disclaimers: What I’m about to say is neither pro-Democrat nor
anti-Democrat, neither pro-Republican nor anti-Republican. Nor is it any
kind of prediction about how well or how badly the President-elect is
going to execute the duties of his office once he gets there. It’s
simply an observation concerning one set of decisions he has made from
which Christians could take a lesson.
And there’s a biblical precedent for
what I’m about to say. Jesus declared that "the people of this world are
more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the
light" (Luke 16:8). In other words, we can learn lessons from just about
everyone—and every thing, for that matter. Didn’t Solomon tell us
that even ants have some important insights to provide (Proverbs 6:6)?
Anyway, it seems to me that Barack
Obama’s attempts to get as many people as possible into the tent (a
figure of speech, obviously) is a really smart idea. It’s a really
Christian idea, actually—even though Christians aren’t noted for being
particularly adept at applying this very Christian principle.
I’m referring in general to Obama’s
attempt to keep wide open the lines of communication even with those who
aren’t on the same ideological page. And I refer specifically to his
invitation to the socially conservative evangelical pastor Rick Warren
to pray at his inauguration.
One of the reasons I’m so convinced
it’s such a great idea is because the extremes on both the right
and the left find it so abhorrent.
For the left, the simple fact that
Warren has openly expressed his opposition to certain gay initiatives
and to abortion makes him anathema, with no redeeming qualities. Asking
him to pray is nothing short of political pandering. It’s a total
sellout of party principles.
For the right, the fact that Warren
would even accept the invitation is a similar sellout. The very
fact that he’s willing to be associated with a president who supports
gay rights and legalized abortion shows that Warren is little more than
an opportunist and publicity seeker.
But such explanations are too simple.
I’d suggest that both Obama and Warren recognize that good people
disagree. Further they both understand that if this nation is to achieve
its true potential, there’s going to have to be civil dialogue even
about our disagreements. There’s going to have to exist an underlying
respect.
Simply retreating to our respective
corners and demonizing each other isn’t the answer. Sharp-but-civil
debate always makes for better outcomes. A loyal opposition is
both a blessing and a necessity.
What better way for Obama to
demonstrate his underlying respect than to invite someone he disagrees
with to play such a high-profile role at such an important event? And
what better way for the invitee to show a similar respect?
I highly commend the example these
men have set. And I hope we’ll emulate it in our interactions at
church—whether our discussion involves the choice of color for new
carpet, whether Jesus had the human nature of Adam before or after the
fall into sin, or the exact way in which the death of Jesus brought
about our salvation.
Jim Coffin, Senior Pastor
