THE MASTER HAS COME, AND HE IS CALLING FOR YOU

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

THE MASTER HAS COME, AND HE IS CALLING FOR YOU

yesterday's sermon, can be viewed by clicking the video link at the lower right of the following site http://www.graceistheplace.com/

---

Summary:

Mary, Martha, and Lazarus... good friends of Jesus. When He was in the area of Jerusalem, He frequently made the two mile walk out to their home and stayed with them.  Mary once anointed His feet with precious perfume. Martha once pouted to Him that Mary wasn't helping in the kitchen.

So when Mary and Martha saw their brother's health slipping fast, they knew Jesus would hurry to their side if He knew how bad off Lazarus was.  They sent a messenger to find him wherever He was hiding.  The messenger found him, and Jesus still lingered for a couple more days before He finally told His disciples that they should head to Bethany because Lazarus was dead.

It took another day or more for them to make the trip, so by the time they finally arrived at Bethany, Lazarus had been dead four days.

Martha ran out to meet Jesus before He even arrived at her home. , and right off, she accused him of not coming in time.  "If you had been here," she cried.  After He offered her some reassurance, He told her to go tell Mary that He wanted her to come out and see Him.

Martha went back and relayed the message, and Mary went out, across the lawn, past the neighbor's and confronted Jesus: "If you had been here, my brother would not have died."

It's wonderful that Jesus would go to the tomb with them in a while, and call Lazarus out of the grave.  But it's equally wonderful that a subtle dynamic took place between Jesus and Mary, a dynamic that may help us embrace Jesus in tough times.

It comes into focus by asking this question:  When did Jesus call for Mary?

The answer is an uplifting breath of hope for all of us.

1. HE CALLED FOR HER WHEN SHE WAS HEARTBROKEN.  She stayed back at the house while Martha went out to meet Jesus. She was so full of grief! Her heart was broken in a thousand pieces. When our heart's are broken, we don't think rationally, we don't often think of others, and we don't think life is good anymore. And in this depressed, heartbroken, self-absorbed state, Martha comes in with a message: "The Master is come, and He's calling for you."

2. HE CALLED FOR HER WHEN SHE DIDN'T CARE TO TALK TO HIM.  Do you know why we quit praying? Typically it's because we haven't seen a lot of results from our prayers. If you pray for 20 things to happen in your life, and none of them ever come to pass, no prayer is answered, you lose the incentive to pray.  It's hard to understand why you should.  Mary had sent a messenger to Jesus, calling for Him to come.  The messenger returned, but without Jesus.  Jesus didn't come.  And her brother died.  What does she now have to say to Jesus?  And in that frame of mind, curled up in her house, refusing to run out with Martha to greet Jesus, comes the call from her sister: "The Master is come, and He's calling for you."

3. HE CALLED FOR HER WHEN SHE WAS BLAMING HIM FOR HER LOSS.  We may not admit it, but we do this.  We blame God.  We know what He is capable of, what power He has.  And when He doesn't use it on us, we wonder why.  And when His absence or silence costs us something dear, we privately know: "If He had been here, this pain would not have come."  Mary's challenge to Him reveals that she was blaming Jesus for her brother's death. Yet in this accusing state of mind comes the whisper, "Mary, the Master is come, and He's calling for you."

The reason this story is encouraging should be obvious.  We all suffer brokenness, even though our more spiritual friends are rebuking us and telling us to think more positively and trust God more. And we all have our periods of prayerlessness, times when we don't feel the motivation to pray because, frankly, He hasn't answered many prayers.  And we've all blamed God for our losses, knowing that if He had just showed up, we would not have suffered.  And the next time we go through such periods, it would be wonderful if, in our depression, we could hear a whisper, "The Master has come, and He's calling for you."

That's Love!

[John Dibble]

Did you delete the version of this thread with afleitch's hilarious troll/joke where you responded by pointing out his homosexuality for no particular reason and questioned his gender?

...lol.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Did you delete the version of this thread with afleitch's hilarious troll/joke where you responded by pointing out his homosexuality for no particular reason and questioned his gender?

...lol.

his post was disrespectfully distracting from the topic, because that's what trolls do.  so, yes, i deleted it.  if it happens again, I'll leave it as a example of how the world hates the word of God, thus bringing glory to God.

[afleitch]

Did you delete the version of this thread with afleitch's hilarious troll/joke where you responded by pointing out his homosexuality for no particular reason and questioned his gender?

...lol.

his post was disrespectfully distracting from the topic, because that's what trolls do.  so, yes, i deleted it.  if it happens again, I'll leave it as a example of how the world hates the word of God, thus bringing glory to God.

Yet you reported it before deleting it?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Did you delete the version of this thread with afleitch's hilarious troll/joke where you responded by pointing out his homosexuality for no particular reason and questioned his gender?

...lol.

his post was disrespectfully distracting from the topic, because that's what trolls do.  so, yes, i deleted it.  if it happens again, I'll leave it as a example of how the world hates the word of God, thus bringing glory to God.

Yet you reported it before deleting it?

yes, i reported your post.  a first for me.  I couldn't delete your individual post, so I deleted the thread and started over.

[afleitch]

Did you delete the version of this thread with afleitch's hilarious troll/joke where you responded by pointing out his homosexuality for no particular reason and questioned his gender?

...lol.

his post was disrespectfully distracting from the topic, because that's what trolls do.  so, yes, i deleted it.  if it happens again, I'll leave it as a example of how the world hates the word of God, thus bringing glory to God.

Yet you reported it before deleting it?

yes, i reported your post.  a first for me.  I couldn't delete your individual post, so I deleted the thread and started over.

Well if you reported the post, then the moderator could have deleted my post. Surely you should know that by now. I can't help but think that you infact deleted the thread because of your outburst that Dibble mentioned earlier (and I also read) ? Because that in itself could also have been infractable.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Did you delete the version of this thread with afleitch's hilarious troll/joke where you responded by pointing out his homosexuality for no particular reason and questioned his gender?

...lol.

his post was disrespectfully distracting from the topic, because that's what trolls do.  so, yes, i deleted it.  if it happens again, I'll leave it as a example of how the world hates the word of God, thus bringing glory to God.

Yet you reported it before deleting it?

yes, i reported your post.  a first for me.  I couldn't delete your individual post, so I deleted the thread and started over.

Well if you reported the post, then the moderator could have deleted my post. Surely you should know that by now. I can't help but think that you infact deleted the thread because of your outburst that Dibble mentioned earlier (and I also read) ? Because that in itself could also have been infractable.

I'm not afraid to have people read me referring to your homosexuality as the reason why you want to distract from the word of God, because that is what have done the whole time you've been on this forum, you always attempt to muddy the water to keep the truth from coming out, but it is obvious to everyone that you're motivated by your homosexuality.

[John Dibble]

I'm not afraid to have people read me referring to your homosexuality as the reason why you want to distract from the word of God, because that is what have done the whole time you've been on this forum, you always attempt to muddy the water to keep the truth from coming out, but it is obvious to everyone that you're motivated by your homosexuality.

Really? It could have been because of his new atheistic view on religion. Or perhaps a general dislike of you. (which you've rightly earned) Or maybe he just wanted to make a funny - it got a chuckle out of me anyways. I'd guess it's the latter, perhaps with a bit of the second, but I can't speak for afleitch.

But because he's gay? Seriously? You're the only one obsessed enough with gay people on this forum to think of that option.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not afraid to have people read me referring to your homosexuality as the reason why you want to distract from the word of God, because that is what have done the whole time you've been on this forum, you always attempt to muddy the water to keep the truth from coming out, but it is obvious to everyone that you're motivated by your homosexuality.

Really? It could have been because of his new atheistic view on religion. Or perhaps a general dislike of you. (which you've rightly earned) Or maybe he just wanted to make a funny - it got a chuckle out of me anyways. I'd guess it's the latter, perhaps with a bit of the second, but I can't speak for afleitch.

But because he's gay? Seriously? You're the only one obsessed enough with gay people on this forum to think of that option.

so, his rejection of Christianity has nothing to do with the fact he likes having sex with men?  Seriously?  You're the only one naive enough on this forum to not think so.

[John Dibble]

I'm not afraid to have people read me referring to your homosexuality as the reason why you want to distract from the word of God, because that is what have done the whole time you've been on this forum, you always attempt to muddy the water to keep the truth from coming out, but it is obvious to everyone that you're motivated by your homosexuality.

Really? It could have been because of his new atheistic view on religion. Or perhaps a general dislike of you. (which you've rightly earned) Or maybe he just wanted to make a funny - it got a chuckle out of me anyways. I'd guess it's the latter, perhaps with a bit of the second, but I can't speak for afleitch.

But because he's gay? Seriously? You're the only one obsessed enough with gay people on this forum to think of that option.

so, his rejection of Christianity has nothing to do with the fact he likes having sex with men?  Seriously?  You're the only one naive enough on this forum to not think so.

I was referring to his Doctor Who joke which apparently you found to be an unbearable troll - I don't think being gay had anything to do with that. However, being British might have been a factor.

As to his rejection of Christianity, I can't say - like I said before, I can't speak for him. He was openly gay and professed belief for years, so his rejection may have come up for entirely different reasons. There are other reasons one can reject your religion, you know.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While it has nothing to do with the theme of the sermon here, it is noteworthy which translation of the Bible it was based on.  The KJV (and related translations) use "Master" for the Greek "διδασκαλος".  It was not an unreasonable translation  for the beginning of the 16th century, but the word master has changed in its usual import since then.  A number of newer translations use "Teacher", which while closer isn't quite exact either given how casually that word is sometimes used.  The Japanese "sensei" comes closer in catching the meaning.

In any case, use of the title "Master" misses that Jesus was there to teach a lesson, a lesson he could not have taught had Lazarus not died.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

While it has nothing to do with the theme of the sermon here, it is noteworthy which translation of the Bible it was based on.  The KJV (and related translations) use "Master" for the Greek "διδασκαλος".  It was not an unreasonable translation  for the beginning of the 16th century, but the word master has changed in its usual import since then.  A number of newer translations use "Teacher", which while closer isn't quite exact either given how casually that word is sometimes used.  The Japanese "sensei" comes closer in catching the meaning.

In any case, use of the title "Master" misses that Jesus was there to teach a lesson, a lesson he could not have taught had Lazarus not died.

if you had watched the video:

1) at 10:15 it mentions the KJV "Master" and the ESV "Teacher"
2) the entire sermon is about the lesson Jesus was there to teach

so thanks for stopping by and pointing out what the sermon missed

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

if you had watched the video:

1) at 10:15 it mentions the KJV "Master" and the ESV "Teacher"
2) the entire sermon is about the lesson Jesus was there to teach

so thanks for stopping by and pointing out what the sermon missed

Okay, then what your summary missed, rather than what the sermon missed.  I freely admit, I don't find your pastor's speaking style engaging enough to want to watch his sermons.  However, your fairly lengthy summary conveyed neither of those two points.

However my second paragraph was referring to the use of "Master" instead of "Teacher" in general, and was not restricted to just the sermon.  The fact that your pastor chose to emphasize in the title of his sermon the antique translation "Master" is indicative of which aspects of the Christ he chose to emphasize.  Emphasizing the Christ as the Master may work better for those who already believe, but I think a less confrontational emphasis on the Christ as Teacher would work better if one is trying to gain converts.

It's fairly obvious that one reason you keep posting links to your pastor's sermons is in hopes of gaining converts, but it appears to me that he is aiming at a different audience, namely the one that is right there as he is speaking.  That's not to say that it is a bad choice on his part, but you may wish to also link to other material that is aimed at conversion rather than the sustainment of the already converted.

[afleitch]

I can't believed I missed this nugget;

I posted last year specifically on why I lost my faith. I refer you to that. My sexuality had nothing to do with loosing it, or had anything to do with it when I was still practicing. My own moral positions were also not affected by my sexuality; they are values that are held within my family and were passed on to me.

You seem to be more obsessed with my sexuality than I am.

[Torie]

Yes, just what sexuality qua sexuality has to do with morality escapes me (unless attended by dishonesty or exploitation). But most disagree with me on that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Okay, then what your summary missed, rather than what the sermon missed.

summaries aren't exhaustive, which is why they are called summaries.

---

I freely admit, I don't find your pastor's speaking style engaging enough to want to watch his sermons.

substance is more important than style

2Cor 11:6  "I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge."

---

However, your fairly lengthy summary conveyed neither of those two points.

Again, look up the definition of summary.

---

However my second paragraph was referring to the use of "Master" instead of "Teacher" in general, and was not restricted to just the sermon.  The fact that your pastor chose to emphasize in the title of his sermon the antique translation "Master" is indicative of which aspects of the Christ he chose to emphasize.  Emphasizing the Christ as the Master may work better for those who already believe, but I think a less confrontational emphasis on the Christ as Teacher would work better if one is trying to gain converts.

Yeah, I'm sure Satan would just love it if Christians watered down Jesus' identity to nonbelievers...I guess that is why the author of the Gospel of John, which the sermon is taken from, begins his book by calling Jesus God.

John 1: 1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

I think referring to Jesus as God coming in the flesh would mean that he is both master and teacher, but I guess, by your logic which the Devil would want you to believe, John didn’t intend non believers to read his gospel since he speaks of Christ’s deity more than any other gospel.

---

It's fairly obvious that one reason you keep posting links to your pastor's sermons is in hopes of gaining converts, but it appears to me that he is aiming at a different audience, namely the one that is right there as he is speaking.  That's not to say that it is a bad choice on his part, but you may wish to also link to other material that is aimed at conversion rather than the sustainment of the already converted.

Well, let’s examine that, shall we?  My pastor preaches a sermon to the congregation and then turns around and posts it on the internet so that it can be freely shared by all.  Seems pretty reasonable to me that he thinks it is fitting for anyone.

Likewise, the night I was saved I was reading from the letter to the Galatians, which Paul wrote to believers, even though I was unconverted at the time I started reading it.   

In fact, the identity of Jesus is ALWAYS front and center of the preaching of the gospel, regardless if the audience is believers or nonbelievers.  Just look at the book of Acts for examples:

The very first sermon of the church age, spoken to nonbelievers…Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

And what was the result of Peter proclaiming Jesus’ identity to unbievers?...Acts 2:41 ”about three thousand were added to their number that day”!!!  And those 3000 are forever grateful Peter didn’t take your advice.

Youre basically saying believers and unbelievers should be taught different messages, that unbelievers should be shielded from truth and from the glory of who Jesus is.

---

In other words, your objections are so petty and obviously flawed and backward, it is an embarrassment even to respond to them….because you’re focused on arguing over words and style of presentation instead of being focused on the power of lifting up Jesus as Lord through the preaching of the word of God.

2Tim 2:14 “Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.”

Do I really need to explain to you that presenting Jesus as Lord is the very heart of the Gospel and a gospel presenting Jesus simply as teacher (as Islam does) is really no gospel at all?  For it is impossible to receive Christ without receiving him as Lord: 

Col 2:6 “So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, to live your lives in him”

2 Cor 4:5 “For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.”

Eph 3:8 “Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ.”

---

Summary:  stating that unbelievers should be told a watered down version of Christ's identity is demonic, plain and simple.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yeah, I'm sure Satan would just love it if Christians watered down Jesus' identity to nonbelievers...

That sarcastic statement would have some relevance if I was advocating stopping with just a part of his identity.

I guess that is why the author of the Gospel of John, which the sermon is taken from, begins his book by calling Jesus God.

To the degree the Gospel of John was written with the intention of being an aid to conversion, it written with the primary purpose of converting those who already ascribed divine approval to John the Baptist, but had not yet accepted that Jesus was the Christ, as evidenced by the emphasis on John the Baptist in the introductory chapter.

(By the way, I said, primary purpose, not sole purpose.  I emphasize this since you seem to have misconstrued my advocacy of beginning the presentation of who Jesus is with one aspect as also stopping with that one aspect, and I could easily see one making a similar misconstruction.)

John 1: 1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

I think referring to Jesus as God coming in the flesh would mean that he is both master and teacher, but I guess, by your logic which the Devil would want you to believe, John didn’t intend non believers to read his gospel since he speaks of Christ’s deity more than any other gospel.

Actually, the Gospel of John doesn't even begin to advance the proposition that Jesus is the Christ and Messiah until John 1:17, and there only in passing.  Despite your assertions, the Gospel of John is an excellent example of the incremental approach I advocate.  It begins with the hymn to the Word, proceeds next to briefly cover the ministry of John the Baptist, and it isn't until John 1:29 that John the Evangelist begins to cover the theme that Jesus is the Christ and Messiah.

My pastor preaches a sermon to the congregation and then turns around and posts it on the internet so that it can be freely shared by all.  Seems pretty reasonable to me that he thinks it is fitting for anyone.

Whether they are fitting for converting unbelievers would be more objectively determined not by the opinion of you, me, or him, but whether they have led to any such conversion, and the likely unknowable fact of whether it has dissuaded any such conversions.

Likewise, the night I was saved I was reading from the letter to the Galatians, which Paul wrote to believers, even though I was unconverted at the time I started reading it.

You protest too much here.  You already had some experience with Christianity and the doctrines of the faith.  While reading Galatians was the capstone of the foundation of your faith, it was not the first course that had been laid down.  Those earlier events might not have been as dramatic or memorable as what happened for you that night, they were no less important.

In fact, the identity of Jesus is ALWAYS front and center of the preaching of the gospel, regardless if the audience is believers or nonbelievers.  Just look at the book of Acts for examples:

The very first sermon of the church age, spoken to nonbelievers…Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

And what was the result of Peter proclaiming Jesus’ identity to unbelievers?...Acts 2:41 ”about three thousand were added to their number that day”!!!  And those 3000 are forever grateful Peter didn’t take your advice.

Those people weren't atheists, nor even pagans.  They were Jews, Jews who had come to Jerusalem in response to their religious obligations as Jews.  Moreover, they were in a time and place where Jews were expecting the imminent arrival of the Messiah. Peter preached to them a message they had already been prepared to be receptive to. That preparation was every bit as important as Peter's message to them.  That preparation made them fertile soil prepared to receive the seed of God's word.

You're basically saying believers and unbelievers should be taught different messages, that unbelievers should be shielded from truth and from the glory of who Jesus is.

Despite what you seem to think, I am not arguing that an appetizer is a sufficient replacement for a full meal.  Rather, I am saying that one should begin with what will be received and build from there towards the complete message.

Conversely, you seem to be arguing that is is fine to start with building the roof before the foundation is dug, or that one will do just fine taking calculus before having mastered multiplication.   Or to use a more Biblical allegory, you seem to be taking a mistaken lesson from the Parable of the Sower.  You seem to be arguing that Christians should not act to make the soil of humanity receptive for God's seed by clearing away thorns or improving stony ground.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

To say that John takes an incremental approach to the identity of Jesus is simply a joke, for it is clear from John 1:1 that John is calling Jesus God...the fact that John later refers to Jesus by his individuals roles (Messiah/Teacher/Master) does NOT show an incremental approach, rather it shows just the opposite.

As far as what approach to the identity of Christ should be presented to pagans, we already have the example of Paul's sermon on Mars Hill in Athens:

Acts 17:22  "Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you."

...at which point Paul presented Jesus as the true God those pagans didn't know.

---

The fact that you always attack the messenger, his style, his approach, his choice of words, demonstrates that you care nothing about the substance of what is being preached – Jesus Christ, for whenever Jesus is lifted up, there is NEVER an “Amen” from you, rather there is always an argument.

[Iosif]

A guy I lived with in halls during uni was gay and a devout Christian. Used to go to church every Sunday. Confused the hell out of me.

Until I found out he used to pick up men at church.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To say that John takes an incremental approach to the identity of Jesus is simply a joke, for it is clear from John 1:1 that John is calling Jesus God...the fact that John later refers to Jesus by his individuals roles (Messiah/Teacher/Master) does NOT show an incremental approach, rather it shows just the opposite.

You are so blinded by what you already know that you fail to see the plain words that are there to be read. It isn't until later in John that the Evangelist makes the identity of Jesus as God apparent to those who do not already know that truth.

As far as what approach to the identity of Christ should be presented to pagans, we already have the example of Paul's sermon on Mars Hill in Athens:

Acts 17:22  "Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you."

...at which point Paul presented Jesus as the true God those pagans didn't know.

Perhaps you should go back and read what Paul proclaimed in Acts 17:24-31.  It is an example of the incremental approach you have been sneering at.  He begins with what the audience already believes and builds on it.