March 2, 2014

From Jim McGuiggan... Mark 9: For or against us?


Mark 9: For or against us?

Questions like, "Who is in and who is outside of Jesus Christ?" will always be with us as long as we believe that what we hold as truth matters to us. Some of us are "too sweet to be wholesome" and doctrinal truth means absolutely nothing and others of us tend to be bigoted and as bitter as gall and every truth we hold is jugular. 
I'm certain we're right to teach and practice what the NT teaches and reveals as practiced and leave the final issues with God. I believe that is true even though it needs to be carefully worked out because there are some situations in which God declares ahead of time what his final word will be. I'm thinking of the teaching of the denial of the humanity/Godhood of Jesus as related in 1 John. God has said this is anti-Christ teaching and that it will result in condemnation. That's the kind of thing I have in mind. As best we're able by God's grace we're both to teach and practice that approach as something the NT teaches and urges us to practice.
Moving from that area of clear instruction or plain (!) implication we move into the not as easily followed area. Is the teaching X or Y anti-Christian teaching of the magnitude spoken of in 1 John? Some errors we'd immediately dismiss as not being errors at such a level and others we would strongly tend to think are such level errors.
Whatever side we come down on in specific matters we must maintain the integrity of our conscience. We have to call it as we see it. It wouldn't be right to say X is fundamental error simply on the grounds that "that is what our church generally believes." Nor is it right for us to deny that it's fundamental error simply because our church would generally tolerate it. There comes a point at which, on both ends of that spectrum, we have to say, "Here I stand. God help me I can do nothing else!"
A person who depends solely on his/her own resources to draw conclusions is in dire need of humility and might well be an idiot. (That is true in addition to the fact that it simply isn't possible to have opinions that haven't been shaped by others.) Our aim is always to be listeners to others and always to affirm a proposal with no greater fervour than the evidence for it warrants. A tall order, it's true, but an infallible Bible doesn't make us infallible students or teachers. If a biblical or theological claim is not patently evident we shouldn't feel obliged to speak of it as though it were—even if everyone around us does otherwise.
Mark 9:38-41 raises interesting questions many of which it gives no answers to. An unnamed person was doing good things in the name of Jesus and it would appear that the apostles were more than a bit jealous and wanted him to stop doing it.
This occurred before Jesus had been established as Lord of all and before the time the new community (NT covenant people, his Church) was to be united in Jesus' name. At that time it didn't matter to him that people followed John, for example, or that they deliberately chose not to be a part of his own larger following (which was larger than the apostolic group). It didn't matter to Jesus at that point that the man didn't seek fellowship in his group. It only mattered that he had believed the gospel that the kingdom was immanent, that he had been baptized with a view to Jesus (all implied, I think, in Luke 7:29-30 and the related texts, such as Acts 19:4) and was in support of the action of God in Jesus in bringing the kingdom. All that being true, Jesus fully endorses the man and everyone else of that mind and practice even if they weren't part of his immediate circle.
That seems clear enough given the historical setting but if, for example, he had rejected God's counsel for the nation and refused to be baptized unto Jesus (Luke 7:29-30) it's crystal clear that he would not have been promoting the kingdom of God as it related to Jesus and he certainly wouldn't have had Jesus' hearty approval, which he most certainly did. (We have that group alluded to in Matthew 7:22-23 that prophesied and did miracles in Jesus' name and were obviously not in support of the kingdom. And be sure to see Acts 19:13-17 not only for the humour in it but the sober witness of it as it relates to this entire discussion.)
And if, after the exaltation and enthronement of the glorified Jesus that same man refused to be identified with the newly defined (by the Spirit) people of God, we would have an entirely different picture from the one we find in Mark 9:38-41. One simply can't refuse to align him/herself with the people of God and still be aligned with the Lord of the covenant people. (I recognize that that raises further questions but it remains true.)
The Mark 9:38-41 text "says" more than the text says. It speaks out of a background that is taken for granted by Mark (see Mark 1:1-8 and related texts). What we mustn't do is to "apply" to other situations some of the elements embedded in this text in that situation and leave as of no account other elements of the text without which we aren't fully hearing this text.
Finally, there is a difference between a heart that is ignorant simply because it lacks knowledge and one that chooses ignorance or plainly denies truth, so we need to remember that our business is to hear and do and teach what we find of him and let him take care of the rest. This we should do without apology and certainly without any feeling that we are somehow morally superior. click here.

No comments:

Post a Comment