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.
