Title: The Rules We Play By
Text: Acts 4:1-12
Thesis: In all we do and say, we point the way to Jesus Christ.
Introduction:
Most games have rules that players play by. However, sometimes, as has been my experience with playing with our grandchildren, players sometimes change the rules or make up the rules along the way.
I was interested in an ongoing discussion on Facebook about the way some play Monopoly. I was a little shocked by some of the innovative and creative ways players change or modify the rules of Monopoly to their own liking. Some created pots where all the fines were collected so whenever anyone passed “Go” they not only received $200 but they also received whatever was in the pot. Some doubled the $200 to $400… after all, what good is a measly $200 in todays economy.
One Facebook contributor wrote on June 4, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. saying, “We play with an odd variation: All of the rules are by-the-book, except that we play with four boards instead of one. All of the ‘GO’ spaces are in the middle of the table, but they are treated as one space. When you pass ‘GO’ on one board, your piece continues to move in a straight line, so your movement around all four boards is like a cloverleaf pattern. We normally use four different international sets (I have over 70 different Monopoly sets), so each board has its own money. Instead of starting with $1500, each player would start with $1500, 1500 euro, 1500 yen, and 1500 pounds (assuming we were playing the U.S., European, Japanese, and British sets). If you run out of money on one board, you can use money from another, but you have to pay a 10% exchange fee to do so. Trading properties across boards is perfectly legal as well, but each board’s houses and hotels are kept separate.“
Have you ever wondered if Christianity were to be played as a game, what would be the rules? Are there any stated ethical guidelines about how it is we do Christianity and particularly how we act out and speak of our faith? I don’t know that there is specific set of directions, but our text today gives us some insight into what should be included if there were.
The first rule we play by is:
I. We are healers, not hurters
“…are we being questioned because we’ve done a good deed for a crippled man?” Acts 4:9
The background for this response is rooted in an incident that happened at the Temple gate the day before. Acts 3:1-11
The leading priests, the captain of the Temple guard and some of the Sadducees had approached Peter and John for having told the people who had witnessed the healing of the lame man, that they had done so in the name of Jesus. They said, “This is the same Jesus whom you handed over and rejected before Pilate, despite Pilate’s decision to release him. You killed the author of life, but God raised him to life. The name of Jesus has healed this man.” Acts 3:13-16
In our text it says they were very disturbed that Peter and John were claiming on the authority of Jesus, that there is a resurrection of the dead. (Acts 4:2) This was an affront to the Sadducees because they did not believe in a bodily resurrection of the dead. But since it was late in the day, they had Peter and John arrested and tossed into jail for the night.
The next morning they had their hearing, so to speak. They were brought from their jail cell before the Council which was made up of Annas, the High Priest, his predecessor, Caiaphas, and other rulers, elders and teachers of religious law. It was a religious tribunal or court and the “supreme justices” who sat on the bench wanted to know, “By what power or in whose name, have you done this?” (Acts 4:7)
In response, Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, asked them, “Are we being questioned because we’ve done a good deed for a crippled man?” (Acts 4:9)
Peter and John had been jailed and were now being charged by a religious court that clearly felt threatened by the sway of public support in favor of Jesus, who they had hoped to be done with following the crucifixion. Verse 4 says those who had witnessed the lame man’s healing and had heard Peter speak of Jesus had become followers of Christ. They totaled 5,000 men, not counting women and children. Instead of being rid of Jesus, they had called a council to deal with what must have felt like the exponential spread of his influence.
And to make matters worse, the whole ongoing saga was not that Jesus Christ was a bad guy, but because he was a good guy. They just didn’t want to acknowledge it… to do so would be counter- productive to their own cause.
It would be like the Sheriff of Nottingham admitting that Robin Hood and his band of merry men (and according to the BBC series, women), were actually good people who intervened in order to redistribute the wealth among those who had been victimized by a corrupt political culture that unfairly taxed the poor.
During the Miss USA Pageant Miss California responded to a question regarding the legalization of same sex marriages by stating that she meant no offense to anyone but that she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. Perez Hilton, who is a gay man and was the judge who asked the question was not pleased and in his blog the next day called Miss California a “Dumb b****.” (Expletive deleted) (Sheila Marikar, Miss California’s Sister ‘Surprised’ by ‘Gay Activist’ Title, abc News, April 29,2009)
I was pleasantly surprised to see in Newsweek Magazines weekly “mathematical survey of dubious behavior that measures, on a scale from Mildly Tacky to Truly Undignified to Utterly Shameless, just how low a person can go,” that Pageant Judge, Perez Hilton scored the highest on the survey as being ‘Truly Undignified’ in his remarks. The score is an indicator of one’s power to be obnoxious and alienate people. Amazingly the media came down hard on him stating, “Whether you agree or disagree with her views, Miss California was candid and respectful in her remarks opposing gay marriage.” (The Dignity Index, Newsweek Magazine, May 4, 2009)
It would be like the gay Miss USA Pageant, gossip writer, judge saying, “Thank you Miss California for speaking honestly about your convictions.” However, to do so would not further his own gay agenda.
In the recent Miss USA Pageant flap, Miss California is cited as a healer while her critic is cited as a hurter.
The religious leaders could not and would not acknowledge that Peter and John were good people who were helping others and simply sharing what they believed to be true about Jesus Christ. But the bottom line is this: Peter and John were known to be healers, not hurters!
If those who first followed Christ made it their practice to be healers, not hurters, it seems their model might be a good one for us.
The first rule we play by is that we are healers, not hurters and we are most healing when:
• We speak our convictions clearly and without intending offense.
• We do whatever we can when we encounter someone in need.
Are those not good rules to play by? Would it not be wonderful if whenever we are criticized or challenged we could ask, “Are we being questioned because we’ve done a good deed or spoken a kind and true word?”
In addition to the rule that we be healers, not hurters, another rule is that we be ambassadors for Christ, not free-lancers.
II. We are ambassadors for Christ, not free-lancers
“Do you want to know how he was healed? Let me clearly state to you and all the people of Israel that he was healed in the name and power of Jesus Christ, whom you crucified, but whom God raised from the dead.” Acts 4:10
I like the purity and clarity of the words and actions of those first followers of Christ. Peter said, “Let me state clearly… he was healed in the name of Jesus Christ.” Peter minced no words about the identity of the person and power he represented. Peter and John were ambassadors of Jesus Christ. And so are we… Paul wrote in II Corinthians, “God has given us the task of reconciling people to him… we are Christ’s ambassadors.” (II Corinthians 5:18-21)
An ambassador is, “An official envoy; a diplomatic agent of the highest rank accredited to a foreign government or sovereign as the resident representative of his own government or sovereign; a diplomatic agent; an authorized representative or messenger.” (Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)
John Bolton was nominated to serve as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. He was never confirmed but was later appointed by President Bush and served through 2006. On one hand he has a brilliant mind, his career has been noteworthy and marked by colorful candor; however, he may be criticized for his support of his own views and political agendas. At times John Bolton forgot that he was an ambassador of the United States and did not always honor his role. On those occasions he was essentially a free-lancer… he spoke his own mind and used his position to further his own agenda. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton)
When a person is an ambassador it is important to always remember that we are never “off the record.” An ambassador acts and speaks in behalf of those who have authorized them to act and speak.
One of the rules by which we live is this: We are always ambassadors for Jesus Christ. Phillip Yancey once said, “For the watching world, we ourselves serve proof that God is alive. We form the visible shape of what he is like.” (Phillip Yancey, Leadership Magazine, Vol. 8, No. 3)
We do not have the luxury of going free-lance or speaking or acting “off-the-record.” We, like Peter and John are compelled to live and speak in the name of Jesus Christ. We are the visible shape of what God is like… and to live otherwise is to fail to represent our Sovereign accurately.
When George Schultz was Secretary of State during the Reagan administration, he kept a large globe in his office. When newly appointed ambassadors or returning ambassadors met with him he always gave them a test before they left. He would say to them, “Go over to the globe and prove to me that you can identify your country.” They would then go over to the globe, spin it, and put their finger on the country to which they were being sent… Kenya, Ireland, Kosovo, Peru, or wherever. And then Schultz would spin the globe again and put his finger on the United States and say, “That’s my country.”
Schultz would always remind the ambassadors that they were to take care of the interests of the United States and to never forget it. (PreachingToday.com)
The first two rules by which we play are these:
• We are healers, not hurters!
• We are always ambassadors of Jesus Christ!
And the third rule we live by is this:
III. We are Christologists, not pluralists
“There is salvation in no one else! There is no other name in all of heaven for people to call on to save them.” Acts 4:12
We are living in a time when our culture is increasingly pluralistic or diverse. In our culture many distinct race and ethnic groups may co-exist. In our culture many distinct religious and cultural groups are tolerated. Most of us rather enjoy the diversity. On Sunday after church the question of the hour may be, “Where shall we eat?” “Do you want Mexican?” You may muse about wishing Los Arcos was open on Sundays. You might say, “It would be fun to go to The Golden European for some eastern European cuisine but they’re closed on Sunday too.” “Do you want to eat Chinese?” “How about Amici’s for some Italian?” “Do you want to go down on Santa Fe and have some Ethiopian cuisine?” “Do you want some Tex-Mex cuisine?” “How about Melita’s Café for some Greek food?” “Have you thought about the Yak and Yeti for Indian and Nepalese cuisine?” “Or,” you might suggest, “We could do the ‘International’ House of Pancakes.”
We are pluralists in many ways. We enjoy diversity and allow for differences in almost every area. We defend each other’s right to believe whatever you choose to believe. We may not agree with each other but we acknowledge the right of the other person to believe as he or she chooses.
Rock singer Cheryl Crow said, “I believe in God. I believe in Jesus and Buddha and Mohammed and all those that were enlightened. I wouldn’t say necessarily that I a strict Christian. I’m not sure I believe in heaven.” (Mark A. Kellner, “Holyview,” Today’s Pentecostal Evangel, 4/9/06, P. 19)
Actress Halle Berry said, “I believe in God. I just don’t know if that God is Jehovah, Buddha or Allah.” (Don Kimball, The Emerging Church, Zondervan, 2003, P. 54)
In 2006 Warren Buffet, the world’s second-richest man at that time, announced he would donate 85 percent of his $44 billion fortune to five charitable foundations. Commenting on his motivation he said, “There is more than one way to get to heaven, but this is a great way.” (Associated Press, “How Do You Spend $1.5 Billion a Year?” cbsnews.com, 6/27/06)
A Nobel Peace Prize nominee, M. Cherif Bassiouni, also a professor at DePaul University in Chicago believes all religions lead to God using different paths. He said, “Different religions and cultures are equal in the eyes of God and should be seen as equal in the eyes of man.” (S.A. Mawhorr, Daily Herald, Arlington Hts., IL, 1/5/00)
We may be pluralists in some ways, but we are not pluralists when it comes to what we believe about matters of faith. We allow for differences of belief but we do not believe all beliefs are valid or valuable. We do not believe that it does not matter what you believe as long as you believe something. We do not believe that all roads lead to heaven. We are exclusive in our belief that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven but inclusive in that we believe that all who trust Christ as their savior will go to heaven.
To Cheryl Crow, Halley Berry, Warren Buffet and Professor Bassinouni we say, “There is salvation in no one else! There is no other name in all of heaven for people to call on to save them.” Acts 4:12 We say, “We respect your right to believe whatever you wish but Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except by me.” (John 14:6)
Peter and John did not say Judaism or Buddhism or Islam is all a crock. They did say, “There is salvation in no one else! There is no other name in all of heaven for people to call on to save them.” They were not insulting or belligerent or rude or demeaning or denigrating or detracting… they were however firmly Christologists in what they believed.
Peter and John were Christologists who lived in a pluralistic culture. We are Christologists who live in an even more pluralistic culture.
Conclusion
Whenever and however we live out and speak of our faith we do so as healers, ambassadors for Christ and as Christologists or as some would say, Christo-centrists.
Reminiscent of the current threat of a pandemic spread of Swine Flu around the world, I thought of the time, when I was in the 5th grade, I attended Winterset Elementary School in Winterset, IA. I remember our family going to my classroom one evening where we were all given a sugar cube with pink syrup on it. It was the serum developed by Dr. Jonas Salk to keep us from getting polio during a time when polio was epidemic in our country. We all gladly took the sugar cube.
Perhaps we were all just witless sheep like those in Jonestown in Guyana who drank the Cool Ade like good little boys and girls. None of us turned up our noses and said, “I believe I will see if there is another way to avoid polio.” Or, “Surely, there must be other vaccinations we might try.” None of us said, “I believe that all vaccinations lead to a polio free world.”
There was no other way. The sugar cube meant hope and life. And with every bit as much certainty we lovingly live and speak as ambassadors of Christ - who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
The rules by which we play are clear:
1. We are healers, not hurter!
2. We are always ambassadors of Jesus Christ, and don’t forget it!
3. We are Christologists, not pluralists!
