(This message contains a significant intro that is a personal life experience. Should be personalized to an example from the speakers life of prejudice/favoritsim/partiality being shown.)
We have been working our way through the book of James. Chapter one is behind us and as you will see over the coming weeks, it is very much an introductory chapter. Many of the topics coming down the road over the next few weeks will tie directly to a preview received in that first chapter. Today we launch into chapter two. But before we go there, I want to share a little life story with you.
Often in the church we hint at this underlying conspiracy between the government and the church. This suggestion that the government is out to get the church, out to eliminate the influence of the church, out to keep the Christian church from being effective in the 21st century. But there is actually an area where the church is given a great deal of slack as compared to other companies and organizations across our country.
Many of you know that I spent seven years working my way through the management structure of the Nationwide Insurance Claims organization. And in my last position at Nationwide it was my responsibility to take all new employees of the company, in the state of Texas, through a course on Fair and Equitable Business Practices.
You see, Nationwide had gotten themselves in trouble back in the early to mid-90s. In fact, they got in trouble right here in the great state of Kentucky. For it was in Kentucky, and more specifically in the Louisville area where a secret map was discovered. What is known in the insurance world as a “red-line” map. What’s a red-line map?
Well, a red-line map is a map that exists fictionally in just about any insurance company. Unfortunately for Nationwide, one was discovered to exist in actuality. And what a red-line map is, is a map that literally draws a red line around neighborhoods, sections of the city, communities within a given area where you don’t want to write insurance policies. Areas that might be considered poor business to provide coverage to, or high risk locations.
Now, the reason I say they are often fictional is that many red-line maps might just exist in the companies minds. So if someone wants a homeowners policy up South Broadway, and a little to the west in the community known as Davis Bottom. . .the mental red-line map says, don’t want to write that policy. That won’t be very profitable. Or if someone wants a homeowners policy up North Broadway, in certain pockets not far from Appleby’s Park. . .the mental red-line map says, “Nope. Better not write that policy.”
Now, I don’t know if that sounds appalling to you or not. I probably can’t provide you enough insurance background this morning to help you fully comprehend the process that takes place, but I’m sure if we had the time I could further the details to the point where you would say, “That sorry insurance company. They are just in it for the money. The nerve of them to not give those people insurance, even though they will insure others. The people in Davis Bottom need insurance just as much as the people in Fire Fox. That is just not right.”
But when it gets right down to it. . .we all have a mental red-line map. And if you don’t think you do, let me ask you a question. Think about Lexington, Louisville, Cincinnati or another metropolitan area where you might have lived during your life. . .and let me ask you, is there a place in that city, where you won’t go after dark? Is there a neighborhood that you’re not going for any strolls down the sidewalks of?
(Story of near mugging at “Memphis In May”) When out with my family, I had a mental red-line map for Memphis. Are there areas in the city where if you are forced to go into, you are going to take care of your business, keep your eyes straight ahead, and get out of as soon as you are done?
You see, we all have mental red-line maps. Unfortunately, Nationwide had a real red-line map. So one day after Nationwide fired an agent in Louisville, that agent decided to provide the U.S. Department of Justice with a copy of the map. And he informed them that this map documented areas where he was told by Nationwide management, not to write policies.
Then he proceeded to inform the Justice Department that if they would take a look inside the red-line, they would discover something very interesting. African Americans. An extremely high percentage of African Americans. In fact, he contended that if they really examined the practices and business operations in the state of Kentucky, the Justice Department would find that these areas weren’t red-lined because they would be poor insurance risks. . .but because of racism.
Now that probably sounds pretty hard to believe. Racism in Kentucky heading into the 21st century? You’ve got be kidding right? The Justice Department didn’t think so. So for seven years Nationwide Insurance became subject to a United States Department of Justice Consent Decree. An agreement that said if you don’t want us to shut you down, the number four homeowners and auto insurance company in the nation, if you don’t want us to close your doors. . .this is what you are going to do.
One of the things that was required was an advertising campaign that required minorities in the commercials. Seen the Nationwide commercial with M.C. Hammer? Another one of the things that was required was the training of all new employees on Fair and Equitable Business Practices. So once a month I would sit down with the newest Nationwide Insurance employees across the state of Texas, and we would spend the day talking about how you do business without partiality. How you handle business, customers, clients, and individuals without showing favoritism or partiality based on economic, social, or financial background.
But interestingly enough, the greatest debate and argument I received as I taught this course had little to do with race. For starters, across Texas there is great racial diversity. Especially Hispanic population, both legal and illegal. Beyond that, people seemed to understand that it would be very easy to find yourself being sued if you weren’t careful in addressing the issue of different races in a fair manner. So race really wasn’t the hot issue.
No, the greatest area of debate and argument I received was by agency staff. It went something like this, “Are you trying to tell me that if Joe Shmoe calls our office. He wants to insure his 1.3 million dollar home, his two Mercedes Benz, and his yacht. That if I offer to meet him at his office and take all the paper work to him. . .that I have to be willing to do the same thing for the 45 year old single man who is trying to insure his ‘85 Caprice?” Follow me?
“Are you saying that when Deon Sanders” who was insured with Nationwide, “calls from his mansion in Dallas, and he just bought some new jewelry that he needs to insure.” If you follow football, you know Deon likes his jewelry, “So he asks me to stop by and get the information. That if I am willing to do that for Deon, I have to be willing to do that for the 35 year old Hispanic, single mom of four who needs a renters insurance policy?”
Agents couldn’t believe it, and neither could some of the adjusters. “Why do I have to treat the Toyota Corolla driver the same way, and get their car the same treatment as I do the customer driving the $75,000 Hummer?” Shouldn’t we take better care of our richer customers?
But here is the kicker. The question is never asked in those words. It is never “shouldn’t we take better care of our richer customers?” It is always, “shouldn’t we take better care of our better customers?” Because in our society, richer, whiter, and more educated, is better.
Not much has changed in 2,000 years. James 2:1 (read through verse 13).
If what James describes as happening is true. . .and I think it is. And if it is still going on today. . .and I think it does. Then there is an area where we as churches are very fortunate that the government doesn’t take the same stance with us as it does with other business and organizations. Because within the church is an often allowed, and unaddressed willingness to ignore favoritism and partiality. . .which are really two more palatable words for discrimination.
Back in James day, and still today, believers were judging people based on externals. One of the Jewish practices of the day was to put the important people closest to the sacred scrolls. You saw how that evolved over time. You can still go to churches today where you might see anywhere from one or two to half a dozen or more chairs up on the stage. Some of the people sitting in them won’t even have a role in the service but they are given a place of prominence based on their title or position in the church.
Everyone is entitled to their traditions and thinking, but that is why one of the first things I did when I arrived at SWC was to get the chairs off the stage. Have you ever noticed what most of those chairs are like? They aren’t the undivided, non-padded pews that everyone else sits on. In most churches they are veritable thrones. King like seats of honor.
I just don’t buy that. There is no place of prominence here. The church is to be a place without favoritism or partiality.
Let’s look at some verses quickly together. Head towards the front of your Bible and find Leviticus 19:15. Leviticus 19:15 (read). Good one for us to start with, because it can go both ways. We talk a lot about mistreating the poor, but I have met people that wouldn’t treat you with any decency unless you were poor. Poverty was a badge of honor to them, and the poorer you are the better they treat you. Isn’t supposed to be that way. No partiality. No favoritism.
Deuteronomy 1:16. Moses has been appointing various leaders within the tribes to hear the disputes and difficulties of the people. And look how he advises them in Deuteronomy 1:16 (read through verse 17). No partiality. Just because one guy’s case involves 1 cow, and another’s 50, you listen to them both. Show them both care and respect.
Turn forward a few chapters to Deuteronomy 10:17 (read). God isn’t looking for bribes or favorites. Neither should we be.
Look at Jesus attitude on the subject. Turn to Luke 20:20. This is interesting. The Pharisees are trying to trap Jesus. They are trying to trip him up on something. But notice what their observations of Jesus conclude. Luke 20:20 (read through verse 21). Even the people trying to trap Him recognized that one of the qualities of this man was that he showed no personal favoritism, but taught based on God’s truth.
Peter recognized that God was not a racist. God wasn’t interested in judging people based on nationality. Acts 10:34 (read through verse 35). God’s acceptance doesn’t have anything to do with your race. It is based on fearing God, esteeming Him, recognizing His commands.
Paul states it pretty emphatically in Romans 2:11, “For there is no partiality with God.”
You can find more from Paul regarding partiality, and favoritism in Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians. Throughout the word of God you will see this message that James is trying to communicate that God does not play favorites in the way that man would.
Now, understand that James is just giving us one example in this text. The issue he is trying to communicate is not just a rich versus the poor issue. That is a practical example that he utilizes. Probably a relevant problem for the people he was addressing. . .but the issue is greater than rich and poor.
In fact, the issue of partiality and favoritism in the church is a sin issue. Look again at verses 8 and 9 (read). Why is it a sin? Because basically the second greatest command given to us is to love your neighbor as yourself. You don’t want to be discriminated against. You don’t want to be downgraded so that favoritism can be shown to someone else. You don’t want to be treated as the bottom of the totem pole. So don’t do it to others.
Now, this is keeping it all a little too easy and generic, so let’s get more practical. What does this look like in the church. Let me give you five ways that this partiality plays out in the church. First. . .
A. FAVORING SPIRITUAL GIFTS
Who do you think is more important at the church? The preacher or the power point operator? The Sunday School teacher or the trustee? The board member or the welcome center greeter?
Break this down. If the preacher is utilizing a spiritual gift of leadership and the power point operator is utilizing a spiritual gift of helps. . .one isn’t better than the other. I would even argue that one is not even more dispensable than the other. If the Sunday School teacher is utilizing a spiritual gift of teaching and the trustee is utilizing a spiritual gift of craftsmanship. . .one isn’t better than the other. Again, I would even argue that one is not more dispensable than the other.
To argue contrary to that would be to suggest that there are parts of the body of Christ that are dispensable or unimportant. Cut off your little toe this afternoon, and see how unimportant it is.
The board member with the spiritual gift of administration and the welcome center greeter with the spiritual gift of hospitality. . .equally important.
Let me put it this way. . .you take the world’s greatest preacher. I mean, this dude can deliver incredible messages, keep the audience captivated, evoke life change as he declares the truths of Scripture. . .and put him in a church where no one else is utilizing any spiritual gifts. . .that church is dead.
When we show partiality or favoritism based on spiritual gifts, we commit sin. Another way we do it. . .
B. FAVORING PERSONALITIES
“I don’t think so and so can serve on the board because they aren’t as outspoken as so and so. They won’t stand up to pastor, and make sure what needs to get said is said.” Let’s face it, and I know personalities like mine benefit from it, but our society favors the outspoken. The quiet get shut down.
Though sometimes it works the other way, “I don’t think so and so can serve because they always speak their mind.”
This is especially interesting for pastors. Everyone in the church has a different personality they would like to see in their pastor. So usually they get rid of one pastor because he is too domineering. Then they bring in another pastor that they eventually get rid of because he is to timid. They get rid of that pastor and bring in another that is middle of the road, and eventually get rid of him because he lacks passion. On, and on it goes, because everyone wants a different personality pastor.
A recent survey compiled all the qualities that people are looking for in the perfect pastor:
Results of the computerized survey indicated that the perfect pastor preaches exactly 12 minutes.
He frequently condemns sin but never upsets anyone. He works on his sermons from 8 a.m. until midnight and after working hours volunteers as the church janitor. He makes $100 a week, wears good clothes, buys good books, drives a good car, and gives about $150 a week to the poor.
He is 28 years of age and has been preaching for 30 years. He gives himself completely but never gets too close to anyone so as to avoid criticism. He has a burning desire to work with teenagers and spends all his time with senior citizens. He makes 15 daily calls to parish families, visits shut-ins and the hospitalized, spends all his time evangelizing the unchurched, and is always in his office when needed.
Personality favoritism. Another one we see is a bit more generic, and broad in spectrum. . .
C. FAVORING STATUS
Status in a church can come from a number of areas. One of great caution for denominations in today’s culture is membership. “Well, so and so is a member, so we need to consider their opinion with greater influence.” Favoritism.
Status can come from seniority. “They have been here longer so we need to show greater favoritism to their wants and desires.” Status can come from education. “Well, she has a Ph.D., he only has a high school diploma, I’m going to her Sunday School class.”
Status can come from family. “Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. I knew his dad. He’s from good stock. Her parents are so sweet.”
There’s a story about a Chicago bank that once asked for a letter of recommendation on a young Bostonian being considered for employment. The Boston investment house could not say enough about the young man. His father, they wrote, was a Cabot; his mother was a Lowell. Further back was a happy blend of Saltonstall’s, Peabody’s, and other of Boston’s first families. His recommendation was given without hesitation. I love this part, several days later, the Chicago bank sent a note saying the information supplied was altogether inadequate. It read: “We are not contemplating using the young man for breeding purposes. Just for work.”
Status can come from a lot of different areas, and when it comes to the church, should have no impact. The church is to be without partiality and favoritism.
How about looks? Can’t imagine that in the church, right? Partiality based on looks? You bet, that is a fourth way we see it in the church. . .
D. FAVORING LOOKS
Come on. Be honest. Pretend you have never met me before. Pretend you have no idea who I am, and you walk in to a new church. On the stage of the church are two men talking. One looks to be about mid-40s, is wearing a well tailored suit, shined shoes, clean shaven, short dark hair with just a touch of gray, very well groomed. The other looks to be about 25. . .okay, maybe 30. Shaved head, khakis and a golf shirt, doesn’t even look like he is mature enough to need to shave, constantly fidgeting and moving around like some sugar high teenager. Which one do you think is the preacher?
Or better yet. . .which one are you hoping is the preacher? And while there would be some variance, for the most part I’ll bet you answer that question differently if you are one of the teenagers or if you are an older adult.
Jason plays the guitar for us in shorts, and sandals. What if Heidi had gotten up to preach in the same? Would looks have played any impact on your willingness to receive the message? Would a favoritism have found it okay for Jason, but not for Heidi? One more. . .the one that James uses. . .in the church we get caught up sometimes in. . .
E. FAVORING FINANCES
And of course, this is the example that James gives. Treating the richer better. Treating the individual that would obviously have a stronger financial stability with greater interest. But I’ll tell you what, this can get very scary in the church.
I’ve seen people, situations, churches, that made their decisions not based on God’s leading but based on the leading of those that had the finances. I’ve heard people give advice that sounds something like this. “Okay, if you make this change, and we need to make it, so and so might leave the church. So we better wait until a few other new families have come, and started giving before we make that change. Then if they chose to leave, we will be okay financially.”
What is up with that? Since when did God send His direction and vision for the church through the appeasement and cradling of giving units? That’s the world. . .not the church. You have to do that in business. You have to keep the investors happy. You have to make sure those funding the work feel influential and strong. That isn’t the church.
How’s the saying go? The ground is level at the foot of the cross. We all stand on the same plane. There shouldn’t be financial favoritism in the church. . .or any other form of partiality.
So let’s get real for a second. James says it is a sin to show favoritism, partiality. So I want you to do two things for me today. First, I want you to think about who you are closest to within our church family? Who are those people you spend the most time with, most desire to fellowship with, and have the strongest pull to work together with? Get those people in your mind. And then ask yourself, is there any underlying favoritism, an underlying partiality that defines those relationships?
I know that we are going to be closer to some and further from others. I recognize that. But ask yourself, might there be any underlying favoritism or partiality that defines who I include in those relationships?
Maybe it is family ties. Maybe it is home location. Maybe it is educational background. Maybe it is Stonewall or Wesleyan church history. Is there some form of favoritism or partiality that is drawing you to those people, and at the same time, keeping you from relationships with others in our family that you need to repent for?
Then I want you to think about who you are most distant from in our church family. As you think about this church family, if you were to look through a pictorial directory, who are the people you know the least. Maybe you can’t even put a name with their face.
Now, think about those people in our church family that you know least, and ask yourself, is there an underlying favoritism or partiality that keeps me from them. A discrimination. Age. Appearance. Education. Other people they seem to be in relationship with. Is there a favoritism there that needs to be repented of? Acknowledged as sin.
I read a lot of books about successful churches. They all say the same thing. Strong leadership can help. Good preaching can help. Music selection is way overrated. And relationships drive the success of the church. Personal relationships with God that feed into personal relationships with others. Churches with high degrees of favoritism, bias, special attention or authority given to a select few, become inbred and die. Churches that are open, loving, and caring for each other no matter what the background or demographics. . .God blesses.
I pray that we can repent of the sin of favoritism and partiality in our church family. That we can view others as they come into our midst without favoritism or partiality. And that together we can grow as a body that is living out “love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Let’s pray.
