The Outward Appearance

Jesus told a parable about tares growing up in a wheat field, and the workers of the field wanted to pull up the tares, but the master said, no, don’t do that, you might uproot some of the wheat, too. Just let them grow together until harvest, and then we can separate them, and burn the tares.
A tare is a weed. From what I understand, most of the time, it looks very much like a wheat plant, except that, at harvest time, because it’s a weed, it doesn’t bear any grain. Farmers generally don’t like weeds growing among their crops, but if it’s hard to tell the difference, well, then sometimes you just have to let things be. Besides, sometimes weeds get their roots entangled with the roots of other plants, so, if you pull up a tare, then you may uproot some wheat plants, too.
Some people say that the tares represent false churches. I don’t think it’s so much false churches, as just, false Christians. Don’t misunderstand me; I have no doubt that there are entire churches full of false Christians. My point, though, is that there have always been people, in and around the church, that managed to maintain the appearance of Christianity, without ever actually being converted.
Even Jesus Himself asked His disciples, “Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” They didn’t get it. I’m not sure that even Judas realized that Jesus was talking about him. When it came down to the Last Supper, Jesus told them that one of them would betray Him, and the other eleven each asked, “Is it I?” before Judas did. Even when Judas asked, and Jesus told him to go, the others thought that Jesus was sending Judas out to buy something. Think about that for a minute: Each of the other eleven thought it more likely that he himself would betray Christ than that Judas would. Judas certainly had them fooled, didn’t he? He didn’t fool Jesus, though.
Sometimes we get caught up in appearances, even though we have been warned not to look on the outward appearance. This person seems like such a good Christian, he/she has got to have a place reserved, right by Jesus’ side in heaven. Or, this person can’t seem to do anything right, there is no way that he’s going to make it. But God looks on the heart.
Don’t misunderstand me, you can’t make it to Heaven without bringing something of worth, just as a stalk of wheat with no grain on it is just another weed, but a lot of what looks like success to us, isn’t really, and what looks like failure, at least shows a willingness to try. When you get right down to it, someone who never fails doesn’t accomplish much of anything either, because all they do is what they know they can do. People that fail are often those that will step out in faith, and say, I can do all things through Christ, which strengtheneth me, even though, sometimes, what they are doing isn’t what Christ wanted them to do. We all make mistakes. Some of us repent of our mistakes, and keep following the path that God has set before us.

Was Jesus Real?

I heard an interesting question recently. Unfortunately, I didn’t get the chance to actually sit down and talk with the person to get clarification, but the question was this: “If Jesus really lived, why isn’t He mentioned, even in passing, by any of the historians of the day?” I wish I could find out which historians this individual is talking about, because I don’t know of any historians of that general time period that didn’t mention Jesus, at least in passing.
Flavius Josephus, an historian who actually lived in the first century, doesn’t claim that Jesus was the Messiah, but that there were a large number of followers of Jesus. Josephus seems to think that Jesus was a real person, whose following has been growing. There has been a lot of discussion as to whether the references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus are legitimate. There is a link here to a page that discusses the dispute, fairly objectively, IMHO. To be honest, there are some editions of Josephus’s writings where Jesus is described as the Messiah, which is, at best, an odd thing for a Jewish historian to say. That phrase was almost certainly added to the text. There are other editions, however, that mention Jesus in a much more secular way. These are much more likely to be genuine.
Stop the presses! I just did some research, and I came across a website that asks very much the same question as in the opening paragraph, but with a great deal more detail. The author seems to have been unaware, during the initial writing, of the other editions of Josephus that I mentioned earlier, because he rejects the references to Jesus out of hand at first, but there is an addendum at the bottom of the page where he states that he has changed his mind (at least partially). But he points out that Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberias both chronicle the events of Rome and/or Judea during Jesus’ lifetime, and neither mentions Jesus at all. If you discount the writings of Josephus on the grounds that most of the existing editions have clearly been altered, then, yes, none of the historians of that time period mentioned Jesus.
Seem odd? It did to me, at first, also, but, allow me to ramble on about something else for moment and come back to this.
Another argument that I have heard against the validity of Jesus as Christ is that the Dead Sea Scrolls mention several other people that claimed to be the Messiah, as well. Some of them would seem to have even closely approximated the teachings of Jesus. I was asked how did I know that Jesus was the true Christ, and not one of these others, or for that matter, that He wasn’t also a fake. The person asking seemed to think that I would be shocked and surprised that there were other ‘messiahs.’ I was able to answer him with Scripture. In the book of Acts, a Jewish teacher named Gamaliel, told the Sanhedrin to leave the apostles alone, and reminded them that a man named Theudas had claimed to be the messiah, but after his death, his followers scattered. Then a man named Judas claimed to be the messiah, but after his death, his followers scattered. Gamaliel suggested that, if Jesus were just another false messiah, then his followers would disperse on their own, eventually, but if wasn’t faking it, then the Sanhedrin would be fighting against God. So, the Bible tells us that there were other people claiming to be the messiah, which is confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls, but that these others ended up not being remembered specifically because they were false messiahs.
I haven’t read the works of Josephus, or Philo, or Justus, but I have to wonder, if any of them mentioned someone claiming to be the Christ, at all, wouldn’t that have been brought up in this discussion before now, either in support of Jesus or to refute Jesus? So, they apparently didn’t think that self-proclaimed messiahs were of particular historical significance, and they clearly didn’t believe Jesus was the real Messiah, or they would have been converted; is it really any surprise that they didn’t write about Jesus? It may simply have been a question of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
On the other hand, if Jesus wasn’t real, if there was never an actual individual walking around teaching in Israel named Jesus, then where did the stories come from? Out of all the real individuals that did walk around Israel trying to force their own agenda, why is this ‘fictitious’ Jesus the one name that has survived all these years? Isn’t it pretty clear that it’s because He really was who He said He was?

You Judas!

I find it interesting that in the Gospels, Judas Iscariot, the traitor, lived with the other Apostles and they never even suspected what he was. Jesus knew, of course, and He never let on that He knew until the Last Supper. No one else even suspected. John 13:29 tells us that Judas 'had the bag,' meaning that he was the treasurer for this little group; that's a position of trust. Jesus didn't have to trust him, because Jesus knew exactly what Judas was doing, every step of the way; but every one else did. Matthew 26:22 tells us that, when Jesus revealed that one of His disciples would betray Him, the other eleven each asked the question, "Is it I?" Think about that for a minute: Judas was so trusted by the eleven that each of them found it easier to believe that he himself would betray Jesus than that Judas would. In John 13:26, Jesus pretty much told them that Judas was the traitor, and yet, they still couldn't bring themselves to believe it. Why not? Were they stupid? I don't think Jesus chose eleven faithful imbeciles and one clever traitor. It's just that Judas was so good at playing the part of a committed Christian that no one could believe that he would betray the Lord. They had traveled together for three years, and Judas had always kept his agenda secret from the others (of course, it's possible that Judas really was a committed Christian for some of those three years...). God knew, of course, but God had a plan, and Judas was an important part of that plan.

I have heard a lot of criticism in the last few years of churches that find themselves in awkward positions. What is the proper procedure if the leader of a congregation is accused of improprieties? In retrospect it seems clear that, if the allegations are serious, this man should be removed from his position, at least until the allegations can be investigated. Of course, it is somewhat understandable if the church doesn't take allegations seriously when those accusations are accompanied by a lawsuit. It's easy to side with the minister if the person making the accusations stand to profit financially from the situation. On the other hand, just because someone feels that they have a right to restitution for their legitimate pain and suffering, doesn't mean that they haven't suffered wrong. How does one tell? Unfortunately, those decisions are ultimately made by people that know the accused--usually other clergy that trust this minister just as much as the eleven trusted Judas. Why he can't possible be that kind of a man, I've known him for years! So, what often happens is, a man who is very good at playing the part of a man of God, but is secretly the worst kind of monster, gets moved to another church--often without so much as a warning (oh, by the way, he was accused of misbehavior at his last church, we don't think he did it, but we are investigating. If we find anything out, you'll be the first to know).

Now, granted, sometimes this is done to protect the church's assets. There is a fear that an admission of guilt will trigger more lawsuits. The church goes into damage control mode, using the philosophy that, if we cover up what has happened, no one will know, there will be no more lawsuits, people will continue to come to church, we can continue to do God's work. This is particularly easy if the other clergy don't really believe that the reported incident actually happened. Sometimes churches will pay off families just to get the allegations to go away, without ever really considering that the accusations might be true. Of course, the thought of the damage that could be done to the church if the allegations are true makes it easy to go into denial, also.

Unfortunately, the damage done to the people in the congregation being led by a man who is not being faithful to God can be nothing short of devastating. We, as Christians, can not allow this to happen. I have spent a lot of time trying to explain why this does happen, but I don't mean to suggest that it's okay that it does happen. It's not. We need to trust God, and let Him show us what to do whenever there are indications of improprieties within the church.