Four cities

Four Cities: Patterns of Church Leadership

There is a church on the south side of the city that uses the word “Antiochian” in its name. I thought it was strange when I first saw it; I had never seen the word before, and did not know what the implications were. Nobody had ever made much of a point about anything distinctive about the New Testament church in Antioch, except that disciples were first called Christians there.

But there is something distinctive about the church in Antioch. The leadership at Antioch appears to have been comprised of prophets and teachers.

“Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers; Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” Acts 13:1

Neither apostles nor elders are mentioned at Antioch, while the church in Jerusalem appeared to be lead by a combination of apostles and elders.

“And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, it was determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.” Acts 15:2

The church in Antioch sent representatives to Jerusalem to settle an issue; the church in Antioch appears to accept the authority of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. So a contrast is apparent between Antioch and Jerusalem. Jerusalem is lead by a number of apostles and elders, yet Antioch is lead by prophets and teachers. Antioch is about four hundred miles away from Jerusalem, yet it sends men to Jerusalem to settle a difficult issue. The prophets and teachers of Antioch deferred this issue to apostles and elders. Prophets and teachers were not able to settle this issue on their own.

Yet the church at Antioch is the beginnings of Christianity in the non-Jewish world. Antioch was a city of a half million people; it was the third largest city in the Roman Empire. The disciples of Jesus Christ are called Christians first here. The apostles Barnabas and Paul were sent out from Antioch on the first missionary journey into the Greek world. This church appears to be strong; Paul considered it to be his home, returning to Antioch after the first and second journeys. The disciples here were good examples. When prophets indicated that a famine is coming over the entire world, the disciples here sent money to the believers in Judea. Antioch is a good church, yet it is led in a different manner than the church in Jerusalem.

Paul and Barnabas started churches together throughout the southern part of Asia Minor on their missionary journeys, but with a different pattern of leadership than Antioch. They appointed elders in each of the cities as they returned from preaching further up country. Paul continued to do this on his journeys. He spent about three years in Ephesus teaching; when he passed by on his way to Jerusalem later, he called the elders of Ephesus to meet him. Paul clearly placed the responsibility for the leadership of the church in the hands of the elders.

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28

Paul gave Timothy and Titus a similar leadership pattern for the churches, instructing them on appointing elders in the churches.

Ephesus is a contrast to both Jerusalem and Antioch. Jerusalem was led by apostles primarily: James the Lord’s brother, Peter’ and John being the pillars. Antioch was led by prophets and teachers. But Ephesus was led by elders without apostles.

Corinth illustrates a fourth pattern for leadership. Corinth does not appear to have strong elders, or a definite set of apostles, or prophets, or teachers. Paul taught there for a year and a half; he sent some of his co-workers at times. Apollos preached there for a time. False apostles also preached there. Corinth seems to be divisive, with difficulties dealing with spiritual gifts. The problems in Corinth are the subject of two of the longer epistles in the New Testament. It is apparent that there is little leadership; Paul had to make a point that they should be able to find at least one wise man who can settle issues between Christian brothers.

Now the course of the history of Christianity has emphasized a form of the pattern illustrated by Jerusalem. By the second century, primary leadership in a region or city rested in the hands of a single bishop, with elders giving assistance. The hierarchical pattern of leadership in Christianity quickly became dominant, eventually leading to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The Protestant Reformation brought changes, but often the same pattern of leadership continued in different forms. The Lutheran Church restructured the doctrine, but kept much of the familiar outward patterns. Even the more congregational churches typically emphasized a single leader in the local church, with some role for elders/deacons.

For the most part, leadership in Christianity is based on a single executive model, whether in a hierarchical system or in a congregational system. But this model relies upon the single executive being like James, the brother of Jesus. After everyone had presented their case in Jerusalem, with much debate, James spoke. The issue was settled, not by organizational authority, but by the wisdom in what James said, using Scripture to resolve this issue. The writings of some of the early church fathers emphasize the godliness of the bishops: their genuine qualifications to lead. The lives of these bishops confirm these statements; some of them willing going to martyrdom.

But history gave us centuries of singularly unqualified individuals leading the church. Today, there still does not seem to be a mechanism to filter out the unqualified, in any branch of Christianity. Corrupt leaders look much like the good, until their sins are revealed.

It is the strong, independent personalities that typically succeed in our paradigms. The Esau’s tend to inherit from Isaac, not the Jacob’s. The Esau’s have received the household of Abraham for the most part.

We have become more like Corinth; a leaderless city plagued by division, and unable to get past the problems of carnal men within the church. We say we have the Holy Spirit, but we cannot judge right from wrong.

There are two other paradigms for leadership, mostly lost in the passage of time. One is the elder-based leadership, with no single individual exercising a dominant role. I have watched a church near me with a truly elder-based leadership become a church with a dominant cleric in about twenty years; the people tend to return to the familiar. There are some religious cultures that have held onto an elder-based leadership, but this is primarily in isolation. The elder-based leadership paradigm tends to give way to a single bishop/pastor, just as it did in the beginning.

The other paradigm is similar to the elder-based leadership, but with a significant difference. The elder-based paradigm was based on men of character leading the church, having been given responsibility for the individual members of the church. Their qualifications are character; the spiritual gifts are secondary. But the paradigm illustrated by Antioch depends on the qualifications of spiritual gifts. Two gifts are singled out in the leadership in Antioch: prophecy and teaching. The disciples in Antioch were lead by men who were gifted to teach Jesus Christ, and by men who were gifted to reprove, rebuke, and exhort. Their disciples became known as “Christians”, “little Christ’s”.

Antioch is an interesting example; certain they could have appointed elders and deacons at some point. The church in Jerusalem did. Paul did on his missionary journeys. But in this beginning phase of the church in Antioch, in a time of rapid growth, and shifting paradigms, this small group of gifted men made disciples of Jews and Greeks in an urban environment.

One of the significant things to notice is the way that these men dealt with issues. Acts 13 begins with them fasting and ministering to the Lord; this is how they did things. When the Holy Spirit said to set apart Barnabas and Paul, they fasted and prayed more, before sending them out. When issues over Jewish law arose, they sent men 400 miles to Jerusalem to let the apostles and elders there settle the issue. They have learned to let the Holy Spirit confirm direction.

Normally leaderless committees are a great way to keep anything significant from happening. But Antioch does not have a committee of prophets and teachers; it has a community. They have learned to do things together. The prophets judge the prophets; the prophets judge the people. The teachers teach Jesus Christ; the prophets make certain men are listening. The two gifts work together. Neither works well alone.

The fullest expression of the working of the gifts is in Ephesians 4.

“And He gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some shepherds and teachers…” Ephesians 4:11 Interlineal Translation

Certainly the roles of elders and deacons have apostolic authority, both in Jerusalem and in the Mediterranean churches. But the leadership in Antioch illustrates the effectiveness of just these two gifts alone, even without shepherds. We have emphasized the role of shepherds, but the shepherd lacks a particular gift. He cannot see. He does not know the heart of his sheep; he may come to know them, but he cannot see the darkness that has taken hold within individuals. He will be there to deal with the train wrecks, but prophets can see the deception and pain before it destroys. The paradigm in Ephesians 4 lists prophets as second to apostles. So does I Corinthians.

“And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, administrations, kinds of tongues.” I Corinthians 12:28

The Corinthian church had these kinds of gifts, but they did not have what Antioch had. The prophets and teachers were a community working together at Antioch. Corinth was a free-for-all, without significant leadership, without anyone to judge between brothers. Antioch was an urban mix of Greeks, Syrians, Romans, Jews, and others in a large prosperous capital of the region. So was Corinth. The cultures were not particularly different. What is different is the community of significant gifts. Christians would be afraid to go to church while lying to the Holy Spirit in Antioch. Antioch had a unified community leading it; Corinth had chaos. Both had gifts; but Antioch made disciples.

The Antiochian paradigm illustrates the effectiveness of objective truth working with subjective truth. Objective truth alone can become lessons in role-playing. Prophets are needed to reprove, rebuke, and exhort before the train wrecks.

Gifts work in community, real community expressed in time together. Prophets need other prophets to confirm their message. Prophets see things no one wants to express, especially the prophets. But prophets also need a framework within which to work; if no one knows the difference between right and wrong, how can you reprove them.

The Antioch in Acts 13 only existed for a short time probably, but it illustrates something that we can use today. A community of the greater gifts can do what the gifts without community cannot do. A handful of the spiritual, working together in a common task, submitting to one another, helping one another, can make Christians, little Christ's, out of believers.

Antiochian community can be a realistic paradigm; all it takes is a few with the greater gifts.

An alternative to building

We need a vision; a vision for the direction of the church. We need to decide how we will “do business” in this world. The choice is ours to choose a direction. In the parable of the talents, the good servants invested with the intent of getting a return for their master’s wealth. They had not been instructed in what to do, only that they were to do business with what he gave them until he returned. We need a vision for how we will invest.

Conventional wisdom for churches holds that churches grow by building. But the buildings are hardly going to be of value to our returning Lord. The only rationale for building is in the purpose that the building serves. In the normal course of investment, choice must be made between investments, weighing potential return with potential risk. Most investments offer some potential for return; some just offer more. But there are other possible investments.

A big addition to a church will usually come with a big loan. A $2 million dollar building loan will cost about $10,000 per month to service the debt; for twenty years the church will be committed to this expense. This is an investment choice, one that carries an inescapable long term commitment.

But the same money could be invested in other ways. An alternative investment using the same amount of money can address the work of the church in a different way. Instead of a building, an investment can be made in staff.

We are accustomed to certain roles within church leadership. Usually it is a mixture of salaried and volunteer staff. Usually salaried staff is seminary-educated; volunteer staff usually is not. The usual responsibilities generally are more than what salaried staff can accomplish in a normal week. Volunteers fulfill many functions within a church, but these are almost always part-time, primarily on Sunday. We have a paradigm for staffing, just as we do for many other aspects of the church. Usually a church of a certain size can afford a certain number of salaried staff, and a certain size of debt.

There is another paradigm: one that comes from Ephesian 4. The work of Christ in the church comes through the four-fold ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers. (I count four looking at an interlineal translation; some count five.) Now today, the concept of apostles is normally avoided, so setting it aside for the moment, we have still have a need for these roles. We have usually limited the primary leadership of the church to a small number of salaried pastors, seminary educated. Evangelists are usually limited to traveling preachers, preaching in churches to primarily churchgoers. Prophets are usually silenced, told only to speak safe things, even in groups that accept the role. Without getting into other issues, we are left with a small number of salaried pastors trying to equip the church, without the support of the other roles, and being fully tasked already. Few pastors have time to spend with all of those under their care; usually they must deal with crisis management.

Some have tried to fill the role of the pastors and teachers with elders, seeing a New Testament pattern that supports this concept. But this usually does not change the dynamics of shepherding the flock, for these men do not have much time to devote to the sheep. The realities of our economy require responsible individuals with families to work full-time jobs. Even when elder/shepherds are attempting to share in the work of the pastor, they cannot give more than a few hours a week to the task.

The consequence of the normal paradigm is that the roles of Ephesian 4 go substantially unfilled. The church does not have enough pastors and teachers. The church does not have evangelists working among them. These two roles in particular simply require time. The number of pastors and teachers should be proportional to the number of sheep. If there are not enough shepherds, the sheep will stray. The normal paradigm for staffing does not work to fulfill Ephesians 4.

The alternative is to invest in staff, instead of buildings. The $2 million dollar building loan requires a monthly payment of $10,000. If this money were invested in staff instead, a focused effort could be made to fulfill the equipping work of Ephesians 4. Two salaried individuals could be brought into the labor. Assuming that the existing staff can handle the normal requirements of the church, and the difficulties of crisis management, these two individuals could focus on other tasks.

First, a church needs an evangelist to manage the front door, figuratively speaking. He should have no other responsibilities other than evangelism. He should not be the director of evangelism or director of anything. He should not be responsible to make Christians witness; he is to evangelize himself. He must be one given by Jesus Christ to the church to do this. He must have the gifts and calling of an evangelist. He should not be required to fill the pulpit, or teach classes, or have revival meetings. He should be in Starbucks, at the community center, at whatever place he finds someone to listen. For all of our talk about the importance of evangelism, we have not been willing to pay someone a full-time salary to do it. We are called evangelicals, but we will probably have a difficult time finding this individual. I have known some; leading people to Christ is a normal thing for them. But they have had to support their families doing something other than what Jesus Christ made them to do because we will not pay the workman what he is worth.

Second, a church needs someone to manage the back door, figuratively speaking. We need someone to disciple those who come to our church; we need a shepherd who is not burdened with other tasks. Again, this pastor is not to be the director of anything else; we are not to steal him away from his work. He is only responsible to build relationships with the new people in the church. Most churches actually have many who pass through, seeking a place to call home. In the course of a year, dozens have come through, willingly walking in the front door, and soon leaving by the back door. The problem is not finding people; it is keeping the ones that God sent to us. This pastor needs to be sent by Jesus Christ to do this work; he also needs to have the gifts and calling of God upon him. He and his wife will need to share in a common task, a full-time task, where the workplace is primarily in the homes of others. Like the apostles of the early church, they may be teaching from house to house, sharing meals with new disciples, building up the faith face to face.

This paradigm is about investment. A $2 million investment will give us a nice building to use or it will give 20 years of focused labor by two or three sent by Jesus Christ to equip His church. The essential point is that this investment of what is “spendable income” can complement the work of those who lead the church now. Those who lead the church now are fully tasked with what is necessary. There is no one who has the time to evangelize 40 hours a week. There is no one who has the time to disciple 40 hours a week. The existing leadership can provide an opportunity for these individuals to work at what Jesus has sent them to do. They can do what the existing leadership desperately would like to see done.

Now this is a paradigm shift for me as well. I would be the last person to suggest hiring more staff. In my mind, this is the work of the elders and the body. But the reality is that workmen need to earn a living at what they do. If they cannot, they must in good conscience find something that will support their family. In the early church, Paul instructed churches to give “double honor” those who ruled well, especially those that work hard at preaching and teaching. Working hard at preaching and teaching takes time, time that could have been spent tending to their own business. Paul understood this, and wanted these men to be given twice what other elders were given. A workmen is worthy of his wages. Even if these roles in Ephesians 4 were fulfilled by those within the church as it was often in the New Testament church, they should be compensated. Usually, these men have careers, good careers. They are probably earning salaries that reflect their abilities. We should want to invest in the best workmen we can find; we should pay at least what they can earn farming or teaching or practicing law.

In some cases we can find these gifted individuals within the church itself; in some cases we may need to bring them in from elsewhere. Whether they are seminary educated or not, they need to be capable workmen. The gifts and calling of God should be evident. The work is significant. These tasks should not be limited to the leftovers of anyone’s day.

As far as the rest of the gifts of Ephesians 4, the role of the prophets as we know it does not require this approach. (See the next blog for an alternative.) Paid prophets are almost always a bad idea. If we are allowing prophets to speak, they do not need 40 hours a week to do this. It does not take long to speak to the heart of a man. They can serve well by working with their hands, tending their own business, and walking humbly before their God. They don’t need to be paid to intercede. The apostles should be paid; those who are sent by God with the gospel should be supported by His people. We are doing this, at least in part, through the missionaries we support. Missionaries are the apostles sent by God to preach, just as Jesus sent out His twelve apostles. “Missionary” is just a word from Latin corresponding to “apostle’, an equivalent word from Greek.

We have a choice to make in the direction of the church. If we choose the normal thing, and obligate ourselves financially for buildings, we will not have the possibility of paying any other type of workmen. We need to set a priority; there are no “and’s” in life, only “or’s”. We need a vision for what we are doing.

This is not normal; we only see larger staffs in large churches, and usually then they are fully tasked with the administration of a larger church. We seldom see this type of commitment to evangelism; evangelism is something that everyone is supposed to do but few ever do. We seldom see this type of commitment to discipleship; again this is something that is supposed to happen automatically. But if the work of Ephesians 4 is a reality; if Christians can be equipped to grow into a mature man, then this type of investment is reasonable. The Master would enjoy seeing the fruits of this investment.

Change of subject

I started this blog with something I wanted to write about. The process of writing almost daily was good; some of the things that were written about the teachings on the kingdom of God were new to me.

Having finished another topic that took 1100 pages, I started writing on the Sermon on the Mount separately. Now that I have gotten into that, I want to pursue the teachings on the kingdom of God in that format, not in a blog at this point. A blog in my mind should be more limited in scope, something that I was not able to do very well with my topic.

So having written a few short things based on various ideas, I want to change my subject in this blog, and use it to publish more limited thoughts.

Twelve

Matthew records a number of things that Jesus did after the Sermon on the Mount. In most cases, what is recorded is what Jesus did with a single individual or at a single point in time. In a one case, separate events, similar in nature, are told side-by-side, and in another case two events are told with one story within another. After these events, Matthew tells of Jesus chosing twelve apostles, and sending them out. Some of the events that Matthew records before the chosing of the apostles are also recorded in Mark and Luke. In some cases, Mark and Luke have more details than Matthew does, which is notable since Matthew records many things in much more detail than the others.

These events make twelve logical illustrations of how Jesus dealt with man.

1. Cleansing the leper
2. The centurion's great faith
3. Healing in Peter's home
4. Cost of discipleship
5. A storm at sea
6. Demonic opposition
7. Healing the paralytic lowered to Him
8. Calling Matthew
9. Healing touch
10. Blind men following
11. Restoring the dumb man
12. A need for shepherds

This list of stories illustrates how Jesus dealt with men in different ways. A number of points can be made. The issues of authority and freewill can be addressed. The work of healing can be addressed. The nature of the Christian life can be addressed. But another point can be made, which reveals a structure in what Matthew was doing as he wrote this Gospel.

These twelve events relate to the twelve tribes of Israel. Genesis 29 and 30 tell the story of the births of eleven of the sons of Jacob. With each child, an explanation of the name is given. Later at the end of Genesis, Jacob blessed his sons, prophetically giving each an appropriate blessing. Four hundred and forty years later, Moses blessed the tribes, giving a conclusion to what God was doing in each son. (This takes about 300 pages to explain.)

These twelve events correlate with the twelve tribes, taken in the order given in Genesis.

Matthew had the twelve tribes in mind when he recorded events between the Sermon on the Mount, and the choosing of twelve apostles. The twelve tribes provide an illustration of God working in four directions on three levels. The events of Matthew express that same multi-faceted work of God.

The names of the twelve tribes are on the gates of the eternal city. The names of the twelve apostles are on the foundations of that city. These twelves mean something enduring.

Compassion and workers

Jesus went about teaching, preaching, and healing in that region. As He went about, He felt compassion for those He saw.

"And Jesus was going about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. And seeing the multitudes, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and downcast like sheep without a shepherd." Matthew 9:35-36

This is what His disciples recognized; Jesus had compassion for those He saw. Compassion was integral to the work He did. The people He saw were not specifically those on the fringes of society; He did not just have compassion on the failures and outcasts. He had compassion on the people of the land; mankind was "distressed and downcast like sheep without a shepherd". Those He saw may not have felt distressed and downcast; they were living "normal" lives. In comparison to others around them, they were OK.

But Jesus saw them like sheep without a shepherd. Sheep cannot survive on their own. Sheep need care. They are defenseless, near-sighted animals. Jesus, the good Shepherd, looked at the multitudes with the eye of a shepherd. The multitudes needed to be tended to. Sheep need their feet trimmed, or they get foot rot. Sheep need the wool on their rumps trimmed, or they get a load of manure stuck to them. Maggots eat away their flesh under the manure. Sheep need fresh pasture, or parasites build up in their guts. Untended, sheep are not OK. The multitudes were not OK.

But even though Jesus went about teaching, preaching, and healing among these people, He felt compassion on them, for they did not have a shepherd. His very powerful ministry did not fill the role of a shepherd. Jesus turned to His disciples, and told them to pray for workers.

"Then He said to His disciples, 'The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore, beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest." Matthew 9:37-38

Workers are needed to be the shepherds for the multitude. Jesus understood that.

We need to understand this as well. The greatest Sunday services do not fulfill this need. Someone is needed who will get his hands dirty tending the sheep.

A dumb man speaks

A man was brought to Jesus who could not talk, yet who was recognizably demon-possessed. After Jesus cast out the demon, the man spoke. Everyone around was amazed at this, saying that nothing like this had happened before. But the Pharisees took exception to the wonder, saying that Jesus was simply casting out demons by the ruler of the demons.

Jesus had cast demons out of people before; the point that seemed to be significant was that the dumb man spoke. This man, who did not speak, also could not communicate in other ways; the evil spirit within him overshadowed any form of sign language. Those who had known this man must have assumed that there was no reason within this human form. They must have assumed the dumb man was an idiot.

Yet when Jesus had cast out the demon, this man spoke. The person, who had appeared to be without any intelligence, could converse with them. For those who had known this pathetic man, a whole man suddenly appeared where they thought there was nothing but a shell. This was something great to all those who watched.

Except the Pharisees could not see the significance of what had happened. A whole man had appeared where only a shell had been before, but the Pharisees did not value common people. This was not significant to them. Their only concern was to maintain a "talking point". They needed to look like they understood what was going on. They knew nothing of demons, or the government of demons; but they confidently stated that Jesus was working with the devil. They found a "talking point" when they knew they did not know what was happening.

What the disciples saw was Jesus casting out a demon through His authority, and in so doing, releasing the whole man from bondage. A man was inside the shell, imprisoned by evil.

Authority can free men from what looks like stupidity.

Blind men following

As Jesus went on, two blind men followed Him, crying out as they went. But Jesus continued on His way until He came into a house. The blind men came to Him, and then Jesus addressed them. He asked them if they believed He could heal them. They said they did; He then touched their eyes, and their eyes were opened. Jesus urged them not to tell anyone, but they went and told everyone in that area.

What is at first odd is that Jesus did not stop along the way to heal these two blind men. Obviously it was difficult for the blind men to follow someone they could not see, down a road that they could not see either. They cried out to Him to have mercy, but Jesus did not stop.

These two blind men must have sustained themselves by begging, sitting beside a travelled road, crying out for mercy from those that they heard walking past. When they heard that Jesus was passing by, they cried out to Him, just as they cried out to others for alms.

But Jesus did not address them in that place; He forced them to leave what was familiar to find Him. They may have followed the noise of the crowd; they must have asked directions to find the house He was in. But beggars would have not gone into a house to ask for alms; they left their familiar role of beggars. Jesus came to them, not addressing them as beggars, but as men of faith.

They had asked Him to show mercy; the tacit implication is that they did not know if He would show mercy. But in the house He asked them if they believed He was able to give them sight. Jesus was leading their faith down a path. They said "yes"; they believed He was able. That response still did not address whether they believed He was willing to heal them. Then Jesus touched their eyes, and said "Be it done according to your faith." By touching them, Jesus addressed His willingness to heal them. They then believed He was willing; and their sight was restored. Their faith had been made complete.

These men did not believe Jesus was willing to heal them when they first cried out to Him; they were only begging. But after leaving their familar place, they began a journey that led to faith.

His disciples watched what Jesus did, seemingly ignoring these men's cries, but then later addressed them as men, not beggars. Jesus had made blind men follow Him; He had given beggars faith. Jesus had led them on a journey of faith.

We may not understand His silence at times, or His failure to act. He does not seem merciful to us at times. Yet He is the same today as He was then. He may be trying to lead us away from our familiar place in life; He may want to take us from the familiar into faith.

"Go forth from your country, and from your relatives, and from your father's house..."

Point of contact

In Capernaum, a synagogue official came to Jesus asking Him to come to his house. His daughter had just died, yet he believed that if Jesus touched her, she would live. Jesus got up, and followed the man back to his house.

While Jesus was on the way to this man's house, a woman came up from behind Him, to just touch His cloak. She had suffered from a hemorrhage from twelve years; Mark adds that she had suffered much at the hands of physicians, having spent all that she had trying to become well. Like the synagogue official, she believed she would be healed if she only touched Jesus; even if He did not know that she touched Him.

This woman touched the outer cloak that Jesus wore, from behind Him. Mark makes it clear that she immediately felt that she was healed. But both Mark and Luke added that Jesus felt power go out from Him. He turned around, and asked who touched Him. The woman, in fear, came before Him and told Him what had happened. Jesus told her to take courage; He expressed to her that it was her faith that had made her well.

When Jesus came to the synagogue officials house, the mourners, including fluteplayers were already there. Jesus told them to go away, saying that she was not dead, only sleeping. The crowd laughed at Jesus, but He went inside the house, and had the crowd sent outside. He took the girl by the hand, and she arose.

These two stories are told in this same way in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; the one story is always embedded in the other. What is in common in the stories is issue of a point of contact for faith. Jesus made a point of stopping to find the woman and then making it clear to her that it was her faith that made her well. But she was made well when she touched His cloak; Jesus felt power going from Him when she touched His outer garment. Her heart had focused on a point of contact; she had good reason to think that the physical contact had healed her. In the same way, the synagogue official thought that if Jesus laid His hand on his daughter, see would be made alive. He also had focused on a point of contact. In both cases Jesus healed, even when their heart had focused on a point of contact.

His disciples saw Jesus go with the synagogue official, to lay His hand upon the girl as the man had asked. Jesus did not seek to convince the man that He only needed to speak a word and his daughter would live; the centurion understood that, but the synagogue official did not. Jesus was willing to work with the man's faith, even though his faith was limited by a need for a point of contact. But by going, Jesus rewarded the faith that this man had; this man watched Jesus raise His daughter from the dead.

His disciples also saw Jesus find the woman who had touched Him; she had been healed without His knowledge, but He wanted to see her face to face. Jesus told her face to face that her faith had made her well.

What His disciples saw was His concern for the faith of those who came to Him; He wanted those who came to Him to understand that those who come to Him by faith are rewarded.

The synagogue official must have prayed much for his daughter; the people of the synagogue must have joined him in prayer. Yet his daughter slipped away. He had sought for healing, but he did not find it. The woman had gone to many physicians, and had endured much pain in their "treatments"; she had spent all she had seeking to be cured. She had trusted many different physicians, and had not been helped. She had sought to be healed, but she had not found it through what she had done. They had both sought healing in what they thought would work, but had not found it. When they came to Jesus in faith, they found healing.

This is the point of what the disciples saw: those who seek Him are rewarded.

"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of of those who seek Him."
Hebrews 11:6

Seek the touch of the Rewarder, not the reward.

Letting go of culture

Jesus went out from where He was teaching, and as He walked through the city of Capernaum He called a man to follow Him.

"And as Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man, called Matthew, sitting in the tax office; and He said to him, 'Follow Me!' And he rose, and followed Him." Matthew 9:9

Crowds followed Jesus everywhere; as He walked He was surrounded by people. But Jesus picked this man Matthew, a tax collector for the Roman government, to be a disciple. Jesus called Matthew to follow, and at that simple imperative, he got up from his place and followed Jesus.

Matthew may have listened to Jesus preach and teach; many had. Matthew's account of the Sermon on the Mount indicates that he was there; no one else recorded it in such detail as far as we know. But Jesus found Matthew back at the tax office. Matthew had a job to do, even if everyone hated him for it.

Luke makes it clear that Matthew held a feast for Jesus at his house; many tax-gathers and other sinners came to this feast. These men would have not been allowed in the house of a religious Jew, but Matthew was one of the sinners. So as Jesus and His disciples sat at the table surrounded by the "worldly", the "righteous" asked His disciples why their Teacher ate with sinners. But Jesus overheard their comments, and replied to the Pharisees.

"...It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. But go and learn what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Matthew 9:12-13

Jesus answered the Pharisees in a way that spoke to the basic assumptions of their culture. The Pharisees were the best; they were the most righteous, the most careful in keeping the Law. Yet nothing in their culture could offer hope to the weak. Jesus instead said that He would be a physician to the sick; He quoted a portion of Hosea that is about healing the apostasy of Israel. Jesus made the point that God wanted compassion, not empty sacrifice. Jesus implied that their culture was an empty sacrifice.

After that, the disciples of John the Baptist came to Jesus to ask Him why His disciples did not fast. They fasted, and the Pharisees fasted; Jews had always fasted. Jesus replied to them about fasting, and more.

"...The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast..." Matthew 9:15

Jesus answered the disciples of John with a picture of the attendants of a bridegroom, who would obviously not fast during a wedding feast. But then Jesus added that they will in a time to come when the bridegroom is not there. Jesus challenged their understanding of the reason to fast. Then He told them using two comparisons that their culture would not work with what He was doing.

"But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. Nor do men put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out, and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved." Matthew 10:16-17

There is a common element in these three events around the calling of Matthew. Matthew and his friend saw themselves as "sinners"; these men did not follow the practices their religion. The Pharisees made a point of not associating with "sinners"; they thought it was wrong to eat with them. The disciples of John the Baptist thought it was wrong to not fast. What is common to these three events is a religious culture: the commonly held practices and assumptions.

But Jesus did not follow the forms of their culture; He was more concerned with function. He agreed with the Pharisees that the tax collectors and sinners were sick; but Jesus intended to heal the sick. Jesus agreed with the practice of fasting; He fasted and in time His disciples would fast. But the outward forms need to follow the inward function.

John the Baptist had been making ready the way of the Lord; what he taught his disciples was to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. The disciples of John the Baptist came to the Messiah that they thought they were preparing to meet, and did not recognize Him. The form had superceded function.

The disciples of Jesus watched Jesus deal with the culture of their world. They were probably not pleased themselves with Jesus calling a tax gatherer to join them. They were probably not pleased to go to a feast with tax collectors and sinners; their friends would wonder what they were doing. Yet as they watched Jesus, they would have seen that He was reaching out to these men outside of the religious culture. Function was more important than form.

There would come a time when the disciples of Jesus would fast, but they would do it for a good reason. There would come a time when Jesus would teach His disciples about dealing with a brother who has sinned, but that would be within the church. The forms were good if they followed function.

The same processes are at work in our culture. Many people in our world would not feel comfortable in a church, or around Christians. Many Christians would be uncomfortable around them. Like the disciples of John we want an emphasis on the outward first; new Christians should be intensely devout from the beginning. We need to examine our forms to see if they actually follow function; our culture can be excluding "sinners".

Where can a "sinner" listen to us without pretending to be religious?