Too Peeved To Pray
Sermon
Sermons On The Second Readings
Series I, Cycle C
Paul did not pray! I know that it is difficult to believe, but Paul did not pray. Paul either forgot to pray or rather chose not to pray! I don't know which one is worse! But the fact is, Paul did not pray! In everyone of Paul's letters, he begins with an introduction of himself and a greeting to the congregation to which the epistle is sent. He then proceeds with a prayer of thanksgiving in which he usually commends the congregation for their faithfulness or some other Christian virtue. Not here! There is no prayer of thanksgiving, no commendation for the church at Galatia! Paul did not pray!
You have to remember that this is the Apostle Paul! If ever there were a man of prayer, it was the Apostle Paul. To the church at Thessalonica, he wrote, "Pray continually" (1 Thessalonians 5:17). To the church at Philippi, he exhorted, "... in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God" (Philippians 4:6). To the church at Colossae, he directed, "Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful," (Colossians 4:2). Even for the very troubled church at Corinth, Paul had a prayer, "I always thank God for you!" (1 Corinthians 1:4). To the church at Galatia: nothing! No prayer! Paul did not pray! Was Paul in such a hurry to get to the heart of the matter that he just flew past his customary prayer? Did Paul not have time to pray? Or, was he too angry? In this urgent, passionate, even bombastic letter, certainly in tone, was Paul too peeved to pray? Have you ever been too angry to pray?
If so, why was Paul so angry? Why was this great missionary so eager to vent his passionate rage? We catch the emotional tone of the letter at the very beginning where he declares, almost defensively, that he is an apostle, "... sent not from men to man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father ..." (v. 1). Has someone said otherwise? Has someone said that his calling or authority was secondhand because he received it from the "real apostles" in Jerusalem? He quickly adds that this is the same Jesus "who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from this evil age, according to the will of our God and Father" (vv. 3-4). Has someone said otherwise? Has someone said that we are rescued from our sins by some means other than totally relying upon Jesus' sacrificial death upon the cross? Paul did not pray!
Paul skipped the prayer and dove headlong into his passionate purpose for which he penned the epistle. "I am 'astonished' (NIV), 'surprised' (TEV), 'amazed' (NAB) that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ" (vv. 6-7 NIV). He accuses the hasty Galatians of deserting the gospel of grace for another gospel which really is no gospel at all. This "different" gospel was one that had infiltrated the young in the faith fellowship soon after Paul's departure a year or so earlier. Evidently, a group of legalists, in the form of Jewish Christians, were questioning Paul's authority, credentials, and gospel of grace. They implied that Paul's gospel of grace was soft and weakened the demands of the faith. They said that one is saved through the Torah and through certain actions, such as circumcision and obedience to Jewish dietary laws. They taught that one is saved through the rites, rules, regulations, and rituals of religion, not by the unmerited grace of God. They declared that one is saved by what one does, not solely by what God does.
Paul continues his vehement defense when he proclaims (vv. 8-9) not once, but twice, that "if anyone is preaching a gospel other than the one I have preached to you, let him be eternally condemned." Now, if I read that right, Paul is saying that this person can go to blazes! In fact, Paul is saying, in no uncertain terms, he can go to hell! Wow! Such language from the Apostle Paul! The severity of Paul's language only goes to serve the seriousness of the situation and the urgency of the crisis. Paul pitches a fit! He does so because he knows that the "gospel" of legalistic good works is a very perversion of the gospel of grace and everything that Jesus and Paul proclaimed. The time is crucial! If this legalistic heresy is allowed to prosper, Christianity could easily fade back into a cult of Judaism and never become a world-wide faith. Paul reiterates that it is time to speak up and denounce legalism for what it is. It is not time to compromise the demands and integrity of the gospel of grace.
Agreed! Paul is not giving himself, or us, license to go on a witch hunt. He is not engaging in the dialectics of lesser significance that too often have been used to break fellowship. Paul is not on a tirade about the trivial! He is defending the very essence of the gospel itself! The future of the faith could be at stake -- certainly at Galatia! Paul is determined to speak against this threat to all that he believed. As Helen Keller would later say, "The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of the next." If Paul does not speak up now, who knows where it all will end?
Martin Luther felt that it was time to speak up! When he nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg in 1517, protesting the sale of indulgences, he was confronting the distortion of the truth by Christian leaders who had lost sight of the gospel of God's free, unmerited grace. It was time to speak up! Karl Barth and members of the Confessing Church in Germany felt that it was time to speak up! When they drafted the Barmen Declaration in 1934, they said, "No," to the Nazis and their false gospel of nationalism and ethnicity. It was time to speak up! The World Alliance of Reformed Churches felt that it was time to speak up! When they denounced the acceptance of racial apartheid by the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa as a heresy, they were following Paul's example of denouncing a curse on a dangerous perversion of the gospel.1 It was time to speak up.
I wonder if today there are not times when we should speak up? Could it be that today we fight not another gospel so much as we should oppose an "adjusted" gospel that is sometimes forced to comply to our own whims and desires? Is it true that the authentic gospel is sometimes supplanted by the adjusted gospel of Culture Religion, where the church merely reflects the values and patterns of society? Is it true that the authentic gospel is pushed aside for the adjusted substitute gospel of Civil Religion where God and Country are barely distinguished from one another? Do we seek to suit our own version of the authentic gospel to the political, economic, or religious power structures of our times?
I wonder if today there are not times when we should speak up against the soft and seemingly self-cultured gospel of prosperity? The selfish "gospel" of me-ism is a pale comparison to the gospel lived and preached by Christ, who gave his life in loving self-sacrifice. Just because a book is on a New York Times best seller list does not mean that it carries the full weight of the authentic gospel for which Jesus dies on the cross. Jesus' prayer, the Lord's Prayer, begins with praise to "our" father, calls us to selfless cooperation with him to bring about his will and kingdom on earth, and pledges our willing forgiveness of others as a condition of his forgiveness of us. I think that the self-sacrificial prayer of Jesus that is lived out in a lifestyle of service to others should be preferred over all others. I wonder if there are not times when we should speak up. Paul did!
But the question remains: "Why would these young Christians go to a legalistic quagmire of rules and regulations and desert the gospel of God's grace?" We ask ourselves why they would flee from the freedom-giving gospel of love and delve into the quicksand of a life-killing religion of legalism? But then again we must remind ourselves that we have not fully solved the dilemma of the temptations of legalism today. It's attraction is no less strong today than it was to Paul's young church 2,000 years ago. Why is legalism such a persistent danger?2
Some would say that legalism is more natural to human experience. According to the values of our society the one with the most toys wins. Then, why can't this be true in religion? If my good deeds surpass yours, am I not a better Christian than you? If success in this world is built on effort and competition, then why not the rewards of the next? We all want to be the best Christians we can be, right? How do you evaluate that? We can measure good deeds and spiritual rewards like the world measures success. But I thought Jesus said something about grace giving first place because of his will not as a reward for our accomplishments. I also remember that Paul places priority on following the Holy Spirit rather than on our "natural" inclinations (Romans 8:5).
Others might say that legalism is easier to manage than grace. If religion can be reduced to a list of well-defined rules, usually dictated by an autocratic authority figure, a person can do these much more easily than one can exercise a life-changing faith. It is much easier just to do what the preacher says -- one - two - three - there it is -- than it is to pray and nurture a life of sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. It also is interesting to note that most such authority figures define the rules in ways that are beneficial to them. "Christian freedom requires the internal motivation of the Holy Spirit, but legalism provides the external force of laws and punishments."3 Also, it seems that Paul said something about the life with Christ not always being easy, but it surely would be worth it (Romans 8:17).
Others might contend that legalism seems safer than grace. They may be right! Freedom can be a very frightening thing -- even scary or risky. Many feel more secure if someone tells them what to do rather than risk confusion or making mistakes. I remember a friend of years ago who was a very attractive woman and had an I.Q. that bordered on "genius." More and more she acquired a weight problem that was becoming a health hazard. In trying to deal with the health issue, she had a stomach bypass operation and subsequently she lost weight down to about 150 pounds. Now, she was a dazzler! Then she interpreted an individual's remark as "making a pass" at her. It frightened her so much that she quickly reversed the operation and regained her weight back and more. It was as if her weight were some kind of defense mechanism. It was easier to deal with the weight than it was to deal with the freedom that being healthy and attractive brought. Freedom can be scary, particularly if it is not balanced with self-discipline and responsibility.
Legalism also may be persistent danger because it appeals to our sense of pride, whereas faith in Christ requires repentance and humility. Legalism can feed our ego with the boast, "I did it! I don't have to depend on anyone." Grace can deal a deafening defeat to our ego because, as Paul says, we can only boast in Christ. Grace says that we are dependent upon him and cannot earn one single ounce of his favor even if our stack of good works ascends to the ceiling.
Is this why Paul reiterates that he is not trying to impress men because he has nothing of which to boast himself (v. 10)? His only boast is in the one who "gave himself for our sins" (v. 4). We cannot earn God's favor. Someone already has paid the price.
William Bausch, the wonderful storyteller priest, relates the following interchange. "One thing I like about living in New York," my friend said, as we left his apartment, "as opposed to where you live" -- nodding at me -- "is the freedom. Here there is freedom to live the lifestyle I choose: to eat where I want, and to dress as I like. Freedom!" he chanted once more....
As he closed the door behind us, locked the latch, turned the dead bolt, and switched on the electronic alarm, he warned me, "Don't dare open that door without switching off the alarm or all hell will break loose and the cops will shoot you dead!"4 I am not for sure that I understand everything that story means, but possibly it says that every form of freedom has its price.
John Boyle was one of my professors at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also taught Clinical Pastoral Education at the nearby Central State Mental Hospital in Anchorage. On one particular occasion, one of his CPE students was about to conduct his first worship service at the hospital chapel. He was very nervous. As he ascended to the pulpit, his already faulty concentration was shattered as one of the mental patients rose and began shouting, "Go to hell! Go to hell!" The young preacher was speechless. He stood, red-faced, taken aback, while no words proceeded from his mouth. It was then that another mental patient broke the silence when she also stood and said, "He did! He came here!"
Jesus literally went to hell. He literally endured hell that we might be free! Treat your freedom carefully!
He breaks the power of canceled sin.
He sets the prisoner free;
His blood can make the vilest clean,
His blood availed for me.5
____________
1. Richard B. Hays, Galatians, The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume Eleven (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), p. 207.
2. David C. George, Layman's Biblebook Commentary, Galatians, Volume 21 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), p. 55.
3. Ibid.
4. William J. Bausch, Storytelling the Word (Mystic, Connecticut: Twenty-Third Publications, 1996), p. 127.
5. Charles Wesley, "O For A Thousand Tongues To Sing," 1739.
You have to remember that this is the Apostle Paul! If ever there were a man of prayer, it was the Apostle Paul. To the church at Thessalonica, he wrote, "Pray continually" (1 Thessalonians 5:17). To the church at Philippi, he exhorted, "... in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God" (Philippians 4:6). To the church at Colossae, he directed, "Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful," (Colossians 4:2). Even for the very troubled church at Corinth, Paul had a prayer, "I always thank God for you!" (1 Corinthians 1:4). To the church at Galatia: nothing! No prayer! Paul did not pray! Was Paul in such a hurry to get to the heart of the matter that he just flew past his customary prayer? Did Paul not have time to pray? Or, was he too angry? In this urgent, passionate, even bombastic letter, certainly in tone, was Paul too peeved to pray? Have you ever been too angry to pray?
If so, why was Paul so angry? Why was this great missionary so eager to vent his passionate rage? We catch the emotional tone of the letter at the very beginning where he declares, almost defensively, that he is an apostle, "... sent not from men to man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father ..." (v. 1). Has someone said otherwise? Has someone said that his calling or authority was secondhand because he received it from the "real apostles" in Jerusalem? He quickly adds that this is the same Jesus "who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from this evil age, according to the will of our God and Father" (vv. 3-4). Has someone said otherwise? Has someone said that we are rescued from our sins by some means other than totally relying upon Jesus' sacrificial death upon the cross? Paul did not pray!
Paul skipped the prayer and dove headlong into his passionate purpose for which he penned the epistle. "I am 'astonished' (NIV), 'surprised' (TEV), 'amazed' (NAB) that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ" (vv. 6-7 NIV). He accuses the hasty Galatians of deserting the gospel of grace for another gospel which really is no gospel at all. This "different" gospel was one that had infiltrated the young in the faith fellowship soon after Paul's departure a year or so earlier. Evidently, a group of legalists, in the form of Jewish Christians, were questioning Paul's authority, credentials, and gospel of grace. They implied that Paul's gospel of grace was soft and weakened the demands of the faith. They said that one is saved through the Torah and through certain actions, such as circumcision and obedience to Jewish dietary laws. They taught that one is saved through the rites, rules, regulations, and rituals of religion, not by the unmerited grace of God. They declared that one is saved by what one does, not solely by what God does.
Paul continues his vehement defense when he proclaims (vv. 8-9) not once, but twice, that "if anyone is preaching a gospel other than the one I have preached to you, let him be eternally condemned." Now, if I read that right, Paul is saying that this person can go to blazes! In fact, Paul is saying, in no uncertain terms, he can go to hell! Wow! Such language from the Apostle Paul! The severity of Paul's language only goes to serve the seriousness of the situation and the urgency of the crisis. Paul pitches a fit! He does so because he knows that the "gospel" of legalistic good works is a very perversion of the gospel of grace and everything that Jesus and Paul proclaimed. The time is crucial! If this legalistic heresy is allowed to prosper, Christianity could easily fade back into a cult of Judaism and never become a world-wide faith. Paul reiterates that it is time to speak up and denounce legalism for what it is. It is not time to compromise the demands and integrity of the gospel of grace.
Agreed! Paul is not giving himself, or us, license to go on a witch hunt. He is not engaging in the dialectics of lesser significance that too often have been used to break fellowship. Paul is not on a tirade about the trivial! He is defending the very essence of the gospel itself! The future of the faith could be at stake -- certainly at Galatia! Paul is determined to speak against this threat to all that he believed. As Helen Keller would later say, "The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of the next." If Paul does not speak up now, who knows where it all will end?
Martin Luther felt that it was time to speak up! When he nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg in 1517, protesting the sale of indulgences, he was confronting the distortion of the truth by Christian leaders who had lost sight of the gospel of God's free, unmerited grace. It was time to speak up! Karl Barth and members of the Confessing Church in Germany felt that it was time to speak up! When they drafted the Barmen Declaration in 1934, they said, "No," to the Nazis and their false gospel of nationalism and ethnicity. It was time to speak up! The World Alliance of Reformed Churches felt that it was time to speak up! When they denounced the acceptance of racial apartheid by the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa as a heresy, they were following Paul's example of denouncing a curse on a dangerous perversion of the gospel.1 It was time to speak up.
I wonder if today there are not times when we should speak up? Could it be that today we fight not another gospel so much as we should oppose an "adjusted" gospel that is sometimes forced to comply to our own whims and desires? Is it true that the authentic gospel is sometimes supplanted by the adjusted gospel of Culture Religion, where the church merely reflects the values and patterns of society? Is it true that the authentic gospel is pushed aside for the adjusted substitute gospel of Civil Religion where God and Country are barely distinguished from one another? Do we seek to suit our own version of the authentic gospel to the political, economic, or religious power structures of our times?
I wonder if today there are not times when we should speak up against the soft and seemingly self-cultured gospel of prosperity? The selfish "gospel" of me-ism is a pale comparison to the gospel lived and preached by Christ, who gave his life in loving self-sacrifice. Just because a book is on a New York Times best seller list does not mean that it carries the full weight of the authentic gospel for which Jesus dies on the cross. Jesus' prayer, the Lord's Prayer, begins with praise to "our" father, calls us to selfless cooperation with him to bring about his will and kingdom on earth, and pledges our willing forgiveness of others as a condition of his forgiveness of us. I think that the self-sacrificial prayer of Jesus that is lived out in a lifestyle of service to others should be preferred over all others. I wonder if there are not times when we should speak up. Paul did!
But the question remains: "Why would these young Christians go to a legalistic quagmire of rules and regulations and desert the gospel of God's grace?" We ask ourselves why they would flee from the freedom-giving gospel of love and delve into the quicksand of a life-killing religion of legalism? But then again we must remind ourselves that we have not fully solved the dilemma of the temptations of legalism today. It's attraction is no less strong today than it was to Paul's young church 2,000 years ago. Why is legalism such a persistent danger?2
Some would say that legalism is more natural to human experience. According to the values of our society the one with the most toys wins. Then, why can't this be true in religion? If my good deeds surpass yours, am I not a better Christian than you? If success in this world is built on effort and competition, then why not the rewards of the next? We all want to be the best Christians we can be, right? How do you evaluate that? We can measure good deeds and spiritual rewards like the world measures success. But I thought Jesus said something about grace giving first place because of his will not as a reward for our accomplishments. I also remember that Paul places priority on following the Holy Spirit rather than on our "natural" inclinations (Romans 8:5).
Others might say that legalism is easier to manage than grace. If religion can be reduced to a list of well-defined rules, usually dictated by an autocratic authority figure, a person can do these much more easily than one can exercise a life-changing faith. It is much easier just to do what the preacher says -- one - two - three - there it is -- than it is to pray and nurture a life of sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. It also is interesting to note that most such authority figures define the rules in ways that are beneficial to them. "Christian freedom requires the internal motivation of the Holy Spirit, but legalism provides the external force of laws and punishments."3 Also, it seems that Paul said something about the life with Christ not always being easy, but it surely would be worth it (Romans 8:17).
Others might contend that legalism seems safer than grace. They may be right! Freedom can be a very frightening thing -- even scary or risky. Many feel more secure if someone tells them what to do rather than risk confusion or making mistakes. I remember a friend of years ago who was a very attractive woman and had an I.Q. that bordered on "genius." More and more she acquired a weight problem that was becoming a health hazard. In trying to deal with the health issue, she had a stomach bypass operation and subsequently she lost weight down to about 150 pounds. Now, she was a dazzler! Then she interpreted an individual's remark as "making a pass" at her. It frightened her so much that she quickly reversed the operation and regained her weight back and more. It was as if her weight were some kind of defense mechanism. It was easier to deal with the weight than it was to deal with the freedom that being healthy and attractive brought. Freedom can be scary, particularly if it is not balanced with self-discipline and responsibility.
Legalism also may be persistent danger because it appeals to our sense of pride, whereas faith in Christ requires repentance and humility. Legalism can feed our ego with the boast, "I did it! I don't have to depend on anyone." Grace can deal a deafening defeat to our ego because, as Paul says, we can only boast in Christ. Grace says that we are dependent upon him and cannot earn one single ounce of his favor even if our stack of good works ascends to the ceiling.
Is this why Paul reiterates that he is not trying to impress men because he has nothing of which to boast himself (v. 10)? His only boast is in the one who "gave himself for our sins" (v. 4). We cannot earn God's favor. Someone already has paid the price.
William Bausch, the wonderful storyteller priest, relates the following interchange. "One thing I like about living in New York," my friend said, as we left his apartment, "as opposed to where you live" -- nodding at me -- "is the freedom. Here there is freedom to live the lifestyle I choose: to eat where I want, and to dress as I like. Freedom!" he chanted once more....
As he closed the door behind us, locked the latch, turned the dead bolt, and switched on the electronic alarm, he warned me, "Don't dare open that door without switching off the alarm or all hell will break loose and the cops will shoot you dead!"4 I am not for sure that I understand everything that story means, but possibly it says that every form of freedom has its price.
John Boyle was one of my professors at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also taught Clinical Pastoral Education at the nearby Central State Mental Hospital in Anchorage. On one particular occasion, one of his CPE students was about to conduct his first worship service at the hospital chapel. He was very nervous. As he ascended to the pulpit, his already faulty concentration was shattered as one of the mental patients rose and began shouting, "Go to hell! Go to hell!" The young preacher was speechless. He stood, red-faced, taken aback, while no words proceeded from his mouth. It was then that another mental patient broke the silence when she also stood and said, "He did! He came here!"
Jesus literally went to hell. He literally endured hell that we might be free! Treat your freedom carefully!
He breaks the power of canceled sin.
He sets the prisoner free;
His blood can make the vilest clean,
His blood availed for me.5
____________
1. Richard B. Hays, Galatians, The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume Eleven (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), p. 207.
2. David C. George, Layman's Biblebook Commentary, Galatians, Volume 21 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), p. 55.
3. Ibid.
4. William J. Bausch, Storytelling the Word (Mystic, Connecticut: Twenty-Third Publications, 1996), p. 127.
5. Charles Wesley, "O For A Thousand Tongues To Sing," 1739.
