Sermon: So What DO We Have To Do?
Text: Luke 14:16-24 (Parable of the Great Supper)
Occasion: Trinity II
Who: Mark Woolsey
Where: Arbor House
When: Sunday, June 25, 2006
May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
I. Intro
One of the most frustrating times of my life was when I was trying to figure out what God required of me and what He supplied. Was God’s eternal feast a potluck, a BYOB, or completely "on the house"? How did one get to the feast? As I saw it, God had done everything He would, and now it was up to me to complete what He had started. He had done His 99% and now I had to supply the remaining 1%. But the question always arose, "Had I done enough? Was my effort sufficient?" As someone else put it, "Everyone wants to get to heaven, but no one wants to do what it takes to get there." The Gospel reading today is a parable that addresses this question, thus I have called it, "So What DO We Have to Do?".
This parable falls near the beginning of a new season of the church. If you remember, about half of the Christian year, from around December through May, is taken up with the important events in the life of our Lord: His Announcement, Birth, Revelation (to the Gentiles), Temptation, Passion, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, and Bestowal (of the Spirit). The second half of the year is from about June to November, and is called Trinity season, or sometimes, Common Time. It is Common Time because it is important to see Christ in our everyday activities, and not just the "religious" high times we have set aside. Christ makes all time holy, all efforts spiritual. It is called Trinity because of the central importance of this doctrine to our salvation and worship. Indeed, all heresies ultimately spring from a wrong understanding of God’s nature. In Trinity season we don’t focus so much on Jesus’ life as we do His teaching. Today’s parable gives us important insights into the Kingdom of God.
II. Context
To properly interpret and apply this parable, it is necessary to understand it’s context. When we understand what occasioned it, we can better understand the main point that Jesus is trying to make.
Beginning at the first of chapter 14, we find Jesus at a Pharisee’s house for dinner. In fact, it’s important to note that much of the surrounding verses have to do with a feast. Jesus never seems to be far from a party. This theme of a meal is one of two that tie the events and teachings of this chapter together and helps to make a complete whole. Furthermore, He seems to be quite dedicated to insulting His hosts. At this Pharisee’s party they catch Jesus "sinning" when He heals on the Sabbath. His defense of His propriety and accusation of their hypocrisy does nothing to endear Him to them. Into their wounded pride He pours salt when He gives some unsolicited advice about seeking the lowest seat at a banquet rather than the highest. This contrast of high versus low is the second, but most important, theme of these teachings. We look down on the Pharisees as childish in jockying for preferred seating positions, yet how many of us likewise ignore Jesus’ advice and promote "number one"? After all, if we don’t toot our own horn, who will? Jesus has turned our priorities upside down. Based upon our performance, we might call this requirement to seek the humblest places the "Ignored Command".
Before I mention the next teaching of our Lord, let me take a poll. How many of you have ever thrown a party? Who did you invite? Friends? Relatives? If so, you have just disobeyed a direct command of Christ. How so? Look at vs 12 - 14:
"When you give a dinner or a supper, do not as your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors ... [instead,] invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind..."
Of those who said they had thrown a party, how many of you have ever invited a homeless person? A blind person? If the last story was titled the "Ignored Command", we might call this the "Most Flagarently Disobeyed Command". I know of no one who actively obeys this command, yet here it is in black and white (or red and white, depending upon your Bible). Not only that, but this command is not primarily given to help the poor, but to help us understand what God has done in inviting us to His party. If God has been so gracious to us, oughtn’t we be the same toward those we know?
The dinner Jesus attended, His healing on the Sabbath, His chastisement of the Pharisees for seeking places of honor, and finally, His command to invite the poor and not your friends to your parties, sets the stage for the main parable today, "The Great Supper".
III. The Great Supper
The gist of this story is easy enough to understand. A nobleman sends out invitations, prepares a huge party, and then informs the invitees that it’s time to come. The response is underwhelming, to say the least. In fact, they stay away in droves, making quite lame excuses. Undeterred, the host will not have an empty house, so he instructs his servants to scour the streets for all the poor, lame, and blind. Of course, what this means is the uncouth, the smelly, and the drunks. You might think that this is quite enough, that the host has proved his largesse, but he is not finished, yet. The host is a great man and the house is a great mansion. Not satisfied with the offscum of the local streets, he commands his servants to bring in those from from even further away, from the highway and the hedges, the boulevards and the bushes - by the way, just how many people living under a tree did you invite to your last party? - and compel them to come. He wants every seat filled so that none of the original invitees, even if he changes his mind, will have a place. What I would like to do today is focus on this one word, "compel", to help us understand something of the economy of the Kingdom of God. In the process, I hope to answer the question I raised at the beginning, "So what DO we have to do?".
IV. Interpretation
Before we can understand that word, or answer the opening question, we need to properly interpret this parable. The great host is, of course, God Himself. The original invitees are the Jews whom God prepared especially for this time. He sent his servants the prophets to call them to the table, but by rejecting Christ Himself, they also rejected sitting at His table. Lest you think that Jesus is being anti-Semitic with this allusion, He places us Gentiles even lower on the scale because we are the poor, blind, and lame, not to mention other more nefarious folk. The supper refers to the great judgement at the end of time when God will reward the righteous and the sinner. Around it our Master regularly hands out forgiveness to His people and judgement to the rest. As such, it also includes the Supper we celebrate each Sunday around the Communion Table because His judgement has already started, and His church carries that out. The food is Jesus Christ Himself. He is offered at His own banquet. Given this overview, let’s now look more closely at some of the details.
V. Compel
We seem to have depicted here two different levels of invitations. One level is that indicated by the first wave of invitees who refused to come to the party, and the host allowed that refusal to stand. The second level of invitations are those to the destitute in which no refusal was countenanced. In fact, there is an undertone of something more sinister, kind of like when Tony Vinzetti "makes you an offer you can’t refuse". The strange thing to me is that if the host is willing to compel the robbers and thieves to come to his party, it sure seems like he would be much better off compelling the high society to come. At least they wouldn’t steal his silverware. If neither want to come, then what difference does it make whom he compels? Regardless of the great man’s motivation, this issue of compulsion is very interesting.
During the Donatist controversy of the 4th century, the great St Augustine used this verse as justification for the state to force certain religious standards on the schismatics. Over 1000 years later John Calvin, another great theologian, agreed with St Augustine concerning the use of governmental force. As much as I admire these two men and gladly imbibe from their wells, this particular application I have to reject. I do not believe that civil government has any business telling us what to believe and do in the church, even if our church is heretical. Now, if they were to place ME in charge of making and enforcing standards, that would be a different story. I’M ONLY KIDDING. Seriously, in this I stand with Martin Luther who clarified the doctrine of the two kingdoms, allowing the state sovereignity over civil matters and the church over spiritual. This, of course, in no way denies the absolute sovereign rule of God over both. However, if this is not to be interpreted to mean that we can force others to worship the way we want them to, then what does this mean?
I believe "compel" points to the fact that no one - neither the rich and high society of the first wave of invited guests nor the poor and homeless of the second - have any intention of coming to this party. Each of us has our own agenda and we don’t want anyone dragging us to their idea of a party and enforcing their standards upon us. You will note that this party, while it is a "come as you are", is not a "stay as you are". To come to the party is to be changed. This is evident in the parallel passage of Matthew 22:2-14 when one guest is found not to be wearing the prescribed wedding attire that was supplied by the host. The church is to use all lawful means at her disposal to craft arguments that leave no other option but to come. Ultimately, though, I think this means that our salvation is monergistic.
VI. Monergism
This may be a strange word for some of you, but perhaps you have heard of it’s opposite, synergism. It means to co-operate, or work together. At Texas Instruments where I earn my bread, we form teams of people, each with different abilities that we bring. When we work together to solve a problem, that is synergism. Monergism means just the opposite. It is made of two parts, mon and erg (which expands to "ergism"). "Mon" means single, and erg means energy. Thus "monergism" means "single energy". Theologically, this means that in salvation, it is entirely God that does the work. We are completely passive. Our salvation does not depend upon our work, or initiative or lack thereof, our response, our faith, or anything that we do. It is entirely God’s decision. That may seem unfair until we understand what St Paul means when he says,
"There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one." (Ro 3:10 - 11)
VII. Good new and bad news
This is both good news and bad news. The bad news is that there is nothing we can do to get God’s attention. If He does not decide for us, we have no hope. The good news is that when He does decide for us, we have hope. After all, it’s not the case that we are all sick in our trespasses and sins, but as Eph 2:1 puts it, we "were dead in trepasses and sins". That being the case, monergism is not a filter that keeps out the willing, but as today’s parable shows us, a net that saves the unwilling from a gruesome fate. Thus, to answer our question at the beginning, "So what DO we do?", the answer is, "nothing". God does it all. Our faith, as Heb 11:1 says, is evidence of what God has done for us:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
This faith,among other things, is God’s word to us that He will not fail us.
VIII. Today’s Supper
As we wait for the Great Supper at the end of the ages, we participate in it right now. Eat or Lord’s body and drink His blood to your health. Feast on him and enjoy.
This is the word of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Soli Deo Gloria!
