Before concluding this series (and turning it into a sermon), let’s review with some application, then look at three other scriptures elsewhere in the New Testament that speak directly to the question.
Using the letter to the Ephesians as a kind of summary theology, we discover that post-resurrection, the Christian has a rich diversity of ways to think about the presence and person of Jesus Christ.
Jesus is risen and exalted, the Lord of the universe at God’s right hand. By the power of the Spirit, he dwells in the hearts of believers and dwells in the midst of his church. In both he pursues the agenda of God and his Kingdom that all things will be conformed to the loving, holy, fulfilled, mature image of Jesus Christ. We are both risen and exalted with Christ, and following-suffering with Christ in the present. As Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God, his presence is both the great, glorious fact of the universe and the hidden, secret treasure known only to those who believe.
In worship, we recall and remember these things not as dead realities, but as the living story of the world and the true story of our lives. In baptism, the eucharist and receiving the gifts that Jesus gives to his church/people, we enjoy and savor the presence and reality of Jesus Christ, poured out in our hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit.
The presence of Christ is not a substance to be dispensed. It is not a game we play with God where we get his attention and he throws us some favors. It is not something to be chased or conjured, manipulated or made accessible only to the initiated. The presence and person of Christ is the glory that lights up the whole of history, all of the universe and that shines powerfully into the darkest corners of our hearts. It is a presence that gathers, gifts, grows and co-glorifies the people of God in the love of Jesus.
I would suggest the glad announcement that “God is with us” is as important as the good news that “God is our salvation,” but that understanding the idea of the presence of God in Christ is essential to a proper sacramentalism and avoiding the extremes of desperation, manipulation and religious control of the presence of God.
(Those of you who are New Testament scholars might want to look into how it is this very thing- the presence of God with Jesus and OUTSIDE of the CONTROLLED SYSTEM that was a key element in the opposition to Jesus among official Judaism.)
If we move out of Ephesians to the Gospel of Matthew for a moment, we will encounter some further statements of Jesus himself that specifically answer the question, “Where is Jesus?”
In Matthew 18, in a key teaching on forgiveness and relationships among his followers in the ecclesia, Jesus says “20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
Because of the placement of this statement at the end of the pericope, it is important. It is the background to everything else that is said. The presence of Christ is not a result of something that is done when two or three believers gather. It is the assumption on which that gathering is based. It is the basis of prayer and of the concern for holiness and righteousness among the people of God. It is the source of forgiveness. (Those of you non-liturgical types might consider this in light of the importance of a call to worship in liturgy.)
A similar, broader statement of the presence of Jesus is found at the conclusion of the Great Commission and the Gospel of Matthew as a whole.
28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
“I am with you always” now becomes the ultimate statement over everything in the Gospel of Matthew, especially it’s directives and commandments. It’s hard for me not to see this as a statement that is the one sure foundation of everything Christians do and believe.
As a result, I think it’s a valid question about whether Christian worship should include anything that purports to “bring” the presence of Christ where it was not previously.
I am not talking about a sacramental realization or mediation of the presence of Christ, but actually “bringing God down” or “going up to God” through the various actions, rituals and experiences that increasingly fill out the language and practice of Christians, especially evangelicals.
If we believed Jesus Christ and all his salvation is with us as described in Matthew and Ephesians, would we be talking as if singing gets his attention? Prayer brings him down? A particular minister has the power that wasn’t there before he arrived? And so on?
Coming to this conclusion sheds light on the final passage in Matthew that I want to bring to our attention: Matthew 25:31-46. the Great Judgment section that includes this:
Matthew 28:35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
Some of you may recall that Tony Campolo was actually the subject of a fundamentalist heresy trial over saying that this passage taught that Christ was somehow mystically present in the poor and the oppressed.
I’m not sure what grammatical gymnastics are necessary to make this passage say that Jesus was not somehow present with the suffering persons he described, but I don’t want to acquire those exegetical skills.
If there is no magic, manipulation or game to be played to bring the presence of Jesus into the world, then we are able to find the presence of Jesus in this world in the places where it appears that God is most absent. Jesus is describing the people who cause so many skeptics to say “Where is God?” Jesus is saying God was right there, in the poor, suffering and the oppressed, all the time. The question was whether you responded to these persons with an assurance that you were, somehow, also ministering to Jesus Christ.
This is one of the most sacramental passages in the Bible, but not one that brings out the usual debaters. Here is the “real presence” of Jesus; a presence that must be recognized for Jesus to recognize us as belonging to him.
While some Christians are indoors playing games to acquire the presence of God, God is in the streets, the jails, the ghettos and the hospitals, asking us if we know Jesus well enough to recognize his identification with this suffering.
A question is: who did Christ mean are His brothers? Alternatives include:
Any person who is poor, handicapped, hungry, thirsty, and/or imprisoned.
Any Jewish person, or any Jewish male.
Any follower (while the word translated brother has not been, to my knowledge, translated follower by bible translators, I recently hear a PhD’d pastor preach this).
Once that is decided, the next question is: did Christ mean He is “there” or does He from Heaven regard the service act as worship of Him?
I think Ephesians answers that.
The work of the Spirit in making us like Christ includes Christ’s response to the poor. You don’t grow into Christlikeness and ignore the suffering and oppressed.
But in that ministry we are also discovering Jesus in his identification with suffering. When I am with those who suffer, Jesus is teaching me about suffering.
It is worship, sure. But it is more about the sanctification/trasnformation of the disciple.
PEace
MS
I think George asks a valid question. In EC-circles, the interpretation of Matthew 25 is almost always assumed, but never argued. The little ones are every poor and marginalized person. I think this interpretation can be accepted since it seems to bring good fruit, but in terms of exegesis, I think it´s a weak interpretation, for several reasons:
-”The little ones” in Matthew is (at least generally) the ones sent out by Jesus (the apostles) and/or the disciples of Jesus. They are “small” because they have become like children in their conversion. (18:4-5, 10:40-42)
-The gospel of Matthew emphasizes Christ´s presence within the believers in the passages Michael mentioned, but never God´s presence within every poor person.
-”Brother” in the words of Jesus seems always to refer to disciples (not even to every fellow jew).
-In Matthew Jesus “promises” persecutions for the believers in several sayings, and Jesus expects his believers to avoid riches and becoming poor (or at least living simple lives).
-If we interpret the poor etc as the very disciples of Jesus, this teaching is easier to reconcile with other strands of the NT (johannine corpus for example) that says that the internal love of the church is the sign of God´s renewed people.
If my interpretation is true, this might have several interesting consequences…
Do we believe that God is everywhere? If we do, then God IS in the poor and the sick, etc. But I do see evangelicals saying that God is only in Christians so if you are helping sick or poor Christians, you are helping God. If you help poor sick non-Christians, it’s a “nice” thing to do but unless you help them to become professing Christians, you are nevertheless letting them just go to hell anyway. That is why evangelicals keep blasting Mother Theresa. This bothers me. But I guess I do have heretical beliefs sometimes, so I may not need to be taken seriously.
JoanieD. I guess your comment was not directed to me. But if it was, let me just point out that there are loads of other reasons for helping the poor etc, than Matthew 25. Jesus constantly tried to seek out the marginalized and cross borders between people. Matthew 25, as I see it, is even more radical. It tells us that the natural situation for believers to be in is to be poor, imprisoned, naked, persecuted and sick.
We are commanded to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, give water to the thirsty, free the captive etc. Jesus brought the Gospel to everyone, He healed (physically) ALL that came to Him. Not all that he healed believed/followed him.
However, God is not “in” the poor, hungry etc. He is not the Force. I am not sure how to express this but the idea that God is “in” the poor smacks of the “social gospel”: the idea that we need to use force to punish those who are not poor and take their stuff and give it to the poor. Simply giving people stuff is not enough; we are called to more.
Every believer is called to help those who need help. This means giving food to the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, giving clothes to the naked, helping someone who can’t afford it but needs a car get one, visiting the old man or woman down the street who lives alone. It also, most assuredly, requires us to give the Gospel to those who lack it. That is our first call, to preach the Gospel to all the world. A significant part of doing that is getting clean water to parts of Africa, helping poor kids get school supplies and eventually go to college or learn a trade, etc. I don’t believe the two were ever meant to be seperated. Anybody can ladle soup at a homeless shelter, and more evangelicals need to…myself included. Only Christians can bring the news that we can escape the judgment to come.
And, for the record, I don’t know that I have ever heard an evangelical bad mouth Mother Teresa.
DD
Tim Challies does all the time.
For whatever it’s worth, I agree with Michael on who Jesus meant when saying “the least of these my brethren,” altho using a different cross-reference. My preference is to interpret a Jesus statement with other Jesus suatements, rather than with a Paul statement. In Luke 14, and 12, Jesus is pretty clear that He intends for us to support the poor without religious or ethnic qualification.
Perhaps because of my understanding of this, I frequently hear evangelicals asserting He meant, in Matt 25, only followers. And occasionally I hear from those with a passion for converting Jews that Jesus meant in Matt 25 only Jews.
DavidD, I agree that what you want to say must be difficult to express, because what you’ve written comes across as unfounded on anything expressed in the post of the comments. No one here has suggested using “force to punish those who are not poor and take their stuff and give it to the poor.” Sounds like you just paid your taxes!
Do evangelicals bash Mother Teresa? Frequently. Belittling her discipleship was an easy way to justify evangelicals’ cheap grace.
Michael,
I have no idea who Tim Challies is. In fact, I ignore most “famous” Christians/evangelicals altogether. How can I trust someone if I can’t see their life, their fruit?
George, my “social gospel” comment was not aimed at any commenter or even Michael. It just seems most people who espouse the kind of “gospel” I mentioned also couch it in very nebulous ideas like God is “in” everyone therefore we need to serve Him by any means needed, including legally enforcing charity in one way or another. Tony Compolo is one of those very people that favors the use of force, in the form of the government to make everyone equal. Isn’t that what “Red Letter Christians” is about?
I may have read more into things than is actually there. If so, I apologize to everyone involved.
DD
George. I am not an evangelical (maybe post-evangelical), and I still think Jesus means followers in Matthew 25. As I said earlier, Matthew 25 is not the only possible text to use in support of working for the poor etc. And I can´t honestly see how the interpretation of “the least of these” as disciples could be an “evangelical” interpretation. This would mean
1) that the nations are judged on the basis of their good deeds towards the persecuted followers of Jesus WITHOUT faith or a right confession
2) that Jesus´s true followers can be recognized on the fact that they are marginalised and persecuted (by the empire and others), while the salvation of the rich and powerful ones is questioned (in line with the sermon on the mount and Luke 6, 12, 16 and more)
Not very evangelical ideas, as I know them?
As to Luke 12, I think this text calls us for support for the poor in a way that makes even the disciples themselves poor (or at least not rich).
Micheal, you accidently put your response to what Jonas said in #10 in the part 3 of where Jesus is, instead of here in the part 5.
Sorry my fingers went all dyslexic and I misspelled your name, Michael.
“I think it’s a valid question about whether Christian worship should include anything that purports to “bring” the presence of Christ where it was not previously.”
These meditations of yours on Ephesians have helped put into words the source of dismay I’ve felt over the years at attending town-wide prayer meetings where I’ve witnessed the kind of behavior you refer to above. Someone in leadership shows up with a “special” black kettle meant to symbolize the censers before the throne of God, wafting the prayers of the saints. Invariably, people attach some kind of power to it and want to touch it and are praying loudly about it, and I’m battling nausea and looking to sneak out the back door. Or some dude shows up with a big stick to break dramatically in the middle of some prayer about how “he” is breaking some stronghold. Or they’re stomping and keening and my flesh is crawling. Did I mention I don’t go anymore?
We’re so silly sometimes, thinking we’re heard because of our noise and gimmicks. Sometimes I think that kind of behavior is Satan’s phone number on speed dial. Want him to cause problems and deceive people? Dial m-a-n-i-p-u-l-a-t-i-o-n. Try it with God and guess who shows up instead.
I really like a passage from Frances MacNutt’s book Healing. In it, he talks about going to healing conferences and seeing people who behave as if they’ll be heard for their volume and theatrics. He said, “When I go to my father’s house for dinner, I don’t sit at the table and pound my fist and loudly demand my rights as a son. I just quietly ask my father to pass the chicken.”
I guffawed loudly when I read that. Such a beautiful truth so simply and humorously explained. I often quietly ask God to pass the chicken. He hears, and he gives other good gifts as well. I love Him! What a Papa and a savior.
Jonas — You’re right; I should not suggest that the “follower” interpretation is exclusively evangelical. Anyone could choose it. But it does fit with what I see to be the evangelical preference to apply most good works for the benefit of insiders, and to downplay good works in general.
The interpretations you cite could, but not necessarily “would,” result in the non-evangelical conclusions you reached. They could mean other things, and I think they do mean other things to many evangelicals — things that fit with evangelicalism. While your conclusions may be logical, different conclusions are not necessarily illogical. Some could be illogical, obviously, but not all.
To Jonas in #5, no, I wasn’t directly my comment at or to you. I was mainly responding to what Michael wrote in light of what I see some evangelical bloggers write about Mother Theresa. Some of them consider her to have been a non-Christian and partly responsible for many souls going to hell when she could have assisted them in making a choice for Jesus. I tell you what…if I was starving, sick, dying, tossed on the side of the road and these ladies starting taking care of me, I would want to know more about the God that they serve. I am willing to guess many of the poor people they served came to know Jesus in a very personal way.