Luke 19:11-27: Time, Talent and Treasure Series, Part 2: Employee Evaluation: What About the Slaves?

Presented to the Swift Current Corps, 19 September 2010
By Captain Michael Ramsay

I remember this story that someone told me once. I don’t remember who told it to me so I can’t give him credit but there was an inner-city teacher in the United States somewhere. Now, I have done some inner-city teaching in BC and that is tough enough: There are many latchkey kids and many broken homes that can contribute to some challenges. I remember in one class of mine, there was even a grade three student who was extorting money from older kids, which was problem enough, but when you add in some of the inter-racial problems in the U.S. and the seemingly insurmountable economic inequality there it can get even worse, I understand. This inner-city teacher in the U.S. was having more than a little bit of a problem with his elementary school class. The kids were loud, disrespectful, acting out and a lot of them were already in gangs. They were dangerous. There was one little boy Johnny who was causing a lot of the problems (his brother was the leader of one of the gangs) when one day the teacher got called out of the classroom for an emergency. There was no one to cover his often out-of-control class and he didn’t know what to do. It was an emergency; he had to leave the classroom. In an act of desperation or of faith, the teacher turned to Johnny – who was often the instigator of the problems – and said, “Johnny, I am putting you in charge; you are responsible to make sure that the class is quiet; I am trusting you.” The teacher leaves the room. He is gone for quite a while. When he starts down the hallway back to his class – he hears nothing. It is quiet. He walks up to the door of his classroom: nothing, it is quiet. He opens the door and sees everyone sitting at their desks not making a single noise and wondering how this could be; he spies Johnny quietly sitting cross-legged on the teacher’s desk…pointing a loaded gun at the class. ‘They didn’t make a noise, sir, not a noise.’ (I never tried that classroom management technique!)

Our story today is about an authority figure who goes away and what happens when he returns.[1] Jesus tells a parable about a noble who goes away, his faithful slaves and wicked citizens (Luke 19:11-27).[2] As we read earlier, the nobleman leaves on a journey to a distant country to get royal power granted to him. During his absence, he gives responsibility for some of his money to his slaves and he orders them to “Do business with these until I come back (Luke 19:13).” When he returns in his full authority (cf. v.12), he seeks to find out how much they had gained through trading. One slave has a ten-fold increase and is rewarded with the rule of 10 cities in the new realm; another with a five-fold increase is awarded 5 cities to rule: the noble is very generous; however, a third slave fails to invest the noble’s money. He instead lays the accusation before the noble that “you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow (v.21).” The noble then takes the money from the man and gives it to the one who is blessed with the 10-fold increase.[3]

This parable is similar to one recorded in Matthew 25:14-30: the so-called ‘Parable of the Talents’. Matthew and Luke might be here each relaying their memories of the same event: that of Jesus telling one specific parable to a group of people.[4] Matthew and Luke instead may be recording two separate occasions when Jesus relays different versions of the same story. It is more likely however that Jesus made more than one use of this same basic idea – such as many preachers do of their favourite illustrations:[5] I – for example – have told my parachute story a number of times and contexts and published it in more than one publication.[6] I think Jesus is doing the same thing here: using a good story to make a good couple of points.

If we look we will notice that there are some significant differences between Matthew’s record of Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) and Luke’s story that we have before us today.[7] In Matthew, Jesus is concerned with people of different abilities (and varying amounts of responsibilities) to whom are assigned tasks: each person receives a different amount of money to invest but in Luke’s account each person is given the same intial amount: one mina.

In Luke’s account, significantly, this scenario is also weaved together with another parable; that about the citizens of the noble’s country: they hate him. The people tell him after he leaves that they don’t want him to rule over them. They openly rebel. When the noble returns then he demands, “These enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence” (Luke 19:27). The implications of this latter scenario are easy for us to understand: if we rebel against the Son of Man, when he returns in his full authority, we will suffer the natural and logical results, the appropriate consequences.[8] The citizens of the city voted out God their King, so when Jesus returns what will he do to the members of this wicked republic? They will be crushed by the kingdom to come. As they reject him they will suffer the consequences (Luke 19:27). If we reject him we will suffer the consequences (TSA Doctrines 7, 9, 11). This is obvious. But Jesus tells this story in conjunction with another story: the story of the slaves (or employees).

What about the slaves? The slaves – unlike the wicked citizens - are in the direct employ of the master. The nobleman trusts them with taking care of a portion of his wealth. They do not openly rebel like the citizens. Not one of them rejects the Lord by trying to free themselves from his rule, yet one of them today in our story meets a similar fate to the wicked and rebellious citizens of the city: he is relieved of his responsibilities (in Matthew’s account he is thrown outside where there is ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’, Matthew 25:30). I will go into this more but first I think we should put the story in its historical context.

Jesus isn’t just speaking in the abstract here. He is speaking about something that those listening to him would readily understand – particularly the elders. Jesus is talking politics. Jesus is talking about the politics of his day. Jesus is saying that he is going away and will come back with his kingdom and Jesus in saying that he is going away and will come back with his kingdom – soon and very soon – reminds his listeners of what King Herod did just before Jesus was born. Herod the Great (73 – 4 BCE), as he was called, went to the superpower of his day, Rome, and asked to be made king of Judea (40 BCE). His request was granted but there was some resistance among the citizens. So when he with the help of the Superpower’s military might overcame that resistance, what do you think happened to his political opponents? What happens to political appointees here whenever a new government takes over? Their heads roll, metaphoricaly speaking; well, when Herod became king his opponents’ heads literally rolled (cf. Josephus, Antiquities i..358).[9] When Christ returns, likewise, what will happen to those who do not accept his kingship? Only those who do accept his lordship will be a part of his Kingdom.

Back to Herod the Great: in his will he divided his realm between three of his sons, all of whom in due course went to Rome like he did before them, to press their claims with the occupying power. One of Herod’s sons, in Jesus’ lifetime, Archelaus had been named king of Judea in the will, but the people hated him so much that they rebelled by sending their own representatives to petition the Superpower that he not be given the kingdom.[10] Now Archelaus was never made king; Caesar gave him a lesser title but Caesar still did allow him to rule so when Archelaus came back to enforce his rule, how do you think he treated the rebellious citizenry? He didn’t treat his rebellious citizenry too kindly: at the first Passover after his accession, for one example, he massacred about 3,000 of his subjects (Josephus, Bellum ii.10–13; cf. for other examples of his cuelty Josephus, Antiquities xvii. 224, 229, 250, 304, 307, 340). Jesus tells the people this parable because he is going away soon and the people who are anticipating his coming kingdom understand what it means for a king (or noble) to go away and receive royal power and they know first hand what happens to those who rebel against that king, when he returns. They understand this. They know what happens to people who reject the king, when his kingdom comes. And I hope we understand this too because Jesus’ kingdom is coming - but what about the slaves?

What about the slaves? There are 10 slaves who are in the direct employ of the master in this story. They are his employees. They already work for him and the master takes care of their needs. They are not like the citizens of the occupied country. They belong to their master like we Christians belong to our master. They are already employed in his service and are under his authority and his protection. These 10 salves are also trusted people – notice how he rewards the ones who are faithful with the one mina each: he makes them responsible for 10 and 5 whole cities respectively in his new kingdom (Luke 19:17, 19). This message could not have been lost on Jesus’ disciples. This message would not have be lost on those following him in the crowd. This good news should not be lost on us: as we are faithful with the mina that God has given each of us (the mina in this case is very probably - as opposed to Matthew’s Parable of the Talents – the ability to spend our time and talents sharing the good news of the proleptic Kingdom of God; cf. Acts 12:24)[11] As we are faithful with our responsibility of sharing this good news of the Kingdom of God, and all that God has given us; when Jesus returns he will reward us by giving us even more responsibility. As we use the knowledge and the talents with which we have been entrusted until Christ’s return, when he comes back with how much more will he trust us?

What about the other eight slaves though? Seven of the slaves perform unremarkably. Jesus informs his audience how 3 of the 10 slaves perform their duties. The first two, as we have already mentioned, do really well. I regularly have my performance reviewed by my bosses, and I have the opportunity to sit down with each of our employees in the various departments of The Salvation Army in Swift Current (Thrift Store, Community and Family Services, Justice, etc.) to do their employee reviews anually if not more often. Every staff member needs to pass an employee evaluation after their first three months here in order to be taken off probation: if they fail the review, they are let go; if they pass the evaluation they receive their full benefits package. (John here just had an employee evaluation not too long ago.) The noble going away in the text before us today is not unlike a probation period for the slaves in this story. The first two slaves: they pass their three-month probation period with flying colours and are given a raise and more responsibilities; but what about the other slave? How does the third employee do when it is his turn for the employee evaluation?

What about this other slave? He doesn’t do so well. His boss gives him exactly the same opportunity, exactly the same amount that he gives his other trusted employees for the probation period: 1 mina (about 3 months wages).[12] He gives him exactly the same amount of time and he rightly expects that the employee will faithfully carry out his responsibilities. He expects him to put the money to work. The third slave does not though and we are given a brief glimpse of his employee review, Luke 19:21-24:

"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'
"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

This is how the slave’s employee review went. Not quite as well as the others. Picture this with me for a moment. If my boss poked her head in here and asked me to get the bus winterized, paint the thrift store, and fix a broken window at the quarters and I didn’t do it, how well do you think that would go over? I know that if I asked any of the staff here directly to do something when I was on holidays and when I came back and it wasn’t done, I would be not be happy. If that employee was on probation and completing these tasks were a condition of his continued employment, you can guarantee that he would be gone and his responsibilities would be given to someone else. But there is more.

This employee was working for the master but he was not very good. This slave did nothing with his mina but lay it away in a napkin. This did not comply even with the minimum legal requirements for safety, which specified that the money should be at the very least buried in the ground (Talmud, Baba Metzia 42a).[13] This slave knew better. He was an employee of the master but he did not do his job and so even what responsibilities he did have were taken away from him (see Doctrine 9 of The Salvation Army). But there is even more.

While the employer is looking over his file, the employee – I guess he is sensing that things aren’t going so well and realizing that he hasn’t done what he is supposed to do – he pipes up and he says to his boss who has power of life and death over him, he says, verse 21, ‘I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and [you] reap what you did not sow.’ The employee gets defensive and blames his employer for his own incompetence. How could he think that this was going to go well? He can’t. He is relieved of his responsibilities.

This brings us to the crux of the matter. As the citizens are those who reject Jesus as king, the unfaithful slave represents those of us who claim him as king but fail to carry out our responsibilities. When Jesus returns it is not enough to claim to be his slave, to claim to be a Christian, we must actively use what he has given us to work for him or we risk forfeiting our reward (TSA Doctrine 9).[14] Each of us here has been entrusted with the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. We can be like the third slave; we can hide this gospel in a napkin in our pocket and not tell anyone about it. We can take the time and the talents with which we have been entrusted and waste them if we like but that doesn’t change the fact that Jesus is coming back and when he comes back those of us who act like the wicked servants will be sent away to eternal punishment (TSA Doctrine 11; cf. also Matthew 31).

Alternatively and preferably though like the first two slaves in this story, while we are awaiting Christ’s return we should take full advantage of the opportunity to liberally invest this Gospel of the Kingdom of God into everyone we meet. We should faithfully dedicate all our time and talents into serving God, spreading the gospel and growing His investment in us. This year, we as a corps have committed ourselves to evangelism and sharing the good news of the Kingdom of God. So today the choice is ours, we can choose to waste our talents and thus bury the good news in a napkin in our pocket or we can invite anyone and everyone we know to come to church, to come to Bible study, to come to Home League, and kids club, to come to prayer meeting and to come to the Lord. And as we are faithful in this, when our Lord returns in the full power of his kingdom, He will indeed welcome us saying, ‘well done my good and faithful servant’.

Let us pray.

www.sheepspeak.com

---
[1] As relayed in Luke’s Gospel, the Kingdom of God is invading the present. People, knowing but not completely understanding this, assume that it will be fully realised in the immediate future (Luke 19:11).
[2] Leon Morris: ‘Luke: An Introduction and Commentary’, Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1988 (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 3), S. 290: The reference to a far country shows that he cannot be expected to return very soon
[3] Captain Michael Ramsay, 'The Ethics of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel as reflected in parables spoken en route to Jerusalem', Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Fall 2006). Available on-line: http://sheepspeak.com/NT_Michael_Ramsay.htm#Ethics of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel
[4] Matthew possibly firsthand; Luke most likely second-hand.
[5]Leon Morris: ‘Luke: An Introduction and Commentary’, Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1988 (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 3), S. 290
[6] Captain Michael Ramsay, 'Judges 11:29-40: Jephthath's Parachute' Presented to Nipawin and Tisdale Corps on May 24, 2008. Available on-line: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/05/judges-1129-40-japhtheths-parachute.html; and Captain Michael Ramsay, 'Do Miracles Still Happen?' The Nipawin Journal (September 2008). Available on-line: http://www.sheepspeak.com/sasknews.htm#miracles and Captain Michael Ramsay, 'Jephthah’s Parachute: Covenant and Judges 11:29-40' in the Journal of Aggressive Christianity, Issue 59 (February-March 2009), pp. 5-10. Available on-line: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article2-59.html
[7] Cf. Fred B. Craddock, Luke (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: John Knox Press: Louisville, Ken., 1990), 221: some scholars argue that Luke combined to existing parables of Jesus here.
[8] Captain Michael Ramsay, 'The Ethics of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel as reflected in parables spoken en route to Jerusalem', Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Fall 2006). Available on-line: http://sheepspeak.com/NT_Michael_Ramsay.htm#Ethics of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel
[9] Cf. R. Alan Culpepper, Luke (NIB 8: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 363.
[10] cf. Leon Morris: ‘Luke: An Introduction and Commentary’, Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1988 (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 3), S. 290 and Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Luke/Exposition of Luke/V. Teaching and Travels Toward Jerusalem (9:51-19:44)/F. Final Approach to Jerusalem (18:31-19:44)/4. Parable of the ten minas (19:11-27), Book Version: 4.0.2
[11] Fred B. Craddock, Luke (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: John Knox Press: Louisville, Ken., 1990), 223.
[12] Walter L. Leifeld, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Luke/Exposition of Luke/V. Teaching and Travels Toward Jerusalem (9:51-19:44)/F. Final Approach to Jerusalem (18:31-19:44)/4. Parable of the ten minas (19:11-27), Book Version: 4.0.2
[13] Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1988 (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 3), S. 291
[14] Captain Michael Ramsay, 'The Ethics of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel as reflected in parables spoken en route to Jerusalem', Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Fall 2006). Available on-line: http://sheepspeak.com/NT_Michael_Ramsay.htm#Ethics of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel

Mark 8:34-9:1, Luke 9:23- 9:27, Matthew 16:21-28: Time, Talent and Treasure Series, Part 1: Time – Lost and Saved

Presented to the Swift Current Corps 05 September 2010

and Alberni Valley Ministries, 08 September 2024
By Captain (Major) Michael Ramsay

 

This is the 2010 Swift Current version. Click here to see the 2024 Alberni Valley Version: https://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2024/09/mark-834-38-luke-923-927-matthew-1621.html
 
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me (and for the gospel) will save it (Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, Matthew 16:25).

I’ve got a test for us today: Famous Quotes. Let’s see which side can name the speaker of each of the following quotes:[1]

1) “Hi Ho Silver, Away…”

2) “We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto”

3) “I am not a crook”

4) “Living next to you [the Americans] is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”

5) “While women weep, as they do now, I'll fight; while children go hungry, as they do now I'll fight; while men go to prison, in and out, in and out, as they do now, I'll fight; while there is a drunkard left, while there is a poor lost girl upon the streets, while there remains one dark soul without the light of God, I'll fight, I'll fight to the very end!”

6) “Up, up, and away!”

7) “I’m strong to the finish ‘cause I eat my spinach; I’m _________ the sailor man.”

8) “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but for whoever loses his life for me (and for the gospel) will save it.”

These are all famous quotes from people and in some ways the quotes have even served to summarize the impact the individual had on history. Nixon is famous for his speeches around the time of his resignation. Another little quiz for you: only two American presidents have ever been impeached, can you name them? (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton; Nixon resigned he was never impeached)[2]

As far as the quotes are concerned, Nixon is remembered for Watergate. Trudeau is known for – well, the good thing that Trudeau is known for (I realise that on the prairies here he is remembered unfavourably for a lot of things) - is that he really gained Canada greater independence from both the British and the American Empires than we have ever experienced either before or since. William Booth’s ‘I’ll Fight’ quote still echoes down through the generations as The Salvation Army champions its Wesleyan version of the social gospel. As John Wesley said, ‘there is no holiness but social holiness’[3] And Jesus’ quote that we are looking at today – “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me (and for the gospel) will save it” – is a very important one. Did you realize that no other saying of Jesus is given this much as this emphasis in all of scripture (Matthew 10:38-39, 16:24-24; Mark 8:34-35; Luke 9:24, 14:26-27, 17:33; John 12:25)?[4] Each of the Jesus’ biographers, in their gospel accounts, record Jesus as uttering this quote at least once. Matthew and Luke each record it multiple times in different contexts where Jesus says the same thing: “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me (and for the gospel) will save it.” This is thus a very important saying for us to understand.

Today, we read the quote in the context of Mark 8:34-38, which is very much the same context as Luke 9:23- 9:27 and Matthew 16:21-28: 34:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

Now this brings us to any important question: Jesus says “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it…”, What does it mean to SAVE your life? It means NOT to die; it means NOT to die a physical death.[5] And what does it mean to LOSE your life? It means to die. It is simple. It is not tricky – especially given the context of Jesus talking about us picking up our cross and following him: the cross – of course - being a brutal method of state execution, much like the electric chair or lethal injection in the States today only more painful.

I’ve got a couple of examples both negative and positive responses of people faced with exactly this situation that Jesus is talking about when he says “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me (and for the gospel) will save it.” When we were in Vancouver, there was a really large Salvation Army conference at Canada Place there. General Gowans was the keynote speaker – we all know General Gowans, he was the one who articulated the Salvation Army mission very succinctly as to ‘save souls, grow saints, and serve suffering humanity.’ One speaker at that same conference was Baroness Cox who shared a testimony about a young boy from her time serving in Indonesia.

There was a young boy who had come to know the Lord. He told everyone he found about Jesus. He didn’t have a lot of success in his evangelism, if I remember correctly, not anyone came to the Lord at that time but he was not ashamed of the gospel. One day some people come to his village who aren’t so happy about his faith. They are seeking out Christians (I don’t remember at this point whether they are radical Muslims, Atheists, Capitalists, or what). They come to his town and they offer to spare his life if he simply renounces his faith. He refuses. They chop off a limb. He is given another chance to deny Christ. He refuses. They chop off another limb. They give this young boy every opportunity to deny Christ and save his life: he refuses and he dies by being hacked to death in front of his whole village. He is asked to deny Christ and thus save his life but instead he loses his life for the Gospel and for Christ. This boy really did pick up his cross and follow our Lord to Calvary.

As did the apostles around Jesus’ time: We know that Jesus’ apostles, like this boy, loved Jesus more than their own families and even their own lives (cf. Mark 3:20-35; 13:9-13). Jesus’ apostles did not die peaceful deaths – many were crucified or beheaded. Matthias was stoned; Thomas was stabbed; James the brother of Jesus was thrown from the top of the temple in Jerusalem: he survived, so his attackers beat him to death. John would be the exception to the rule of the martyred apostles, but it was not for a lack of conviction. His accusers tried to boil him alive in a pot but much like with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace for some reason God chose to decline John’s offer of martyrdom (Daniel 3:1-30). However no one can deny that they all lived up to the Christian standard: “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me (and for the gospel) will save it”

I can think of another story of some U.S. missionaries in Afghanistan before the American invasion ever began (2001-present). This one had a very different ending. The Taliban, who made up the government of the day, sentenced some missionaries to death unless they recanted their faith. These missionaries, unlike the apostles, and unlike the young Indonesian boy decided they would deny Christ and the Taliban rewarded them by sparing their lives. In so doing they their only reward is in this life that they chose to save. I have also heard of stories of so-called Christian missionaries in Africa and Asia who have, as part of their denial of the gospel and our Lord, even submitted to so-called female circumcision (which is in reality a mutilation of their genitalia) rather than die for our Lord. These people apparently chose their temporal life for themselves rather than to die for Christ and save their eternal soul.

Even though Jesus said to do otherwise: “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me (and for the gospel) will save it.”

About those missionaries that denied Christ – I really hope that they have since come to the Lord in fear and trembling and in legitimate repentance – legitimate repentance would mean, of course, that should they wind up in the same situation that they would choose a very different course of action. Just like Peter did. Remember that he denied Jesus 3 times before the cock crowed twice but later repented, led the early church, and eventually did accept his martyr’s crown (Mark 13-14, Matthew 26, Luke 22, John 18, John 21:15-25, Acts 1-12). I thankfully am not in a position to judge those missionaries or anyone’s salvation and really hope that they truly repent of this most grievous sin and do themselves grab hold of eternal life like the Apostle Peter but if they don’t… Can you imagine if you were a missionary and you were told that if you denied your faith you would live but if you didn’t you would die so you deny your faith and they kill you anyway? Can you imagine if the last thing you ever do before you are faced with the reality of God’s eternal kingdom, is to deny your citizenship in that kingdom. Jesus says if we deny him here and now, he’ll accept our resignation and then he will deny us in his kingdom there and then.

What about us here today? I don’t imagine that many of us will be ever faced with a literal life and death decision for Christ here in Saskatchewan. Although maybe some of the younger ones might live to see such a time (cf. Mark 3:20-35; 13:9-13).[6] I don’t think that anyone a generation ago would have been able to predict the persecution Christians are suffering in BC and even in some places in Ontario these days.[7] But assuming that Saskatchewan remains loyal to Christ now and when he returns, how do we apply this very important saying of Jesus to our own life? “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.”

Theologian Fred B. Craddock says, “A cross is not sought or pursued, but it was and still is true that following Jesus in service to God, which translates into meeting human needs, is on a path which there are crosses, prices to be paid, pain and hurt to be accepted. We are not speaking about a death wish here but obedience to the will of Christ.” [8] We are not called to be suicide bombers but we are called to serve Christ and not ourselves. We are called to give Jesus all of our time, all of our life, and if he asks for us to sacrifice our physical life – as he did of his apostles, the missionaries that we spoke of and that young Indonesian boy - then we must not withhold it from him.

Leon Morris says, “The follower of Jesus must deny himself (not just his sins, himself; he cannot be self-centred). There is nothing self-indulgent about being a Christian. The disciples had probably seen a man take up his cross, and they knew what it meant. When a man from one of their villages took up a cross and went off with a little band of Roman soldiers, he was on a one-way journey. He would not be back. Taking up the cross meant the utmost in self-denial.”[9]

How do we do with that in our world and life today? How can we in our life consistently deny ourselves and instead follow Christ (Luke 9:23, 14:27: 1 Corinthians 15:31; cf. Matthew 10:38; Gospel of Thomas 55b)? A lot of it comes down to how we spend our time. There are people in our city here who are on the path to hell. Jesus wants us to point them to the path of Salvation that he died to make and the apostles died pointing out. Are we willing to give our lives for Christ? Do we spend our time telling people about Jesus or do we spend our time in self-indulgence? In our life everyday we have to make our decision to follow Christ (Luke 9:23, 14:27: 1 Corinthians 15:31; cf. Matthew 10:38; Gospel of Thomas 55b). Do we put ourselves first or do we put God and others first? Do we spend more time reading the Bible and praying or do we spend more time watching TVs and movies? Do we spend more of our conversations telling people about Christ or gossiping about other Christians? How we spend our time is a true indication of what we believe and who we believe in. I ask each of us here today if someone looked at our how we spend our time could we convince them honestly that we have given up our lives for Christ? Are we offering our time and our lives to Christ? If we are then great things will happen, I promise.

Remember the story about the young boy that I told you. The young boy from Indonesia who eagerly accepted his martyrs crown as it was offered to him? Shortly after and because he died, the rest of his village chose to live. He died for Christ and the rest of his village saw that and decided to live for Christ. His death led to the salvation of all those people even through the generations, I believe, and this is why and how we know this story today.

“For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.”

In the corps here these next few weeks we are speaking about serving God with all of our time, talents, and treasure. This year we are concentrating on evangelism. When the leadership team met the other day we agreed to set as a goal that each of us would invite one friend to church here and we would then keep encouraging them to come religiously. If in this whole year, every one of us makes that same commitment and is able to bring just one friend to or back to the Lord and/or just bring them here to worship with us on Sundays then there would be 80+ people sitting in these seats just one year from now. Jesus asked us to give up our lives for him and to invite others to do the same (Matthew 28; John 15). Today I would like to encourage all of us here to do just that: if there is anything in our lives that is more important to us than Christ: maybe a spouse, maybe a job, maybe our pride, maybe our family, maybe… If there is someway that we selfishly holing onto our time and that are putting our life before the work of Christ, I would invite us in a moment to come and symbolically lay it at the altar. Let us each ask our Lord to “Take my life and let it be consecrated, Lord, to Thee.”

Let us pray.

http://www.sheepspeak.com/

---
[1] Answers: The Lone Ranger, Dorothy, Nixon, Trudeau, William Booth, Superman, Popeye, Jesus.
[2] http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html#axzz0yOSF5DFQ
[3] John Wesley, “Upon Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount”: Discourse IV, 1748; The Works of John Wesley, Jackson Edition, “Preface to 1739 Hymns and Sacred Poems”, vol. 14:321. Cf. also John Wesley, 'The Almost Christian', Preached at St. Mary’s Oxford, before the University, on July 25, 1741 and John Wesley, 'The Use of Money'
[4] Matthew 10:38-39, 16:24-24; Mark 8:34-35; Luke 14:26-27, 17:33; John 12:25. Cf. Lewis Foster, ‘Luke’ in NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids, Mi : Zondervan, 2002), note on Luke 9:24, p. 1589.
[5] Cf. Walter W. Wessel, William L. Lane in NIV Study Bible (Grand Rapids, Mi : Zondervan, 2002), note on Mark 8:35, p. 1542.
[6] cf. Mark 3:20-35; 13:9-13;God is more important to anyone in the Christian’s life, including her family. See also Captain Michael Ramsay, ‘Mark 3:20-35: The Family of God’ Presented to Nipawin and Tisdale Corps on February 17, 2008.
[7] cf: www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1040356828066_95///?hub=TopStoriescf. also Christianity Today: Parents Flee Public Schools: "Christians in British Columbia, Canada, are worried that courts are undermining their religious rights in the classroom.” http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/march/12.23.html Cf. also the Atheist website, nodeity.com: http://nodeity.com/chamberlain_v_SD36.html re 'One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads' - You can read the Supreme Court Decision re. Questionable books: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/index.html - The following phrase is interesting - 'The School Act's insistence on secularism;' this begs the question why must we be subjected to the secularist Worldview; neither BC not Canada were settled or founded upon that mythology. There were other problems with the books as well. CBC.ca: "This story has problems with punctuation and grammar throughout. The spelling of 'favourite' is inconsistent, switching from the Canadian to the American," said board chair Mary Polak about Asha's Mums. The board also criticized the book's depiction of men.(http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/06/13/samesex_books030613.html).It is serious that even though the book is unsatisfactory for education young people, that it was deemed necessary for our children to be exposed to it. The courts it appears are more interested in promoting a secular-atheist worldview than they are about providing a quality education for our children. The federal government has the jurisdiction to make laws to protect its citizens. The Supreme Court is only allowed to interpret the laws in theory. Cf. The National Post: ‘Gay couple gets input into school curriculum’, http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=80dd8007-ef56-40a7-809d-37936b9d4179&k=51593&p=1. Cf. also ‘Secular-Atheist's religion secures making the promotion of Homosexuality mandatory in the BC school system.’ Lifesite.net: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06060101.html cf. also 'Documents Reveal Government Signed Over Control of Education to Homosexual Activists': http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06061907.htmlcf. also: Peter Corren (né Cook) and Murray Corren (né Warren) — 'Corren is a combination of their former names — are LGBT-rights activists from Vancouver, British Columbia whose complaint before the BC Human Rights Tribunal led to an agreement by which the provincial Ministry of Education will consult them on how gays are presented in the school curriculum': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Murray_Corren. Cf. http://www.secularontario.ca/peterbexam06dec13.html, CBC.ca: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/01/26/prayer.html , CanadianChristianity.com: http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/070201prayer. No religion / Atheism is now the largest religion / World View in BC: StatsCan: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/rel/bc.cfm
[8] Fred B. Craddock, Luke (Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: John Knox Press: Louisville, Ken., 1990), 130.
[9] Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1988 (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 3), S. 188