Christ the Controversialist

This was the title of a book by John Stott, who was voted evangelical theologian of the twentieth century. The letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) help us to see the appropriateness of his description of our Lord (Rev. 2-3). And yet it's a description we might find surprising, disturbing or distasteful even. A number of reasons might account for this.

First, there is the possibility that we have not taken account of the full biblical picture of Christ. This may be due to a less than ideal acquaintance with biblical teaching and/or the influence of the numerous theories that abound. One of these is that there is a tension between the Christianity of Jesus and the Christianity of the apostle Paul. The deduction drawn from this argument is that we may take that part of Scripture we find palatable (namely the teaching of Jesus) but leave that which we find odious (the teaching of Paul). Advocates of this view refer to it as red-letter Christianity ~ a reference to the preference given to those portions of Scripture that record the sayings of Jesus (printed in red in some Bibles). Yet, there are problems with this view:

I. It contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture. "All Scripture is profitable…" (2 Tim. 3:16).
II. We have no authority or objective criteria by which we can judge which parts of Scripture should stay and which should go.
III. It requires that we submit the Scriptures to our own opinions, when our own opinions are meant to be subject to Scripture.
IV. It simply does not work. Consistency demands that we also reject all those sayings of Jesus (i.e. parts of the red-lettered portion of Scripture) that are as odious as anything Paul had to say. The letter to the angel of the church at Thyatira is one such example (Rev. 2:18-29).

Second, and more briefly, it is possible that we have been influenced by the prevailing culture more than we think. Many have run with the notion, found in the kid's chorus, that Jesus was 'meek and mild'. But this is a half-truth. More accurate is that He was meek and wild. The same Christ who could stoop to the weakest and to the penitent, could speak in the toughest of language to pharisaical leaders overly concerned with external matters of religiosity and to flagrant sinners who had little intention of turning to God. The idea, then, that Jesus is somehow a pushover ~ a sentimental diminishment of who He actually is ~ is not only wrong, it knocks out from under us the very foundation of our faith. For the only Christ worth believing in, is one who has the authority as well as the love to accomplish all He claimed to be able to do. It is not for us, then, to tamper with what has been revealed in Scripture of Christ's person or His work. All of Scripture agrees that Christ, being fully divine and fully human, is the Lord of history and the Head of the Church, as well as self-sacrificing Savior and friend of sinners. As Christians we receive this teaching in total or not at all.

The letters Christ sent to the churches of Asia challenge us to view Christ in His fullness. On the one hand, He is interested in these churches precisely because it was by the shedding of His own blood that they came into being. On the other hand, as their Head He has certain expectations of them. Thus, He lauds them for where they have been faithful and pulls them up short for where they have been lacking. The church at Ephesus, for instance, had all their ducks in a row doctrinally speaking, but had forgotten their love for Christ. The church at Pergamum had kept the faith during persecution and the martyrdom of one of her members, but had compromised in allowing room for the teaching of Balaam and the Nicolaitans. We note similarly that the church of Thyatira, from which Lydia came (Acts 16:14), was industrious in so many ways, but 'tolerated' a prominent woman and her 'children' who were leading the servants of Christ astray. Of the letters, only the church at Smyrna received Christ's full commendation.

Let's take a little longer look at the letter to the church at Thyatira. It is hard for us to swallow. We have been trained to believe that tolerance is always and everywhere a positive virtue. Christ, however, stands over against our culture and proclaims that in certain instances tolerance is quite the opposite. That said, please understand that Christ does NOT mean:

I. We have no obligation to love. Note how he commends the church for her love (Rev. 2:19), and implies that, like Him, she must give folk space to repent (v. 21).
II. We must be intolerant of everything. There are secondary issues (of importance in their own domain), as there are also differences of opinion over secondary matters (that tend to be less clear), where a measure of latitude is warranted and wise.

Nonetheless, Jesus makes abundantly clear that:

I. A Christian church must not tolerate those who lead others astray in matters of belief or lifestyle (vv. 20, 23).
II. An unbiblical tolerance is displeasing to Him. Hence, Christ calls the unfaithful to repentance (v. 21), and judges them when they do not turn back. This authority to judge He has received from His Father (v. 27).

Let us pray for ears to hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches.