"The Power of Positive People" - Doug Rehberg

It’s an old preacher’s story that you may have heard many times before, but it bears repeating, especially in the times in which we are living.

It’s the turn of the last century and the shoe company makes a decision to open up a new market. This is well before Adidas and Nike. So it sends two salesmen to the North African country of Morocco. After a week both salesmen send a telegram home. The first reads: 

    “Please make arrangements for my safe passage home. No one wears shoes here.” The other telegram     says, “Please send all the shoes you can. No one wears shoes here!!!”

The more I’m around Christians these days, the more pervasive I find the first salesman. Or to put it in terms Robert Kennedy could understand:

“Most people see things as they are, and ask why? But almost no one dreams of things that never were, and ask why not?”

And there’s a simple reason for that. Negativity is easy. It comes normally. It’s far more widespread than Coronavirus. It infects the minds and the hearts of men and women from their conception. It’s then nurtured through a lifetime of fearmongering. It surrounds us to the point that you find people trying to outdo one another for the honor of being the dourest. It’s sick and it’s repugnant to God.

Negativism is easy to come by. It’s born into us. It’s bred into us. Being negative takes no thought at all, it’s simply the way of the world. That’s why both the world and the church are filled with negative Nellies.

Oh we may try to mask it with words like, “realism” and “thoughtfulness,” but the truth is negativity takes no thought and is the laziest thing in the world. Anybody can do it. Rodney Dangerfield made a career of it.

Being positive takes work. That’s why one of the Holy Spirit’s primary jobs is to produce positive people. If you doubt that just take a look at Sunday’s text. Here in Peter’s final words of his first letter, there is supernatural positivity all over them.

This week I came across six documented health benefits from positive thinking:

·         Increased life span

·         Lower rates of depression

·         Lower levels of distress

·         Greater resistance to the common cold

·         Better psychological and physical well-being

·         Better cardiovascular health

Winston Churchill once said, “A pessimist sees the difficulty with every opportunity, the optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” And no one in the New Testament epitomizes positivity more than a man named Joseph of Cyrus. But we don’t know him by that name. We know him as Barnabas. His name means, “Son of Encouragement”. But in the Greek New Testament his name is Paraklesis. It’s a name that’s very close to another name. It’s the name John uses for the Holy Spirit – “Parakletos". The word can be divided into two parts: “Para”, meaning, “alongside of", and “kletos”, meaning, “called one”. Thus, parakletos means, “one who is called alongside another to plead their case.” That’s what the Holy Spirit does. That’s what Barnabas did. That’s what every believer is called to do. That’s why one of the telltale signs that the Holy Spirit is getting His way with us is indomitable optimism. Why not? Jesus has paid it all!

Luther said it, “Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree.” Norman Cousins said, “Optimism doesn’t wait on facts. It deals with prospects.” And that’s exactly how we see Peter closing this letter. It’s a primer in positivity. And that’s why we didn’t want to pass it over without examining it with some care.

In preparation for Sunday’s message entitled: “The Power of Positive People”, you may wish to consider the following:

1. Where does Silvanus (Latin name for Silas) first show up in Scripture?

2. Why does Peter regard him as a “faithful brother”?

3. Why is it important for Peter to describe him this way?

4. What’s been Silas’ role in this letter?

5. How can Peter summarize all that he’s said in this letter as, “the true grace of God”?

6. What attacks against the true grace of God has Peter addressed in this letter?

7. Who is he referring to in verse 13 as, “She who is at Babylon”?

8. Who is the Mark he is referring to at the end of verse 13?

9. How is Mark’s presence with Peter and Silas an illustration of what he says in verse 14?

10. Have you gained more peace and love as a result of our study of 1 Peter?

With you as we wrap up 1 Peter this week!

"Humble and Holy" - Doug Rehberg

In these months of seemingly endless political debate, medical opinions shifting like the sands of the sea, speeches delivered in strident tones in churches and in every conference room on Capitol Hill, riots in the streets, politicians mounting rostrums or hiding in basements, and talking heads peppering the airwaves with polarizing sound bites, I have found myself drawn to the words of the Apostle Peter. In the final section of his first epistle he lays out a matter far more important and profound than anything anyone else is saying these days. Here in his closing chapter he chooses to return to topic number one; the greatest mark of holiness in anyone in whom the Holy Spirit is getting His way—HUMILITY!

This week, as I was preparing my message, “Humble and Holy”, I thought of another man who wrote a letter, 26 years ago, in the twilight of his life. So much of what he said mirrors the sentiment of Peter. Like Peter, he knew the arrogance and pomposity that swirled around him. Yet like Peter, he exhibited an attitude that is diametrically opposed to the prevailing attitude of his day or ours.

He began his political career as a Democrat, but later became a Republican. When asked why, he said, “Because the Democrats left me.” The more political power he accumulated, the more withering the attacks of his political opponents. By this time the left wing had perfected its ad hominem attack on the intelligence of conservatives. They began it with Nixon and Ford, but perfected it with Reagan. They said Ronald Reagan was shallow and stupid. They wrote articles like, “In Search of Reagan’s Brain”. But through it all Reagan smiled and persevered with quips like, “There you go again!” But in 2004 the truth of his mental acuity came to light. People were stunned. Upon his death hundreds of lengthy, detailed handwritten essays on a wide range of political and economic policies were found in his personal effects. His breadth of knowledge, his ability to express complexities in easily understood terms, was unassailable. Even William F. Buckley was astounded. Rather than being the most dim-witted American President, Ronald Reagan turned out to be one of its most erudite.

But, clearly his most stunning attribute was his humble optimism. Reagan walked in humility and optimism. Nothing shows this quality more than the letter he wrote on November 5, 1994, nearly 5 years after leaving office. Here’s an excerpt from his handwritten letter:

            “My Fellow Americans,

I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Upon learning the news, Nancy and I have to decide whether as private citizens we would keep this a private matter or whether we would make this news known in a public way.

In the past Nancy suffered from breast cancer, and I had my cancer surgeries. We found that through our open disclosures we were able to raise public awareness… So now, we feel it is important to share it with you. In opening our hearts, we hope this might promote greater awareness of this condition. Perhaps it will encourage a clearer understanding of the individuals and families who are affected by it.

At the moment I feel just fine. I intend to live the remaining years God gives me on this earth doing the things I have always done. I will continue to share life’s journey with my beloved Nancy and my family. I plan to enjoy the great outdoors and stay in touch with friends and supporters.

Unfortunately, as Alzheimer’s Disease progresses, the family often bears a heavy burden. I only wish there was some way I could spare Nancy from this painful experience. When the time comes I am confident that with your help she will face it with faith and courage.

In closing let me thank you, the American people, for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your President. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future.

I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a light dawn ahead.

Thank you, my friends.

May God always bless you.

Sincerely,

Ronald Reagan”

Think of it. No ghost writer. Just Reagan himself, being himself—humble, honest, and indefatigably optimistic, in the face of losing his mental faculties.

That’s what we see Peter doing at the close of this letter. He is exceedingly humble and positive. Rabidly so. The theme runs throughout this letter. And as Henry pointed out last week in 4:12ff, for Peter, it’s all about attitude, an attitude based on fixing your eyes on the sufferings of Christ. What he says in 4:12 he elucidates in chapter 5.

Now, originally this week’s message “Humble and Holy” was to be the final one in this series on 1 Peter. But, due to the extraordinary importance of humble optimism in your life and mine, I have decided to take two weeks with chapter 5.

This week it’s “Humble and Holy” (verses 1-11). Next week it’s “The Power of Positive People”, (verses 12-14). In a world of pervasive pessimism, where pessimism is called realism, Peter begs to differ. He says that the message of the gospel of grace leads to unbridled optimism in everyone whom the Holy Spirit controls.

1. What is the nature of Peter’s exhortation in chapter 5?

2. How important is his statement in verse 1 that he recognizes himself to be a “fellow elder”?

3. Do you think he’s only addressing elders of the scattered church or every believer?

4. What two features of exercised oversight does Peter reject as poor examples of godly living?

5. How does Matthew 20:20-28 relate as a real-world example of what Peter is saying?

6. What example in Jesus’ earthly ministry can you cite for Peter’s admonition in verse 5(b)?

7. What Old Testament references are there for “the mighty hand of God?” (See verse 6.)

8. How does putting on humility (verse 5) result in casting all your anxiety on the Lord (verse 7)?

9. What’s the devil’s principle way of devouring us? (Verse 9).

10. What’s our reason for unbridled optimism according to Peter? (Verses 10 & 11).

See you this week and next!

"Rejoice in Christ's Sufferings" - Henry Knapp

“Do Not Be Surprised…”

I went through a really silly phase when I was a teenager. It’s a common silly phase, and perhaps some of you are still in it. Perhaps it doesn’t seem “silly” to you, and maybe it isn’t. But as I now look back on that phase of my life, it sure seems silly to me.

I used to go (voluntarily!) to horror films.

Now, I look back and think, “What was I thinking???” Paying people money to scare me to death. And, I was a great victim—if and when the director intended you to scream, my screech was the loudest! Countless sleepless nights I cowered under my covers. The very definition of a fraidy cat.

Most of the scariness of horror films center around the surprise element—just when you don’t expect something… BOO! But, why are we surprised at things? Surprise happens when something occurs that is out of the ordinary, unexpected, unanticipated. Much of the shock is taken away when we suspect something is about to occur. It is when it comes out of the blue that we are so shaken.

“Do not be surprised…”, Peter writes. In his epistle to his fellow believers, the Apostle encourages them not to be shocked by the terrible things happening to them. While this is an assumption, I suspect it is true—Peter had to warn them against being surprised because they were surprised! Things were happening that they did not anticipate, not what they expected. Hence, they were shaken by the events and afraid. But, Peter commands them not to be surprised.

They are surprised because they did not expect these horrible things to happen. They did not expect this, because their thinking was wrong. Peter is telling his readers to think correctly about the world around them. If we understand the world accurately, we should never be surprised by the manifestation of evil. Peter is tackling a “world-view” issue here. How are Christians faithfully to view the world? What should we expect? What should we anticipate will be part of this world?

A world-view is a semi-technical term for the collection of assumptions (often unconsciously held) that we have about the universe. What is really real? What is most important? What has eternal value? What is wrong, and what is the solution? All these, and others, help make up one’s world-view. The Christian’s goal is to have our world-view shaped by the Scriptures—to see the world the way God Himself sees it. To value what He does, to abhor what He does. When we do, our Christian world-view informs us as to what we should expect or anticipate in this world.

Now, if you have a world-view that hard times should never come your way, that bad things really are not a big deal, or that evil doesn’t really exist; then of course you will be surprised when persecution comes! Or, when tragedy strikes, or when sickness falls. If you fail to recognize the power of sin, then every time it shows up, you’ll be surprised.

Actually, that might be a good way to evaluate your own understanding of sin. When you see evil and maliciousness in this world, does it still surprise you? Are you shocked sometimes by your own wickedness, sin, and brokenness? Perhaps you need a world-view check. Do you see the world the way God sees it? Are you aware of the reality of sin? The power of sin? Yet, also, the ultimate victory of Grace over sin? Of the cross over evil? This is ultimately the way we should see the world, a Christian world-view, an understanding of God’s Kingdom that is shaped by the Scripture. And, if we do, then I believe, we will not be surprised.

As you prepare for worship this week, read 1 Peter 4:12-19.

1. Why do you think Peter describes his readers as “beloved”? Why would the use of this term be helpful in this instance?

2. What are “fiery trials” in verse 12? What constitutes “fiery trials” in your life? Hold on to that picture as you work through Peter’s comments here.

3. Peter encourages “rejoicing” when you suffer? Why? (See verses 13 and 14.)

4. What does it mean to be insulted for the name of Christ? What is “the name of Christ”?

5. Notice the Trinitarian picture in verse 4: Christ, the Spirit of Glory, and God (often the New Testament writers use “God” as the name of the Father).

6. Why would anyone be tempted to be ashamed for suffering for being a Christian (vs. 16)?

7. What could Peter mean by the phrase, “Judgment begins with the household of God” (vs. 17)? Is there judgment yet to come for God’s people?

"The Power of Love" - Doug Rehberg

On Winston Churchill’s first day as Prime Minister of Great Britain Hitler invaded Holland and Belgium. Poland and Czechoslovakia had already fallen, and the Dunkirk evacuation was just two weeks away. For the next twelve months, Hitler and his air force commander Hermann Göring, would wage a relentless bombing campaign killing 45,000 Britons. It was up to the 66-year-old Winston Churchill to hold the country together, while doing everything in his power to convince President Franklin Roosevelt that Britain was an ally worth fighting for.

Eric Larson, in his new book, The Splendid and the Vile chronicles Churchill’s first year as Prime Minister, May 10, 1940 to May 10, 1941. It’s a fascinating read, not only because of the detail Larson provides on Churchill and his family, but the way in which Churchill went about teaching the British people to be fearless in the face of unimaginable carnage and suffering.

The fact that Churchill would regularly survey the bombing of London from a rooftop as the bombs were falling is a well-known fact. What isn’t so well known is how he’d traveled throughout the British Isles to the other cities and towns where German bombs had struck. When he’d arrive, he’d jump out of his vehicle and wade into the bloody misery with tears streaming down his face. Seeing it, the people would quickly gather around him saying, “He’s one of us! He feels it the same way we do!” Often the crowd would be so large that he’d place his signature “Hamburg” hat on the top of his walking stick and hold it high in the air so that his security detail would know that he was still alive.

Near the end of the book (page 483) Larson summarizes that first year this way:

Against all odds, Britain stood firm, its citizens more emboldened than cowed. Somehow, through it all, Churchill (who Hitler was convinced would fold) had managed to teach them the art of being fearless.

“It is possible that the people would have risen to the occasion no matter who had been there to lead them, but that is speculation”, wrote Ian Jacob, military assistant secretary to the war cabinet under Churchill and later a lieutenant general. “What we know is that the Prime Minister provided leadership of such an outstanding quality that people almost reveled in the dangers of the situation and gloried in standing alone!”

On one of Churchill’s full-moon weekends at Ditchley (when the German bombers rained down hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives) Diana Cooper, wife of Information Minister, Duff Cooper, told Churchill that the best thing he had done was to give people courage. He did not agree. “I never gave them courage”, he said, “I was able to focus theirs.”

I believe Peter would have had the same retort for any reader of this letter. Unlike a religious legalist who seeks to modify the behavior of others by declaring necessary behavioral imperatives, Peter takes a different approach. Like the Apostle Paul he emphasizes the power of the finished work of Christ on the Cross to change the totality of one’s life. It isn’t a matter of calling out Christians. It’s a matter of calling forth from them what the Holy Spirit has already placed within them.

That’s what we see Peter doing through this letter, particularly in Sunday’s text – 1 Peter 4:1-11. He begins, “Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh…” As you know a “therefore” is a critically important word in the New Testament. Here Peter employs it in a most Churchillian manner. In a message entitled, “The Power of Love”, we will seek to uncover the three amazing results of Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross. Each one of them is highlighted in this text.

In preparation for worship you may wish to consider the following:

1. Why is the “therefore” there in verse 1?

2. The word translated “arm” is only used one place in the New Testament and that’s right here. What’s it mean?

3. How does verse 1 and 2 relate to what Paul says in Philippians 2:5?

4. What does Peter mean when he says that everyone who has suffered in the flesh has ceased to sin?

5. How does Jesus’ suffering change the way we think?

6. What does “living in the Spirit the way God does” mean? In verse 6.

7. What change is Peter referring to here?

8. What does being self-controlled and sober-minded have to do with our prayers? (See verse 7.)

9. In verses 8 through 11 Peter is talking about a third change the sufferings of Christ bring to a Christian. What change is it?

10. How does a change in mind, will, and heart bring glory to Jesus Christ?

Until we worship anew this week!

"Suffering for Righteousness' Sake" - Henry Knapp

Now, what does that mean?

I am not much of an art aficionado. (I just looked it up: aficionado = someone who is knowledgeable and enthusiastic. Definitely, I am NOT an art aficionado). Anyways, I do not have a great sense of art or much knowledge of the art world. Of course, I have on occasion gone to museums, art museums, and looked around. Sometimes I simply do not have any good idea of what I am looking at, and I haven’t spent enough time to know what I like and what I don’t like. I suspect a lot of folks are like that—not always sure why they like something or another, but they just do.

One experience I have had a number of times, however, is when I look at a painting, I get distracted from the main subject by all the surrounding material. Imagine the main focus of the painting, usually in the center foreground of the canvas. That is the point, what the artist wants you to see. However, there is more to the canvas than just the foreground. There is also the background, whether a landscape or solid color or shapes or whatever. I suspect that the artist’s purpose of the background, however, is not to distract from the main subject but somehow to illuminate or emphasize it.

When we come to the Scripture—almost any scriptural passage—it would be easy to get distracted from the main message by the “supporting, background” material. Of course, we all have experienced the deeper insights and power of a text when we understand it in its fullness and depth. Learning more about the “background” of a text can often give a richer picture of the whole. Pastors and scholars spend a lot of time studying the background so we can shine the spotlight more clearly on the main point. However, sometimes that background study can distract us just as easily. Imagine how satisfied our enemy might be if we focus so much on all the ethical aspects of the Gospel that we miss the Crucified One? Or, if we were to dig deeply into the cultural history of a passage so that we ignore its current relevance? We could lose Christ amidst lesser insights.

For our text in 1 Peter this week, the final paragraphs in chapter 3, it would be easy to get distracted from the main point by all the neat, intricate, and challenging theology. Yes, the very theology in this passage is so engaging and interesting that one could easily miss Peter’s point. Consider, for example, some of the theology Peter uses “in the background” here:

• The role and goal of apologetics (vs. 15)
• The question of Christ’s descent into Hell (vs. 19)
• Life after death, and the possibility of salvation (vs. 19)
• The nature of the resurrection (vs. 21)
• The purpose and practice of baptism (vs. 21)
• The ascension of Jesus to glory and power and dominion (vs. 22)

Not just a single sermon, but we could easily spend hours exploring each and every one of these topics.

Yet, to do so, might that distract us from Peter’s main point? Peter intends all this theology to support his point, yes. But, might it cause us to focus on the wrong thing? If we study baptism or apologetics or the resurrection—all incredibly important issues—but, if we study them only, could we end up missing what Peter wants to say to his readers? Oh, yes!

Peter is talking about suffering—particularly suffering as a Christian—and doing so in a way that honors Christ. While the supporting, background theology is interesting and engaging, it is there to help us follow, honor, and worship Jesus Christ, the One who has suffered for us.

As you prepare for worship this week, please read 1 Peter 3:13-22.

1. What is the tone of Peter’s question in verse 13? Is he asking for information? Is this a rhetorical question?

2. In verse 13, who is Peter “afraid” of? Who might someone think would be out to harm you?

3. What does it mean to suffer for righteousness’ sake (vs. 14)?

4. Who is the “them” you are not to have “fear of” in verse 14?

5. At the end of verse 15, Peter calls us to respond to people with “gentleness and respect”. Why does he feel the need to state this?

6. Peter uses the illustration of Noah’s Ark here. What is his point in this illustration? What other illustrations could you use? Why is this one particularly appropriate for this situation?

7. When Peter speaks of “baptism”, what does he mean? How was Noah’s experience a “baptism”? What about Christ’s experience? What about ours? In what ways does “baptism” help us to understand our standing with Christ, and thus, the call to suffer for righteousness sake?

"For to This You Were Called..." - Henry Knapp

Male and Female He Created Them

One of my many quirks is that I can’t abide riding in the car in silence. There is just something about the car running, and there being no noise beyond the purr of my muffler-damaged auto, that just sets me wrong. So, over the years, I’ve developed the habit of immediately cranking up the stereo as soon as the key gets turned. I realize that not all my passengers appreciate that habit, however. Often I hear groans of protest when the audio kicks in. However, some of that might be due to my choice of what to listen to. As time has gone on, I’ve become more and more addicted to audio lectures. The topic of said lectures doesn’t really matter… just so long as someone is teaching something as I’m cruising down the road. Existential theology, ancient or medieval history, medical mysteries, linguistics, literature… I’m good with it all. Some of what I listen to is downright amazing. Some is interesting. Some is downright dreadful. But, listen I do!

Recently, I listened to a 36-hour series on Greek mythology. I don’t really have much interest in Greek mythology, but thought I might learn something, as indeed I did. The lecturer, however, had a particular bias, I believe, that showed on a frequent basis. By and large, I found her to be very knowledgeable, articulate, and engaging. However, she was very sensitive to the way gender influenced the presentation of the Greek gods and heroes. She was quick to point out how gender roles, and the relationship between the male and female gods, shaped the plot and development of the stories. While I do not know the material well enough to evaluate the accuracy of her presentation, the implication that gender was one of, if not the, defining characteristic of much Greek myth came across consistently during those 36 hours. Her point seemed to be that what we used to call “the battle of the sexes”—the confusion and conflict that surrounds much of the male-female relationship—is as deep and historical as the beginning of civilization itself.

Of course, on one level, the lecturer is exactly correct—the reality of gender and the relationship between male and female is as old as the creation of mankind itself. The opening chapters of Genesis mark the creation of male and female (both in God’s own image), and the entrance of sin into God’s good creation is reflected in part in the distorted, strained bond between the sexes. Various sections of Scripture note the damage wrought by our sin in the way we relate as husband and wife, male and female, and the impact of Christ’s redemption on those relationships is described at numerous points.

As always, however, it is important to remember that the Bible is not a textbook on gender relationships. There is so, so much about male and female, about the cultural and societal characteristics of gender, and about the intimacy of a husband and wife that the Bible does not address. Sociology, psychology, anthropology, and other fields have much to say in terms of the relationship between male and female. However, Scripture does talk of these concerns in one way that other fields do not—for when the Bible speaks, we hear the very Words of God. And so, while the Bible may not address every conceivable situation that confronts the male/female question, when it does speak it speaks True.

I think it quite likely that every culture throughout time has had to deal with the question of how best males and females should relate to one another. Concerns about gender and equality and authority and power appear to me to be natural outworking of our being made male and female in the image of God and being distorted and damaged by sin. There is much to learn here, and much mystery yet to explore. But we can have confidence that God has spoken by His Word, and when He speaks we must seek to understand and respond in faith—trusting always in Jesus our Lord.

This week in worship, we’ll explore how trusting in Jesus shapes our relationships—even the relationship between husband and wife. In preparation, read 1 Peter 3:1-7.

1. The overall context of this section is important. Don’t be fooled by the chapter number to think that Peter is starting a brand new idea—he is continuing on his earlier thought. How can you tell that this passage is connected to what precedes it?

2. What does it mean to be subject to someone else? Other translations use the word “submit”. What negative connotations do these words have? Must they have those connotations? What other ways could the words be understood?

3. What is the purpose clause associated with the call to be subject?

4. Is Peter really interested in critiquing women’s clothing, hairstyle and jewelry? If that is not Peter’s main point, what is? Why is he talking about this at all?

5. Go back in Genesis and read about Sarah and Abraham (chapters 16-22). What makes Sarah a good role model today?

6. How does the command to the husbands differ from that to the wives? What possible reasons might Peter have to differentiate in this way?

7. What does it mean to be an “heir of the grace of life”? How can you express this to others? Is this a proper goal for our relationships together?

"Gathered In" - Doug Rehberg

In the early 2000s LL Cool J coined a term that is now used regularly to describe someone who is the best at what they do—G.O.A.T. It seems contradictory because for generations if you called someone a “goat” it meant they were the opposite of great, in fact, they were pitiful.

But that changed when LL Cool J recalled Muhammad Ali and his famous, and regular, pronouncement, “I am the greatest… the greatest of all time.” And indeed, when it came to the boxing ring he was probably the G.O.A.T. Never in the history of American sport has someone been stripped of his ability to do his job for 42 months, at the height of his prowess, because of politics and a miscarriage of justice. (On June 20, 1967 Ali was convicted of draft evasion, sentenced to five years in prison, fined $10,000 and banned from boxing for three years. He stayed out of prison on appeal, but it wasn’t until June 28, 1971 that the Supreme Court overturned his conviction. Howard Cosell famously called it “a miscarriage of justice”.) And now, almost everyone would agree.

But being banned from boxing wasn’t the only injustice Muhammad Ali faced in his life. Tomes have been written on the mountains of racial bias he climbed. And yet, it is well worth noting that he did it far differently than Malcom X, the Black Panthers, et al.  He did it like Martin Luther King did it. He did it like Jesus did it. And that is why it’s so instructive to hear the words of his son, Muhammad Ali, Jr. Recently, speaking on the 4th anniversary of his father’s death before a congressional committee, Ali said, “My father would have hated the Black Lives Matter protests which pit black people against everyone else. All lives matter! My father would have said, ‘They ain’t nothin’ but devils!’ God loves everyone and never singles out anyone to hate. Killing is wrong no matter what.”

Now, whether you agree with the words of the father or the son, the sentiment of the Ali’s is affirmed by the Apostle Peter as he writes to Christians facing genocide as a result of their faith. Indeed, the entire second half of the second chapter is a call to obedience and submission in the face of withering racial and religious persecution. Look at what Peter says in verse 17, “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” He then follows it up with this gem: “Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.” Now if you and I are tempted to think the conditions facing 1st century Asia Minor Christians were more tolerable and less racist than in the modern American Republic, a cursory examination of Neroian edicts and tactics will quickly disabuse anyone of such a notion.

Furthermore, we continue this Sunday where we left off last week, with a study of verses 18-25. Peter, no stranger to strong political convictions, elucidates not only HOW we are to live as bondservants of God (verse 16), but WHY. Simply put: Jesus is both the how and the why.

As a precursor to Sunday’s message “Gathered In”, here are some more lyrics from Larry Norman’s classic, “Only Visiting This Planet”. The title of his tune is, “Why Don’t You Look Into Jesus?”  Its message is timeless, because we are always making idols of our own imaginations and passions.

“Why Don’t You Look Into Jesus?”

(Click here to listen to this song.)

“Sipping whisky from a paper cup

You drown your sorrow till you can’t stand up

Take a look at what you’ve done to yourself

Why don’t you put the bottle back on the shelf

Yellow fingers from your cigarettes

Your hands are shaking while your body sweats

Why don’t you look into Jesus, He’s got the answer.

“Gonorrhea on Valentine’s Day

And you’re still looking for the perfect lay

You think rock and roll will set you free

You’ll be dead before you’re thirty-three

Shooting junk till your half insane

Broken needle in your purple vein

Why don’t you look into Jesus, He’s got the answer.

“You work all night, sleep all day

You take your money, throw it all away

You say you’re going to be a superstar

But you’ve never hung around enough to find out who you really are.

“Think back to when you were a child

Your soul was free, your heart ran wild

Each day was different, and life was a thrill

You knew tomorrow would be better still

Things have changed you’re much older now

If you’re unhappy and you don’t know how

Why don’t you look into Jesus, He’s got the answer.”

Peter would completely agree with Norman! In preparation for our study of 1 Peter 2:18-25 you may wish to consider the following:

1. How do you distinguish between the servants of verse 16 and the ones addressed in verse 18?
2. What does “be subject to your masters” mean?
3. Why does Peter add the description of these masters at the end of verse 18?
4. How does Peter define grace in verse 19 and 20?
5. Someone has said, “Suffering is the necessary condition for grace to be exhibited.” Do you agree?
6. How does Peter define our call in verse 21?
7. On what grounds does he justify this claim?
8. What are some other historic examples of redemptive suffering that come to your mind?
9. How do you suppose the hearers of verse 25 were straying?
10. How do the two titles Peter uses in verse 25 for Jesus reinforce his argument?

See you Sunday!