Luke 7:36-50

     Jesus has noted the irony of the fact that John had come not eating and drinking and had been accused of being possessed. Jesus himself came eating and drinking and had been called a glutton, a drunkard and friend of sinners. It’s the classic catch-22---those disposed to think poorly of John and Jesus would have found some reason to discount the truth that they brought.
     Another irony is that Jesus was, apparently, also a popular dinner guest. It’s not hard to picture why. He was kind and courteous, could intelligently converse, and seems to have had a good sense of humor. This last is often lost because of the change in time and culture, as well as the serious attitude Christians take in reading the bible.
     Starting in verse we hear that Jesus had been invited to dinner by a Pharisee. A woman came in where they were dining. Now this, in itself, was not shocking. Today we would think it very strange if someone just walked into a dinner party that we were holding. It was not considered unusual in those times. This was the opportunity for the average citizen to participate in the intellectual life of the community. People could come in a listen to the dinner conversation. What was shocking about this woman’s presence is that she was known to be living an immoral life. She came, weeping to sit at Jesus’ feet. Her tears fell on his feet, she wiped them with her hair and anointed his feet with a flask of expensive oil of myrrh.
     The host saw this and thought, ‘good heavens, if this guy is a prophet, if he’s really as connected to God as he appeared, then he’d know this woman was a sinner!’
     It is here that we learn that the host’s name is Simon, for Jesus addresses him by name. How Jesus answers is through a parable, asking if someone owed the money lender a great deal and the other just a little, and both were forgiven the debt, who would love the money lender the most. Simon, who surely knew what Jesus was getting at, had to admit it would be the one whose largest debt had been forgiven.
     Jesus pointed out that when he’d come to Simon’s house, no water had been provided for his feet, yet this woman had not ceased from keeping his feet wet with her tears and wiping them with her hair. Simon had given him no kiss of greeting, yet this woman had continually kissed his feet. Simon had provided no oil for anointing his head, yet the woman had anointed his feet with oil of myrrh. The love she showed Jesus demonstrated how great her sense of need for forgiveness was and how greatly she feels the relief in receiving that forgiveness. Simon’s lack of attention shows his lack of need and consequently a lack of gratitude for having been forgiven.
      In fact, Simon’s actions also demonstrate a possible laxness in hospitality. As people mostly went barefoot or with sandals in those times, coming into a home, feet were dusty and dry. Having the servants (if you had them, which the Pharisee certainly must have) wash the feet was a common act of hospitality. Whether or not this was always done can be speculated, but Jesus was noting the difference in the way Simon and this woman had approached him.
     The set up of the room and dinner table would vary from our traditional “dining rooms.” People reclined on couch, leaning on one elbow, with feet stretched away from the table. This would have given the woman easy access to his feet.
     Scholar, Professor Jeremias, indicates that it was considered an act worthy of merit to invite a traveling preacher to a meal, especially if they had preached in the synagogue. Although we are not told that Jesus had preached in the synagogue, it is not unlikely he had done so. The gospel story is as often a series of vignettes more than it is a linear story. This is necessarily so as they tell of years of ministry and teachings in very few words. John would write at the end of his gospel that if everything Jesus did was written down, the world could not hold the books that would be written.
      Although we would see allowing someone to kiss the feet to be an act of abasement, it was at that time a gesture showing deeply felt gratitude. It is sometimes assumed that the woman in question was Mary Magdalene, but there is no other evidence than tradition for making that assumption.
      As shocking as the respectable Pharisee found Jesus in letting a sinful woman approach him, he and the invited guests found it even more shocking that Jesus would then tell the woman that her sins were forgiven. His words likely do not seem shocking to Christians of today, but to these first century religious leaders it was something surprising. Luke does not report a negative response as much as a shocked question, of who is this who even forgives sins? At others times the response is far more negative showing that his forgiveness of sins was considered possibly blasphemous and certainly presumptuous. 
      The story concludes with Jesus telling the woman that her faith had saved her and to go in peace.
     Jesus occasionally told people that their faith had saved them and he didn’t explain what he meant by that. Is faith a work that earns merit? Is faith an act of empowerment? Does faith open a channel between people and God? What of those who are self-righteous about their faith or the perceived correctness of their beliefs? The religious leaders who were observing and debating with Jesus certainly patted themselves on the backs for their faith and theological purity, rejecting others who did not come up to their standards.
      It could be, at least in this circumstance, that his words to the woman were in part an affirmation to her, and in part a lesson for those who were listening. No doubt they found it hard to credit that this woman could have faith or be included in the love and concern of God. By describing the power of her faith, was he trying to upset that assumption?

Who are the “Pharisees” of today among the Christian church?
In what way might any Christian be guilty of a Pharisaic attitude?
How can faith be proclaimed without treading the path of self-righteousness?
Is Jesus came today, how do you think he might act and shock us? What people might he welcome that would surprise us and make us wonder what and who he was?

Luke 7:18-35

     Christians sometimes think of “disciples” as a word belonging directly to the followers of Jesus, although we know it is a word simply designating a follower, adherent, student, etc. John the Baptist also had disciples. In fact, scholars tell us that after the deaths of Jesus and John, there was rivalry between the groups. Adding fuel to it must have been the fact that all the gospel writers report that Jesus went to John for baptism. This may have been used by John’s followers to declare that John was more important than Jesus.
     As a side note to this, we can respect and admire the honesty of the gospel writers. They could have denied Jesus was baptized or simply left out the story. But they all report it. We hear that John himself was uncomfortable about baptizing Jesus, and Jesus only told him it was proper in this way to fulfill all righteousness—a statement over which we still puzzle, for John was baptizing for repentance and it is generally supposed that Jesus had nothing to repent. From a human point of view it might make sense. Jesus had mostly lived a private life until that point. That life must have been enjoyable, filled with good work, friends and family. At his baptism, he was embarking on a public life in which he would be constantly moving from town to town, importuned at every moment by those who needed his teaching, healings and guidance. It was a life which as an intelligent man, he knew would lead to his death. In theological terms, repentance means to be sorry for sins and resolved to change a direction. For Jesus, could John’s baptism be a ritualistic passage, leaving behind his previous life and embracing the rigors of his ministry? We don’t know. Jesus never explained it, or at least none of the gospel writers report it if he did.
     Matthew and Luke both tell the story of John sending word by his disciples to ask whether Jesus was the one to come or should they keep waiting. It has been questioned why he did so? After all he’d baptized Jesus. Some of the gospel writers tell that John recognized something remarkable had happened at the baptism. Why would he need to ask anything more?
     Understanding things from a human point of view, we would remember that John was in prison at the time, which for a man used to living in the wilderness must have been a particular burden. He can be excused for human uncertainties and the need for confirmation.
     The response of Jesus was interesting. He didn’t make a simple “yes” answer. He told them to report what they had seen and heard about the healing and the teaching he had done. It is as if he is affirming John’s ability to decide for himself about who Jesus is. Are God’s purposes being accomplished? Who do you think Jesus is? Doesn’t this remain the question every one of his followers have had to decide for themselves ever since?
     Once John’s disciples had left, Jesus challenged the rest of the crowd. Obviously he knew they had also gone to see John when he was preaching in the wilderness. What had they gone to see? What had they expected? Jesus affirmed that John was not only a prophet, but had gone ahead to prepare the way for him. Jesus lifted up the greatness of John, but typically, turned that around to challenge the people to spiritual growth in their own lives, saying that even the least in the kingdom was greater than John.
     The listeners decided his words were just and that the Pharisees and lawyers who had refused John’s baptism had been rejecting God’s purposes for them. Luke’s wording here makes it sound as though the Pharisees and lawyers had, en masse, rejected John. In truth, this seems unlikely. But by the time the gospels were written, these groups seem to have gained symbolic status for certain attitudes of opposition. We know, for example, that some Pharisees were in support of Jesus while others were not, though the gospels sometimes sound as though the Pharisees were entirely opposed. In fact, it has been suggested by some scholars that Jesus might have been considered a Pharisee at one point. Their frequent opposition could have risen because it was one of their own who was publicizing their hypocrisies.
      Jesus went on to make an interesting, perhaps humorously ironic observations. His generation was like children who want to play a game and call to others to join in (playing at funeral procession, which may seem a strange game to us, but children often imitate grown-up events in play). But the others won’t come and join in the game. John had come in austerity and the serious grown-ups dismissed him with the excuse he had a demon. Jesus had come eating and drinking and they called him a glutton and drunkard, a friend of sinners. Still, Jesus said, wisdom would be vindicated by her children.
      How easily, it seems, did some people reject spiritual enlightenment. They couldn’t respect John because of his self-deprivation and oddities. They couldn’t respect for the opposite reasons- he actually ate and drank.
     Although no stories indicate that Jesus actually ever became drunk or and overindulged, the fact that he was accused of it shows that he did enjoy the pleasures of life, including food and drink. He could fast as well, as he did for 40 days in the desert. But all indications are that he enjoyed the world and didn’t expect others not to enjoy it. He simply had a healthy understanding that life is more than bread or physical belongings and he kept them in their proper priority. In the end, much as he enjoyed life, he was willing to give it up for the sake of others.

     In his comment about wisdom , could it be that Jesus was also challenging other people to make up their minds about him? Should they look at the fruits of his ministry?
What does it mean to know that Jesus enjoyed the pleasures of life the same as we do?
In what ways might we be like the “Pharisees” refusing to join in the “game,” that Jesus invites us to play.

Luke 7:11-17

      Jesus came to the town of Nain. His disciples were with him, along with a large group of the faithful, and the curious.
     A commotion was going on in the town. A young man had died and was being carried out for burial. The mother of the man was a widow and this was her only son.
     Losing a son or daughter must be incredibly hard. There are those who have experienced both the loss of a spouse and of a child and say that latter loss is even more difficult than the first. To lose a son or daughter goes against every instinct a parent has to nourish and protect. It goes against all expectation as well, for a parent expects a child to outlive them.
     Although it may not have been on her mind at that moment with its focus on the grief of her loss, the widow in Nain also faced a desperate future. She was without a husband and now without a son to support her. Women had little status or economic power in that society.
     The story is simple and straightforward. Jesus had compassion for her and he bid the young man to rise. The man sat up and began to speak. Fear seized everyone who saw it. They glorified God and said that a great prophet had come to them. Even more rumors began spreading about Jesus.
     Jesus was not the first to be recorded a bringing the dead back to life. Elijah did the same, and such rumors were spread even about others. Those who find it difficult to credit a death to life miracle might say that the young man wasn’t actually dead. That he was in a coma or otherwise unable to respond. In truth, it was not uncommon for that to happen. Without sophisticated medical equipment, the determination of death was not certain.  It was even a custom in some periods of history to place a string in the coffin connected with a bell above ground, so that if a person was alive, they could pull the string and be rescued from their grave.
      Would it actually be less of a miracle for Jesus to save a man from being buried alive?
      Regardless of how you regard the miracle, the compassion of Jesus is plain. He knew what grief was for those who are left behind. And the scriptures consistently called for awareness of the powerless in society. A widow was frequently named as one of that group representing the powerless. Jesus responded to her need and new life became possible.
     An interesting sidelight is the response of the people. They were filled with fear, yet they praised God. Today we may think of fear as a negative emotion, necessary in the ‘fight or flight’ response, but still negative. Modern people have sometimes been confused by the biblical injunction to fear the Lord, especially when reading other statements that love casts out fear. There is fear as we would experience at the threat of a great danger, and yet great and fierce awe can also be described as fear. God is holy and awesome, mysterious and beyond our control. For the people of Nain, to see this in action, would engender something called fear, but not as the fear they would experience if seeing the Romans advance on their town with sword raised. It was a wholesome fear for they recognized the presence of God in their midst.
     New life was a specialty of Jesus’. A tax collector hated by his society was accepted and renewed. Those who were despised and rejected were loved and given new opportunities. Those about to stone an adulterous woman were reminded of their sin and dropped their own stones. The woman was raised up and her would-be murderers must have experienced a curious release. Even in Jesus’ final hours, a thief reaching out was promised paradise. And when the universe seemed dark and untenable after the crucifixion, a light dawned on the third day inviting the friends of Jesus into an experience of incredible joy.
     What’s the miracle? It wasn’t what he did, but who he was.

What in your life needs to be raised to new life?
Can you write a prayer offering that to God?
Where can you be an agent of Jesus in bringing new life to someone around you or in your community?

Luke 6:43-7:10

     What Jesus says here is common sense. Good trees bear wholesome fruit; bad trees don’t. You don’t get good fruit from thorn bushes either. In the same way are people. When a person has a treasure of goodness in the heart, good words and deeds will be produced. In like manner, evil produces evil.
     Was Jesus challenging his followers to produce good and show goodness within? Was he challenging religious leaders of his day, pointing to hypocrisy? Was he simply leading into the story of the house built on sand? Was he doing many things at once?
     A wise debater will sometimes state truisms, truths that everyone can nod and agree with. Jesus goes on to point out that people might call him Lord, but it is pointless unless they are following through on what he taught. A foolish person will hear his words and not act upon them. That person is like one who builds his house upon the sand. In a rainstorm, a flashflood will come and wash their home away. A wise man listens and acts, thereby building his house upon a rock that can stand in the storm.
     It is hard to know for certain whether Jesus spoke these words in this exact sequence. Matthew and Luke show different collections of his teachings, so it is possible that the two comments do not inherently stand together. At the same time, the one can be said to flow one to the next in at least one sense. What Jesus spoke was sane and true and good. Jesus may not have been tooting his own horn, so to speak, but he may have been challenging his listeners to decide for themselves what his nature was like. If they listened and considered his authority to teach as valid, then it was foolish indeed to fail to live what he taught.
     Luke does not give as extended a time of teaching as Matthew. After this, he tells how Jesus went into Capernaum. A Roman Centurion lived there. The Centurion had a servant who he valued, but who was ill and close to death. This soldier had heard about Jesus, but instead of going to him directly, he asked some of the Jewish elders to approach Jesus on his behalf. These leaders did so, telling how the Centurion loved the Jewish people and had done much good for them, including building them a synagogue. This in itself is a remarkable statement. Luke’s book may well have been written at least partially to explain Christianity to the Gentile world, and to hear about this centurion was important. It is possible that the soldier was a god-fearer, a person who worshipped Yahweh, yet did not convert because of circumcision and the dietary laws.
     Whatever the circumstances, Jesus started immediately for the soldier’s home. Someone must have run ahead to tell the Centurion because he sent some of his friends to Jesus saying it wasn’t necessary to come to him. As a man of authority himself, he knew what it was to issue orders and know they would be followed. He trusted that Jesus, man of authority, could do the same.
      Jesus praised the man’s faith in the hearing of everyone around him, and the messengers returned to the Centurion’s home, to find the servant was healed.
      It may not be coincidence that Luke told a story of teaching that dealt with the authority of Jesus, then we hear this story about the nature of authority and the trust a Gentile had in Jesus.  The authority of Jesus remains in question today. Although millions claim they are Christians, they are largely unaware of what he taught. At a church several decades ago, a pastor decided to memorize Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the Mount and give it for his Easter sermon. He didn’t say that’s what it was because he figured everyone would know. Yet after the service, numerous individuals came to him upset – they thought he had the wrong slant on things, needed to get a better idea of Christianity. Obviously, even Jesus' most active of followers don’t always know what he taught, which doesn’t say much for the authority they ascribe to him, or whether houses built upon ignorance can long stand.
      
What would it mean to truly acknowledge the authority of Jesus in one’s daily life?
What are the storms that might do the most damage to your house?
Where is your building program most active?

Luke 6:37-42

     Do not judge others. It’s amazing how often this subject came up during the ministry of Jesus. He lived when the religious elite found it easy to condemn those who did not have the resources or ability to maintain the rituals that were considered so important at the time.
     Jesus says it in strong words – don’t judge and God won’t judge you. Don’t condemn and God won’t. Forgive and God will do the same for you. Give to others and God will give to you. Then he goes on to say that you will receive a full measure, a generous helping, poured into your life, as much as you can possibly hold. The measure we give will be the one God uses for us.
    It is said that the ancient middle east delighted in hyperbole, that is, stating the extremes to make a point. Perhaps this is what Jesus is doing. The religiously self-righteous needed to be shook up. They’d failed in the very love of neighbor that was the central core of their ethical and spiritual teaching.
      At the same time, the legalists could turn his words into a quid pro quo equation. Give and you will receive, etc. In fact, that’s exactly what’s sometimes happened. Read some inspirational material on tithing and you will often find stories of someone who asserts how they started giving more to the church, then more and every time they gave more, their business started doing better or their income otherwise went up. While we would not doubt their sincerity, the stories could turn giving into a self-centered attempt to receive.
     We give because that’s what God calls us to do. We give in response to God’s love and the sacrifice of Jesus. We give when we are in accord with the image of God in which we are made. We give because causes are important to us and we want to come down squarely on the right side of life.
     We forgive also for the same types of reasons. We refrain from judging (or should!) because we have no business condemning others.
     A more positive understanding of the words of Jesus might come from the old illustration concerning the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea is called dead because it contains too much salt to be viable. Water flows into it, but because nothing flows out, the sea does not support life.
     Or perhaps there’s the old scientific truth – two things can’t be in the same place at the same time. How can God’s forgiveness make a meaningful difference in our lives if we’re too busy patting ourselves on the back and judging other people? If we are selfish and self-centered, God’s gifts are neither recognized nor valued. An ungenerous heart finds it difficult to understand generosity when received.
      Jesus went on to tell a parable or analogy of the fact that a blind person cannot lead someone else who’s blind. That would be ridiculous and everyone will end in a ditch. A student isn’t greater than the teacher, but the student can hope to be like the teacher upon completing the course.
     Then Jesus went on to another parable/imagery asking why we would persist in fussing about the speck in a neighbor’s eye while ignoring the log or plank sticking out of our own. The wonderful humor of this image is often missed entirely, but may well have provoked a good chuckle to those who first heard it.
     Earlier, Luke (6:36) had recorded the words of Jesus calling upon being to be merciful in the same way God is merciful. To love enemies, because God is also good to the wicked and ungrateful.
     When Jesus spoke, it wasn’t as if he was speaking to people in whom he saw no hope and no promise. Rather, he spoke to people in the understanding that, though they had strayed, they had great potential, because they were the children of God and could aspire to the standards of God.

What is the hardest part about forgiveness?
How difficult is it to refrain from judging others?
Does bringing a judgmental attitude to life really make anyone feel better?
How do we let go of self-righteousness and grow into forgiveness?

Luke 6:27-30

     Jesus doesn’t call his followers to do things that are easy. Loving one’s neighbor can be difficult enough. What about when he turns his bass up so loud that your windows shake when he drives by? How about when she’s unbearably boasting about her garden, looking at yours with a pitying eye? How hard it is to love the neighbors when their dog wakes you up every morning an hour before the alarm. How hard to love a stranger who cuts ahead of you in the checkout lane or takes their thirty-two items into the express lane so that your gallon of milk takes an extra eight minutes to buy.
     At other times, Jesus would say to love one’s neighbor. This was the central teaching of the Jewish faith—to love God and to love one’s neighbor. Jesus would affirm that all other laws depend on these two.
     In fact, in all seven of the world’s major religions, the basic rule of conduct is the same, a rule that is rightfully called golden – do unto others the way you would want them to do to you. Sometimes it is stated in the negative proposition – Don’t do to others what would be hateful to you.
     Loving one’s enemies takes the golden rule and turns it platinum. Love enemies. Do good for those who have hurt you. If you are cursed by someone, bless them. If someone treats you meanly, pray for them. If you are hit on one cheek, offer them the other also. If someone takes your coat, give your shirt, give what’s asked of you, don’t insist on getting something back that’s been taken. Treat other people the way you want to be treated.
     The followers of Jesus have struggled with these teachings, because it feels as if to be faithful Christians, we have to be the doormats of the world, passive victims. What good would it do to have a thief be allowed to profit off the thievery? What good does it accomplish to let an abuser continue abusing and not have to face the consequences of what they’d done? Even if you can tolerate the abuse for yourself, an abuser rarely restricts abuse to one person or sector of their lives. Ghandi and his followers used non-violence, peaceful resistance to change India. The idea was not to submit, but not to hurt in return for hurt, or return violence for violence. India was changed, but thoughtful minds have wondered whether that would have worked in all situations. It has been pointed out that Ghandi faced those who still had an honorable code of conduct; would non-violence have succeeded against a Hitler or Stalin?
      There are no easy answers to such questions. Blessing and praying for enemies is almost easy by comparison, because it is a spiritual activity and doesn’t impact these other issues. Yet that isn’t easy either, because to truly pray and bless someone who is intent on harming us goes against out instincts. And even if we say the words, it is sometimes impossible to feel them. The irony is that we are often the only ones who experience the sword’s edge when it comes to anger or hatred. Many good people refrain from trying to hurt their enemy. But their feelings continue to acidify their lives. It was portrayed in a film that Medger Evers (a valiant fighter for civil rights who was assassinated by someone who clung to his prejudices) commented on the futility of hatred, that most of the people you hate don’t know about it and the rest don’t care. It is the individual who feels the hatred and enmity who is carrying a terrible burden. Thus the words of Jesus can be at least partially understood as a spiritually healthy exercise.
     But it would be gutless to assume that Jesus only intended his words to be a personal spiritual cleansing. He tied it with actions, actions that few of us follow that faithfully. One scholar says of verse 30 that while it might be detrimental to society to apply it literally, the saying still reminds us that it is better to err on the side of generosity.
     Jesus himself wasn’t a passive victim. He chose how he would react to the world, chose to be sacrificed because he understood it to be God’s will. He raced into the temple and threw out the money changers who were abusing the faithful people who’d come to worship.
     Lacking the wisdom of Jesus who knew when to turn the cheek and when to act, his followers will have to continuously pray and struggle with his words and not shrug them off with pat or easy answers.
     Jesus puts the specifics he’s listed into a larger context which may help in the struggle. He points out that there’s no virtue in loving only the people who love you, or doing good for people who do you good, etc. Even those who are evil or are sinners do the same.
     Put in bald terms, it profits us to be nice to the people who are nice to us. It comes naturally to us. Of course we tend to like the people who like us. Of course we want to return good for good. That part is easy, just as returning violence for violence, and hatred for hatred is easy. Jesus asked us to do what isn’t easy. That’s the way the course of human society and history can change. And Jesus pointed out that this, after all, is the way God does things. God does good for both the wicked and those who are simply ungrateful or unaware that God is doing it for them. If we want to move into a new category of spirituality, we act as true children of God.

Do you have people you would define as enemies?
Are there old grudges or angers that linger in your life?
What prayer would you make to God about your enemies?
What prayer would you make to God to be healed of your pain and anger?

Luke 6:22,26

      Last week the focus was on the beatitudes of poverty, hunger, weeping…
      This week let’s consider the fact that Jesus said blessed those who are hated, excluded, reviled or spoken ill of—for the sake of the “Son of Man.” (22) Verse 26 is similar, but saying it in the opposite form – woe to those about whom everyone speaks well, because that’s what was also said of the false prophets in the past.
      Christians would soon face persecution in the years following the death of Jesus. He knew it would happen and didn’t try to sugar-coat it. Being a master in understanding human nature, he also understood the desire to be thought well of, to have good things said about us, to be liked. Yet in looking at the history of his own people, it was not hard to find situations where this led people in the wrong direction. There had been genuine prophets – many of whom were hated or persecuted for telling the truth. There had also been prophets who tended to tell people what they wanted to hear. Naturally, they were popular.
     These beatitudes surely gave comfort to people in the days of persecution, past and present. There are still parts of the world where people are in danger because of their faith. There are circumstances where faith in Christ is safe, yet we may see in people’s eyes that they think Christians are silly, or unrealistic, or kooks, etc. A few decades ago, some Christians even went through a time when they considered it a good idea to show that they were like everyone else (trying to avoid charges of hypocrisy and self-righteousness). It can’t be denied that some Christians openly engaged in behaviors that provided a very poor witness to everything else in the Christian message. The question that was legitimately raised was – is there any point to being a Christian since it doesn’t make any difference to the way these people live?
     Ironically, in the world of the new millennium, those questions aren’t even asked very much. Some branches of Christianity have politicized themselves until they are only associated with certain viewpoints. A candidate’s faith may be debated, because they engage in still has an aura of respectability or authenticity. People accept or reject on the basis of a sound bite. Yet true Christian dialogue is almost never heard.
      Some branches of Christianity are barely known because witness has become a rarely practiced aspect of discipleship. These beatitudes become irrelevant because Christ and his followers aren’t discussed at all, in either good or bad terms.
     So the challenge of these beatitudes today may not be whether or not Christians are willing to accept persecution on behalf of Christ. It may be the question of whether Christians are willing to make their witness in such a way that genuine meaningful dialogue is possible.

What could you do that might make this beatitude apply to your life and faith?
Have you ever backed off from a word or action because you were afraid of what people would say?
What would be the danger in becoming a “popular” church?
Where are the dangers of truth telling today?