1/10/54

Scripture: Romans 1: 1-15

Text: Romans 1: 1; “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ ....”

One of the advantages of having several translations of the Holy Bible at hand for ready reference is that one may get fresh light upon the meaning of words and ideas expressed therein. Thoughtful scholars of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages, in which books of the Bible first appeared, doubtless catch much more accurately the meaning of many expressions than can the rest of us who do not understand those languages and have to rely on various translations of them into our own tongue.

As translated into English, the opening sentence of Paul’s letter to the Roman Christians begins: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ....” It reads that way in both the King James Version and the Revised Standard version of the Bible. But in the American Translation, Dr. Edgar Goodspeed translates that phrase: “Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ.”

And Dr. George Buttrick, eminent preacher, scholar and editor of the monumental “Interpreter’s Bible” agrees that the word is “slave.” Then he goes on to elaborate on what the word meant. I share with you today some of his thinking.

The word “slave” has for us today a reproachful meaning. It did not necessarily have the same connotation in a day when slavery was a generally accepted institution. The world of Paul’s day knew what the word meant. There were (1) menial slaves who were hewers of wood and drawers of water, people who did the hard work of hands and feet and muscles. There were also (2) cultured slaves; secretaries, stewards, even poets. But whatever the slave’s gifts or talents or work -- whether menial labor, or the labor of the mind -- he was bought or sold by his master; commanded and controlled by his master; commended and praised, or beaten or killed at his master’s wish or whim. In beginning his letter to the Romans, Paul uses language that they understand when he poetically identifies himself as “Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God.”

This description occurs at other points in the New Testament. It was common and accepted in the early church. It was, to them, a realistic way of speaking. The Christian was then, and is now, a slave of Christ in the deeply significant, spiritual sense.

There is a concept of freedom that has too often prevailed, disastrously, in our modern world. It is irresponsible, self-concerned, heedless of fellow-man or of God, in the long run anarchistic. With this concept of freedom the dedication or commitment of a Christian to Jesus Christ is at violent odds.

The employer resolves to keep his business, manufacturing or commercial affair in the system of “free” enterprise. The employee resolves to be “free” of any oppression by the owners. Perhaps neither group fully realizes that neither can be free while strife lasts.

The communist talks of “democracy” and “freedom” apparently meaning a kind of liberty for what he calls the working class, only to straight-jacket the worker into a new pattern of obedience, annihilate all other so-called classes, and build a new and more rigid dictatorship. We who abhor communism are caught in a reaction against it, and all its workings, that easily grows to hysterical proportions in all too many of us. Someone says, “I think I smell smoke,” and without waiting for honest investigation, thousands of fearful minds yell “fire!” On this hate-weary planet, “free” nations are determined to hold their freedom, but are meanwhile still in bondage to the fear of war.

We have had proposed to us, and have proclaimed “the four freedoms” and most of us have not asked of ourselves the necessary questions, the answers to which put the essential meaning into these freedoms.

We talk of “freedom of religion.” Hitler claimed it; and substituted the swastika for the cross. The Soviets claim it, substitute the hammer and sickle for the cross, and the head of the party for Christ, and tolerate only those expressions of religion which will come to heel at the party government. Cruel and even obscene instincts have been let loose by some religions. What about our own? I do not mean the religion of Jesus Christ, but rather that which we hold in our own souls.

What do we mean by “freedom of speech?” We rightly deny it to a man or woman who would, by it, incite his followers to overturn our government by force. Complete “freedom of speech” with no discipline, no restraint, no control, no ethical or responsible standards, would be bedlam.

Too many modern folk are committed to “freedom of speech” without knowing what they mean, while the Christian freely chooses to be “the slave of Christ.”

One man considers it his rightful freedom to jostle or even kill his neighbor; to assassinate the character and destroy the good reputation of another without let or hindrance. The Christian in his freedom is bound by his “slavery” to the will of One who commands us to consider one another as brothers. Buttrick says the difference may be this: modern man has his eye on the external threat (poverty, sickness, subversion, armed aggression and so on) while the Christian, though concerned with the outer menace, keeps his eye on the enemy within himself.

Christian faith may go farther, and say that the external threat is the work of men who have suffered internal defeat, and thus our prime concern is with the inward foe. We were saddened and affronted that a score of Americans who were made prisoners of war in the Korean conflict chose to believe the propaganda of the enemy. But we should be less concerned with the sorrowful fact that those who remained there were to be classified as AWOL and then as deserters, than with what has been happening in their souls!

And, for that matter, though we are rightfully concerned with the aggression of physical force and even worse the aggression of ideology of the communists, ought we not as Christians be even more concerned for the soul of the communist himself? Is not this required by the Christ to whom we belong, when he says “love your enemies ---- pray for them which despitefully use you”? We are to see behind the overt acts and the loud-mouthed propaganda, with primary concern for that which motivates within the aggressor and the propagandist.

The mammon-worshipper insists that he be free to place his trust where he will. But his face is hard as Scrooge, token of the prison walls that have closed him in.

If every man is free, each man’s hand may be against his neighbor’s, unless there be some rule which all will honor; in which case no man is unrestrictedly free -- at least not free from God.

Perhaps herein is the truth of Christian dedication. It may be that the only freedom is to be the slave of Christ. Buttrick says: “Write this across the skies: that freedom is not leave to do as we like, for that is slavery to our own likes and whims, and makes a thousand civil wars; freedom is not even obligation to do as we ought, for that word, however noble, would spell coercion; but freedom is that consent in us together with the power and ability to fulfill our true nature.”

If we are ever to know true freedom, or understand its meaning, we must know something about our nature and destiny. A bird is free in the air. A fish is free in the water. What is our proper element? Is it Christ? If so, then the only free man on earth would be the “slave of Christ!” This was the claim of Jesus Christ: “If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.”

So then we come to the question: Does Christ fulfill our human nature? There may be some, and I fear there are, whose Christianity makes of them a deformity; who think of Christ as an inhibitor that interferes with, gets in the way of, one’s liberty to do as he wishes. But when Paul writes: “Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ” he has volunteered for this bond service, is glad about it, ready to acknowledge it freely.

In those days, a slave might be offered his freedom by a master who wished to show an extraordinary appreciation. But, on occasion, a slave who was so offered his freedom might say to his master, “But I have no wish to leave you.” Thereupon the master would, at the slave’s desire, brand him with the owner’s mark. Paul says: “Let no man trouble me” (that is, let none other claim me) “for I bear branded on my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.”

What kind of Lord can kindle that kind of love? Well, this kind of Lord had bought Paul out of degrading secret slavery. Paul had a conscience, like the rest of us. He had taken the old Hebrew law as a transcript of what conscience should require, and he tried to keep that law. But he failed even with a poor transcript, like the rest of us. There always was something he had not done. Paul had flogged himself within. Then he began to flog his fellow men outwardly. It took a while for it to dawn on him that he persecuted the Christians because they had the secret that he knew he lacked! Failure was his memory, and the more he flogged himself the more he felt the pain of failure.

Then Christ found him, by the cross, through followers who were the “slaves of Christ.” Paul contemplated the cross and found that the heart of this world is not restrictive law, but love -- the very Love that sent Jesus into human history to live thus, and thus to die.

Then Paul said, I do not need to strive or agonize over failure. The strife and agony are caught up into Christ’s love, and I need only to trust Him and let Him live through me. Then he began to sign himself “Slave of Christ.”

(2) This kind of Lord had bought Paul and therefore controlled him. “Ransomed from the law of sin and death” is Paul’s phrase. “The love of Christ constraineth us,” said he. That is, “controls us.”

Amusements thereafter? Surely! Life’s necessary respite, but only such as can bear Christ’s eyes. Daily labor? Of course! One must carry his or her share of the world’s labor, but only in such way, and of such kind, as Christ may approve.

“Love so amazing, so divine, demands my life, my soul, my all.”

So Paul went his way with greater joy, being the slave of Christ.

(3) This kind of Lord never asked what He did not share. An emperor of Russia, of olden time, said to his followers: “I cannot spare you the battle, but I can eat black bread with you, and lie with you on the hard ground.” Christ, himself the servant of Jehovah, said to his listeners out of some desperate encounter, “The slave is not above his lord.” So Paul was well content.

Paul still failed, but his Lord had taught him to pray: “Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts.” God gave him his daily portion with lavish spirit. And he was free of slavery to the lusts of the flesh, to mammon, and every other secret foe. Being inwardly free, he had the power to stand against every outward tyranny.

It is worth remembering that men are inwardly free only as they are inwardly bound to God in Christ. There is no other liberty vital enough to cope with communism or any other black threat. We had better gather the real armaments of the spirit!

Some here in this room call themselves Christian, with whatever sense of unworthiness, and do not let unworthiness keep them from membership in the church -- the Christian family. For the church, properly understood, is a home for spiritual failures, a fellowship for forgiven folk; -- sinners, yes, but redeemed by their Lord and Master.

The cross, worn about some necks on a chain, or carried in some pockets or wallets, is both a sign of our dependence on Christ’s mercy and should be also a sign of our response to His mercy. A generation ago, Charles M. Sheldon wrote a stirring book that became famous, the title of which was “In His Steps.” The guiding principle suggested by the book was an honest inquiry: “What would Jesus do if he were in my place now?”

We have since come to feel that that inquiry is not enough. For we are not Jesus, nor can we be him even if he stand in our shoes. Instead, after the humbling experience of seeing two wars crash down our cocksureness, we do better to ask: “What would Jesus have me do?” We shall not always know, for our eyes are dim and our understanding only partially illuminated. But if we are even only poorly faithful, we begin to show forth the cross in our life.

Christianity is not a success story. Its Savior did not rise from carpenter to king. But he comes from a throne to the poverty of our souls; and the slave is not above his Lord. Yet our slavery to Him is freedom. It is perhaps worth saying that we shall not reach freedom by tinkering with our complexes, or seeking our own little “peace of mind.” Because as long as the tinkering lasts, we are still self-entangled. And no man is free until he is free from himself. Our free nature, then is in Christ.

The prayer book of a liturgical church is right at the point where it says, “Whose service is perfect freedom.”

This word is not against psychiatry. It is for a deeper psychiatry; for we need a doctor of the mind as a doctor of the body. No one pleads with you and me this day. Christ is his own plea. But if your freedom and mine is like that of the tuning up process in an orchestra where each instrumentalist plays as he feels free to do without regard for what the tuba, the tympanist, the cellist or the oboe player is doing at the moment, the time had better come presently, when we all play together under the will of the conductor. That’s the only way the symphony come forth.

As the violinist, the flutist, and each other player becomes the slave of the conductor, he becomes the musician he wants to be. So it is with any Christian, and all Christians. The church is for us sinners who may become slaves of Christ and thereby help make his church the fellowship of saints. As the child said after seeing a stained glass window, “A saint is someone the light shines through.”

------------

Dates and Places delivered:

Wisconsin Rapids, January 10, 1954

Wisconsin Rapids, January 15, 1961