Tonight we're going to be talking about employer-employee relationships primarily,

but I want to say just a preliminary word about state and citizen.

State and citizen.

Partly because the relationship is in many ways very similar.

Not identical, but very similar.

And I think it will build the case that we've been making

for the general similarity between all authority relationships biblically.

Also,

that in this particular area, in this particular church,

for so many of us,

state and citizen and employer and employee

turns out to be the same thing anyway.

So,

I hope you'll take notes on this, Billy.

Also,

because as we saw last week and the week before,

the state has authority,

we know it pragmatically, but we also recognize it biblically,

the state

has authority to interpose its will upon us above that of our employer.

If the state says,

I'm sorry,

no matter how much you like that job,

Uncle Sam needs you,

you get up and move.

And so I want to recognize that just for a moment this evening by way of introduction.

It seems to me that the statement in the Declaration of Independence bears looking at for a moment.

It's quite a remarkable statement.

It says, we hold these truths to be self-evident.

That men are endowed by their Creator with certain rights.

Their inalienable rights is the language of the Declaration.

And then it says that to secure these rights,

governments are instituted among men.

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

And then at the bottom of the Declaration,

its summary statement is,

we therefore, the representatives of the United States of America,

in general Congress assembled,

appealing to the supreme judge of the world

for the rectitude of our intentions,

do solemnly and publicly declare our independence.

That's a very, very interesting statement.

I think in one sense it's an inadequate statement

because biblically it is not,

in fact, enough to say

that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed.

That's not enough.

Where they get their authority is from conformity to the will of God.

However, implicit in the Declaration of Independence

is the assumption that the consent of the governed,

at least in this instance,

is itself in conformity to God's word by virtue of the way in which the declaration concludes.

We appeal to the supreme judge of the world.

So it's two levels of authority.

The government gets its authority from the governed who in turn are making their appeal to God

and implicitly saying his word stands behind our consent.

There are two very difficult questions that one might want to ask of the framers of the Declaration.

One, were the American revolutionaries correct in their assessment of Britain's offenses?

In other words,

was it so bad, was it such an abrogation of God's will on the part of Britain

that the revolutionaries were justified in overthrowing the government or in attempting to?

A very complicated question.

We could disagree with them philosophically on that point and still agree with the general thesis of their appeal.

Secondly,

why was there no similar call for revolt in biblical times,

either Old or New Testament,

when the governments were so much more offensive,

so much more oppressive?

And that's an argument from silence.

I'm not going to get into either of those questions.

I would just say those would be two very difficult questions to raise,

and the point being that one might end up being very sympathetic to the cause,

and yet perhaps unwilling to bear arms to defend it.

However,

the point of going into all of this

is I just want us to note that the form of the appeal,

the form of that statement,

is a marvelous example of the thing that we've been trying to say

in the last couple of weeks.

An illustration of the legitimacy

and the limit to legitimacy

of those in authority.

So what's being said here is governments have the right to govern. They have

the right to impose their will on the citizens up to the point where they, in turn,

are offending

against God,

where they're commanding what he's forbidden or forbidding what he's commanded,

at which point the framers of the Declaration say their authority ends.

We're appealing to a higher

authority.

We recognize the legitimacy of government.

Its purpose is to protect and care

for and nurture the citizenry,

but if it in fact turns its back on those very purposes

and offends against God's Word written,

then we appeal beyond government to a higher authority.

It's a marvelous example of the thing that we've been trying to say.

Whether or not,

whether or not you agree with the specifics.

The form of the declaration

is a perfect example.

Let's summarize that.

The responsibility of the state

is to protect its citizens.

Romans 13.

This is the passage with which we began

the whole series two weeks ago.

Romans 13 and verse 3

makes this assertion that

rulers are not a terror

to good conduct,

but to bad.

In spite of the fact that many rulers

may,

in fact,

abuse their authority,

may abuse their power,

the generalization is

that rulers are not set in place

to terrorize those of good conduct,

but to carry clout with those of bad conduct.

That's their purpose.

They are to keep those who would be bad citizens

from exercising their bad influence within the society.

That's their purpose.

Over in 1 Timothy 2,

we read this.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications,

prayers,

intercessions, and thanksgivings

be made for all men.

For all men.

for kings and all who are in high positions

that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life.

So we pray for all men, but especially for kings,

presidents,

congressmen,

people in high authority.

And why?

That we might lead a quiet and peaceable life.

Again,

implicitly saying the purpose of government

is to protect the tranquility of its citizens.

And we would pray for those in authority over us,

even if they don't confess to any relationship with Jesus Christ whatsoever.

If they are totally secular people,

we still pray for them in the exercise of their authority,

because even though they might abuse it in specific detail,

the general reason that God has allowed them into authority

is to provide for our peaceable life.

notice what he goes on to say

the next sentence

very interesting transition

godly and respectful in every way

this is good

and is acceptable

in the sight of God our Savior

who desires all men to be saved

and to come to the knowledge of the truth

what's he saying?

that basically speaking

the gospel will have a better chance

of flourishing

where the society is at peace

than where it's in an uproar

Now,

again, we know for a fact that sometimes the blood of the martyrs has been the seat of the church,

that where the church has been the direct object of persecution,

the Christians have dug in their heels and taken courage and confidence in God

and have nonetheless made it.

But by and large, the generalization holds that the church will flourish better

and the gospel will be advanced and people will be more able to respond to the claims of Christ

where the government is doing the work

of providing protection and tranquility for its citizens.

And so he says we pray for those in authority,

for all men, but especially for kings

and those in positions of high authority over us.

Again, I remind you that this is written in the days of Nero,

when Christians are being thrown to the lions,

burned at the stake, crucified for their faith.

And when Paul himself is facing imminent death,

for his faith.

And yet he says we pray for the king.

Implicitly, obviously, we pray for his salvation

amongst other things.

But even apart from that, we pray for him in the exercise of his authority

as king,

as governor,

that he might have wisdom, that he might govern righteously,

whether or not

he knows Christ.

And as a matter of fact, that phrase, first of all,

is probably better translated

as a matter of very first importance.

Paul is saying there's nothing more important,

nothing more important than to be praying with a view toward the society as a whole,

in particular supportively of those in government.

There's been a lot of controversy in the last few

years over the revision of the prayer book in the Episcopal Church.

I've never previously said this,

but I think it's appropriate to say my own personal biggest bone of contention,

basically I like the new prayer book,

but the biggest criticism that I would offer against it

is that in both rite one and rite two, the form of morning prayer has removed the prayer for the

President of the United States.

You can find it in the back of the book somewhere.

But it's a matter

of first importance that we should be praying for our leaders in government.

I want you to see that

that's a Christian responsibility.

And Paul is saying it's of the very first importance that we

would be supportive,

even if there are abuses of those in government authority over us.

We'd be

praying obviously for their salvation,

but also for their wisdom and for their righteousness,

that we in turn might be the recipients of a tranquil society.

And why?

Because amongst other things the gospel will flourish better under those conditions than under others.

So by implication that tells us something about the role of government.

The responsibility to protect entails an authority to impose sanctions.

You know that is always true.

You don't have responsibility without a concomitant authority.

Biblically, the responsibility to protect entails an authority to enforce the sanctions of your will.

I'm not going to develop this at great length, but just very quickly,

This means for governments,

even secular governments,

a legitimacy to penalty.

Penalty up to and including capital punishment,

biblically.

You may argue with that on humanistic grounds,

but I want us to understand biblically,

capital punishment is within the prerogative of government.

It is part of the penal system that is legitimized in terms of the authority to carry out the responsibility.

There are two kinds of penalties,

two kinds of crimes,

biblically.

There are capital crimes, on the one hand,

such things as murder,

as rape,

as blasphemy under certain conditions,

because it's the worst of all sins.

From that flows everything else, witchcraft and so on.

In the Old Testament, there is a certain category of crimes and sins that are punishable by death.

Everything less than that is punishable primarily in terms of repayment to the person offended.

In other words, I haven't killed anybody,

but I've stolen from you.

The government has the right now to exact punishment upon me, but my punishment is not

to the government.

It's to you.

You're the one I've robbed, not the government.

And so the government uses its authority to compel me to pay you back.

And here's where we begin to

get the thesis of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and so on. It's a matter of paying back

to the person that I've offended the amount that I've done wrong against him.

In some cases,

more than that.

It might be twice as much or even four times as much. But the point being,

it's back to you rather than to some abstraction of government. It's very interesting to notice this.

We think we've come so much farther,

you know, those primitive Hebrews.

Go back and read the

book of Leviticus.

You'll find it absolutely horrible,

boring as can be,

if you try to apply

you personally.

That's not what it was written for.

Think through what would this mean if I could

translate it out of a nomadic society,

pre-industrial era,

into a contemporary American situation.

What would it mean,

not in terms of me as an individual,

what would it mean in terms of

government.

I think you'd be astonished at how up-to-date it is.

We think we've come so far,

but it's so much simpler and cleaner and to the point.

We've come to the point now where we would throw a person into jail,

incarcerate him for X number

of months or years,

running the risk of 60 to 80 percent chance that he will go back once he's

released,

running roughly 60% of the chance that he's going to become homosexual while he's in jail,

and costing, as Tom Skinner told us on Sunday,

something in the neighborhood of $18,000 to $20,000

a year to take care of him whilst he's there. Meanwhile,

the person that he's offended gets

nothing out of the bargain.

Old Testament says if he's offended against somebody, he pays that person

back.

And in order to do that, we don't throw him in jail and tax the guy that he's robbed in

to keep him in jail.

Instead,

we insist that he go to work,

that he might pay the guy back.

Which one has come the further?

The lesser penalties

that the government might impose

are designed, as I say,

to reimburse the injured party,

and the legal formula

of an eye for an eye,

a tooth for a tooth, and so on,

is really a limit.

a limit rather than a requirement.

It's saying,

okay, I've stolen from you.

Instead of you getting all your friends and relatives together

and come have a little raiding party on my family,

and then I get all my family together

and we come and devastate you,

and we have the Hatfields and the McCoys back and forth,

it says there's a limit to this.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, period.

Now the claim is settled.

It's over.

And that's the role of government,

is to protect its citizenry in that form.

Notice that in Jesus'

treatment of the same thing,

he sets the limits even further back.

He says you can afford to turn the other cheek.

You don't need even to exact as much as an eye for an eye.

You may afford to permit yourself to be defrauded.

Well,

so on.

The two-fold principle that emerges out of this, if we had the time to develop it,

is once again the very same thing that we've seen previously.

On the one hand, the state is to be protecting its citizens against abrogations of God's will,

and the citizens are to be obedient to their rulers and supportive of them

up to the point of the state contradicting what God has said.

So it's exactly the same thing that we've seen in terms of parent-child and husband and wife.

Mutual but not reciprocal relationships.

State is to be protecting its citizens.

Citizens are to be supportive of the state.

That's the first generalization.

Second,

the state's authority ends at the point where it would begin to command what God has forbidden

or forbid what God has commanded.

You begin to see the consistency of this picture of authority in terms of all of the relationships that we're discussing.

That much by way of background then, I want to move basically into employer and employee.

And I want us to look at Philemon.

I know some of you have studied this.

We touched on it briefly in terms of the book of Colossians.

Philemon is the very short letter

just before the book of Hebrews

if you were with me in Timothy

we go 1st Timothy,

2nd Timothy, Titus

and then we come to Philemon

I used to have a men's early breakfast Bible study at St.

Stephen's Church.

We met weekly and one morning we were studying Philemon

and in came the junior warden about five minutes late.

And I said,

good morning,

bud.

I said, we're just studying the book of Philemon.

Have you read it?

He said,

not all the way.

Philemon is an absolutely delightful little book.

The marvelous thing is that it's really a detective story.

You have to read between the lines to figure out what the real plot is.

It's a letter written by Paul to the man named Philemon,

who was,

in fact, a member of the church of Colossae.

We figure that out by cross-referencing some of the names that are mentioned in the two books.

It turns out that Philemon is a real leader in the community.

He's obviously a wealthy man.

It speaks of the church meeting in his house,

verse 2.

And he's also more than that, obviously a man who really is functioning as an elder.

It's not just that he's opening up his house,

but he's in a position of responsibility.

He may in fact be the pastor of the church.

He wasn't ordained in that sense.

They didn't have those categories,

but he may well have been functioning as a kind of a lay pastor over the Colossian church.

Notice in verses 5 to 7 that Paul commends him for his faith and for his love.

He says,

I thank my God when I remember you in my prayers because I hear of your love and the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and all the saints.

And I pray that the sharing of your faith may promote the knowledge of all the good that is ours in Christ.

For I've derived much joy and comfort from your love, my brother,

because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you.

So he's about to have some very serious things to say to Philemon, but he begins by saying,

you know, I really respect and I praise God for your ministry.

You're a man of no little love and

no little faith,

and as a matter of fact, that's benefited not only me,

but the Christians in

Colossae.

Philemon is also a man who has slaves.

Now, we need to be aware of the fact that when

the Scripture talks about slaves, again,

both Old and New Testament.

It's not exactly the same thing

as slavery was here in America.

Slaves had a number of very important legal rights that were

guaranteed them.

For instance,

they were to be circumcised,

which is a mark of being members

of the covenant.

They had a definitely lower status in terms of their job description,

but not in terms of their personhood.

In terms of their relationship with God,

they were equally members of the covenant with any free man.

Secondly, they had family solidarity.

You couldn't split up a family.

No matter how much indentured servanthood you had,

you could not say,

husband go here and wife go here.

They had the right to be a family together

and that included responsibility

for the raising of their own minor children.

They had religious privileges.

They could observe the holy days.

They could observe

Sabbath day's rest.

They earned, for the most part, they earned wages or sometimes it was a matter of

earning the equivalent of wages to pay back a debt.

They had definite legal protection from any harsh

or excessive punishment.

And so really what we have to consider them is indentured servants rather

than slaves in the American sense.

One of the slaves of this man Philemon was named Onesimus.

And as a matter of fact, Onesimus is the bearer of this letter from Paul back to Philemon.

He also

is apparently the bearer of the letter of Colossians itself.

Paul was in prison at the time.

He wrote a general letter to the whole church at Colossae.

We call it the Epistle to the Colossians.

He then also wrote a private letter marked, for your eyes only,

to Philemon.

And he sent them both back by Onesimus.

As we begin to read between the lines, what we discover is that Onesimus is a runaway.

He was a slave who,

for some reason,

we don't know for sure,

decided he didn't want any more of his servanthood and ran away.

He ran away to Paul.

We assume that that was deliberate.

He sought Paul out,

and we can only speculate as to why.

It may have been that he wanted to appeal to Paul against his master Philemon.

Say, Paul,

you came to Colossae, you ministered amongst us,

and I see that you are a just man and I want to

make my case to you,

that doggone Philemon is just the worst kind of a master,

and would you please

intervene?

He respects you, he acknowledges your authority,

and if you would just say the word,

things would get easier for me.

That may be what he had in mind.

It may be,

secondly, that he saw

in Paul somebody who would sanction his freedom.

Paul comes in preaching a gospel of liberation,

And it may be that rather than having to adjust circumstances back at home with Philemon,

Paul would have said,

praise God,

brother,

you're now a Christian,

consider yourself free.

It may be that he simply wanted to go and understand the gospel more fully.

That for some reason Philemon hadn't explained it,

and he said,

the most important thing in my life is to go and find that man Paul,

because he's got something I want.

It's even possible that he bumped into Paul by accident.

We don't know for sure.

It's conceivable that that's the case.

But it appears to be deliberate on his part.

Verse 8.

Paul says,

accordingly,

writing to Philemon,

Though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required,

I am,

in fact, an apostle whose authority, even though I'm in prison,

and you're there on the scene,

I'm absent from you.

Nonetheless,

you know,

Philemon,

that I speak

with the authority of Christ and I have the right to command you as a Christian to obedience.

Yet,

he says,

for love's sake,

I won't.

I prefer to appeal to you.

What an appeal.

I, Paul,

an ambassador and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus,

I appeal to you for my child Onesimus,

whose father I have become in my imprisonment.

What's happened?

Whatever reason Onesimus came to Paul,

it worked.

He got the gospel right between the eyes and he gave his life to Christ.

He says,

Onesimus has become,

spiritually speaking, my child.

even here in prison.

Formerly he was useless to you

but now he is indeed useful to you

and to me.

That's a play on words.

Most of you probably have a footnote

if you have the RSV.

The very name Onesimus

means useful.

But in fact, Paul says,

he didn't live up to his name.

He was not a very good servant.

He may have had complaints against you

but it's obvious that you have

some legitimate complaints against him,

at the very least, he ran away.

And you have a claim against

him.

Formerly, he was useless.

He didn't live up to his name.

But now he has become useful.

Now he

will be what his name claims him to be.

And so Paul says,

verse 12,

and this is the shock of the

letter.

I'm sending him back to you, sending my very heart.

You begin to see the appeal.

He says,

I could command you.

I'm just going to appeal, but watch the appeal.

It's just like,

you know,

I'm an ambassador,

a prisoner for Christ Jesus,

and you know how much you owe me.

I'm sending my very heart.

This man matters to me. I love him. He's become my child and my

imprisonment.

Now,

I'm not going to command you,

but I'm sending my very self.

I would have been

glad to keep him with me in order that he might serve me on your behalf.

I mean, I know you didn't

really send him,

but he belongs to you. I could have kept him here, and I would have taken that

as a gift from you,

Philemon.

But I prefer to do nothing without your consent in order that your

goodness might not be by compulsion,

but of your own free will.

Now, we get to the real heart of it.

Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while,

that you might have him back forever,

no longer as a slave,

but more than a slave as a beloved brother,

especially to me,

But how much more to you,

both in the flesh and in the Lord?

So if you consider me your partner,

receive him as you would receive me.

And if he's wronged you at all or owes you anything,

charge that to my account.

Again,

reading between the lines,

one suspects that he not only ran away,

but he took a little bit of money with him when he went.

Charge that to my account, says Paul.

I, Paul, write this with my own hand.

I will repay it,

not to mention the fact that you owe me your own salvation,

your very self.

But if you want to hold that against Onesimus,

I'll pay it back.

I don't know how I'm going to do that.

I'm in prison,

but if I ever get out,

I'll pay it back.

Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord.

Refresh my heart in Christ.

Confident of your obedience,

I write to you knowing that you will do even more than I say.

Paul does have a way of making a point,

doesn't he?

At the same time, prepare a guest room for me,

for I'm hoping through your prayers to be granted to you.

What do we get out of this story?

Paul says to Onesimus, you've become a Christian.

In Jesus Christ,

yes,

you are a free man.

But does that mean now that you can walk away from your indentured servanthood?

just say Christ has made me a free man

I'm no longer under bondage to the law

I just cross out all of that relationship

I turn over a new leaf

and I'm going to go start a new chapter in my life

not at all

Paul says Onesimus

it is your responsibility

to go back and face the music

whatever it might be

and then he turns right around

and addresses Philemon

and once again what we see is

the requirements being put on the one in authority

are greater than the requirements being put on the one under authority.

It's a marvelous case study.

He says, Philemon, you've got every sort of legitimate claim against this man.

He's a runaway slave.

He's stolen from you.

He's broken his covenant.

He's been a bad actor all the way.

He was obviously a bad servant.

He didn't live up to his name.

He was untrustworthy.

Take him back.

Not only give him another chance as a servant,

receive him as a brother.

Receive him as you would receive me.

Cancel the debt against him.

Give him your love.

Which one has the heavier responsibility?

Onesimus is to go back and face the music,

whatever it might be.

It's possible, you see, that Philemon won't live up.

to what Paul suggests.

Philemon,

on the other hand,

is to treat Onesimus as a brother

even if he continues for a while

to exhibit these rather bad patterns of behavior.

Once again, what we see

is mutual responsibilities

but not reciprocal,

not 50-50.

Philemon, treat him this way

if he lives up to your expectations.

Philemon, treat him this way anyway.

Treat him as you would treat me.

Treat him, as a matter of fact,

as you would treat the Lord.

Onesimus, go back there and face the music.

I suspect,

there's absolutely no way I can know for sure,

but I just suspect that Onesimus never saw this letter

until after Philemon got it.

I just have that feeling that Paul would have said,

here's your responsibility.

You go back and accept it.

regardless of how Philemon behaves.

Can't prove that, of course.

But we see the same exact pattern.

Parents are to treat your children

with love, with compassion

as the Lord has treated you

even if they're bad children.

Children, on the other hand,

be responsive to your parents

as you would be to the Lord himself.

Husbands, love your wives

with the very same quality of compassion

as Jesus Christ loved the church.

Not only when she's being

the lovely, submissive, helpful,

supportive helper

that you wish she would be,

but even when she's not.

Especially when she's not.

Not 50-50.

100%.

But wives,

be responsive and supportive

and submissive to your husband

as unto the Lord,

not only when he's acting like the Lord,

but when he bears very little resemblance

to him.

Not 50%, 100%. Exactly the same thing now.

The state is to behave toward its citizens

with the compassion and the protection and the guaranteeing of the rights and the needs that

are theirs as the Lord himself would, even if they're bad citizens.

Citizens are to be responsive

to the state and supportive of it in praying for their rulers,

even if the rulers abuse their power.

Employers are to treat their servants with the compassion and the care that the Lord Jesus himself exercises over each one of us,

even if they're very bad servants.

And servants in turn are to be responsive to their employers as unto the Lord.

Do you see that?

Do you see what I'm saying?

Let's move from the example to the generalization.

We turn back to Ephesians chapter 6.

we see exactly this spelled out

in verse 5 and following

and in fact he's just been speaking

additionally of husbands and wives

and children and parents

but we come to verse 5

slaves

be obedient to those who are

your earthly masters

with fear and trembling

in singleness of heart

as to Christ.

It doesn't say if and to the extent that

your masters behave like Christ,

be responsive to them

as you would to Christ himself.

Not in the way of eye service

as men pleasers,

not just appearing to be a good servant,

you see,

but as servants of Christ,

doing the will of God from the heart,

rendering service with a goodwill as to the Lord and not to men,

knowing that whatever good anyone does,

he will receive the same again from the Lord,

whether he is a slave or free.

That's the servant's responsibility.

Then he turns right around and says to the master,

do the same to them and forbear threatening,

knowing that he who is both their master and yours is in heaven

and that there is no partiality with him.

And so here we have the balance.

What this all works out to, I'm ready to summarize.

I want to make two final points, but let's just draw it all together at this point.

The one under authority,

regardless of the relationship now,

the one under authority,

be it children to parents,

wives to husbands,

citizens to their government,

or employees to their employer.

The one under authority is to be responsive to the one in authority as unto the Lord himself.

To treat that one in authority as we would treat Jesus Christ himself.

Let me ask you this.

I said last week to the wives, would it make a difference if you were married to Jesus?

And he were the one asking you to carry out the garbage or do the dishes or clean the house or whatever it was.

that he asked you to do.

Would it make a difference?

Of course it would.

Of course it would.

Doing it for him would dignify

the most menial of tasks,

the most thankless.

I mean, what we want,

don't we?

We want to do something significant.

It's not so much what we do

or how hard it is

or how dirty it is,

but what the significance is

that's attached to that role.

And if it's Jesus Christ himself

asking me to do something,

That elevates it to the very highest vocation,

doesn't it?

That's exactly what's being asked of the wife.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands as to the Lord.

See the thing that your husband is asking of you

as being the will of Jesus Christ for you.

Allow it to be dignified to that level.

Exactly the same thing now is being said to the employee.

and we raise exactly the same question.

Would it make a difference to you

if it were Jesus Christ,

who is your employer,

asking you to go get him a cup of coffee

or to sharpen his pencil

or to take second place

when somebody else who you think is less qualified

gets first place

or to live at a certain level of remuneration

when you think you deserve a raise?

You know, would it make a difference?

Of course it would.

Of course it would.

It would dignify the whole character of our job.

That's exactly what the New Testament is saying.

Allow yourself to see the one in authority

as being the Lord Himself.

Now, there is a limit to that.

We've observed it.

We've observed it over and over again.

Should He come and command you to do something

that is a violation of the will of God

as expressed in Scripture,

At that point, you've got to say no.

It's not a matter of having the right to say no.

It's a responsibility to say no

because I'm responsible to a higher authority.

But apart from that,

that I would choose to treat my employer

as if he were Jesus Christ.

I just allow that to captivate your imagination.

That I would go to work tomorrow morning

and treat my boss as if he were Jesus Christ.

not only when he's acting like it,

which may be very seldom,

but when he's least like it,

that I would seek to serve him,

to please him,

to honor him,

to satisfy his needs,

to glorify his job,

to give him the credit,

as I would to Christ.

That's the responsibility of the one under authority.

But now,

if you're the one in authority,

and you're a Christian,

what is your responsibility?

It's to act like Christ.

The one under authority is to treat the one in authority

as if he were Christ.

The one in authority is to act like Christ.

In every one of these relationships,

that's exactly what we've seen.

Parents are to treat their children

with the father love of God

to behave toward their children

as God behaves as our heavenly Father toward us.

Husbands are to treat their wives

with the husband love of Christ for the church.

And employers are to treat their employees

with the compassion,

the care, the sensitivity

of the Master who is God.

It says, Masters,

realize that you have a Master in heaven.

How has He treated you?

He hasn't been harsh.

He's been compassionate.

He's been understanding.

He's been forgiving.

He's allowed you to make all manner of mistakes.

He's covered up for you.

See if you can do the same thing for your employee.

You see what I'm saying?

The one under authority is to treat the one in authority

as if you were the Lord Himself.

The one in authority is to act like the Lord Himself.

Now, if you think I'm making that up,

I want us to turn to Colossians.

Remember, this is the book

that went with Onesimus,

the general letter,

back to that same church.

Chapter 3,

and I want to read you this from the J.B.

Phillips translation.

You follow along,

it'll be slightly different and I think a little bit more explicit.

Chapter 3, 22-24.

Slaves, servants,

employees,

your job is to obey your masters,

not with the idea of currying favor,

but as a sincere expression

of your devotion to the Lord.

Whatever you do,

put your whole heart and soul into it,

as into work done for the Lord

and not merely for men,

knowing that your real reward,

a heavenly one,

will come from the Lord

since you are actually employed

by the Lord Christ

and not just by your earthly master.

Isn't that a fantastic statement?

Since you are actually employed by the Lord Christ

and not just by your earthly master.

I want to notice two more things finally in closing.

Matthew chapter 8.

Starting with verse 5.

Jesus entered Capernaum,

and a centurion came forward to him,

beseeching him and saying,

Lord,

my servant is lying paralyzed at home in terrible distress.

And he said to him, I will come and heal him.

But the centurion answered him,

Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof,

but only say the word,

and my servant will be healed.

Now this is a Roman,

a Gentile,

not a Jew.

Centurion means that he's in authority as a Roman soldier over a hundred other men.

For I am a man under authority,

says in verse 9,

with soldiers under me.

And I say to one, go.

And he goes.

And to another, come.

And he comes.

And to my slave,

do this.

And he does it.

Jump.

And he asks, how high on the way up?

When Jesus heard him,

he marveled.

And he said to those who followed him,

Truly I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.

I tell you, many will come from east and west

and sit at table with Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob

in the kingdom of heaven,

while the sons of the kingdom

will be thrown into the outer darkness,

and there men will weep and gnash their teeth.

He said to the centurion,

Go, be done for you as you have believed.

Take note of Jesus'

superlatives.

When he says,

I haven't found faith such as this

in all of Israel,

sit up and notice.

The preeminent,

superlative example of faith,

in the words of Jesus Himself,

is disciplined obedience to legitimate authority.

The superlative example of understanding what faith is,

is disciplined obedience to legitimate authority.

The centurion says, I understand authority.

I'm under it,

and I also exercise it.

Authority says, do this,

and it gets done.

Now, I recognize you as having authority.

What you say will get done.

I think there's a parable here for our understanding of faith.

If we would be faithful men and women,

we need to have that same understanding of disciplined obedience to legitimate authority.

Notice that faith expresses itself in obedience to human authorities.

I say to him, do it, and he does it.

And the final passage is in 1 Peter 2.

Verse 18 to 20.

Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect,

not only to the kind and gentle, but also to the overbearing.

For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly.

One can anticipate that his boss may not always be perfectly just,

may make mistakes, may even make deliberate impositions that are unjust.

One is approved if mindful of God.

He will endure that.

For what credit is it if when you do wrong and are beaten for it,

you take it patiently?

Nothing particularly noble about being punished if you deserve it.

but if when you do right

you suffer for it

and you take it patiently

you have God's approval

for this you have been called

because Christ also suffered for you

leaving you an example

that you should follow in his steps

he committed no sin

no guile was found on his lips

when reviled he didn't revile in return

and so on

he himself bore our sins in his body

on the tree

three final things out of this passage.

One,

we're to look beyond our employer

to our ultimate approval from God.

We've just said the servant is employed actually by the Lord Christ

and not just by his earthly master.

Let's keep that self-consciously in mind.

Paul says in Romans,

we stand or fall before God.

The Christian pledges to an audience of one.

We're interested in pleasing Christ,

even above currying favor from our employer.

Should we find ourselves in His disfavor,

our ultimate board of appeal is God Himself.

Let's keep our eyes in the right place.

Look beyond the employer for our ultimate approval to God.

Secondly, let's trust that He,

God, will,

in fact, vindicate our faithfulness.

It may not be immediate.

It may not be in precisely the way that we expect it or desire it.

But that's the promise that is here.

The just shall live by faith.

They will be vindicated.

If we're truly just, we will be vindicated.

And here as elsewhere,

faithfulness in small things

will lead to being trusted with greater things.

And finally,

notice that in this instance,

the cross itself,

becomes the preeminent example

for the employee.

The very center of our faith

is here imposed deliberately,

explicitly on our job.

It's the example for the employee.

And that makes our work,

no matter how unrewarding it might seem,

a distinctly Christian endeavor.

a distinctly Christian endeavor.

Paul is saying,

Jesus Christ bore our sins in his body on the tree,

and that's an example for the employee.

If he could permit himself to be mistreated on occasion,

on this most significant of all occasions,

we also, in much lesser ways,

can afford to be overlooked and even mistreated by our employer.

I think as we dare to get that mindset,

dare to see ourselves fulfilling a Christian vocation,

no matter how secular the job may be described in the world,

it will totally transform the quality of it.

As we dare to look through the employer and see Jesus Christ himself,

it will transform the character of our work.

As we begin to say,

Jesus Christ is the one who's calling me up out of the sack,

drive to work in the morning,

be there on time,

and put in too many hours,

it transforms the quality of that work.

And I think as we begin to bring that sort of honor and esteem and support to our employer,

if he is a person somewhat less than we might wish him to be,

That will begin to be a ferment in his life

to change him

into the very character of Christ.

And so I close for this evening.

Let's bow our heads.

Father, most of us are under authority.

And most of us,

from time to time,

really chafe under that authority.

Ours is a rebellious society

and we find it very difficult

to take orders from anybody about anything.

We would choose tonight

to begin to adopt a new mindset

to joyfully submit ourselves

to that authority which is exercised over us,

be it the authority of the state

or the authority of our employer,

to begin to treat those in positions

of authority over us

as if they were the Lord Jesus Himself.

Lord, help us to sift through

the implications of what that means.

that we might embrace that concept

and give ourselves willingly,

joyfully,

enthusiastically to that service

which You've privileged us to enter into.

Some of us are in authority

and we would ask You,

Lord,

for increased sensitivity to the needs

of those that You have entrusted to our care.

that we might begin the more consistently

to behave as the Lord Jesus Himself.

For we ask it in His name.

Amen.

Amen.