Jesus and the Pharisees: A Lesson for Interdenominational Fellowship and Dialogue

“For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." '(Luke 34:35)

Man is a social being. By this, it is implied that humans have the natural tendency to associate together in community instead of solitude. However, sociality is both an impulse and a choice. For the Christian, it is also a duty and a delight influenced by some considerations. Jesus's encounter with the religious leaders and sinners in Israel offers certain lessons on social relationships for our time and settings. Also lessons on Christian fellowship and relationships with non-Christians could be drawn from this encounter.

The background
Jesus threw some of his sharpest shafts on the Pharisees and Law experts who were determined to frustrate his messianic mission. Their ambition was to discredit him and label him a charlatan not different from the false messiahs that came before him. The Pharisees had elected themselves the custodians of true religion. They had every sincere reason to preserve what they regarded as orthodox tradition. However, for Christ, sincerity was not an excuse for ignorance. Jesus uttered the words in Luke 7:34-35 to the theologians of his time. They were so devoted to doctrine and rules that they were loosing contact with the community. First, in one of his shortest parables (Luke 7:31-32), Jesus compared the Pharisees and the scribes to children. Not normal, sociable children but peevish and confused kids. He likens them to youngsters sitting in the city marketplace or playground. Normal children love to play with one another, but these ones were unmoved by anything. If kids don't play, they are sick. When a kid played a flute his peers were so fretful that they would not dance. Perhaps the song was too exciting for kids who wanted to be frank for a while. A smart one, presumably, got up and said, “well, friends, let us play funeral. Jack will be the minister. Joe will be the corpse. I will play the dirge and the rest of you will be the choir”. And again there was no response. Neither happiness nor sadness stirred the emotions of these children.
Jesus then turned to the Pharisees and the Law experts and boldly applied this parable. (Luke 7:33-35). They are like spoiled children. They neither associated themselves with John the Baptist nor with the Messiah. True wisdom has proved them wrong. I think there is is a lesson for the Church from this parable on fellowship, interdenominational dialogue and social ministry.

Why did the Pharisees reject both John and Jesus?
A simple answer which doesn't help is that they were simply spoiled. There was an underlying cause of their discontent. John the Baptist was not sociable enough and Jesus was too social to be a true prophet.
John the Baptist (Matt 3:1-12)
A few months before Jesus started his ministry, a man emerged from the desert. He was clad in camels’ hair and wore a leather belt on his waist. His food was locust and wild honey.
He had a stern message. He was not a respecter of persons and not a tactful preacher. He openly criticized the king for adultery and murder. His zeal wasn't chilled by the coldness of the prison cell. He declared that the axe was on the root of the tree ready to cut down fruitless trees. He preached hell and declared unrepentant religious leaders a brood of vipers and declined to baptize them. What a pastor! He refused to attend any party. His head ended in a plate in the first party he attended in the king’s court. He was rigorous in his way of life and message. The Pharisees looked at him, shrugged their shoulders and declared that if he were to be their pastor they will quit church; for a man who is so strict and unsociable is by no means a true prophet. If he were a prophet at all, they thought, he is nothing but a prophet of doom and death whose utterances were from a demon within him. His message was as sad as a dirge. They would not dance to such rubbish.
Jesus Christ
A few months later, Jesus appeared on the scene. His message and lifestyle were vastly different from John the Baptist's. He declared that he had come to heal and to give life. He was sociable, enough to be a toast master. He went to party with everyone including his enemies and bitter critics. He freely dinned and wined with the tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners who were considered social outcasts. He promised that even a prostitute who truly repents would enter the kingdom of God. One woman of the gutter who retired from the sex business became one of his closest friends. The fruitless tree would be spared from destruction until grace is completely exhausted (Luke 13:6-9) His message was a sweet melody of hope for all. Yes, hope for all, not for a privileged few good folks. Alas! in spite of his compromise, the religious leaders still rejected him. If John the Baptist was not sociable, Jesus was too sociable to be a true prophet. Again, they quit church and declared him a glutton and drunkard.
In all of these, we realize that association with people in different denominations and community is a choice based on our own impression.

What determines the choices we make about Inter-denominational Dialogue ?
There are a number of factors:
What we think about our identity is the most influential. The church today is made up of conservatives and liberals sharply opposed to each other. Differences are primarily over doctrine, approach, liturgy, and ethical issues. Thus some denominations find it difficult to walk together with other denominations. The prophet Amos reminded Israel that two couldn't’t walk together unless there was agreement (Amos 3:3).
Major doctrinal differences that divide the church today are mainly in the area of the Trinity, soteriology, the sacraments, eschatology, the Holy Spirit, sanctification, and liturgy etc. Thus ecclesiastical identity is shaped by doctrine. While theological positions could be right or wrong, it seems that there could still be room for critical dialogue. One of the strengths of the ecumenical movement is that it emphasizes areas of unity rather than areas of division. I do not agree that we should sacrifice doctrine on the altar of fellowship; but we can focus on where we find agreement and enjoy fellowship. Although the Pharisees and Scribes were sharply opposed to Jesus, fellowship was possible. During such fellowships in the homes of Pharisees and tax collectors, God provided opportunities for Jesus to proclaim truth. However, Jesus went into the homes of these religious leaders and sinners not necessarily to discuss doctrine and the Gospel, but to fellowship with people whom he created in the image of His father. He did not worry about his identity at the moment of fellowship.

A particularly scandalous ethical issue that affects inter-denominational and interpersonal dialogue today is homosexuality. Conservative faithfuls are right in pointing that same- sex marriages have no biblical support. It is sexual perversion and indicates a serious moral crisis and sexual disorientation. But does this provide a basis for isolation, neglect and arrogance? I am not sure that if Christ were to encounter homosexuals in his earthly ministry he would have treated them differently than he did the prostitutes and sinners who were victims of illicit sex. I remember that a few years ago when the Anglican Church in England elected a gay priest into a top position, an Anglican priest in Nigeria declared on the international media that homosexuals are under the influence of demons. Demonic activity is not ruled out from illicit sexual behaviors. But such declarations make fellowship difficult and shut the door for counseling.

The principle of Love
When fellowship is concerned, the principle that should guide our behavior is love, not doctrine. The Pharisees and Scribes were dominated by doctrinal rightness, thus they practiced segregation, became arrogant and judgmental. They regarded sinners without hope and became religious snobs. Jesus was just as ignorant as John the Baptist in their judgmental eyes. While John was spiritually sick as the demoniac, Jesus was ethically sick as the drunkards, prostitutes and sinners. The Pharisees thought they were sincerely serving God and preserving the identity of the true faith but what did Christ tell them? They are like spoiled children. Do we sometimes act like spoiled children when we become too critical and exclusivist in dealing with members of other denominations or churches? What about unbelievers and people of other religions? When I was growing up, I was always forbidden from mixing with the kids in the neighbourhood. I was told that bad company corrupts good character. This is not just clever counsel from good parents. It is Scripture(1Cor.15:33). Similarly when I became born-again I was told that I had nothing in common with unbelievers. Again, my good disciplers were referring to God's counsel. In Cameroon while serving as a lay Church planter, I was warned by senior pastors to avoid mixing with members of other denominations with faulty theologies. My church leaders were divided over the ecumenical movement. For some, it aided the growth of the church, for others it destroyed the Church. All these counsel is vital to Christian growth, but there is a sense in which passages that restrict fellowship could be misinterpreted and exaggerated. I will discuss these more extensively under cultural hindrances to interpersonal and interdenominational dialogue. Until the consummation of history, there will always be doctrinal and ethical weaknesses in the Church. I think love enables us to be friendly but frank. Christ is the Judge!

The Cultural factor
Culture influences human relationships and affect fellowship in the Church. Relationships are easy in close-nit homogeneous churches but not too easy in heterogeneous churches. Christians often have a tough time getting across cultural boundaries that limit social interaction. Cultural integration is a process with many twists and patience is very important in accomplishing good results. The Pharisees and Scribes found it hard to relate with the tax, collectors and sinners. This was not just because they were spiritually different. They were also culturally different. These sinners had a completely different way of life. They dressed differently, went to different places and so on. Morally, they were worthless people, the refuse of society. Were they created evil? By no means. Their culture was sinful and from this evil social order, they inherited evil patterns of life. The tax collectors served Rome, the enemy of Israel and undoubtedly practiced extortion. They were rightly regarded as traitors and extortionists. On the other hand, the Pharisees belonged to the cleaner side of society. They were the holy ones set apart to live a holy life based on the law to usher in the kingdom of God. The sinners were lawless. There was a dividing line in between.

How did Christ handle these cultural differences? He chose to build relationships with the clean and the trash. He neither withdrew from the self-imposed righteous Pharisees nor the sin-sick prostitutes and tax collectors. His interaction with these people was limited to loving fellowship, not compromise. He loved the Pharisees but hated their pride. He dinned with the sinners but never participated in their evil deeds although he was temped from time to time. This is not easy but God requires it and there is grace to do it. If love is the first principle that should control fellowship and dialogue in intercultural settings, then cultural tolerance and sanctity in moral issues are the other important principles.
Sometime ago in Cameroon, a church was being inaugurated in the capital city. The leaders of this new church had invited leaders of other denominations who came in Christian love. During the fellowship, cultural differences began to surface. When one of the host church leaders pumped champagne, fellowship was over. Some of the invitees quit the occasion. Did the quitters lack love for their brothers on the other side? May be not. Patience was clearly lacking.

When culture change is necessary
Culture change is necessary when the practice violates biblical ethical norms. These demands careful study of the group's culture and the bible cultures, so that cultural forms provided in Scriptures are not mistaken for ethical principles. Forms may change from culture to culture but moral principles are supra-cultural. That some cultural forms and principles could be evil should not be a hindrance to fellowship. The goal of fellowship is love. Love opens up the other person’s heart to see the flaws of his culture. Adjustment is a choice as the Holy Spirit works in the life of the Christian. If the Pharisees got close to the sinners, they could see their sinfulness and make adjustments at the right time. Jesus did what the Pharisees failed to do and great was the result. Many gained entrance into the kingdom of God.
The Gospel demands and initiates cultural transformation. Change from evil culture must happen in the life of a genuine convert. It often takes time and experience, as the word is being received and digested.
Paul states categorically in Romans 12:2. “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is- his good, pleasing and perfect will.”
This imperative is non negotiable. Although the Gospel is supra cultural, conversion always has a cultural background. People are always converted from some sinful culture to a way of life that conforms to the will of God. So conversion is a reality check. When the light of Christ and His Gospel shines on the believer’s dark culture, truth happens. All the hidden subtle deceptions of his culture are exposed; “for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: “Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you”(Ephesians 5:14).(I will take on this as God permits)

Implications for social ministry
If we regard sinners with boundless hope and as people created in the image of God, we will identify with them in suffering. On the contrary, if we regard them with hopelessness, we will be more satisfied with Christians.
What are your opinions?