The Life of a Servant

But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant (Matthew 23:11).

But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all (Mark 10:42-44).

Anybody who has been a disciple of Jesus Christ for any period of time is aware that Jesus orders His church differently than what we are used to seeing in our day to day lives. In the above passage He gives us a view of His expectations concerning service, and He even give us a juxtaposition to make sure it is clear. But just what does it mean to be a servant?

The apostle Paul writing to the Philippians (2:7) said that Jesus "took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." The question of servitude is often framed by asking whether or not we are a servant, however in this passage the Bible tells us that the form of man IS the form of a servant. So if our very frame, our very being, is the form of a servant, they only question left is not can I be a servant, for I was created in the form of a servant, but the question becomes "as a servant, who am I going to serve?"

As humans we were created to serve, so we are going to serve somebody. The question is, who? Will we serve ourselves and only do those things which please ourselves, or will we choose to deny ourselves and serve others? The Bible tells us in another place that "to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey." If we are servants to whoever we choose to obey, then who is it that we serve? Do we obey God? Do we obey our own whims and desires? 

We are servants. We are living in obedience to something, to someone. The only question is to whom, to what. 

Serving God - Freedom or Bondage

In the Beaverton House to House Bible study last week a concept arose that is one of my favorite examples of our relationship with Jesus Christ, and one that is not always understood by those who love Him, so I thought I would take a minute and blog about it before I start my day.

"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant (I Corinthians 7:20-22)."

To the casual observer, this scripture seems out of place. Reading through the chapter the writer is talking about the marriage relationship, and he seemingly follows a rabbit that goes running by as he reaches this portion; that is until we understand the principle of the "Freeman."

The apostle John penned the words of Jesus when he said, "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed (John 8:36)." Why then did the apostle Paul consistently refer to himself as the "prisoner" of the Lord (Eph. 4:1, II Tim. 1:8, Philemon 1:1, 1:9)? It seems to be a contradiction. How can we be "free indeed" if we are also in bondage? 

In the days surrounding the apostles, the Earth was ruled by kings. These kings were all powerful within their kingdoms and all who were within their kingdom they considered to be their property, but especially those who were specifically within their service, whether a general servant or in one of their prisons. Occasionally a king would travel from his own region to visit another king. It was customary on these visits for the host to show this visiting dignitary through his prisons to brag about his prisoners. It was also customary on these visitations for the visiting king to purchase a prisoner of his liking while he was on his visit. The host king would have his servants clean up the prisoner and would give him to the visiting king, for a price. This prisoner would then become the visiting king's "freeman." The term "freeman" represents the fact that the prisoner was under bondage, but now has been made free, only to serve the visiting king.

This principle is true of us who love Jesus Christ today. We were in bondage to the prince of this world until Jesus came and set us free, only to be servant to Him. "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? ²⁰For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s (I Corinthians 6:19-20)."

We are indeed free from the bondage of this world, we are free to serve the one who paid the price to set us free. 

An Eye for an Eye – The George Zimmerman Trial

First of all I would like to preface this blog entry by saying there is nothing good about a lost life. I think if there was any way that any of us could go back and allow Trayvon Martin to live out the rest of his life we would do so with gladness. Unfortunately nobody can undo what has been done; not the politicians, not the courts, and not the idiots all over America who scream for yet more blood, demanding a pound of flesh! For what reason? So that justice may be served? And just what is the meaning of justice? Has it not been served already?

The six jurors that were chosen to sit and hear this trial had a difficult task on their hands. That task was not to get George Zimmerman back for what he did, not to get a pound of flesh, but was to apply the current laws of the State of Florida, regardless of how they may feel about them, to the actions of the night Trayvon Martin was killed. It is important that we understand this as a free nation. The purpose of a trial and those who sit in the judgment seat (the jury) are not there to pass their own judgment, not there to make sure the defendant is freed or convicted, but only to make sure the current laws are properly applied to the case, no more and no less. 

In a criminal trial in America, the defendant is always innocent until proven guilty. This means the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, or the state. In addition, there are laws that pertain to what can or can’t be admitted as evidence in a trial. The jury is only obligated to consider those items that are admitted as evidence. In addition, the prosecution is required to prove “beyond a shadow of doubt” that the defendant has broken the current law that applies to the trial. If they are unable to “remove all doubt” of a person’s innocence (since they are innocent until proven guilty), that person remains free under the current laws. 

When the founders of this nation considered a system that would be the best long term for governing the new nation, they decided it best to provide for a separation of powers that would assure checks and balances. This system was set up so that tyrannical powers could not set up shop and run the show, more or less. In this separation of powers the founders gave us the Executive Branch (President) serves to execute the laws, the Legislative Branch (Congress) serves to legislate or create new laws, and the Judicial Branch serves to interpret and apply laws. The Judiciary does not have the power to legislate or create new laws, they only serve to interpret and provide a forum for resolution of disputes, including both criminal (the State) and civil disputes. A judge or prosecuting attorney do not have the power to change laws, nor do they have the power to create new laws (except through the legislative process) in the court room. Regardless of how they feel about the current laws, they are obligated to operate within the confines of said statutes. 

That being said, laws can be changed through the legal process of legislation. Occasionally an incident will happen that changes how people think about a law and the legislative process can serve to clarify the law, add to the law, or create a new law to replace the old law. This process happens on a daily basis in both state and federal legislative systems. 

It is amazing first of all, with the media lies and misrepresentations, that George Zimmerman was able to get a fair trial at all. There must be a way that the media can be tempered or held responsible for the insane bias that happens in the name of ratings. Because of the media frenzy, people all over America had already considered Mr. Zimmerman guilty before he was tried in a court of law. Cries all over the social media waves called for his execution, others saying that he better not get off and go free or they would hunt him down and kill him. I don’t know about you, but this is not the America I grew up in. 

The State of Florida has a neighborhood watch program that includes a volunteer project called Citizen on Patrol (COP). The night of the incident George Zimmerman was out on COP patrol. The guidelines of COP say the system is safe and is just a way to “keep an eye on your neighborhood” because our social system is so broken down that nobody watches out for each other any longer. IN the COP guidelines there is no need for a firearm, in fact they discourage the use of firearms altogether. Because there is a liberal right to carry law in Florida, it was well within Zimmerman’s right to carry his firearm for personal safety. 

From what I understand, there had been several break-ins and thefts in his neighborhood over the months leading up to the night of the incident, and Zimmerman volunteered with the COP program to help stop the burglaries. On the night of the incident Zimmerman notices a man in a hoodie passing through whom he did not recognize, and thought him suspicious or at least wanted to keep an eye on him to be sure he wasn’t up to anything. He followed protocol by calling 911. The operator told him to stay back and not to follow, but unfortunately George did not obey. Obviously looking back it is easy to say he should not have followed, but following Trayvon was not a crime. George Zimmerman did not cross any lines or break any laws by doing so. How was he to know that Martin would turn and jump him and start hitting him in the face and bashing his head into the cement (which is a crime by the way). While Trayvon is bashing Zimmerman’s head into the concrete and hitting him in the face, George decided to make the ultimate decision, to take another man’s life. He did not know Martin was a 17 year old kid, not should that matter, so that point is moot. If he was old enough to jump another man and starting beating him, he was old enough for whatever consequences ensued. 

The Florida law that was used to adjudicate is called the “Stand your Ground” law and states that “a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.” So if a person feels personally threatened and has no way of escape, he or she is legally within his or her right to use deadly force. So, if some guy in a hoody just jumped you and was hitting you in the face and bashing your head into the pavement, do you think that matches the law? Remember, you don’t know if this guy is going to continue until you die, and he is sitting on top of you so you have no immediate way of escape. I am not asking if you would shoot him, I am only asking if this would constitute “an unlawful threat without a means of escape.” The job of the prosecution was to prove without a shadow of a doubt that, a) there was no unlawful act taking place in which Zimmerman would be in a position to need to defend bodily harm to himself and, b) there was an easy way of retreat so he would not have a need to protect himself, neither of which they were able to prove. 

There are so many sad things about this incident. Not just that Trayvon Martin chose violence and ended up losing his life, but that a generation of people are so racially charged over the issue. How did this become an issue of race? The news media made it an issue of race. Until and unless we as Americans, regardless of our skin color, fight back against the media machine that seems determined to destroy the social fabric of the USA, we will see ignorance rule in the minds of men. Did Trayvon Martin have to die? No! Is George Zimmerman Guilty under the current laws? No! Are the current laws unfair and unjust? If you believe they are then shut your mouth, sign off of Facebook and Twitter, put down your offensive sign, go get an education and make a difference!