Hello everyone, really delighted to welcome you all to this luncheon talk and even more delighted in many ways to welcome actually a Swiss compatriot of mine, Professor Christoph Graber. I should say though that we've never met in Switzerland before. I followed his great scholarly work but it took a while to get him to Cambridge and finally being able to meet and talk about interesting topics. So Christoph is a professor at the University of Zurich in Switzerland. He has a chair for legal sociology as you can see here with a focus on media law. He's doing really interesting work. Today we'll hear about a book project and about the paper he's working on. Dealing with a really fascinating question and that is how do core values and even the rights emerge? It's really I think multi-disciplinary fascinating question and how also do such rights ultimately make it into law or into constitution. So Christoph will talk today about this concept of bottom-up constitutionalism will bring together different perspectives from different disciplines and I'm already looking forward to a great conversation thereafter. Christoph a very warm welcome. He actually even made it snow today so that you feel at home and particularly welcome here in Cambridge and we're really delighted to have you here. As I said it's a fascinating topic and I'm particularly looking forward to also bringing different theories together also bridging the Atlantic in many respects as you will see some of the concepts that Professor Graber will introduce today are coming actually from German scholars of sociology that have been very influential around the globe and to bring it and use it to illustrate some of the net neutrality debates in the US I think is a fun way also an intellectual fun way to deal with the timely topic. So thank you Christoph. Hi everyone and thank you very much Urs for this very warm introduction. I'm really grateful and honored to be able to be here for the next four months here at Harvard Law School and Bergmann Klein centered to undertake a research project and it is that research project that I would like to talk about today. Urs already mentioned it briefly. What I'm interested in is the question basically whether we can observe the emergence empirically of a new constitutional right that is protecting the internet. So what I have in mind is not only a right that is protecting individual communications over the internet. What I have in mind is beyond that a right that protects the internet as an institution. So for lack of a better word in my talk today and also in the written version of the paper that you may have seen I use net neutrality. Net neutrality should be understood not as a very clear concept at the moment as far as I use it. It stands as a kind of shortcut formula for a set of normative expectations that have not yet fully been conceptualized. So I would like to invite you to look at these two questions. These are the questions underlying my talk today and in a way also underlying my entire research project. So the first question is the one that I already outlined. It is can you observe a new constitutional right that is protecting the internet? Can you observe an emergence of that new constitutional right? And then the second question which is more at the center of today's discussion, can such a constitutionalization process emanate from civil society? So not from the processes that jurists know that are prescribed for constitutional amendment but emanate from the middle of society. I'm asking these questions in my capacity as a legal sociologist so I try to combine perspectives of a jurist, I'm a trained lawyer, perspectives of a jurist with the perspective of social theory and that can be tricky at times. You will see that already when I use the term constitution. I use this term in a very broad way and at least for jurists and I think especially in the United States this broad use can be rather provocative. So let me start with some introduction regarding the use of the concept of constitution both in legal doctrine and in social theory. Now when we talk about constitution what do we understand in everyday language? We understand in everyday language and also I think this is the understanding of jurists and of political philosophers we understand something that refers to a written document, the US constitution or the Swiss constitution. So this is a formal understanding of constitution. This is the first way to understand constitution. Now beyond that this understanding is usually focusing on a nation state, a nation state and a national territory. So beyond that understanding we find also legal theorizing that deals with the term constitution also beyond national territories. We see that for instance in international law or in the law of the European Union. In international law for example the Charter of the United Nations has sometimes been called a constitution of the world. And in the European Union the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms has also been compared with a constitution of the European Union. So this is again a formal approach looking at a written document but it is going beyond the national territory looking at international context and looking at supranational European law. Now beyond this formal way to look at constitution there are also functional ways, sociological ways to look at the concept of constitution. Based on important theory of Niklas Luhmann, the famous German sociologist that Urs referred to and the British sociologist Chris Thornhill this functional perspective on constitution has been applied to look at constitution still in the political legal realm. And this functional perspective identifies two specific functions that in a general way are argued to be present in any type of constitution that one can look at and these elements are first a constitutive element and secondly a limitative element. Now to become a little bit more concrete what would that mean if we look at the Swiss constitution there we find chapters organizing the powers of the Swiss state and that would be the constitutive aspect of the Swiss constitution. The limitative elements you find in those chapters of the Swiss constitution which deal with fundamental freedom so limit the power of the state and also in those chapters which deal with checks and balances or the division or separation of the powers. So this is this understanding this is functional but looking still at the political legal context. So now my understanding of constitution is even broader and it is based on theorizing that has been undertaken by Niklas Luhmann again he was the forerunner also for this broader view and then very importantly David Schurli an American sociologist and Gunther Teubner German legal sociologist. So Gunther Teubner has introduced the term transnational constitution or transnational constitutionalization. Other words synonyms that he has used is societal constitutionalism or civil constitutionalism. What does he have in mind with his theory? He is actually also putting forward a functional theory and he invites us to expand the these functions to areas that are going beyond the political legal realm. So basing on Niklas Luhmann's theory that we are in a world society where we have observed a move from a territorial differentiation to a functional differentiation. We are in a world where there are function systems like beyond the law and politics. We have the economy, we have science, we have religion, we have education, we have health. These are some of the main function systems and most of these function systems they expand globally. And now the thesis of Teubner is based on Schurli and Luhmann that also these function systems not only politics and the law but also other function systems develop their own constitutions and he observes that by distinguishing these constitutive and limitative functions. Now I would like very, very briefly to introduce the key stages of Teubner's theory of societal constitutionalism or transnational constitutionalism. According to Teubner this is a communicative process. So we should look at a specific subsystem of society and what should we look at? What should we try to observe? We should try to observe whether there are normative expectations emerging from that specific subsystem of society. To be clear what I present here is an analytical scheme that can be useful to observe reality. So it is not normative, it is just an analytical scheme that can then be used to test whether we are actually able to observe such a process or not. So that would be the first stage. When normative expectations emerge I will then talk about later what this internal reflexive process means. Then at the second stage according to Teubner there would be a juridification of these normative expectations that emerge from the specific subsystem of society. In terms of auto poetic system theory, Luhmann's theory that would be a structural coupling between this specific subsystem and the law basically reformulation of normative expectations that come from a specific subsystem in the language of the law. Now the process of constitutionalization is not accomplished at this stage, a third step is required for that to happen and that is according to Teubner an application of legal norms on legal norms, something similar as HLA Hart has suggested when introducing secondary norms and primary norms. So in Hart secondary norms are norms that deal with the functioning of primary norms. And this is in a way also what constitutional norms do, they deal with norms of a lower hierarchical level. So that would be the final stage only when we reach this third stage we can talk about a societal constitutional process that has been accomplished. Now that is the theory in a nutshell. Now theory requires verification and I have looked for getting empirical evidence to test and verify this theory in the realm of net neutrality. I have looked at evidence from the United States and here are some of the key events of the net neutrality debate in the United States. Now I'm aware that there are many people here in the room that know this debate very well, much better than I do. So I can be very brief to recall some of the basic stages in this debate. I think the term net neutrality was coined by Tim Boo in 2003 essentially as a political concept and as a political concept it was also first used by the FCC two years later in 2005 in this internet policy statement. And then the first legal use of the concept happened only in 2008 when the FCC applied the concept in the Comcast case. So it tried to make that concept a legal concept but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision of the FCC in this April 2010 decision essentially deciding that there was no legal authority of the FCC to do that. So saying this is not a legal concept, we cannot treat it as a legal concept. Now the FCC backpedaled and introduced a new proposal for kind of net neutrality rules in 2010 but again the Court of Appeals of the DC Circuit reacted and reversed that decision of the FCC again saying there was no legal authority of the FCC. And now what is very interesting in that moment in 2014 basically something happened. There were many civil society organizations, internet activists, consumer organization, public policy activists who argued that net neutrality is a very important value that should be protected and that the FCC should really adopt strong and enforceable rules on net neutrality and these groups they mobilized people and that also then was pressure that influenced the FCC and the FCC reacted in opening a consultation on a new proposal that was taking place in May 2014. And now a broad mobilization happened and that was something that was observed closely by the media lab here and I think that is great research that has been undertaken by the media lab demonstrating and also observing very closely how the net reacted on the various interventions and proposals that have been made but what is fascinating that almost 4 million people filed commands on this proposal of the FCC and many people argued that actually the FCC should reclassify, should reclassify broadband services as telecommunication services because before they were classified as internet services and so there was no authority for the FCC to really act and very interestingly again the FCC responded to these commands and modified their original proposal and adopted strong rules on 26 February 2015 rules that provide for a reclassification of fixed and mobile broadband services as telecommunication services so as requested by many commenters and then also adopting three so-called bright line rules banning basically the blocking, throttling and paid prioritization of data on the internet and then there were two more rules that were adopted the general conduct tool and the general transparency rule. Now clearly the telecommunications company, the telecom lobby was not happy with that decision and they challenged this decision of the FCC again with the Court of Appeals but now strikingly this time the Court of Appeals said okay yes the legal authority is here this reclassification is fine and the rules that were adopted by the FCC they are in conformity with the law so if the story would stop here one could say yes a juridification of the concept is accomplished but unfortunately the story continues the telecommunication lobby is going to fight against these rules on every level they announced that they go to the Supreme Court I don't know how far these proceedings are at the moment but probably more importantly the new presidency changed the political situation completely with regard to net neutrality so the FCC will have a new composition and there will be a republican majority and there will be people in the FCC that are not really friends of net neutrality so we could say at the moment we are probably far away from a juridification of net neutrality than we were a couple of years ago so now let me use this data these empiric evidence to come back to these three elements that I introduced at the beginning now the question would be which is the specific subsystem that we have to look at when we want to observe whether there are normative expectations related to the net neutrality are emerging I argue in the written version of my paper that we should look at the economic system because in my view many debates many communications related to net neutrality are essentially economic communications we could talk about that in the discussion if people are here who disagree so I think the economic system is the system to look at and then we have to look whether there are normative expectations emerging within this system and now this interplay between the between the organized professional and the spontaneous fear of the economy are very important what do I mean the organized professional sphere is the sphere where you have the corporations the telecom corporations and the spontaneous fear of the economy this is the sphere where you have civil society representatives all the actors that I mentioned before and these two spheres there are in a way in a reflexive process so they look on each other they observe each other they push each other to to become more precise and to develop responses to certain criticism and that is this reflexive process that helps to specify these normative expectations that are emerging and then the juridification stage here these normative expectations that emerge from the economic system would be structurally coupled with the legal system so basically reformulated in the language of the law and when we try to adapt that to the empiric evidence that I mentioned before I think here we can observe a kind of communication or exchange between the internet economy sector in the one hand in dialogue with the FCC in their legal capacity because FCC in my view is a kind of hybrid organization with political functions and legal functions so in its legal capacity and certainly also with the court of appeals but as I said certainly this process of juridification is not accomplished the story continues so it is only hypothetical to look also at the third stage what would we expect or what should we expect at this stage we would expect the development of constitutional structures distinguishing in a binary code between constitutional and unconstitution so essentially the application of legal norms on these juridified normative expectations that emerge from the economic system so what we would have are two reflexive processes one reflexive process in the economic system essentially so between this spontaneous and the organized professional sphere and then another reflexive process within the legal system where basically constitutional distinctions would then be applied and in the case of the United States I could think of the of the Supreme Court of the United States that would finally deal with such questions but I mean that scheme is not only applicable to the situations in the United States it's I think it's has a an universalistic claim so that is in a way the proof of the pudding or my suggestion how the proof of the pudding could look like now the final questions that that I would like you to think about with me is a very key question if there is such a process of societal constitutionalism how should we understand the relationship between such a development of constitutional norms and the formal processes of constitutional amendment what would be the real relationship between the societal constitutional process and the formal constitutional process I think this is a very very difficult and very important question so I'm very keen to hear your reactions afterwards my suggestion is the following when we have constitutional amendments in many states there are super majority requirements needed for amending the constitution this is certainly the case for the United States and so there the stakes are very high and accordingly a constitutional amendments happen very rarely it is much more likely to happen in Switzerland for example where we have referendums and the referendum then is brought forward to a rotation of of the people and the constitutional amendment is adopted when we have a double majority a majority of the people voting and majority of the sub-federal political entities the so-called cantons then if the two majorities are there we have a constitutional amendment and that happens in Switzerland all the time beyond these formal procedures of constitutional amendment what we have is also the change of the constitution by the way of of judges deciding and interpreting the constitution this is observable in Switzerland again it is also observable in Germany and also at certain instances it has been observed in the case law of the court of justice of the European Union in Switzerland for instance the Swiss federal court has been recognizing unwritten constitutional rights unwritten freedoms of the constitution since 1959 now a last word on my view how this relationship between social constitutionalism and formal constitutionalism should be seen I don't see those processes in an antagonistic way I see them more as a kind of interconnected vessels as two areas that are in a reflexive relationship let me explain what I mean if you have a societal constitutionalistic process a process of societal constitutionalism certainly from the perspective of formal a formal constitution you can criticize certain shortcomings with regard to legitimation and acceptance so that would be the check from the formal constitution on the social constitution but it works also the other way around I think from a social constitutionalist perspective you could also criticize or check whether the formal constitutional processes work as they should it can be the case that actually in certain areas there is an absence of a really living democratic functioning of the institutions and there the societal constitutional processes could point to a requirement of reform so this is very briefly what I wanted to say as an introduction and I'm now very interested to hear your reactions and would like also to hear your ask questions and and comments thank you so much Christoph maybe if you don't mind to switch back to slide seven which I found very helpful so if I may kick off the discussion with with a brief question looking at this bottom layer here and the question of how normative expectations form particularly in the paper and but also in your presentation you highlighted that there is an interactive dynamic going on between somehow the organized professionals you use the telcos the companies as kind of one example in this category and some sort of the less organized more bottom up more distributed civil society participants and policy advocates and consumer organizations and the like and I was wondering whether you could say a little bit more about that and maybe also bring in the Rob Faris who has done research empirically on this question looking at the net neutrality debate specifically as to what extent actually the crystallization of these normative expectations results from this unorganized versus organized or as to what extent which is slightly intention I believe to what you said it very much depends whether these normative expectations crystallize that also the unorganized get organized right you made this point in the paper you said well that ultimately the unorganized got influential with the FCC required some sort of campaign so it's just really interested in are there really two sites at this level unorganized and organized or is it more a story of becoming organized so that would be my first question yeah thank you for the question so the term organization is a sociological essentially a sociological term that is usually used to describe entities that have received a formal organization as for instance corporation has received a formal organization the term organized professional is used in that sense I mean the spontaneous sphere of the economy all these civil society representatives all these various dynamics these centered dynamics they lack this kind of formal organization that would apply to a corporation but you're right in another way to look at the question of organization not in this formal sociological sense it is clear that in the debate that has been observed by the media lab it became clear that also civil society learned how to join forces and how to increase their impact in mobilizing people and and there were many also very creative activities and interventions John Oliver for instance I recall made a huge difference with with a broadcast I think in England even about the US debate and that had made a huge change in the debate and was helpful to mobilize the end four million people so I do not see it as a clear and agonistic distinction but more I think it was a question of terminology I see thank you Rob is this a good point where you can briefly summarize some of the highlights from your empirical study on what has been going on in this debate I'd actually rather ask questions but yeah so first of all thank you so much for the presentation it's fascinating and a lot to actually get one's head around what what we observed in the net neutrality debate was certainly a division amongst the professional classes as to what the right answer was and I don't think there was anything in that debate that actually answered those substantive questions about whether that neutrality was a good idea or not and then we saw the spontaneous organizing as you describe take place and that was very lopsided and and I guess the question that comes out of this for me is how do we know when normative expectations have actually emerged and and like what's the measure of that and who's actually has to stand to make that measure and I guess it's that interaction between the formal political and the spontaneous that kind of leads to those answers the the and the one last thing I want to throw in there which is you you rightly point out that four million number and I think one of the stories untold in the net neutrality debate is the framing around it as to what was a legitimate expression of kind of the normative expectations of society and what wasn't the first two million or so comments to the FCC occurred in the summer people looked at them at the sunlight foundation they looked at in an overwhelming number were pro net neutrality I don't remember exactly but it was over 95 percent of them there was another round in September that the other side of the debate ruled it and the reason they were able to do that was through an email campaign that a lot of people thought was not legitimate so they were a lot of people it was done by a social media marketing firm and and they got a lot of people to sign up and say net neutrality is a very bad example but that actually got no credence at all and and people often cite that four million number suggesting that four million people were in support of that neutrality but there was actually this this this waiting process that went on behind the scenes Tom Wheeler himself he cited four million comments and didn't say that almost half of them were anti net neutrality in the end which is funny so these are very interesting remarks and questions that that you're bringing up I think yes this interaction between the organized professional and the spontaneous fear that is actually the process where normative expectations in a way get formed where they where they shape and to talk about the FCC and the four million comments it is fascinating to read the report of this decision opinion of the FCC of 2015 where the FCC continuously refers to comments coming from people of the civil society but as you correctly also say this campaign by I think American commitment was it they they invited people to send pre-formed or pre-printed forms expressing a view that was against net neutrality and I mean that is exactly the point where I think that this relationship between the formal constitutional procedures and the spontaneous constitutional procedures are important I think that is exactly a situation where there is a shortcoming regarding legitimacy of expressions that coming that come from the spontaneous sphere and here there is a necessary check of the question of democratic legitimacy required so that is very good that you point to this example thank you thank you let's open up we have a question right here thank you uh following on that question of democratic legitimacy uh recently Erica Chenoweth wrote about that civil resistance needs about 3.5 of the population to participate in order for how many percent 3.5 percent we can quibble on the exact number I'm sure but which is very uh I know a lot of people have been paying attention to you given the protests that are going on right now in the country for this type of norms creation to translate into a legal sphere you've now and we've discussed the four million number do you have a sense of whether it's a percentage or a way to describe the uh how how many need to be involved in the process in order for it to gain legitimacy or is it possible for this type of a system to be hijacked by a small group thank you very much um basically I don't think that it is a quantitative question it is very difficult really to assess at which stage we can speak of really normative expectations that have emerged probably it is easier to come to to a clear statement you know here's a historic perspective after a certain event happened one could then reconstruct and say yes that was the stage where really um a strong momentum um was present but I would not be willing to um mention any numbers as a kind of threshold for the point where you could talk start to talk about normative expectations that have emerged from civil society hi thank you for your talk i'm mary gray i'm a fellow here at the berkman client center and i'm i'm realizing when i hear the word spontaneous sphere i'm thinking of collective action and social movement and you're a sociologist of law but it's interesting that we sent we seem to be approaching this as though it's masses of individuals acting versus there are um flexible we could say maybe informal institutions nonprofits community-based organizations that are very much part of constituting these movements so i'm just i think my question is are there ways to think about this as as um intersecting with um the freedom to assemble for example uh that we tend to think of as just again kind of faceless uh masses of individuals that in at least empirically when we look at how these things come together even for those two two million it had to do with a lot of collective social action that had you know had to kind of corral that energy and also had its form letters i mean i sent a form letter so i don't know that it's terribly different than the two million who said no that we we might be at a moment where we don't know how to contend with the constituting of those values that's happening through these loose networks that are assembling and i'm just wondering if there's a legal route for bringing this conversation to to the right to assemble yeah thank you um the freedom of um assembling i don't know whether it exists in the u.s constitution in switzerland it exists um i think i'm not an expert about the freedom of assembling but i would expect that it has in mind basically um the people coming together and meet in a way in person face to face that possibility to have a room where they come and meet and then debate because if a meeting is not taking place i think you could talk about free speech or freedom of communication and the information expression and information as the term is in in in europe you would not need to refer to the freedom of of assembling but surely communication between these distributed smaller groups is extremely important because then these smaller groups they have the possibility to mobilize people who sympathize with their um agendas and then they need to join forces and and that is extremely important for such a mobilization a broad mobilization um is being possible as it was in the case of net neutrality if i might jump in here with a quick follow-up question um are you nervous about that development or what we just described as a phenomenon because to me when listening and also looking what's happening politically right now isn't there a certain randomness to the quality that that you describe here that yes sometimes you know there may be a tipping point and something crystallizes that then bubbles up and then okay there is some sort of a filter mechanism which is heavily shaped by the political preferences of the filtering the people in control of the filtering mechanism as you alluded to but then there may be instances where you have really important social norms that emerge here that somehow don't find the constituency where this this this sort of collective action moment happens and comes together and therefore uh doesn't even get a chance to bubble up is that something we should be concerned about about this kind of some sort of randomness behind this i think it's a question from which perspective that you approach the issue um if you start with the um um situation that is familiar and which is in a way what most tourists um understand as the classic situation is that constitutional amendments um happen according to prescribed rules which make sure that democratic legitimation is assured when the constitution is changed because the constitution is considered to be the the most uh authoritative and important uh document of any nation state so if you look at just this situation i would say in such a situation it is very very difficult for certain um values to emerge and to make it into the constitution especially if you consider that the constitution was drafted at a certain moment at the moment in the united states and also in switzerland where we have a reformed constitution of 2000 where the internet had not this strong position as it has at the moment in the united states it was far away so um and there are certain um juries certain um lawyers in switzerland and also elsewhere which interpret the constitution in a rather conservative way saying um no change is possible and we have to interpret it by the letter so if this is let's say the normal situation i would say this kind of process societal constitutional process can be a kind of um element which would open up this more petrified way of reflecting social needs in the institutions of a state so this is a quick follow-up on Uri's question i think in the same direction so if we think about formal constitutions they actually reflect our fundamental social contract and the main function would be to protect us against captured by temporary majority right and the process that you have been describing to us is a process where actually power could prevail right i mean this is like you warn us against you know the recurrence of power you know as we will see we'll heal more even in the net neutrality um uh context and my question is whether when so you describe to this is a descriptive model right and the question is whether when we look at it from a normative perspective either any way to insert some safeguards into this process to secure against this type of abuse of power so that you know dosing power at a certain time would be able to compromise our social contract yeah that is a very important question and i understand why both of you are concerned in this respect um you know probably it is because i um coming from switzerland and i have confidence in direct democratic institutions that uh that i am less less scared about the so you're saying i've been in the u.s for too long that i start to very no i wouldn't say that but i mean certainly you cannot compare switzerland with the united states but i think no but i mean hannah arendt for instance um she was very um concerned with the situation after the second world war and she um she had a strong emphasis in uh making ideas of direct democracy strong so she fought all her life for more direct democratic elements and i mean you can uh if if the people have all the time the possibility to express their views and are included in political processes then these people also learn how to make a responsible use of their political rights and certainly in also in such a situation where you have more um let's say bottom up influences making it into the formal institutions there is clearly also a need for checks and um at this stage of juridification there is a first important check because here these self-founded normative expectations they are checked by institutions as we have seen in the case of net neutrality in the united states the court of appeals of the dc circuit is one of the institutions then which then have this possibility to check on the normative expectations that emerge and also at the third stage then actually this debate would then let's say enter also the constitutional debate and it might be that then such a question is brought before the court of the supreme court of the united states if we talk about the united states and the supreme court would then have to decide how to see such a new emerging norm uh on the basis of the existing rules that um are in the formal document of the united states and also in the case law that has emerged from from that so i share your concern but i'm more confident with um the possibilities to have checks on such dangerous developments thank you so i'm from denmark an even more trustful country i think i really enjoyed your talk and especially the way you use lumen for your framework but i'm i haven't i must say i haven't read your paper so maybe my question is is off for that reason but my sense from following the net neutrality debate mainly in europe and mainly from a human rights perspective is that the emergence of normative expectations actually didn't arise within the economic system but from outside the economic system and then eventually those expectations annoyed or irritated the economic system to an extent where they had to to take them in and deal with them so i mean i'm a bit surprised that you say the normative expectations for net neutrality came from within the economic system my my reading of it is that the economic system kept opposing precisely those values thank you for that question i i expected this question some time ago and i'm very grateful that you finally ask it um i had um debates discussions with gunther toitner about the question which i sent him this this paper and we discussed it and we disagreed on the question which system would be the the subsystem at issue toitner argues that there is a system like the internet internet is also a system for toitner and i um disagree with him on that um i had really to think twice or even three times to to develop my argument against him because he is really a very strong thinker but my arguments essentially are based on classical reading of lumens theory so lumens theory i don't know i hope that i will not bore you with too much details about that is a communication theory and there are classic communication systems that have been described by luman let's say politics the law economics science religion education health art family so these are some of the main system that have been described so if you look at a specific subsystems where normative expectations would happen you should if you apply luman um then you should look at one of these systems now toitner goes beyond luman and says the internet should also be considered as a system and i disagree with him because in my view in my view i should talk then more about that um this internet realm it is about communication but it is not itself communication it is a technical means that can be used for people to communicate it is a kind of infrastructure and it is not itself a social system so that is a short answer to your question which would require a lot more um debate but i don't think that most people here would be interested in that yeah thank you so much for the talk and the paper i wanted to ask one question methodological conceptual about the constitution when would you say we could say that the formal constitutionalization has happened because if if supreme court upholds fcc's rules it does that not yet mean that right it only means that fcc's rules are not unconstitutional but it doesn't say that there is a positive obligation and and connected with that why do you think we should go through the constitution to assure that because a descriptive claim net is neutral so the practice and technology is such that it's neutral and it comes from normative expectations doesn't have to be descriptive of constitution the easiest way to do it would be to pass an act of the parliament so do we really need to have that as a constitutional principle to have the neutral net and on the last thing which came about the democratic part so i come from poland have strong ties to germany to hangary so my belief in direct democracy and democracy has been shaken lately and when you refer to adent i was wondering the the rights in the constitution and german constitution was not actually social contract of the german people it was written and given to them by the americans are supposed to be neutral and obvious regardless of the of the democratic majority and with what we can see around the world now wouldn't you say that in a way even if there is no emergence from the societal constitution there are some things and that neutrality should be one of them where the court should rule anyhow there are many questions let me feel free to pick one yeah time say let me ask the first question so you asking at which stage could we then say that this third stage has been accomplished would it be sufficient that a court like the supreme court would say it is not unconstitutional no that would not be sufficient it would require that a court a constitutional court be it the american court or another court or another type of constitution of institution would say this is a new constitutional right so compared to the swiss federal court who said for instance in the 1960s that freedom of expression and information is now an unwritten right of the swiss constitution because in parentheses before that it didn't exist in the swiss constitution in the written text but the swiss federal court recognized it as an unwritten constitutional right and that they had the effect that it had the same standing as the written constitutional rights that were to be found in the document so that was the first question and do we need a constitutional right to protect net neutrality that is a key question of the research i'm conducting here over the next couple of months i insist and i think it is really very very important that this communication that we have on the internet is considered to be as something that is not protected already by the existing constitutional rights like free speech or freedom of expression and information if you look at european context i think that the communication that is taking place on the internet is something specific and that is so important that it is in a way the essence for all professional or private communication for most people worldwide and i think that communication process needs to be protected not only in the sense that individuals are protected in that communication but also that the internet itself is protected as an institution that not private powers can control that institution and for instance facebook in india introduced free basics in a way to argue yes we bring now the internet to the people but having a hidden agenda behind and wanting to extend power on these basic institutions so i think it is really necessary that we have a new constitutional right what a powerful way to end this launch on presentation thank you so much i have a great having you here thank you


Hey you guys so review of the Maui Moisture product, curl smoothie product as an actual styler. So I'm going to section off my hair to make it easier. As you can see I'm starting this off on dry hair. I'm going to lightly mist a large section with water and then I'm going to be using the as I am long in lux grow yogurt leave in conditioner as my leave in. I've been using this leave in right now for about two weeks okay. I'm setting my hair in chunky twists, my chunky twists or not really chunky twists. I tried to do the back as chunky twists and then some of the front as chunky twists but some areas will be medium sized twists just to let you know. So I just used a little bit of the curl smoothie and I'm beginning to twist my hair. When I'm done I'm going to have about I'll say between 20 to 25 chunky twists once I'm done. So yeah this is what I'm using and I hope you guys enjoy the video. I'll say this is the second time I've used this product as a styler and I can honestly say at this point that this is best in my opinion as a leave in conditioner. Only because the definition for me personally only lasted two days. Not even that. Like by the next day it was looking a little frizzy. Um yeah so it doesn't give me the hold that I had anticipated. So this is the final look up here in a minute and that is it you guys thank you so much for watching. Take care. Bye.


Our sermon title this morning is The Time to Sew and Reap, The Time to Sew and Reap. And we are working through this text in John chapter 4, verses 27 through 42, and this comes now on the heels of the conversation that we've been studying between our Lord Jesus Christ and the Samaritan woman at the well at Sychar. And so as we've studied that scripture, we looked at the example of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we saw in that passage what we are to see in that passage, the boundless grace of God in Christ towards this outcast and moral Samaritan woman. It's just a glorious picture of the grace of God. It's also a glorious picture of the Lord's evangelism and His mercy to this woman. It's just a wonderful, wonderful text. John, the evangelist, John, the author of our Gospel here, displays the Lord Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. And as we looked at how that played out, how that works itself out in the Gospel that was preached to the Samaritan woman, we can see that in reality that the Lord is gracious, His grace is boundless, even to extend to an immoral outcast Samaritan woman.  We need the Lord. We need grace. We need mercy.  We need to be clothed, robed in the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. So we need great grace. And here, as we look at chapter four, we're introduced to that outcast Samaritan woman and then fellow residents of hers in the village of Syker that come out to meet the Lord. And we can, as they can, fully attest to the boundless grace of God in Christ. Now they, those Samaritans in the village of Syker, recognize, they acknowledge Jesus Christ in verse 42 as the savior of the world. Not just the savior of the Jews, not just the savior of those that would think they could clean themselves up to make themselves acceptable to Christ. He didn't come to save good people. He didn't come to save those who are well. He came to save those who were sick, those who acknowledged their sin. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. And this woman came to understand and see for herself her own sinfulness.  Now outcast Samaritans would be described as those who are far from the promises of God, having no hope and without God in the world. That's the way Paul in Ephesians describes them. He describes us the same way. Gentiles the same way that we are far from the promises of God, having no hope and without God in the world. Until, until one day, we're here in John chapter 4, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah stands before her. Can you imagine, right? The Lord stands before her speaking to her and says, I've heard the Messiah's coming. He's going to tell us all things. And I who speak to you, am He, am, as the Lord says. It's an awesome reality.  You weren't looking for Him. He sought you out, presented Himself as the savior of the world. The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, exposed you in your sin, broke your heart over your sin. You saw your need for a savior and He, in great grace, in great mercy, saved your wretched soul. He is the savior of the world.  Those who were once afar off were brought near by the blood of Christ, through faith in Him. So that those who would believe, would believe that He is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing they would have life in His name. We are now Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, every one of us wicked sinners. We are now the one people of God. It's an amazing thought from every tribe, every tongue, every nation. You look around this room, the diversity of the people here. This is what heaven is going to look like.  When the Bible says, and I'm struck by this, when the Bible says that the Lord is seeking worshipers of Him, no one, not the angels in heaven, no one can worship the Lord like a redeemed sinner, bought blood, bought by grace. That's what the Lord seeks to worship. Those are those people who worship the Lord in spirit and in truth. Even in a sermon like this, we sometimes think of worship as singing songs, singing praises. That's what worship is. It is praising. It is adoration of God who saved us and redeemed us to Himself, His own special people. But even the ministry of the Word, like a sermon like this, should be praise and worship to God. As we study the Scripture together and as we learn more of who He is and more about His redemptive plan on behalf of us undeserving sinners, it should cause in us gratefulness. It should cause in us love. It should cause in us devotion, faith, trust. It should cause in us adoration. It should cause in us worship. So even as we listen to a sermon like this on a Sunday morning, this should be full of worshipful thoughts for all that He is and all that He's done. We should direct that worship to our Lord who saved us. That's the way it works. That's the way it works in the redemptive plan of God. Throughout history, from Genesis to Revelation, God has been redeeming lost, sinful people to Himself. That is the great plan of God. He doesn't have to. He didn't have to make provision for our sin. He didn't have to make provision for your sin, but He did. And He did in the provision of His own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. What grace, what mercy, what astounding grace. And He seeks those to worship Him, those that will worship Him in spirit and in truth. By faith or by grace through faith in the person and work of His Son. It's an awesome thought. It's an awesome thought. That you, having been an enemy of God by your wicked works, can be cleansed, can be forgiven. That I can be pardoned of my sin, and that now having been such a wretch, I can turn and worship the Lord in spirit and in truth and worship Him in such a way that that worship is pleasing to Him and acceptable to Him. It is a glorious, glorious blessing that we will only more fully come to understand when we have glorified minds and glorified hearts one day in heaven. It's a glorious truth. That is truly good news, amen. But Scripture often refers to that work. That work from Genesis to Revelation, the work that now goes on today in the church. That work often referred to in the Bible as sowing and reaping a harvest. Sowing and reaping, we see that depicted for us as a picture of God's work in saving sinners. Sowing a seed, seed being the word of God.  And in that, we're confronted many times in Scripture with that picture. Remember the parable of the sower from Matthew chapter 13. A man goes along, he sows good seed. That's the seed of the word of God. That seed, when it lands on good fertile soil, produces a harvest, right? Ready for reaping, some 30, some 60, some 100 fold. The Lord in that picture uses the means of His people to do that work. I would submit to you this morning that if you have lost some of the luster of the joy of your salvation, or maybe you have lost some of the joy, some of the hope, some of the just bliss over what the Lord has done for you as sinner, there's a problem in your heart. And you need to do business with the Lord and come to grips with what the Lord has done for wicked sinners. The idea of that should produce great joy in you. Joy that produces faith in you, that produces devotion. And it's a joy, it's a bliss that recognizes from that the great privilege, the great blessing of entering into that work that the Lord has given you as a means to accomplish those ends. In other words, if the Lord has saved you, then it should be producing in you overflowing wells of gratefulness of the Lord for all that He's done. Such that then it becomes a joy to you to enter into that labor for which the Lord has provided to save others. It's just the way that it works. It's just the means that God and His great wisdom, His infinite wisdom has prescribed for His glory and for your good that redemption on the earth among sinful men should be accomplished. That we get to enter into those labors as a glorious blessing. We get to glorify God in preaching the gospel. Now think about what it means for a moment to glorify God. We use that term, I'm glorifying God. I want to glorify God. I want to glorify God in my workplace. I want to glorify God in my devotional life. I want to glorify God in my family. What does it mean to glorify God? To glorify God means to proclaim, preach if you will, His attributes. To reflect His attributes in your own life, you glorify God. When you reflect the Lord Jesus Christ in the way that you live, you glorify God. When you preach the Lord Jesus Christ, you're glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ.  When you proclaim God, you glorify Him. There is no greater work given to men, no greater way to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ to glorify God than in proclaiming the grace of God in Christ to a lost world that sinners might be saved. There's no greater work given among men. It is a glorious blessing to enter into the sowing and reaping of the Lord. I reminded of Paul's comments to Timothy in 1 Timothy where Paul said, I was once an insolent man. I was once a boaster, violent. He was a wicked sinner. What could you say?  I was once an adulterer, a fornicator. I was once a thief. I was once a drunkard. I was once a coward. I was once a compromiser. I was once a wretched sinner. And doesn't Paul say to Timothy, that God showed me much grace putting me into the ministry. He considered it a grace. When we're saved by grace and then have the blessed ministry of proclaiming that grace to a lost and dying world, listen, it is grace to us. It is grace to them. It is glorifying to the Lord. It's a joy. And I know that in our Christian lives often, often we need to remind ourselves, right? We need to talk to ourselves. We got to take ourselves in hand sometimes. Remind ourselves of the glories of Christ and saving our wretched souls. And remind ourselves that this is the joy. It's not that we have to, right? I'm a Christian so I got to enter into this world. It's a we get to. It's a we get to. And the degree to which your we get to kind of attitude is diminished. It's a degree we need to remind ourselves of the grace of God to us. We need to remind ourselves of the grace of God and the work that we get to participate in. You know, as we work through John chapter four, we get to see that work exemplified throughout this chapter. In the example of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the work that his disciples are about to enter into. In the fruit that we see from the Samaritan woman and then the fruit from all these people that are now going to be flooding out of Sychar to hear him, to meet him. We get to see that work exemplified. And we saw that, right? In verses one through 26 in the grace of God to this immoral woman. And we see ourselves in her example. We see ourselves as the woman at the well. We see ourselves as the leper who needs to be healed. We see ourselves as the blind who need to see, right? The lame who need to walk. We see ourselves as the judices who betrayed him before and now are redeemed, where a judice is drinking to the dregs, the wrath of God even now. By the grace of God, we are saved, redeemed people of God. But now in John chapter four, beginning at verse 27, we're going to see that example, that account. We're going to see that explained and expanded. We're going to see the Lord Jesus Christ teach his disciples. We're going to see the Lord Jesus Christ preparing his disciples to enter that work. And now as we work through these verses, we really need to see ourselves as that. As disciples of Christ, we are called now to labor in the Lord's vineyard. We're called to sow and to reap. And at no other time in history is it the opportunity that we have to sow and to reap for the Lord. We're in a time of redemptive history when the Lord is gathering in his elect and one day when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, the Lord Jesus Christ is going to come back and call us home. We're in a glorious period of time in history and in that time in history, we are reaping where many, many, many for centuries have sowed before us. So we are in a blessed position, a blessed time, a blessed privilege of sharing the gospel with lost people. So as we work through this passage, now I want you to see four primary points. Four primary points. We'll cover a couple today. We'll cover a couple next week. The first is this. One is the glorious provision of the work. Again, we say this all the time. The Lord didn't have to save sinners. The Lord didn't have to make provision for our sin. Upon our birth, the Lord could have cast us in hell and he would have been right to do so because the Bible says in sin, our mothers conceived us. We're sinners from birth, by nature. But he made provision for our sin through the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and even here we see this work gloriously going on, on the earth. And it's a glorious blessing that the people of God to have the privilege of preaching the gospel to lost people and participating in that redemptive work. Secondly, we'll see the heavenly priority of the work. We're dealing with eternity. We're dealing with heaven and hell. Again, if you look at the shortness of your life, Brother was talking this morning about our lives being a vapor, just a puff of smoke. And even that is longer by comparison. If you think about it, you look at the timeline of your life from the moment that you're born and if the Lord is gracious, let's say you live to be 80 years old, you look forward to the timeline of your life, 80 years, here and gone. Rises up like grass and withers away. You look at eternity beyond that and it stretches unimaginably far beyond our ability to comprehend eternity. It is unfathomable. I can't get my mind around that eternity. This life is so short, so short. And moment by moment, just like that, people are dying and dropping into hell.  This is, we need to see the glorious priority, the heavenly priority, the heavenly perspective on this work, the importance of this work. And we're going to see that in verses 31 through 34. Thirdly, we're going to see the present joy of the work. Like I said, this is not a yacta, this is a yageta. This is a joy to enter into this work. And the Lord will do that. The Lord will do that. As Christians move beyond guilt over their sin into the grace of God in Christ, the Lord puts us in the joy and bliss of His salvation. And it's such a way that obeying the Lord, obeying the will of the Father becomes our main priority. It becomes the joy of our lives. It's a terrible cycle sometimes to get into where you as a genuine Christian want nothing more than to walk pleasing before the Lord. Want nothing more than to do His will to live for Him, to obey Him. That's the desire of your heart, right? So you obey Him.  You're going to serve the Lord and obey Him. It gives you great joy, great blessing. The Lord grows you and matures you through it. You get a taste of what the Christian life is like. And then, because it was so joyful and was so good, you stopped doing it at some point. And you fall into sin and you suffer apathy and indifference and you get yourself in this rut where it becomes a burden to serve the Lord or a chore to serve the Lord or just getting out of the house on a Sunday morning is like taxing to you. And then you think to yourself, you know what? I'm in sin. You repent of that thing. You cry out to God like David did. God restored to me the joy of my salvation. And you enter into His labor. And you start serving Him again. And what happens? The Lord blesses you through that and you become joyful. You start growing. You start being sanctified. You're progressing from what you used to be to what the Lord is making you. And all that joy comes flooding back. And so then what do you do in our sinful flesh? We're so prone to wander. We stop doing it again. That's like the battle of the Christian life. We need to enter into the joy of the Lord. We need to serve Him and in serving Him we pursue our sanctification. The Lord blesses. We have to remind ourselves of those things all the time and keep serving the Lord. Hang in there, right? Because there is joy. There's no greater joy than in serving and obeying and living for the Lord. So we see that heavenly, that present joy of the work in verses 35 to 38. Lastly, point four, we're going to see the eternal fruit of the work. And I tell you, when you think about eternity, when you think about heaven and hell, there's great joy in the eternal fruit of the work. And the Lord is here gathering fruit for eternal life. And it is a tremendous work that is going on. Many, many, many, many, many, a professing Christian can live their Christian life as if that work isn't going on at all. Or as if it only applied to them.  If that's the way that they're living it, and serve the Lord in this work of sowing and reaping. Let's take a look at point one. First is the glorious provision of the work itself in verses 27 through 30. So it begins in verse 27. And at this point, his disciples came and they marveled that he talked with a woman. Yet no one said, what do you seek or why are you talking with her? The woman then left her water pot, went her way into the city and said to the men, come see a man and say all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ? And then they went out of the city and came to him. So now verse 27 begins literally in the Greek and upon this came the disciples. That's the way that phrase starts. And upon this came the disciples. Jesus had sent the disciples into the nearby village, into Sychar to get food. So upon this they return from the village. You see the observation of the text and you see something like that. And at this point in the New King James or upon this you want to go and find out upon what? And we see that upon in verse 26. They return upon the statement of the Lord Jesus Christ in verse 26 that I who speak to you am. Now the way that's phrased here, the way that it's presented is the disciples of the Lord talking to a woman, maybe even saying among themselves what is he doing talking to a woman?  I believe have returned in time to hear him make that statement to the Samaritan woman at the well. Heard him proclaim his deity proclaim that he is the Messiah, the Son of God to this woman at the well in Samaria. Now we're reminded that just like she was an outcast and moral Samaritan woman we are outcast, immoral sinners ourselves far from the promises of God. What a gracious statement. We also have to see that that is a what a gracious example what a gracious moment for the disciples to see. Now we're reminded in verse 27 that that word their disciples describes those that are following him. The word their disciples is a description for those that are in a learning relationship to Christ. A learning follower is a disciple. There are many descriptions in the Scripture for Christians, for those who are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible calls them on a couple occasions Christians. The Bible calls them believers. The Bible in many cases calls them a slave. That's a right depiction of our relationship to Christ. We are slaves of Christ. But predominantly, by and large we're called disciples. We're called disciples because the disciple is not someone who just sits back on their couch like they're watching a documentary about Christ. Or I'm going to read a textbook about Christ. Or I'm going to go to a class and figure out a bunch of stuff about Christ. These are learning followers. That's the relationship that we're in. There are apprentices. Just like an apprentice would follow a master carpenter, right? For the sake that he could admire good carpentry? No. For the sake that he could do it himself. In learning from the master the apprentice will at one point enter into that work in the same way disciples of Christ. We follow the Lord Jesus Christ with a purpose that eventually we are going to enter into that work. When we become Christians, we become disciples. We enter into the work as we learn. We are learning followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. Here the disciples are just that. They are apprentices. Every genuine Christian is. You don't become a Christian and at some point down the road become a disciple. Every Christian is a disciple of the Lord. If you're not a disciple, a learning follower entering into his work, you're not a Christian. And you can take that to the bank on the authority of God's word. You're not a Christian. That means now from verse 27. They're here in a learning relationship. They walk up. This is the conversation that's going on and this is a great blessing. What the Lord is going to do here with them? One, it's a great blessing that they're saved. It's a great blessing that you and I are saved if you're here in Christ. You've turned from your sin and you've put your faith in him. Two, it's a tremendous blessing that they get to follow and learn at the feet of the master. Think about it. They get to learn from the Lord Jesus Christ himself with an awesome blessing. You and I do too. You and I do too. We get to learn at the feet of Jesus going through the Bible together. That's a tremendous blessing. It's a blessing you're saved, a blessing you get to learn. But not only that, the Lord is going to prepare them to enter into the work that he's provided for them to do, which is this of sewing and reaping that we see in John 4. They get to follow him in the work. Now, as they have this conversation with the Lord and as they see this account displayed before them, they're going to learn several lessons here. The first lesson that they're going to learn from this is that they've got to drop their prejudice. They've got to drop their prejudice. There were many at that time that were racist, that were sexist, that were very prejudiced, showed a lot of discrimination and here in verse 27 they demonstrate that by their statement. They came and marveled that he talked with a woman. Now, many of that time, the rabbis used to preach that to talk to a woman was a waste of time. Many rabbis taught that even to talk to your wife was a waste of time and at best it was just a diversion from something that was more important. They were tremendously prejudiced against women. Not only prejudiced against women, they were extremely prejudiced against Samaritans, against Gentiles. We see Samaritans just hated by the Jews at every turn. And here he's talking to a Samaritan woman. However, didn't we just learn in the example of our Lord in verses 1 through 26 that the grace of God in Christ is boundless. They're going to have to come to grips with the fact that they are no more deserving of the grace of God than this immoral outcast Samaritan woman. In fact, their self-righteousness and their prejudice makes them less deserving. There is such a thing. They're going to have to drop their prejudice and realize that they are just as much in need of grace as this Samaritan woman. And they're going to see that over time. They're going to see that the grace of God is truly boundless. Even the word there in verse 27 that they marveled, that word marveled carries the sense of wonder or astonishment at something that is beyond normally human. Right? Borders on the miraculous. They marveled. They wondered. And the fact here that they were wandering and marveling it displays their own prejudice but it also demonstrates the fact that Jesus Christ in talking to this Samaritan woman was not given one iota, not one might to prejudice or sexism. No matter what many today might say that Jesus somehow was gender biased or against women or chauvinistic or sexist or that he was prejudiced. That is a lie. That is blasphemous. Just the opposite. That God the Lord Jesus Christ is no respecter of persons. They're going to have to drop their own prejudice in order to enter into this work. For you and I, entering into this work we've dropped our own prejudices. There is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. We're all one in Christ. Those that are Christians. When we're in the body of Christ we're all one together. Again, this is what heaven is going to look like. This is what heaven is going to look like. We're to drop our prejudice. How many churches are we meeting today that are all one thing or another thing? Just not to be that way. We're all one. Next, the second lesson is they're going to need to see things more the way the Lord Jesus Christ sees them. They're going to have to develop a heavenly perspective. We'll talk about that as we go through these verses. They've got to see the circumstances from a heavenly perspective. Verse 21. This is introduced to them. Verse 27. No one said, none of the disciples said to one another, what do you seek? They didn't rebuke him or try to correct him. They didn't say what do you seek or why are you talking with her? Many of the lessons that they're going to learn are not going to be fully understood until after the resurrection. That's just the way in the Lord's program in the New Testament that we see things working often here. But they're beginning to learn with this example as the Lord said to Isaiah, my thoughts are not your thoughts. Your ways are not my ways. And to that we can say amen, right? Praise God that God isn't like me.  Praise God that God is God. The Lord here in verse 27 and through this section is acting according to motives and acting according to reasons that they don't understand and can't get yet. And they dare not interrupt him. So they're not going to interrupt him to try to correct him or ask him what he's doing. And so they don't say anything to him. They're going to start learning this lesson. Third, they're going to get an understanding here that this, the Lord's conversation with this Samaritan, the fact that they're even traipsing through Samaria on their way to Galilee, they're going to have to get used to the idea that this is the work that they've been called to. This is the gospel. Right? It's going to take time but they're going to eventually get it. It took Peter. Didn't it? Three visions of the sheet coming down before Peter could understand that Gentiles were not unclean. And even then it took Peter going to Cornelius to let that lesson sink in. They're going to have to start understanding that this is the work they've been called to. The Lord has provided that salvation will extend to Judea even here to Samaria and where? The uttermost ends of the earth. Even to Gentiles like me and you. God has made provision for salvation to everyone through the gospel. And he's made the glorious provision for all of his to be involved in that work. This is a tough lesson at this point if they're going to learn how to follow him. They were going to have to drop their prejudice. In process they're going to have to see they're no better themselves in this immoral outcast Samaritan woman. They're going to need to recognize that they were just as much in need of grace and mercy and forgiveness and pardon as she was. In essence, all of their sort of cultural upbringing was going to have to be dug out of them. You remember the story of Jonah, right? Jonah in going to the Ninevites didn't want to go, did he? It took a big fish to swallow him, spit him up on the land in order to get Jonah to do what the Lord had called him to do because Jonah hated the Ninevites and he would have rather died himself than have God actually show them mercy. That was how prejudiced he was. Many people grow up with those kinds of prejudices. You've got to drop that prejudice. You've got to drop it. Here, they're going to have to drop it. You know, what's interesting is we think about this and I think through this passage that this work has always been the case. Sometimes people get confused between Old Testament and New Testament and how God operates. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, okay? The plan of God has always been to redeem wicked people to himself. The fact of the matter is the work, the mission has always been the same. The problem is, is that somewhere along the line, the Jewish people got off track, got off track. It's always been the mission of God that in the Old Testament, it was the children of Israel, the people of God at that time who were to declare the Messiah, God's salvation to the nations. That was their job. That was the mission that they had been called to, to evangelize the nations that all the nations of the world would be blessed through them. Even in the first century, right? That was the plan, that was the program even in the first century. Right? Didn't Jesus, didn't Paul say to the Jew first and then to the Greek, right? Because the Jews, the people of God had the responsibility to preach the gospel to the nations. That through faith in Christ, all the nations of the world would be blessed. That they would all come to know the Savior. They would have preached the gospel to the nations. Did the Jews succeed in their mission? Were they faithful in the mission that the Lord has given them? No, they weren't. They failed in that. They failed in that. They began hoarding, if you will, the grace of God to themselves. Being so self-righteous that they believed only Jews could be saved. And the grace of God wouldn't extend anyone else but them alone by their, by virtue of their heritage, their descendancy from Abraham. But in Acts chapter 13, just one example of many, when the Jews rejected the gospel that Paul and Barnabas preached, Paul and Barnabas said, didn't Paul say, they judged themselves unworthy of eternal life? And so Paul and Barnabas turned from the Jews and took the gospel to the Gentiles, right? Same mission exists today for the people of God. In the way now that the gospel has been veiled by Jewish people, and God now is gathering in the Gentiles, Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, Wicked Centers like you and I are all being gathered together into one people of God. And the mission for that one people of God is the same mission today that it always has been that through the witness, through the evangelism, through the proclamation of God's people, that people from every tribe, tongue, and nation would be saved. By faith in Christ would come and be forgiven of their sins and worship the Lord in spirit and in truth. The same mission today exists for the people of God. And specifically it exists for you and I. If you claim to be a Christian, you claim to be a disciple of Christ, you're entering into that work, you enter into that mission because that's the mission that has been given from the beginning to the people of God. That is glorious work that the Lord has graciously provided for disciples of his. It is the work of a disciple to make disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Remind, and I know you're familiar with these passages, but Matthew chapter 28 beginning in verse 19. Go therefore, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe all things that I've commanded you. And lo, I'm with you always even to the end of the age. Amen. Now maybe you're tempted to think that that passage doesn't apply to you because you don't or can't baptize. Maybe you're tempted to think that that involves discipleship what we do in the church, but not evangelism. Maybe you think that this only means preaching behind a pulpit. But Jesus also commands disciples, all disciples in Mark chapter 16 verse 15, to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He says there every creature, unless you're tempted to think that that's world missions only, right? Every creature. Do you guys have creatures living around you? Yes.  They're living all around this place. They're creatures here that we get to preach the gospel to, not just world missions. Jesus commands commands the disciples and Luke to preach repentance and remission of sins to all nations. Jesus says to disciples of Christ in John chapter 20, that in the same way that God the Father has sent me, so send I you to preach the gospel. In Acts chapter 1 verse 8, when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, you will be witnesses for him. It's a glorious work and it's a glorious blessing that the Lord has allowed us to enter into that labor and those commands of the Lord are burdensome, right? There's joy in that, that we get to participate in that glorious work. In fact, in fact, entering into that work is a work or an evidence of genuine conversion. It's an evidence of the new birth. We see in this evidence that the Samaritan woman here at the well has been genuinely saved, genuinely converted. She's been born again, right? She acknowledges her sin, she understands who Christ is, she's been changed, we'll look at that in a moment, and she goes off into Sychar to preach Christ to tell others about him. It's exactly what we see the Samaritan woman doing.  Look at verse 28. The woman then left her water pot, went her way into the city and said to the men, come, see a man who told me all things I ever did. Could this be the Christ? This woman has been changed. She comes to the well that afternoon in the heat of the day to draw water. Alright, and look at what happens. After a conversation with the Lord, she forgets what she originally came to the well to do and leaves her water pot behind to go off and do the work of the Lord. She just forgets herself. She forgets what she came there for. She leaves her water pot and she goes back into the village. She's been changed. She's been humbled. She's been convicted of her sin. She's been awestruck by her conversation with the Lord and the very people that she had reasoned before to avoid now she runs off into the village to talk to to tell them about the Lord. There's no shame there anymore, right? There's no guilt there anymore. She's not afraid to go back to them. She's not the same person that she once was. The guilt is gone. The shame is gone. This woman has been changed. She's been transformed by the Lord and look at the fruit of that. We learn from John 3 that the new birth is like the wind. The wind blows. You don't know where it's coming from or where it's going. But you only know it's there because of the effects or because of the evidences of the work of the wind. The same thing is true here. This woman has been born again. Oftentimes it's sitting there sort of in the white space between your lines. It's there. This one has been transformed. She's been raised from death to life and she enters into the work of the Lord. She came to the well that day to draw worldly water and she left there with heavenly water. Water springing up into eternal life and she leaves in haste leaving her water pot behind to share that life with others. There are many. A vast majority of people today believe that the new birth or regeneration comes when someone makes a profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, you make a profession of faith and the Lord gives you new birth. That is unbiblical theology. It is wrong and it can be damningly deceptive. It's not what the Bible teaches. That is a lie. What the Bible teaches is that the Lord in His grace and mercy grants them new life brings them to life from the dead and then the evidence of that is that they make a public profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. They go off and preach Christ. This woman is born again and she makes her public profession that day in psychar. What the Bible teaches about regeneration, new birth is exactly the opposite of what most preach today. Her life has been dramatically and forever changed and there are so many of that interactions. Think about this for a moment. All because of the glorious work of the Son of God. The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. The fullness of that work beginning to end is no better pictured than right here with this shiny new trophy of God's grace. I want you to see that for a moment. His work beginning to end seen here in the example of this woman at the well here near the beginning of his earthly ministry Jesus Christ in great humility great condescension the Lord of glory steps out of glory comes and humbles himself humbles himself to accept a drink from her an outcast a moral Samaritan woman. Remember she made the point that we have no dealings with Jews. In other words we don't even share the same utensils. You're going to take a drink out of my water pot and not only would the Lord take a drink from her utensil so to speak take a drink from her hand an immoral outcast Samaritan woman. Not even worthy to unloose the thong on his sandal not only would he accept a drink from her but just fast forward three and a half years later the Lord Jesus Christ hangs on a tree bloodied tortured and dies to take a drink for her. The glorious picture Jesus Christ for that woman at the well took a drink from her that day and going to the cross takes a drink for her drinking to the dregs the undiluted fury and wrath of God that she rightly deserved for her sin. If you're here today and you're in Christ by turning from your sin putting your faith in him then the Lord Jesus Christ takes the same drink for you. Drinks that cup that you rightly deserve to drink and drinks it to the dregs. Jesus Christ cries out to the father in Matthew chapter 26 verse 42 oh my father Jesus says if this cup cannot pass away from me unless I drink it and your will be done that day on Calvary God rung from the Lord Jesus Christ all that was demanded by justice so that you could be made right with God and stand before him forgiven stand before him holy that you would stand before him acceptable in his sight Jesus taking that cup crying out my God my God why have you forsaken me taking the last drop in the cup for wicked sinners proclaims it is finished in the Lord Jesus Christ taking that cup on Calvary there's good news for us if you will turn from your sin if you'll put your faith and trust in him alone to save you then Jesus drank that cup for you in your stead on your behalf and freed you from ever tasting one drop of that bitterness or that terror that you deserve to face that you deserve to taste and in grace now in great inconceivable immeasurable infinite grace and mercy to sinners he now offers an empty cup to you it's been draught to the drags it's been finished if you will but take the cup take the empty cup embrace it that's the work of the Lord Jesus Christ for sinners if you'll turn from your own life and take the empty cup that the Lord Jesus Christ offers you you can be forgiven you can stand before God one day with an empty cup otherwise you'll stand before God one day and you for all eternity will drink every drop of that which you deserve for your sin is your heart cold toward the things of God this morning take the cup acknowledge your sin and take the cup empathetic indifferent do you recognize do you acknowledge that you're a liar that you spurn the things of God that you somehow think the things of God are common things light things are you honoring the Lord in the way that you treat your wife are you honoring the Lord in the way that you ladies submit to your husbands are you honoring the Lord in the way that you raise your kids honor your Lord with your life listen if you are outside of Christ take the cup acknowledge believe what the Bible believe what the Lord Jesus Christ says about you believe that and take the cup otherwise you're going to take it for yourself one day in hell there's a hymn it was written that expresses this truth the hymn goes like this hymn says once it was mine that cup of wrath Jesus drank it dry when on the cursed tree transfixed he breathed the expiring sigh no tongue can tell the wrath he bore the wrath so due to me sins just desert he bore it all to set the sinner free now not a single drop remains his finished was his cry by one effectual draught he drank the cup of wrath quite dry it's a glorious truth isn't it turn from your sin and put your faith in Christ as we continue verse 28 this woman did just that she humbled herself convicted of her sin and now saved she left her water pot went her way into the city said to the men come see a man who told me all things that I ever did could this be the Christ and I'm doing this in verse 29 she shows wisdom here she shows sensitivity in the way that she approaches them she doesn't go to the women because these prejudice people weren't going to listen to what women were going to say she goes to the men she said to the men of that city she doesn't declare it to them I found the Christ they wouldn't have believed that or accepted that from her possibly in pride they would have ignored her she presents it to them cautiously and using a word in the Greek expressing a very cautious opinion could this be the Christ so her excitement in the account of the conversation she had with Jesus coupled with some exaggeration he told me everything about myself isn't that the truth of a Christian right initially you may be convicted over a sin pretty soon you're convicted over being a sinner it's like the woman at the well I've been an adulterer this is who I am right she acknowledged who she was in that sense you know it wasn't just that he saw her adultery he saw her and she felt exposed for everything that she was so she said he told me all things I ever did here she's not ashamed anymore what she used to be she has the sense that she's not that same person anymore and so either here in verse 29 either despite her scandalous past but I think more appropriately precisely because of her scandalous past it aroused the curiosity the men in Sychar and they wanted to go out and check things out for themselves this woman was a wonderful witness for the Lord Jesus Christ point two in your notes while this is all going on there's a whole other conversation going on with the disciples and point two is the heavenly priority of the work that we see in verses 31 through 34 we're not going to be able to get into all this today but here this is a pretty remarkable lesson that the Lord Jesus Christ is going to teach his disciples in preparing them to enter into the work with the disciples or with the people the men of the city they're going to be coming out to Jesus just like Nicodemus had earthly mindedness and couldn't get past that earthly mindedness when considering the new birth just like the woman at the well at the beginning when she was wrapped up in earthly mindedness could not consider the spiritual truths that the Lord was trying to teach her about the water in the same exact way the disciples here the disciples of the Lord are trapped in earthly mindedness about the food Lord sends them into the village to get food they come back they're preoccupied with the food Jesus Christ the Lord Jesus Christ in his great example to us is always preoccupied with the heavenly always and when you're always preoccupied with the heavenly you gravitate first toward heavenly things heavenly mindedness we're to put our minds on the things above you ever been around someone who reading the Bible all the time been around someone who really reads the Bible all the time scripture comes out of their mouth like even a normal conversation what do you do today I pump gas and they're glorifying God like in the next phrase the Bible comes out of their mouth in a sense here it's like being around the Lord Jesus Christ is that it's always got a heavenly perspective on what's happening and Nicodemus had to come to grips with that the one with the well had to come to grips with that the disciples have to come to grips with that you and I have to come to grips with that but beyond that we have to model that we have to learn from that example and do the same he says in verse 31 in meantime his disciples urged him rabbi eat but he's preoccupied with heavenly things 32 he said to them I have food to eat of which you do not know he tries to explain it to them tries to give them the distinction but in 33 therefore the disciples said to one another just a little dimwitted right not unlike you and I often but here they're going to have to get it and again it just brings to the forefront in the example of the Lord that we'll see here in verses 31 to 34 the fact that this work this work of sowing and reaping is of a heavenly priority it is the priority of the Lord Jesus Christ needs to be our priority too people don't they go around a lot professing Christians wondering what is the will of God for me what's the will of God it's the will of God I should buy this car or that car or should I marry this person or that person or where should I work or what should I do what is the will of God for me listen it's not mystical it's not mysterious verse 4 verse 3 says this is the will of God for you your sanctification you're to pursue your sanctification but also the Lord has given us a ministry of sowing and reaping and in great joy following the example of our Lord we're to enter into that glorious work and it is a glorious privilege we'll look at that more next week as we work through this passage together right let's pray Father in heaven thank you for these truths God thank you for this example thank you for the example of our Lord and I pray God that we would be faithful to not just let these words pass in one ear out the other we're praying hearers only and not doers I pray God that you would apply these truths to our heart that we might live for you more fervently God that we in that work might see the joy of our Lord and that in obeying the will of the Father as our Lord did I pray that we would enter into that joy as well and seeing the blessed privilege that we have in Christ to preach the gospel to lost people so that you would be glorified so that your name would be made famous magnified so that you would be praised and worshiped as is right by redeemed sinners for all of eternity those worshiping you in spirit and in truth for your glory for the good of your people in Jesus name Amen