Friday, December 25, 2015

Sermon Video: "give him the name Jesus" Matthew 1:21

A short message from the Christmas Eve service.

The message of the angel to Joseph, to enable him to understand how Mary's pregnancy was not a blemish on her character, also revealed crucial insight into who this miracle child would one day be.  The name given by the angel to Joseph, Jesus, is the Greek version of the common Hebrew name, Joshua.  Joshua means, "the LORD saves", but Jesus' use of the name would be different, for as the angel said, HE would save his people, and not from oppression or injustice, but from their sins.  What's in a name?  For the Son of God, a lot, for it would indeed be the LORD that saved, this time in the flesh.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

What is a Christian willing to accomplish by "doing whatever is necessary"?

What are we willing to attempt to accomplish by "doing whatever is necessary"?  The answer, literally, should be nothing, for there is nothing that we ought to be willing to utilize evil in order to achieve, but when most people use that phrase they're talking about effort and sacrifice, perhaps a little stepping over the line when needed.
The following video is a test, watch it first before reading my comments upon it below.  Your reaction to this video will judge your ability to understand the purpose of the Gospel, your willingness to obey what it requires of you, and just what it is that you are willing to see blood spilled to accomplish.  The speaker in the 6 minute video is Pastor Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, a 12,000 member church.  He received a standing ovation at the end of these remarks, how will you respond?


Pastor Jeffress in response to ISIS

Did you cheer along with the audience, or did their cheers send a chill down your spine?  The words of Pastor Jeffress paint all Muslims as believers in the ideology of ISIS, saying that the Koran is full of commands to violence, while dismissing the commands of God in the Old Testament, and then following that up by saying that individual Christians need to love our enemies, but our government should blow them all to hell.  Also, where in the Bible does it say that God is against illegal immigrants and refugees, to claim Acts 17:26 as a justification for that political viewpoint is terribly poor exegesis.  Likewise, quoting a politician from the pulpit, and endorsing his viewpoint, especially a politician who has demonstrate virtually none of the fruit of the Spirit, is both foolish and dangerous.  I'm sorry, Pastor Jeffress, killing our enemies by "doing whatever is necessary" is NOT what Jesus taught his followers; not even close.  That misguided ideology led to the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII, civilian casualties be damned.  We cannot defeat radical Islam, just as we could not defeat militant communism, by lowering our moral standards and killing innocent women and children along with those who are actually a threat.  Don't we need to overcome evil with good, isn't that in the Bible, or do we get to ignore that command when the government does the killing for us?

What are you willing to accomplish by "doing whatever is necessary"?  I recently spoke privately with a friend because I was alarmed by his publicly expressed zeal to see Muslims, even if it is just militant ones, killed.  I tried to remind him that our obligation, given to us as a command by Jesus Christ, is to witness to the Gospel to everyone, our enemies included.  Sadly, the response I received later was to mock my concern for Muslims who don't know Christ, it seems some who claim the name of Christ (and thus should know better) would rather cheer while their enemies are killed by a smart bomb than sacrifice to share the Gospel with them.  If that attitude had prevailed in the early Church, the zealot hater of Christianity, Saul of Tarsus, would have been assassinated by Christians instead of hearing of God's forgiveness on the road to Damascus, there would never have been an Apostle Paul who received numerous beatings to spread the Gospel without God's willingness to forgive, God's willingness to turn an enemy of his people into a champion for his grace.
Did you cheer when Pastor Jeffress gave the government a blank check to kill as many people as necessary to stop those living among them who are terrorists?  Do you celebrate when the bombs fall, or when the knees bow in repentance?  The answer matters, there are over a billion Muslims in the world, aren't you required to present to them the Gospel of God's grace?  In the words of that redeemed enemy of Christ, the Apostle Paul, "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."

Monday, December 21, 2015

Sermon Video: "the power of the Most High" - Luke 1:34-35

The basic elements of the Christmas story are well known, but what of the deeper questions of purpose and meaning?  To know that Jesus, the Christ, was born of Mary is of course important, but our understanding needs to be more than that, we need to know why Jesus came, and why he had to be who he was, and nothing less, in order to fulfill that purpose.  The conversation between the angel Gabriel and Mary that informed her of her impending pregnancy contains the answers to those two questions.  Gabriel tells Mary that her pregnancy will not be the result of any normal biological process, her betrothed Joseph will have nothing to do with it, but instead the power of God himself, the Holy Spirit, will "come upon" her and "overshadow" her.  This unique conception will eliminate the stain of original sin, Adam's curse, from the child, and also be the key to his all important dual nature, both man and God, for as Gabriel further explains, the child to be born of Mary will not only be holy, but also be the Son of God.  These details are crucial to the Christian understanding of who Jesus was, and is, and what he would later accomplish through the Cross and Resurrection.  He had to be sinless to escape the penalty of death hanging over us all, and he had to be God in the flesh in order to accept our penalty for sin upon his shoulders and share his righteousness with us.  The sorrow of Good Friday and the celebration of Easter are not possible without the Virgin Birth, the conception by the Holy Spirit, and the pre-incarnate Word of God made flesh as Jesus, the Son of God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Sermon Video: "On the day the Son of Man is revealed" Luke 17:20-35

During Jesus' public ministry there was much speculation that he was the one who would usher in the Kingdom of God by driving out the Romans and re-establishing the Kingdom of Israel.  Jesus did indeed bring the Kingdom of God into our midst, but it was a very different kingdom than the physical/political kingdom that many longed for.  The kingdom that John the Baptist prepared the way for, and Jesus inaugurated, was a spiritual kingdom, a kingdom built upon repentance and reconciliation, a kingdom without borders or barriers, one open to any and all who were willing to accept it.  So, while the Pharisees, the Zealots, and the disciples, scanned the horizon looking for signs that a revolt was about to happen, Jesus went out spreading the Good News that God was already offering forgiveness from sins.
After his death, resurrection, and ascension, that kingdom grew rapidly from its core of dedicated followers, helped along by the Holy Spirit's power at Pentecost, until it spread throughout the known world within two generations, a remarkable feat unprecedented in history.  But when would he return, when would Jesus sit upon the throne that he had secured through suffering and receive the glory due him?  Beginning with that first generation, Christians have speculated about when the Son of Man would return, and while a natural urge drives that desire, it has remained unfulfilled thus far, for that day awaits the decision of the Father, and only he knows when the trumpet will sound.
What do we do in response?  We know that Jesus will return, but we don't know when, so what do we do?  Our task, our obligation, is to live our lives, here and now, for the betterment of the kingdom of God, i.e. his Church, by living out the Gospel's teaching and spreading the Good News to the ends of the earth.  We may have personally, days, years, or decades left on this earth, and it may be days, years, centuries, or even millennia, until Christ returns.  Our task remains the same: do our part by making the love and mercy of Jesus known, through us, to all we meet.

To watch the video, click on the link below;


Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Why Christians cannot claim all Muslims are the same

On a recent podcast, James White, author and debater on a variety of Christian topics, explained why it is not only dangerous, but ultimately sinful for a Christian to paint all Muslims with a broad stroke as terrorists.  It has been popular in some circles to claim that all Muslim are interested in Jihad, that a global caliphate achieved by violence is inherent to all Muslims.  Rather than argue about the nature of Islam, let us instead focus upon our responsibility as Christians to witness to the Gospel.  Why can't Christians dismiss all Muslims as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers?  The answer is simple: It destroys any hope you may have of sharing the Gospel with a Muslim.  Maybe you don't care, maybe you're so afraid of Islam, or so angry about terrorism that you simply don't care if there are Muslims who are non-militant (which there are).  Well, that's too bad, you don't have the choice to act that way because you have been commanded by Jesus Christ to share the Gospel with the whole world.  We must care for all of the Lost, even those who dislike us or hate us.  We have been called to show compassion to the Lost, we have been called to bear witness to the trans formative power of the Gospel.  This is not optional, to dismiss a type of person or group of people as being beyond the scope of the Gospel is a sin on our part.  It is not acceptable.  The "throw them all out of the country" attitude is not acceptable.  The "kill them all before they kill us" attitude is reprehensible.  We must reject, without reservation, the temptation to make the world an "us" vs. "them" fight; why, because the Gospel requires us to.  Our response as Christians must be that of our Savior, that is our only option.  It is easier to hate, but it is not Christian, not even a little bit.

The video by James White, pertaining to this topic, begins about 44 minutes into the video and runs for the next 5 minutes or so, and then also picks back up about 1:13:30 until around 1:15

James White on the Dividing Line

And this video from James White as well, beginning at about 38:30, with the most clear explanation coming toward the end of the video

James White on the Dividing Line - video #2

** Disclaimer, I don't agree with James White on everything, primarily we would disagree about Ecumenism (esp. regarding Catholicism), but his work on textual issues (i.e KJV only debate and history of the Bible stuff) is top notch, and his views on Islam are both informed and Biblical. **

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Sermon Video: Only the foreigner praised God - Luke 17:11-19

On his way to Jerusalem with his Passion drawing nigh, Jesus is confronted by ten men suffering from leprosy who cry out to him for pity.  In response, Jesus sends the men to the priest to be certified as being cleansed, before they are healed.  When they act in faith and begin the journey, all ten of them are healed.  Only one of the ten, however, takes the time to return to Jesus to praise God, and that one was a foreigner, a Samaritan.  This episode is one of many in which Jesus finds greater faith among foreigner than among his own Covenant people.  This phenomenon reinforces his teaching that Paul will later make explicit that with God there are no racial, geographic, or class distinctions.  There is one Lord, he is Lord of all, and all who would approach him must do so alike through grace by faith.
There is thus no room, whatsoever, in the Christian faith for prejudice or racism of any kind.  It is incumbent upon us, as followers of Jesus, to be on the side of the refugees, the aliens, and generally all those who are treated like "them" by "us".  In Christ, distinctions of "us" and "them" become meaningless, for there are only two types of people in the kingdom of God: sinners and redeemed sinners.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The non-Christian militancy of Jerry Falwell Jr.

It has often been said that moderate Muslim clerics and imams need to denounce terrorism and the philosophy of jihad that lies behind it.  This is of course true, but it carries with it the same obligation for Christian pastors and apologists to denounce hatred and other attitudes that are contrary to the Gospel when they come from those claiming to be leaders in the Christian community.  During recent comments to the student body of Liberty University, the president of that institution, Jerry Falwell Jr. said this, "I always thought that if more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walk in and kill".  His statement was applauded by many of the students in the audience, and he went on to explain, playfully it seemed, that he was carrying a gun at that time, almost as if he was hoping to find an armed Muslim that he could shoot first.  It should go without saying, but sadly it probably doesn't, that such inflammatory rhetoric is beneath the role of the president of an university, and certainly inappropriate as a topic to the student body of an university, but it also points to a larger issue where Mr. Falwell is misrepresenting the Gospel of Christ.
It is the obligation and right of law enforcement, the military, and government in general to protect its citizens (and by the way the non-citizens aliens in their midst) from danger, which may include of necessity at times preemptive measures when that threat is indeed imminent.  That is the role of duly constituted authority, from a Christian Biblical perspective, but that is not the role of the average citizen.  For the Christian, violence against even one's enemies should be contemplated with sadness, necessary to protect one's life or the lives of the innocent, but never gleefully laughed about, and never wrapped up in fear, anger, or prejudice.  It was, after all, Jesus who taught that we MUST "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".  It was this attitude, adopted by Martin Luther King Jr. that helped transform the racial attitudes of the American people, not the militant self-protection ideology of the Black Panthers.  What do Falwell and others who share his ideas envision?  An America where walking through a shopping mall or into a school you pass a half dozen people brandishing weapons, self-appointed security and vigilantes looking to shoot first and ask questions later, especially if the person in question looks like a Muslim?  This is not America, and it most certainly is not the way shown to us by Jesus who prayed while they nailed him to the Cross, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".  When Christianity has walked down the road toward violence and militancy, in particular when that those attitudes are mixed up with nationalism, we have known our darkest hours as a Church, we cannot allow the name of Christ to be associated with such things, for the Muslim among us is not an enemy to be slain, but a lost soul to be saved by grace, just as you once were before Christ saved you.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Another day, another mass shooting, is the world going to hell in a hurry?

If you watch the news, diligently, you will hear a story about a mass shooting and/or an act of terrorism somewhere in the world each and every day.  There will be a weather related crisis, or perhaps an earthquake, or a man-made disaster too.  There are plenty of things going on in a world with over seven billion people that demonstrate the inhumanity of man toward our fellow man and the corruption of human endeavors.  We could be pessimists without much prodding.  We could despair of the future and throw our hands up in the air and say, "Come Lord Jesus!"  Many Christians do just that, they're convinced that the United States, the West, even the World is spiraling out of control and the return of Christ is imminent because things are "worse than they've ever been".  This isn't a new phenomenon, it isn't particularly surprising either, but it is sad and unnecessary because by any indication, whether that be violence, poverty, life expectancy, responsible government, and especially the growth of the Church, we are living in the most prosperous and secure generation in the history of mankind.  It doesn't seem like it, not when ISIS is shooting up restaurants in Paris or new polls show that less Americans are going to Church than in prior generations, but it is true.
Our ancestors one hundred years ago, and especially further back than that, lived in a world that was more dangerous, poorer, more corrupt, and a lot less Christian than it is today.
Your gut may be fighting against that claim, you may not want to believe it, especially is you have a lot emotionally invested in thinking like a victim or claiming that the sky is falling, but not wanting to believe a fact doesn't make it untrue.  Five hundred years ago, to pick a random spot in history, the average person lived hand to mouth, always one bad harvest or pestilence away from starvation, and always worried that a marauding army was just over the horizon, not to mention pirates and their own rapacious nobility.  The average person was illiterate, had very few possessions, may never have traveled more than an hour or two away from the place where he or she was born, could expect to bury several children who didn't make it out of infancy, and aside from Europe, lived in a world where the vast majority of the people knew not the name of Jesus, let alone believed in him.
Today, by virtually every measurable statistic, things have improved, and not just a little, by leaps and bounds.  There are still pockets of poverty, endemic bloodshed, and resistance to the Gospel, but they're pockets now, not whole continents.  Africa has been transformed in the past fifty years, millions have been lifted out of poverty and the Church has not only conquered the animism that once thrived there, but is pushing back the frontier of Islam as well.  Asia is following suit, with India and China seeing hundreds of millions of people lifted out of abject poverty and the amount of Christians in their midst growing rapidly.  The world's largest Christian population will soon enough reside in China.  The Church may be declining in the West, but it is exploding in the South and East.
We have many reasons to be optimistic about the future, and many reasons to not despair about the present.  Remember, Jesus spoke of a Church against which the gates of Hell would not prevail, but if the Church is to conquer even the stronghold of the enemy, it will be on the offensive not cowering behind high walls and a moat.

I'm not a pessimist, not because I choose to be an optimist in the face of contrary evidence, but because my faith in the power of God agrees with all of the good things that are really happening in our world today.  The future is in the hands of God, and those hands are capable indeed.

For an excellent detailed examination of this issue, please read the article below by JD King.
Why You've Been Duped Into Believing The Myth That The World Is Getting Worse and Worse

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Sermon Video: "we have only done our duty" - Luke 17:7-10

What is our relationship with God?  We are his workers, but does that make God our boss and us him employees?  The nature of the relationship between God, the king of the universe, and mortal man is not really like that of a boss and an employee, rather it is like the relationship between a master and a servant (or even a slave).  We may prefer to think of ourselves as God's freelance independent contractors, but we most certainly are not, we are his servants.  What God commands we must do.  God is owed honor, praise, and service, when we fulfill that obligation God is does not owe us recompense in return for we can never repay our debt that God has forgiven.  We have been assigned a task, as the people who constitute the Church, to spread the Gospel and advance the Kingdom of God.  This is our calling, and we must answer it.  Let us never forget, God is God, and we are not.  It is God's will that must be done, it is his kingdom that one day will come.  Our response, our obligation, is to simply do our duty as faithful disciples of Jesus Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below:


Monday, November 23, 2015

Sermon Video: The Faith needed to Forgive - Luke 17:1-6

What does it take to forgive, to truly forgive as we are required to do by God?  In this passage, Jesus speaks of sin, forgiveness, and faith and draws a connection between the three topics.  Sin is important in relation to forgiveness because if we took sin more seriously, and did more to help others when they struggle with it, there would ultimately be less sin that needed to be forgiven.  Jesus' teaching on forgiveness itself is very simple: If a brother or sister in Christ repents of their sin, we must forgive.  No caveats, no exceptions, and no circumstances of the situation are needed to render that verdict.  Because God forgives the repentant sinner, we must as well.  But what of the egregious sins, what of the persistent sins, must we forgive those too?  Jesus anticipates this objection and responds with a hypothetical seven sins, against you, scenario in one day.  In that case, Jesus concludes, if that brother follows up each instance of sin with repentance, we must still forgive after the seventh time.  In other words, God does not allow us to set time, repetition, or severity limits to our willingness to forgive, we must forgive.  How does faith connect to forgiveness?  The disciples responded to Jesus' command to forgive by saying, "Lord increase our faith!"  They thought they needed more faith to do as Jesus asked of them, and we would readily agree.  But to this request Jesus simply responds by illustrating the incredible power of a tine portion of faith in this world.  If mustard seed sized faith can uproot a tree and toss it into the sea, can't the faith that you already have, a normal and regular amount that it is, have the power to forgive?  We need faith to forgive, but not a saintly level of faith, just an ordinary amount, and that is something that every follower of Christ is already in possession of.  In the end, we ought to be confronting and combating sin, we must forgive for we have been commanded to, and we need to obey that command by living by faith.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Friday, November 20, 2015

Why we can never allow "them" to be singled out.

After World War II, Pastor Martin Niemoller, who was imprisoned by the Nazis in 1937 and eventually confined at Dachau concentration camp, wrote about the failure of the German people, including himself, to speak up in defense of the "others".  His poignant words offer us a stark warning about letting society, whether that is the government or anyone else, label some people as "other" to be segregated, regulated, or otherwise cataloged.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Christians ought to be the first to raise their voices in protest when a minority group, whether they are citizens or not, are singled out for persecution.  In the political presidential primary currently underway in America, some candidates have proposed rounded up all members of a certain ethnic group to be expelled from the country, one has even floated the idea of a national database for one religious group so that the government can track them.  It should matter to you, not at all, as a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, that the ethnic group in question are Hispanics and the religious group being targeted are Muslims.  If you see them, whoever they are, as not equally deserving of rights and liberties as you are, you will one day regret your folly, even if this nation never persecutes "them" anywhere near as much as Niemoller's did, for you will have to answer for that attitude before Almighty God.  We are Christian by grace, not of our own worthiness, and we are American citizens because in God's kindness we were born (or able to move to) this great nation.  To treat either as something earned to lord over others is a sin of pride and a sin of lacking compassion.
There will be no national round-up of millions, and there will be no national database to track religion, we won't allow it, we will speak out, we have to, for our Savior has taught us compassion and mercy.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Sermon Video: The Rich Man and Lazarus - Luke 16:19-31

In his ongoing effort to explain the deficiencies of the religion of the religious authorities, Jesus tells his last parable in the Gospel of Luke, the Rich Man and Lazarus.  The parable begins with an expected lesson about the limited value of riches in this life, relative to poverty, if the former does not lead to the spiritual renewal that will lead to heaven.  The rich man's riches do not avail him when he dies, for he ends up in hell, while Lazarus' extreme poverty is no hindrance to his final destination at Abraham's side in paradise.  The lesson is reinforced when the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to give him a slight momentary relief of a drop of cold water to ease his torment, only to find out that it is not possible for any to interfere with the punishment given to those who reject God.
The unexpected twist of the parable comes when the rich man follows up his rejected request by asking Abraham to send Lazarus instead to his five living brothers to warn them of what awaits them if they follow in his footsteps.  This request is also rejected, but not because it is impossible, instead it is rejected because the living already have a miraculous witness that they ought to be listening to, not someone raised from the dead, but the Word of God as revealed through Moses and the Prophets.  The rich man insists that a visit from the dead is what is necessary to turn his brothers from their path, but the parable ends with Abraham's ominous response that not even someone coming back from the dead would be sufficient if they have already rejected God's Word.  Thus the parable of Jesus, while continuing the warning about shallowness of riches, is really a much sterner and more important warning about the eternal consequences of missing out on the call of God to repentance.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Sermon Video: The Law and the Gospel - Luke 16:16-17

What is the relationship between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Are they partners, adversaries, or something else?  In a brief comment in Luke 16, Jesus indicates both the continuity between the Law and the Gospel in a prologue/sequel type relationship, and the ongoing validity of the Law.  The purpose and role of the Messiah, in God's plan, is not to abolish or even amend the Law, but to be the first and only one to actually keep it.  By keeping the whole Law, Jesus is free of its condemnation, there is no death penalty upon him, therefore he can die for another; because he is the Son of God, he can die for us all (and subsequently be raised to new life).  What are the implications of this understanding of the Law and Gospel as partners and not adversaries?  The Old Testament is thus seen as a prologue to the New, providing the foundation for our understanding of it and the history of God's attempt to reconcile humanity prior to the Advent of Christ.  In addition, the Old Covenant remains in force, Israel remains the Chosen People, and God's work for and through the Church is not a replacement of those previous promises.  Lastly, the relationship between the descendants of Abraham, and those called by grace to faith in Christ, ought never to be an antagonistic one, although to the shame of the Church it has been throughout much of Church history.  Anti-Semitism, prejudice and hatred of the Jews, from the pogroms and expulsions to the horrors of the Holocaust, are categorically and unequivocally rejected by the Church as grave sins against God, sins for which all those who have committed them will answer before God.

To watch the sermon video, click on the link below:

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Sermon Video: "No servant can serve two masters" - Luke 16:1-13

In a parable given to his disciples, Jesus tells a story where a corrupt business manager is unexpectedly commended after having defrauded his employer because after he was caught initially he continued to defraud his employer but did so by forgiving portions of the debts owed to his boss so that after he was fired he would have the gratitude of those who had benefited from his fraud to fall back upon.  This "shrewd" use of wealth is what is commended in the parable.  Why would Jesus tell a parable where an unrepentant thief is commended for being a shrewd thief?  Jesus uses this parable to illustrate that the "people of this world" understand that money is a tool in a way that the "people of the light", i.e. God's people, often don't understand.  Wealth is not an end in itself, it is simply a means to an end, one that should be directed toward eternal and not temporary goals whenever possible.
The parable reminds us of the needs to use wealth shrewdly, and the words of Jesus following it put the emphasis on being trustworthy as well.  God desires to entrust his people with great things, provided they show themselves worthy of trust in the little things.  The conclusion of Jesus' teaching on wealth leaves no room for Christians to be under the impression that the pursuit of wealth is compatible with our discipleship of Christ: "You cannot serve both God and Money."  We are all servants, we all serve, our pride may insist that we don't, but we do; the only question is, whom do you serve?  God isn't interested in sharing his servants, he desires 100% of our commitment, a level of commitment which is, by the way, the best way to ensure that we are what we need to be in all of our relationships and responsibilities, for the one who serves God fully will also love his neighbor as himself.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

We're not broken just bent: wisdom in a song

Wisdom and Truth are ultimately all derived from God, and are powerfully manifested in his revealed Word, but they can also be found in unlikely or unexpected places.  As I was driving the other day a song came on the radio that I had heard before but whose lyrics really struck me this particular time.  The song was "Just Give Me A Reason" by P!nk, and it contains this chorus:

Just give me a reason, just a little bit's enough,
Just a second, we're not broken just bent,
And we can learn to love again.
I never stopped, you're still written in the scars on my heart,
You're not broken just bent,
And we can learn to love again!


The song is about a couple trying to work through a difficult patch in the relationship and rekindle their love, the imagery of a bent, but not broken, flower pops into my head, something that has been battered by a storm but will stand back up afterwards.  These words also remind me of the traditional vows that I've often utilized when performing a wedding, "for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health..."  Marriage is a long-term, a life-long commitment, one that will have difficult days and seasons, but also one that can bloom again, that can be brought back from life-support and made whole again.
There are a variety of things wrong with relationships between men and women in our culture today, including the confusion of sex and love and the willingness of many to start with sex, hope for love, and some day look for a commitment.  This backwards attitude, for commitment (i.e. marriage) is the only sure foundation upon which love and sex can truly be built, has led our culture to a place where relationships, like so much else in society, have become disposable.  Why work through a difficult phase in a relationship, why learn and grow as a person, why sacrifice for someone else, when you can just ditch the relationship and move on.  Relationships are abandoned when sexual desire fades, relationships are given up on when feelings of love subside, yet these were never meant to be the building blocks of the union between one man and one woman, for they cannot stand the test of time.  There is a reason that a marriage ceremony includes vows and promises, and when these are not taken seriously, or when a relationship is attempted without them, the end result will far too often be to give up when things are bent, to not try to learn to love again, but instead to walk away.
Relationships are disposable in our society, love is just an emotion, and sex just a self-fulfillment.  The answer to these shallow and ultimately damaging attitudes (just ask the kids left holding the bag) has been with us all along, it was the plan of God for us from the beginning: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.  So they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Mark 10:7-9)  If you are bent, you don't need to break, you can learn to love again.

Monday, October 19, 2015

Sermon Video: The Prodigal Son's brother - Luke 15:11-32

The Parable of the Prodigal Son is the third parable in a row told by Jesus in response to the muttering of the Pharisees and teachers of the law who had observed his friendly social interaction with the tax collectors and assorted "sinners".  Each of the three emphasizes God's concern for the Lost, God's willingness to seek and save the Lost, and the joy that erupts in heaven when God succeeds in saving one lost soul.  The younger son in this third parable is indeed prodigal, that is he is wasteful through loose living of his resources, in this case his portion of his father's estate, at which point he hits rock bottom and reconsiders his choices in life.  The younger son begins the process of repentance, turning from his sinful choices and seeking forgiveness for them, even formulating a plan where he will ask his father for a lesser role than being his son, hoping instead to become simply an employee of his father.  Such a resolution is unacceptable to the father, who upon seeing his son return, rushes out to meet him in a loving embrace and immediately restores his son's rights as a son in a tremendous act of grace.  Likewise, God meets the lost sinner where he is, rushing out to meet us and offering total and free forgiveness as well as cleansing us and making us whole.  This parable is a heart-warming story, a tremendous lesson in love, grace, and forgiveness, as well as a warning about the danger of "freedom" apart from God; but it doesn't end there.  The second son, the older brother, is the true target of the parable as he sits sulking in his bitterness and anger when he learns of his father's generosity to his undeserving brother.  It takes the father's intervention, along with harsh and unfair words from the older brother aimed at his father, before the point gets across that the younger brother had been dead, and is now alive, he had been lost, and is now found.
Why do Christians, people who have been forgiven themselves, become judgmental and self-righteous?  They certainly should not, such attitudes are always and everywhere unacceptable within the Church; as former defendants before God whose sentences were commuted by the intervention of Jesus, our response to grace shown to others ought to be a shout of hallelujah, if it is a mumble of self-righteous indignation, shame on us.  Why does it happen?  Two reasons: (1) Those who don't remember their own forgiveness may resent when it is given to others, which would come from a false sense that one's list of sins was somehow small or petty, not really a big deal.  (2)  And those who don't value the Lost as God values them, seeing them in his image, as our very brothers and sisters, are likely to care less about their salvation.  The Prodigal Son may have left home, and hit bottom before finding forgiveness, but it is those of us who stayed behind, who remained with our Father, who may need to learn compassion.

To watch the video, click on the link below:



Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Sermon Video: One sinner who repents - Luke 15:1-10

We live in a world where a 99% success rate is considered to be extraordinary, unheard of in most cases.  When Jesus is challenged by the Jewish religious leadership because he is socially accepting of outcasts like tax collectors and "sinners", he responds by telling two parable that illustrate God's unwillingness to write off anybody as the cost of doing business or an acceptable loss.  In the first parable, one out of one hundred sheep is lost prompting the shepherd to leave the ninety-nine in the care of another and search for it until it is found.  In the second parable, one out of ten coins is lost, prompting the owner of the coins to search the home diligently until it is found.  In both parables, the search goes beyond what we would normally do with such a loss, and the rejoicing that follows once the lost is found certainly goes beyond what we would do if we found one sheep or one coin.  The two parables are used by Jesus to illustrate God's perspective regarding hopeless cases and lost causes when victory is snatched from the jaws of defeat, or in this case, when a lost soul is snatched from the gates of hell.  When Jesus secures that victory, saving a lost sinner by rescuing him/her and bringing them home to God, the result in heaven is a rousing chorus of rejoicing, a party worthy of the triumph of the Son.
What do we take from these parables?  Three truths stand out: (1)  There are no "sinners", all have sinned, all are sinners, all need a savior to carry us home.  (2) There are no outcasts, none that we are not obligated to treat with dignity and kindness, none that are too far gone to be saved by Jesus.  (3)  The Gospel will save them, it can go anywhere, into the darkest places of our world and the darkest of human hearts, it can find lost sinners there and by the blood of the Lamb of God, it can save them.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

The peril of fear mongering among Christians

In a recent interview with Time magazine, the president of Faith and Action, Rob Schenck, a noted anti-abortion activist, spoke of the danger posed by fear mongering when it is used by conservative politicians and pastors, he said this: "Within our conservative ranks, there seems to be an almost rampant fear mongering that's used as a device to build audiences and readership.  And I think it's contrary to the optimism of the Gospel."  It doesn't take much searching to find a self-proclaimed conservative or evangelical politicians whose primary rhetorical tool is utilizing fear.  The same holds true, sadly, for several prominent conservative and/or evangelical pastors, and many less prominent ones.  Many congregations are given a steady dose of fear from the pulpit, fear of the government, fear of persecution, fear of the future.
There are two major problems with this use of fear, first that it doesn't represent reality, as Schenck went on to say, "Christians, especially evangelicals, often fear persecution by government.  And that does occur in other places.  So we project it here."  I've heard many a well-meaning Christians, and perhaps some not of noble purpose, speaking as if America is one small step away from being Nazi Germany, as if the government were compiling lists of Churches to raid and shut down, as if storm troopers will soon be in the streets.  There are things that require legitimate concern about our culture, our government, and our future as a Church and a nation, but when such fantastic claims are made, when the spectre of persecution is raised to frighten those who don't know better, not only are the real issues buried by fear and obscured, the far too real and deadly persecution of Christians around the world is trivialized by American whining and paranoia.
The second problem inherent in the fear mongering is that it is used primarily by those interested in your vote or your money.  The motive behind the appeal to fear is almost always a dark one, the response that it breeds in people is far more likely to be hatred than love.  It is contrary to the Gospel.  In the first century, the Church faced far more difficult circumstances, Paul was beaten and left for dead, unjustly jailed, and ultimately put to death, but he did not give in to fear, nor did he spread it, he responded with hope.
As I have said many times before, and will continue to say as often as need be, the Church is not a castle under siege, a timid force hiding behind a moat; the Church of Jesus Christ is an army, conquering in his name, by his power, a force that the gates of hell will not prevail against.  Why, oh why, do we let ourselves be led by men (and women) whose pessimism and appeal to fear is leading the Church from proclaiming the Gospel proudly to hiding in fear, fear of a persecution that isn't even real.
Lastly, Schenck's interview ended with a sentiment that deserves an amen from anyone who believes in the necessity of the Gospel as the sole path to salvation for humanity, "the deepest of moral, ethical and spiritual questions can't be answered by a political party."  Nor, I might add, by a politician or pastor looking for votes, book sales, or donations.

Sermon Video: The cost of discipleship - Luke 14:25-35

Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote an essay entitled, "the Cost of Discipleship" in which he decried the prevalence of "cheap grace" in the Church that he knew.  Cheap grace was not something that Jesus advocated, quite the opposite, for Jesus spoke on many occasions of the high cost of being his disciple.  Here in Luke 14, Jesus tells a crowd of volunteer disciples that had been following him on his travels that they must "hate" their family and their own lives if they hope to be his disciple.  The "hate" that Jesus is speaking of is a comparative hyperbole, much like the sentiment, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated", which speaks to the necessity of having our love for and dedication to God far and above that of anything else.  In the end, when we "hate" our family and ourselves by loving God so totally we actually can finally love our family, our neighbors, and ourselves properly.  When we put any of these in God's place, we're not actually elevating them, we're lowering them because the love that we have in that case is not the pure and holy love of one who already loves God with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength.
After the tough talk about hate, Jesus continues the reality check of discipleship by declaring that anyone wanting to be his disciple must also pick up a cross, in other words, be willing to pay whatever the cost to life, liberty, and property may be required of those proclaiming the name of Jesus.  We know of the cost in righteous living that is necessary for any and all followers of Jesus, what we do not know is how much more will be asked of us, but each who would be his disciple must be willing to pay that cost if asked.
Finally, Jesus concludes by telling the crowd that they need to calculate their own level of commitment to see if, in light of the high cost, they are still willing to pursue being a disciple.  The same question lies before us, we must be aware of the cost of discipleship, it will not be cheap, and we must be willing to pay it.  What if we are not, what of those who wish to follow Jesus without such a commitment, Jesus calls them salt without saltiness.  They may look the part, but lack the benefit of the real thing.  The Church doesn't need bland Christians, it needs ones dedicated to the Cross, for only they will through the power of the Holy Spirit be God's instruments to change the world.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Thoughts on Pope Francis' speech to Congress

There are only a handful of people in our world today who could receive glowing coverage from CNN and Fox News at the same time.  The recent visit of Pope Francis to the United States saw such a confluence of the American political right and left, both of whom see something in Pope Francis that they would like to claim as their own (either through genuine admiration or hope of politically co-opting his popularity), and at the same time, both sides also see things in what he says and does that trouble them, things that they would rather ignore.  In this reaction, cheering for what we already believe and pretending not to hear what we disagree with, I see a microcosm of how Christians too often respond to the claims of the Gospel.  We embrace those portions of it that conform to our own ideas and try to ignore or twist into something they are not those portions that would require us to change.
For example: Republicans cheered when Pope Francis said, "I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without.  Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family."  Republicans saw this as a criticism of the legalization of gay marriage in America, they cheered, the Democrats were silent.  Elsewhere, however, it was the turn of Democrats to cheer and Republicans to sit on their hands when Pope Francis said about those hoping to travel north to America, "We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation.  To respond in a way which is always humane, just, and fraternal."  The same pattern existed, among Congress, and no doubt the audience watching at home, when mention was made of protecting the environment, abolishing the death penalty, halting the arms trade, and having an economy that "seeks to be modern, inclusive, and sustainable."
Politicians are happy to claim the Pope's popularity when it suits them, and just as quick to dismiss his ideas on the economy or social issues when what he says would challenge their political beliefs.  It is not necessary to agree with the solutions offered by Pope Francis to any particular issue, but we must, as Christians, at least be intellectually honest with ourselves by admitting when we too, like the politicians, are only listening to what we want to hear.
The teachings of Jesus Christ do not fit in cozily with the political views of either the Republicans or the Democrats, both of whom have made Faustian political compromises for the sake of expediency, Republicans with business interests at the expense of the poor, and Democrats with the intellectual class at the expense of the unborn, just to name the most obvious failure of each camp to follow the Gospel's declaration of the dignity and brotherhood of all men.  You cannot be an honest follower of Jesus Christ and ignore the need to help the poor.  You also cannot be an honest follower of Jesus Christ and ignore the sanctity of life and marriage.  It is not acceptable for Republicans to dismiss Pope Francis' cry to help the poor against the abuses of Capitalism by calling him a Socialist, and it is not acceptable for Democrats to drown out Pope Francis' plea for the unborn by calling the decision to end that life a "choice" or a "right".
Disagree with Pope Francis' politics if you want, this is America and he is just a man, even if he does have a fancy hat and a cool car, but dismiss the claim that the Gospel has upon you to protect the poor, the vulnerable, and the innocent among us at your own peril.  In the end, I'm glad that Pope Francis made both the Republicans and the Democrats uncomfortable in their turn, for as a representative of the Gospel, speaking to a culture in need of its transformative power, their is plenty in American politics and culture that Pope Francis has rightly diagnosed as being in need of change.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Sermon Video: An offer you should not refuse - Luke 14:15-24

Following his comments about pride and humility as well as one encouraging kindness toward those who cannot return the favor, Jesus responds to a statement about how blessed it will be to eat at the feast in the kingdom of God by telling a parable that highlights two important truths: First, that simply hearing about the invitation to forgiveness from God is not sufficient if one does not respond and accept it, and second, that God will not restrict his offer of salvation to only those on the inside (i.e. Israel in the past, the Church today), but will instead go out and find the marginalized, the overlooked, and the forgotten of society to offer to them his grace through Jesus.  Both of these truths are important for the Church to internalize, the first because it guards against complacency and assuming that just because someone is connected in some way to the Church that they must be a Christian, and the second because it ought to invigorate our evangelism, especially to those segments of society we might otherwise miss.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Sermon Video: Humble yourself - Luke 14:7-11

In many instances, the teachings of Jesus are counter-cultural, running against the grain of what the religious leadership of his day was teaching the people, but at other times, the problem wasn't a matter of changing minds but of changing hearts.  While at a dinner hosted by a Pharisee, Jesus notices the scramble among the guest for the seats of honor at the table and uses that display of pride to tell a parable about guests at a wedding feast.  The parable itself, and its moral, are both things that previous rabbis had taught, they were not controversial in any way, they just weren't being followed.

Pride is a tricky sin, one we may often miss seeing in ourselves, but one that must be dealt with because pride is at its most basic a form of ingratitude toward God.  Why are we full of pride, because we don't give God adequate thanks as Creator, we don't recognize that our own accomplishment (or accident of birth) is not our greatness but God's grace.  Throughout the Scriptures, God consistently opposes the proud and uplifts the humble, this principle is stated explicitly often enough, as well as being illustrated implicitly in the lives of prominent people in the Bible like Moses or Ruth, who exemplify humility, and Sampson or Nebuchadnezzar who reaps the penalty of pride.

So where are we prideful?  What do we need to do in our lives to set aside pride and embrace humility?  We have been called to be disciples of Jesus, as such we need to take seriously our need to imitate the man who had more cause to be glorified than any other, but was willing to take upon himself the role of the humblest servant for our sake.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Sermon Video: Resisting the Love of God - Luke 13:34-35

Much has been written, any many a debate and/or argument had, over the issue of how the will of God fits together with the freewill of humanity.  Is God entirely sovereign, and human choice simply an illusion, or has God chosen to allow human choices to truly matter?  In regards to salvation, in particular, what is the key factor, the call of God or the response of man?  Does it have to be an either/or question or can it be a both/and?
This is, of course, a complex topic, involving many Scripture passages, as well as the overall theme of God's Word, and one where you can find references in the Bible that seem to support both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.  In the end, we won't be able to "solve" this question in this life, but because it is one that the Scriptures dwell upon, so must we.
Here in Luke, Jesus laments the rebellion of Jerusalem and expresses his desire to protect them from themselves, "but you were not willing!"  Regardless of how the rebellion of man fits into your understanding of the issue of God's will and human freewill, the consequences of that rebellion are the same: desolation.  Without God, man is doomed, without redemption, our terminal spiritual sickness will indeed become spiritual death.  Our response, again regardless of how we view the issue, is the same, we must share the Gospel, we must do everything we can to show the Lost the love of Christ and their need for forgiveness.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Saturday, September 12, 2015

Sinking to a new low

There are certain things that some "Christian pastors" teach, and I don't use those quotation marks lightly, for it is no small thing to doubt the faith of someone who claims to be a Christian, especially when you don't personally know him/her, but there are some beliefs that go so far beyond the boundaries of a Christian-worldview that they call into question anything else that person might say about faith, Jesus, and the Gospel.  Social media and Youtube have given such people a voice, and during the past twenty years we've seen the chaos and hate spawned by the people of Westboro Baptist Church as they protest at the funerals of American service members.  The utter bankruptcy of their willingness to cause pain to the families of those who have given the 'last full measure of devotion" to their country is obvious to all who don't share their fanaticism.  Alongside the people of Westboro belongs the "pastor" of the Faithful Word Baptist Church, Steven Anderson.  I've known of Steven Anderson for some time, his shrill KJV only claims are well known on the Internet, as was his much publicized public prayer that President Obama would die of a brain tumor.  On top of this foolishness is also added the damning title: Holocaust denier.  There is no legitimate reason to deny the Holocaust that is not fueled by anti-semitism.  The documentation of the Holocaust is so massive and exhaustive that to deny it stretches rationalism beyond its breaking point.  There are few things that Islamic Jihadists and White Neo-Nazis agree upon, denial of the Holocaust is one of them, shouldn't that be a frightening group to join.
It pains me that both of these examples are from those calling themselves "baptists".  Please, those of you who don't know the difference between Christian denominations, or who don't know personally any baptists, please, don't think for a moment that the rest of us have anything at all in common with these who are profaning the names of pastor, baptist, and church.  Sad, but true, this is a new low, lower than the last, that anyone calling himself a Christian would deny that millions upon millions of the descendants of Abraham were murdered in WWII, for shame.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Sermon Video: "How many will be saved?" Luke 13:23-30

In this passage, Jesus responds to a very important question that is asked of him, "how many will be saved?"  Will the grace of God be triumphant, bringing in vast multitudes of the Lost into the kingdom of God, or will only a tiny remnant be saved with many who thought they were following Jesus disastrously mistaken?  Those within the Church who tend toward universalism see the grace of God as victorious, perhaps even beyond the boundaries of the Church to include other religions and philosophies.  On the opposite end of the spectrum from this optimistic viewpoint, lies those whose pessimism sees the holiness of God as victorious, even within the boundaries of the Church where they look and see mostly apostasy.  Which is the correct view, should we expect a Church that is overcoming the World, or one that is hemmed in on all sides and persecuted?
Jesus doesn't, as usual, directly answer the question, but instead he offers an analogy about entrance into the kingdom of heaven, declaring that it is only through a "narrow door" that requires "every effort" to walk through.  There are several ways in which the "door" to heaven could be thought of as "narrow".  That there is only one door, one way to heaven, is one way, and that the door is only accessible to those who have been washed clean of the impurity of sin is another.  It might also be that the door is narrow because only few will enter into it.  While it is true that Jesus speaks negatively of the chances of the rich entering through such a narrow door, the end of his answer makes it clear that heaven will be filled with those who have come to accept the Gospel from all over the world.
The universalist is too optimistic, for there is only one door and those who have not put their trust in Jesus won't find it, but the pessimists on the opposite end of the spectrum are equally wrong, for the grace of God will surely save all those whose trust is in Jesus.  After all, our hope is in Him, and in what He has done, not in our own imperfect understanding of it.  The wisdom of Jesus' answer to the question is that heaven will be missing people who expected to be there, for whatever reason, but failed to trust in him, but at the same time, heaven will be overflowing with those who were written off by men, only to be redeemed by God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Sermon Video: When rules choke out compassion - Luke 13:10-17

While teaching in a synagogue, on the Sabbath, Jesus was confronted with the implications of a cultural/religious phenomenon known as expansion of piety.  In this case, it was observance of the Sabbath that had grown more elaborate and restrictive over time to the point that by the first century, it was even considered to be a violation of the Law to heal someone of infirmity on the Sabbath.  This has, of course, nothing to do with the original intent of the law of Sabbath rest, but is instead a result of small incremental steps of increasing piety/devotion over time and the eventual integration of those new facets of keeping the Sabbath into the accepted form of obeying the Law.  Eventually, the traditions surrounding the Sabbath came to be accepted as being as sacred and binding as that which was contained originally in the Law of Moses.
This same phenomenon occurs in Church history, as pious scribes over time magnify the name of Jesus in the text that they are copying such that what was originally simply "Jesus" eventually becomes "our Lord Jesus Christ".  Similarly, appreciation for Mary as the mother of Jesus eventually builds and grows until it becomes full blown Marian devotion in the Middle Ages, the same thing applying to the Saints and their relics.  Likewise, the church liturgy itself, along with the church buildings, communion items like the candlesticks and cups, and the priestly vestments, all grew more elaborate and complex over time.
The problem with this tendency arises when a would be reformer seeks to return things to their original intent or purpose only to be viewed as a heretic for daring to attack the sacred when in reality he/she is only seeking to peel away the layers of human additions to what God instituted.  Some such additions and growths are harmless, but others, like the change of how the Sabbath was observed that Jesus confronted, can lead to a twisting of what the original purpose was to the extent that it actually becomes harmful.  The enhanced Sabbath observance not only led to hypocritical and silly extremes, but it eventually raised keeping the Sabbath above the needs of real people such that the crowd became indignant with Jesus when he dared to heal on the Sabbath.
In the end, what God had decreed, we have no right to change, what man has built upon that foundation, should always be open to reform, especially if what we have built puts tradition, rules, and preferences, above the needs of the people of God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:


Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Sermon Video: Three insights into the will of God - Luke 13:1-9

A question from the crowd about a recent tragedy allows Jesus and opening to clear up one of the biggest false assumptions about the will of God: suffering is the result of specific sin.  Sin certainly causes suffering, there is no doubt about that, but ALL suffering is not the direct result of specific sin on the part of those who are the victims of human wickedness, natural disasters, disease, or accidents.  Jesus rejects the connection that would allow others to blame victims for their own misfortune, and instead Jesus lays the blame for suffering upon the rebellion against God of humanity as a whole by telling the crowd that they too are in danger unless they repent.  Self-righteous attempts to blame victims, and make God the direct cause of every act of human suffering, both great and small, are thus misguided, leading us to wrongly be uncharitable toward those who suffer and painting a picture of a God focused upon vengeance.
Following his comments on the recent tragedy in Jerusalem, Jesus tells a parable to further explain the will of God in which he demonstrates that God's primary focus is not upon judging the Lost, but in finding a way through his patience and grace to save them.  Lastly, the parable ends by reminding us that God's patience is not infinite, there will be a day of judgment if grace is rejected.
Thus in this one passage Jesus has corrected three misconceptions about God's will: (1) That those who suffer are directly connected to specific sin, (2) that God's focus is upon judgment of the wicked and not upon saving them, (3) and that God's focus upon grace negates the judgment that will come in the end.
The next time you hear of a disaster, personal or community, your first thought should be compassion, saying to yourself, "there but for the grace of God go I"; wondering what sin the person(s) committed to have such a tragedy befall shouldn't even enter into our thought process.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Friday, August 21, 2015

From where does my belief in Christian unity come?

In light of the baptism of my daughter Clara, there are likely some who are wondering where my belief in Christian unity (ecumenism) has its origins.  From a theological footing, I have been heavily influenced by the words of I John and the prayers of Jesus for the unity of his followers.  While I was at college, learning theology and philosophy, I became more certain of the fundamental things, and more generous with the permissible/debatable things.  This maturation of my mind is a natural process when know it all teens are confronted with the truth that the world is larger and more complicated than they once thought.  In my case, it was seeing the ebb and flow of history, secular and church, that taught me humility in the light of those who have served the Church in generations long past.
I had already begun down a path toward a stronger commitment to Christian ecumenism when my beliefs were confirmed by two extraordinary women of faith who evident love of Jesus Christ and staunch faith in him was in no way compromised by their adherence to Catholicism.  The first of the two was the young woman who would eventually become my girlfriend, and then my wife, and the second was her mother.  Through my love for Nicole, I began to attend Mass with her, coming for the first time on a regular basis into contact with Catholics in a religious setting, and witnessing firsthand their faith and their devotion to Christ.
Theology prepared the ground on my ecumenical journey, but experiencing the love of Jesus Christ alive and well within the Catholic Church provided the passion.  Are there still issues between Catholics and Protestants?  Of course there are.  The defensive positions adopted as part of the Counter-Reformation at Trent remain, but the pendulum began to swing back toward the Evangelical position with the Second Vatican Council.  The theologians will still have plenty of room to disagree, most notably upon Transubstantiation, (and on that the Catholics still have Luther on their side, the Reformed theologians could not budge him from that belief) and upon the relevance of tradition and authority to theology, but one thing to me is clear: I have found many whose hope is in faith alone, who trust not in their own works, who wholly depend upon the sacrifice of Christ, among my Catholic brothers and sisters.  If faith is alive there, as it is amongst my church, who am I to deny it?

My mind started me on this path, my heart made gave me joy in the journey.

A father's prayer of thanksgiving to God

This is the closing prayer that I gave at the end of the baptism of our daughter, Clara.  My wife, Nicole is Catholic, I am the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Franklin.  Our marriage is a testament to the spirit of Ecumenism that I have hoped for (and found here in Franklin) in my ministry.  Thus long before Clara was born, we had already decided to honor her mother's tradition, and that of her mother's family, should we have children, through baptism into the Catholic Church.  Clara will be brought up to honor and respect the traditions of the faith of both her mother, and her father, attending as both Nicole and I do, church on Saturday (at St. Pat's) and Sunday (at 1st Baptist).


Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Sermon Video: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you" - Acts 2:38-39

To commemorate the baptism of seven new members of First Baptist Church, the text for this week's message was Peter's instructions to those who responded to his message at Pentecost.  Peter told the crowd that had been "cut to the heart" by hearing about the death and resurrection of Jesus, that there first response should be to, "repent and be baptized".  Peter links the inward act of repentance with the outward and public act of declaring that repentance through baptism.  In addition, Peter then says that this need is for, "every one of you", and that both the repentance and the baptism are to be done, "in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins".  Jesus is rightly the focus of our repentance for it is his sacrifice that made our repentance acceptable to God by paining the penalty on our behalf which our sin of rebellion against God had justly earned.  When we accept that act of grace on our behalf, by faith, we the process of transformation that God intends for all his people to cleans them and make them useful, a process made practical when we "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" to act as our guide, strengthener, and comforter.  In the end, the offer of repentance from God, to man, stands as a lasting offer of hope, hope that those who this day entered the waters of baptism had already committed themselves to, by faith, in Jesus.

To watch the sermon video, click on the link below:

To watch the baptism video, click on the link below:


Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Back to the basics, what is a Christian?

All of this time spent during the past week defending the modern Biblical text against KJV Only advocates was necessary, but unfortunate when so much work is needed for the kingdom of God.  With that in mind, let me return to a topic that has been close to my heart for years and about which I wrote a book several years ago:  What defines a Christian?  How do we know if someone is a Christian or not?  The source for these thoughts is exclusively the first letter of the Apostle John, one of my favorite portions of Scripture, during which he repeatedly states this three-pronged thesis in a variety of ways.  The three part standard of John is reflected in fifty-two statements in his letter that will confirm or deny that someone is a genuine follower of Jesus Christ.  Those fifty-two statements are easily placed into three categories: (1) Belief, primarily that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, (2) Love, primarily for fellow Christian brothers and sisters, and (3) Obedience, focused on keeping the commandments of God.
In his letter, John makes 17 statements about belief, 14 statements about love, and 19 statements about obedience.  All three are necessary, to be a Christian, one MUST believe in Christ, one MUST love other Christians, and one MUST become obedient to the commands of God.  None of this is optional, none of this can be excused in the name of some other cause.  In other words, to defend Christ by showing hatred to other Christians cannot be the proper path.  Likewise, compromising any one of the three will endanger our ability to have any real confidence in our own salvation.

For a full examination of this issue, as well as an attempted application of it regarding various groups that hang around the fringes of Christianity like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, please read my book.  And yes, I know the introduction needs to be updated to reflect my work here in PA and our newly arrived bundle of joy; I'll get to that at some point.

Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of I John

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Sermon Video: "I have come to bring fire on the earth" Luke 12:49-53

Contrary to the expectations of the people that Jesus had come to bring peace, following his parables on the faithfulness needed by the servants of God, Jesus goes on to explain that his mission is actually to bring "fire" to the earth, and not peace but division.  Since we know that he is the Prince of Peace, and that he is the creator of the reconciliation between God and man that is our peace, it seems odd that Jesus would talk of such things resulting from his ministry as fire and division.
The "fire" in this context is closely related to his previous remarks about the faithfulness required of God's servants, a refining fire, that melts away impurities.  Before that process of transformation of God's people can begin, Jesus himself must undergo his own baptism, a time of trial unlike any that other.  Once Jesus' mission is accomplished, his people can begin to be made new by the fire that he will send of the Holy Spirit.  It is because of that transformation process, a process of leaving behind the old life and adopting new life in Christ, that Jesus' mission of reconciliation actually causes division within the families of those who believe.  Why?  Because all those who follow Christ walk upon a path that diverges greatly from those who remain on the path of self-destruction, even if it is their own families.  Father and son, formerly as close as can be, drift apart as one follows Christ and the other remain enslaved to sin.  This same division can occur between spouses, parents and children, siblings, and friends.  It is inevitable, to an extent, as long as one follows Jesus and the other remains apart from God's redemption.  What then do we do, knowing of the fire and division that Christ has brought?  Continue to pray for our Lost loved ones, continue to show them the compassion of Christ, continue to demonstrate to them the righteous living of his disciples, and continue to hope; hope that the same Gospel that saved you and I out of the darkness will one day bring them into the light of the Son as well.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Saturday, August 8, 2015

King James (or TR) Onlyism as a logical syllogism

In order for a logical syllogism to be valid, all premises must be true, and the conclusion must be forced by the premises.  With that in mind, and knowing that many KJV (TR) Only advocates will howl at the idea that something they take on faith is evaluated on the basis of logic, I offer this:

1. The Bible promises that God will preserve his Word

2. The only possible definition of preserve is "perfection"

3. The only text that is "perfect" is the KJV (TR).

The first premise is entirely true.  God did promise to preserve his Word.
The second premise is an interpretation of Scripture, that can be debated, as all interpretations must be, it is not correct by the standards of Church history to say that it MUST be the only interpretation.
The conclusion can no longer be valid, since the 2nd premise is untrue, but even if it was, the conclusion is not a result of the first two premises.  There is nothing different about the KJV (TR) from any other text or translation that sets it apart as "perfect".  Advocates of that position will claim otherwise, will make their chosen favorite the standard by which all others are judged, but they cannot escape the clear facts of history, and must in the end retreat into saying that their position MUST be taken by faith (with all the dire consequences of apostasy heaped upon those who disagree).

There is a lot of confusion, name calling, tangents that have nothing to do with the main issue, and outright lies being spread about this issue within the Church.  It is enough to make the head of an ordinary lay person spin, and not a few pastors as well.  But, in the end, everything comes back to premise #2 and the desperate attempt to prove that the KJV (or TR) satisfies that standard.

The sad thing is, none of this is necessary, we have an amazingly, providentially, preserved Word of God, living and active, powerful and mighty, available to us in English in an array of sound and beneficial choices.  Not only that, but this entire discussion relegates God's work through his Word among the other peoples of the world to sideshow, when in reality God's work among the English speaking peoples, and the Western cultures is but one part of his amazing work all over the world.  Everyday the percentage of Christians reading the Bible in English shrinks because the number of Christians reading it in other languages is growing by leaps and bounds!

Friday, August 7, 2015

An evaluation of the TR (and/or KJV) Only position's presuppositions

The presuppositions of the TR Only position, which for the most part match up with those of the KJV Only position seem to be as follows: (1) That the Bible’s passages on the preservation of Scripture require a “perfect” Bible, anything less makes God a liar and is thus a perversion of Scripture. (2) That the definition of “perfect” envisioned by this viewpoint can allow for no textual criticism, no revisions, no corrections of the text.  {Some of the KJV Only would add “no variants” to this list}(3) That other than the original autographs, this “perfect” example of Scripture exists only in the TR (or KJV). 

Let us for a moment assume each proposition to be true and see what the results would be. (1) If the passages of Scripture about preservation require a “perfect” Bible, they do not in any way indicate which text that would be.  Since it must be available in every generation, it must have first existed in the Hebrew manuscripts (aside from the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of which were lost prior to the Middle Ages), then in the Greek manuscripts, although it could only be in one text type, but without the original autographs there is no basis for choosing one and only one text type as the “perfect” text when the only thing we have to compare them to is each other. (2) If no textual criticism is to be allowed, and how can it be when the text is “perfect”, there is no ability to answer the clear evidence of a text which changed over time, with additions and corrections, throughout its history (NT in particular given the wealth of manuscripts we have of it).  If the text was already “perfect” and needed to remain “perfect” each and every generation, it could not change, at all, not even a single word.  Yet that is not the history of the manuscripts.  By comparing one generation of them to another, in any text type, this becomes clear, copyists made mistakes, both intentional and accidental that became accepted (for at least a time, by an unsuspecting Church).  But if God’s power and veracity stands or falls based upon an unchanging text, the only possible explanation is to ignore history and evidence and claim that the text must be taken on faith no matter what (that’s Sam Gipp’s stated position, any fault in the KJV, even typographical mistakes of the printer, are to be ignored and the result taken on faith). (3)  Who is the authority, Scripture is certainly silent about which future text will be the “perfect” one and which will be the corrupted ones, that determines that the TR, and only the TR (and hence the KJV) are to be deemed perfect over and against the Byzantine text, the Alexandrian, the Majority (which will always represent the Byzantine as the number of those manuscripts is such a clear majority), or the Eclectic blending of all sources?  Who designated Erasmus as the final authority on the preservation of Scripture, who sanctified his work and declared it without error?  Keep in mind, that Erasmus himself made significant changes to his printed editions with each new one, as did Stephanus and Beza after him.


In the end, I see no compelling reason to belief that we MUST believe any of those suppositions, if a TR Only (or KJV Only) advocate wishes to tweak them somewhat, fine, but the primary issues remain.  The Scriptures do promise preservation, but are silent as to how that will occur and by what agency, The text tradition does include many variants, all of them do, there are no perfect manuscript traditions, even within Erasmus’ exceedingly limited number of manuscripts representing one text tradition, there were variants that he had to sort out by doing textual criticism.  Lastly, the only way that the TR, and only the TR, can be elevated to such a status is an appeal to tradition or authority, both of which were supposed to be rejected by the Reformers, to resurrect them now would be a disservice to the ideals of men like Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

If you need a good laugh, watch Sam Gipp's, "What the big deal about the KJV?" video

I needed a macabre laugh today so I re-watched "Dr." Sam Gipp's "What's the Big Deal about the KJV?" video.  From the very first scene, this 40 minute video is one ridiculous example after another of the worst KJV Onlyism set in a fake college setting where "professor" Gipp enlightens his students about the "perfect" Word of God.  Straw Men abound, as per usual, as well as illogical argument like this: The KJV is from Antioch through the TR (not actually true, the 6 manuscripts Erasmus had were medieval Byzantine copies, but let that go for a minute), the Eclectic Critical text ("you should know that there's a problem right there when they say their text is critical", as if the term Biblical Criticism was somehow an evil practice, forget that Erasmus, the father of the TR engaged in Biblical Criticism, as did the translation team utilizing Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, and Erasmus to put together the KJV and every other copyists or translator) is from Alexandria (Of course this too isn't true, the Modern Critical text utilizes all of the manuscripts Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine, far more of them {5,500+ vs. 6} than the TR, plus Church Fathers, and other early translations).  Gipp then explains that Antioch is where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians, that must mean it is a holy place of all goodness and its manuscripts are perfect (forget that heresies also came from Antioch, such as Monothelitism and Nestorianism), and Egypt is always called a bad place in the Bible (forget for a moment, "Out of Egypt I called my son"), thus Alexandria is written off as a place full of heretics whose manuscripts must therefore be 100% corrupt.  FYI, Guilt by Association, even weak association, is a favorite KJV Only tactic.  (Such as labeling anything they don't like "Catholic" as if that somehow ruins and taints whatever person or manuscript they need to discredit).

Everything goes downhill from there, including a hilarious scene where Gipp has a Bible study group read Psalm 23 in half a dozen different translations to show them the "confusion" that results, as if unison reading not lining up somehow proves anything.  Another favorite "proof" of Gipp is that the Modern Critical Text omits verses from the Bible, thus throwing off the numbering system of the 16th century (What, those guys can't even count, he says).  Don't stop and wonder why those verses are in the margins in the modern text, don't ask why scholars know for certain that they were added later, just go along as Gipp tells you that they're taking things out of the Bible because he has already set up the KJV as the only standard, therefore any "change" in the text from the KJV is what counts, and don't worry about what the original Greek text says regarding the "changes" he points out, he doesn't say so in this particular video but he's said elsewhere that he wouldn't care if original autographs were found, he already has a perfect KJV.

The proof text of any KJV Only fanatic is I John 5:7, a verse that has zero manuscript evidence in Greek before the 16th century, which by the way Gipp accuses the Alexandrians of removing from the Bible because they hate the Trinity (something they couldn't have done, of course because it didn't appear until later Latin copies of the Vulgate), sad for him that none of the Byzantine manuscripts have it either, and that none of the Church Fathers quote the verse despite their blood feud with the Arians.  Thus in this one instance, Gipp is accusing other Christians of denying the Trinity by relying upon an verse addition that comes from the Latin Vulgate, the Bible of the Catholic Church (which Gipp and those like him hate with white hot fury).  Forget for a moment that the trinity is found elsewhere in the NT (in the modern texts as well), forget for a moment the horror if such an important verse could be expunged from the manuscript tradition for 1,600 years, all of this isn't supposed to matter as you feel anger toward those who deny the trinity by changing God's perfectly preserved Bible, the KJV.

In the end, "Dr." Sam Gipp, along with Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and those who follow in their wake, have faith in a perfect Bible, the same blind faith of the world's Muslims who also allow no variants in their text, and treat any questions as those of heretics, and they have a skeptics doubts about the Early Church, the manuscript copying process, and the preservation of the original text, just like that of Dr. Bart Ehrman who has no faith because the text isn't "perfect".

Keep making your propaganda movies, they're good for a laugh, at least they would be if you weren't trying to destroy Christian fellowship, the reputations of devout men of God whose work as scholars has only increased our knowledge of the real reason why our Bible can be trusted, and making things up as you go to fit a conclusion that you reached long before you started making up your conspiracy theory.  While you're at it, say hi to Dan Brown, he enjoys a good conspiracy theory.

The unexpected agreement between Dr. Bart Ehrman's skepticism and the KJV Only fanatics

"When you subjugate it to the human laboratory for testing and twisting and probing, it takes on a different nature.  If it isn't preserved perfectly, then it lacks in authority, something less than full authority."  This is a quote about the Bible from Kent Brandenburg, and it has something that he might not be happy to hear about in common with the leading agnostic critic of Biblical accuracy alive today, Bart Ehrman.  Bart is a well known critic, with best selling books like Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God to his name.  One of the most crucial conclusions that Dr. Ehrman makes in his rejection of the Bible that we have today is that it isn't the same as the original as penned by the Apostles.  If we don't have the original, God must not have preserved it, if God didn't perfectly preserve it, he must not have given it in the first place.  If the modern Bible isn't a perfect copy of the original autographs, if it has any errors (despite its historically unheard of 97% accuracy), it is no longer the Word of God.  KJV Only fanatics take this same view of the preservation of Scripture.  Their answer to Bart's dilemma is to posit a new revelation from God that occurred in 1611 (don't mention to them the typographical/spelling/printing mistakes of that edition, it won't be welcome).  The King James Bible to them is a perfectly preserved English version of what the Apostles wrote, so much so that many of them have dismissed the relevance of an original autograph should one be found in some cave like the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so much so that some of them (Sam Gipp for example) contend that the only way to hear the Word of God today is for the people of the world to learn English to read the KJV (Don't point out the obvious racist white superiority behind this line of thinking, just because God treats all men equally doesn't mean they have to).  How do we know that the KJV is a perfect edition in every way, especially since in their view that's the only way it will be God's Word?  You'll have to take that on faith.
  Dr. Ehrman yearns for a perfect Bible, doesn't have one, and has lost his faith, the KJV Only crowd yearn for a perfect Bible, so they've pretended they have one.
The sad thing is, we have an amazing Biblical text today.  All of the original readings have been preserved within the manuscript tradition, none of what the Apostles wrote has been lost.  The Bible is more readily available and accessible than ever before all over the world in hundreds of languages with new ones being translated every year.  The Word of God has never been closer to ordinary people, too bad the skeptics and the fanatics can't see it.

* Note * Kent Brandenburg should not be identified with the KJV Only crowd of Ruckman/Gipp/Riplinger (which he rightly dismisses as an untenable position), both groups believe in "perfect preservation", the first as found in the KJV, Kent's group as found in the Textus Receptus (TR definition).  To prefer the TR is a defensible position, just as it is defensible to prefer the KJV, the TR was the Greek text basis for Tyndale, the Bishop's Bible, the KJV, the Geneva Bible, Luther's German NT, and the New King James, but to be TR ONLY is almost as erroneous as the KJV Only position in that it posits a perfect moment in Church history when the text of God's Word needs to be frozen, when all scholarship and textual criticism needs to cease.  The problem with that, is that there is no one TR (it isn't a manuscript, but a published collation of a few late Byzantine texts that were available to Erasmus), there are many published additions of Erasmus/Stephanus/Beza that were the result of their efforts at textual criticism, so why must these men be the only authorities that can offer God's people his Word?  The TR is a good text, but the Majority text is better, and the Critical Eclectic text is better still.  Christians in the 16th century like Erasmus did a great job considering the manuscripts they had available to them at the time, but we have no need to limit ourselves to what they knew then.  God has indeed preserved his Word, in EACH generation, that effort continues to this day through the work of Godly men who continue the work of their ancestors in the faith. 

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Sermon Video: "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded" - Luke 12:35-48

In this passage, Jesus tells two related parables about servants and managers of servants who need to be vigilant and faithful in the completion of their assigned tasks.  In both cases, those servants who do what is expected of them are rewarded and those who neglect their duty are punished.  The meaning of the parables is also related to the return of the Son of Man, a time that Jesus emphasizes once again will be an unexpected hour.  In light of the promised, but unknown time, of the return of Jesus, Christians must needs be prepared to do the work of the kingdom, not putting off till later what we may not then get a chance to accomplish.
The conclusion of Jesus, relating to both parables, is that those who have been given much from God, will in turn have much demanded of them from God.  The judgment of God will fall heaviest upon his own people if they fail to imitate his Son, for they are without the excuse of ignorance, for they know what God expects of them.

To watch the video, click on the link below: