Sermon Video: Hezekiah's Revival, Part 1 (of 4) - 2 Chronicles 29

When Hezekiah became king of Judah, he inherited a kingdom in grave crisis.  His father Ahaz had suffered multiple military defeats and left Hezekiah with enemies on all sides, including the aggressive Assyrian Empire to the north which had recently destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel.  How was Hezekiah to respond, where should he even begin?  Hezekiah chose, in the first month of his reign, to focus his energies and attention upon the temple of the LORD in Jerusalem.  Enemies without were not his first concern, for Hezekiah knew that the spiritual corruption and root within Judah would surely destroy his kingdom by bringing down upon them the wrath of God's justice.
With the temple defiled and in disrepair, Hezekiah brought together the priests and Levites, putting them to work on the task of getting the temple ready once more for worship of the LORD.  16 days later, the temple was ready.  The very next day, Hezekiah brought with him the leaders of Jerusalem for a ceremony of re-dedication that contained a significant focus: atonement.  Until the sins of the nation had been atoned for, the wrath of God still hung over the kingdom, Hezekiah knew how serious this situation was, he not only fulfilled what the Law of Moses required to atone for sin, but went beyond it as well.  The resulting ceremony not only featured sacrifices for sin, but vocal and instrumental worship as well, followed by an opportunity for the people to demonstrate their thankfullness to God.
Hezekiah knew his nation desperately needed revival, he began in the only place that will work, with repentance and re-dedication to the worship of the LORD.  If we, as a Church, or as a nation, truly desire revival in our day, we will heed Hezekiah's example and begin with purifying our own hearts and committing ourselves to truly being disciples of Jesus Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A lesson learned from the victories and defeats of running

I'm sure I lost some potential readers already when they saw the title and realized this is about running, perhaps I gained a few to even them out who wouldn't have read this otherwise.  For those who don't know me personally, I was a competitive runner in high school, making it to the state finals my senior year with a best time of 16:54 (5k), and a somewhat competitive runner in college at Cornerstone University, where I was never quit able to make my goal of 28:30 (8k) in order to be an Academic All-American.  Having worn my knees down to a nub, running became an occasional thing for me after college until we moved here to Franklin, PA.  For fifteen years after college I had played basketball each week with the same group of guys, my primary exercise during that period.  When we moved here, I looked for a competitive and enjoyable basketball game to join, to no avail.  So I took up bike riding, knowing that it would be easier on my knees and knowing that we have excellent trails here along the river.  Unfortunately, my back was not a fan of this plan, it made a hard workout on a bike enough of a pain that it was no longer enjoyable.  Which brought back running.  About four years ago I received custom orthodics (would have saved me a ton of pain in HS and college) which alleviated much of my knee pain which I had for years endured as "normal".  Why not take up serious running again?
That first year I lost 20 pounds, almost down to my old college weight, the goal I'm inching closer to.  I also ran in the Applefest 5k, proving to myself that my old sub-20 times were going to be well out of reach without some serious hard work.  The second year of running saw my 5k time fall to 20:11, good enough for 1st place in my age division, which was (gulp) now 40-45.  I also tried something I had never attempted before, a 50k (that's 31 miles).  And not just any 50k, the OC100 held at Oil Creek State Park along the Gerrard Hiking Trail.  This "trail" is a rock and root strewn obstacle course with about a dozen significant hills along its huge loop amount to many, many feet of elevation gain during the race.  I had trained for the race, to an extent, and went out at a blistering 9:30 pace for the first 12 miles, good enough for 9th at that point (remember the hills, road race comparison times are not valid here).  And then the dehydration hit me, hard, I finished the race barely able to walk at 6 hours, 40 minutes, a brutally slow pace to finish the race, with about two dozen people passing me.  It was frustrating, a hard lesson learned about hydration.
Which brings me to the lesson I learned these past couple of weeks.  Beginning this past January I decided to run more than ever before, using my new Garmin watch to gauge my progress.  I ran while the snow was still on the ground, excited about trying the 50k again this year.  And then I didn't get in.  The available spots fill up very rapidly, dozens of people missing out on a spot.  So I decided to try to find my speed again and focus on my 5k goal this year.  I trained harder, and more consistently than even in my college days, confident that my sub 20 goal would be easily reached.  June brought a calf injury, slowing my progress.
When the Applefest 5k rolled around I had a plan, at the turn (1/2 point) I was at 10:05, only five seconds off my pace, well within striking distance.  But it didn't happen, my legs just didn't have more speed in them that day; I finished 2nd in my age group this time, a disappointing 21:07; slower, than last year, despite at least three times as much training and hard work.  I tried again at another race this the next weekend, only to turn in a 21:11.  It was frustrating to say the least.
I had set a goal, one that felt realistic, worked extremely diligently toward it, only to come up short.
What then is the lesson?  It could easily be that a 41 year old is not as fast as he was when he was 18, but we all new that already.  What I learned from running came during two of my training runs out at Oil Creek on those rugged trails.  I had missed out on the 50k this year, a real bummer, but still ran out there some because of the beauty of running through those rugged wooded hills.
The course I was running is an out and back from the bottom of the hill (a serious hill) at Petroleum Center to the campsite at Cow Run and back.  My previous best on that course, last year, had been about 1:39.  Last month I decided to see how fast I could do it, and went much harder than before, finishing at 1:29:40 (an 8:54 pace).  I was certainly happy with this significant improvement, but following my dual disappointments at the 5k distance, I gave it another shot two days ago, this time 1:26:03 (and 8:24 pace).  It was an amazing feeling, watching my old personal record fall by 10 minutes, and then taking another nearly 4 minutes off of that.  Next year, maybe I'll be able to get it down to 1:20.
What did I learn, something akin to that quote about the best laid plans of mice and men.  I wanted to prove to myself that I could be "fast" again, at least for 40+, no such luck.  But that didn't mean I couldn't achieve a goal, I just needed to search for another one, one without the crowds or awards of an official 5k, just me, the woods, and my Garmin.  Don't give up, even if your goal remains inches out of your reach; search for another.  Find something else you can achieve, keep trying.  God has given me some ability as a runner, I intend to continue to find ways to put it to productive use.

Sermon Video: The disastrous reign of Ahaz - 2 Chronicles 28

It takes a lot of incompetence or wickedness to be considered among the worst leaders in a nation's history.  History is full of candidates for the title of "worst leader ever", sadly there have been many vying for it.  The history of Israel is no different, both the combined kingdom and the split kingdoms of Israel and Judah had leaders who were disasters for their people.  Among this litany of woe is Ahaz in Judah, a king who only reigned for 16 years, but who nearly destroyed the kingdom even so.  Ahaz's father Jotham had been a great king, even if he is little known to us, serving the LORD faithfully his whole life.  Ahaz was the complete opposite of his father, he not only became an apostate himself, walking away from the LORD, but did seemingly everything in his power to lead the entire nation away from the worship of the LORD, going so far as to remove the sacrificial impliments from the temple and shut its doors.
In addition to his violations of the first and second commandment through apostasy and idolatry, Ahaz also practiced an abomination in his worship of the Canaanite god Molech: human sacrifice.  In this case it was even worse than what you're thinking, for the sacrifice was that of Ahaz's own infant son.  The moral bankruptcy of Ahaz and the people of Judah who followed after him, brought the wrath of God down upon them, leading to multiple losses in battle that severely crippled the standing of the nation.  Ahaz, however, did not repent, he only kept digging deeper, piling sin upon sin.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The "lesser of two evils", an anti-Biblical viewpoint

Much has been said of late about the desire to choose between the "lesser of two evils".  These two choices being discussed by many self-declared Christians are both acknowledged to be "evil" to one degree or another.  Which raises the question: Is it Biblical to choose between the lesser of two evils?  Why do I ask if it is Biblical?  Because this is the only standard by which we, as Christians, have been commanded to order our worldview.  Thus if something is anti-Biblical, it is by necessity anti-Christian.  A person may disagree with an assessment that both choices that are being considered are indeed "evil", but once that assessment has been made without self-interested excuses in the way, it is incumbent upon the Christian to refuse to choose either.  The lesser of two evils is still evil.  Nowhere in the Scriptures are we commanded, encouraged, or even permitted to choose evil.  God's Word to us is rather this, "Be holy, for I am holy."
The philosophy behind the "lesser of two evils" mentality is Pragmatism, otherwise known as Utilitarianism.  While this may be an exceedingly popular way of governing in the world today and throughout human history, the common usage of pragmatism in moral decision making in no way makes it Christian.
Let me offer some examples from recent American history, beginning with WWII, to illustrate decisions that were made with a "lesser of two evils" viewpoint.  Again, a person may disagree with one of these examples, thinking that in these difficult situations that it can be excused and not called an "evil", but the consequences of these actions weigh against that conclusion. (1) The appeasement of Hitler prior to WWII, putting off the confrontation until Germany was far stronger and making the Holocaust a possibility. (2) The alliance with Soviet Russia, and evil regime if ever there was one, during WWII, which led to 70 years of Communist domination of Eastern Europe. (3) The fire bombing of German and Japanese cities during WWII, which caused hundreds of thousands of non-combatant deaths and failed to shorten the war at great cost in material and lives on the Allied side. (4) The use of the atomic bomb on two cities to end WWII. (5) The failure to prosecute fully Nazi war crimes because those same Nazis were useful for the West in the Cold War. (6) Alliances made with brutal dictators all over Africa, Latin America, and Asia during the Cold War because they were anti-communist.  (7) Support of the Shah of Iran, leading to the revolution which set the groundwork for the anit-Western obsession of Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorism plaguing the world today. (8) Involvement in Vietnam to stop the "domino effect" of communist expansion. (9) Leaving Saddam Hussein in power in 1991, and then coming back twenty years later to remove him. (10) The U.S. government allowing and/or encouraging torture following 9/11.
The list could be longer, I could keep listing pragmatic decisions by world leaders throughout history, many of which led to more evil, not less.  These leaders may have thought that they had no choice, or that the choices before them were only evil, but such thinking will not stand up before a holy and just God's scrutiny.
For Christians, it is tempting to excuse immoral behavior by saying that the only choices available are bad ones, therefore we must choose one of them.  For all those who choose to embrace an evil choice, remember this, you will answer for all of your decisions in life, and the attitudes that led you to make those choices, while standing before Almighty God.  Far too often, Christians have embraced pragmatic morality in their pursuit of wealth, fame, and power, this has to stop.  It is time for the Church, for Christian organizations, and for individual Christians to disavow pragmatic morality.  We have been called to live holy and righteous lives, we will be judged for how we live, for we are Christ's ambassadors here on earth, our Savior never chose the "lesser of two evils".


Romans 3:8  Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!
- The context is about sinning so that God's holiness can be more clearly seen, yet Paul's emphatic reply should be warning enough against attempting to justify an evil choice on the hope that good will come of it.

Sermon Video: The Steadfastness of Jotham - 2 Chronicles 27

In an era when fame, for any reason, at any price, is valued highly by so many, it is certainly worth our time to consider those mentioned in the Bible who aren't household names, never having achieved either fame or infamy.  Jotham, as a king of Judah, fits into that category.  Because Jotham died at only 41, his 16 years on the throne were not memorable enough to make us remember him as we have other kings of Israel and Judah, whether that be for their righteousness or their wickedness.
Jotham, unlike his father who died of leprosy as God's judgment, lived a life of steadfast devotion to God, consistently doing his best with what he had to work with during the time that was allotted to him.  It wasn't flashy, but it was a life pleasing to God, and just as importantly, devoid of the regrets that had plagued his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather.
Jotham also showed wisdom in that he retained that which he learned from his father's capable administration of the kingdom, and at the same time entirely rejected the mistake that his father made in pride of presuming to usurp priestly duties.  For anyone to emulate what was good about our upbringing, and reject that which was bad, and then go on to live a life of walking before the LORD steadfastly, surely this is a worthy life.  You may not remember Jotham, but any of us should be glad to have a life lived as honorably.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

True Repentance comes at a cost - Psalm 6

There has been much discussion of late about the "apology" of various politicians for the immoral things which they had done which have become public.  Whether or not the voters "forgive" a politician or not has absolutely nothing to do with the forgiveness that is needed from God, for this form of political "repentance" has little or nothing to do with the real thing.
To actually repent of one's sins requires a broken and contrite heart.  If one brags of sin in private, treating it as a laughing matter, and makes excuses for that same sin in public, blaming it on someone else or trying to minimize it, how can this possibly reflect a heart that is broken before a holy God?
David, as a man of God, was also a man who committed heinous sins.  In his most egregious sin, David was brought to repentance through God's grace in the sending of the prophet Nathan to warn David that his sin could not be ignored.
In Psalm 6, David writes about the foes that oppress him which he realizes are a sign of the judgment of God against his sin.  In response he writes of the anguish caused by his guilt, "I am worn out from groaning; all night long I flood my bed with weeping and drench my couch with tears.  My eyes grown weak with sorrow; they fail because of all my foes." (Psalm 6:6-7)  It is the attitude of genuine horror and revulsion at our offenses, committed against God, that is the hallmark of true repentance.  Do not be deceived, those who "repent" for public consumption will in no way fool Almighty God.  It is only by throwing ourselves upon the mercy of God and trusting in the cleansing power of the Blood of the Lamb that we can find forgiveness, cleansing, healing, and finally salvation.

How do I know what to believe? Intervarsity, Human Sexuality, and the authority of Scripture

There isn't an issue more talked (argued) about in recent American culture than human sexuality.  Many in our culture have arrived at conclusions that in previous generations would have been considered very radical.  It is one thing for non-believers, i.e. the Lost, to change their beliefs, this is to be expected as human wisdom changes over time.  It is quite another for a Christian, a self-acknowledged disciple of Jesus Christ, to change what he/she believes about an issue of moral significance.  That this has happened, for many Christians, raises an important question: On what basis is the change in moral understanding being made?
For Christians, the answer should only be: Because that is what we understand the Word of God to be teaching.  It is entirely possible for Christians to come to a new understanding of Holy Scripture, for better or worse, Church history is full of examples of both.  What is not acceptable is for a Christians to arrive at a moral position in opposition to the teachings of Scripture, or without concern for what Scripture teaches.  In other words, a moral understanding based upon emotion, feelings, logic, philosophy, science, or any other basis that circumvents or ignores the revelation of Scripture is an act of rebellion against the authority of God.
This devotion to the teachings of Scripture applies in every moral question and controversy, not just human sexuality, from the Christian attitude to war, to gambling and alcoholism and everything else.  What is important, is the attitude of submission to the revealed will of God.  If we lack that willingness to submit, we will find a way to ignore the teachings of Scripture.
Recently Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, the largest evangelical Christian organization on college campuses with chapters at 667 colleges and 1,300 staff members, released a position paper entitled, A Theological Summary of Human Sexuality.  In light of the moral position that Intervarsity is taking on such an issue of significance, the organization has asked its employees to voluntarily quit their jobs if they are unable to accept it and live by it.  This is the same commitment to an organization's mission and statement of faith expected of employees at Christian colleges, charities, and churches throughout the world.  In other words, it would be no news at all if not for the current debate ongoing in America on the issue of human sexuality.
What is more important, over the long-haul, than the particular conclusions of those who put together Intervarsity's statement, is the way in which they came to those conclusions.  The statement itself is full of references to Scripture that demonstrate a desire to be obedient to the original intention of the text and the Church's understanding of the text throughout its history, as well as a desire to follow the whole council of God and not cherry pick it.  Putting references into a statement regarding a moral position does not make one necessarily right, we all know the danger of proof-texting, but it illustrates that Intervarsity's motivation in this endeavor was to be ruled by the authority of Scripture.  This is, and must be, the way in which individual Christians, Christian organizations, and the Church itself operates.  If we ever deviate from this path, and for those who already have, the consequences we will face will be the judgment of God against us for putting our own will above that of God as revealed in holy Scripture.  For those who do not value the authority of Scripture, what I am saying is a moot point, but it has been the belief of the Church, since the beginning, including that of Jesus himself throughout the Gospels, that the Word of God is binding upon us.
Intervarsity will likely receive much negative press for their decision, and will also likely be kicked off some college campuses in an ironic appeal to tolerance.  Whether one agrees with the conclusions reached by Intervarsity or not, whether one agrees with their decision regarding their staff members in light of those conclusions or not, the most important thing in this whole episode will be that a Christian organization decided to follow Scripture, after much study and contemplation of it, instead of the culture in which they operate.  For the Church, this is the path forward, this is how we act as salt and light in our world, by being steadfast in our commitment to let the Word of God rule in our hearts in all things.

The Church in a Post-Christian society

Much discussion has occurred in recent years, and will continue to occur, regarding what the Church's response should be to the growing number of non-committed, agnostic, and atheist young people in the Western World.  One of the motivations behind the conscious decision made by Pastor Andy Stanley eight years ago to change his approach to evangelism is his desire to make a greater impact upon a post-Christian America.  While it remains to be seen if we truly are entering into an era of post-Christian society, after all a majority of Americans still self-identify (I know the accuracy of such things is debatable) as Christian and trends can run both ways, but given that a significant portion of Millenials and other young people have a negative view of the Church, Scripture, and God, it behooves us to consider whether or not we ought to change our ministry approach in response.  Those churches which have embraced a seeker-friendly attitude are one such attempted response.

Let me, however, offer a counter-point and word of caution.  If indeed our society continues in its current direction of removing the sacred and the divine in the process known as secularization, does it really seem wise for the Church to imitate them by downplaying Scripture, prayer, or worship?  Shouldn't we maintain our emphasis on the exalted nature of our worship services so as to provide a contrast to the secular world?  Aren't we showing the world what it is missing as God's Creation when we continue to hold high not only the authority of Scripture, but the sacred qualities of prayer and worship?  For a church to downplay its religious symbols and to make worship more approachable for the Lost by putting the Bible and God in a lesser role, is not making them more appealing to those who need God, but removing from them the one element that society without God cannot imitate, the presence of the Holy Spirit in our midst.
It is absolutely legitimate to hold a rally or have a special gathering that is seeker-friendly, but this cannot be what we allow our worship service to devolve into.  Why are we in the house of the Lord on his day?  To lift his name, to worship the Almighty, and to be molded and shaped as his disciples.  The Lost are absolutely welcome to join us, to observe our worship, and hear the Word of the LORD preached, but it would be a mistake for us to remove from our worship the things that make them uncomfortable.  The Lost should feel welcome in our midst, but they shouldn't feel comfortable, for the wrath of God abides on them until they repent; seeker-friendly can't change that fact, and the Church should never try to hide it.

Why did they go astray? Why the authority of the Bible is crucial.

After learning of the struggles in the United Church of Canada about defrocking a self-proclaimed Atheist minister named Gretta Vosper, those unfamiliar with this denomination (like myself, an American) were probably left wondering, how did they ever get to a place where a minister could openly denounce belief in God without being thrown out by his/her own congregation, let alone the denomination?  In its article on her "coming out" as an Atheist, the Toronto Star provided the answer: "In her sermons each Sunday, Vosper spoke openly about how she did not believe the Bible was “the authoritative word of God for all time” — a conviction she’d held long before her ordination, and one that is not uncommon among United Church of Canada clergy."  To Vosper, the Bible had long since become secondary.
If the authority of the Scripture is laid aside, if it becomes the words of men instead of the Word of God, there is nothing left to build upon, sooner or later, the whole edifice of the Church will come crashing down.  It is evidently not uncommon for a UCC pastor to view the Bible as optional, a position that Vosper learned, horrifyingly enough, in seminary.  There is no doubt that a similar story could be told about several American denominations, we have the same problem of abandoning the Bible here as well.
For those who don't understand all the hub-up about Andy Stanley's recent comments that we need to downplay the Bible and instead emphasize Jesus, it is the mess like the one the UCC finds itself in that frightens those who have taken umbridge with Stanley.  Andy Stanley has since responded that, “the Bible is without error in everything it affirms” and that he “believe[s] what the Bible says is true, is true,”  Where Andy Stanley was hoping to go with his message, and where those critical of that message were afraid his idea would lead, are not one and the same, but one would hope that both his supporters and his detractors can see why such comments aroused the response that they did.  
As a Church, and for myself as one of its many pastors, we must always be on our guard against the devaluation of the authority of Scripture, it is the Rubicon that we cannot ever cross.  Once that river is crossed, nothing is out of bounds, nothing is essential, Christianity without the infallible Word of God is Christianity in name only.

Why both right action AND right belief matter

In response to the action taken  by the United Church of Canada against the self-proclaimed Atheist minister Gretta Vosper, a blogger named Christian Chiakulas wrote that their decision to defrock her for her beliefs (technically, lack of any belief) is why mainline denominations are dying.  The full blog post explains his position, but in a nutshell it appears that he thinks that judging someone for his/her beliefs is wrong and that only our actions matter.  In the post Chiakulas quotes an author named Roger Wolsey as saying, “[Progressive Christianity] emphasizes orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs); embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas…and does not claim that Christianity is the only valid or viable way to connect to God.”  While this may fit the definition of Progressive, it certainly doesn't fit any historically relevant definition of Christianity.  And that is the whole point, what we're dealing with here is an attempt to redefine Christianity by refusing to define any belief, or lack thereof, as being out of bounds.  In other words, progressives like Chiakulas and Wolsey want to remain a part of Christianity whether or not they believe in Christ, whether or not they believe in God, and whether or not they believe in the Gospel, belief evidently has nothing to do with it.
To accept the notion that right belief doesn't matter you have to surrender to two fundamental presuppositions both of which are extremely dangerous and both of which are anathema to what the Church has been and stood for during the past two thousand years.  The first premise is this: There is no such thing as Truth with a capital T.  All truth must be relative, the Bible must be a collection of stories, not a revelation from God.  If there really is an absolute Truth, it would certainly matter whether or not a person embraces or rejects it, so Truth has to go.  The second premise: That mankind is inherently good.  If right behavior is all that matters, mankind must be capable, on his own, of being good.  This however flies not only in the face of human history, but of the explicit teachings of the Bible.  We cannot possibly please God, on our own, simply by doing what is right, because our very nature is sinful and we cannot fellowship with a holy God until we are reborn in Christ.  
Lastly, in his blog post, Chiakulas claims a remarkably stunning thing, "Jesus welcomed everyone who was willing to follow “The Way.”  Everyone.  And there was no religious test to becoming an apostle, other than a willingness to forsake all for the Kingdom of God."  What Chiakulas is failing to understand is that the disciples whom Jesus called to follow him were already believers in the God of Abraham, in the LORD, they already believed.  That Jesus allowed them to follow him until they saw that he was the Son of God, instead of requiring it first, was certainly not an affirmation that such a affirmation must come from them eventually.  That this claim of Chiakulas can be refuted by Jesus' own words, easily, ought to prevent someone from claiming it about how he conducted himself, but here it is.  If Jesus cared so little about what his followers believed, how could he say to them, "I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14;6)  And how could John end his Gospel with, "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)  The list of Biblical quotes that utterly refute such an asinine assertion that Jesus didn't care what his disciples believed, could go on and on and on.  
What we belief absolutely matters, for as anyone remotely familiar with the writings of Paul knows, it is by grace we are saved, not by our works, when we call upon the name of the Lord.

Atheist Minister Gretta Vosper is being defrocked, why wouldn't she be?

A 23 person committee of the United Church of Canada voted 19-4 recently that Gretta Vosper, minister at the West Hill United Church in Scarborough, is "unsuitable to continue serving" as a minister in the United Church of Canada.  By her own proud admission, Vosper does not believe in God, nor Jesus Christ, nor the Holy Spirit. Vosper responded to the decision, according to the Toronto Star, by saying, “My sadness is for the many clergy and members and individuals currently studying for leadership in the UCC who are now also being told they need to keep quiet about their true beliefs or risk censure...The majority report said nothing about ethos and spoke exclusively to theological belief. A very sad day for the UCC.”
The United Church of Canada, "a historically inclusive and open-minded Protestant denomination" according to the article in the Star, has at least been willing to take a stand that its ministers need to believe in God.  Vosper in an interview with the Washington Post said, “We don’t talk about God,” and then added that the church needs to give up “the idolatry of a theistic god.”
The correct term for Gretta Vosper is not atheist, but apostate.  She has, like Bart Ehrman to cite a famous example, abandoned the faith that she previously professed.  It doesn't really matter what Vosper wants to replace God with, according to the Star interview, it is "adopting a more metaphorical interpretation of religious symbols and a greater emphasis on humanist, environmental and social justice causes."  Without God, whatever you put in his place, is meaningless and void.  This shouldn't be controversial in the least, that Vosper has been allowed to continue down this path for years should be shocking.
There is no way, at all, to apply the term "Christian" to what she is doing.  What we believe matters, for our hearts determine our actions, not the other way around, as Jesus said, "out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45)  The heart of the Gospel is that mankind apart from God is lost in sin, we are hopeless on our own, and thus our ONLY hope is in salvation by grace through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus.  These beliefs are not optional, they're essential in every way.
A "Christian", let alone a minister, who does not believe in God, AND more than that, who does not embrace the Gospel, would be a nonsense proposition to John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter, and of course Jesus himself.  For two thousand years the Church has proclaimed the Truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead in victory over sin and death.  To share the Gospel and make disciples of Jesus' followers, is why the Church exists.
Gretta Vosper may think that it is a "sad day" when 19 out of 23 members of a committee vote that an Apostate minister is unfit to lead the Church of Jesus Christ, I happen to see it as a "sad day" that 4 of the 23 voted to allow her to remain.

For additional consideration, Vosper's Church, West Hill, officially ended its use of the Lord's Prayer among other prayers, rewriting them along with classic hymns, for example:

From The Lord’s Prayer...

Then:

Our loving God, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses …

To Words of Commitment...

Now:

As I live every day, I want to be a channel for peace. May I bring love where there is hatred and healing where there is hurt; joy where there is sadness, and hope where there is fear …

From “How Great Art Thou Art …”

Then sings my soul, my Savior God, to Thee,

How great Thou art! How great Thou art!

Then sings my soul, My Savior God, to Thee,

How great Thou art! How great Thou art!

By Carl G. Boberg

To “Then Sings My Soul …”

Then sings my soul in wonder, full and free,

amazed at all I hear and see!

Then sings my soul in wonder, full and free,

a sacred gift is life to me!

By Gretta Vosper and Scott Kearns (2007)

Sermon Video: The Prideful Presumption of Uzziah - 2 Chronicles 26

One of the oldest and ongoing conflicts in human society is the struggle to define and maintain morality.  In the pride of the wickedness of the human heart is the presumption that we can overthrow or ignore that which God has decreed concerning righteousness and wickedness.  All those who attempt to do so, will fail, they must fail, for God has revealed what is holy and what is sinful in his Word, and all human attempts to circumvent this are but vanity.
As a king of Judah, Uzziah was a great success, both in foreign policy and domestic policy he was a wise and capable ruler.  Uzziah might have gone down as one of the greatest kings of the people of God, and he would have had he continued to walk in the ways of the LORD, but as his success increased so did his pride.  When God had granted Uzziah great blessings because of his obedience, Uzziah's pride brought about his downfall.  Uzziah decided to usurp the responsibility of the priestly descendants of Aaron by offering incense in the temple of the LORD.  While this might not seem like much of an offense to us, it was clearly forbidden in the Torah, making Uzziah's actions an act of rebellion against the authority of God.
God chose to respond to Uzziah immediately by striking him with leprosy after Uzziah had spurned the correction of the priest Azariah, a condition that remained with Uzziah for the rest of his days, days which he lived apart from his people and cut off from the temple.  It was a sad ending to a life of great accomplishments, but Uzziah paid the price for ignoring the Word of God by thinking that his will was above that of Almighty God.  For all those who follow in his footsteps, ignoring what they don't like about what the Bible says to them, the result will be the same: the judgment of God.

To watch the video, click on the link below: