The Gospel or the Gun: Which do you trust?

In 1945, General George Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union and wipe out the Communists with the help of the remnant of the shattered Nazi army.  In 1951, General Douglas MacArthur wanted to nuke China during the Korean War, forcing President Harry Truman to fire him.  There are always those who believe that the answer to a threat is the barrel of a gun.  It is indeed true that the strong must protect the weak, and a military solution may be the only moral option, but it is also true that militancy and nationalism can run amok with potentially peaceful solutions (or at least less violent ones) lost in the hysteria of fear and fear-mongering.

It is becoming increasingly clear that a number of American and European Christians, including some famous people in leadership positions, view a global war with Islam as inevitable, and perhaps even preferable.  One of the reasons for this militant stance is often a Pre-Tribulation Eschatology that sees a WWIII style conflict as a precursor to the Rapture, and something that cannot or should not be avoided, as it would usher in the return of Christ.  I've written before about the dangers of letting a particular view of Eschatology color your morality and attitude, so that's nothing new, but the issue of confronting Islam has another element that is also troubling.  It would appear that many of those in the pro-war camp are leaning that way because they envision Islam spreading globally and taking over the West through immigration and higher birth rates.  While such an argument might hold water with a statistician, how is it that those who believe in the power of faith, and the triumph of the Gospel, are terrified of the spread of Islam?  If this is simply a battle of ideas, like the Communism vs. Capitalism debate of the Cold War, then it truly would be a confrontation with an unknown outcome, but this is not what Christians believe, at least they shouldn't.  Christianity is based upon historical fact, and those who follow Jesus Christ believe in the triumph of the Gospel over the forces of darkness, whatever they may be.  In Philippians 2:5-11, the Apostle Paul speaks of the ultimate triumph of Jesus Christ, and foretells the day when "every knee should bow...and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."  Do God's people really believe these words, or do they put more faith in the power of the gun?  How could a professing Christian's priorities be so eschew that he/she would prefer a war, and with it the tens if not hundreds of millions of civilian casualties that would result, to letting the Gospel contend, as it has since the founding of the Church 2,000 years ago, with whatever philosophies, ideologies, or religions which oppose it?

The triumph of the Gospel, foretold in Scripture, is found in the conversion of the Lost, the redeeming of those apart from God, not in the obliteration of those who disbelieve in the explosion of a bomb.  I believe in the power of the Gospel, it will triumph over Islam, and all other beliefs, no matter what they may be, in the end, I'm not looking to destroy those who oppose the will of God, it is my responsibility as a disciple of Jesus Christ to share the wonderful grace of Jesus with them, that they too might willingly and gladly bow their knee before the King of Kings.

Sermon Video: Spiritual Discernment - 1 Corinthians 2:10b-16

Why is it that two people can look at the same evidence and arrive at contradictory conclusions?  In the case of the spiritual things of faith, it should come as no surprise when an unbelievers and a believers do not see things the same way.  That which we know about God has been self-revealed by God, but it also requires a further act of grace on God's part to enable us to comprehend spiritual truths because it is not only sin that separates humanity from God, but a rebellious heart and darkened mind as well.  Those who have been reborn in the spirit have also been given the Holy Spirit to indwell them as a counselor and guide, thus enabling them to bridge that gap and begin to understand the mind of God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

When cooperation becomes capitulation: The Koran in Church

Those who have followed this blog for any length of time, or who know me personally, are well aware that I am an advocate for intra-Christian ecumenism.  I believe, on the basis of the teaching of Scripture, that all those who are truly disciples of Jesus Christ ought to be working together for the sake of the kingdom of God, as partners not rivals.  There will always be debate and discussion, a healthy thing, regarding our definition of who is and who is not a Christian, with some drawing the circle smaller, and some larger, than others.  I wrote a good deal about that particular question with respect to the teaching of I John some years ago, a booklet you can read by clicking on this link: Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of 1 John.

The subject of this post is not intra-Christian ecumenism, however, but inter-faith cooperation.  If we're talking about something like disaster relief, peace initiatives for war torn regions, or a campaign for civil rights of a persecuted minority, it is not unreasonable for Christians to work with non-Christians on these issues, including those of other faiths, Muslims for example.  These are not issues that are particular to Christians, and are areas in which we can work with anyone who is willing to truly help those in need.  There are ways in which these things can be done that do not require a Christian to compromise his/her faith.

The waters get murky when we begin to talk about inter-faith worship.  The elephant in the room is of course the obvious observation that Christians, Muslims, and Jews (to pick the most common groups that might consider such things) cannot all be right in their declarations of what is true, in particular regarding the person of Jesus Christ.  If one proclaims him to be a false Messiah, one a respected prophet, but the third the very Son of God, God in the flesh, these three groups can hardly pray to God or praise God in any meaningful way without one or more of the groups being compromised.  In the end, it is demeaning to all involved if we try to call on the greatest common denominator (to use a math term) that we are supposedly worshiping the same God, when we have such radical departures on what God has done, and is doing, in our world.

The latest episode to illustrate the pitfall of intra-faith worship happened during an Epiphany celebration in Glasgow, Scotland.  The Anglican Cathedral there, St. Mary's, invited a local Muslim teen to read from the Koran about Jesus during the worship service which is supposed to be celebrating the arrival of the Magi to worship Jesus.  The biggest problem with this reading, other than the question of why someone would allow the Koran to be read in Christian worship, is that the passage in question directly contradicts the Gospel accounts by denying the deity of Christ.  Much has been written about this episode, and the backlash it has spawned in England and around the world, for a good article on it, click on the following: Cathedral Marks Epiphany with Koran reading

The most important question now is this: What went wrong in the theological understanding of the leadership of St. Mary's that they didn't see the utter foolishness of allowing the Koran to be read during a service of Christian worship?  There was a failure here to understand the implications of this gesture of cooperation, which was in fact far closer to an act of blasphemy toward Jesus than it was an act of Christian bridge building with a minority.  This is not what ecumenism is, this is not an example of fostering peace and brotherhood, it is instead an act of capitulation that will only confuse those who don't understand the differences between the Bible and the Koran, between Christianity and Islam, and at the same time it will be used by those who oppose legitimate intra-Christian ecumenism to build up the wall and moat around their church even more.

I'm all for intra-Christian ecumenism, and happy to have the necessary discussion of how we define those who are Christian and those who are not.  What happened in Glasgow is a whole different topic, and one that rightly will cause significant ripples throughout the UK and beyond.  The Koran being read in a Christian church is not only a bridge too far, it is an abandonment of the exclusive claims of the gospel about Jesus Christ.

Note: I'm not saying that Christians shouldn't learn about Islam, every Christian should know the Five Pillars of Islam, and the basics of what the Koran teaches, just as they should know about the beliefs of Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc.  One can teach and learn about another religion while showing respect to those who follow it, without including those teachings in Christian acts of prayer and worship.

The Narcissism of Nationalism is spreading

Much is being made, globally, of the rise once again of nationalism after a lull following the end of the Cold War.  "America First" is a cry being echoed, in altered form of course, in England, France, Germany, and a host of other countries.  The sense that we're in this together is being challenged by the cry of every man for himself.  An example of this tendency in action is the ongoing controversy in Gdansk, Poland regarding the WWII museum set to open next month.  This museum was designed years ago to focus upon the civilian suffering, worldwide, that WWII caused.  Nationalist Polish politicians, however, want this global focus scrapped in favor of a museum that focuses on the heroics of the Polish army and resistance.  Instead of a museum that reveals the horrors of nationalist wars, they would have a museum that glories in the futile effort of the Poles to withstand the Nazis and Soviets at the same time.  The second museum isn't a bad idea, per se, the story of what happened in Poland during WWII, to Jews and Poles alike, needs to be told, but the rationale behind the animosity toward the original idea is a telling example of why nationalism can never be compatible with Christianity.  The foundation of nationalism is the belief that our people are worth more than their people.  It is a clear "us" vs. "them" mentality that ultimately devalues the lives of people living beyond our borders.  Those wanting to change the museum in Gdansk believe that Polish lives today, and the tragedy of lost Polish lives in WWII, carry more value than those of people elsewhere.  The ideology of the Nazis is simply this idea taken to its extreme form.
The Christian must reject the claim of nationalism that his life, or the life of people like him, have a greater value than those of a person who happened to be born elsewhere.  Paul makes the Christian ideal of equality clear in Galatians 3:28 when he writes, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all on in Christ Jesus."  Our ancestors failed to heed this command in the word of God, and willingly marched off to war, generation after generation, to seek national aggrandizement at the expense of their neighbors.  Humanity ought to have learned the horror of going down this road before, WWI and WWII should have been enough of a lesson, but humanity doesn't change, and one generation's call to "never forget" fades into the background as demagogues of a new generation seek power through nationalist grievances.  It may be inevitable that nationalist forces claim supremacy for "us" over "them", but Christians, those who take seriously the Word of God, must reject this call, always.

God reveals his secret wisdom: 1 Corinthians 2:6-10a

Every year a new book purports to reveal the secret things hidden from the public by the Church.  In the end, these books merely reveal things which have been known for centuries, not mysteries at all, nor any grand conspiracy, but simply the writings of heretics forgotten over the centuries.  The apostle Paul does reveal, however, that God kept an important secret from humanity, for thousands of years.  The secret wisdom of God was at last revealed, although it had been hinted at previously in the form of prophecies, to be the coming of the Son of God to dwell among men as Immanuel.  After the coming of the Christ, the people of God were commanded to share this news throughout the earth.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Five years of preaching, how far have I gotten?

While planning out my sermons up through Easter (I normally only plan that far ahead in advance of Christmas and Easter, so as to ensure that my sermon focus lines up with those holidays), I took the time to look back on the past five years here at First Baptist of Franklin to see how much of the text of the Bible I have preached, verse by verse.  This tally doesn't include the five years prior at First Baptist of Palo, as that was a different audience, thus any repeated texts from then don't enter into it.

The results were interesting, to me at least.  I've completed preaching through six books of the Bible, verse by verse, start to finish: Ruth, Jonah, the Gospel of Luke, Philippians, Titus, and James.  I've also completed chapters 1-18 of Acts, and chapters 10-32 of II Chronicles.  Throw in five messages out of Isaiah (one of the Lenten series), and a couple out of Matthew (an Advent series), plus a half dozen Psalms, the sections of 1 Samuel covering Hannah and Samuel, and the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians (my current sermon thread), and that about covers it.  The stack of yellow legal paper I write my sermons upon is now impressively high.

Which makes me wonder: If, Lord willing, I continue on here at 1st Baptist of Franklin for, say 20 more years, to pick a round number, how close to preaching through the whole Bible will I be able to come?  The Bible contains sixty-six books, of varying length, Luke is the only one of substantial length I've finished thus far, but Acts and II Chronicles will be finished in a year or two.  In theory, after 25 years, I might be halfway to preaching through the whole Bible.  What would it take to get the whole way through, and has anyone really accomplished that goal while still doing justice to each phrase, sentence, and verse?  I don't think I have the additional 50 years of preaching in me that it might take for me to finish, but who knows, after all, I am training for the Oil Creek 50k again this year.

The Word of God or the words of man?

There are few questions you can answer as consequential as this: Is the Bible the Word of God, or merely the words of men?  From your answer will flow all manner of impactful beliefs and decisions.  If the Bible is the Word of God, it has a claim on your life, you must consider its statements and commands and respond to them, for you will be judged one day by God.  If the Bible is the words of men, it can be argued with, co-opted, taken piecemeal with only the things we agree with given any weight, or ignored all together.

Virtually every moral or ethical issue that we as a society face, has been, or will be, profoundly impacted by our viewpoint upon the Bible.  Is abortion the murder of a child created in the womb by God and given a soul, or the choice to be made by an individual with no moral implications?  Those two conclusions could hardly be further apart, and they both reflect a firm stance on the origin of the Bible.  Is homosexual behavior a reflection of the human sin nature, like all of our other sins and akin to heterosexual lust, or is it a wonderful expression of love?  Once again, opposite viewpoints on an important issue that reflects what we believe the Bible to be.  Is divorce something which God hates, with exceptions for only the abused or cheated upon, or is it simply a personal matter of convenience that either of the two parties to a marriage can choose if they not longer want to be married?  This same divergence of moral viewpoints could be demonstrated again and again.  The key issue will always continue to be our definition of authority.  If the Bible is God's Word, it has authority over us.  If it is but the work of fallible men, any claim to authority is moot, and thus we can be our own authority and make our own decisions based upon whatever standard suits us.

What is the Bible?  Your answer matters, more than your may realize. 

Don't let your assumptions about the End Times define the Church.

I could have entitled this post, "Don't let your Eschatology determine your Ecclesiology", but that would probably have made most people skip reading it.  How we define the Church is a very important part of our theology as Christians.  It is imperative that we work together with everyone else who is a genuine part of the Church of Jesus Christ in order to fulfill our mission to share the Gospel.  There is danger in defining the Church too narrowly, which would turn those who are supposed to be our brothers and sisters into rivals, or at worst enemies, and there is danger in defining the Church too broadly, which would turn those who are supposed to be the object of our witness to the Gospel into those we wrongly assume to have already accepted it.  For a doctrine this important, we ought not allow anything other than the entire teaching of Scripture on the subject to be our guide.
In reality, however, a significant segment of those claiming to be Christians are allowing their assumptions about the End Times to be the most significant factor in determining their conclusions to these very important questions.  Most of those who believe that we're currently entering into the final days before the beginning of the Apocalypse also believe that one of the supporting evidences of that conclusion is their belief that 99% of all those who think that they are Christians, are in reality not.  This pessimism about the current state of the Church is a reflection of a theology of the End Times that requires the Church to be in a dire state prior to the return of Christ.  If the return of Christ is imminent, then the Church must be in a dire state, and therefore the definition of those who truly belong to the Church is made to fit that expectation in a predictably gloomy fashion.
There is, of course, great danger in making assumptions about when Christ will return, something that Jesus himself warned about.  One example of that danger is the pessimism and antagonism it fosters among those have convinced themselves that his return is imminent.  The Church, all of the Church, ought to be working together for the sake of the kingdom.  The question of how we define the Church is far too important to let it be influenced by anything other than the Word of God.

Sermon Video: Faith Resting on God's Power - 1 Corinthians 2:1-5

In this self-reflective section, Paul explains his attitude and reasoning regarding his initial time in Corinth when he first preached the Gospel, first in the synagogue, and then among the Gentiles.  Paul reveals that he purposefully avoided trying to sound polished and slick in his presentation, not wanting to win people over with anything other than the Gospel message itself.  In addition, Paul admits to a level of trepidation at the weight of the responsibility God had given him, but ends the section with a reassuring thought: It was not upon anything that Paul did that the people built their faith, but on the power of God.  How does Paul know this?  Paul kept his focus upon the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the heart of the Gospel, thus ensuring that what the people believed in was the Word of God, and thus reliant upon the power of God, as it should be.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: God's Misfits - 1 Corinthians 1:26-31

The message of the Gospel, a message of redemption and hope, naturally appeals more to the downtrodden and the poor than to the powerful and rich.  It is thus no surprise that the Church has always been more welcome among the outcasts of this world than among its upper crust.  But, as Paul informs us, it is not simply the appeal of the message that is responsible for this outcome, but the will of God itself.  God chose to focus on the lowly for his own purpose: to destroy human pride and ensure that all whom he calls to him will come in humility.  In the end, the only boasting available to the people of God is boasting of the awesome works of our God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Being a Habitually Accurate person

Much was said in 2016 of the accuracy of the statements made by various American politicians and their surrogates, most of it not complimentary.  We, as a society, struggle with the desire to put Power above Truth, and the willingness to bend, or invent, "facts" in order to win.  These tactics, win or lose, come at a cost; those who utilize them pay by earning a reputation as a person who cannot be trusted, except when acting in their own self-interest.
The Church, and the people of God, must not allow themselves to be swayed by this siren's song of power to taint their trustworthiness with exaggerations, half-truths, bendable "facts", and outright lies.  Whatever is at stake, to "win" by such methods is to certainly lose.
Compare the current atmosphere's emphasis on finding things that are "true for me" with the timeless desire for Truth in the Word of God.  In F.F. Bruce's 1943 classic, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Bruce writes the following after citing dozens of examples of historical accuracy by Luke in his Gospel and in Acts.

"Now, all these evidences of accuracy are not accidental.  A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where the means for testing him are not available.  Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy) experience that some people are habitually accurate just as others can be depended upon to be inaccurate.  Luke's record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy."

These words bear weight in the ongoing apologetic effort to defend the trustworthiness of the Bible, but they also remind us of something important: that character (or the lack thereof) matters.
Are you accurate and reliable?  Do the things you say on social media, and the things you "like" and share also value Truth over Power?  If we are inaccurate in the small things, why will others trust us when we claim to speak the Truth about the important things?
The people of God cannot afford to sacrifice their love of the Truth in the pursuit of political power, and must certainly not sacrifice our reputation as Truth-speakers about eternity for any purpose in the here and now.  Speak the Truth, our Father loves the Truth, its that other guy that spends so much time crafting lies.

Sermon Video: The Shepherds go to Bethlehem - Luke 2:15-18

The first missionaries of the Gospel were the shepherds visited by the angels who first came to see the promised child for themselves and then went and shared that Good News with many.  The shepherds did not know how this child would save his people, but because they trusted God they were filled with joy and shared their wonder with others.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: A baby whose origins are from of old - Micah 5:2

The prophet Micah predicted that the future king in the line of David would be "from of old"; yet how could this be?  How could a future king be from the past?  The mystery of this prophecy was solved at Bethlehem when Jesus Christ, the God-Man, became flesh and he who had created the world entered into time.

To watch the video, click on the link below: