The Church:Cleaning our own house.

In the finale to a three-part message on 1 Corinthians 5 regarding sexually immorality within the Church that I will be preaching next week, Paul explains the necessity for the Church of expelling from their fellowship those who claim to be Christians, but who remain mired in immorality.  While beginning preparation for next week's message I was reading the commentary of Adam Clarke (1832) on vs. 9-13.  At the conclusion of the passage, Clarke wrote this:

If all the fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, extortioners, and covetous persons which bear the Christian name, were to be publicly excommunicated from the Christian Church, how many, and how awful would the examples be! If however the discipline of the visible Church be so lax that such characters are tolerated in it, they should consider that this is no passport to heaven. In the sight of God they are not members of his Church; their citizenship is not in heaven, and therefore they have no right to expect the heavenly inheritance. It is not under names, creeds, or professions, that men shall be saved at the last day; those alone who were holy, who were here conformed to the image of Christ, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Those who expect it in any other way, or on any other account, will be sadly deceived.

How many, how awful, would such an expulsion be?  That is indeed a sobering thought.  How many people would be left in the Church if those still living in immorality but claiming His name (not those who do not yet believe, nor claim to) were told they must leave the fellowship of God's people until such time as they had repented of their sins?  

The important question for the Church is this: How do we build a holy people, a people dedicated to living in Christ-like discipleship, if some in our midst are intent upon pulling us in the opposite direction through their continual choice of sin?  This was a problem that plagued the history of Israel in the Old Testament, and one that is certainly not new for the Church either.  Let us pray that those who claim the name of Christ, falsely, will see the folly of their ways, will be convicted by the Holy Spirit, and will repent, for the Church's task in the world is too vital to be diluted by in-name-only Christians.

Sermon Video: Sexual Immorality among God's people - 1 Corinthians 5:1-5

There are few issues more frequently discussed or arousing more passionate responses than those relating to sex and sexuality.  Both the Old Covenant given under Moses, and the New Covenant initiated by Jesus, contain significant portions dedicated to defining the proper boundaries of sexual expression.  In both cases, that definition relegates such expression to that within the marriage of one man and one woman.
In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul expresses his dismay that the people of that church have failed to live up to that standard in that they have not disciplined a member who has married his former step-mother.  In addition to pronouncing judgment on that individual, Paul also commands the church to publicly expel the offending member in the hope that "tough love" will be the necessary prompt to cause repentance.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

What is your authority? A historical parallel to the Protestant - Catholic/Orthodox divide

I love the way teaching my two Bible studies each week sometimes causes new ideas or connections to pop into my head in the middle of trying to explain a particular text of Scripture.  That phenomenon happened today allowing me to see for the first time what I think is a useful analogy for understanding the divide between Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox Christians over the issue of authority.

In the first century, Jesus confronted two of the groups of religious leaders within Judaism who had radically different approaches to the way in which they defined authority: The Sadducees and the Pharisees.  The Sadducees believed in the authority of the written text of Scripture alone (minus any oral tradition) and preferred to focus upon the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) within the Tanakh (the 24 books of the Hebrew Scriptures).  The Pharisees, by contrast, accepted the authority of the Tanakh and also that of the Talmud and Midrash (the many generations worth of rabbinic commentary upon, and interpretation of, the Tanakh).

Is the parallel obvious yet?  Protestantism was founded upon the principle of Sola Scriptura (along with Sola Fide and Sola Gratia, "Faith alone" and "Grace alone"), that is the idea that Christian theology must rest solely upon the Scriptures themselves.  The Catholic and Orthodox traditions accept the authority of Scripture, but in conjunction with the teachings developed over time by the Church (through the various councils, synods, etc.)

Is it any wonder that Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox Christians have a hard time finding agreement upon a host of issues?  If the authority to which we must appeal is not the same, how can the answers derived from it be consistent?

That we have a different viewpoint of authority is no new observation, Martin Luther himself realized five hundred years ago that he was rejecting the authority of the Church in favor of that of Scripture alone.  I'm sure somebody has previously noticed the parallel between the Sadducees/Protestants and Pharisees/Catholic/Orthodox in the realm of authority, but the connection was new to my brain today, so I thought I'd share it.

Just as a reminder, Jesus had plenty of criticism for both the Sadducees and the Pharisees, something to keep in mind when we're tempted to climb up onto a high horse.  Both groups appealed to a different authority, and both were wrong in their conclusions/attitudes, both were in need of reform to reclaim the heart which God requires of his people.

Becoming a Christian vs. Being a Christian

Ignorance and confusion are not helpful ingredients when talking about religion.  With that in mind, there seems to be a significant amount of both regarding the differences between what it takes to become a Christian, and what it subsequently takes to be a Christian.  Hopefully, this comparison will help.

Anyone, anytime, anywhere can become a Christian if he/she takes one fateful step: "if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." (Romans 10:9-10)  Race, nationality, age, gender, none of them make any difference.  What a person has done in the past, doesn't make him/her more or less capable of being saved if that person comes to God in faith.  The most innocent child among us (though still a sinner as are we all) can be saved, as can the most hardened and vile criminal, for all alike need to be forgiven, and the blood of Jesus Christ is capable of cleansing anyone.

Work is not necessary to become a Christian, in fact, trying to work to earn salvation is a sure-fire way to fail to find it.  Salvation is an act of God's grace, given to mankind through faith in Jesus.  No specific words must be spoken, no setting or place is necessary, genuine faith will be sufficient.  When one of the thieves being crucified alongside Jesus showed that he believed in him by saying, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."  Jesus responded to this man, a criminal hours away from death, by saying, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."  The thief had no chance to earn God's favor, he had no chance to make up for his past, he simply called out to God for mercy, through Jesus, and he found it.

To be a Christian requires several things, again, these things do not help anyone become a Christian, they merely confirm what God has already done for that person through grace.  If a person lacks these character traits/qualities, the Scriptures tell us that such a person may not have yet become a Christian, which would take us back to square one, the need for an act of faith.  There are people who believe themselves to be Christians erroneously (and thus extremely dangerously) but who are in actuality not Christians at all, having evidently never believed in Jesus Christ.

The Bible calls the character traits/qualities of a Christian his/her "fruit".  Jesus was quite clear in the Gospels that someone claiming to be a Christian without any evidence of "fruit" cannot be one.  "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.  He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful." (John 15:1-2).  Jesus' brother James reiterated this point when he wrote, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?  Can such a faith save him?...faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." (James 2:14,17)

The "fruit" required of each and ever person who would be a Christian is explained in a variety of ways.  Paul utilized a list, calling it the "fruit of the Spirit": "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." (Galatians 5:22)  Not that any Christian has each and every one of these perfectly, but this is the character that demonstrates the fruit that Jesus warned us we must have once we have become Christians.  We haven't mastered this list, but we sure better be working on it.

The Apostle John answered the question, "Who is a Christian?" in his first epistle by emphasizing three primary qualities and repeating them each over and over.  John explained that all Christians must: (1) believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, (2) obey the commandments of God found in Scripture, and (3) show love for fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.  John explained that anyone who could demonstrate these three should have no fear concerning their relationship with God for they are impossible to achieve for anyone who is not empowered by the Holy Spirit as someone who has already become a Christian.  {This should be obvious, nobody can be a Christian who did not previously become a Christian.  Faith must come first}  The converse is also true: anyone who lacks one of these three should be rightly concerned that he/she must be truly be a Christian.

If you're interested in learning much more about what John has to say about the question, "Who is a Christian?"  I wrote a 155 page book on the subject which you are more than welcome to read, it is entitled Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of I John and can be found via the link.

Let me summarize the distinction between becoming and being a Christian:

Become: anyone, by grace, through faith, in Jesus.

Be: Obey the Scriptures, believe in Jesus, love fellow Christians (i.e. "bear fruit")

To be a Christian is no easy task, Jesus likened it to each of us taking up a cross of our own and following him.  In light of the difficulty of the road ahead, anyone who desires to be a Christian ought to be doing so as part of the fellowship of a local church where the Word of God is respected and followed and people build each other up through service and prayer.  It is beyond the ability of virtually all of us to be a Christian who bears much fruit on our own.  We need to be a part of a church.  We need to be corrected when we err, we need to be supported when we stumble, we need the opportunity to grow by serving others, and lastly, but very importantly, we need to worship God with the people of God.

You don't need to be perfect to become a Christian, which is a relief since nobody is anything close to perfect.  You don't need to be perfect to be a Christian either, which is a relief since none of us are perfect either, but you do need to be making progress.  A "Christian" who bears no fruit, is no Christian at all, that's not my idea, but a very serious warning from Jesus himself.  

Sermon Video: The Rise of the Son - Mark 16:1-8

On the first Easter morning, it was not the apostles to whom the message of the resurrection of Jesus first came, for they were in hiding, rather it was to the faithful women who had followed Jesus for years, and who stood near the cross as he died.  To these women God entrusted the most important message in the history of the world, that Jesus Christ had risen from the grave.  It is this same message of hope and joy because Jesus has conquered sin and death that the people of God today, the Church, are tasked with sharing with the world.

Sermon Video: Eat this Bread, Drink this Cup - Mark 14:22-25

In this Maundy Thursday message, the text of the Last Supper from the Gospel of Mark is examined from a Baptist perspective, contrasting what we believe Jesus was saying here with that of the majority of Christians who view these words far less metaphorically.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

If God does not love the sinner and hate the sin.

If God does not love the sinner and hate the sin....

He would be unworthy of our love...For such a God would either abandon us as hopeless or leave us in our sin.

There would be no Incarnation, no Jesus...Why send the Son of God, to become a man, if not to rectify humanity's sin problem?  No other purpose is a sufficient cause.

There would be no Cross, no Resurrection...Why would God allow Jesus to die, if not for the sin's of the world?  No other purpose could justify the cost Jesus paid.

There would be no redemption, no rebirth, no hope of heaven...All have sinned, look around you, it cannot be denied.  God has provided the way for us to be saved from our sins, because God is Love AND God is Holy.


God does indeed love sinners, each and every one, from the least to the greatest, for we are all created in his image.

God does indeed hate sin, each and every one, from the least to the greatest, for all sin is a rebellion against the holiness of God.

These two traits of God are not incompatible, they are instead absolutely essential partners.  It is not judgmental for the people of God to share this message, it is an act of kindness, an act of love.  We love our fellow man too much to pretend that they'll be fine without God's forgiveness.  We know better, not because we are better, not at all, but because we have experienced the love of God that is in Christ Jesus, and we have been set free from bondage to sin by the blood of the Lamb.

Sermon Video: The Fall of Jerusalem - 2 Chronicles 36

As the Chronicle of the king of Judah comes to its close, the kingdom slides toward destruction under the leadership of four wicked kings in a row (sadly, 3 of which were sons of a righteous man, Josiah).  Politically, the rivalry between Egypt and Babylon pushes Judah into becoming the vassal of first one and then the other, but none of Judah's four kings takes the opportunity of the troubled times they are facing to repent and seek the face of the LORD.
In the end, the Chronicle makes it clear that the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple were the judgment of God against the people of Judah for their repeated violations of the covenant and mockery of the prophets sent by God to warn them to repent.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

In Flanders field the poppies blow...Nationalism and the lessons of WWI

One hundred years ago the United States of America reluctantly ended its isolationism and joined WWI against the Central Powers.  At that point, WWI had raged into its fourth year, with the dead and maimed growing each day, millions upon millions.  Nobody knew it at the time, but WWI only had a year and a half until German exhaustion brought it to an end.
WWI was not an example of Just War Theory in action, at least not for its principle protagonists, the Great Powers of Europe who went to war for nationalistic reasons, each hoping for a quick victory that would increase their relative power and prestige at the expense of the enemy.  Nationalism had helped turn the kingdoms of Europe into modern nation-states, but it also stoked hatred of the "other" (Germans of Russians and the French, the French of the Germans, etc.) and enabled leaders to whip up war enthusiasm by painting the enemy as evil.
I've written this before, but it bears repeating, nationalism is not compatible with Christianity.  Patriotism certainly is, if your city, state, or country is lovable, then by all means love it and be proud of it.  Nationalism is different.  Nationalism is the belief that your people are superior, and thus other peoples are inferior.  When it puts down roots and matures, nationalism views the people who are not like us as a sub-human or inhuman "other".  This false pride and denigration of other peoples is contrary to the clear teaching of the Gospel that all men are created by God and that in Christ there is no slave or free, no Jew or gentile, all are one in Christ.  The British, French, German, Austrian, and Russian soldiers who went to war in 1914 were largely Christians, and yet they fought against their fellow Christians, replacing brotherly love with gruesome killing, because they had been taught that their enemy was not their brother in Christ, but instead a fearsome "other".
WWII saw a reprisal of nationalism, brought to its ugly natural culmination in Nazi Germany, before it was discredited by the deaths of tens of millions in that war.  After WWII, nationalism lay dormant during the Cold War, as the battle between Communism and Capitalism took center stage, but following the collapse of the Soviet system, it began to grow once more.
Nationalism is on the rise, in America and Europe, moving us back toward an era of "us not them", of dangerous competition instead of cooperation.  Will the world forget the horrors of WWI and WWII?  Will the lessons paid for in so much blood and destruction be ignored?  A pessimist would see the return of nationalism as a natural counter-balance to the free-market and open-border policies of the recent past, and would resign himself to a return of the dark days of national rivalries.  An optimist might see that same return as an opportunity for the nations of the world to show that they are capable of learning from the past, only time will tell if optimism or pessimism is warranted here.
The Church and Christians in general were fooled by nationalism before, allowing the us vs. them mentality to replace what the Word of God declares about Christian brotherhood and the dangers of pride in oneself and hatred of one's enemies.  Let us pray that the Church and the Christians within her will be wise enough this time around to say "no" to the siren's call of nationalism, for all the world's people have but one Father, one Creator, nobody is an "other".

Are good people in Heaven?

Short answer: No

Heaven doesn't contain "good" people, it contains forgiven people.

God is holy, God is perfect, and only those who likewise are holy and perfect can enter into his presence.

Humanity is not holy, humanity is not perfect, all of us are flawed, all are sinners.

If God had not intervened with the Incarnation, if the Son of God had not died for our sins and if he had not been raised to life for our justification, the gulf that exists between God, who is holy, and humanity, which is not, would have remained separating us from God forever.

Heaven isn't for "good" people; good isn't good enough, only perfection will work, and since the only way for a human being to be perfect is for God to forgive us, and give us his righteousness (through Christ), the only people who will join God in heaven are those who by faith have been forgiven.

Where society leads, should the Church follow?

** Disclaimer **  This post is not about politics (none of mine are), so please don't project this into that realm.  All human beings deserve equal rights and equal protection under the law, what "equal" means and whether or not a particular situation is "equal" is a healthy debate for a free society, but not my intention here.  America is not a theocracy, nor would I wish it to be.  My job, as a pastor, is to shepherd my local church, and beyond that to help the universal Church in any way that I can. `


What is the relationship between the Church and the societies in which it operates?  Are we friends, competitors, enemies?  The answer isn't black and white, at times the Church and society can work together, at times the Church is competing with society, and at times society can be an enemy of the Church.  How do we know what the stance of the Church should be on issues of morality, and how do we know when the Church should defy society on an issue, even at its own peril?

Islam is a reflection of 7th Century Arab culture, it champions what that culture championed and rejects what that culture rejects.  Judaism and Christianity are different, however.  When it was given, the Law of Moses was a unique set of moral principles, one that did not simply reflect the society in which it was given, but transcended it.  Over the following 1,500 years, the authors of the various portions of the Bible interacted with that Law and sought to apply it to their time and place.  The New Testament writers, and the Early Church fathers, did not seek to undo the Law of Moses, but to fulfill it under the New Covenant.  Throughout its 2,000 year history, the Church has been both a minority in society, and the overwhelming majority, at odds with culture, and also at times the creator of culture.  The one constant throughout this combined 3,500 year history has been the authority of the Scriptures.  Neither the people of Israel, nor the Church, have been given the power to challenge that authority, nor to supersede it.  Why?  Culture is always changing, what once was shunned is now celebrated, and vice versa, why doesn't the Church change with it?  To answer that question, one needs to understand where the Scripture came from.

We call the Bible the Word of God for a reason.  Paul declared that the Scriptures were "God-breathed", Peter added that its authors wrote as they were "carried along by the Holy Spirit."  In other words, it is not the product of the mind of man, but of God.  As such, we cannot, even should we wish to, usurp its authority or declare its commands and principles null and void.

Modern Western society celebrates materialism, the Bible warns of the dangers of riches, many times, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against materialism.  It is not a question of what we want, or what we would prefer, but what God has commanded.  Society celebrates fame and pride, the Bible champions humility, and warns of the dangers of pride, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against the dangers of pride.  Society celebrates unfettered sexual expression, and an attitude of self-indulgence, the Bible champions self-restraint and self-control as well as purity, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against the dangers of self-indulgent sexuality in all its forms.

Jesus called his followers to be salt and light in the world, Saint Augustine wrote that the people of God are to be a "city upon a hill".    When society is wrong about morality, the Church needs to stand in contrast, it isn't our preference that matters, but God's Word.  It is unlikely that proclaiming the virtues of self-control and humility, regarding wealth, fame, or sexuality will be popular, but popularity is not our standard for morality.

I would love every church on Sunday morning to be bursting at the seems, full of people who have repented, been forgiven, and now are celebrating the love of God, but it would be the death of the Church if we sought to fill the pews by rejecting the authority of the Bible in favor of societal norms.  A church without the authority of the Bible, even if it is full of people, is on a path of spiritual oblivion.  We are the heirs of 3,500 years of God's work among his people, we cannot be the generation which abandons that legacy in order to be popular.

Sermon Video: Josiah - Triumph and Tragedy - 2 Chronicles 35

Having come to the throne at the age of 8, King Josiah had already achieved what would for many people be a lifetime of accomplishments by the age of 26.  In the 18th year of his reign, having repaired the temple, Josiah imitated his great-grandfather Hezekiah by properly renewing the celebration of the Passover.  Through personal sacrifice and bold leadership, Josiah and the people of Judah (along with the remnant of Israel) celebrate the Passover with such vigor and zeal that it becomes the greatest such celebration since the days of the prophet Samuel.  For Josiah, this victory is yet another triumph.
The Chronicles doesn't mention any other events of Josiah's reign until the 31st year of his reign when Josiah is 39.  In that year, King Neco of Egypt seeks to bring his army north alongside/through the territory of Judah in order to attack the Babylonians.  The ongoing struggle between Egypt and the Assyrians/Babylonians/Persians was always something that threatened to engulf the Jewish kingdom(s) as they sat astride the north/south route.  As Neco's army approaches, Josiah has but two choices: (1) stay out of the fight and hope neutrality is respected, and (2) pick a side.  We're not told that Josiah consulted the LORD for advice, perhaps in his mind his duty was clear.  Josiah chooses to resist Neco and fights against him, but is mortally wounded in the battle and dies soon after.  In the end, Josiah lived an extremely faithful and purposeful life, but also one shortened by the tragedy of early death.

To watch the video, click on the link below: