Christian Antisemitism: An utterly absurd oxymoron

Tension between Judaism and Christianity goes back to the generation of Jesus and the Apostles.  John the Baptist was accepted as a prophet by the followers of Christ, but rejected by the official leadership of Judaism in Jerusalem.  Likewise, Jesus himself, although like John receiving support from the masses, was rejected by all but a few in the hierarchy of Judaism, a group that was the focus of much of Jesus' ire in his preaching.  In the Early Church, first centered in Jerusalem under the leadership of Jesus' half-brother James, and peopled almost entirely by converts from Judaism (who considered themselves to be reformers of Judaism, not founders of a new religion), there was also tension with the leadership of Judaism which led to the first Christian martyr after Jesus: Stephen. 
The Early Church might have retained a strong connection to Judaism if not for two later developments: the massive success of the Apostle Paul among Gentiles (and concurrent failure among his own people, leading to the anguished thoughts of Romans 9-11, excerpted below), and the destruction of Jerusalem leading to the end of 2nd Temple Judaism and the Diaspora.  As the first generation of the Church came to a close, the organization took on a distinctly Gentile character, and its Jewish origins faded into the background.
Animosity and hostility toward the Jewish minority in what was to become Christendom was not non-existent, but it was never widespread on the level that would become the later pogroms, forced conversions by the Inquisition, and then ultimately genocide at the hands of the Nazis until the Late Middle Ages.  In 1096, in response to Pope Urban II's call for a Crusade to recapture the Holy Land, Peter the Hermit, who raised an army in the Rhineland, perpetuated there the first large scale massacre of Jews by Christians.  To the shame of the Church, this trend has continued to this day, and while few are alive who witnessed the Holocaust, the scourge of Antisemitism residing within those claiming to be a part of the Church remains.

This is, of course, a patent absurdity.  There is no such thing as Christian Antisemitism.  There are those who claim to be Christian who espouse Antisemitism, and there may be those who are indeed Christians whose minds are still infected with Antisemitism, but the two mindsets are diametrically opposed to each other.  In the end, the mind of Christ will prevail, and hate will be banished, or the true un-regenerated nature of those claiming to follow Christ will be revealed and their ongoing hatred will refute any pretense of being a Christ-follower.

There is, and must be, a gap between Christianity and Judaism (as long as one accepts and the other rejects Jesus as the Messiah), but that gap ought to elicit sorrow and compassion on the part of Christians, as it did for the Apostle Paul, and not prejudice or hatred.  We have, as Christians, an undeniable debt toward Judaism, for our New Covenant and New Testament are built upon the Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenant and the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is incumbent upon Christians, always and everywhere, not as an option but an obligation, to reject Antisemitism in both its violent forms and its more subtle conspiracy theories and racial stereotypes, those who fail to do so are doing a disservice to the Gospel, and those who instead embrace them by their attitudes/words/actions are declaring themselves to be fighting against the Word of God, and calling into question their own salvation.

That the Church has failed to live up to the demands of Scripture by allowing Antisemitism to fester and even thrive in its midst, and that the people associated with the Church have been either bystanders to, or complicit in, the brutalization of the Jewish people and eventually their genocide, is the greatest shame and most enduring stain upon the Bride of Christ.  We, collectively, over the past 2,000 years, have failed in this, we will answer to God for that failure, for Christian Antisemitism is an abomination.

Romans 9:3-5 New International Version (NIV)
3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Romans 11:1-6 New International Version (NIV)

11 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Romans 11:11-24 New International Version (NIV)
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History

Church History
In this 3 part series, Pastor Powell seeks to highlight some of the most important ideas, people, and movements within the universal Church during its two-thousand year history.  

To view the PowerPoint used by Pastor Powell during the presentation, click on the link below:

Church History PowerPoint

In part 1, the Early Church, the Early heresies regarding the person of Jesus, the Ecumenical Councils, and St. Augustine are the focus.

Church History, Part 1 of 3

In part 2, Monasticism, the power struggle between popes and emperors/kings, the Great Schism, and the Crusades are discussed.

Church History, Part 2 of 3

In part 3, The Reformation, the Thirty Years War, the Modern Missions Movement, and the status of the Church in the World Today are discussed.

Church History, Part 3 of 3

Sermon Video: A Chosen People once more - Joshua 5:1-12

Having successfully crossed the Jordan River, and having memorialized God's display of power, the people of Israel are now commanded by God, through Joshua, to re-institute the rite of circumcision before proceeding on toward Jericho.  As the text unfolds, we then discover that circumcision was not the only thing neglected by the generation that wandered in the wilderness, the people had also not celebrated Passover since Mt. Sinai.  The people obey, observing both the rite of initiation into the covenant, and the feast of commemoration of God's power in keeping the covenant by leading his people from bondage in Egypt. 
Why did God command these things, here and now?  The timing in the book of Joshua is repeatedly emphasized, as God's command to Joshua came on the west side of the Jordan, already in the Promised Land, and vulnerable to their enemies.  Because the battles ahead belong to the Lord, not to Joshua's strategic thinking, the need to be spiritually prepared for the task ahead is emphasized by God when he chooses this moment to insist that the people keep their covenant obligations.
The passage in Joshua reminds us of the need we have as a Church to emphasize both baptism and communion, for they are our rites of initiation and remembrance, and of the need we have as a Church to begin with obedience to the commands that we have already been given.  If we hope to do great things for the Kingdom of God, step one is to obey what we've already been commanded in the Word of God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A 16th Century Attempt at Toleration within Christendom

While the 17th century is rightly remembered for the epic bloodshed of the 30 Years War which saw atrocities committed by, and against, Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Christians in the name of God (partly, but also propelled by rivalries for power), it is worth noting a little-known attempt at religious toleration, within Christendom, that occurred about 50 years earlier in Transylvania.  In 1568, the Transylvanian Diet (legislature) issued the Edict of Torda, under the direction of their king John Sigismund.  And although their fledgling kingdom was menaced by potential invasion by both the Ottoman Empire and the Hapsburg Empire, they decreed that within the kingdom, the right of Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, and Unitarian (Anti-Trinitarian, and thus heretical acc. to the earliest Church ecumenical councils, and the overwhelmingly accepted interpretation of the Scriptures; thus a non-orthdox viewpoint) preachers to be free from governmental harassment or threats.  And while the vast majority within Christian history would consider non-trinitarian views to be heretical, and thus worthy of opposition (a judgment with which I concur), it is remarkable that the Transylvanian Diet refused to allow violence to be used to further theological debates.  This stance of toleration contrasts profoundly with the war that loomed over the divided European landscape, and I know that those who fear heresy consider it to be a menace (rightly) to the Church, but we have also learned that coercion and force are not effective means of spreading the Gospel.  Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred.  The Gospel will prevail, not by force of arms, but by the power of the Holy Spirit working in the Church of Jesus Christ.  Should we oppose heresy and threats to the Church?  Absolutely, but we must do so with Truth, not lies, with Love, not hatred, and with Peace, not violence.  How the Church defends itself is of crucial importance, let us look to the example of those who would make peace, even with their enemies, even with those they profoundly disagree with, rather than those who shout for violence, especially in the name of Christ.

The text of the edict is below, for a decision made in the 16th century, it is indeed remarkable, and with little precedence.

 "His majesty, our Lord, in what manner he – together with his realm – legislated in the matter of religion at the previous Diets, in the same matter now, in this Diet, reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well. If not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching. For faith is the gift of God and this comes from hearing, which hearing is by the word of God." - The Edict of Torda, 1568

Sermon Video: That all the earth might know the LORD - Joshua 4

Having provided a supernatural way across the Jordan River, the LORD instructs Joshua to have the people of Israel construct a memorial using twelve stones carried from the midst of the river.  The memorial is to serve as a object lesson to facilitate the teaching of future generations regarding the wonders performed by God on behalf of his people.  In addition to the construction of the memorial itself, Joshua instructs the people that it will be the responsibility of future parents to teach their children about the LORD.
Both of the ideas in Joshua chapter 4 are easily applicable to the Church today.  We too need to celebrate what God has done for us, finding appropriate ways to memorialize them, and we too need to emphasize the need for parental responsibility regarding the instruction of the next generation regarding the LORD.  As a Church, it is our responsibility to reinforce and encourage the instruction that ought to begin in the home, which of course necessitates that those who are parents within the Church have themselves been instructed in order to make them capable of teaching their children.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

This blog was "blacklisted" by Facebook, here is my response.

As some of you may have heard, my blog (a link to which I cannot provide here for reasons that will become clear shortly) was "blacklisted" by Facebook's automated system on Wednesday of this week " because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive." Well, at least that's the error message I'm getting, since there are no actual human beings at FB to help with such issues, I'll never know who objected to my blog posts (shared on FB), how many people objected, which post(s) they objected to, nor what about my posts bothered them so much...

So let me muse about what it might be. Some things are relatively easy to ascertain...

1. It isn't about politics, at least it shouldn't be. The only comments I've made in the past 7 years about politics are responses when politicians, pundits, etc. have invoked the Bible, have claimed to be representing Christian morals/principles. As a pastor, I have both the education and the obligation to defend the Christian worldview against those who would bend and twist it to satisfy their own lust for power. If taking the stand that Christians should not trade their souls for temporal power has offended some Christians, I refer such feelings to the one who commanded them to devote themselves to Him alone.

2. It isn't because I've insulted people, which I haven't. It isn't because I've bullied anyone, haven't done that either. The only times I've named individuals in my blog posts have been when I'm quoting them. Many of those being quoted are long dead (like Machiavelli, I was hard on his this week, but since he died in 1527, I don't think it was him), or else are public figures who have made their opinions known (Bart Ehrman, James White, Andy Stanley, Pope Francis, etc.) in topics directly related to Christianity. Even when I've disagreed, strongly, with these individuals (Bart Ehrman for example), I've done by best to quote them in context, to represent their views fairly, and to explain why I disagree (when I do) with their statement/idea/belief without resorting to name calling, mocking, or hysterics.

3. It isn't because I revel in hot-button topics. Go ahead, visit my blog, look at the topic list on the right...I'll pause, since there is not direct link, it might take a second...In about 8 years, I've written about homosexuality 8 times (Gay marriage and gay rights brings the total to 14), I've written about Islam 16 times, sex/sexuality a total of 28 times...compare that to: The Gospel, 95 times, the Church, 121 times, poverty 38 times, prayer 35, Jesus 138 times, The will of God 84 times, forgiveness 42, faith 83, I think you get the point. I write about what my congregation needs to be thinking about, what I encounter in my pastoral work, the issues that face our community of Franklin, and the wider issues affecting the Church as a whole. I don't choose things to be "click bait", I don't say things I don't truly believe just to rile people up, and I don't make statement that aren't backed up by Scripture (to the best of my understanding and ability).

So, in light of this little introspection, what am I going to keep doing?

Will I continue to call upon Christians to live like Christ, and point out the hypocrisies and failures of the people of God when we do not? Yep.

Will I continue to reject the siren's call of power, wealth, and fame which have so infected so many claiming the name of Christ in America? Yep.

Will I continue to advocate for the poor, the downtrodden, the refugees, homeless, despised and rejected of society? Yep.

Will I continue to call for ecumenism within the Church and for adherence to the Gospel's call of universal Truth and application to people of every tribe, nation, and language? Yep.

The truth of the matter is that I have no idea who objects to views or why. I doesn't really matter, I've been called by God, ordained by his Church, chosen to shepherd this particular local church here in Franklin, and dedicated my life to the cause of Kingdom of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the living out of the Fruit of the Spirit. My course is set, my life is not my own, I was bought with a price, the precious blood of the lamb.

Facebook has been a help to getting people to see my blog posts, and working around the blocking of my site will be annoying for as long as it lasts, but I'm not changing a bit. Not because of pride, nor stubbornness, but because I've always approached the words I speak and the words I type with gravity, and so I will quote the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms (without any pretense to my situation being at all of the gravity of his)..."Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."

Why "winning" as the goal ought to be anathema to Christians

To 'win', at all cost, and by all means, whether in business, politics, or personal relationships, is an idea embedded in the human heart.  Unfortunately, the disregard for morality, and the value of other people, in the pursuit of 'victory', is a symptom of the darkened heart of mankind apart from God.  As such, the people of God, those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and are therefore no longer under the power of what the Apostle Paul terms, the "flesh" (our sinful nature), must forcefully and consistently reject the false claim that "the end justifies the means".

The modern era is not the first time that attempts have been made to remove morality as a check on human behavior, the Italian Renaissance political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli advocated the divorce of morality from politics in his seminal work, The Prince.  In it he wrote, "He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation."  Thus, immorality is to be excused when it is deemed necessary, hence the association with the immoral claim that "the end justifies the means."  Machiavelli, while influential, was certainly not the first to treat morality as a hindrance to be disregarded when necessary.  The first king of Israel, Saul, convinced himself that he needed to offer a sacrifice to God prior to an upcoming battle, despite knowing that he was not to usurp the role of the prophet Samuel, because necessity demanded it.  Saul's disregard for the expressed will of God was instrumental in his downfall and the choice of David to replace him.  By contrast, in Scripture there are examples of the rejection of this abdication of morality: Joseph remained true to the moral code of the God of Abraham despite the opportunities he had to abandon it when faced with the advances of Potiphar's wife.  Even as a wrongly enslaved man, Joseph refused to set aside his devotion to doing what was right.  In addition, the Apostle Paul and Silas refused to run from jail in Philippi, despite being unlawfully imprisoned, when an earthquake damaged the facility.

Throughout the Scriptures, those who abandon morality when convenient come to bad ends and those who hold true to the Law of God (whether specifically or in principle) are commended.  That is not to say that those who choose to do what is right are always vindicated in this life, nor are they promised such by God, neither do all those who choose to set aside right/wrong receive punishment for their immorality in this life.  Therein lies the rub.  When righteousness is not immediately rewarded, and wickedness is not immediately punished, the selfish and rebellious heart of man begins to seek ways to avoid the absolute demand of God that we live holy and righteous lives, it seeks loopholes, shortcuts, compromises, and makes Faustian bargains.  Such is the darkness of the heart of man in rebellion against God.  For the people of God, however, this cannot be tolerated or excused.  When we go along with immoral means with the hopes of achieving an end we deem to be worthy, we sully the name of Christ and grieve the Holy Spirit.  When we choose power, wealth, fame, or any other moniker of 'success', pursued by immoral actions, we abdicate our responsibility to be salt and light in this world, endanger our witness to the Lost, and call into question the genuineness of our conversion and discipleship.  

For all those who prioritize 'winning' or 'victory' above the call of God to live always, and in all things, according to his Holy Word, a series of warnings from God are a reminder of the futility of that path.

Psalm 1

1 Blessed is the one

    who does not walk in step with the wicked

or stand in the way that sinners take

    or sit in the company of mockers,

2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,

    and who meditates on his law day and night.

3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,

    which yields its fruit in season

and whose leaf does not wither—

    whatever they do prospers.

4 Not so the wicked!

    They are like chaff

    that the wind blows away.

5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,

    nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,

    but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.

Ephesians 5:5-7 New International Version (NIV)

5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.

Romans 3:8 New International Version (NIV)

8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

It may seem possible to play in the mud without getting dirty, it may seem possible to make bargains with or support others who act immorally without ourselves becoming tainted, but these are lies, lies from the Father of Lies, and lies of a mind not in submission to the will of God.  The choice is clear: Either we, as God's people called from darkness into light, walk in the light, win or lose, success or failure, or we don't.  

Mark 8:36-37 New International Version (NIV)

36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

Sermon Video: Israel crosses the Jordan River - Joshua 3

The crossing of the Jordan River by the people of Israel as they entered at last into the Promised Land need not have required a miracle.  The people could have entered into the land using a variety of means, but were directed to cross the Jordan, while it was at flood stage, for a very specific reason: God wanted to demonstrate his power to his people once more, and at the same time, to show that Joshua was his chosen leader.

For God, the performing of miracles is not a burden, nor a challenge, the focus then in scripture when we encounter God working miracles is the question: How do the people respond to seeing God at work?  In this case, the response required of the people by God was simple, they need only watch the priests enter the river carrying the Ark and then cross the river once its flow had been interrupted.

What then do we glean from reading about the crossing of the Jordan by Israel?  As the Church, we too know that when God chooses to act that the availability of power will not be an issue.  Like Israel who had God among them, the blessing of having God in our midst (via the Holy Spirit indwelling believers) assures us that amazing things are entirely possible when we obey his Word.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

How should I interact with my pastor?

I can't speak for all of us, but perhaps some examples from my own perspective might help both my congregation and those from other flocks understand both positive and negative ways of interacting with your pastor...

• DO...Seek my help when you need it.  It doesn't matter if its the middle of the night, it doesn't matter if you're not a member, or even if you're new to the congregation.  If you are in a spiritual crisis (or an emotional, relational, financial, or health one) please don't try to go it alone.  An FYI, I may have run an ultra-marathon last week, but I'm no masochist, I don't keep my cell phone next to my bed; if you don't get an answer on my cell between 11 PM - 7 AM, leave a voice mail or text and then call the parsonage number.
• DON'T...Call me before calling 9-1-1 if you have a health/safety emergency.  I'm not a doctor, nor have I medical training beyond CPR, nor am I a psychiatrist, or a suicide-prevention specialist.  In a genuine medical emergency, seek medical help first, then call me or have a relative call me and I'll meet you at the hospital.  If it is a safety emergency, call the police, they're trained to help on those situations.
• DO...Seek my advice and counsel on issues of morality.  Applying Biblical principles to our chaotic lives can be difficult, while what you read from a book or off the internet might be helpful, we have a relationship for a reason, so that I can understand what the Word of God would say, not to someone like you, but to you.
• DON'T...Seek my legal counsel, nor my opinion on political matters.  Just as medical school was not in my past, nor was law school, if you need legal advice seek a competent lawyer.  If there is an ethical dimension to your legal issue, I would be happy to offer counsel, but the law itself is beyond the scope of my training.  In terms of politics, I do indeed have well informed and Bible-based opinions (in my case, ones informed also by a deep study of history), but you're out of luck if you want to know what they are.  Why?  As I've said on many an occasion, I will not risk your relationship with God, as supported by your relationship with his local church, in order to gain power/influence in this life.  Political power is transitory and fleeting, the Kingdom of God is forever, it isn't hard for me to choose which I care more about.
• DO...Ask questions and share your insights following my sermon on Sunday, I'm glad to hear that you liked it, if you did, but even more eager to know what your response is to the message I've prepared from the Word.  Likewise, if you're at Bible study on Wednesday, please speak up and ask questions as we work through the text, share what you see, what you've read before, the best Bible study is one of interaction.  Of course, you know that if you don't say anything during Bible study, I'm more than capable of filling the whole hour with my own talking, it just isn't as effective as a back-and-forth conversation.
• DON'T...Begin your phone call to me, or conversation, with, "I'm sorry to bother you, but..." or "I didn't want to disturb you at this hour, but..."  They're not necessary.  It isn't a bother, and you didn't disturb me, especially if the call reflects a true need.  Not only is it my job to be available and to be willing to set things aside to meet sudden needs, but far more importantly it is my calling.  As an ordained minister, one who has accepted the solemn duty to act as shepherd of a flock of our Lord Jesus, I don't consider your troubles to be an imposition; they're an opportunity for me to serve God by serving his people.  Do I value the time I share with Nicole and Clara apart from my work?  Of course I do, and nobody likes to have their dinner or sleep interrupted, but I'll adjust my schedule on a subsequent day and spend that time with my family if I end up spending an evening at the hospital with your family (for example).  If I'm on a date with my wife, or at one of my daughter's functions (when she's old enough to have functions, all too soon), I still need to know that you or your family member is in need, and I'll get to that as soon as possible, in all likelihood after my current family obligation ends, but let me make that determination, I can handle it.  My commitments as a husband and father are sacrosanct, I won't let my service to the church undermine them (nor should my congregation want me to, in fact it is their duty to prevent me from doing so if I foolish begin down that path), so you need not worry about the day/time when you need to reach out, as I said in the first point, seek my help when you need it.

That's enough for now, hopefully these will be of use.

How should Christians feel about refugees?

There are few topics as explosive in the West today as that of illegal immigration and refugees.  Fear of immigrants (legal or otherwise) is certainly not new, one need only recall the "no Irish need apply" signs during the period in American history when immigration from Ireland was relatively high.



The desire to keep those defined as the "other" (whether due to religion, ethnicity, or race) from "invading" one's own land is as old as human history, and also unlikely to end anytime soon.  In light of the lowering of the refugee quotas for the United States in 2019 to 30,000, the lowest amount since 1980 (the actual number admitted could be far lower than that), the question arises, how should Christian Americans feel about refugees?  Note that our brothers and sisters in Europe and around the world face the same questions, and bear the same responsibility to bend their own thoughts/attitudes to the mind of Christ.

Washington Post 9/17/18: U.S. slashes the number of refugees it will allow into the country

The Church today is the sequel (for want of a universally accepted term) to Israel.  The LORD made a covenant with Abraham regarding his literal descendants, but also promised Abraham that all nations would be blessed through him, a promise kept through the advent of the Messiah.  Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures the idea of protecting those whom society might otherwise oppress is repeated many times by multiple authors in a variety of settings.  The Word of God mandates protections for aliens, widows, orphans, and the oppressed in general.  While the Church has not inherited every element of the covenant with Abraham/Moses/David (such as circumcision, the kosher laws, or the Sabbath), we are heirs to the moral code that underlines it, for that moral code was derived from the character of God himself, and since God does not change, neither does right and wrong.

It is unacceptable for Christians, living in any land, to treat those from other lands as less-worthy of the love of God.  We do not believe that there was anything special about ourselves which led to our inclusion within the people of God, it was an act of God's grace, and therefore we do not look at any person or people as beyond the reach of God's grace, and thus all people are in a real and tangible way our responsibility if they need help and we can provide it.  The principle is beautifully illustrated by Jesus in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, in which the hero of the tale is a hated Samaritan, while those refusing to help are considered pillars of the Jewish community.

If Christians allow the siren's call of Nationalism to blind them to their responsibility as the people of God to be a balm to those in need and representatives of the love of God here on earth, they will answer to God for that failure.  If Christians join in and heap condemnation on those seeking succor, treating them as less worthy of God's love, and shutting the door literally or figuratively in their faces, they will answer for that as well.

Is the refugee in question white like me?  That doesn't matter at all, and if you even care about the answer you're not thinking like Christ.  Is the refugee a fellow Christian like me?  If so, my obligation is even greater, if not, my obligation remains and must be fulfilled.  There are ways to rationalize away the call of those in need, political and economic reasons why their cries should be ignored, but they're not Christ-centered reasons, and while they may garner votes for politicians, they won't do you any good when you stand before a Holy God and need to explain the hardness of your heart.

Below is a selection of the array of references in the Scriptures on this topic, see for yourself, this is just the tip of the iceberg:

Exodus 22:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

 Psalm 9:9 New International Version (NIV)
9 The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed,
    a stronghold in times of trouble.

Psalm 146:7-9 New International Version (NIV)
7 He upholds the cause of the oppressed
    and gives food to the hungry.
The Lord sets prisoners free,
8     the Lord gives sight to the blind,
the Lord lifts up those who are bowed down,
    the Lord loves the righteous.
9 The Lord watches over the foreigner
    and sustains the fatherless and the widow,
    but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.

Isaiah 58:10 New International Version (NIV)
10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
    and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
    and your night will become like the noonday.

Luke 4:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
    and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,

Sermon Video: Rahab chooses the LORD - Joshua 2

As Joshua prepares to lead the people of Israel over the Jordan River and into the Promised Land, he sends two spies ahead of the host to ascertain the status of the first objective, the city of Jericho.  In Jericho, the two unnamed spies encounter and unexpected ally, a local woman named Rahab.  We know little about Rahab, other than the assertion that her profession was prostitution (although some contend the translation ought to be innkeeper, perhaps she was both), but the choice made by Rahab upon meeting the spies will not only preserve their lives but that of herself and her entire family. 

Rumors of the victories of the God of Israel had proceeded the arrival of the people of Israel, and then subsequently enhanced by their destruction of the Amorites on the east side of the Jordan.  Rahab recognizing the power of the LORD, through some combination of divine grace and an open heart/mind, chooses to protect the spies and make a pact with them regarding the future assault upon Jericho rather than remaining loyal to her own people.  In the end, the faith of Rahab as evidenced by her choice is rewarded, her family is spared when the city is destroyed, and she herself will eventually marry a Jewish man, and their child together will be a direct ancestor of both King David and the Messiah Jesus.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Would you tell your daughter NOT to report being raped?

There are a number of practical and societal reasons why someone (male or female) might resist reporting a sexual assault, from the fear of not being believed, to the very real possibility of retribution, to the tendency of many to victim blame.  If these were not enough, and of course we must add to them the often ridiculous back-log of untested rape kits, there has emerged in connection with recent events in America, a theological/moral argument to refrain from reporting/prosecuting sexual assault and rape that is being drawn from the Mosaic Law.

My introduction to this viewpoint came from a Christian apologist/writer whom I have expressed admiration for in the past, and whose writing on issues of Biblical Criticism are well researched and first rate.  Unfortunately, James White, of Alpha and Omega Ministries, took it upon himself to offer a political commentary regarding the controversy surrounding the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  As you know if you read my blog, I will refrain from making any political commentary, but the use of the Bible by James White (and others as well, he's just the most well known) to advocate for the silencing of those who have been the victims of sexual assault (or by extension, any crime without corroborating witnesses) deserves a response.  I reached out to Alpha and Omega Ministries a week ago with my concerns by email, but received not response.

Please watch the relevant portion of the video before proceeding, the link is below:

James White, Alpha and Omega Ministries, from 9/25/18

The relevant passage of the video begins at the 7:00 mark and last until the 19:29 mark...It references Deuteronomy 19:15-21 and Deuteronomy 22:23-27

19:15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, 17 the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.


22:23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.


25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

"If you can't prove it, you don't report it" (at 11:30 mark)

My rebuttal to the assertion of James White is not a dismissal of the Mosaic Law, nor is it an abandonment of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" (both of which he accuses those with a differing view of doing in the video).  It does not come from a secular viewpoint and a liberal agenda, I can't imagine anyone who knows me at all accusing me of either.  This issue is not a case of all-or-nothing as those with a political axe to grind on both sides would have us believe.  Our choice is not between always reflexively believing the man (no matter how many individual women make an accusation, each as the only witness to their alleged assault) or always believing the woman (no matter the collaborating evidence).  James White said that it is our task to "approximate" the justice of God, and he is absolutely correct in that, but then makes it quite clear that because he believes we are incapable of doing anything of the sort, thus any victim of a crime that was not witnessed by others ought to be told, "wait for God's justice, we've got nothing for you here."  Will God judge in the end with absolute truth and justice?  Yes, indeed, but that does not preclude us from doing our best here and now, nor does that excuse us as Christians or as a society from our moral obligation to fight against the evil that exists in humanity.

Is our criminal justice system capable of making mistakes, of letting the guilty go free and convicting the innocent?  Of course it is, sadly often based upon the poverty/wealth and/or skin color of the defendant.  The failure of our system to never convict the innocent does not give us the excuse to throw our hands up and stop trying to prosecute those who are truly guilty.

If a single victim should be morally prevented from reporting the crime which has been done to him/her, if those victims should be dismissed, even threatened with jail for speaking up (by making the assumption that as a single witness it must be a false allegation), we would still have an epidemic of predator priests raging in our nation, and around the world, we would still have Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nassar, and Bill Cosby preying upon their victims {of course, we know how many times attempts to report their heinous crimes were dismissed by those in authority, both in the Church and in the government, allowing the toll of victims to rise ever higher}.

I will continue to defend the need for the people of God to view the Bible as completely authoritative in their lives for both faith (theology) and practice (morality).  I will continue to defend its absolute relevance to us today, as it was to our ancestors in the faith.  I cannot, however, see that in this case, James White, and those who echo his words (more examples in the links below) are showing us the only way to do that.

A criminal justice system must presume innocence, and it must have a high bar of evidence to convict those accused, but it cannot tell the most vulnerable among us that they have no avenue for justice, and it cannot threaten victims with reprisal simply for asking to be heard.  As a society, and as a Church, we have failed to protect the weak and vulnerable from the strong and the privileged, we have far too often allowed politics to color our sense of justice, and we have been complicit in the heaping of shame upon those who have been victimized.  This cannot be what God expects of his people, our call to righteousness demands more.

A perfect system of justice is indeed unattainable, but we've got to do better than to say, "if you can't prove it, you don't report it."  May the LORD spare me from having to ever counsel my daughter about whether or not she should report being sexually assaulted, but I for one would not tell her to be quiet.





(Below are a few examples of Deuteronomy 19 being applied to the current political drama, simply there to show that the commentary of James White is echoed by others.)

AFA commentary: What Should Be Done About the Kavanaugh Nomination?

Engage Magazine: Brett Kavanaugh: Innocent till proven guilty

{Update 11/21  The James White that I used to listen to while working no longer has the same ministry.  In the past 3-4 years he has followed Eric Metaxas down the road of political 'sky is falling' conspiracy theory laden hysteria.  I no longer recommend listening to his messages with the exception of the older material related to textual criticism}

Sermon Video: Be Strong and Courageous - Joshua 1

** Note, we are utilizing new sound equipment for recording the sermons; hopefully you will notice considerable improvement.**

As Joshua prepares to take over the leadership role of Israel following the death of Moses, the LORD encourages Joshua with specific and powerful promises that he will be with Joshua as he was with Moses and that "I will never leave you nor forsake you."  In light of his word, the LORD tells Joshua to "Be strong and courageous" as he leads the people across the Jordan into the land that God has promised to give to the people of Israel.  The encouragement to be strong and courageous is repeated three times in the chapter, and the emphasis that God will give the land to Israel is repeated five times. 

To watch the video, click on the link below: