Sermon Video: Immanuel, "God with us" - Matthew 1:22-23

The entrance of the Christ child into God's redemptive story is an amazing true story. The Son of God, the rightful king, born in a humble setting. Jesus' story begins, purposefully, with humility. And yet, within the humble setting lies an awesome truth, the child of the Virgin is the very Son of God, literally he is Immanuel, "God with us". Why? Simple, only God himself could save us. The entrance into the human story by God is incredible, but God is just getting warmed up, stay tuned until Easter to see how God temporarily left the stage, only to return in triumph. Christmas is sublime, but Easter is a sequel that surpasses it.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

I'm not willing to ignore Antisemitism on Christmas Eve (or ever).

Unless the name of Jesus is entirely unknown to you, you probably know that Jesus was a Jew.  He was born of Mary, and raised by Joseph as his earthly father, both of whom were of the tribe of Judah, one of Jacob's sons, who was himself Abraham's grandson.  He was raised in an observant household, circumcised on the eighth day, and went with his family every year to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover.  It is for this reason, among others, that Antisemitism by Christians is a slap in the face of God, it is a stain upon the Bride of Christ, and the greatest shame of the people called by God to form the New Covenant.  That being said, it is particularly galling to hear of antisemitism, and from an extremely famous and well connected American, at Christmas.  In this case, the person wallowing in the old racist trope that Jews control the world, is the former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani.  The target?  The favorite punching bag of white nationalists and neo-nazis: Jewish billionaire George Soros.  I have no interest in engaging in a debate about the politics of George Soros.  It is well documented that he funds causes that he believes in, much like millions of people all over the globe.  It is his right to support and fund these causes, and it is the right of others to oppose those same causes.  One can disagree with the politics of George Soros, and express that disagreement, without painting him as a nefarious puppet master, and without denigrating his Jewish heritage.  Rudy Giuliani has chosen, and not for the first time, to engage in the latter.  In an interview with New York magazine {A Conversation With Rudy Giuliani Over Bloody Marys at the Mark Hotel By Olivia Nuzzi}{Rudy Giuliani says he's "more of a Jew" than Holocaust survivor George Soros BY SOPHIE LEWIS} he said the following,

“Don’t tell me I’m anti-Semitic if I oppose him,” he said. “Soros is hardly a Jew. I’m more of a Jew than Soros is. I probably know more about — he doesn’t go to church, he doesn’t go to religion — synagogue. He doesn’t belong to a synagogue, he doesn’t support Israel, he’s an enemy of Israel. He’s elected eight anarchist DA’s in the United States. He’s a horrible human being.”

It is perfectly possible to oppose the politics of George Soros without being anti-Semitic, just as it is possible to oppose the politics of Benjamin Netanyahu without being anti-Israel.  What is not possible, is to declare a HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR to be a non-Jew, or to declare yourself (as for example, a person of Italian descent raised as a Roman Catholic) as 'more of a Jew' than any person of Jewish descent, no matter their politics, or lack thereof.  When the Nazis murdered more than 6 million Jews, they didn't ask them what their politics were, and they didn't spare those families who had served the Reich faithfully during WWI, nor even those who were not practicing the faith of Abraham.  Jewish blood, even if only two grandparents were Jewish, was enough for a death sentence (and sometimes not even that, suspicion alone could prove fatal).  {The Nuremberg Laws: Holocaust and Human Behavior}

The family of George Soros faced extermination during the Nazi reign of terror, that of Rudy Giuliani did not.  How did Soros' family in Hungary survive?  By faking documents and pretending to be Christians until the war ended.  It doesn't matter to me, at all, what political party Rudy Giuliani supports, or if he wasn't involved in politics at all.  Antisemitism is a cancer, a despicable stain on the human condition, and an example par excellence of fallen human nature.  It must be condemned, it must be opposed, or in future generations they will wonder how anyone could have forgotten the Holocaust and let it happen again.

Sermon Video: An honorable father for Jesus - Matthew 1:18-20,24

We a significant amount about Mary from the Gospels, and the Church has embraced and emphasized her role over the centuries, but what about Joseph?  After the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus is 12, he disappears from the narrative, what do we know about him?  The most significant passage is Joseph's response to the news about Mary's pregnancy before he receives the information in the dream that the child is from God.  Even though Joseph was a man who scrupulously followed the Law, he was not compelled by it to humiliate Mary publicly when he brought their betrothal to an end, and he had no desire to do so.  There was something in Joseph's character, perhaps influenced by his history, or maybe simply a manifestation of his kind heart, that put Mary's interest above any question of his ego, even though he had every reason to believe that she had wronged him.  This is the man that God chose to be the father of Jesus Christ. 
When will we face life defining choices and moments?  Will we be up to the task?  If we live by the same kindness and compassion that Joseph demonstrated here, we will be building the character and habits that will enable us (by God's grace and the Holy Spirit) to likewise rise to the occasion.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Impeachment aside, the President mocking the prayers of the Speaker should be disconcerting to all Christians.

Americans are evenly divided on the question of whether or not the President of the United States ought to be impeached and removed from office, multiple polls over the past few months have confirmed it.  This is, of course, no surprise given the increasingly antagonistic partisan nature of the political 'discourse' (an ironic term in the current climate) that takes place each day on television and social media, not to mention the vitriol coming from the politicians themselves.  America has had bitter divisions like this before, and survived them, but at great cost.  One of the things that, in theory, helps hold our nation together is the willingness of Christians to pray for God's blessing upon our nation, for peace and justice, even when their own party is not currently in power.  From the Christians I've known, and from being honest with my own heart, I've at times wondered how consistent and sincere our prayers are when 'they' are in power and not 'us'.  I know that some Christians are deeply committed to their prayer for the nation, and elections don't change their attitudes or habits.  But other Christians, who knows how many, treat their prayers to the Almighty as an extension of their own political preferences, beseeching God to give our 'holy and righteous' side victory and smite the 'vile and wicked' ways of the opposition.  Perhaps an equal number of Red and Blue Christians in America are committed to praying no matter what, and an equal number pray only in partisan terms.  {And here is where I'll lose some of you, upon reading that last sentence you'll either say to yourself, 'What Blue (or Red) Christians, they can't possibly be Christians if they support...Yes, that's a further symptom of how dangerously our politics has infected our theology.  I'm saved by the Blood of the Lamb, that and that alone, as is every Christian (and Old Covenant saint before Christ) who has every lived, my politics (or lack thereof) are NOT a factor, how could they be?}

Which brings me to the current example of our polarization.  I have no intention of offering an opinion regarding the President, the Speaker of the House, or Impeachment (If you expected that, you've not read my blog before).  What I am willing to speak about, however, is prayer.  I have doubts about the sincerity of the faith of a number of politicians, on both sides, who seem to utilize that faith when it will get them votes and ignore it when it gets in the way of tactics or their own moral choices.  Then again, I have doubts about the sincerity of the faith of a number of famous 'Christian' leaders, who seem more interested in power, wealth, and fame than in being a servant of the Gospel.  I also wonder about the sincerity of the faith of some of the people I know personally, for whom faith seems to be a matter of convenience more than conviction.  I have these doubts, and I believe them to be a healthy amount of skepticism, as Jesus reminded us, "16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." (Matthew 7:16-20)
In response to the impending Articles of Impeachment, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, issued a public letter written to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.  Among many a political invective in the letter is the section below:

Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by
continually saying "I pray for the President", when you know this statement is not true, unless it
is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it,
not I!  {READ: President Trump Sends Pelosi Letter Protesting 'Partisan Impeachment Crusade'}

I don't know if Speaker Pelosi prays for the President or not, but I know that she says that she does.  I don't know what the content, attitude, and tone of the Speaker's prayers might be, perhaps they are infected with partisan attitudes, or maybe she rises above that and prays for the good of the country even if it means the success of her political enemy.  The point is, I don't know these things, and neither does the President.  The sad thing here is that an assumption is being made, one with a cynical heart: that a Democrat cannot possibly pray with sincerity for a Republican (and vice versa).  If we have descended this far into tribalism, if we are being asked to accept that the Universal Church can only contain people who think just like we do, then we're also being asked to write-off millions of Church going, self-professed Christians who claim that their faith is in Jesus Christ, as not simply still Lost, but our enemies. {My favorite example of this attitude is from an episode of Cheers - Woody Boyd : I love you, Kelly - that's why I'm now a member of the Lutheran Evangelical Church of America. Just like you.
Kelly Boyd : Oh, Woody! You saved our marriage... What a wonderful sacrifice! Now when we die and go to heaven, we won't be separated by barbed wire and barking dogs (for context, Woody was already a Lutheran, just a different branch of the tree)}.

Perhaps it is hopelessly optimistic of me to believe that as Christians our faith ought to transcend our politics and even our citizenship as the defining characteristic of our lives.  Jesus, of course, told us he would accept no less, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?" (Matthew 16:24-26).  As I read about Church history, I find plenty of examples of people for whom faith was seemingly the third or fourth most important thing (often behind their pursuit of wealth/power/fame or their own prejudices and hatreds), their stories could confirm that we shouldn't expect any better.  But I also read powerful stories of self-sacrifice, principled stands in the face of danger, and service to others, even to those who were considered to be "them" and not "us".    Men like William Wilberforce, and women like Sojourner Truth, hold the cynicism of reading history at bay, as do redemption stories like that of Saint Augustine, and the principled martyrdom of Jan Hus or Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  If men and women of extraordinary faith like that existed then, they are here among us now too.

To my fellow self-proclaimed Christians for whom politics is the primary lens through which you see the world: Do you pray for the opposition?  With sincerity, hoping that they will be transformed by the power of God's Word (if need be), not to see things as you or I see them, but as God would have them be seen?  If you are willing to pray for them, and they are willing to pray for you, perhaps I'm not as hopelessly optimistic as it seems.

Sermon Video: The Messiah's Nature - Philippians 2:6-8

Our literature and pop-culture extensively utilize "Christ figures"; heroes from humble beginnings who are more than they seem to be on the surface, and who through self-sacrifice manage to save the day.  {Aragorn, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, Superman, to name a few}.  But what of the original?  What exactly is the nature of the God-Man, whom Luke called Emmanuel, 'God with us'?  While the Gospel writers and other NT authors made it abundantly clear that they saw Jesus as both God and Man, it took the Early Church a while to sort out exactly how to explain that unique combination.  After Arius' false venture into Subordinationism (the Son as the highest created being, i.e. modern-day Jehovah's Witness doctrine), which the Church soundly rejected at the Council of Nicaea (325), where they also rejected attempts to deny the full humanity of Jesus, the Church still needed to refine their explanation, eventually arriving at the language of the Council of Chalcedon (451), "consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood."  The Apostle Paul illuminated this mystery when he wrote in Philippians about the nature of Jesus, declaring Jesus to be "very nature God", while at the same time taking on the role of a humble and obedient servant "being made in human likeness."  It is an enduring, and incredible, mystery.  God the Son, willing to take upon his divinity, humanity, in order to fulfill the role of the Messiah and save humanity; no wonder we celebrate Christmas two millennia later.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Messiah Needed - Ecclesiastes 7:20

Are good people in heaven?  The problem with this question is that it assumes a definition of the term "good" that is not connected to the holiness and righteousness of God.  If we ask the question according to that standard of purity and perfection, the answer would be "yes", but with the important caveat that there are no such people.  A theme in the Bible, expressed here by Solomon in Ecclesiastes, is that humanity is fallen, in open rebellion against God, and without hope on our own of rectifying the situation.  It is not enough to claim to do 99 morally upright deeds for every 1 immoral act, nor even 999 to 1, for even such lofty aspirations fall short of the standard of righteousness that God set forth for the Messiah: sinless perfection.  Thus our need for a savior, a Messiah, comes into focus, if God had not come to save us, humanity would have remained in hopelessness.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Yesterday my church was full of people...

As the pastor of a small church (in a huge building), I wish my church was full more often, it bothers me from time to time that my eight years here haven't resulted in full pews on Sunday morning.  We've added a number of great new people and families since my arrival, but I've also officiated at more funerals than I can count.  Yesterday my church was full of people.  We hosted a Christmas food voucher distribution run by Community Support Services (formerly OEO, under the Venango County Human Services Department) and the Venango County United Way.  Seven CSS workers distributed 450 vouchers beginning at 10 AM, we had people waiting to get into the church when our office manager Cheryl arrived at 7.  By 10 AM, there were nearly 200 people waiting in Miller Auditorium.  Rather than spend my morning in my office reading or writing, I gladly spent the bulk of yesterday interacting with my neighbors, many of whom I have now conversed with each of the last several years while they waited for a voucher.
Before my tenure as the shepherd of this flock reaches its termination, Lord willing many years from now, I certainly do hope that our worship service on Sunday morning fills our sanctuary to capacity (about 200+); maybe we will be blessed in this way, maybe not.  I don't know what the future holds for this congregation, nor what the results will be of the seeds we've endeavored to sow, but I do know that yesterday my church was full of people, and for the pastor of a small congregation, that warms my heart.

Sermon Video: The Messiah foretold - Genesis 3:15

In what direction does history flow?  Is it cyclical, like many in the East believe (Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism) and many of the ancients believed (Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism), or is it linear, proceeding from a definite starting point and heading toward a defined goal?  From the beginning, Judaism (and later Christianity) has viewed history as linear, with a starting point being the creation of the universe by God, and a final goal, the reconciliation of that same creation to the will and love of its Creator.  Contrary to the views of many, evil has not always existed, for it has no independent existence of its own, but rather is only a marring and a mockery of that which God has created.  Evil is rebellion against the will of God, and as such, it has no long-term prospects, for God will certainly bring all things once more under his dominion.  This much is made clear to Adam and Eve, in the garden where God placed them to act as stewards of his work of ordering the chaos.  When Adam and Eve chose to follow the path of Lucifer (now Satan) who had rejected obedience to God's will in favor of an illusory independence, God reasserted his sovereignty by declaring that one day a descendant of the woman would crush forever the rebellion led by Satan (although at great cost to himself).  In the end, there will be no more death, suffering, pain, or indeed, evil.  History is moving forward to its glorious goal, the hinge of which is the arrival of the promised Messiah, a promise made by God from the very beginning.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Sing to the LORD - Psalm 98

Why do we sing in Church?  What is it about singing that connects so well to worship?  If you've not thought about these questions, perhaps you should, because as the writer of Psalm 98 makes clear, the people of God need to sing to the LORD.  Why?  Because God has done marvelous things.  In particular, God has made his salvation, his willingness to rescue humanity, known to us.  That effort began with Israel, but it spread to all nations.  The end result?  The people of God can sing (!) while standing before the judge of all the earth.  Amazingly, we will not stand before our righteous and holy judge with fear, but with gratitude and joy.  Why do we sing in Church?  Because our hearts are full of joy, for God has done wondrous things among us.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Where Mayor Pete Buttigieg's interpretation of Scripture goes awry.

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone magazine's Alex Morris, presidential candidate, and mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg made a variety of comments from his own viewpoint regarding Christianity, faith, and morality.  (The Generous Gospel of Mayor Pete)  Whether one likes Mayor Buttigieg as a candidate or not, there is great import in understanding the way in which he views Scripture as it impacts his interpretation of the Word of God throughout.  From this point forward, I'll interact with the quotations from the article, the portions in italics are from Mayor Pete.

"Well, I think for a lot of us — certainly for me — any encounter with Scripture includes some process of sorting out what connects you with the God versus what simply tells you about the morals of the times when it was written, right? For example, the proposition that you should execute your sister by stoning if she commits adultery. I don’t believe that that was right once upon a time, and then the New Testament came and it was gone. I believe it was always wrong, but it was considered right once, and that found its way into Scripture."

Before delving into the nature of Scripture itself, this first quote contains a dangerous false dichotomy.  What connects us with God is NOT an either/or with the morality contained in Scripture.  What connects us with God is precisely the moral code contained within Scripture.  For it is by measuring our own lives against this standard that we see how woefully short we are apart from God's grace.  The moral code of the Mosaic Law, for example, is not what saves us, for we all would fail to uphold it (Paul's argument in Romans 3), but that code sets a foundation for our encounter with God.  When we, as finite flawed human beings, compare ourselves to the holiness and righteousness of our Creator, we will invariably fall short.  These are not just history lessons about ancient morality, for our amusement if nothing more, they are an indictment again human rebellion, a charge against human self-reliance that will draw those who take it seriously to repentance by assuring even the best among us that we cannot possibly stand before a Holy God without fear and trembling because of our failures to, "be Holy as I am Holy."  

Colossians 2:12-14 English Standard Version (ESV)

12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

The Law is not useless, to be set aside as a quaint reminder of our ancestors viewpoints, it is the legal charge against us that Christ has answered on our behalf.  Let us not dismiss as unnecessary the moral code which propelled Jesus to the Cross on our behalf.

What is Scripture?  How did it come to be, and what does it reflect, God, man, or both?  I myself have recently completed a discourse on the topic that you can watch here: What Every Christian Should Know About: The Bible  The viewpoint that is being put forward by Mayor Buttigieg is a common one, the idea that Scripture is a human creation that perhaps can lead us toward God, but certainly not a divine creation, as evidenced by the term Word of God.  The theological question in focus here is inspiration.  Did the authors of Scripture, nearly all Middle-Eastern Jewish men over a span of about 1,500 years, impart to us their cultural viewpoint or that of God? {Another false dichotomy, it assumes God cannot impart his Holy Word through a time-bound cultural viewpoint without it losing its timeless authority}  If inspiration is viewed simply akin to the talent of an exceptional artist, something rare but purely human, we would expect the Scriptures to be nothing more than a reflection of the culture in which they were written, including its flaws (from our point of view).  If, on the other hand, inspiration entails a communication from God, it will transcend the morality of the men who wrote it and instead reflect the character and nature of God.  That is not to say that God didn't utilize the cultural framework of the authors, including, for example, their cosmology (geocentric with the heavens beyond the firmament), or their understanding of human biology, for how else would a message from the divine be comprehensible to its original audience if it wasn't communicated to them within their own cultural framework?  In the same fashion, God worked with the limitations of his people, offering further fullness of his revelation as time went on (for example: stating clearly the marriage ideal in the beginning of Genesis but not rejecting the Patriarchs despite their tendency toward polygamy, and proclaiming monotheism despite Ancient Israel's ongoing flirtation with polytheism and idolatry).  These efforts of cultural condescension are evidence of the grace of God, not a comprise with the unchanging nature of God's righteousness and holiness.  Thus, while cultural factors are certainly readily apparent throughout the Scriptures, they do not equate with God saying, "Let us do evil that good may result"? (Romans 3:8).  The Scriptures do NOT advocate immorality.  Which brings me to Mayor Buttigieg's apparent understanding of the Mosaic Law.  Unless I'm misunderstanding his point, he believes that the Mosaic Law contains within it a number of evil commands and requirements that the people of the time (Ancient Israel) believed, erroneously, to be moral, when in fact they were always immoral, and thus did NOT reflect the nature/purpose of God.  Are there examples of God's people behaving immorally in Scripture?  Absolutely, the previously mentioned polygamy of the patriarchs is one example, the adultery of David is another, but in such cases the Scriptures are not commending the behavior (and in David's case he is explicitly condemned by God's prophet) only dealing with the flaws of God's messangers.  However, when Scripture declares, "thus says the LORD", and is clear that the viewpoint being represented is that of God, we cannot allow ourselves as a Church to open the Pandora's Box of saying, 'Well, that was just the Israelites (or Early Church), it wasn't God.'  If that door is opened, any and all things which an individual or a culture objects to can be tossed aside, even when Scripture is quoting God (including quoting Jesus in the Gospels) it can be easily dismissed as a human invention not a divine command.  We certainly do need to acknowledge the cultural element of Scripture, we certainly do need to view it as an ancient document written by people with that frame of mind, because if we don't we risk forcing modern interpretations onto the text (Eisegesis instead of proper Exegesis), but we cannot let a proper understanding of the divine/human nature of the text itself convince us to take the step advocated by Mayor Pete of treating the text as a primarily human product that we can sit in judgment over.

And to me that’s not so much cherry-picking as just being serious, because of course there’s so many things in Scripture that are inconsistent internally, and you’ve got to decide what sense to make of it. Jesus speaks so often in hyperbole and parable, in mysterious code, that in my experience, there’s simply no way that a literal understanding of Scripture can fit into the Bible that I find in my hands.

I think this helps explains where Mayor Pete's thinking went astray.  The issues of inspiration addressed above should not be intermixed with the issues of interpretation given here.  The Bible isn't to be taken "literally", no large body of speech or writing can possibly be taken "literally".  The reason is very simple, speech (and hence writing) is full of things like metaphors and hyperbole.  Our tendency to use such figurative language is one of the things that makes translation work difficult, because our idioms and figures of speech are culturally learned and often don't translate well, or at all, into a different language.  However, and this is very important, just because I agree (as do all Christians, even those who insist that they take the Bible 'literally' are not doing so in the poetic/figurative/metaphorical sections) that the Bible cannot be taken 'literally' does NOT mean that I am willing to jettison the need to take the teaching of the Bible authoritatively and seriously.  

I would be interested in learning what Mayor Pete's is talking about when he says, "there's so many things in Scripture that are inconsistent internally".  An inconsistent interpretive framework, especially one built upon faulty premises and techniques, will certainly yield a view of Scripture that is internally inconsistent.  The very existence of interpretive inconsistencies is a strong indication of a poor hermeneutic.  If you believe that the Scriptures are not the Word of God, but rather something much less, a collection of the words of men, one would expect to find inconsistencies, one would expect contradictions and incompatibilities.  The Scriptures themselves, though, are not to blame if people interpret them wrongly, to put the blame on the source material for failures of proper interpretation is egregious.  Because the interpretation that Mayor Peter, and many like-minded people, have arrived at does contain inconsistencies, the solution they have chosen is to arbitrarily declare the portions they agree with to be more important than the portions with which they disagree.  He doesn't think this is 'cherry-picking', but the end result is the same.

Now, I actually think that if you look at an issue like choice, there’s so many parts of the Bible that associate the beginning of life with breath that there’s plenty of scriptural basis to reach different conclusions about that. But only if you believe that the government must legislate these metaphysical questions does the debate about choice have to be about the government deciding where life begins.

Is is possible for Christians to be so skeptical of their own government that they fear the power of the government to be an arbiter or a question as important as when life begins.  That is not what is happening here.  Only a selective reading of Scripture could lend one to conclude that the Bible's stance on the beginning of life is a person's first breath.  We must contend with the whole counsel of God, not just the parts that conform with our desired result.   Below are just two examples that the Bible's viewpoint of life begins far earlier than birth.

Psalm 139:13-14 New International Version (NIV)

13 For you created my inmost being;

    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

    your works are wonderful,

    I know that full well.

Jeremiah 1:5 English Standard Version (ESV)

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

and before you were born I consecrated you;

I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Sermon Video: The LORD dwells in Zion - Joel 3

The finale of the message of the prophet Joel is upon God's ongoing concern for the people and land of Israel.  "In those days", in other words, during the End Times, God will administer his justice upon those who have chosen to mistreat the descendants of Abraham, a strong warning against the evil of Anti-Semitism.  At that time, Jesus will also reign from Jerusalem, as God once more dwells within the Holy City.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The challenge of being salt and light - Matthew 5:13-16

Matthew 5:13-16 New International Version (NIV)
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

The Church is made up of people attempting to be disciples of Jesus Christ.  It is made up of people who have been called from a state of living in darkness, who have been introduced to the light of the Gospel (the Good News of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on their behalf), and who by the power of the Gospel (through the Holy Spirit) have been transformed in their hearts and minds.  It is the will of God that those people, set free from bondage to sin, but not yet fully transformed to Christ-likeness, should remain living upon the earth to act as the "salt and light" that Jesus commanded them to be.  This is where it gets difficult.  Exactly how these redeemed, but not yet fully sanctified, disciples of Jesus can remain pure (salt) and at the same time live and minister in a world that remains dark (where they are to be a light) does not have a one-size-fits-all answer.
One option that has been tried from time to time in Church history has been that of withdrawal from society.  Beginning in the Early Church with hermits who literally withdrew to lonely places to avoid much of human contact, or even the Stylites ("pillar-dwellers" primarily in Syria) who lived at the top of stone pillars, to the later development of Monasticism where those living withdrawn from society did so in a community of like-minded people.  Without downplaying the importance of the monastic system for preserving knowledge from the Fall of Rome until the Renaissance, none of these attempted solutions were full answers to the command of Jesus, for while they may have been helpful in preserving purity (saltiness) they were at best only partly effective in sharing the Gospel with the Lost (being light).  If you withdraw from society, you may cut down on its ability to influence you toward immorality, but how can you influence it toward righteousness.  The same holds true for interactions with individual people, much of our potential sin involves interacting with other people, and so avoiding people might lead to less sin, but at the same time, most of our potential for righteous deeds involves interactions with other people, and curtailing those interactions will decrease righteousness as well.
Because withdrawal can, at best, only be a half or partial measure, the heart of the matter is how Christians can remain on the path of increasing Christ-likeness, thus preserving their saltiness, while at the same time engaging with the culture and people among whom they live so that their light will shine in the darkness.  The first step for any individual Christian in his/her need to be both "salt" and "light" is for that individual to not attempt the task as merely an individual Christian.  Like the Apostles that Jesus called to be in a community with him, and the other men and women who followed his ministry, Christians of every era, no matter how hostile or cooperative the culture they live in, need to be a part of something more substantial and more stable than anything they can do on their own.  The community created by Jesus, specifically for that purpose, is the Church.
How then does the Church help individual Christians retain their "saltiness" and enable their "light" to shine?  The purity (moral character) of individual Christians is enhanced and strengthened when they interact regularly with each other in community worship, prayer, service, and mentoring relationships.  It is easier to accomplish a difficult task, and rejecting sinful impulses to embrace a servant's heart of righteous self-sacrifice certainly qualifies as a difficult task, when attempting that task as part of a team.  Having other Christians by your side, to serve as both examples of how victory is possible, and to correct us when we go astray, is a boon whose worth cannot be calculated.  In addition, our ability to be a light in our community, to witness to the truth of the Gospel, is also enhanced by our connection to the community of believers.  One candle shining in the darkness will draw attention, yet it is difficult for that one light to sufficiently illuminate the way for others, but dozens of people holding lit candles will function more as a lighthouse or beacon.  For example: When a Christian participates in a ministry of the local church to which he/she belongs, like volunteering at a food pantry that the church runs, he/she not only gains valuable character shaping experience, but also is participating in an outreach effort that demonstrates to the Lost the love of God for them reflected in the love of God's people for them.
We don't expect all of our interactions as a Christian to be connected to our Church, at work and with our family and friends we will often be apart from the support and group effort of that community, but having the local church as one of the most significant aspects of our lives will absolutely make it easier for us to continue to be "salt" and "light" in those instances as well.

How important is your church community in your life?

How important is it to you to be in church on Sunday, to worship, pray, learn, and serve with God's people?

If you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you are commanded to be "salt" and "light", it is not optional, to accomplish that task you need to be a part of the community that Jesus created.

Sermon Video: "Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved" Joel 2:12-32

In the midst of a message of woe, the prophet Joel shares the desire of the LORD to relent and heal his people.  "Even now," the message begins, for it is not too late because God is "gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love," if the people will repent, God will forgive and save them.  This is the heart of the Gospel.  God is indeed a holy and righteous judge, and the great day of his wrath will one day come, but he also abounds in love and mercy and desires that all men would repent and be saved.  Why speak of judgment when offering a message of hope?  Because humanity's rebellion is a deep-seated condition, and most will not repent until they realize the extent of their danger and have given up trying to save themselves.  Hope remains, all those who call upon the name of the LORD, who hope in him, will be saved.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The logical and historical implications of a Pro-LGBTQI+ Church and/or Pro-Abortion Church

In the moment, when our passions are aroused, we have a hard time seeing it.  But there are always logical and historical implications when an organization (governmental, corporate, charitable, educational, religious, etc.) makes a momentous change.  In 1215, When King John signed the Magna Carta , the trajectory of Western Civilization was dramatically altered, although none then could have imagined that it would one day lead to English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean declaring their independence of the British Crown.  So it is with the sea change that is taking place in portions of the Church today.  What we are now experiencing is a significant change from what was generally accepted as the Truth by the Christians who passed down their faith to us.  There will be logical implications to these that we have not fully thought through, there will be unintended consequences, and there will be historical implications to this that we cannot yet see.  Perhaps, as we continue to lob verbal grenades at each other, and continue to fight this theological war as a proxy in the political realm, we ought to try to take a step back and consider what some of those implications might be.  What will we hand down to future generations in the faith?
Let us then posit the existence of a Church that by and large has become Pro-LGBTQI+ and/or Pro-Abortion.  {Not a Church that considers how to show compassion toward and minister to those who embrace LGBTQI+ behavior, nor to those who have had abortions.  Both of those things the Church should already be doing, although doing so is certainly difficult.  Nor a Church that is neutral toward these issues, neither celebrating nor condemning them.  The question at hand is this: What about a Church that has chosen to celebrate these things?}  These are the two primary ideas that the Church is being asked to accept, that some within the Church have reluctantly tolerated, and some have enthusiastically embraced.  With all of the yelling going on, perhaps looking toward the past and future will offer some perspective. 
1. Our perspective of the past will change significantly
We are always reevaluating the past, appreciating things we hadn't noticed before and regretting things that were once commonplace.  This is not new, not avoidable, and not necessarily a bad thing.  Our ancestors once considered slavery to be something they could not rid the world of, until a Christian named William Wilberforce (among many others) spent his adult life convincing England to outlaw the practice.  Now, when we consider that chattel slavery was once practiced by "fine Christian gentleman" it makes our skin crawl.  So what will we think of (for example) Moses, Paul, Augustine, Martin Luther, or Billy Graham should the Church fully embrace these two moral positions?  All of them will be viewed as much more flawed than they currently are.  And while no man or woman called by God to serve his kingdom is free of flaws, it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that these former stalwarts of the faith were either cowards (for failing to be a lone voice in their culture) or bigots (for actively opposing the behaviors in question).  In other words, nearly all of our heroes of the faith, certainly almost all those who lived before the 20th century, will have to be reevaluated, and most will end up on the list of "enemies of God".  Instead of good men and women who did their best by faith, they will be fools who were blind to the 'truth'.  It will not be a stretch to then believe that if their hearts could be so closed to what now has been determined to be true, that the vast majority of the heroes, and regular folk, who proceeded us in the faith, are in fact in Hell {for those who retain a belief in Hell}.  If one hates what God loves, and forbids what God celebrates, what other conclusion is left?  Hebrews 11 offers Christians a "great cloud of witnesses", heroes in the faith from the past to inspire us to live faithfully today.  What happens to that inspiration when the past has been rewritten and the heroes are now all villains?
In addition to the reevaluation of individuals, ancient Israel and the Church until the 21st century will also come under scrutiny for their 'unenlightened' viewpoints.  And while there were dark periods for both Israel and the Church in their history, times when people claiming to follow God have acted in shameful ways that we rightly condemn, it has until now been accepted that orthodox belief and practice did in fact triumph, by and large, in the end.  That when Israel embraced as canonical the writings of the Tanakh (what we call the Old Testament) and treated them as Holy Scripture, that they were correct to do so.  That when the Church accepted the brilliance of St. Augustine's argumentation, that it was correct to do so.  But if both Israel and the Church have been so egregiously in error, about so fundamental and issue as human sexuality or the sanctity of life, does it not follow that the entire contribution of these two would now become suspect?  That our connection to both Ancient Israel (as the tree onto which the Church was grafted) and the Early to Modern Church is false?  What they believed, will no longer be what we believe.  What they condemned, we will celebrate.  The connection to the 'faith of our fathers' will be lost.
2. God will not have been active (or effective) in the past
If, as some within the larger Church are now contending, it was always God's intention to be pro-LGBTQI+ and/or pro-abortion, if these things are not merely permissible in a civil society (where we are now) but far beyond that, to be encouraged, celebrated, and embraced as glorifying to God, then it becomes readily apparent that God's effort to share this viewpoint with his people, and have them conform to it, was woefully inadequate in the past.  There is not a plethora of writings from rabbis or church elders urging the acceptance of (let alone celebration of) these two activities, which either indicates that such voices were crushed by orthodox ones, revealing that God was powerless to promote and preserve them, or they did not in fact exist, in which case God was powerless to inspire those voices.  Either way, for the past 4,000 years, God has done a woeful job of making this aspect of morality known to his people, and thus to the world.
As a corollary, if only orthodox voices were accepted, promoted, and preserved by Israel and the Church (reflected thus in the canonical scriptures), then immediate questions arise concerning the truthfulness and value of the scriptures that we do have.  Because the Bible does not promote {Yes, I know a no-holds-barred battle is raging about whether or not the Bible condemns either homosexual behavior or abortion, this is the question beyond that one} homosexual behavior and abortion, as morally good and upright acts of righteousness (as is does, for example, repeatedly and strongly promote caring for widows and orphans, obeying your parents, or having a servant's heart), but those positions are now being declared to be such by the Church, the implication is that the Scriptures are corrupted in deep fundamental ways.  As such, trust in the scriptures as a guide to life and morality will be, in a future Church which has chosen to be pro-LGBTQI+ and/or pro-Abortion, far less absolute, thus bringing to a final end Martin Luther's call for Sola Scriptura as well as the Catholic Church's reliance upon the traditions handed down from the Apostles.
3. Jesus will not be the Jesus of our ancestors in the faith
As much as we might admire the Apostle Peter or Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in the end, it all comes down to Jesus.  To change our perspective regarding the hundreds of men and women who have walked in obedience before God as Jews or Christians is one thing, to take the traditional, orthodox, view of Jesus, and redefine it significantly is another.  As is the case with the Bible as a whole, the Gospels do not make any sort of pro-LGBTQI+ or pro-abortion case.  The Jesus that they relate to us, while full of compassion for the downtrodden of society, is at the same time extremely serious about the need for purity before God and the impact of sin upon the lives of people.  That these two issues were settled matters within 1st century Judaism (thus largely explaining Jesus' lack of focus upon them), would thus not excuse Jesus from speaking out in favor of those with non-traditional sexual desires, or unwanted pregnancies.  If Jesus is the champion of those in need that we all believe him to be, why did he leave the people in his midst who had these issues in the lurch?  Jesus was willing to eat with "tax collectors and 'sinners'", it would have been even more scandalous, and thus made his point about self-righteousness even more poignantly had Jesus sought out an example from either of these two groups to embrace in front of the Pharisees.
And yet Jesus didn't do this (or at least the Gospels don't record it, which instead of lowering the view of Jesus, lowers that of the Scriptures, an equally untenable solution).  He didn't take the opportunity to overturn the Jewish understanding of marriage and the sanctity of life.  Judaism in the first century viewed marriage and children as highly admirable, as the ideal for all those who could enjoy its blessings, and yet Jesus didn't call them out for their, apparent, bigotry.  The Jesus of the Gospels (the only one we know) is no hero to the LGBTQI+ movement, nor to pro-abortion champions, and thus he too will be reevaluated by a future Church that has embraced these ideas.

There are more implications for the future relating to the debates raging within the Church today than these three, but these three ought to be sufficient to give committed Christians a reason to think more deeply about these issues.  Set aside the politics, set aside the cultural implications, ask the most important question: How will this change affect the Church/Gospel/Bible if it is fully embraced?  The Church is a living thing, made up of flawed but redeemed people, and it needs to find a way to face the challenges of today without abandoning its historic and scriptural roots; to do so we need compassion, courage, and wisdom.

Paula White: Charlatan, Heretic, and White House employee - terrifying in any administration

Paula White-Cain, the famous Prosperity Gospel huckster who has made millions of dollars telling people to send her money so that they will receive God's financial blessing, is now an official White House employee.  {For further information on Paul White: Paula White:The Prosperity Gospel, Celebrity, and Politics - A trifecta of Gospel compromise}.  As this article from CNN explains, Paula White stated that when she was asked to serve, "To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God", evidence of a disturbing level of idolatry: Paula White: Trump's televangelist in the White House - by Jeremy Diamond  When asked if Paula White was a good choice to represent the evangelical community (and Christians in general), the White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere called White "someone who has the respect and admiration of the faith community across the country."  With apologies to Judd Deere, whom I do not know, that statement flies in the face of reality.  Paula White is not respected and admired by the Christian community, she is however, rich, famous, and a gate-keeper to the most powerful politician in America.  IF it becomes true that Paula White is "respected and admired" by the faith community, and there can be little doubt that her popularity is growing rapidly, it will be powerful evidence of rot and decay within the American Church, a cancer of materialism and the love of power.
1. Paula White-Cain is a charlatan and a heretic.
2. Paula White-Cain is being heavily promoted as a leader of the Church in America.
3. Whether you love, hate, or are indifferent to President Trump, the elevation by the White House of Paula White is a threat to the purity and integrity of the Church and the Gospel.
For those who support President Trump, his embrace of Paula White, while not new, he has supported her for decades, should be a disturbing sign, a further reason to pray for him.  For those who do not support the President, his embrace of Paula White will further confirm their low opinion of him.  Either way, the Church is being placed in danger, and the Gospel message is being clouded by the ongoing and increasing placement of an unashamed Prosperity Gospel huckster as a representative of American Christians.  I often hear about threats to the Church of persecution from the outside, whether or not such things are based in reality {some are, some are not}, this threat is real and it is already on the inside.
This is NOT about politics, the elevation of Paula White would be endangering the Church no matter which party she had chosen to support.  As I have warned repeatedly, the marriage of Church and politics is an uneven one, resulting in stains upon the reputation of the Bride of Christ, this is a prime example.  Do you want political power at any cost?  The bill is now due.  If the Church gains political power by embracing the Prosperity Gospel, it will have forfeited its soul.

The Culture War rages on; the Church's role in it is toxic.

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

Sermon Video: The Day of Woe - Joel 1:1-2:11

The prophet Joel wrote to his people, the descendants of Abraham who were heirs to the Covenant, during a time of extreme woe.  In Joel's day it was a massive swarm of locusts that threatened the very lives of the people and even brought an end to the daily sacrifices at the temple because no grain or wine could be procured for the morning and evening offering.  In this dark day the prophet calls upon his people to declare a fast, gather together, and "cry out to the LORD."  The misery they faced reminds us that we too may undergo a severe trial, whether it be a natural disaster or a manifestation of the wrath of God, and our response should be the same: gather together, and cry out to the LORD.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: God's Word, not our word - 1 Corinthians 14:36-40

Bringing his instructions about propriety and order within the church to a close, the Apostle Paul reminds the Christians at the Church of Corinth that they were not the ones who created the Scriptures, nor were they the only ones to whom it was given.  Paul is reminding them of the authority of Scripture over them, and of their need to conform to the Word of God.  The principle behind this is easily applied to churches in any time or place, as we too must respect the authority of God's Word and not attempt to substitute what God has said through the Spirit for our own judgment.  What of those who ignore this warning, who teach/preach against what the Word declares?  Paul declares that they will be ignored, and three examples of this are given in the message: Arius' false 4th century doctrine regarding Jesus (which the Church properly denounced through the Council of Nicaea), the dualist belief of the Cathars in 11th century France (which the Church immorally dealt with through a genocidal war and mass burning of people at the stake), and the contemporary example of the Prosperity Gospel of Paula White-Cain (which the Church has not yet rejected).  The point is, heretics and charlatans have always been with us and our need to remain on our guard, and judge those who speak/write by the Word of God, will remain.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Why does John MacArthur think it is ok to tell Beth Moore to 'Go home'?

During a conference held at Grace Community Church, Sun Valley CA, Pastor John MacArthur responded to a word-association game when the host gave him the name: Beth Moore, with a simple answer, 'Go home'.  The crowd erupted in laughter with John MacArthur continuing his comment by disparagingly linking Beth Moore to feminism, female politicians, the MeToo movement, Paula White-Cain, and comparing her to a TV jewelry salesperson.  It was designed to make headlines, and it did, before considering my observations below, take a moment to read some of the news articles about it:

John MacArthur skewers Beth Moore, Paula White, evangelicals who support women preachers by Leonardo Blair of The Christian Post

John MacArthur Tells Beth Moore ‘Go Home’: 3 Ways to Disagree Better by Ryan Denison of Christian Headlines

John MacArthur Tells Beth Moore to 'Go Home,' Says Bible Doesn't Support Female Preachers by Jenny Rose Spaudo of Charisma News

1. The question asked by Tom Friel was intended to draw the response it received.
When Tom Friel prefaced his question by asking for a 'pithy' response, and then said, 'Beth Moore' to that panel, at that conference, he knew that whatever the answer was the crowd would hoot and howl with laughter.  The question was asked so as to humiliate Beth Moore, and belittle those who do not agree with a complimentarian view of the role of men and women.  There are God-honoring men and women who hold a complimentarian view, and God-honoring men and women who hold an egalitarian view (and those in between).  Mockery is not debate, derision is not enlightening, such behavior is expected from a late-night comic, disappointing from a politician, and unbecoming of a leader of the Church of Jesus Christ.

2. The sustained and loud laughter of the audience, aimed at another human being, especially one who claims Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, is a poor testimony to the many who will hear it.
What exactly is funny about 'Go home'?  It seems that the vast majority of the audience has an extremely low opinion of Beth Moore, and while it is their right as Americans to express their opinion, even in derisive laughter, having the legal right does not make an action morally right.  If this is how we treat each other, and sadly we do much worse than this too, what are we telling non-Christians about our unity in Christ?  {I know, some are reading this and thinking, "Beth Moore is a heretic!  She has defied the Word of God by teaching men, she deserves what she gets!"  There are two flaws in that line of thought: (1) To invalidate a person's salvation in Jesus Christ based primarily, if not solely, upon a differing interpretation of the role of women in the Church is a prime example of Majoring in the Minors, that is dangerously elevating a secondary theological position over and above the Gospel, thus in essence making that particular position more important than whether or not a person trusts in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his/her sins. (2)  Does God delight in the destruction of sinners?  Even the vilest among us began life as a child of God, made in the image of our Creator; our glee at the downfall of even those who richly deserve it does not reflect well upon our own appreciation for how we are entirely dependent upon the grace of God for our own salvation.

3. The answer, 'Go home', reflects a cultural position, not a theological one.
John MacArthur doesn't believe that culture should be used to interpret the Bible (As an aside, we are all products of our culture, we don't live in a vacuum, so no interpretation can be entirely devoid of cultural influence.  Our goal should be awareness of our own culturally inherited presuppositions and biases, thus allowing us to counter-act them when necessary), but in this case his view that "a woman's place is in the home" isn't a Biblical one, certainly not one that would be understood in the 1st Century Greco-Roman world where both men and women worked primarily from home, but rather is itself a product of the Industrial Revolution's sharp divide between employment and family life.  In other words, the idea that a man is supposed to earn a living, and a woman is supposed to raise the children and take care of the house, is the by-product of modern culture, hardly the definitive basis for a sound biblical doctrine of what a God-honoring society ought to look like.  {For more on this idea, read the article from Christianity Today by Jen Pollock Michel: A Message to John MacArthur: The Bible Calls Both Men and Women to ‘Go Home’ }  Had John MacArthur responded, 'Shut up', it would have also been crass, but at least it would have reflected his complimentarian theology, and not his modern conservative cultural viewpoint.  If the egalitarians are wrong to view the NT passages regarding the role of women in the Church with a post-modern cultural lens, so too must the complimentarians be wrong when they view those same NT passages through a modern one.

4. 'Go home' reflects a deeper distrust/dislike of female leadership, beyond discussion of biblical standards for pastors/elders, and a desire to deny them that in America.
Again, had John MacArthur confined his answer to the question of whether or not Beth Moore ought to hold a position of leadership within the Church, even those who disagree with him regarding the interpretation of the relevant scriptural passages would have been having a discussion about an age old, and worthy issue in the realm of biblical interpretation: timeless vs. time-bound commandments.  This very question is central to much of the book of Acts as Peter and Paul must come to grips with how to apply the Mosaic Law to the new gentile converts to Christianity.  However, as John MacArthur further explained his answer he said this, “The primary effort in feminism is not equality. They don’t want equality. That’s why 99 percent of plumbers are men. They don’t want equal power to be a plumber. They want to be senators, preachers, congressmen, president. The power structure in a university, they want power, not equality and this is the highest location they can ascend to that power in the evangelical church and overturn what is clearly scriptural, so I think this is feminism gone to church. This is why we can’t let the culture exegete the Bible.”  {For that last sentence, see #3 above} Are we supposed to be fearful that women want to be senators, congressmen, even president?  How is this any business of the Church?  Should the Church oppose the election of godly women?  We ought to judge any would-be leader of our country by the same standard, regardless of whether that candidate is a man or a woman.  Let me give John MacArthur the benefit of the doubt here, and assume his fear is of women with a non-biblical worldview gaining power in society, but again the point must be made, what has this to do with Beth Moore?  By connecting Beth Moore to the female politicians whom his audience strongly dislikes, (Hilary Clinton for example) it makes the actual teaching of Beth Moore, her actual goals and attitudes, irrelevant, she becomes one of 'them'.  If on the other hand, John MacArthur does want to extend the complimentary theological viewpoint from its current turf, the home/marriage and the Church, to a general crusade against female politicians, in any form, that would be extremely troubling; let us hope this was simply a poor attempt at guilt-by-association.  A woman holding a position of power is no more or less moral or immoral than a man; we must judge people based upon the content of their character, nothing else.

5. The jewelry insult by John MacArthur was demeaning and sexist: “Just because you have the skill to sell jewelry on the TV sales channel doesn't mean you should be preaching.”
There doesn't seem to be much explanation needed. 

6. Paula White-Cain is not a legitimate comparison to Beth Moore.
To lump his objections to Beth Moore, based upon complimentary theology, to those that many have toward Paul White-Cain, based upon objections to her Prosperity Gospel message and willingness to promise blessings/miracles to those who give her money, is to unjustly smear Beth Moore with guilt by association.  If Beth Moore has made mistakes in what she has said or written (as have we all), then refute those, don't connect her with a dangerous charlatan/heretic and say, "see, this is what happens when women are allowed to preach."  After all, the Prosperity Gospel's who's who is primarily populated by men, not women, and I wouldn't lump John MacArthur in with Joel Osteen just because they're both American men who preach.

7. To attack 'MeToo' as solely a guise of feminism, and not a legitimate concern, is allowing political concerns to distract the Church from a moral imperative.
Modern American feminism has issues when it comes to biblical morality, in particular regarding abortion, on this many within the Church would agree {Even if we can't agree on what those concerns are, nor the extent to which we should be concerned}.  However, to pretend that there is not a long overdue reckoning of sexual predators and sexists within the Church (as well as society as a whole) is massively short-sighted.  The Church must rid itself of a culture that protects sexual predators, that blames rape victims, and that is willing to treat men and women as anything other than equal before God.  The Church, as a whole, has committed grave sins in failing to police itself, in hiding its sins from law enforcement, and in treating the sexual/physical/verbal abuse of women and children as a secondary issue.  Unfortunately, this is not the first sign of a dismissive attitude toward the reality-check of the MeToo movement: Founders Ministries released a trailer for an upcoming documentary that showed images of rape survivor and victim's advocate Rachel Denhollander, lumping her in with those who, in the words of the producers of the film, were advocating a 'godless ideology'.  {This despite the fact that Rachel's testimony about how God has helped her overcome the abuse she suffered is entirely orthodox; her 'crime' was to be associated with the MeToo movement.  To read my rebuttal to the Founders Ministry trailer click here: "By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}. 

8. 'Go home' doesn't reflect the Biblical narrative.
The inclusion of the stories of prominent, and influential God-fearing women in the Bible are not a fluke.  The inspiration of the Holy Spirit intended that we hear the story of the prophetess Deborah whose courage exceeded that of Barak, of Mordecai's utilization of Esther to effect God's salvation of the Jews, of the crucial and amazing role of Mary in the birth and life of Jesus, of Jesus' commendation of Martha's willingness to sit with the men and learn from him while Mary worried about 'woman's work', and of the women who came to the tomb and first heard the glorious news of the resurrection while Jesus' hand-picked 11 male apostles were in hiding.  The bible certainly celebrates the role of wife and mother, but at the same time demonstrates a repeated emphasis on God's willingness to utilize women, along with men, to accomplish his will.  If God had wanted women confined to the home, caring solely for chores and children, he would have made that clear, but the biblical narrative itself hints at no such call for the sequestering of women.

9. Is the Great Commission only for men, or should everyone saved by Jesus share the Good News?
I've never heard anyone take the position that only men can share the Good News, so there must be some role for women in the various ministries of the Church.  Even if one accepts the strict complimentarianism of John MacArthur, that does not exclude women from having a vital role in the health of a local church and its outreach to the world.

10. The focus on the work of ordained ministers (and other public leadership roles) is forgetting the crucial role of the laity.
While the focus of this controversy is the very public role of Beth Moore, and John MacArthur's role as a pastor in rebuking her, we ought not to lose sight of the fact that the Church needs far more help than what is given by those whose job/vocation is ministry.  The Church needs the laity: men, women, and children, to support its ministry and help it accomplish the mission given to us by Jesus.  If a church reserves the specific role of pastor/elder to men only, it still needs tremendous help from the people of the congregation, and if a church open the role of pastor/elder to both men and women, that church also needs tremendous help from the people of the congregation.  The leadership of a church is very important, but let's not let a controversy like this distract our attention away from the need to develop disciples of Jesus Christ within the church.

The response of Max Lucado: Max Lucado responds to John MacArthur's women preacher comments: 'Bride of Christ is sighing' by Sheryl Lynn of The Christian Post

Paula White:The Prosperity Gospel, Celebrity, and Politics - A trifecta of Gospel compromise

In a recent opinion piece in Christianity Today, Leah Payne and Aaron Griffith, highlight the unholy alliance that has led famous evangelical leaders, Franklin Graham, Robert Jeffress, and Jerry Falwell Jr. to endorse the latest book by Paula White-Cain.  The theology espoused by Paula White-Cain has historically been anathema among evangelicals, but the appeal of Paul White's power, in particular her celebrity and close association with the President of the United States, have seemingly overshadowed any concerns about Paula White-Cain's personal history and Prosperity Gospel infused theology {9 Things You Should Know About Prosperity Gospel Preacher Paula White by The Gospel Coalition's Joe Carter}.  Before going on, read the full article, it is well worth it, I will interact with specific passages below: Paula White-Cain’s Evangelical Support Squad Isn’t as Surprising as It Seems

On the surface, White-Cain’s support among these conservative white Protestants is surprising. For one thing, she is a prominent prosperity preacher associated with the New Apostolic Reformation, a loosely connected group of Pentecostals and Charismatics. For decades, tongues-speaking, vision-reporting prosperity preachers like White-Cain have been a theological anathema to more traditional white evangelicals.  {The Prosperity Gospel has been making inroads for decades, inching closer and closer to being thought of as acceptable as its proponents' fame grows through their TV/online presence, book sales, and wealth from donations.  Yet, until the events described in the article, leaders like Franklin Graham would have never publicly associated themselves with those selling this Gospel-for-profit perversion.}

Before fundamentalist-modernist battle lines hardened in the 1920s, it was common to see theological liberals and conservatives sharing stages with one another at tent revivals. Conservative revivalists were willing to work with liberal Protestants if it meant that they could achieve their broader aim of preaching to more potential converts with the support of the local Christian community.
To be sure, the revival tent was big, but it still could be contested. For Billy Graham, his continuation of the evangelical pragmatist tradition in inviting Christians of all stripes—from Johnny Cash to the president of Union Theological Seminary—to support his crusades or sit on his revival platforms drew the ire of fundamentalists like Bob Jones, who saw this impulse as misguided theological capitulation. But Graham helped set the stage for later evangelicals to think creatively about how partnerships could widen their appeal.  {Here is the key fundamental difference between the actions of Billy Graham in previous years and those of Franklin Graham (and those of like mind) today: The purpose.  To what end, for what cause, was Billy Graham willing to work with those he disagreed with about theology?  For the sharing of the Gospel message and the saving of souls.  Not for political gain, not for power, certainly not for money, it was a cause about which the Apostle Paul wrote, "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)  Should we work with anyone, even non-Christians, including Muslims (for example), on disaster relief or humanitarian aid?  Absolutely, for here we are not making common cause theologically, are not claiming to share a Gospel motivation or mission.  To save lives we ought to be willing to work with whomever is willing to offer no-strings-attached aid.  Should we work with other Christians, of other denominations, with whom we disagree on other issue, but agree upon the Gospel in those same areas, while including a Gospel message, praying, and worshiping together?  Absolutely, for here the common bond of the Gospel supersedes our disagreements.  To save souls we ought to be willing to work with anyone who affirms salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  Should we work with non-trinitarians, with those who deny the God/Man nature of Christ or his resurrection, whose Gospel is man-centered, and though it pays lip service to Jesus, is instead focused upon elevating us to earthly riches?  Should we embrace this false-Gospel for the sake of politics, wealth, or fame?  May God forbid it.  Nor can we work with those who embrace a false-gospel in an effort to share the Gospel, for what would we share?(Obviously, in the 3 questions above we would exclude working with those engaging in moral evil; i.e. we wouldn't accept food aid from terrorists, or Gospel preaching aid from pedophiles, that ought to go without saying, but lest anyone say, 'what about..?')

White-Cain frames her self-help efforts in the contractual language of the “hard” prosperity gospel, a term coined by historian Kate Bowler to denote certain ministers’ emphasis on the direct and specific returns that result from faith. In the words of an offer on White-Cain’s website, sow a $130 “Favor Seed” and reap a “Triple Favor” as money flows back to you. But it is not that different from the “soft” prosperity exhortations of other evangelicals, including many in the SBC, who claim that following biblical principles improves marriages, lowers anxiety, and creates extraordinary lives of success and significance.
Though there are innumerable evangelicals who would eschew prosperity language of any sort, a focus on the personal benefits of the faith is everywhere. Focus on the Family’s aesthetic is certainly different than White-Cain’s, but the organization clearly states that familial and marital thriving is available through adherence to biblical teaching. Likewise, Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University claims that “biblically based, common-sense education and empowerment” will “give HOPE to everyone in every walk of life.” Less overly contractual language perhaps, but health and wealth all the same. {Here is where this analysis ought to be especially sobering.  While James Dobson and Dave Ramsey have some critics, and none of our techniques/methods are beyond criticsm, this is a more fundamental question than that.  Has our comfort as an American Church with health and wealth grown so deep and so widespread that we don't even notice it anymore?  Has it seeped into the fabric of who we are as a Church in America so much that we expect health and wealth to be part of Christian discipleship?  The Church certainly has plenty of issues to be worried about, and many things that need to be corrected so that the work of the Kingdom of God can flourish, this question needs to be on that list.}

Evangelicals also are avid participants in celebrity-driven media culture. Like other Americans, evangelicals buy books, check Instagram, and attend conferences. And the drivers of all these media tend to be big names, authority figures who know how to communicate their signature messages effectively.
As a form of American stardom, evangelical celebrity culture is ruthlessly capitalist. One’s star rises and falls based on how many books are sold or where they are slotted in a conference lineup. Part of building a celebrity brand means creating cross promotions on media platforms and exploring unexpected partnerships to open up new markets. Each can open doors for the other. As writer Katelyn Beaty noted, “so much of the endorsement machine is about maintaining relationships, not giving an honest assessment of a written work.”...
And Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University and another of White-Cain’s promoters, describes himself in precisely these market-driven terms, as a businessman who is to be evaluated by the financial health, growth, and notoriety his educational empire, not his theology. His promotion of White-Cain’s book can be interpreted as a logical follow-up to White-Cain’s presence (in support of her husband, Journey keyboardist Jonathan Cain) at Liberty’s convocation in 2017. With her massive media presence (nearly 700,000 Twitter followers and counting), it is understandable that other evangelicals like Falwell (with around 75,500 Twitter followers) would see promotion of White-Cain’s work as a way to link their name with hers, benefitting both in the long run.
 {As damning as the thought that leaders like Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr, and Robert Jeffress might be duped into not recognizing the Prosperity Gospel danger that Paul White represents, it is far more disconcerting to consider the alternative: they know it but don't care.  The allure of popularity, sales, and access to powerful people is too strong.  I would disagree strongly with someone who made such an alliance for the sake of political gain, such marriages always corrupt those who embrace them, but if any portion of that compromise is being driven by the greed for fame and money, the moral failure is far greater than simply one of being in error.}

For those who do not share her theological disposition, it is wishful thinking to pretend that she is not a major force within American evangelicalism. It is now Paula White-Cain’s world. The question is how we should live in it. {The conclusion of the Payne/Griffith article, one that reminds us that this issue isn't going away anytime soon.}

Conclusions:

1.  The Prosperity Gospel is anathema: The Gospel is about service for God, about selfless sacrifice in this life for the sake of the next, NOT about health, wealth, and fame here and now.
That the Church in America, even where the preaching and teaching remains orthodox, is infected with exceptionalism (i.e. God is for us more than other people, we're the special, chosen nation} and weakened by materialism, where the spiritual takes a back seat to the material, is now beyond doubt.  That we've grown comfortable with a lite-version of Prosperity doesn't make it any less dangerous.

2.  Any preacher who promises blessings from God in exchange for money is a charlatan who should be shunned no matter whether the theology that he/she is promoting is orthodox or not.
In this case, of course, the money seeking behavior is also coupled with deeply troubling theology.  I am well aware that Paula White-Cain's website contains an orthodox statement of beliefs under the heading, her beliefs, but video also exists of her denying the trinity and claiming that we are all little gods (reminiscent of the 'we will all be gods someday' heresy of Mormonism).  The theology is bad enough, couple together with a money-making scheme and Christian leaders ought to be putting up "DANGER" signs, not endorsing the latest book.

3.  Book sales, twitter followers, and appearances on TV are NOT an accurate measuring stick for who ought to be leading the Church.
You may perhaps already be aware of this, but the Apostle Paul wrote extensively to Timothy about the moral character, and lack of immoral behavior, required of those who would be called to lead the people of God.  Popularity is not on the list.

Additional material:

Jeffress Defends Endorsement of Paula White’s Book, But Admits He Hasn’t Read it “Word for Word” or Researched Her Theology by Julie Roys

Televangelist Paula White Hawks 'Resurrection Life' for $1,144 'Seed' by Leonardo Blair, Christian Post {An example of the absolute heresy of promising blessings to those who send you money, no better than the Papal Indulgences that infuriated Martin Luther}

Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore tweeted, “Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian, of whatever tribe.”

Sermon Video: Women should be silent? 1 Corinthians 14:29-35

As the Apostle Paul continues to explain the need for peace, not disorder, in the Church, he emphasizes that when the Word of God is shared, the audience ought to weigh carefully what is said.  In addition, Paul makes it clear that only one should speak at a time, emphasizing that the Church is not intended to be led by one voice only, and that those who prophecy need to exercise self-control.
At this point, the controversial portion of Paul's teaching occurs, the phrase, "as in all the congregations of the Lord's people" either ends the sentence, "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" or starts the sentence that ends, "women should remain silent in the churches."  As the original Greek contains no punctuation (including paragraph divisions), it is an interpreters choice whether that added emphasis belongs to the need for order or the call for women to be silent.  In addition, it is an open question whether or not Paul's instructions here regarding women are timeless or time-bound.  In other words, are they intended to be instructions for all churches, at all times, in all places, or are they instructions for the 1st century Greco-Roman churches.  Is it necessary for order for women always to be silent or simply in the cultural setting of the Early Church?  The majority of the disagreement about this passage (and similar instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12) can be seen through the timeless vs. time-bound debate, one that God-honoring people end up on both sides of.
Whatever one concludes about Paul's words here (for them and us, or them and not us) it is crucial that we keep central the Bible's (and thus God's) high view of the purpose and role of women.  Their absolute equality in relation to the Gospel, and crucial contribution to the health and vitality of every church, regardless of how that role is exactly defined.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The Truth will set you free: the context of a timeless truth

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)  The Gospel of John contains many memorable phrases, including Jesus' powerful "I am" statements.  The idea that truth is capable of making people free has penetrated Western culture to the extent that the two ideas, freedom and truth, have become inextricably linked, especially in the light of the penchant of oppressive regions for propaganda and outright lies.  For examples of the cultural triumph of a linkage between freedom and truth and conversely oppression and lies, see George Orwell's 1984 , Aldous Huxley's Brave New World , or Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.  In their own way, each of those novels is championing the ideal of Truth (with a capital T) and warning of the danger of falsehood to society.  In this they are certainly correct, for no society or government founded upon, or maintained by, lies can long endure apart from oppression.  While true, and certainly beneficial to society, this was not the reason why Jesus said that truth would set people free.  The concerns of Jesus were far more immediate, and far more specific, than championing the idea of Truth (as good and honorable a cause as that is).

By the point in the Gospel of John where Jesus says, "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."  he has already declared, "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35-48) and "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12, repeated in John 9:5) The Truth that Jesus was offering that would set those free who were willing to accept it, was that he did indeed come from the Father to warn them regarding their sins, and to offer them salvation by believing in him.  It was deliberately a very specific truth, embodied personally by Jesus, that had the power to set people free.  Free from what?  Not merely free from oppression, as wonderful as that is, but free from something far more universal and dangerous, free from slavery to sin.  As descendants of Abraham, and heirs to that Covenant, those who listened to Jesus believed that they were already free.  It was painfully true that they were not politically free, the presence of Roman troops in Jerusalem made that obvious, but they considered themselves to be morally and spiritually free as a people who endeavored to follow the Law of Moses.  They were wrong.  Jesus sought to shatter this false complacency by warning them, "If you were Abraham's children, then you would do the things Abraham did." (John 8:39)  Abraham believed God, and took steps to demonstrate that faith, even when difficult circumstances offered excuses to doubt God.  As a result, Genesis tells us, "Abraham believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:6, quoted by Paul in Romans 4:3,20-24 and Galatians 3:6 as well as by James in James 2:23).
Knowledge of the truth is not sufficient.  Humanity is exceedingly capable of ignoring the truth, of subverting it to our own desires, and of paying lip service to it while continuing on our own path.  Without a commitment, without allowing it to change one's behavior, truth alone is powerless.  While that is true in many areas (for example: the advice you receive from your doctor; it doesn't help you if you ignore it), it is supremely true regarding our relationship with God.  There are many people who know who Jesus was (and is), who are aware of his life, death, and resurrection, but for whom those truths have no discernible impact upon their lives.  Unless truth produces transformation, it fails. 
Which brings us back to Jesus.  Belief in Jesus is the truth that will set us free from our slavery to sin.  Trust in Jesus is the beginning of the path of righteous obedience to the will of God, and hope in Jesus is what will allow us to live our lives confident that his vicarious death and resurrection are the keys to God accepting us into the kingdom of heaven.  The Truth will certainly set us free, we just need to make sure that our journey begins with a very specific truth, belief in Jesus.

Upcoming Event: What Every Christian Should Know About: The Bible - November 3rd, 10th, and 17th

What Every Christian Should Know About:

The Bible

What is the Bible?  How can I understand and apply it?

A three-part educational discourse created by Pastor Randy Powell

At First Baptist Church of Franklin

1041 Liberty St.   Franklin, PA 16323

6-8 PM

Sunday, November 3^rd, 10^th, and 17^th

Will include segments on: Revelation, Inspiration, Inerrancy, Composition, Organization, Literary Genres, Interpretation, and Application

This event is free and open to the public, no reservations necessary, and will include time for Q&A

For more information, please call 432-8061