Sermon Video: The Word Became Flesh - John 1:14

 Amidst the wonder of Christmas, the angels and shepherds, the wise men and the star, is a deeper amazing truth. That moment in Bethlehem when Jesus first took breath was the coming of the Word of God, Immanuel, God in the flesh, living here with us. Why? Not to start a political revolution, or lay forth an ethical or philosophical path, but to bridge a gap. A gap between a holy and righteous God and a sinful people living darkness. This task only God could complete, so he came here to make our salvation possible. Jesus did not receive grace, as do we all, but was its source, he did not seek Truth, he was the Truth. This story begins before the world was created with the plan of God, takes a massive step forward at Bethlehem, but was always headed to Calvary and the Empty Tomb of Easter. So let us give glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rest. Merry Christmas.

Turning Point USA ignores the warning of Matthew 6:24

The money cannon being worked by 'Bang Girls' at the Turing Point USA conference

Every organization needs funding.  Compassion International has child sponsors, the Salvation Army has their kettle drive at Christmas, and your local high school sports boosters probably has a 50/50 drawing at home football or basketball games.  How an organization generates the revenue it needs to fulfill its mission is an important question, especially if that organization purports to be a Christian one or to champion Christian ethics.  Case in point, Turning Point USA, founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk, who has a partnership with Liberty University (the Falkirk Center along with Eric Metaxas: The Downward Spiral of Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas the person interviewing Metaxas is Kirk) which gave him an honorary doctorate.  At the Republican National Convention in 2016, Kirk said this, “I have never had the opportunity to visit a university that embodies the teachings of Jesus Christ better than Liberty University, If you decide to profess your faith and say you are a Christian, this world is going to make it difficult. For those of you who are believers in Jesus Christ, wear that badge proudly.”  It seems clear that Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA are seeking to present themselves as a 'Christian' organization, or at least one aligned with Christian ethics.

Which brings us to this extraordinary moment at the just completed Turning Point USA conference where the event sponsor, Bang Energy (they make energy drinks) utilized young women in skin-tight revealing outfits (whom they referred to as 'Bang Girls', itself a disgusting double entendre) to work a 'money cannon' shooting out into the crowd of (unmasked during the height of the pandemic, another troubling aspect of this event) screaming young people.  There is so much wrong with this moment that it almost seems self-explanatory why this organization should forfeit any credibility with, or access to, Christian universities or partnerships with Christian organizations {If you want to see the video of the event for yourself, or read Dreher's similar criticism: Charlie Kirk's Hooters Conservatism - by Rod Dreher at the American Conservative}

You can be a Christian conservative, or a Christian liberal, you can be a Christian believer in the Free Market, or a Christian advocate for a Planned Economy.  Being a Christian does not require that we adopt a set of beliefs regarding politics, or even become involved in politics at all {Some would disagree, but I believe that minority view to be in error: Beware of the Political Church: John MacArthur declares, "any real true believer" can only vote one way}.

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

The Bible spends an enormous amount of its space discussing the morality of money and the danger of greed.  It is a topic addressed pointedly in the Law of Moses with the requirements to leave a portion of the field unharvested for the gleaners and the debt-relief program of the Year of Jubilee.  It is one of a handful of topics that Jesus repeatedly addresses, going so far as to tell his followers that they must choose between loving God and loving money.  Long story short, the ethics of how a Christian should act toward money is a field with a wide and firm foundation.

It is no secret that the Church in America struggles with materialism.  This nation is where the heretical Prosperity Gospel was invented, and where it continues to thrive.  It is also well known that many of the Church's worst abuses and most scandalous sins have involved the love of money (and/or earthly power, the two are intertwined).  The only other sin that has plagued the Church as readily as the love of money/power is lust, here too the Church has had its most shameful moments, especially regarding the failings of its leaders.

Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

From a Christian perspective, things like pornography, prostitution, and promiscuity are sins to be rejected and temptations to be avoided.  The Church certainly struggles with how it portrays the ethics of human sexuality, but we need to do significantly better than using sexuality to entice people to purchase products (the foundation of much of the advertising industry, I know, that's fodder for another post).

As I said before, if your study of the Word of God and your commitment to discipleship leads you toward advocating conservative political views, so be it.  If your study and commitment leads you toward advocating liberal political views, then do that instead.  Whichever direction our politics may take us, if the road is sponsored by the love of money and lust, it is NOT a Christian path.

Why take the time to write about Turning Point USA or Charlie Kirk?  Two reasons: (1) My Facebook feed is filled with memes and links that people share from the organization, (2) they claim to represent Christianity against their 'godless' political opponents.

The American Church needs to do better than this type of affiliation, for it only feeds our own failings of greed and lust and makes a mockery of the name of Christ.  Charlie Kirk believes he's fighting a Culture War to save America, the problem is that this version of America is the one that Christianity should be denouncing, not embracing.

Sermon Video: The Right to become Children of God - John 1:12-13

 In response to those to did not recognize or receive Jesus, John writes of the gift received by ALL who did receive him. Not only that, John emphasizes that those 'who believed in his name' will also be given the gift, reminding us that it is not our knowledge/wisdom that saves us, but the work of Jesus. What is this gift? The right to become a child of God. All of humanity are in one sense the children of God as image bearers, but in this much deeper and necessary sense, only those who receive (believe in/put their hope/trust in) Jesus will have a relationship with God and be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This is the greatest gift every offered to humanity, it only need be accepted by faith to be applied.

The downward spiral of Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas

At a recent rally, noted author Eric Metaxas, whose book on Bonhoeffer was a tremendous commercial success (Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy), but which has subsequently been challenged by historians and Bonhoeffer's descendants as an inaccurate portrayal, called Americans who are unwilling to shed blood over the election a parallel to the Germans who stood by while Hitler took power {thus equating, at least on some level, Biden/Harris with Hitler's regime}.  "Everybody who is not hopped up about this … you are the Germans that looked the other way when Hitler was preparing to do what he was preparing to do. Unfortunately, I don’t see how you can see it any other way."  If you're not on board with Metaxas about the election, you're no better than a Nazi enabler!  To top it off, Metaxas sees NO other way to evaluate the current state of America.

I knew nothing about Metaxas when I read the Bonhoeffer book {like many books, I found it at the bookstore, thought it looked interesting, and bought it}, and knew little else about him until recently when he has become extremely political, militantly so.  {To the point of advocating killing in the name of 'fixing' the election: “We need to fight to the death, to the last drop of blood, because it’s worth it.”}

Eric Metaxas' American Apocalypse - by Rod Dreher at the American Conservative {Shared as a source for the Metaxas' quotes/video, not an endorsement.  I don't think Dreher's idea of cultural withdrawal (as the polar opposite of militant partisanship) is the path forward either; here's my response to his book: Fight or Flight? Self-Segregation is the death of the Church's Gospel mission  Dreher himself is, with some irony, far more political than I am willing to be.}

Here are Metaxas' own words from an interview when his book on Bonhoeffer was released: "Bonhoeffer was not a liberal or a conservative, but a Christian. He was zealous for God’s perspective on things, and God’s perspective is inevitably wider than the standard parochial political points of view. It sometimes forces us toward a liberal view and sometimes toward a conservative view." {On Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Six Questions for Eric Metaxas Adjust Share By Scott Horton on December 23, 2010, Harpers Magazine}

However the road led to this point where Metaxas' is on the precipice of violence for political ends, it is sad/troubling/frightening to see Metaxas ignore what he seemed to have known about Bonhoeffer, that being a Christian comes first before one's own political views, and especially the truth that God's view is wider than our incessant partisan squabbles.

This sentiment is extremely dangerous: “So who cares what I can prove in the courts? This is right. This happened, and I am going to do anything I can to uncover this horror, this evil.”  Partisanship does not require Truth, or even truth.  Not an acceptable Christian viewpoint {Christian Worldview self-destruction: A culture without Facts is a culture without Truth}

Eric Metaxas interviewed by Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA {The interview where the quotes in Dreher's essay originate; Kirk likewise elevates partisan politics above Christianity and invokes God's name/will to further his politics}

Partisan Political Christianity is one of the Church's greatest stains, its most horrendous evils were committed under that guise (think 4th Crusade, Inquisition, 30 Years War, etc.}, but it is also 100% illegitimate, an abomination that bears no true allegiance to the Cross of Jesus Christ.  Jesus' kingdom was not of this world, and neither is ours.

That a significant portion of the Church in America is trending in this dangerous direction, hard, is clear, that it will lead to disaster and self-destruction is both history's lesson and the Bible's warning.  What Metaxas (and Kirk) are calling for, whatever portion of the Church follows, will be fighting against God, not for him.

Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me."

Exodus 20:7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.

John 4:24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

The Dangerous Idolatry of Christian Trumpism We can pray peace will prevail, but we’d be fools to presume it will - by David French {David French points out the danger of Metaxas' words, and broadens it out to other calls for violence/war like the Texas GOP's call for secession.  Like Dreher, French is more overtly political in his commentary than I choose to be, but the warning of the danger of the path chosen by many American Christians is accurate.} 

Some Christians express concerns over ‘bizarre’ pro-Trump Jericho March Some Christians express concerns over ‘bizarre’ pro-Trump Jericho March By Jackson Elliott, Christian Post {Another related article, this one quotes Metaxas as introducing 9/11 conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as his 'good friend'.  If that isn't evidence that Metaxas has gone far too far down this rabbit hole, I'm not sure what else you need.}

Eric Metaxas, Christian radio host, tells Trump, ‘Jesus is with us in this fight’ - Religion News Service {A further example of blasphemy/taking the name of the Lord in vain, by declaring that Jesus is on 'our side' in an election...The article contains a link to a story from the summer when Metaxas punched a protestor riding by on a bike in the face (Metaxas was not detained or charged for the assault, even though the protestor was detained then released).}

Sermon Video: His own did not receive him - John 1:6-11

 Following his soaring introductory paragraph, John speaks of the precursor of the Light of Mankind, John the Baptist, and his work to prepare his people for the coming of the Messiah. Then John tackles a difficult issue, while Jesus is the True Light, the very Son of God, his own people (for the most part) rejected him. Not only that, a majority of humanity has never accepted Jesus as the Savior of the world, why is that? It isn't the plan from the Father that is flawed, nor the execution of the plan by the Son, nor the 'tech support' to that plan offered by the Holy Spirit. The flaw resides with the recipients of God's grace. Fallen humanity exists in rebellion against God, with darkened hearts and minds, capable of believing lies and rejecting Truth. 2020 has reminded us of this, with both the pandemic and the election spawning countless false narratives and outright hoaxes, believed by millions. Yet the True Light remains, the Gospel retains its power to transform lives and save souls.

Would Americans accept Martin Luther today, or dismiss him for his 'radical' economic views?

It seems almost axiomatic that had Martin Luther King Jr. not been assassinated in 1968 at the age of 39, but instead lived and crusaded against the racism affecting minorities in America for decades longer, that he would have ended his days not as a beloved figure appreciated by even those who disliked his politics and/or theology, but as a 'radical liberal' dismissed by most white American Christians.  Martyrdom has made Martin Luther King Jr. more acceptable to American than are his contemporaries and those carrying on his legacy on behalf of the poor and mistreated.

I wonder, however, if the same isn't true of Martin Luther as well.  Has 500 years taken the 'edge' off of Martin Luther in similar fashion to what has transpired with Martin Luther King Jr? 

As an example, consider the words written by Martin Luther in a 1524 sermon, "On Trading and Usury":

"Buying and selling are necessary.  They cannot be dispensed with and can be practiced in a Christian manner, especially when the articles of trade serve a necessary and honorable purpose...Even the patriarchs bought and sold cattle, wool, grain, butter, milk and other goods.  These are gifts of God, which He bestows out of the earth and distributes among men.  But foreign trade, which brings from Calcutta, India, and such places, wares like costly silks, gold-work and spices, which minister only to luxury and serve no useful purpose, and which drains away the wealth of land and people - this trade ought not be permitted..."

At first, Luther sounds like a Free Market advocate, extoling the virtue of trade as a profession, but then he speaks of governmental controls on the trade of luxury goods, advocating an outright ban on some of these, and worrying about the affect of trade upon the 'land and people'.  Martin Luther didn't live in a democratic society, nor did he experience a modern economy, so perhaps he would have adapted his views to the times.  That being said, could we really expect Martin Luther to forsake his concern about purposeless luxury and his care for how our economic activity affects the 'land and people'?

Luther continued, "The merchants have among themselves one common rule...They say: I may sell my goods as dear as I can.  This they think their right.  Lo, that is giving place to avarice and opening every door and window to hell.  What does it mean? Only this: 'I care nothing about my neighbor, so long as I have my profit and satisfy my greed, what affair is it of mine if it does my neighbor 10 injuries at once?'  There you see how shamelessly this maxim flies squarely in the face not only of Christian love, but of natural law..."

Once again, the precise nature of Luther's objections wouldn't be exactly the same in a Free Market Economy, but the principle of absolute property rights (I can do whatever I want with what I own) that is championed by many Americans (and others of wealth and power around the world) seems hardly to fit with Luther's reminder that a true Christian cares about how his business practices affect his neighbor.

So, how would Luther respond to the economic injustices that he witnessed?  It is only speculation, but he wouldn't likely put his trust in the 'invisible hand' of the Free Market.  Luther's sermon continued with, "The best and safest way would be for the temporal authorities to appoint over this matter wise and honest men who would appraise the cost of all sorts of wares and fix accordingly the outside price at which the merchant would get his due and have an honest living...the next best thing is to hold our wares at the price which they bring in the common market or which is customary in the neighborhood...But when the price of goods is not fixed either by law or custom, and you must fix it yourself, then indeed no one can give you any other instructions except to lay it upon your conscience to be careful and not overcharge your neighbor, and seek not avaricious gain, but only an honest living."

Would Martin Luther's theology be respected by his theological descendants if they came in the same package as calls for governmental price controls, fair market rates, and above all else, conscience as a limit upon business profits?

To what end this musing?  The question struck me in part because of how fiercely Pope Francis is consistently attacked for his economic views about justice for the poor or care for the environment.  Were Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King Jr. alive today, would they not be treated the same way?

Two forces are at work here, both of which tend toward corruption/abuse: 

1. We smooth the rough edges off of figures of the past, making them more palatable to our ears, and thus their wisdom less cogent.

2. We tend to run theology and ethics through our political and economic lens, and not the other way around.

Sermon Video: The Light Shines in the Darkness - John 1:1-5

 Where does the Christmas story begin?  Matthew starts it with a genealogy, Luke with the birth of John the Baptist, and Mark with the ministry of John the Baptist, but the Apostle John starts the story much further back.  In the beginning, that is before time and space, before anything existed except God in three persons as Holy Trinity.  John also highlights the amazing capacity of the Word of God who took upon himself humanity, declaring him to be both Life and Light.  The Life is not merely biological, but spiritual, offering freedom and restoration to all through his self-sacrifice.  The Light of that Good News is able to shine through any darkness, to overcome any obstacle and accomplish God's will of saving the Lost.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Trust God, hold Man responsible - Mark 6:7-13

 Jesus sends out his 12 disciples in teams of two with a message of repentance and the power to cast out impure spirits and heal the sick. While we might wonder if the disciples are ready for such responsibility, the bigger surprise is that Jesus forbids them to take any supplies with them for the journey. Why? Not because God wants to reward poor planning or laziness, and not because God's servants should suffer from physical deprivation (as some sort of spiritual discipline), because they shouldn't. Rather it is an object lesson for the disciples, and for us, that when God promises to do something he will be faithful and fulfill it. In addition, the passage offers a stark warning to those who fail to heed the call to repent: the disciples are to symbolically 'disown' the town/village by shaking the dust of their sandals off as they leave. God is always trustworthy, our fellow man (including ourselves) needs to be held to account.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: A prophet without honor - Mark 6:1-6

 "Local boy returns to a hero's welcome", that's what the headline should have read for the Nazareth newspaper (had there been one) when Jesus returned home. Instead, they recognized his wisdom and miracles, BUT scorned him anyway. Why? A toxic combination of pride and jealousy. This is not a rare phenomenon where 'familiarity breeds contempt', but it poisons our relationships and hinders both our churches and our communities. How much talent, passion, and energy have we lost because our pride/jealousy wouldn't recognize it and cultivate it in others?

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: "Don't be afraid, just believe." - Mark 5:21-43

 On the way to heal Jairus' sick daughter, Jesus is interrupted by a desperate woman who has suffered from a painful malady for twelve years. This woman only touches Jesus cloak, but is still healed. Stopping, Jesus seeks out the woman, and when she falls trembling at his feet, he does not scold her for her impudence, but says to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering." Meanwhile, Jairus' daughter has died, prompting Jesus' bold words, "Don't be afraid, just believe." How can this be? Faith is not meant to be irrational or absurd, so how can Jesus say such a thing? Simple. In the last 24 hours Jesus has demonstrated lordship over Nature (calming the storm) and the spiritual realm (driving out the Legion of demons), now he will demonstrate his lordship over Death as well. God is the giver of Life, all life, God can bring life back to the dead as well. Jesus then proves that faith placed in God's promises (Word) are well placed, as he precedes to bring the young girl back to life.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Don't turn away from God's presence - Mark 5:1-20

 Upon his arrival on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, Jesus is confronted by a man possessed by an 'impure spirit'. This frightening man does not challenge Jesus, but falls at his feet begging for mercy. Having just demonstrated his control over the physical realm (calming the storm), Jesus here demonstrates his lordship over the spiritual. Having delivered this man from spiritual darkness, Jesus then speaks with the local townspeople who rush to the scene. However, the people are afraid and ask Jesus to leave. Coming into the presence of God can be daunting, and these people would rather turn away. The healed man begs to go with Jesus, but Jesus has a better plan, and sends him to his hometown to share with them what God has done for him.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

An effort by the Venango County Christian Ministerium to show support during the pandemic to healthcare workers: signs available 11/17

 

In light of the new surge of COVID-19 cases both locally and nationally, many of the area ministers have been looking for a way to show support for both those who serve our community at UPMC Northwest in Seneca, and healthcare workers throughout our county. These brave men and women care for us when we need them, they need our support in return.

Our first step? We will be selling 18x24 yard signs (with stand) printed locally in Franklin by PMP Printing. The sign was created by my talented wife, Nicole Brzezinski Powell. {If you don't live in Venango County, please feel free to utilize the attached file to have signs/banners/etc. printed where you live; or at least, share the image on social media}

We have ordered 200 signs, they should be here at the church (1041 Liberty St. in Franklin) available for pick-up starting on the 17th. The office is open from 8-3, M-F; call 432-8061 for pick-up outside of that time window We are hoping to have them placed in front of every church in the county, and many homes as well. The signs will cost us appx. $7 per, and we will sell them for $10 each, with the $3 profit becoming a donation to our local food pantries to coincide with the offering we will take at our county-wide Thanksgiving service on the 22nd. The easiest method would be to convince your church to buy a batch and then distribute them, but we will also sell them directly at the church to individuals (the building has a mask wearing policy, thank you for your cooperation).

That time UAW members worked with Quakers to build integrated housing

 I grew up in West Michigan with two uncles who were UAW members.  For many people, thinking about the UAW conjures up stories about Jimmy Hoffa, the good old days of Detroit's Big Three, or the involvement of the UAW with Democratic politics.  In 1955, something happened in Milpitas, California, that didn't have anything to do with what you think of when I say UAW, and it had an unlikely accomplice: the Quakers.

In 1955, a developer named David Bohannon built a white-only subdivision named Sunnyhills in Milpitas, other developers built similar whites-only housing projects.  Ford had announced that it was moving its assembly plant from Richmond (north of San Francisco) to Milpitas (north of San Jose).  It would not be difficult for the white middle class UAW workers to find new housing in the area, but almost impossible for the plant's Black workers.  

At this point, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC, a Quaker group committed to racial integration) offered to helped Ford's housing committee find a developer willing to build integrated housing.  There was just one catch, everyone else was committed to stopping any such project.

The first hurdle was financing, no San Francisco Bay or San Jose area financial institution would lend them the money to build the houses, so the AFSC went to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's vice-president, also a Quaker, who agreed to finance the project (this despite Met Life's own history of financing racially segregated projects).

Problem solved, now we can move ahead and build homes for workers with good paying jobs, right?  Nope.  The Santa Clara Board of Supervisors rezoned the chosen housing site from residential to industrial.  When they picked a new plot, the Mountain View officials made it clear that no permits would be issued.  A third attempt resulted in the local town increasing the minimum lot size to 8,000 square feet (from 6,000), ensuring that such homes would be unaffordable to middle class workers.  The builder recruited by the AFSC gave up and walked away from the project.

The new builder hired by the AFSC wanted to build two separate segregated projects, a white one in the suburbs and one for Blacks between the Ford plant and land zoned for heavy industry.  Here is where this ugly story finds a ray of hope.  The choice of moving ahead with these two projects was put to the UAW workers of the new Ford plant.  The majority of these workers were white, and had much less trouble finding housing than their co-workers.  "Although the membership was overwhelmingly white, the union adopted a policy that it would support only developers who would commit to integrated housing." (The Color of Law, p. 118, emphasis mine)

A third builder obtained a tract of land next to David Bohannon's whites-only Sunnyhills project.  The UAW was able to tell its Black members in Richmond that a new development, Agua Caliente, was being built.  "David Bohannon's company, however, remained fiercely opposed to an integrated project adjoining Sunnyhills, and after a San Francisco newspaper reveled the plan to establish 'the first subdivision in the Bay Area where Negro families will be sold homes without discrimination,' the company began to pressure the newly formed Milpitas City Council to prevent the construction of Agua Caliente by denying it access to sewer lines." (p. 119)  The City Council follow suit, raising the sewer connection fee by a factor of 10.  It was a clear plan to prevent minorities from living close to Sunnyhills.  When the builder persisted, despite this racist price increase, Bohannon's company filed a nuisance lawsuit to prevent the project from using a county owned drainage ditch between the properties.  The UAW, not known for rolling over, responded with their own offensive, boycotting the Sunnyhills project, and showing up at open houses to discourage other would-be buyers.

Eventually, Bohannon sold his company to a new developer who also purchased Agua Caliente, and construction was able to be completed.  Problem over?  Not yet.  The FHA continued to refuse to insure mortgages to borrowers living in integrated neighborhoods (a racist federal policy), making the cost of mortgages to buyers in the development higher with an increased 5.5-9% interest rate.  This could be thought of as an 'integration fee', designed to discourage integrated housing projects.  The UAW offered to guarantee the loans with its pension fund, at which point the FHA backed down provided that the development be converted to a co-op so that Blacks owned a piece of the housing development not individual homes.

In the end, the efforts of the Quaker AFSC and the UAW resulted in a completed project, but the higher cost of delays, legal fees, and financing made the homes affordable only to Ford's highest paid workers.  The Ford plant closed in 1984, and today Milpitas has many Hispanic and Asian families, but only 2% of the population is Black.

"The Milpitas story illustrates the extraordinary creativity that government officials at all levels displayed when they were motivated to prevent the movement of African Americans into white neighborhoods...part of a national system by which state and local governments supplemented federal efforts to maintain the status of African Americans as a lower caste, with housing segregation preserving the badges and incidents of slavery." (p. 122)

While this story is disturbing for how deep and abiding it reveals racism to be in America's story, it also shows a second theme: the power of good men and women to fight injustice, even if they can't always achieve a clean win.  So, when you need an interesting historic anecdote, share the time that the UAW worked with Quakers to integrate a housing project in California.

* This post is adapted from The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein

After Election 2020: The Way Forward for the Church

 

The United States is as closely divided as one can imagine.  When all the dust settles on the 2020 election, the Presidency will have been decided by razor thin results in a few states, the Senate will be within a seat or two, and the House will be within a handful.  The issues that divide us are plentiful, the visions being offered about the future seemingly incompatible.  What do we, as a Church, do now?  How can we chart a way forward when the present is so volatile? 

The Way Forward begins by looking backward.  Before they were first called Christians, those who believed in Jesus Christ were known as "The Way" (Acts 9:2), and this designation is a useful reminder to us.  Jesus Christ said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6, NIV)  So, as his followers, the early Christians were known as the people who followed 'the way' that Jesus had established, and that way was centered upon himself.  In other words, Jesus both established the way (as a trailblazer and guide) and was literally the way itself (as the atoning sacrifice that opened the way to the Father).

At any point in its history, when the Church has wandered from its foundations or been infected with dangerous ideas, the solution has always been the same: go back to the beginning, go back to 'the way'.  So, what does the way forward look like for the Church in America in the 21st century?

The Way Forward is...

(1) Christ-centered

When other things push their way toward the center, the Church loses its purity and purpose.  Christ, and Christ alone (i.e. God), belongs at the center.  We operate by God's power, not man's.  We seek God's glory, not America's.  We proclaim God's Truth, not our 'truth'. 

(2) Biblically guided

A Church that does not take the entire moral counsel of the Word of God seriously will falter.  Morality matters, within the Church first and foremost.  For example: The Word of God declares the value of human life, created in God's image.  Because we are made in God's image, every human life has value, our attitudes, words, and actions need to reflect that reality.  The way forward for the Church is holistically pro-life.  That is, from the unborn to the elderly, from citizens of our nation to immigrants and refugees, from those who look like us to those who do not.  We need to find a way to meaningfully support all people, as God's image bearers, as people for whom Christ died, overcoming the host of issues that try to wedge between the people of God and those to whom we are called to minister.  We need to do this in a way that upholds biblical morality without invalidating the call to 'love our neighbors as ourselves'.  The challenge is immense, but not optional.  This list needs to be exhaustive, including LGBT individuals, minorities, and those with a criminal record (among others).  The Gospel has one solution for all of humanity, the Church needs to figure out how to maintain that belief and not act as if some people need the Gospel less or others need it more (Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.").  That some individuals and some groups believe they have no place in the Church, assuming they answer the call to repent and believe like anyone else, is a tragedy we must find a way to overcome.  

(3) Grace infused 

There is no meaningful path forward that is built upon our pride.  In addition to needing humble servants, the Church needs bridge builders not moat diggers, and the people of God need to seek and embrace common goals (within and without the Church), not partisan advantages. 

This list is certainly not exhaustive, but it is foundational.  The Church has two thousand years of history behind it.  The portions of that history that bring honor and glory to God have been all three of the things I've listed: Christ-centered, biblically guided, and grace infused.  We need a way forward, and for that we need to go back to the beginning.

Sermon Video: Jesus calms the storm - Mark 4:35-41

 In an episode that reveals his true power to his disciples, Jesus calms a storm on the Sea of Galilee with a word. Lessons for us? Whether the storms we in life be literal or metaphorical, God is in control. The will of God is not altered by tragedy, the love of God is not lessened by dangers, and God will finish what he has begun in us (our transformation into Christ-likeness). God has not made the storms disappear for his people, and while he may intervene to spare some, the true power of God is in overcoming the 'storms'. Get in the boat with Jesus, let him worry about the storm.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

When the shameful past of Racism hits close to home

I'm the thirty-first pastor of my church (counting interims, otherwise 27th) dating back to 1867.  I have no idea if any of the prior ministers participated in local policies of racial segregation, or if any of them preached racist sermons.  What I know of this church's history makes me think that they would have been unlikely to hire or tolerate such a man, but what I also know of American history reminds me that racism has been much closer to home than most of us are willing to admit.  If one of them, or a few of them, were racists, I can only say that we have repented of that sin, for the biblical definition of repentance is turning away, and no such attitudes or actions would be in any way tolerated by anyone here.

What causes this introspection?  A chapter in Richard Rothstein's The Color of Law entitled IRS Support and Compliant Regulators.  Why this chapter?  Because it shows the complicity of many churches to the policies of racial segregation that permeated our nation for most of the 20th century.

The IRS was silent for decades when non-profits who enjoyed tax exempt status blatantly violated the 13th-15th amendments by participating in, even championing, race based discrimination.  These efforts, sadly and shamefully, included churches.

"Churches, synagogues, and their clergy frequently led such efforts.  Shelley v. Kraemer, the 1948 Supreme Court ruling that ended court enforcement of restrictive covenants" {ie illegal agreements to prevent non-Whites from moving into a neighborhood, until 1948 these were legally enforced in America, resulting in the evictions of thousands of Blacks from homes they had purchased} "offers a conspicuous illustration.  The case stemmed from objections of white St. Louis homeowners, Louis and Fern Kraemer, to the purchase of a house in their neighborhood by African Americans, J.D. and Ethel Shelley.  The area had been covered by a restrictive covenant organized by a white owners' group, the Marcus Avenue Improvement Association, which was sponsored by the Cote Brilliante Presbyterian Church.  Trustees of the church provided funds from the church treasury to finance the Kraemers' lawsuit to have the African American family evicted.  Another nearby church, the Waggoner Place Methodist Episcopal Church South, was also a signatory to the restrictive covenant; its pastor had defended the clause in a 1942 legal case...Such church involvement and leadership were commonplace in property owners' associations that were organized to maintain neighborhood segregation." (p. 103-104, emphasis mine)

"The violent resistance to the Sojourner Truth public housing project for African American families in Detroit was organized by a homeowners association headquartered in St. Louis the King Catholic Church whose pastor, the Reverend Constantine Dzink, represented the association in appeals to the United Housing Authority to cancel the project.  The 'construction of a low-cost housing project in the vicinity...for the colored people...would mean utter ruin for many people who have mortgaged their homes to the FHA, and not only that, but it would jeopardize the safety of many of our white girls.'" (p. 104-105)

"On Chicago's Near North Side, a restrictive covenant was executed in 1937 by tax-exempt religious institutions, including the Moody Bible Institute, the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the Board of Foreign Missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church." (p. 105)

That America's history contains generations of this evil is shameful, that America's Churches whole-heartedly participated, even led, this unholy effort is a grave stain on our Gospel witness.  It was not just churches or Christians (self-professed) in the South, it was not just the distant past.  It was all over the country, and millions of people still alive today where either its perpetrators or its victims.

So, I don't know all of the details of the history of my church.  I fear that if we knew the whole story we'd find this somewhere in the past.  May we never revel in self-righteousness, may we never forget that our path to God is paved entirely by Grace.

Romans 5:8-11 (NIV)

8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Below: Links to some of my other blog posts on the topic of racism.

The Prophet Amos: What provokes God's wrath? - Injustice and False Worship

Taking the name of the LORD in vain: PragerU's "Social Justice Isn't Justice"

"What does the Bible say about systemic racism?" by WWUTT.com - an error filled and shameful tragedy that only makes things worse

Mitigating racism can't wait: Why Pastor Robert Jeffress is wrong

Systemic Racism: The casual racism of the phrase "Black on Black crime"

White Nationalism and White Supremacy are an abomination to the Church

There are no racists at the Cross

Sermon Video: What is the Kingdom of God like? - Mark 4:26-34

 Using parables Jesus explains the concept of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is the working out of God's will here in this world. In other words, God working in and through the lives of his people. What is it like? The parables explain that it is relentless, mysterious, purposeful, fruitful, and above all, impressively powerful. Whether through individuals or collectively, God works powerfully in this world, changing hearts and transforming the world.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

An unhealthy overemphasis on politics

 

I'll admit, I've been sucked toward the rabbit hole of politics more in 2020 than any year since my youthful fascination decades ago.  With so much of consequence happening, between the pandemic, race relations, and the election, I can't be alone in this.  At the same time, the ongoing Culture War and hyper-partisanship have made our political theatre more and more toxic to those who both participate in it, and to those who observe it.

Perspective is lacking.  We need to refocus, particularly as Christians, on 'things above', {Colossians 3:1 (NIV) Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.} but how do we do that?  By putting politics back in its rightful, secondary, place.

1. God directs history, not man - Psalm 2

 Psalm 2:1-6 (NIV)

1 Why do the nations conspire

    and the peoples plot in vain?

2 The kings of the earth rise up

    and the rulers band together

    against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,

3 “Let us break their chains

    and throw off their shackles.”

4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;

    the Lord scoffs at them.

5 He rebukes them in his anger

    and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,

6 “I have installed my king

    on Zion, my holy mountain.”

The thing is, as impactful as human decisions and choices are in our own lives, and as important as our collective decisions are for the future of our nation and culture, God is still in control, both individually and collectively.  The will of God is not gainsaid by anything that human beings do, or fail to do.  The ultimate example of the futility of striving against God is the 'victory' of Satan when Jesus Christ was betrayed, falsely convicted, sentenced to death, and horribly murdered on a cross.  This apparent defeat of God's champion, whether Satan knew him to truly be the Son of God or not, was not a derailment of God's purpose in sending the Messiah, but its fulfillment.  In 'defeat', God was victorious in establishing his will, destroying both Sin and Death through the resurrection of Jesus.  Because God was able to accomplish this humanly impossible victory, he certainly can handle the simple plots of, relatively, powerless humans.  This is not a denial of human freewill, but rather advocacy for the supremacy of God's will.  God, being God, is able to give humanity freewill AND still accomplish his will.  Another example?  Joseph's time in Egypt as a slave: Genesis 50:20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.  Likewise, note the futility of Saul of Tarsus' efforts to thwart the will of God: Acts 26:14 (NLT) We all fell down, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is useless for you to fight against my will.[b]’ [26:14b Greek It is hard for you to kick against the oxgoads.]  Whatever politics is, it is not what determines the future.  We have given it too much credit, at the expense of trusting in God.

2. Human nature is unaffected by governments/society - Ecclesiastes 1:9

Ecclesiastes 1:9 (NIV)

What has been will be again,

    what has been done will be done again;

    there is nothing new under the sun.

Solomon, in his wisdom, grasped that human nature doesn't change.  This may seem like a fantastic claim to post-modern individuals living in the information age in a democratic society, but the people in our modern world are no different than the people of the Ancient Near East who lived in an agrarian society of kingdoms and empires where oral history was the primary means of retaining knowledge.  As much as technology and information availability have changed since the Industrial Revolution, a pace of change that has accelerated dramatically since the invention of the internet, human nature has 'evolved' not at all.  Human beings still respond to the same motivations, still have the same flaws, hope, and dreams.  The details change, but the substance does not.

What then is the impact of the static nature of humanity on politics?  It reminds us that whatever change a new election or new form of government may bring, that change impacts the surface.  Deep down, humanity remains what we have always been.  Beings created in the image of God who have fallen from grace and are powerless to alter that state and are thus dependent upon a Savior.  Those truths remain the same, whether one lives under a despotic emperor or has the right to vote for representatives.  Don't get me wrong, humanity is better off with political freedom, those blessings are of great value, but even they don't change human nature.  Our ancestors were less free, but they were no less human, and our freedom hasn't made us any more human.

3. The Church's victory is not dependent upon temporal power (or a lack thereof) - Matthew 16:18

Matthew 16:18 (NIV) And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

The Church does not require power to fulfill its mission.  In fact, the more power in society that the Church has wielded, the more mixed the results of evangelism and discipleship.  While the history of Christianity in Japan is the prime example that, 'the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church' is a myth.  Extreme and prolonged persecution can destroy a church.  The opposite of persecution, power, is also a danger to the church.  When Calvin merged the Church in Geneva with the State, making city business into church business, it was not 'heaven on earth', nor was it sustained long-term.  Likewise, when the Lutheran Church in German was at its most elevated status, it fell prey to Bonhoeffer's 'Cheap Grace', a form of religion without the commitment of the heart.

In the end, neither persecution nor power can deny the universal Church its final destiny as the Bride of Christ.  While local churches, denominations, or even national churches may thrive or fail as time wears on, the mission of the Church is not to conquer the physical/political world, but to share the Gospel with all peoples.  We are called to be servants, not rulers, and that calling is irrevocable. 

Revelation 19:6-9 (NIV)

6 Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting:

“Hallelujah!

    For our Lord God Almighty reigns.

7 Let us rejoice and be glad

    and give him glory!

For the wedding of the Lamb has come,

    and his bride has made herself ready.

8 Fine linen, bright and clean,

    was given her to wear.”

(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.)

9 Then the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” And he added, “These are the true words of God.”

The final victory was secured at the Empty Tomb, the final chapter of the story has already been written.  The ebb and flow of human striving for temporal power pales in comparison to the drama unfolding through the generations as individuals are redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb.

4. The corrosive nature of politics - Philippians 4:8

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

The most detrimental thing to me, personally, during the heightened awareness to politics throughout 2020 has been the emotional pain caused by experiencing despicable human behavior being rewarded as 'good politics'.  When fellow citizens are pitted against one another, competing to outdo 'them' in duplicity and character assassination, we turn character and honor into a weakness, and make a lack of conscience or integrity a strength.  This may win elections, but it warps and degrades the electorate.  Christians, unless they choose to forgo these tactics and compete with integrity, are stained by joining in with 'politics as usual'.  

In addition to the corrosive impact of the way in which politics is waged, there is also the influence of vast sums of money.  It was Lord Acton who famously warned, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."  The same is true with money.  Money tends to corrupt, vast amounts of money tends to vastly corrupt.  We should not be surprised by this in the least: 1 Timothy 6:10 (NIV) For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Maybe after November 3rd things will calm down a bit.  Maybe our fascination with the machinations in Washington will subside for a while and we can get back to focusing on what's happening with our families and community.  But it won't happen if we don't make it happen.  Elections matter, who governs our nation and how they govern matters, they just don't matter nearly as much as our current toxic political drama implies.

Sermon Video: Make use of what God has given - Mark 4:21-25

 In a series of 4 connected sayings, Jesus explains the nature of the world that God created, emphasizing that the Truth is intended to be disclosed and that both the righteous path toward God and the wicked path away from God are self-reinforcing.  Why?  Because that's the nature of reality.  The universe has a moral law just as much as it has a natural one.  Moving toward God is light and life, moving away is darkness and death; it cannot be otherwise because apart from God there is nothing.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The purposeful tension between Unity and Purity within the Church: A Scriptural Mandate

One of the earliest impulses toward schism within the Early Church, preceding even the great theological controversies regarding the nature of Jesus Christ in the 3rd and 4th centuries that led to the Council of Nicaea {A brief theology derived from the Nicene Creed}, was between those who believed that the Church was intended to be a small community of spiritually elite disciples, hand-picked by God for salvation, and those who viewed it as a mixed group of sinners and saints (tares among the wheat), all works in progress, even the redeemed.  The monastic movement, soon to become one of the central forces in the Medieval Church, was a response to the mixed company of the local church, that allowed those seeking a deeper commitment to live among like-minded individuals.  Likewise, the Donatist Controversy that tore apart the North African Church for six centuries began as a squabble between those who had fiercely resisted the great Roman persecutions and remained true to their faith, and those who had succumbed to imprisonment and torture by recanting.  After the time of persecution ended, those who had risked death were unwilling to allow anyone short of the bishop the authority to welcome the 'lapsed' Christians back into the fold.  St. Augustine weighed-in against the majority 'pure only' Donatists, even welcoming Imperial persecution of them for not returning to the official Church, for he believed that the Church was not reserved for the pure alone, but for all those seeking to become pure.

{For more on Church History: What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History, scroll down to the bottom of the page}

While the tension between unity and purity is inherent when working with flawed human beings, some of whom will always be more committed to spiritual discipline (or further along the journey) than others, it is also inherent within the text of Scripture.  In other words, God commanded his people to care about both unity and purity, knowing that these two ideals would be at times in opposition, and knowing that his people would at times struggle to balance them.  Why?  Because both unity and purity have value in the Church, both are necessary.

Consider a hypothetical church that stresses unity at the expense of purity: By what standard will admittance into this church be made?  How will such a church respond to beliefs and practices that are contrary to Scripture, even harmful to the Gospel?  A church that accepts everyone and every belief ceases to make progress toward transforming those who belong to it into Christ-likeness.  Such a church lacks both discipline and definition.

Consider a hypothetical church that stresses purity at the expense of unity: How will such a church fulfill the call to evangelism?  How will such a church avoid endless schism, and avoid becoming a church where only those who agree on everything are welcome?  A church that accepts no one but like minded individuals can neither grow nor impact its culture.  Such a church lacks both freedom of conscience and grace.

Examples abound, to varying degrees of churches that exemplify both extremes.  Going beyond a balance of the two priorities is unhealthy, whether one emphasizes unity or purity.  This observation is not my own brilliant analysis, rather it is in keeping with the thesis of Dr. Ronald Mayers book, Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic.  I have a much highlighted copy on my shelf, having had Dr. Mayers as my professor for nearly half of my religion classes at Cornerstone, and having even taught two of his classes during my senior year while he was at a seminar.

It is one thing to say that the Bible says this or that, another to demonstrate it.  The following examples are thus offered as a partial demonstration, they are but a sampling:

Texts on the importance of unity:

John 17:20-21 (NIV)

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Ephesians 4:1-6 (NIV)

4 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Titus 3:9-10 (NIV)

9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.

1 John 4:7-8 (NIV)

7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Texts on the importance of purity:

Matthew 7:15-20 (NIV)

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, 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.

Galatians 1:6-9 (NIV)

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

1 John 4:1-2 (NIV)

4 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

Notice that examples can be found stressing both purity and unity from Jesus in the Gospels, as well as the writings of the Apostle Paul.  The two examples from 1 John are instructive.  They occur only a few sentences apart, and while John throughout his letter stresses the absolute need for Christians to love each other, going so far as to declare that without love for the brethren an individual should doubt that he/she is genuinely saved, he still feels that it is necessary to warn his readers that not every person claiming to represent God is actually doing so.  John applies a standard for unity: affirmation of the incarnation.  

{For more on the theology of 1 John: The Ecumenism of 1 John.  In the book I explain John's threefold test of faith (1. Affirmation of Jesus Christ, 2. Righteous living, aka 'walking in the light', and 3. love for fellow Christians.)  That standard is then applied to various groups to see if they belong inside or outside of the Church}

In the end, the Church needs to honor the tension inherent in the Scriptures by being both ecumenically minded, with a tent as big as Scripture allows, and on-guard against false teachers, maintaining the purity of the Gospel message.  My own life in ministry reflects my belief in this principle.  On the one hand, through the Franklin and Venango County ministeriums and Mustard Seed Missions, I regularly work with committed Christians from both a variety of Protestant churches and Catholics, and on the other hand, I consider it an obligation of my ordination to point out the dangerous and heretical views expressed by others, especially those that endanger the evangelistic mission of the Church by either warping the Gospel (for example: the Prosperity Gospel) or damaging the character/reputation of the Church itself (for example: the marriage of Church and politics).  It may seem odd to be both ecumenical and judgmental (in a good way, hopefully) to those who are not aware of the reasoning behind such a stance, but it is in keeping with my understanding of what the Scriptures require of both the Church and its ministers.

[In Evangelical Perspectives: Toward a Biblical Balance, a companion to Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic, Dr. Mayers identified twelve scriptural issues that require a both/and perspective: (1) Reality: Both God and Creation, (2) God: Both One and Many, (3) Christ: Both Divine and Human, (4) Man: Both Dignified and Depraved, (5) General Revelation: Both Within and Without, (6) Special Revelation: Both Event and Word, (7) Inspiration: Both Holy Spirit and Human Authors, (8) Testaments: Both Continuity and Discontinuity, (9) Salvation: Both Provision and Response, (10) Holy Spirit: Both Holiness and Eternal Security, (11) Church: Both Proclamation and Charity, and (12) Last Things: Both Already and Not Yet.  It is my view that Church: Both Unity and Purity fits within this framework.]

When is governmental action morally justified? The morality of COVID-19 responses to protect less than 1%.

This is a serious question, I'm actually curious about what you would answer:

Given that as of today, 10/13/20, there have been at least 214,000 COVID-19 deaths in America, and given that those numbers are expected to be nearly 400,000 by February of 2021 (that is, only 111 days from now): At what point would governmental (local, state, or federal) restrictions (shutdowns, crowd limits, mask mandates) be justified in your mind?

1% of the current US population (331 million) would be over 3 million deaths. Thankfully, we have avoided this nightmare scenario {thanks in part to mitigation efforts, both voluntary and imposed}. Should we, as a society, take self-sacrificial actions in hopes of preventing the deaths of less than 1%? Is economic hardship justified for less than 1%? Are limitations on the freedom of a country's citizens justifiable for less than 1%?

For comparison: In the U.S., about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected with the Spanish Flu 1918-1920, and 500,000 to 850,000 died (0.48 to 0.81 percent of the population in 1918, those % amount to 1.588 million to 2.681 million Americans with today's larger population)

{COVID-19 death projections}

As of today, we are approaching 1/10th of 1% of America's residents killed by COVID-19 (331,000), and should surpass that number before Christmas. Should we, as a society, take self-sacrificial actions in hopes of preventing the deaths of 1/10th of 1%?

The final number killed by this pandemic will, Lord willing, remain significantly less than 1%. What then does the Christian worldview offer to guide us regarding our level of concern for harms that may come to a small minority among us?

1. Abraham's conversation with God about Sodom and Gomorrah

Genesis 18:20-32 (NIV) 20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” 22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord.[a] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[b] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” 26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” 27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.” 29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.” 30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.” 32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

If there had been 10 righteous people in Sodom (sadly, there were not even 10), the city would have been spared. Without knowing the population of the city at that time, it is impossible to judge how small a minority this would have been, but it seems clear that it was less than 1% (i.e. that the city contained more than 1,000 people). While this example involves divine judgement, not governmental policy, it illuminates a principle that can be applied from the former to the latter.

2. Jesus' parable of the 99 and the 1 sheep.

Luke 15:3-7 (NIV) 3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

The numbers here are helpful, only 1% of the sheep are in danger in Jesus' parable, yet the shepherd leaves the 99 'in open country', not safe in a pen or with another shepherd, in order to rescue the lost 1. Once again, this is a spiritual example involving God's justice and mercy, but it too vindicates concern for the minority, even one as small as 1%.

3. Any is too many when Peter reflects on God's purposes.

2 Peter 3:9 (NIV) 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Governmental officials, not having the wisdom or power of God, have to make hard choices. They sometimes must make choices that will lead to the harm of some in order to protect others. From God's perspective, there are no 'throw away' people. All of humanity is created in the image of God. Every person has a soul, every person is one for whom Christ was willing to die.

Conclusion: From a Christian worldview perspective, whether one is a libertarian or a socialist, a Republican or a Democrat, or any other political view or allegiance, the biblical model remains clear: One is worth sacrificing for, tiny minorities have value in the sight of God.

What precautions should be taken, and who should be encouraging or ordering them is a political question. Christian men and women of good intentions can and do disagree about HOW to put our concern for those in need into action {and not just on this topic}. However, what we don't have the luxury of doing, as Christ followers, is making a cold calculation that 1/10th of 1% of Americans are not WORTH sacrificing for. That this pandemic primarily affects the elderly and those with underlying conditions is irrelevant from a moral point of view. As Christians, we remain beholden to the Law of Love:

Mark 12:28-31 (NIV) 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

Sermon Video: The Parable of the Sower - Mark 4:1-20

 In the well known parable, Jesus explains that the 'seed' of God's Word falls upon various 'soils' representing differing human beings.  How do they differ?  Some are hostile to God, some have other more pressing concerns, and some readily respond.  Those who fully respond, the 'good soil' produce 'fruit', that is they work to reproduce in other people what God has done for them.  Healthy churches need to make disciples, they need to cultivate open and dedicated hearts (good soil) that encourage service and self-sacrifice.

To watch the video, click on the link below: