Sermon Video: Advent Witnesses part 4 - Prophets and Angels: Curious Messengers, 1 Peter 1:10-12

When considering the 1st Christmas, let us not forget those who had longed to see that days for hundreds, even thousands of years. The prophets of ancient Israel as well as the angelic messengers of God both were curious as to how and when God would fulfill his Messianic promises. In addition, their desire to know more was further enhanced when God revealed that his Chosen One would both suffer AND be victorious, how these two seemingly opposite outcomes could come together was a vexing puzzle.

From our point of view, not only the Advent of Jesus, but his ministry, death, and resurrection, make perfect sense. We are blessed to know the whole story, to see why God's grace is truly so amazing.

Sermon Video: Advent Witnesses part 3 - Elizabeth: A Secondary Blessing - Luke 1:39-44

Continuing to examine the first Advent through the eyes of its eyewitnesses, we turn to Elizabeth, the long-suffering wife of the priest Zechariah. After waiting decades, Elizabeth is blessed by God with a miraculous pregnancy. At her sixth month she receives a visit from her much younger relative Mary, at which point both the child in her womb (John) and the Holy Spirit give Elizabeth an amazing experience of wonder and joy. Elizabeth (and Zechariah) is the first to experience the 'ripple effect' of the Advent of the Son of God, the first to receive God's grace and mercy as part of Jesus' redemptive plan. Those ripples continue to this day, as the coming of Jesus continues to spread joy, grace, and reconciliation in our world.

The danger of defining 'real' Americans vs. the necessity of categorizing 'real' Christians

It has become increasingly popular for politicians and pundits to tell their hard core followers that they represent the 'real America', and that those who have opposing viewpoints are conversely not 'real Americans'.  That this attitude is inherently dangerous, divisive, and ultimately a precursor to violence toward the group of people now labeled as un-American, even anti-American, history has attempted to teach us.  Once a group of people, defined by whatever parameter, have been deemed to be the 'other', it is a short road to convincing those who have drunk the Kool-Aid that 'they' should be incarcerated, expelled, or eliminated.

On the other hand, I have often referred to some people as 'self-professed Christians' or even 'so-called Christians'.  That such labels have been used in the past (on the wrong basis), for example during the Thirty Years War, to foment persecution and violence, is horrifyingly true, yet the need to have a proper definition of what a genuine follower of Jesus Christ looks/acts like, and call out those who fail to live up to it, remains.  Why?  

1. An earthly human kingdom vs. a divinely created spiritual kingdom

The United States of America is a human construct.  Like all governments it derives its legitimacy from God's delegated sovereignty (Romans 13:1-2), but it is no more divinely created than the hundreds of other nations that exist in our world today, or the nations or kingdoms that existed in years past.  As such, notions of citizenship in this nation have changed (mostly for the better) over the years, and are subject to changing laws and even constitutional amendments such as the 13th-15th Amendments that sought to remedy the original Constitution's flawed acceptance of the notion that Blacks were not citizens, or the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote.  Citizenship in America has always been a work in progress, it has always had ways in which our government and our people failed to live up to our ideals.  

Christian citizenship is different in many ways.  It was instituted by Jesus himself (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.), populated not with any group of people, or based in on any geographic boundaries, but with individuals called out from amongst all peoples (Revelation 7:9 NIV  After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.), and also defined by a standard that does not change and cannot be amended (John 14:6 NIV  Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.)

Given those differences, the United States of America can, will, and should change in an effort to "form a more perfect Union", and it can be torn asunder by division.  The Church, which is the body that comprises the individuals who have been called by the Holy Spirit to follow Jesus, must maintain its original calling and purpose, uphold its given mission and parameters, and is incapable of effective division (Ephesians 4:5-6 NIV  one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.) even if it has been split in two for a thousand years, and in three for the past five hundred.  What those who claim to follow Jesus, whether they be genuine or not, cannot do is split his Church.  America, however, has no such guarantees.  We survived one Civil War, and the tumult of the 60's, but have no promise that if we continue to sow division we will survive the next conflagration. 

2. E pluribus unum vs. the Mind of Christ

The people who comprise human kingdoms and nations are never of one mind.  Attempts to force uniformity have resulted in some of history's most horrific abuses and genocides: the Spanish Inquisition, Indian Education Program in 19th century America, Mao's Cultural Revolution from 1966-76 which cost the lives of untold millions, or the ongoing Uighur genocide in China today.  In fact, differing viewpoints are a strength of human institutions, preventing them from becoming stale or blind to reality.  The generation of the Founding Fathers famously disagreed on the direction that the new nation should take on a host of issues (ask Alexander Hamilton), with some preferring the vision of Madison and others that of Jefferson.  If those who disagree, about any particular issue, are not 'real Americans', the ability of our democracy to continue to function decreases.

The Church is likewise made up of people with differing viewpoints, often contentiously, but with one key distinction that separates it from America: We are all heading in the same direction, learning from the tutor, and seeking to emulate the same hero (John 14:26 NIV  But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.    Philippians 2:2 NIV  then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind.).  Thus while those within the Church can, healthily, disagree on the secondary issues, we are united, for more strongly than any nation, on the foundational ones.

3. Law abiding citizens vs. the Law of Love

Once a person becomes an American citizen, either by birth or naturalization, that person remains a citizen for the rest of his/her days (short of committing actual acts of treason, or renouncing one's citizenship).  Each citizen is as much a 'real American' as the next.  Given that we enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights in America, as long as people don't break the law (or aren't unjustly convicted of breaking the law), there is no legal grounds to value the beliefs and hopes of one citizen over that of another {providing that they aren't advocating for anarchy or gross immorality}.  Our representative republic helps transfer that mass of opinions and beliefs into something approximating a functioning government, but those who hold minority opinions are not less American than those who happen to currently be in the majority.  In addition, what was once majority opinion can find itself in the span of a generation, or less, to be a minority view.  That being said, you can love America, and be a fully patriotic citizen of this nation, and still hold any number of political/economic/cultural viewpoints.  I know that many partisans, especially those sold on the Culture Wars, would strongly disagree here, but if we are to have a United future, ever increasing venom against the 'enemies of the people' cannot prevail.

It is not the same in the Church.  In order to be a real/genuine Christian, there must be concrete evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the form of what is known as the Fruit of the Spirit.  This term is derived from Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.  If these qualities are not present, whatever the person in question might claim to believe, he/she cannot be a true follower of Jesus.  This is not in any way a partisan viewpoint, it isn't a liberal or conservative one, but a Truth derived from the very nature of the Church itself and everything we know and understand about what it means to be washed clean by the Blood of the Lamb.

Matthew 7:22-23 NIV  Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 NIV  If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

James 2:14-19 NIV  What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

1 John 2:6 NIV  Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

1 John 3:16-18 NIV  This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

The verses above but scratch the surface on how many times the New Testament addresses this topic, each time affirming the absolute need for heart conversion, not just head knowledge or mouth proclamations.  This then is why we must distinguish between 'so-called' or 'self-professed' Christians and the genuine article.  God chose to make it abundantly clear in his Word that checking a box on a survey, voting a certain way, or wearing a cross on a necklace isn't good enough.  Outward appearances and empty words are not good enough.  Unless true life changing Fruit of the Spirit is present, on an ongoing basis, there is no reason to belief that such a person is a Christian.  Conversely, if evil is present, tolerated and habitual, there is also ample reason to doubt the sincerity of any profession of faith.

This is actually not a change from the Old Covenant to the New.  The prophets of old wrestled with a people who believed that having Abraham as an ancestor was good enough, that it would guarantee their position before God, regardless of their conduct.  That lack of genuine faith led inexorably to the destruction of the Temple and the Exile in Babylon.  Unfortunately, Jesus found that same shallow attitude present in his own day, and reacted very strongly against it: Matthew 3:8-10 NIV  Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

It is far easier to be a good citizen of the United States than it is to be a genuine Christian.  At the same time, the United States is a far more fragile vessel than the Church of Jesus Christ, and while divisions sown in either will bear harmful fruit, we know that the Church will endure, America has no such promise.

So, the next time you hear a politician, pundit, or regular person spouting off on social media about how 'we' are the REAL Americans and 'they' are not, don't be fooled, that road leads to self-destruction.  Likewise, the next time you hear someone proclaiming their bona fides as a Christian while still embracing hate, lust, greed or the like, and/or while not exhibiting love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control, don't believe it, fruit-less Christians don't exist.

Sermon Video: Advent Witnesses part 2 - Joseph: A Kind Husband, Matthew 1:18-19

As Matthew relates the event of the first Christmas, the focus is upon Joseph, the adopted father of Jesus.  We learn that Joseph is like his ancestor, Boaz, a man of both righteous adherence to the Law of Moses, and a genuinely kind man.  When Joseph learns of Mary's pregnancy he does not seek vengeance or humiliation, but rather intends to divorce her quietly.  Joseph would thus fulfill the Law without being vindictive.  Is it any wonder that God chose him to parent the Son of God?

"Nice guys finish last" may be a common enough idiom, and true in any number of pop culture examples and real-world scenarios.  But God holds us to a different standard than 'winning' in this life, as followers of Jesus, we don't want to 'win' at the cost of our character.

Ronald Reagan was wrong, America is not a "city on a hill", it never could be.

When you ignore the context of the Bible to apply it in a way that works for you, bad things happen.  I liked Ronald Reagan as a President, and as a young man would have cheered on his nationalistic blending of American patriotism and Christian imagery.  But the truth is, his use of John Winthrop's use of Jesus' imagery from the Sermon on the Mount is wrong, and dangerous.

Matthew 5:13-16  New International Version

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 'you' that Jesus is addressing in his sermon are his followers, in other words those who seek God, living by faith and doing righteousness.  Shockingly to his contemporaries who thought otherwise, the people of God don't belong to either an earthly kingdom or a specific ethnicity.  In fact, the Kingdom that Jesus established transcended both political kingdoms and racial barriers, becoming a spiritual kingdom both more widespread and more powerful than any kingdom of men that ever was or will be.

I appreciate that Ronald Reagan loved America, I do too.  But America is not, indeed cannot, be the 'city on a hill' to which all men should aspire.  Is America the ideal destination for millions, if not billions, in our world today?  Absolutely, and we can be proud of that distinction.  Yet America is NOT the salvation of anyone's soul.  It may be the world's best place for political and economic freedom, but it offers nobody freedom from sin and death.  It cannot, it is a country, not the Kingdom of God.  The purpose of God in our world is not political freedom or economic prosperity (although both are certainly a blessing), but instead the moving of the Spirit throughout the world to bring men, women, and children to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and lives transformed by the Spirit to selfless discipleship.

When we conflate America and the Kingdom of God in our overzealous patriotism (leading to Christian Nationalism), we do a disservice to not only the true meaning and purpose of the Church, but that of America too.  We ask too much of our country, expect it to represent too much, achieve too much, and we ask far too little of the Church.  No earthly kingdom was ever supposed to be to us what the Church must be.

The only true ideal that shines forth and draws all people to its light is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It alone can set people free, it alone can transform the hearts and minds of the Lost and save souls by the power of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  That was the city that Jesus was talking about.

America has no monopoly on the Light of Christ, no monopoly on God's blessings, let's not pretend otherwise, doing so leads not toward the light but in the other direction.

Related writings of mine:

The blasphemous "One Nation Under God" painting by Jon McNaughton

A profoundly biblical and powerful book: The Myth of a Christian Nation - by Gregory Boyd: a summary and response

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

An unhealthy overemphasis on politics

Beware of the Political Church: John MacArthur declares, "any real true believer" can only vote one way.

Rejecting Idolatry: No, Mike Pence, we will not, "Fix our eyes on Old Glory"

Sermon Video: Advent Witnesses part 1: Mary, willing servant - Luke 1:38

 

As we look at the Advent story this year from the perspective of the eyewitnesses, we begin with Mary. If is difficult to put ourselves in her shoes with a gap of 2,000 years of culture, history, and for most of us, ethnicity separating us, but in the end even us men who do not know what it feels like to bring a child into this world, there is still a common humanity that we share with Mary. That being said, her response to Gabriel's mind-blowing message is truly extraordinary. Unlike many in the scriptures who respond to God's calling with hesitancy or doubt, Mary responds with humble obedience. "I am the Lord's servant" is as powerful as it is simple.

Sermon Video: "Yet not what I will, but what you will." - Mark 14:32-42

Jesus submitted to the will of the Father. In the Garden, though it cost him anguish that few people will know, he submitted. There was no other plan, the Incarnation proves the necessity of Jesus' Passion, salvation for humanity had no other champion. The divinity of Jesus did not shield him from the pain of his Passion, knowledge of the victory to come did not make it any less real.

The advice given by Jesus to his slumbering disciples speaks to us as well, "watch and pray". We don't know what our time of trial will consist of, nor when it will come, but we too need to submit to the Father and we too need vigilance and the power that prayer conveys.

Sermon Video: Peter's Folly - "Even if all fall away, I will not" Mark 14:27-31

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" sums up the episode that occurs as Jesus and his disciples walk to the Garden of Gethsemane.  Jesus warns them that they will "all fall away", but Peter responds to this not with contemplation but defiance.  When Jesus assures him that this very night he will indeed disown Jesus, Peter foolish digs in and insists otherwise.  Why?  Some combination of pride and stubbornness, with perhaps misplaced zeal added in, leads Peter down a fool's path.  Seeing him begin, the other 10 follow by also insisting against Jesus' prediction that they will remain steadfast.

For the Church today, this offers a reminder that pride and stubbornness are not the traits God is looking for from his people.  Neither is 'rugged individualism' (i.e. the philosophy of Ayn Rand or Rush Limbaugh) the path to discipleship.  The Church requires servants working together to further the Kingdom of God, more Clark Kent, less Superman.  Like Lewis and Clark on the way to the Pacific, we'd be wise to seek a guide and companionship.

"Jesus is Lord!" + "Let's Go Brandon!" = Blasphemy

To the husband and wife (I assume that was the relationship) standing on the street corner in front of the McDonald's in Perrysburg Ohio this last Saturday waving these two signs, "Jesus is Lord!" and "Let's Go Brandon!" know this: that combination is blasphemous.  What is worse, by encouraging others to honk, wave, and laugh at your sexual vulgarity combined with the name of Jesus, you were leading them into sin as well.  That's a problem.

Exodus 20:7  New International Version

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

Ezekiel 36:22-23  New International Version

22 “Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. 23 I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes.

Romans 2:21-24  New International Version

21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

God takes his name and reputation seriously.

Some context: The seemingly innocuous phrase, "Let's Go Brandon!" is of recent origin and may remain mysterious to many, but it is a clear and purposeful sexual vulgarity aimed at the President of the United States. {Meaning of "Let's go Brandon!"}  In other words, using the phrase is a supposedly cute way of saying F- Joe Biden without having to use those words.  Set aside for a moment how toxic to our political culture the embrace of such a euphemism is, because that ship has largely sailed in the last decade {An unhealthy overemphasis on politics or A vulgar anti-Trump sign and an attempt to kidnap the governor of Michigan - Biblical wisdom for an uncivil society: "'I have the right to do anything' you say - but not everything is beneficial." 1 Corinthians 10:23-24.  As you can see, I was against vulgarity directed at the previous President as well}.

What concerns me more poignantly than American cultural decline (and it should you as well) is the way in which significant segments of the American Church is being dragged down with it.  Instead of acting as Salt and Light in our culture, as transforming agents, too many Christians are conforming to the culture.  This is just another example of Christians behaving badly because they value politics above piety.

Romans 12:2  New International Version

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Which brigs me to the conversation I had with this man and woman.  I was driving back from Michigan (having cheered on my nephew Saturday morning at the MI cross-country state finals) and was asked by my beautiful wife to stop in Perrysburg at Hobby Lobby to get a 1 inch paper punch there for her.  I saw the couple with their signs when I went into the store, and decided to walk over and talk to them on my way out.  My words were simple, and I believe polite, "As an ordained Baptist minister, please hear me when I say that "Jesus is Lord" and "Let's Go Brandon" don't go together.  Don't put the name of Jesus alongside a sexual vulgarity."  The response was telling.  The wife yelled harshly at me, "Get a job!", which was funny given how randomly aggressive it was.  The husband tried a different approach and one that explains a lot, "We're both heading to the same place", I assume he meant heaven, "you go your way and I'll go mine."  Except the path to heaven doesn't work that way, not remotely.

Matthew 7:13  New International Version

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.

I don't doubt that this gentleman thinks he is following Jesus by his actions, and had he only been holding up signs encouraging faith in Jesus, he would have been {whether or not street evangelism is an effective tool, and what kind of street evangelism, is a separate discussion}.  But that wasn't what he was doing.  Instead, he was conflating a particular political viewpoint with faith in Jesus.  Saying, in essence, "If you don't hate Joe Biden like I do, you're not with Jesus", or perhaps more damning for him, "Hating Joe Biden is the Christian thing to do."  Whether these two were aware of it or not, that's the message they were sharing, and getting good laughs out of it too. {Beware of the Political Church: John MacArthur declares, "any real true believer" can only vote one way.}

Why then is this blasphemy?  Very simple, the name of God is sacred, as is his reputation.  We may readily recognize that using "God", "Jesus", "Jesus Christ", or even "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph" if you're Irish, as substitutes for swear words is inappropriate, a form of blasphemy, but so too is claiming that God is something he is not, did something he did not, or says something he did not.  And God doesn't hate people.  Hate is not a path to Heaven.  To claim  otherwise, even by implication, is blasphemy.

Our ancestors in the faith blasphemed God when they justified slavery and later discrimination, often claiming that it was the will of God in the process {doubling down on their sin}.  In our generation, the way in which God is more likely to be blasphemed is by draping an American flag around the Cross and proclaiming that the only one way to be a good Christian is to agree with the current political viewpoint.  Not only does this hamper evangelism, turning away those who don't want Jesus + America + one particular viewpoint in American politics, it also warps the very self-proclaimed Christians who think they are doing God's work.

Hate is not the path to heaven, condemning our 'enemies' in Christ's name isn't it either.  Caesar Augustus was a horrible human being, a brutal man with the blood of tens of thousands upon his hands.  Yet Jesus never said rained down upon him insults and vulgarities.  The Sanhedrin were hopelessly corrupt, and Jesus (along with John the Baptist) did indeed denounce them forcefully, but not with mocking or joy, and certainly not with filthy language.  In short, Jesus NEVER acted toward those who opposed him {and brutally murdered him by the way} the way people claiming to follow him are acting toward fellow Americans with whom they disagree.

Matthew 7:16-18  New International Version

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.

What then is the fruit that God requires of his people?  

Galatians 5:22-23  New International Version

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

 This is the path, the only path.  Pray for those who have been led astray to believe that God would be pleased by any other.

Sermon Video: The Body and Blood of Christ - Mark 14:22-26

During the Passover meal with his disciples, Jesus adds to that yearly ritual of remembrance of the provision of God on behalf of his people by instituting a New Covenant. The first was solemnized with the blood of animals, the new will be built upon the blood of the Son of God. In addition, Jesus offers his body as life sustaining food (the Bread of Life), and his blood as sin atoning redemption.

Throughout Church history, questions have arisen and answers attempted regarding the questions of who can administer rites of remembrance of the Lord's Supper, who can receive it, and what exactly is happening when we do. Is it the real presence of Christ, is it a mystery, or symbolic. While the answers have varied, broad agreement remains on this: those who would claim to be followers of Jesus Christ must participate, as this ritual is foundational to the practices of his Church.

Sermon Video: Judas at the Last Supper - Mark 14:12-21

In the midst of the Last Supper, as Jesus celebrates the Passover one last time with his disciples, a time for fellowship and fortification for the road ahead, Jesus drops a bombshell: "one of you will betray me." One of the chosen 12?? How is that possible?

Betrayal is a brutal subject, only those with whom we have a connection can betray us, or us them. Family, friends, co-workers, fellow countrymen, even those in our church. There's a reason why the we call it stabbing someone in the back. And yet, betrayal did not derail the plan of God, did not prevent Jesus from fulfilling his purpose and dying for the sins of the world. No matter how vicious the wound, it can be healed, no matter how ruthless you were, you can be forgiven; God can do this, Jesus knows what betrayal feels like, and he overcame it.

The self-destructive American motto: Freedom > Responsibility. Christians should be ashamed at how they've embraced it.

Clara wearing a mask during our recent trip to Disney World

I typically read the letters to the editor in our local newspaper.  By now some of the regulars, for better and for worse, are known to me, I expect either a well reasoned or unhinged letter based upon the name at the bottom.  In today's case, it wasn't the name that caught my attention, but a quote that accurately sums up what many (most?) Americans feel about freedom: morality has little to no claim on their lives.

"A true Christian would never try to force those around them to do things that infringe on the freedoms, liberties and possibly their health, simply for their own self preservation." - 10/29/21 letter to the editor

The topic, as you may have guessed, is health mandates, in this case the requirement in PA that children wears masks at school.  The writer of the letter took umbrage with a previous writer's call to protect the "least of these" by asking children to follow the guidance of public health officials and organizations.  At the end of the letter the writer suggests reading the books of Daniel and Revelation, revealing that an apocalyptic mindset has also influenced that sentiment, but we have seen this attitude over and over on a whole range of issues where Freedom is claimed as the superior standard, outclassing morality and negating its obligations.  One might expect such an attitude from libertines, from those who do not believe that God exists and therefore do not concern themselves with being judged for their actions in this life, but far too often the staunchest defendants of the notion that they owe little to no obligation to their neighbors, certainly not if the government is the one telling them to do it, are those who also claim allegiance to Jesus Christ.  This is a paradox, and not a good one.

I saw similar responses revolving around instances of mass shootings, racism, and the plight of refugees.  In each instance, the person objecting to proposed responses did so from a stance of autonomy, without allowing that he or she might have an obligation toward neighbor, stranger, or even enemy.  In statement after statement of politically informed statements about freedoms, the question of discharging one's obligations as a Christian is glossed over.  And yet, the Word of God speaks in a very different voice on such matters.  In God's Word, Freedom is not the goal, it is simply the door to true service, once we have been set free from sin, our real self-sacrifice begins.

1 Peter 2:16  New International Version

Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves.

Galatians 5:13  New International Version

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.

Matthew 10:8  New International Version

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

Romans 1:14  New International Version

I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish.

Romans 13:8  New International Version

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

Here's the thing.  Nobody is obligated toward their fellow human being, nobody has a greater responsibility to die to self and serve others, than the disciple of Jesus Christ.  Instead of being on the forefront pushing cries of 'freedom!!' in the face of those who may have a claim upon us, we should already be serving them, helping them, sacrificing on their behalf, long before they had the chance to ask.  Christians should not be required by the government to curtail their freedom, they should volunteer.

The letter's author chose to use the word 'true' in front of Christian.  Ironically, that choice is important, for as Jesus made all too clear, it is not who we claim to be that counts to God, for many will claim to have followed him only to be tragically shown their folly on the Day of Judgment, but how we live that will validate our profession of faith.  Christians should talk about freedom less than others, not more, for to us obligation speaks with a much louder voice.  That American Christians often do the opposite is all you need to know about the health of the Church in our nation.  

More of my writing on these topics:

"You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview

Why are we free? Galatians 5:13-14 {This one contains a link to a short message I gave at Franklin's 4th of July celebration in 2018}

Josh McDowell's folly in addition to racism: Claiming that the Bible only talks about individuals

How should Christians act during a pandemic? - Wisdom from Martin Luther's experience with the Plague

"My body, my choice" is Individualism that spits in the face of God our Creator, Redeemer, and Lord - abortion and vaccine refusal

2020 has taken the measure of the Church, and found us wanting

Sermon Video: Jesus receives a 'beautiful thing' and a betrayal - Mark 14:1-11

In one episode, Mark puts together Mary's sacrifice of adoration, a 'beautiful thing' in Jesus' words and the inexplicable betrayal of Jesus. Two followers, both witnesses of Jesus' miracles and hearers of his teachings, yet two opposing responses, one of love the other of hate.

Which leads us to this question: What beautiful thing can I do for Jesus? What cost am I willing to pay to serve my savior and king?

Sermon Video: "Be on your guard! Be alert!" - Mark 13:20-37

In this second half of Jesus' teaching on the End Times is contained several important truths: (1) That the tribulation to come will be 'shortened' for the sake of God's chosen people, (2) that in those days God will gather his elect from the ends of the earth, (3) and that nobody but the Father, Jesus included, knows the day/hour of his return. With that in mind, Jesus reiterates his call to his people to take precautions, to live as faithful servants (i.e. righteous and holy lives) here and now, lest we be caught off guard. In the end, we are all mortal, none of us knows how many days, months, or years we have to live. We need to spend that time, as individuals and as a church, as wisely as possible, both making the most of today and planning for the future.

We ignore "repay evil with blessing" at our peril: the Culture War, politics, and 9/11

In a recent interview on the Holy Post podcast (with Phil Vischer), Wheaton College New Testament professor Esau McCaulley makes the case that the United States (and the Church within it) missed a golden opportunity after 9/11 to "repay evil with blessing" rather than with greater destruction.  Admittedly, there was zero political will in the country, and very little opposition of any kind, to the idea of crushing the Taliban to get to Al Qaeda as justice/revenge for the lives lost on that horrific day.  I live through 9/11 as a young man, an educated Christian man, and my own thoughts were primarily of our military response.  Like so many other times in history, the way of peace, the forgiving of enemies, was not tried.  In the interview McCaulley also makes the point that what the Church needs is more Christian politicians willing to lose spectacularly.  In other words, willing to advocate for principles that while unpopular with the American people, are consistent with a Christian worldview.  What we need to do is prize morality above power, obedience to God above 'winning' in the here and now.  The Church would be far healthier, he believes, if those claiming to be Christian politicians lost more elections.  I found McCaulley's honesty to be very refreshing as it echoes much of my recent seminar: The Church and Politics , which was itself largely derived from the writings of Pastor Gregory Boyd in The Myth of a Christian Nation {The Myth of a Christian Nation by Gregory Boyd: summary and response}, the practical experiences of Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson working for the Moral Majority, as outlined in Blinded by Might, and the worldview underpinnings of Harry Blamires in The Christian Mind, all of which can trace foundational theological heritage back to the Apostle Peter's words in 1 Peter 3:8-17 (among other biblical passages on the topic including: Romans 12:14-21, 1 Thessalonians 5:15, and of course the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-48).  The point is, there is a tremendously powerful and convincing theological case to be made in favor of choosing forgiveness over wrath, mercy over justice, especially if we are truly going to model our behavior after the life of Jesus himself.  But, and this is the important conjunction, most Christian throughout history have preferred Realpolitik to living by the teachings of Jesus in these matters.  And that has consequences.

1 Peter 3:8-17     New International Version

8 Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For,

“Whoever would love life

    and see good days

must keep their tongue from evil

    and their lips from deceitful speech.

11 They must turn from evil and do good;

    they must seek peace and pursue it.

12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous

    and his ears are attentive to their prayer,

but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

The interview with Esau McCaulley from the 26-54 minute marks is highly recommended

Can we 'take America back for God'?  Gregory Boyd's book explains why such a goal is impossible, because no such thing as a 'Christian nation' was ever intended by God, Thomas and Dobson illustrate in their book that a concerted effort sustained over a decade by the Moral Majority failed to move the country any closer to that supposed goal, and Blamires made the case back in 1963 that modern Christians were largely incapable of such an effort (even if it were possible) because they don't THINK like Christians.  Now Esau McCaulley is adding a modern example, the American response to 9/11, to further illustrate the point.  That his suggestion, sending aid to Afghanistan after 9/11 rather than planes loaded with bombs, would have been widely mocked, and someone suggesting such a course of action would have been accused of being 'soft on terrorism' or even a traitor, just illustrates how far from the mirage like goal of being a 'Christian nation' America truly is.  The Right does not offer a Christian worldview, and neither does the Left.

So, what will the consequences be when a nation that is majority Christian (by every poll and form of self-reporting) acts with little difference than a nation that is majority Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc?  At the very least, evangelism will be negatively affected.  Throughout the world what America does is conflated (fairly or unfairly) with Christianity.  The Pope or other ecclesiastical authorities may speak in opposition to American choices acting upon the world stage all they want, to the billions of people around the world, American foreign policy and culture speaks much louder.

For the Church in America, when those inhabiting it reject Christian morality in favor of American priorities, our own discipleship and transformation toward Christ-likeness is delayed, even derailed.  In this we are no different than the British Imperialists of generations past, or of the Pope's more interested in the wars of the Papal States than the spiritual health of the Western Church.  We cannot compartmentalize our lives, behaving as Americans on the one hand and Christians on the other.  As far as our national values are misaligned with our spiritual ones, those values are to us immorality, and as much as individual Christians (self-proclaimed or genuine) reject the calling to imitate Jesus, preferring Might to Right, we will be tolerating a cancer within the Church.

Is the battle lost?  I wouldn't be typing this if I thought so.  We know that the Church itself, global not national, will triumph at the end of history.  We don't have any idea how many years or even millennia before that day comes, but we know it will because God proclaimed it.  We know that voices like McCaulley, Vischer, Boyd, and smaller ones like my own, continue to proclaim the need for the Church to let go of the chimera of worldly victory through power and embrace the promise of spiritual victory through servanthood. At this point, these voices sound more like John the Baptist, people look at them like a crazy person wearing a camel hair shirt, eating locusts and wild honey.  But then again, God vindicated John (although he lost his head in this life standing up for morality against a corrupt system).

Some of my previous thoughts on this topic:

Deals with the Devil don't get any better

Why would we celebrate the death of the wicked?

How a Christian must respond to adversaries

The 'lesser of two evils' an anti-Biblical viewpoint

Satan loses in the end, why are we so scared?

A related topic that illustrates the lack of Christian thinking in other areas:

"My body, my choice" is Individualism that spits in the face of God our Creator, Redeemer, and Lord - abortion and vaccine refusal

And this: 2020 has taken the measure of the Church, and found us wanting

Sermon Video: "the end is still to come" - Mark 13:1-19

Days before his own Passion, Jesus drops a bomb on his disciples that the Temple in Jerusalem is going to be completely destroyed. The disciples follow up with the most pressing question, when? Rather than offer up a timeline, Jesus begins to develop a theme of preparedness and faithfulness through the coming trials and tribulations.

Sermon Video: Religion at its best, and worst - Mark 12:38-44

Utilizing two topics, Jesus illustrates the Judaism (and hence Christianity) and its best and worst.  The worst is the vanity of the Teachers of the Law, along with their greed, an example of those who use their supposed service to God for self-aggrandizement.  Rather than learning selflessness, they use God as a prop for their own pride/lust/greed.  The 2nd example of a widow willing to give to God the small amount of money she had to live on is an example of radical faith, selflessness in the extreme.  Even if God doesn't place us in a position of total dependence, we all still need to live by faith.

The reality is, being a part of the Church, claiming to be a Christian, isn't a guarantee of morality, the Church will always contain both saints and sinners, charlatans and true believers.  Our task?  Protect against the abusers, support and encourage those truly seeking to honor and serve God.

Sermon Video: The Messiah: David's son and Lord, Mark 12:35-37

While in the Temple courts, Jesus takes the opportunity to set forth a riddle concerning the Messiah, one that his own Virgin Birth is the answer to. In Psalm 110, David calls his son "Lord". Jesus asks how a son can be the superior of a father (or ancestor), a mystery culturally in the Ancient World. We know the answer. Jesus is David's son genealogically, but also his superior because he is the Son of God in addition to being the Son of Man. While David was a hero (flawed yes, but still a hero), Jesus is far more: a sinless savior.

Josh McDowell's folly in addition to racism: Claiming that the Bible only talks about individuals

In a recent speech author and apologist Josh McDowell caused a significant commotion by proclaiming the the primary cause of inequality for Black families in America is that Black households don't prioritize education and hard work.  That he was doing so in the midst of a speech lambasting Critical Race Theory as unbiblical because it sees oppression in systems and not just individuals made his statement ironic in addition to its casual racist stereotypes given that Josh McDowell is blaming the systems of Black families and culture rather than the individual young people he claims are growing up to not value education and hard work.  Here is the quote:

"I do not believe Blacks, African Americans, and many other minorities have equal opportunity. Why? Most of them grew up in families where there is not a big emphasis on education, security — you can do anything you want. You can change the world. If you work hard, you will make it. So many African Americans don't have those privileges like I was brought up with,"

After the uproar McDowell attempted to backtrack claiming that his statement didn't reflect his own beliefs, but much damage has already been done to his reputation.

Josh McDowell apologises for race comments, by Jennifer Lee of Christian Today

Josh McDowell steps back from ministry after controversial remarks on black families By Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter

That racism is indeed a structural problem, and not just the actions of individuals is not a difficult proposition to establish, although it is anathema to a significant portion of Evangelicals in America today to say so.  I've already written against such rampant Individualism:

When the shameful past of Racism hits close to home {An analysis of The Color of Law, an incredible book}

The Prophet Amos: What provokes God's wrath? - Injustice and False Worship {Amos had no trouble seeing Israel's problems as being more than individual choices}

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

And this: "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" {Also contains links to Phil Vischer's videos from the Holy Post, very helpful}

So yeah, I've written a lot in the last couple of years against the notion that systematic racism doesn't exist and against the over-dependence of Evangelicals today on Individualism.  It turns out that a false individualism is at the heart of Josh McDowell's theological error as well.  Also from that same speech is this fiasco that is being overshadowed by the racist stereotype that went with it:

During his talk, McDowell also criticized critical race theory (CRT) which he claimed "negates all the biblical teaching" on racism because it blames systems instead of individual sin.  "There's no comparison to what is known today as social justice with what the Bible speaks as justice," he said. "With CRT they speak structurally. The Bible speaks individually. Make sure you get that. That's a big difference." {quoted from the Christian Today article}

Wait, what??  The Bible speaks individually ONLY and NOT structurally?  The prophets don't excoriate Israelite society, its government and rulers because of their unjust laws and practices?  Jesus doesn't flip tables in the temple, upbraid the power structures in Jerusalem time and time again?  How Josh McDowell came to a place in his worldview that he would believe and teach this nonsense is itself a hard question, but there is no doubt that he is in deep error here, and that he is not alone.

My rebuttal (link above) of the PragerU video goes into much detail against this false individualistic version of the Gospel, this is a political gospel, one rooted in Ayn Rand style individualism, but antithetical to the traditional Judeo-Christian worldview.

"My body, my choice" is Individualism that spits in the face of God our Creator, Redeemer, and Lord - abortion and vaccine refusal

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

2020 has taken the measure of the Church, and found us wanting

"You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview

Another example of rampant Individualism: A Moral Hierarchy: A refutation of William Barr's, "Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

The response of many Christians to the COVID-19 pandemic has put into plain view the paucity of Individualism, the utter failure of an ethic based on the needs/wants of the individual and neglecting community responsibility.  McDowell's dismissal of systematic racism (as part of his political assault on CRT) is equally foolish, and equally unbiblical.

Sermon Video: The Greatest Commandments - Mark 12:28-34

We love top ten lists. Enjoy debating the merits of which team, movie, song, etc. is better than another. The rabbis had identified 613 laws in the Law of Moses, so it was natural to wonder which rose to the top, which were the most important.

In addressing the issue, Jesus gives a non-controversial answer, citing the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-5) that loving God with everything is the most important commandment. And then he ADDS a 2nd commandment as part of his answer, linking it to the first, 'Love your neighbor as yourself." Why? Because we can't claim to love God in the abstract if we don't love the human beings in our lives. Devotion to God means loving those also created in his image. Thus the two great themes of God's Word sit together, loving God, and loving each other.

The deplorable shame of using Potiphar's Wife to discount sex abuse victims: A refutation of Pastor Doug Wilson

Given the recent insanity of the "Empathy is Sin" movement {The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism}, I've looked back a bit into recent history to try to understand the pieces of the pattern that led Pastor John Piper, who is well respected even by those who disagree with him, to put his weight behind the likes of Doug Wilson, Joe Rigney, and James White in this endeavor to pulverize empathy toward abuse victims.  Which is where I came across a trend that I was previously unaware of: the use of Potiphar's Wife from Joseph's story in Genesis to insinuate that some (if not most) women (and others) who claim to have been sexually abused, secretly really wanted the sexual activity that was forced upon them.

It turns out this trend is fairly widespread.  In a public letter to then SBC President J.D. Greer, Russel Moore, the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC, an SBC entity) wrote, "You and I both heard, in closed door meetings, sexual abuse survivors spoken of in terms of 'Potiphar’s wife' and other spurious biblical analogies. The conversations in these closed door meetings were far worse than anything Southern Baptists knew—or the outside world could report."  In some circles, evidently, it is routine behind closed doors to treat the entire MeToo movement, and even the larger Clergy Sex Abuse scandal, as a nefarious plot.  It should be little wonder then, if this is how those entrusted to lead portions of the Church are acting privately, that Rachael Denhollander was treated shamefully in public by many of these same people.

The SBC dis-fellowships a church which continues to employ a child-sex offender as their pastor: a step in the right direction, but not enough.

"By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics

The use of Potiphar's Wife to defend those in power accused of sexual misconduct is both despicable, in that someone would use the Word of God for such an immoral purpose, and exegetically a very poor interpretation of the text itself.  The balance of power in Joseph's story is the exact opposite of that when adult, males, in positions of power/authority, abuse others.  Joseph has no power, he's a slave.  The story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife is a cautionary tale on behalf of the powerless in society, not a defense of abusers.  This analysis further examines the text: The Real Sin of Potiphar’s Wife:

The story of Potiphar’s wife and Joseph isn’t the story of an ordinary woman falsely accusing a man of assault and not suffering the consequences; it’s the story of a powerful person using her power to exploit someone weaker, and then bearing false witness against them to cause them to suffer even further in the midst of their vulnerability.  

But most importantly, it’s the story of the good news that there is no human power so great that it can ultimately thwart the purposes of an all-powerful and all-loving God.

Another capable explanation of what the story of Potiphar's wife is actually teaching: STOP USING POTIPHAR'S WIFE TO DISCREDIT SURVIVORS BY JUSTIN COBER-LAKE 

To be clear, it is true that Potiphar's wife made a false allegation. No one denies that false accusations happen but using this story to somehow discredit all women coming forward devalues holy text, turning it into a political bludgeon rather than a liberating truth. Doing so is a political error leading to dangerous eisegesis; the text isn't about the reliability of women, victims, or witnesses. Making that issue central misses the larger point of Joseph's story and the redeeming work of God.

That's not to say we can't apply the story to current events. What we primarily see is a person in power using that position to try to gain sexual access to a subordinate.

The Bible repeatedly speaks to this sort of abuse of power. The structural forces that landed Joseph in prison are largely the same forces that prevent modern assault victims from having a voice. Power oppresses individuals in multiple ways, and one of the most immediate is through enforcing silence. We have no knowledge of Joseph's response because he was likely allowed none.

I am reminded of the classic trope from The Princess Bride, revolving around the word Inconceivable. So it is here with the misuse of the story of Potiphar's wife, it doesn't mean what they think it means.

It isn't surprising that those who would attack victims to defend abusers would also twist the Word of God to that unholy purpose, but it is dangerous.  In an attempt at satire, Pastor Doug Wilson in 2017 reimagined Potiphar's wife as a modern-day feminist, eager to destroy men: Potiphar’s Wife, Survivor

Then that fateful afternoon came when he tried to rape me. Yes, I am no longer afraid to use the word rape. If he been a little more patient, if he had groomed me for just another month, I might not have cried out. I had been almost completely absorbed into the rape culture that Joseph truly embodied. I was truly in a vulnerable place, which my therapist has really helped me to finally grasp. I still am in a vulnerable place, in so many ways. My therapist is so kind and gentle . . . not at all like Potiphar. He truly listens to me. He actually believes me when I dare to share my innermost thoughts. I am almost to the point where I can tell him what would really satisfy me.

What is the point of this sexually suggestive nonsense?  Pastor Wilson uses the Word of God to suggest that (1) mental health professionals are part of the problem, (2) downplay real dangers from sexual abusers like grooming their victims, and (3) hint without much subtlety at the end that 'women really do want it'.  This is, very much, a dark place, and one that fits fairly seamlessly with the more recent call to abandon empathy lest we identify with those claim to have been abused.

Dig further, and you find that Pastor Wilson views marital sex in terms of rape, in fact he believes that this is the God-ordained dynamic, as he wrote the following: 

A final aspect of rape that should be briefly mentioned is perhaps closer to home. Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence. When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us.

In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed. -Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 1999), 86-87. - emphasis mine.

I don't have the proper words for how disgusting this attitude is, and how unbiblical.  This is not two halves united as a whole, not a man treating his wife's body as his own for her betterment.  Here is a similar response to the above quote from Rachel Held Evans: The Gospel Coalition, sex, and subordination

There is so much about this passage that I, as a woman, find inaccurate, degrading, and harmful that it’s hard to know where to begin.  That Wilson blames egaliatarianism for the presence of rape and sexual violence in the world is ludicrous and unsubstantiated.  His characterization of sex as an act of conquering and colonization is disturbing, and his notion that women are little more than the passive recipients of this colonization, who simply “accept” penetration, is as ignorant as it is degrading. 

In addition, the Apostle Paul flat-out condemns marital sex that is one-sided in a passage full of mutual submission: 

1 Corinthians 7:3-5   New International Version

3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Lastly, here is a examination of Wilson's view of marital sex from a fellow Complementarian, who also utilizes 1 Corinthians 7 to demonstrate how dangerous this viewpoint is: Does Doug Wilson endorse marital rape?

Pastor Doug Wilson is a central figure in the charge to abandon empathy (because it is helping the Libs).  Even without the theological refutations of that argument, which are many, looking further at the overall worldview of the source is damning.

 

Sermon Video: Resurrection - The God of the Living, Mark 12:18-27

What will Heaven be like? Much of our own assumptions and cultural baggage enters into our typical answer, but as Jesus revealed to the Sadducees, making those assumptions can lead to serious error. Jesus utilizes the story of God revealing to Moses his name, "I AM" to illustrate that God has always been the God of the Living, that for his people life continues beyond the grave.

What will Heaven be like? I'm not sure, but it will be beyond our imaginations, contrary to our assumptions, our words will fail us when we stand amazed in the presence of the LORD.

The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism

Sin is a big word for Jews and Christians, it is an especially toxic word among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.  When some attitude, thought, or behavior is put under the label of sin, people take notice.  When I was much younger than I am now, it was not uncommon for people in my sphere to talk about going to the movies or social dances as a sin.  In fact, both of those things were banned by the Christian College, Cornerstone, that I attended.  In both cases, blanket bans and talk of sin was unproductive, and unnecessarily legalistic.  What should have happened was a much more nuanced discussion about temptation and stewardship of time and resources that led to much more accurate conclusions like, "Some movies should not be viewed by Christians, and would thus because of their immoral content be sinful to attend." Or, "Some social dancing, because of its connection to both alcohol and potential to inflame lust in young people who may not be capable of saying no to that temptation, should be avoided by Christians."  Statements of that nature don't fit on a bumper sticker, don't feel tough enough by those rooting on the Culture Wars, but actually conform much more closely to both the teaching of the Apostle Paul about the confluence of Christian freedom and responsibility {1 Corinthians 10:23 New International Version “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.} and the actual reality of how Christians deal with and overcome temptation.

That being said, the choice of Pastor Joe Rigney {with the support and agreement of Pastor John Piper, Pastor Doug Wilson, and apologist James White} to label Empathy a SIN cannot be set aside as hyperbole or click-bait {if that was the goal, to gain notoriety and ultimately sales, this discussion takes on a whole different tone; let us not assume the worst}.  Rigney, and those like minded leaders in the Church, want Empathy to be reevaluated, judged, and jettisoned from Christian discipleship, ministry, and counseling. 

The following quotes are from Pastor Joe Rigney's, The Enticing Sin of Empathy HOW SATAN CORRUPTS THROUGH COMPASSION   Unfortunately, Rigney considers himself to be somehow C.S. Lewis' literary successor and has written his indictment of Empathy in the style of the The Screwtape Letters.  It worked well for Lewis' genius, less well here.

When humans are suffering, they tend to make two demands that are impossible to fulfill simultaneously. On the one hand, they want people to notice the depth of their pain and sorrow — how deep they are in the pit, how unique and tragic their circumstances. At the same time, they don’t want to be made to feel that they really need the assistance of others. In one breath, they say, “Help me! Can’t you see I’m suffering?” and in the next they say, “How dare you act as though I needed you and your help?” The sufferer doesn’t want to be alone, and demands not to be pitied.

Rigney sets forth an example of the complex emotions of traumatized people.  He evidently considers it a tool useful to Satan that those who have are experiencing deep pain may at the same time struggle to accept help for that pain.  Traumatized people don't have straightforward emotional responses; that's not news.  He really shouldn't be surprised, is not the Bible full of examples of people who didn't feel worthy of God's redemption, Peter saying to Jesus, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” (Luke 5:8) being but one example.  Moreover, in ministry I've experienced this, as have countless other pastors and lay Christians.  When we reach out to someone in desperate need of help, that person either struggles with pride (not being willing to admit they need it) or with despair (not seeing that help is possible for someone like them).  The human condition, especially apart from the involvement of the Spirit, is a mess.

Now, sufferers have been placing such impossible demands on others from time immemorial. In response, our armies have fought for decades to twist the Enemy’s virtue of compassion into its counterfeit, empathy. Since we introduced the term a century ago, we’ve steadily taught the humans to regard empathy as an improvement upon compassion or sympathy.

Here is Rigney's premise: Empathy is a twisted mirror to Compassion, a counterfeit modern opposite.  For this to be true, one would need to search the Bible in vain for empathy on display and only find compassion.  Let's take a look, does God show compassion ONLY, or empathy too under its umbrella?

Matthew 9:36 New International Version

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.

1 Peter 3:8  New International Version

Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble.

Romans 12:15  New International Version

Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.

John 11:34-36New International Version

34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked.

“Come and see, Lord,” they replied.

35 Jesus wept.

36 Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

Hebrews 4:15  New International Version

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

Beyond these examples from Scripture, passages where Compassion is not devoid of emotional connection, there is one simple act of Jesus that puts aside any thought that Jesus only felt Compassion and not Empathy: He touched the lepers.

Matthew 8:3  New International Version

Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately he was cleansed of his leprosy.

To touch a leper was forbidden, it made one unclean according to the Law of Moses, and risked infection.  Why would Jesus touch this man before he healed him?  He could just have easily healed him first, and then (after presenting himself to the priests to be declared 'clean') this man could have had all the hugs he needed.  Why?  Because Jesus felt his pain, his isolation, his loneliness.  Was Jesus thus unable to see what the man really needed?  Did he lose sight of Truth?  Of course not, his Empathy was one of the reasons why Jesus was able to transcend conventional wisdom and accepted limits, to show the mercy and love of God to someone in desperate need of both.  In all honesty, this one passage is a deal-breaker for the notion that Empathy is Sin.  Jesus felt the pain of others, it didn't hinder him from remaining true to his calling and purpose one bit.

In addition, this entire pronouncement of SIN against those who feel empathy is a semantic exercise with two words that have significant overlap in their semantic ranges, and are often used interchangeably by authors, pastors, and the public.   

According to Merriam-Webster, which actually contains a page comparing the two terms:

What is the difference between empathy and compassion?

Some of our users are interested in the difference between empathy and compassion. Compassion is the broader word: it refers to both an understanding of another’s pain and the desire to somehow mitigate that pain:

Our rationalizations for lying (or withholding the truth)—"to protect her," "he could never handle it”—come more out of cowardice than compassion.
— Eric Utne, Utne Reader, November/December 1992

Sometimes compassion is used to refer broadly to sympathetic understanding:

Nevertheless, when Robert Paxton's "Vichy France" appeared in a French translation in 1973, his stark and devastating description ... was rather badly received in France, where many critics accused this scrupulous and thoughtful young historian either of misinterpreting the Vichy leaders' motives or of lacking compassion.
— Stanley Hoffmann, The New York Times Book Review, 1 Nov. 1981

Empathy refers to the ability to relate to another person’s pain vicariously, as if one has experienced that pain themselves:

For instance, people who are highly egoistic and presumably lacking in empathy keep their own welfare paramount in making moral decisions like how or whether to help the poor.
— Daniel Goleman, The New York Times, 28 Mar. 1989

"The man thought all this talk was fine, but he was more concerned with just getting water. And, if I was going to be successful on this mission, I had to remember what his priorities were. The quality you need most in United Nations peacekeeping is empathy."
— Geordie Elms, quoted in MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History, Autumn 1992

In some cases, compassion refers to both a feeling and the action that stems from that feeling:

Compassion, tenderness, patience, responsibility, kindness, and honesty are actions that elicit similar responses from others.
— Jane Smiley, Harper’s, June 2000

while empathy tends to be used just for a feeling:

She is also autistic, a disability that she argues allows her a special empathy with nonhuman creatures.
— Tim Flannery, The New York Review of Books, 29 April 2009

Thus if Rigney is correct, and compassion is a virtue, but empathy is a sin, the only thing that a Christian can do to have compassion, which is required, is to understand the pain of others, want to help them alleviate it, but NEVER feel that pain.  The primary distinction between the two terms is the emotional connection that empathy makes beyond that of some forms of compassion.  I've known this many times in ministry.  There are some people I have helped in their distress whose emotional state, for whatever reason, does not powerfully connect with me at that time.  I help them just the same.  And yet, there have been others, perhaps in the same circumstances, whose emotional pain hits me powerfully, even causing me to loose control over my emotions and shed tears.  In both cases I offer such help as I can give, am I to believe that the emotion-less response, Spock like, is a virtue, and the one that causes me emotional pain too, the more empathetic response, is SIN??  This conclusion I reject both categorically, and whole-heartedly.  I have my mother's heart, I always have.  When she cries, I can't hold back tears, the things that tug at her heart have always tugged at mine.  It is a gift of God born of both my nature and my nurture, and something that I am profoundly grateful to my mother for the role she played in giving it to me.  Why?  Because it has produced some of the most powerful and transformative moments in my ministry.  In addition, it has shaped my heart and mind, bringing me closer to the suffering of others, shutting down excuses and rationalizations against helping others in need, because at times I can feel what they feel (at least in part).  That Christian Fundamentalism (or Evangelicalism, the two terms, ironically, have much overlap) has degenerated to the point where a seminary president lays this down as the Rubicon that cannot be crossed, is an indicator of just how ill this patient has become.

Of note: In his discussion Rigney is defining Empathy in a way foreign to both the dictionary definition and common usage.  He is putting on empathy all manner elements that are not required, not part of what this emotion actually is.  Those who just read the headlines won't notice this, they'll assume that a minister of the Gospel has warned them not to feel the pain of others because it is sinful, and walk away even more misguided than if he/she had tried to maintain the hair-splitting definitions Rigney is favoring.

Think of it this way: the Enemy’s virtue of compassion attempts to suffer with the hurting while maintaining an allegiance to the Enemy. In fact, it suffers with the hurting precisely because of this allegiance. In doing so, the Christians are to follow the example of their pathetic and repulsive Master. Just as the Enemy joined the humans in their misery in that detestable act of incarnation, so also his followers are to join those who are hurting in their misery.

However, just as the Enemy became like them in every way but sin, so also his followers are not permitted to sin in their attempts to comfort the afflicted. Thus, his compassion always reserves the right not to blaspheme. It seeks the sufferer’s good and subordinates itself to the Enemy’s abominable standard of Truth.

Our alternative, empathy, shifts the focus from the sufferer’s good to the sufferer’s feelings, making them the measure of whether a person is truly “loved.” We teach the humans that unless they subordinate their feelings entirely to the misery, pain, sorrow, and even sin and unbelief of the afflicted, they are not loving them.

Here Rigney builds his Straw Man to dismantle.  His false dichotomy states that one can ONLY have empathy if one abandons the desire to seek the good of the other person, that while Christ did indeed suffer 'with' those who were hurting, in other words he felt their pain, this was somehow not Empathy, but only Compassion.   The last sentence above is instructive: Rigney has now redefined empathy to be feeling the pain of others WITHOUT any recognition that pain might be, at least in part, caused by sin or unbelief on the part of the person one is feeling empathy towards.  But why??  Even if there is an attempt to demand such unquestioning, truth-less, empathy on the part of a person in pain or from segments of society, why must a Christian accept it?  This is a classic example of 'throwing the baby out with the bath water'.  Joe Rigney, as a Culture Warrior, fears that 'they' are trying to use blind empathy to advance their political causes, and thus 'we' must reject empathy, in its entirety, to deny them that tool.  In other words, let us surrender this field of battle and retreat.  The answer is no.  No, I will not allow the Culture War to dictate my theology, I will not adjust my ministry focus and methods to avoid any taint of looking/acting/sounding like 'them' to satisfy the knee-jerk reaction of political partisanship.  

By elevating empathy over compassion as the superior virtue, there is now an entire culture devoted to the total immersion of empathy. Books, articles, and social media all trumpet the importance of checking one’s own beliefs, values, judgments, and reason at the door of empathy.

This is the what Rigney believes the Left is doing.  If taken at face value, why would the Church change in response?  One can first listen to those hurting and in pain without making judgments either way until you know what is going on.  One can simply say instead, "I do feel your pain, but my devotion to Christ shows me what the ultimate answer to that pain is."  Why must we abandon Empathy to protect Truth??  This is the dangerous false dichotomy of this position.  We are being asked to make a sacrifice by abandoning empathy, 'for the greater good', that is unnecessary.  I, as a minister of the Gospel, am fully capable of understanding the pain of someone I'm trying to help, even feeling some of it myself, without abandoning my own connection to Truth and Righteousness.  

Is it possible for a minister or a counselor to lose objectivity, to get too close to someone they are trying to help?  Of course it is,  but Rigney didn't say, "Be careful because sometimes people take empathy too far."  The "Sin of Empathy" is a much catchier title, but also foolish.  

Rightly used, empathy is a power tool in the hands of the weak and suffering. By it, we can so weaponize victims that they (and those who hide behind them) are indulged at every turn, without regard for whether such indulgence is wise or prudent or good for them.

Here is where it seems the 'quiet part' is said out loud.  The reason for this diatribe against Empathy is that victims have been 'weaponized' in the last few years.  The primary examples of this are the MeToo Movement and BLM.  Women are starting to believed when they report sexual abuse, and questions of ongoing systematic racism are starting to be taken seriously.  Rigney, and those echoing his fears, view such victims as a Trojan Horse, threatening both Complementarianism, what John Piper is best known for, and the longstanding dominance of Whites in America.  If we feel the pain of women and minorities, if we take the harm done to them by individuals and institutions who have not traditionally been held accountable seriously, will we not be seeking what is True and Righteous?  Is this not the call of the Church, to defend the powerless against those who harm them?

This reminds me of the attempt to smear Rachel Denhollander, a sexual abuse victim and advocate for those being abused, by some within the SBC. {"By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}  This Christian woman was connected to 'godless ideologies' by Founders Ministries, despite the fact that her efforts were both God honoring and biblically correct.  Her crime?  Working on a 'Blue' issue that was shining the light of Truth on the sins committed in churches on the 'Red' team.

How do we know that this push against Empathy is connected to blowback against MeToo and BLM?  In other words, that it is a Culture War response of the Team Red against Team Blue, and not simply the seeking of theological Truth?  The ouster of three pastors at John Piper's church, known for their empathy and willingness to work on behalf of the oppressed, makes the connection clear.  Read the article from Christianity Today, it provides important context for this discussion. {Bethlehem Baptist Leaders Clash Over ‘Coddling’ and ‘Cancel Culture’ A debate over “untethered empathy” underscores how departing leaders, including John Piper’s successor, approached hot-button issues like race and abuse. by KATE SHELLNUTT}  

 Empathy demands, “Feel what I feel. In fact, lose yourself in my feelings.”

Why must it be thus?  Even if some demand that Empathy be this, it isn't, nor does it have to be.

When faith is abused by some, do we declare faith a sin?  When love is abused by some do we declare love a sin?  Of course not, don't be ridiculous, so why would we cast empathy out into the darkness simply because some may want to use it for unhealthy purposes?

The Culture Wars make for BAD theology.  When we look at what is happening in the Culture, and then design a theological response to bolster 'our side' against 'them', the results are not pretty.  The Church is supposed to be above such swaying to and fro, supposed to be firmly planted on the Solid Rock.  This is yet another example of how we endanger the Church, its purity and its mission, when we marry the Church to politics.  Empathy is not a sin, it never was.

For further discussion:

Holy Post Episode 472 The “Sin of Empathy” & Spotting Toxic Leaders with Jamin Goggin & Kyle Strobel  This topic is discussed from the 33:20-59:00 mark.

Empathy is Not a Sin by Warren Throckmorton

“Your Empathy Is a Sin”: A Response to Desiring God by Rebecca Davis

Empathy is a Virtue, by SCOT MCKNIGHT

The American Crisis of Selective Empathy And how it reaches into the church. By David French