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

 

Actually, it doesn't count for either of you.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20     New International Version

19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Much of the Church in the modern West is wandering astray in a sea of Individualism.  Our Culture is so thoroughly inundated with the idea that our Rights rise above our responsibilities that we often don't even notice when we, as Christians who are called to live by a far different standard, go along with the flow.  Abortion and vaccine refusal are just two instances that happen to also be political cudgels using the same flawed slogan, there are many others including: euthanasia, alcoholism, drug addictions, gluttony, and sexual immorality.  In addition, we have also readily accepted the parallel lies: "My money, my choice" with all of its economic implications (gambling, wasteful consumerism, lack of charity) and "My time, my choice" (laziness, lack of direction and purpose, unwillingness to help our neighbors).  None of these individualistic perspectives conform to our calling as the people of God.  In the end, Satan does not have to lessen our devotion (emotionally, but also prayer and worship) to God if we've already placed severe limits on what we're willing to give over to God because we've declared both everyday activities and many of life's most important decisions to be 'my choice'.  Thus millions of Christians, who if they examined their own hearts would consider themselves to be fully devoted to the Lord, are in fact holding back from God's purview much of their lives in the name of personal freedoms.  This attitude is incompatible with the Covenants of both Judaism and Christianity, foreign to the Biblical narrative, and dangerously destructive of the mission of the Church in our world today.  Long story short: our Individualism is a cancer within the Church.

This isn't a Red/Blue or Left/Right issue, self-professed Christians from many different political perspectives offer up rationales (excuses) for their behavior built upon the notion that personal freedom is more important than group responsibility.  However one interprets the text of Genesis, the moral lesson of the Fall of Adam and Eve is that human autonomy apart from God is not only against God's explicit direction, but a really bad bargain.  We can cry 'Freedom!' all we want, but in rebellion against God that word is pitiful.  From its first chapters the Bible is the story of God restoring humanity to its proper relationship with its Creator, a relationship that cannot be built upon autonomy.

God our Creator

Hard for it to be 'your body' when you're not responsible for the fact that it exists.  That gift can be traced back to your parents and keeps going on and on until we arrive at the question of human origins.  While Christians may not all agree on how God brought about creation, we all acknowledge God as Creator.  The Apostle Paul emphasizes this by saying,

Romans 9:19-21

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

As Paul discusses the intersection of human freewill and the sovereignty of God in Romans he is far removed from 'my body, my choice' precisely because he has a clear view of God as Creator and is more focused on God's right as the one who made us than on our rights as the ones made.  This may not sit well with Christians flying their 'Don't tread on me!' flags, but it is biblical, and it is reality.

Not only were we made by the hand of God, we were made in the image of God (Imago Dei in Latin, Genesis 1:26) and this too has implications that refute Individualism.  Because God is trinitarian, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, those made in his image are likewise designed to exist in community.  The Genesis account emphasizes this truth when God says, "It is not good for the man to be alone.  I will make a helper suitable for him." (Genesis 2:18)  That need for mutual benefit between man and woman is subverted when Adam and Eve assert their independence from God, disobey the one (symbolic) rule in the Garden, and subsequently Adam blames God for putting Eve there with him for their failure (Genesis 3:12).  Instead of mutual help, the Fall reveals the human tendency in this state of rebellion toward 'every man for himself', in this case literally.

God our Redeemer

Given that we were designed to live in community, it is no surprise that when God begins to unfold his plan to restore humanity by calling Abraham he does so with the express intention of building up a people/nation (Genesis 12:2), one that will be a light shining in the darkness for all of humanity to see and seek.  The Law of Moses, instituted at Sinai, follows up on this intention by giving both broad and explicit instructions as to how these people, whom God has chosen, can live together in a just and righteous community in fellowship with each other and with God.  If you don't think God intended the Israelites to look out for each other, and be responsible for each other, just study the Year of Jubilee {Sermon Video: The Year of Jubilee (1st service at Franklin) Leviticus 25} or {Sermon Video: "The Year of Jubilee - Leviticus 25 (last sermon at Palo)}

This community-based plan is further developed beyond ethnic/national boundaries when the Apostle Paul writes just prior to his celebrated chapter on Love,

1 Corinthians 12:12-31     New International Version

12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

As members of a local church, and the universal Church, we are a people called out of Darkness into the Light for the purpose of taking our designated place within the Body of Christ and thereby contributing to the purposes of God here on earth.  When people tell me that they worship God on their own, apart from a connection to the Church, or that they don't need to participate in corporate worship with God's people, what they're really saying is that they as a hand, wrist, or spleen (to use Paul's body analogy) have no need of the rest of the body, thank you very much.  I understand that the church (locally or denominationally) may have failed you, it is comprised of redeemed by fallible human beings after all, but you cannot fulfill your purpose in this world apart from that community.  In fact, according to the Apostle John, you cannot even prove your salvation to yourself apart from demonstrating that you love other brothers and sisters in Christ, something that belonging to a church makes a weekly necessity. {For an in-depth analysis of John's 3 fold test of true Christianity, try my 'book': Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of 1 John}

As much as God loves you, the one lost sheep he was willing to seek and to save, he didn't save you so that you can elevate your 'rights' above your obligations to serve the people of God and the community in which that church is called to be salt and light.

If we claim Jesus Christ as Savior, why would we continue to live our lives as if we are still the master of our destiny, the writers of our own story?  When you bow the knee before the Lamb of God that life ends, and a new one begins.

Galatians 2:20     New International Version

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

God as Lord

Philippians 2:10-11     New International Version

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

    to the glory of God the Father.

This is the vision of God triumphant that we, as Christians, proclaim, but also one that we struggle in this life to reflect.  If God is Creator, Redeemer, AND Lord, what limits are placed upon God's authority in our lives?  What prerogatives do we retain, what points of privilege and political preferences are we allowed to hold apart from the Lordship of Jesus Christ??  None, none at all.

A slave in the Roman Empire may have had less trouble with this topic, they were already being forced to bend their will to that of another.  When the Gospel proclaimed to them freedom it was not freedom free of obligation to a master, but a change of master to one whose love for them sent the Son to die on the Cross.  It was not an illusion of freedom in this life, but true spiritual freedom which only exists under the Lordship of God.

Colossians 3:22-4:1     New International Version

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

1 Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

As modern Americans we rightly give thanks to God (and those people who have sacrificed for freedom's sake) that we are not under the thumb of an earthly master, but often it seems we forget that we, just as the Roman slave, have been called to serve a Heavenly Master.  Our bodies, our money, our time, our very lives, to not belong to us; remember, you were bought at a price.

Abortion

From the Christian perspective life is sacred because it was given as a gift by our Creator and reflects the image of God.  Thus while it is indeed a woman's body that is used to nurture that life from conception to viability, neither her own body nor that of the unborn child belong to her (nor by extension do they belong to the baby's father).  The protection of that mother-to-be by society, and the choices she makes that affect the future health of her child (for example: not smoking, drinking or doing drugs, plus having access to healthcare) are not questions of her 'rights', not simply because her choices affect a helpless and innocent child, but because those same choices were not her 'rights' before the pregnancy, nor will they be after.  God is the giver of life, to waste it through foolish or dangerous choices is to insult God, and to take it from another (except in clear cases of protecting against evil) is likewise an affront to God, a sin.  Note: Women who have chosen abortion in the past, like any other person who has sinned against God (and that means everyone) can be forgiven, the Blood of the Lamb is capable of washing away any stain from those who repent and believe.

Vaccine refusal

Our willingness to be given medicine, in this case vaccines, that will help stop the spread of communicable diseases, is likewise not a personal choice, not a matter of 'rights' at all, but also a question of community obligation.  I, as a Christian, do not have the right to waste my own life as it is a gift from God the use of which I must answer to God about, I also do not have the right to put the lives of others in danger.  This same perspective would apply to cases of drunk driving, the making of unsafe products, weapons in the hands of dangerous people, and many other instances when the actions/inaction of one person harms another person.  Intent to harm others would certainly increase the judgment of God against a person, but negligence also entails responsibility.  

There is a secondary related issue at work here as well.  The wisdom and talent necessary to create a vaccine, any vaccine or other treatment, is likewise a gift from God because the men and women working to develop it are using the talents, wisdom, and time that God has gifted them to help others. Were they not made in the image of God, they would be unable to unravel the mysterious of this created world.

The Christian Mind

These words were written in 1963, but they have become more relevant, more necessary as a warning,

“There is no longer a Christian mind.  There is still, of course, a Christian ethic, a Christian practice, and a Christian spirituality…But as a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization.  He accepts religion – its morality, its worship, its spiritual culture; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sets all earthly issues within the context of the eternal, the view which relates all human problems – social, political, cultural – to the doctrinal foundations of the Christian Faith, the view which sees all things here below in terms of God’s supremacy and earth’s transitoriness, in terms of Heaven and Hell.” (Harold Blamires, The Christian Mind, 1963, p. 3-4,)

Are we considering the issues of the day from a Christian Worldview?  Not if our priority is our own rights above our community obligations.

“We have inoculated ourselves against sensitive realization of the world’s evil…for we have now sufficiently secularized our minds to be in the habit of viewing the social and political set-up in which we are involved as something wholly, or largely, good in the eyes of God.  We have kept alive our Christian urge to discriminate between good and evil by the convenient device of labelling our own institutions good and those of our past enemies, or potential enemies, as evil…We complacently absolve ourselves from passing judgment on the set-up which nourishes us so comfortably.  We lean back in our armchairs, toast our toes by the electric fire, turn on the radio or the telly, and indulge in the righteous pleasure of learning how much evil there is in the world – elsewhere.” (Harold Blamires, The Christian Mind, 1963, p. 86-87,)

This speaks to our comfort with our own hypocrisy of demanding our own rights, when it suits us, and seeking to diminish those same rights when enjoyed by our political enemies.  Regarding 'my body, my choice' both the Left and Right invoke it, when it suits them, and both do so in defiance of God.

“Take some topic of current political importance.  Try to establish in your own mind what is the right policy to recommend in relation to it; and do so in total detachment from any political alignment or prejudice; form your own conclusions by thinking Christianly.  Then discuss the matter with fellow members of your congregation.  The full loneliness of the thinking Christian will descend upon you.  It is not that people disagree with you (Some do and some don’t)  In a sense that does not matter.  But they will not think Christianly.  They will think pragmatically, politically, but not Christianly.  In almost all cases you will find that views are wholly determined by political allegiance.  Though he does not face it, the loyalty of the average Churchman to the Conservative Party or to the Labour Party is in practical political matters prior to his loyalty to the Church.” (Harold Blamires, The Christian Mind, 1963, p. 14, emphasis mine)

I feel this loneliness on a regular basis.  I read what self-professed Christians write on social media and shake my head wondering where in that opinion is God acknowledged as Creator, Redeemer, and Lord.  Too often, our thinking (and thus our words spoken and written) is entirely self-centered, pragmatic and political, but hardly Christian.  For the sake of the Church's future in America, for the sake of our own local churches, and for our sake as those called by God to a higher purpose, this needs to change.

Earlier things I've written along these lines:

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

This post is in many ways a follow-up to: "You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview

The Purpose of Freedom: A Christian Viewpoint

For a similar example of a Christian Worldview in conflict with American politics/culture: Christianity has always been a self-imposed Cancel Culture, on purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 For you created my inmost being;

    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

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

    your works are wonderful,

    I know that full well.

Jeremiah 1:5 English Standard Version (ESV)

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

and before you were born I consecrated you;

I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

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

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

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

A rejection of a One-Party Church, and pastors as political operatives

In a response to essays by Pastor Timothy Keller (How Do Christians Fit Into the Two Party System? They Don't), and Pastor Kevin DeYoung (The Church at Election Time) David Closson of the Family Research Council wrote his own opinion piece that disagreed with the warnings of Keller and DeYoung (and my own over the years to my much smaller audience, I concur with most of what both Keller and DeYoung wrote) of the Church becoming too closely connected to one political party.  Instead, Closson advocates in his essay (How Shall We Engage Politically? A Response to Timothy Keller and Kevin DeYoung) that American Christians ought to do nearly the opposite, support wholeheartedly one party, and one party only.  Please read the three essays above so as to understand the positions each one is taking, my response {in brackets} to Closson's advocacy is below:

while believers can register under a party affiliation and be active in politics, they should not identify the Christian church or faith with a political party as the only Christian one. There are a number of reasons to insist on this.
One is that it gives those considering the Christian faith the strong impression that to be converted, they need not only to believe in Jesus but also to become members of the (fill in the blank) Party. It confirms what many skeptics want to believe about religion — that it is merely one more voting bloc aiming for power...Another reason Christians these days cannot allow the church to be fully identified with any particular party is the problem of what the British ethicist James Mumford calls “package-deal ethics.” Increasingly, political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions. - Pastor Timothy Keller, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NY

As Christians, we should take seriously our responsibility to be salt and light in a world that is often rotten and dark.
And yet, I believe pastors must be careful how they lead their churches in our politically polarized culture. I know there are good brothers and sisters who may disagree with these principles and their practical implications. But at the very least, pastors must disciple their leaders and their congregations in thinking through these matters wisely and theologically...The point is to protect Christian freedom and preserve Christian unity, both of which are ultimately about maintaining a faithful gospel witness in our world...To be sure, Christians may seek to educate and mobilize their fellow American citizens. But the unique aim, purpose, and warrant of the church is to educate and mobilize our fellow citizens of heaven. We must not confuse one mission with the other.  - Pastor Kevin DeYoung, Christ Covenant Church, NC

However, despite Keller and DeYoung’s contributions to the question of Christian civic responsibility, the utility and real-world application of their advice is limited due to an underlying political theology that hasn’t fully accounted for the realities of the political system within which we have to work. Although their warning to not equate the church’s mission with the platform of a political party represents faithful Christian convictions, they don’t follow through with a remedy for our current situation. Christians are left asking: Well, then, how should I engage politically? - David Closson
{Here's the thing, when you hear, "that biblical/ethical/moral position is fine in theory, but this is the real world and it won't work" it ought to be a red flag.  (1) Why can't it work in the real world?  Is the way things are now the way they have to be?  (2) Is my primary allegiance to the real world, or to the God to whom I will one day account for my life?  Closson rejects the advice of Keller and DeYoung, not because they are unbiblical, for he several times recognizes the validity of their ideas, but because in the current American political climate, they are impractical.  To continue down this path is to walk out onto thin ice...Here is an uncomfortable truth: In the 'current situation' maybe there is no place for a consistent biblical worldview.  Perhaps the Gospel is so counter-cultural that neither political party is worthy of the allegiance of Christians.  This is not a conclusion, but it remains a possibility, one that Closson is not, at least in this essay, considering.  Jesus did not work with the Pharisees or the Sadducees, neither did he participate in the political system of his day, eschewing both the collaboration of the Herodians and the militant nationalism of the Zealots.  If Jesus was outside the box, must his followers always engage within it, playing by the rules set by others?}

 it is simply not enough for pastors to hope their congregations are informed about candidates and issues. If the act of voting is the act of delegating the exercise of the sword, pastors should communicate to their members “This is what Christians should do.” Given the unavoidable role of politics and the real-world impact that the state’s decisions have on people’s lives, downplaying the role of voting amounts to a failure in Christian discipleship and a neglect to offer neighborly love. - David Closson
{This is in response to DeYoung's explanation as to why his church doesn't host voter registration drives or put out voter guides.  This is a serious charge to level against every pastor who chooses to not use his/her pulpit, and/or the church's worship service, or the church building itself, to advocate participation in the political process.  A failure of Christian discipleship?  Neglecting love?  Are the people in our congregations so inadequate that they must be told to vote, and for whom, by their pastor?  Are pastors to make voting the right way a test of fellowship? (And how would we know, must we demand from our congregation proof of who they voted for, in contradiction to the Constitution?)  Would failure to vote be a reason for discipline within the Church?  If a pastor MUST advocate these positions as questions of black/white morality, it would only be logical for the next step to be treating failure to heed that teaching as rebellion/sin.  I know that Closson is advocating none of these follow-up positions, but can we say, 'this is what Christians should do' and stop there?  Is any of this responsibility within the scope of Paul's instructions to Timothy?  If, however, I teach my congregation to be Christ-like, grounding them in biblical principles and a Christian worldview, are they not capable of evaluating the questions related to voting on their own?  As a Baptist, I firmly believe in the Priesthood of All Believers (that the same Holy Spirit indwells us all, the laity no less than myself), yet this top-down viewpoint acts as if the laity are in some way inferior.  While it is true that I am more educated (regarding theology, philosophy, religion) than my congregation, and most pastors will be, it does not follow that I am naturally wiser regarding the 'real world' of politics, nor necessarily any less susceptible to prejudices, corruption, greed, blind spots, and arrogance when pontificating about politics.  I'm a Baptist, I trust the laity, they govern this church, I am only its steward.  Increase the power and influence of pastors?  No thank you I have enough responsibility already, I'll trust what Lord Byron had to say about the tendency of power to corrupt.}

pastors would do well to educate and equip their members to think biblically about political issues, candidates, and party platforms. It is not enough to espouse concern for human dignity but not support policies and candidates who will fight to overturn profound moral wrongs. In a Genesis 3 world plagued by sin, Christians are called to drive back the corroding effects of the fall wherever they exist. This must include the realms of law and politics. - David Closson
{There are two flaws in this line of thought: (1) That teaching Christians in our churches to think biblically has any limitations.  In other words, when the text of Scripture declares God's holiness and righteousness by relating it to a moral issue (typically in the life of Israel or the Early Church), that teaching automatically applies to family life our friends and neighbors, our work and business relationships, and our role as citizens.  To say that politics must be highlighted is to assume that politics is either somehow not automatically included, or somehow more important than the others.  Would David Closson, and the many evangelicals (and liberals) who hold such views of the role of a pastor, really want me to apply God's teaching about marital fidelity and adultery to current American politicians?  The Bible's teaching on the danger of wealth by examining from the pulpit the finances of various politicians? (2) The second flaw is that pastors ought to take it upon themselves to be judge and jury as to which policies best fit biblical principles, and which politicians truly embody them.  Is there only one economic system that is biblical?  Only one theory of taxation?  One monetary policy?  Are there politicians in whom a pastor can place his trust who will not subsequently cause shame and guilt by association through future immoral behavior?  Am I to yoke my reputation to that of a politician?  Are we, as Christians, to seek to 'overturn profound moral wrongs'?  Absolutely, it was Christians who spearheaded the abolition of slavery, both in England and America, and Christians who led the charge in the Civil Rights movement.  It does not follow, however, that advocating for 'political issues, candidates, and party platforms' will achieve the desired end of Justice.  What if the chosen position, candidates, and parties make things worse?  What of the Law of Unintended Consequences?  That Christians should be involved (politically or otherwise) in fighting against immorality is not the question at hand.  The question is: should pastors (and thus the church, at least in public perception) be the ones leading the charge, and should these efforts be mixed with Christian discipleship, Gospel proclamation, and Worship?  If this is something that Christians ought to do, it still remains an open question regarding whether or not this is the right way to do it, questions whose answers Closson are assuming to be affirmative.}

This idea that historic Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments grounds the outworking of Keller’s political theology. Although not explicitly stated, he suggests that while Republicans may hold a more biblical view on issues related to abortion and marriage, Democrats are more faithful in their approach to racial justice and the poor. Implied in this analysis is that these issues carry similar moral freight and that consequently Christians should be leery of adopting either party’s “whole package.” - David Closson
{This is a false dichotomy: In Closson's view there is not room for Christians to support a third party, because a third party does not currently have a chance of winning, only two choices may be considered.  In addition, Closson is setting up himself, or individual pastors, to be the sole arbiters of which moral issues belong in the 'first tier' (where is this defined in the Bible?  Where are abortion and marriage elevated above all other concerns?) and which can be secondary (and in practical political terms, mostly irrelevant).  If Christians decides how to vote only on 'x' issue, they show the political parties to whom they are wed that they are willing to compromise morally on all other issues.  For example: If abortion is the only issue that matters, Christians will still vote for us no matter what position we take on gambling, the treatment of immigrants, elective wars, and a host of other issues about which the Bible is also explicit.  Do they not also matter?  Do the lives of the unborn outweigh the lives of the living?  Must Christians swallow immorality in order to win politically?  While there will be defenders of the two major parties, insisting that everything they do is correct, can we really say that this is biblical?  Must pastors lead the charge by becoming cheerleaders for a party's entire platform?  If a party's platform is 51% consistent with Biblical principles, is that sufficient?  Is 90% sufficient?  What if the platform seems 35% biblical to me, but 65% biblical to you?  These are profound questions about which we would expect God-honoring, Bible believing, Christians to disagree.}

Consequently, the Bible speaks to the issues identified by Keller; committed Christians, therefore, must care about all of them. Faithfulness to God’s Word requires nothing less. However, the tension arises when it comes to application—when biblical imperative intersects with the realities of today’s politics. - David Closson
{Closson acknowledges that the WHOLE council of God must be considered, that we cannot focus upon one or two moral issues to the exclusion of all others, but then immediately downplays this biblical truth by saying that the 'realities of today's politics', at least in part, negate that concern.  Biblical imperative cannot be lightly set aside.}

However, it is also true in recent years the two major U.S. political parties have clearly adopted positions on first tier moral issues on which the Bible does speak. “First tier” moral issues include questions where the Bible’s teaching is clear and where specific, positive action is prescribed. - David Closson
{In the following paragraph Closson declares that the right to life and human sexuality are 'first tier' issues about which the Bible is clear.  Are there not others?  Are these the only two issues about which the Bible is sufficiently clear as to allow Christians to view them with certainty?  The Bible spends more time speaking to wealth and the abuses of it than any other moral topic.  Why are we creating 'tiers' of morality anyway?  "Be holy because I am holy" has devolved into 'tiers' of morality?  If 'life' is granted 1st 'tier' status, does it follow that the only issue related to 'life' is abortion?  This is thus an artificial list of two, and only two, priorities that fit nicely with the current two party system, and contrast favorably with the party that Closson identifies with.  Were there then no 'first tier' moral issues in America before Roe vs. Wade?  From the abolition of slavery until Roe vs. Wade, were Christians free to support any political party, but now are constrained and must actively and publicly support a particular party?}

In short, if theologically conservative Christians appear aligned with the Republican Party, it is only because Democrats have forced them there by taking positions on moral issues that oppose the Bible’s explicit teaching. Thus, while Keller is right that Christians should not feel perfectly at home in either political party, is it fair to suggest that they should feel equally comfortable in both?
In 2018 the answer would seem to be “no.”
It should also be noted that the challenges facing American Christians regarding politics is not unique; brothers and sisters in other nations face the same tensions. This is because there is no “Christian” political party; no party aligns perfectly with the Bible. This is true even in countries where dozens of political parties participate in any one election. This means that there is never a perfect choice when it comes to political engagement; on this side of the Parousia, faithful Christians will always be choosing from less than ideal options. This is why wisdom, prayer, and counsel are indispensable when it comes to Christian political engagement. - David Closson
{It is a long distance from 'equally comfortable' to 100% with one and 100% against the other.  Closson accuses Keller of creating a false dichotomy by pointing out the faults in both parties (subsequently Closson highlights the faults Keller mentions for one party but defends/minimizes them for the other) and yet only two choices remain to his question, Red or Blue?  Why are neither, some of both, or partial/conditional support of one of them not options?  Why must we be 'all in', especially given that Closson is willing to recognize the truth that no political party (in any country) has ever been perfect?  I am heartened that Closson is willing to acknowledge that there is not perfect answer, some pundits would never do that it speaks well of his integrity, but what if becoming a partisan is what perpetuates the status quo preventing the deep systematic change that our system needs, and what if not given a particular party the full allegiance of the American Church is what spurs that party on toward reforming itself?  Is is still possible for Christians to believe in the separation of Church and State, as a Baptist that is the viewpoint of my ancestors in the faith.  And it is also possible for a Christian to believe that the government is not the best enforcer of public morality (for example: the disaster of Prohibition), that today's Pro-Christian enforced morality could easily become tomorrow's Anti-Christian enforced morality, and thus Christians would be better off adopting a libertarian stance.  Again, these are not my beliefs, I'm trying to keep my beliefs out of this, but serious questions that must be addressed when pastors/churches are being told they need to 'get on board' or be labeled as either insufficiently Christian or insufficiently American.}

For the sake of Christian faithfulness, we need an informed Christian citizenry. It is not enough for pastors to acknowledge that various policy positions are profoundly evil yet withhold the requisite tools that empower concrete action. It is not enough to pray for candidates and speak on a handful of issues without equipping believers with everything they need to honor God in the voting booth.
Over the last few years, many Christian leaders have lamented the current state of American politics. They have reiterated that Christians have no home in either major political party (a state of affairs to which we might ask whether Christian indifference and distaste for politics has contributed to in the first place) and that in secondary and tertiary issues Christian liberty should abound. While these calls are helpful, people in the pews are yearning for more direction. Of course, it would be pastoral malpractice to pronounce a “Thus saith the Lord” when there is no biblical warrant. However, in areas where pastors and Christian leaders can say more, they should. These areas include grappling with the reality of our two-party system and following our political theology to its logical end by voting.
If political engagement is an aspect of Christian faithfulness, it is also a matter of discipleship. Thus, church members must be equipped to honor God in the political arena in a way that goes beyond merely describing current challenges. Applying a faithful political theology in our context requires a thorough understanding of biblical morality and an awareness of the positions of the political parties and candidates. As this dual knowledge is acquired, Christians will better understand the times and increasingly know what they ought to do in politics. - David Classon's conclusion in full
{'withhold the tools for concrete action'??  If a pastor doesn't preach/publicly endorse a party and its candidates, he/she is depriving Christians of the ability to take action??  When did pastors become the political gate-keepers?  My ordination oaths (both stated in the ceremony and those I made directly to God) were to serve his Church, to shepherd his people, and to seek the Lost with the Gospel.  I made no oath to defend, uphold, or advance the two-party political system of the United States (nor the United States itself, in America we don't take oaths of loyalty to the government; even those serving in the military swear to defend the Constitution, a key distinction).  And for good reason, as both Keller and DeYoung pointed out, when pastors become political partisans half of those with whom we must contend for the sake of the Gospel are less likely to hear the words of Jesus Christ rather than the Democrat gospel or the Republican gospel.  In addition, when pastors become political partisans, their congregations tend to follow suit, those who disagree (whether Republicans, Democrats, or Independents) are more likely to leave, hopefully finding a new church (although not always), and typically landing where others agree with them.  Thus the American Church continues to become polarized, where our congregation are not only racially segregated, but politically as well.  They then become echo chambers where an us vs. them mentality is fostered and a 'no proper Christian could see this issue any other way' attitude grows.  Classon wrote, 'it would be pastoral malpractice to pronounce a “Thus saith the Lord” when there is no biblical warrant'  Exactly!  Where is the Biblical warrant that tells me to support a candidate or party?  What text should I preach that under proper exegesis illuminates the 21st century American political landscape without doubt?  Know this, and know it well.  When a preacher preaches from the pulpit, calling upon the Word of God in support of the message, it is perceived by many to be a 'thus saith the Lord' pronouncement.  It is given authority because of the office and the pulpit.  If I can't say, 'thus saith the Lord' with conviction and based firmly upon God's Word, why am I preaching?
I have 25 hours in the pulpit each year (50 weeks times 30 minutes, I often go longer, but round numbers will suffice) during which I can expound upon the Word of God, a pittance and not nearly enough, but the only setting where the majority of the congregation (both members and non, regulars and irregulars) will be in attendance.  Why would I devote even one of those sermons to praising or denouncing a politician or a party?  The pulpit is a sacred trust, an awesome responsibility for which those of us ordained to lead the Church will one day answer.  I know that this opinion is wildly unpopular with many on both the Left and the Right, but I will not risk profaning the name of God, the reputation of the Church, and the glory of the Gospel, by staining it with the mud of politics.  John Calvin's Geneva merged Church and State, how well did that work out?  Is this a model to aspire to, or a warning sign?  Don't expect all Christians to agree on the answer.  Paul warned Christians to not be 'unequally yoked with unbelivers', referring primarily to marriage, but is not the union of Church and State, or Church and Party an unequal marriage?  Is not the Church the one being asked to compromise its beliefs, swallow the immorality of political leaders (in the church they ought to be removed, and persistent sin is absolutely disqualifying for a pastor to remain in the ministry, but in politics no such compunction applies; various politicians of both parties have been, and continue to be, immoral in their behavior, yet retain, or even advance, in leadership.  Is this an example that reflects well upon the Gospel?).
In short, while David Classon is willing to admit that both Keller and DeYoung make several valid points, his conclusion overwhelms them, while caution and thoughtfulness are praised, in the end the conclusion is stark: There is only one party in America that any thoughtful Christian could think to support, that support must be public, and ought to be championed from the pulpit (if the conclusion is inescapable and undeniable, no lesser platform will do).  This is a false choice, A or B, when in reality the 'real world' of politics also has a C, D, and E. (C:mostly A and a little B,D: mostly B and a little A,E: none of the above).  I will continue to teach my congregation the Word of God, continue to help them to see how that timeless world can fit into the 21st century, but I will choose to let them use their own God-given, and Spirit sanctified, minds to enter the political realm as their conscience dictates, not only because they are capable of choosing with integrity and wisdom, but because attempting to make those decisions for them is a path filled with danger, a temptation to replace spiritual transformation with earthly power, and a corrupting influence that will inevitably cause me to sacrifice my integrity for political expediency.  No thank you.

Why the American Baptist Churches won't split apart over homosexuality or abortion

As the Culture War rages on in America with no end in sight, resulting in animosity and deep divisions in the political sphere, as well as schism within various Christian denominations, the question on many minds within the Christian community is: Who is next?  The Presbyterian Church in America splintered in the 1970's and 1980's over homosexuality and abortion, forming the PCA and PCUSA {How to tell the difference between PCA and PCUSA}, and many observers both inside and outside of the United Methodist Church either fear or hope that they will soon follow suit after years of contentious votes and behavior in that is in rebellion against their Book of Discipline.  Given this volatile climate, and the real differences of theological interpretation that exist geographically in the United States {primarily urban vs. rural and East/West vs. Middle}, can we expect the 5,000 congregations and 1.1 million members of the American Baptist Churches to follow the Presbyterians and Methodists (evidently) along the path of schism?

While the future is not ours to know, the short answer to this question is: no.  The reasons are not based upon greater unity withing ABCUSA over the issues at hand or upon a greater desire for unity despite disagreements, both of which would be transitory even if they were apparent, but instead are rooted in the denomination's structure.  In other words, it is not a quality of the people involved {i.e. we're not better than our brothers and sisters in the UMC, for example} that carries the most weight here, but a lack of top-down authority that prevents any one "faction" {if such a term were applicable, it really isn't} within the ABCUSA from imposing its will upon the rest of the denomination, whether that "faction" be conservative or liberal, traditional or progressive.

For those who are not familiar with it, what then is this structure which precludes our own version of the UMC's raucous 2019 General Conference?

The 1.3-million members and over about 5,000 congregations of American Baptist Churches USA share with more than 42 million Baptists around the world a common tradition begun in the early 17th century. That tradition has emphasized the Lordship and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, believers’ baptism, the competency of all believers to be in direct relationship with God and to interpret Scripture, the importance of the local church, the assurance of freedom in worship and opinion, and the need to be Christ’s witnesses within society. 

For American Baptists the local church is the fundamental unit of mission in denominational life. 

Baptist roots date back four centuries to a people seeking the opportunity to worship God as individual members of freely organized and freely functioning local churches. Baptists always have maintained the need for autonomous congregations, responsible for articulating their own doctrine, style of worship and mission.  {From: ABCUSA's website: 10 Facts You Should Know About American Baptists}

This may seem like a foreign concept to those from a Christian (or even non-Christian) denomination with a top-down structure, where uniformity and obedience to directives exist at least in theory, but for Baptists and other like-minded congregational churches, the sanctity of the autonomy of the local church is foundational.  There are no denomination-wide committees, boards, or assemblies with the power to make decisions that member churches or clergy must obey, there is also no fiscal means of compelling financial contributions from local congregations, nor is the local property of the church owned by anyone other than the congregation itself.

Perhaps you're thinking that this is all a smoke screen, that in reality power must reside at some regional or national level capable of determining what is required of a American Baptist churches, clergy, and congregations.  Not so, consider the self-limiting nature of the Policy Statements and Resolutions from ABCUSA:

American Baptists over the years developed Policy Statements and Resolutions on a range of issues. Those documents were authorized by votes of what at one time was called the ABC General Board. In January 2012, the governance structure of the denomination was changed. Presently the work of the ABCUSA Office of the General Secretary is administered by the Board of General Ministries.In the current structure, it is understood that while the work of the Board of General Ministries continues to be guided by established and future Policy Statements, Resolutions and other declarations, they “in no way obligate American Baptist congregations or regions to any position or course of action.” Under the present structure only the Office of the General Secretary is specifically guided by those documents. {From: ABCUSA's website: policy statements and resolutions}

ABCUSA: Resolution on Abortion

ABCUSA: Responses/Actions pertaining to homosexuality

Can local congregations defy without real repercussions these and any other decisions from the Office of the General Secretary?  Yep.  Can local congregations vote to leave the denomination if they are upset about any particular issue, or simply because they want to go their own way?  Yep.  The largest example of such a "walking away" came in 2006 when the 300 churches of the Pacific Southwest region voted under their region's leadership to leave as a group.  The issue at hand?  They were upset that ABCUSA wasn't taking a more active role in disciplining local churches, primarily in the NW and New York, that were accepting unrepentant homosexuals as members.  Might other groups of churches, or even a whole region, follow suit and leave because they're upset about this issue or some future issue?  They might, but that's about as far as it can go.  Our denomination might crumble, losing bits and pieces here and there, but it won't splinter down the middle into large chunks.

Whether the leadership of ABCUSA wanted to act, or not to act, and in which direction, regarding the acceptance or rejection of practicing homosexuals by local congregations {or regarding any other issue} within ABC is irrelevant.  By its nature {and by design, this is on purpose}, ABCUSA is not a denomination which can make a local congregation "toe the line" on any issue, and would have trouble doing so even if it tried on issues even more fundamental than human sexuality to the orthodoxy of our faith.  Why is that again?

1. The local church owns its property.
2. The local church can give, or not give, to regional or national ministries at its own discretion.
    {Together these two facts eliminate the $ leverage angle that so complicates divisive issues}
3. The local church calls its own pastor, is entirely responsible for how long he/she retains the role.  While the region may assist in the search process by providing a list of potential names, local churches are free to find their own candidates and need no approval from any denominational staff or board when choosing their next minister.  If a regional or national executive wanted to remove a local pastor from his/her congregation (for example: for obvious heresy like denying the Resurrection) there is no way to make this outcome a reality beyond putting non-financial pressure on the local congregation to vote to remove him/her.  {ABCOPAD does have "An Ecclesiastical Process For Review Of Ministerial Standing" which could remove the recognition of the ordination of a minister for financial or moral misconduct.}
4. While the denomination recognizes ordinations {that meet its parameters}, it does not act as a gate-keeper to prevent those  who are not ordained, nor those ordained by an outside source, from being called to serve a local ABC congregation.  Thus ABC's recognition of one's ordination, while helpful in the job search process {where pastors are essentially free agents, finding their own work}, is not mandatory, nor does the withdrawal of that recognition bear anything like the stigma of being defrocked as a Catholic priest or a UMC minister.
5. Any resolutions or policies adopted by ABCUSA are by their very nature non-binding on local congregations.  {Even if they were, contrary to tradition and our belief system, designated as somehow "binding", there are no enforcement mechanisms, and precious few carrots/sticks available to compel those unwilling to obey.}

Does this "loose" denominational structure have its own pitfalls and dangers?  Absolutely, there is no way to organize human beings, even groups of them primarily composed of those transformed by God's grace, into structures that do not have flaws that will then be exploited by fallen human nature.

What lies in the future for the American Baptist Churches?  Only the Lord knows, but it won't be angry dramatic votes followed by legal wrangling over property, and for that at least we can be thankful.

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

The recently concluded United Methodist Church General Conference 2019 is the latest example in a disturbing trend of the politics and viciousness of the Culture Wars finding a home within the Church.  Previously, various Christian leaders, churches, and denominations would at times choose to become involved in various political/cultural issues, attempting by doing so to bolster their viewpoint within society as a whole, but largely remaining outside of the debate itself which was taking place between those advocating positions inspired by a Christian worldview and those coming from a secular viewpoint.  And while fights like that continue to rage over a broad range of issues, they are now being joined more and more frequently by fights within groups of those claiming to represent Christ/God's Word/the Church.  In other words, issues like abortion and human sexuality which once enjoyed a reasonably unified response from a variety of American Church sources are now not only polarizing American culture and politics, but the Church here as well.  This is not unexpected, it has been coming for some time.
On its own, division within the Church is troublesome enough whatever its cause or content might be, what makes it more dangerous here is the extent to which the tactics which are currently devastating our political/cultural discourse are being, or already have been, adopted by those within the Church for both battles in that exterior arena and internal fights against fellow Christians.  Even if it is conceded (and part of the point is that it no longer is) that those on the opposite side of these issues dividing local churches and denominations are wrong in their reasoning or conclusions, and even if one believes that the viewpoint of the opposition is dangerous, it is still a massive moral step to take to act in response as if the, "ends justify the means" to defeat them, or that the confidence that one is right justifies a "win at all costs" mentality.
It has been a consistent warning of mine that the marriage of the Church and political ambition/power is an uneven one that eventually sullies the reputation of the Bride of Christ.  Advancing a cause through political means (or its cousin, judicial) regularly entails deception, character assassination, double-talk, evasion, what-about-ism, moral relativism, alliances of convenience against one's convictions, the corrupting influence of money, and the every present corrupting influence of power itself.  And while it ought to always be inexcusable for a politician to use immoral tactics, whether he/she claims to be a Christian or not, and it ought to be out of the question for Christians to knowingly encourage and support such unethical behavior even when it advances "our cause", it is not contrary (and actually beneficial at times) to the oath taken by a politician to support and defend the Constitution for him/her to forge alliances of convenience and to make compromises for the sake of governance.  It is the job of a politician to represent all of the people, even a Christian politician needs to consider the rights/needs of their non-Christian constituents.  Is it in the best interest of the Church to enter with them into alliances of convenience and compromises for the sake of governance?  Corporations, Unions, special interest groups, and lobbyists all have their own agenda; in what way is that agenda a fitting partnership with the Church?  Is it not better for the Church to focus upon seeking God's will through the Word of God and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit?  Do we not have sufficient issues within the Church to address (like the sexual abuse scandal which is certainly not limited to Roman Catholics) and sufficient mission priorities outside of the Church to fulfill?
At this point I don't anticipate the possibility of an American Church that isn't knee deep in the Culture Wars in partnership with politicians/parties.  That ship has sailed, and once involved in the fight, like grasping the tiger's tail, it isn't easy to stop.  The politicians will not stop looking for support (i.e. votes) from Church representatives, and those within the Church who are zealous for various issues will continue to seek help for their cause from politicians.  But make no mistake about it, if the culture as a whole continues to secularize, which seems extremely likely, the battles being waged will occur more and more often within the Church, splitting churches asunder, causing rancor and ill will, and tempting people within those churches to fight back "by any means necessary."  If Republicans and Democrats, at least publicly and on TV, act as if their opponents hate America and want to destroy the country, how long will it be until disagreeing factions within churches and denominations are calling those they disagree with enemies of the Gospel?  {If reports from UMC General Conference 2019 are true, such venom was there in abundance}.  Solutions are not easy to come by, I don't pretend to know the right way to move forward, for our UMC brethren or anybody else, but it is important that we recognize the danger of the path the Church is currently walking upon.  The Culture War rages on, and the role the Church is playing is becoming more and more toxic.

If I say anything about guns...

As a minister of the Gospel, if I say anything about guns, whichever side I take, half of you will no longer listen to my proclamation of the Word of God.  You will dismiss me as either a socialist or a fascist, and allow your opinion about guns to taint what I say about anything else.  The same danger exists if I say anything about abortion, taxes, immigration, gay marriage, or whichever hot button issue next consumes our political consciousness.  As a minister of the Gospel, I take my oath to proclaim the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ seriously, very seriously, it is the most important idea that I could share with anyone, anywhere.  That being said, I've made no secret of my own decision to self-limit my public comments upon the political/culture war issues, precisely because I don't want to allow anything else to affect the ability of others to hear the Gospel.  There are limited exceptions, when a public issue impinges upon the Church itself, or the discussion at hand is what the Bible itself teaches about an issue, I have no issue with weighing in; hopefully in a constructive and God-honoring way.

Last March I saw firsthand the danger of treading close to this political read line when I wrote a post entitled, "God loves you too much to ignore your sexuality".  In that post, I wrote about God's perspective on human sexuality, not about American laws or politics, focusing upon sexual sin as defined in God's Word in both its heterosexual and homosexual forms, but one comment that I saw in response to my post was, "I used to respect this pastor until I read this..."  Although I was able through conversation to repair that impression, and I think keep that individual from ignoring my words in the future, it pointed to the grave danger facing pastors and Christian apologists all over America today, when we involve ourselves in anything remotely political, half of the audience are hearing our words with their own political rose colored glasses, and the other half are plugging up their ears in disgust.

What does it say of Christians, and those purporting to be Christians, that so many of them are willing to place their devotion to political issues above the Gospel, the Word of God, and the men and women called by God to proclaim it?  It says we're in grave danger as a Church.  There is no such thing as a Republican Church and a Democrat Church, but we've fooled ourselves into thinking that God's Church is really so limited, that God is on our side, whichever one that is, and against their side, that the issues advocated by our politicians are 100% Christian, and those advocated by their politicians are inspired by the devil.  We've cheapened the Church, cheapened the Gospel, and fooled ourselves into thinking Christ died only for people like us.  I say we have done this because it is so widespread in the Church today, I hope that I and my church are free of this disease; I've striven to keep my own mind free of it, and to keep such partisanship out of our congregation, but I'm not proud enough or naive enough to think that it could not infect my own mind or my church in the future.

When Pope Francis spoke out against the danger of the love of money and the need for God's people to have compassion upon the poor, he was branded a communist by loud-mouthed political pundits, and that antipathy toward the Pope was cheered by many Christians.  The problem here is, the Bible absolutely says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil and demands of God's people that they show compassion to those in need.  The only way to justify condemning such concerns from Pope Francis is through either anti-Catholic bias (i.e. condemn the message because we hate the messenger) or a rejection of what the Church, and Israel before it, have preached (if not always followed) for the past 3,500 years.  

We should not be overly surprised by such things, however, when Jesus declined to choose sides in the contentious issue of his day regarding the paying of taxes to Rome, it only angered further those who wanted to use him for their own narrow purposes, or condemn him based upon his politics.  Throughout the Gospels, Jesus remained focused upon his mission, the one thing that he needed to do that nobody else could, not allowing himself to be distracted by today's issues when eternity was at stake.

If I tell you what I think should be done about school shootings and other gun violence, half of you will no longer listen when I proclaim the Gospel.

If I tell you what I think America's immigration policy should be, half of you will no longer hear me when I proclaim the Word of God.

And so I hold back, not because I don't have the right to my opinions, not because I can't ground my opinions in Christian theology and a Christian worldview, but for your sake because you NEED to hear the Gospel from God's Word far more than you need to hear my political opinions, whether you agree with them or not.

God loves you too much to ignore your sexuality.

People want to do what they want, when they want to do it, and how they want to do it.  People don't like being told what they can and cannot do.  This isn't a mystery, its obvious, a commonality of us all.  Our feelings about sex and sexuality are no different.  In order to fulfill humanity's desire to be autonomous, to make our own rules, elements of society have always sought to ignore the clear consequences of sexual activity outside of marriage, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, the desire to be autonomous and reject limitations remains the same.
Sexuality has significant consequences for individuals and society that we ignore at our peril.  It can be a force for good when contained within a loving marriage, an expression of fidelity and love, but it can also be a powerful destructive force when it exceeds that boundary, resulting in STD's, divorce, rape, abortions, and all manner of non-marital sexuality, including homosexual expressions.  Sexual expression has to have limits, no society can function without them.  Biology ought to be one obvious restraint on human autonomy, after all, it takes a man and a woman to reproduce, but even this fact of nature comes under assault when people seeking autonomy are willing to ignore nature and embrace homosexual and transgender perspectives.
God isn't interested in ruining fun, God doesn't want to quash happiness or love, but God, as our Heavenly Father and our Creator, is not going to sit by and let human beings pursue dead-end paths that are only self-destructive, he loves you too much.  God, in the created order, has set limits upon our expressions of sexuality.
All sexual expressions outside of the marriage of one man and one woman are sin, not because I say so, but because the Word of God declares it to be so, thus the cheating husband is as equally ignoring God as the person seeking a lesbian sexual relationship.  All sin is an affront against God, if the Church has failed to make clear its opposition to ALL forms of sexual sin, especially our own, that is our failure.  If Christians have seemed more interested in opposing homosexuality than in helping the people of the Church overcome adultery, that is also our failure.  We, the Church, have failed in this arena, far too often.  Holiness begins at home, the people of the Church have failed to live sexually pure lives, for this we need to repent and return to being what God has called us to be.  As a people redeemed by God, we cannot pretend that sin, of any kind, is ok.  It won't be popular to say so, and we shouldn't expect those who don't believe in God to be happy to hear it, but God loves you too much to ignore your sexuality, and as imitators of Jesus Christ, so does his Church.

My words are primarily for myself, my family, my church, and beyond that, the greater Christian community.  If they spur the people of God toward self-examination, and greater efforts at holiness (by God's grace) they will have achieved their purpose.  If my words speak to the Lost, to those without God, let them hear me clearly: God loves you, his Son died to set you free, God wants you to come home to him, whatever your past, whatever your present, God can and will forgive you if you put your faith in him.  When you do believe, join a local church, it is the place where the people who were lost, but now are found, gather together to celebrate God's mercy and grace, and to share his love.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Mark 10:8b-9 "So they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Matthew 5:28 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 "It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him.  The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you.  For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.  Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit."

The Word of God or the words of man?

There are few questions you can answer as consequential as this: Is the Bible the Word of God, or merely the words of men?  From your answer will flow all manner of impactful beliefs and decisions.  If the Bible is the Word of God, it has a claim on your life, you must consider its statements and commands and respond to them, for you will be judged one day by God.  If the Bible is the words of men, it can be argued with, co-opted, taken piecemeal with only the things we agree with given any weight, or ignored all together.

Virtually every moral or ethical issue that we as a society face, has been, or will be, profoundly impacted by our viewpoint upon the Bible.  Is abortion the murder of a child created in the womb by God and given a soul, or the choice to be made by an individual with no moral implications?  Those two conclusions could hardly be further apart, and they both reflect a firm stance on the origin of the Bible.  Is homosexual behavior a reflection of the human sin nature, like all of our other sins and akin to heterosexual lust, or is it a wonderful expression of love?  Once again, opposite viewpoints on an important issue that reflects what we believe the Bible to be.  Is divorce something which God hates, with exceptions for only the abused or cheated upon, or is it simply a personal matter of convenience that either of the two parties to a marriage can choose if they not longer want to be married?  This same divergence of moral viewpoints could be demonstrated again and again.  The key issue will always continue to be our definition of authority.  If the Bible is God's Word, it has authority over us.  If it is but the work of fallible men, any claim to authority is moot, and thus we can be our own authority and make our own decisions based upon whatever standard suits us.

What is the Bible?  Your answer matters, more than your may realize. 

Sermon Video: The disastrous reign of Ahaz - 2 Chronicles 28

It takes a lot of incompetence or wickedness to be considered among the worst leaders in a nation's history.  History is full of candidates for the title of "worst leader ever", sadly there have been many vying for it.  The history of Israel is no different, both the combined kingdom and the split kingdoms of Israel and Judah had leaders who were disasters for their people.  Among this litany of woe is Ahaz in Judah, a king who only reigned for 16 years, but who nearly destroyed the kingdom even so.  Ahaz's father Jotham had been a great king, even if he is little known to us, serving the LORD faithfully his whole life.  Ahaz was the complete opposite of his father, he not only became an apostate himself, walking away from the LORD, but did seemingly everything in his power to lead the entire nation away from the worship of the LORD, going so far as to remove the sacrificial impliments from the temple and shut its doors.
In addition to his violations of the first and second commandment through apostasy and idolatry, Ahaz also practiced an abomination in his worship of the Canaanite god Molech: human sacrifice.  In this case it was even worse than what you're thinking, for the sacrifice was that of Ahaz's own infant son.  The moral bankruptcy of Ahaz and the people of Judah who followed after him, brought the wrath of God down upon them, leading to multiple losses in battle that severely crippled the standing of the nation.  Ahaz, however, did not repent, he only kept digging deeper, piling sin upon sin.

To watch the video, click on the link below: