Sermon Video: The Authority of Jesus demonstrated - Mark 1:21-28

 What is the nature of authority?  Where does it come from and how do we know if we can trust it?  Jesus demonstrates one part of the answer by speaking in the synagogue of Capernaum with authority as he interprets the Scriptures.  As Christians, the foundation of our authority is the Word of God (Jesus as the Logos, was himself speaking God's Word that day, as every day).  Behind the Scriptures lies our own individual understanding, our corporate/congregational, tradition, ecclesiastical structures and decisions, and finally (for some Christians, and at some points in Church History) papal/patriarchal authority.  These various overlapping layers of authority are all subject to the Scriptures, which sift and judge them, spurring us to reject that which defies Scripture, and bolster that which follows it...In addition, Jesus that same day demonstrates authority in the spiritual realm as well, by casting out an impure spirit with a simple command.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Christ will reign - 1 Corinthians 15:23-28

How does it all end? The Apostle Paul offers an interesting analysis of the End Times by approaching it through the lens of authority/power. When Christ returns, and begins the final unfolding of God's will, it will be a tumultuous time indeed, but one in which the authority, power, and dominion of the Son of God (achieved by the Father, and given back to the Father by the Son) will become unchallenged and unquestioned, with even Death itself falling victim to the glorious reign of Jesus Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: Hatred of the authority of God

Years ago, I slogged through Atlas Shrugged out of the same sense of obligation to have read influential books that caused me to attempt, but choose to abandon, reading War and Peace.  Atlas Shrugged is not a well written novel, its plot is nonsensical, its protagonist is loathsome, and it contains extremely lengthy speeches given by various characters as a way of sharing Ayn Rand's philosophy.  The list of famous novels that don't deserve their accolades is not all that short, but Atlas Shrugged remains notable despite its fundamental flaws because of the impact of Rand's philosophy.  The 'rugged individualism' put forth by Rand is both a reaction to the authoritarianism of the 20th century, and a quintessential American idea, for few cultures have elevated the individual above the group as thoroughly and consistently.   As a teen the philosophy of Laissez-faire governance appealed to me, as it does to many a young person, but that appeal has soured over the years, in part because of a recognition that government has a crucial role to play in restraining human immorality, and also given my years of cooperation with our local government in anti-poverty and anti-homelessness efforts, in particular the county of Venango and the city of Franklin.  Whereas it is certainly possible for a Christian to take a libertarian view because of a mistrust of human governments (as they must be populated and run by sinful human beings and have a track record of misdeeds), there is no way for the hyper-libertarian views of Ayn Rand to be compatible with any sort of Christian worldview.  In fact, the moral philosophy advocated by Ayn Rand, ethical egoism, is a rejection of everything associated with Christian ethics, Rand's Jewish heritage, and religion in general.  To embrace ethical egoism is to reject, wholeheartedly, any obligation to God.



1.  Ethical egoism makes each individual the arbiter of right and wrong.
Historically speaking, it isn't a good idea to share philosophical/ethical space with Friedrich Nietzsche, but uncomfortable compatriots aside, ethical egoism's foundation is the belief that each individual should act in his/her own self-interest.  When ethical egoism is combined with Rand's libertarian political viewpoint, the result is a hoped-for false utopia in which no individual is required to do anything that isn't in their self interest.  It is a world free of compulsion.  In other words, I could help my neighbor, but only if I wanted to, to force me to pay a tax to support (or virtually any tax in Rand's view, for any purpose) a homeless shelter would be immoral.  It is only natural that human beings place themselves at the center of their own universe.  The word natural in that last sentence is used in the sense of 'expected', not in the sense of 'proper'.  As human beings who have a flawed human nature, one fully capable of doing evil, placing our own judgment and self-interest at the center of any ethical or governmental system cannot possibly produce a positive result.  It will merely make our own self-interested choices reality writ-large, enshrining in law and cultural practice the wants and desires of the selfish human heart.  Far from being an utopia, a fully realized Rand inspired society would be hell on earth, a danger eloquently expressed in William Golding's The Lord of the Flies.  Rand rightly abhorred the evil of the authoritarian systems of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, but replacing one egotistical maniac in the cases of Hitler or Stalin with millions of individual dictators running their own lives as they see fit will only disperse the moral evil, not eliminate it.  Whatever ethical, philosophical, or governmental system is created, if it is built upon human self-interest, it will fail, and fail spectacularly.  In the end, Ayn Rand's philosophy is simply the other side of the authoritarian coin, replacing one unaccountable dictator over society, with many unaccountable dictators over their own lives.

2.  If the individual is at the center, God must be displaced.
Atlas Shrugged, and Rand's philosophy in general, is extremely hostile toward religion.  Why?  Virtually all religion has this in common: it displaces the individual from the center and puts God(s) there instead.  In other words, the very concept of religion is based upon the premise that you and I are not the culmination of life in this universe, nor its final purpose.  To understand how we came to be, why we are here, and where we are going, human beings must look up, the answer does not lie within ourselves.  These are of course generalizations about religion, how Buddhism fits within this is of course a bit complicated, but the premise holds: religion is hostile to ethical egoism because religion recognizes that individual human beings do not belong at the center.
It is, of course, the Christian understanding that the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob who came in the flesh as Jesus Christ deserves to be at the center, due to both power and holiness that God alone possesses.  What happens when Christianity is led astray by a belief that warps the Gospel and moves individuals back toward the center?  The Prosperity Gospel.  The Prosperity Gospel is a heresy precisely because it elevates the individual, making our health and wealth God's priority, rather than maintaining the age-old understanding of both our Jewish and Christian ancestors in the faith that they were servants in the house of the LORD.  Another more radical example of a Christian-based system that has been warped, in this case beyond recognition, by the removal of God as the center is Mormonism.  The goal of Mormonism is to become god-like, to advance to the point of possessing the power of a god able to create worlds of our own to rule. 

3.  Christianity requires that individuals bow the knee to the authority of God.
Neither an authoritarian dictator, nor a 'rugged individualist' like Rand would be willing to bend their will to obey God.  Both are in rebellion against that higher authority, that one of them seeks to dominate others and the other to 'liberate' them is a difference of degree, not of kind; both extremes place the individual at the center, both reject any obedience to God or any other external moral authority, and both are a dead end.
One cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ without acknowledging, and welcoming, the authority of God over one's life.  This attitude of obedience is infused throughout the teachings of Jesus, summed up in his endorsement of the greatest commandment:
Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Notice also that the 2nd commandment is our moral obligation to other people, one that will often come at significant expense to ourselves.)

Jesus also embraced the authority of the Father, even though he too was God, as an example for us all (see Philippians 2:5-11):
John 6:38 (NIV)  For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

For those of us who live in a free society, and Americans in the 21st century have freedoms our ancestors could scarcely comprehend, it is tempting to elevate ourselves to the position of being the arbiter of right and wrong, the determiner of purpose and meaning.  It is tempting, but it is a fool's errand, for that power and wisdom is beyond us, and pretending to possess it is the path of self-destruction.  The Church can ill afford to be infected with these notions, we have seen the results when it has been compromised in this way, from the support of millions of German Christians for the Nazi regime, to the hucksters on TV promising God's blessings to those who will send them money.  Ayn Rand believed that a truly 'free' society of individuals serving their own self-interests would be a paradise, she was wrong.

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

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

To watch the video, click on the link below:

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

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

To watch the video, click on the link below:

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.

How do we know which things are disputable?

The Greek term, ἀδιάφορα (adiaphora, meaning "not differentiable") refers to those issues of faith and practice, as well as ethics and morality, which are not essential to the Christian faith, and are thus a matter of conscience for individual Christians (and by extension local churches and denominations).  In other words, when we're not talking about the essentials of our faith, (a typical definition of which might be the Nicene Creed and the authority of Scripture, plus salvation by grace through faith) we as Christians are free to agree to disagree without straining the bonds of Christian fellowship.  This is of course in theory, in practice things can get real messy and even violent {see: The Thirty Years War for a brutal example}.

Which leads to a fundamental question that should concern all Christians: How do we define what is disputable/debatable and what is not?  Striving for agreement on what is "essential" to our faith is helpful, but not nearly enough as we might disagree strongly about what ought to be on that list, an outside arbiter is necessary to help Christians keep their disputes in perspective.  The primary answer is rather simple in the abstract although often difficult in practice: The adiaphora are those things which are "neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God" (as the 1577 Formula of Concord puts it).  If the Word of God commands that we do something, it cannot be a matter of conscience for a Christian to choose to obey, we must do so.  If the Word of God forbids an action/attitude, it also cannot be a matter of conscience for a Christian to fail to obey, we must do so.  For example, does the Bible teach about marriage, divorce, extra-marital sex, or homosexual behavior?  It does indeed, in many places.  Therefore it is not for the Church, nor for individual Christians to choose whether or not they wish to obey in these areas, it is a matter of faithfulness to God, a requirement of discipleship.  Does the Bible teach about voting, Bible translations, music choices in worship, art/statues in our worship spaces, the viewing of movies/TV, or social media?  It does not, not directly.  Therefore it is incumbent upon the Church, and individual Christians, to apply Biblical principles (i.e among others: respect for Truth, the pursuit of purity, the Fruit of the Spirit) in these areas, following the example of Jesus and seeking the will of God as best we can in accordance with our God-given wisdom, our conscience, and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  

In the end, our list of essential ought to be shorter than our list of that which is disputable/debatable.  The core of Christianity we ought to be able to list on one piece of paper, and is not open to debate (although many have tried, historically and today as well).  At the same time, we ought to view each other with love and charity regarding those things about which we disagree which are not essential to our faith.

Treat fellow Christians with whom you disagree with love and charity?  Won't that shock the world.  What an amazing opportunity to show the Lost the transforming power of the Holy Spirit at work among the people of God.

What is your authority? A historical parallel to the Protestant - Catholic/Orthodox divide

I love the way teaching my two Bible studies each week sometimes causes new ideas or connections to pop into my head in the middle of trying to explain a particular text of Scripture.  That phenomenon happened today allowing me to see for the first time what I think is a useful analogy for understanding the divide between Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox Christians over the issue of authority.

In the first century, Jesus confronted two of the groups of religious leaders within Judaism who had radically different approaches to the way in which they defined authority: The Sadducees and the Pharisees.  The Sadducees believed in the authority of the written text of Scripture alone (minus any oral tradition) and preferred to focus upon the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) within the Tanakh (the 24 books of the Hebrew Scriptures).  The Pharisees, by contrast, accepted the authority of the Tanakh and also that of the Talmud and Midrash (the many generations worth of rabbinic commentary upon, and interpretation of, the Tanakh).

Is the parallel obvious yet?  Protestantism was founded upon the principle of Sola Scriptura (along with Sola Fide and Sola Gratia, "Faith alone" and "Grace alone"), that is the idea that Christian theology must rest solely upon the Scriptures themselves.  The Catholic and Orthodox traditions accept the authority of Scripture, but in conjunction with the teachings developed over time by the Church (through the various councils, synods, etc.)

Is it any wonder that Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox Christians have a hard time finding agreement upon a host of issues?  If the authority to which we must appeal is not the same, how can the answers derived from it be consistent?

That we have a different viewpoint of authority is no new observation, Martin Luther himself realized five hundred years ago that he was rejecting the authority of the Church in favor of that of Scripture alone.  I'm sure somebody has previously noticed the parallel between the Sadducees/Protestants and Pharisees/Catholic/Orthodox in the realm of authority, but the connection was new to my brain today, so I thought I'd share it.

Just as a reminder, Jesus had plenty of criticism for both the Sadducees and the Pharisees, something to keep in mind when we're tempted to climb up onto a high horse.  Both groups appealed to a different authority, and both were wrong in their conclusions/attitudes, both were in need of reform to reclaim the heart which God requires of his people.

Where society leads, should the Church follow?

** Disclaimer **  This post is not about politics (none of mine are), so please don't project this into that realm.  All human beings deserve equal rights and equal protection under the law, what "equal" means and whether or not a particular situation is "equal" is a healthy debate for a free society, but not my intention here.  America is not a theocracy, nor would I wish it to be.  My job, as a pastor, is to shepherd my local church, and beyond that to help the universal Church in any way that I can. `


What is the relationship between the Church and the societies in which it operates?  Are we friends, competitors, enemies?  The answer isn't black and white, at times the Church and society can work together, at times the Church is competing with society, and at times society can be an enemy of the Church.  How do we know what the stance of the Church should be on issues of morality, and how do we know when the Church should defy society on an issue, even at its own peril?

Islam is a reflection of 7th Century Arab culture, it champions what that culture championed and rejects what that culture rejects.  Judaism and Christianity are different, however.  When it was given, the Law of Moses was a unique set of moral principles, one that did not simply reflect the society in which it was given, but transcended it.  Over the following 1,500 years, the authors of the various portions of the Bible interacted with that Law and sought to apply it to their time and place.  The New Testament writers, and the Early Church fathers, did not seek to undo the Law of Moses, but to fulfill it under the New Covenant.  Throughout its 2,000 year history, the Church has been both a minority in society, and the overwhelming majority, at odds with culture, and also at times the creator of culture.  The one constant throughout this combined 3,500 year history has been the authority of the Scriptures.  Neither the people of Israel, nor the Church, have been given the power to challenge that authority, nor to supersede it.  Why?  Culture is always changing, what once was shunned is now celebrated, and vice versa, why doesn't the Church change with it?  To answer that question, one needs to understand where the Scripture came from.

We call the Bible the Word of God for a reason.  Paul declared that the Scriptures were "God-breathed", Peter added that its authors wrote as they were "carried along by the Holy Spirit."  In other words, it is not the product of the mind of man, but of God.  As such, we cannot, even should we wish to, usurp its authority or declare its commands and principles null and void.

Modern Western society celebrates materialism, the Bible warns of the dangers of riches, many times, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against materialism.  It is not a question of what we want, or what we would prefer, but what God has commanded.  Society celebrates fame and pride, the Bible champions humility, and warns of the dangers of pride, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against the dangers of pride.  Society celebrates unfettered sexual expression, and an attitude of self-indulgence, the Bible champions self-restraint and self-control as well as purity, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against the dangers of self-indulgent sexuality in all its forms.

Jesus called his followers to be salt and light in the world, Saint Augustine wrote that the people of God are to be a "city upon a hill".    When society is wrong about morality, the Church needs to stand in contrast, it isn't our preference that matters, but God's Word.  It is unlikely that proclaiming the virtues of self-control and humility, regarding wealth, fame, or sexuality will be popular, but popularity is not our standard for morality.

I would love every church on Sunday morning to be bursting at the seems, full of people who have repented, been forgiven, and now are celebrating the love of God, but it would be the death of the Church if we sought to fill the pews by rejecting the authority of the Bible in favor of societal norms.  A church without the authority of the Bible, even if it is full of people, is on a path of spiritual oblivion.  We are the heirs of 3,500 years of God's work among his people, we cannot be the generation which abandons that legacy in order to be popular.

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. 

How do I know what to believe? Intervarsity, Human Sexuality, and the authority of Scripture

There isn't an issue more talked (argued) about in recent American culture than human sexuality.  Many in our culture have arrived at conclusions that in previous generations would have been considered very radical.  It is one thing for non-believers, i.e. the Lost, to change their beliefs, this is to be expected as human wisdom changes over time.  It is quite another for a Christian, a self-acknowledged disciple of Jesus Christ, to change what he/she believes about an issue of moral significance.  That this has happened, for many Christians, raises an important question: On what basis is the change in moral understanding being made?
For Christians, the answer should only be: Because that is what we understand the Word of God to be teaching.  It is entirely possible for Christians to come to a new understanding of Holy Scripture, for better or worse, Church history is full of examples of both.  What is not acceptable is for a Christians to arrive at a moral position in opposition to the teachings of Scripture, or without concern for what Scripture teaches.  In other words, a moral understanding based upon emotion, feelings, logic, philosophy, science, or any other basis that circumvents or ignores the revelation of Scripture is an act of rebellion against the authority of God.
This devotion to the teachings of Scripture applies in every moral question and controversy, not just human sexuality, from the Christian attitude to war, to gambling and alcoholism and everything else.  What is important, is the attitude of submission to the revealed will of God.  If we lack that willingness to submit, we will find a way to ignore the teachings of Scripture.
Recently Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, the largest evangelical Christian organization on college campuses with chapters at 667 colleges and 1,300 staff members, released a position paper entitled, A Theological Summary of Human Sexuality.  In light of the moral position that Intervarsity is taking on such an issue of significance, the organization has asked its employees to voluntarily quit their jobs if they are unable to accept it and live by it.  This is the same commitment to an organization's mission and statement of faith expected of employees at Christian colleges, charities, and churches throughout the world.  In other words, it would be no news at all if not for the current debate ongoing in America on the issue of human sexuality.
What is more important, over the long-haul, than the particular conclusions of those who put together Intervarsity's statement, is the way in which they came to those conclusions.  The statement itself is full of references to Scripture that demonstrate a desire to be obedient to the original intention of the text and the Church's understanding of the text throughout its history, as well as a desire to follow the whole council of God and not cherry pick it.  Putting references into a statement regarding a moral position does not make one necessarily right, we all know the danger of proof-texting, but it illustrates that Intervarsity's motivation in this endeavor was to be ruled by the authority of Scripture.  This is, and must be, the way in which individual Christians, Christian organizations, and the Church itself operates.  If we ever deviate from this path, and for those who already have, the consequences we will face will be the judgment of God against us for putting our own will above that of God as revealed in holy Scripture.  For those who do not value the authority of Scripture, what I am saying is a moot point, but it has been the belief of the Church, since the beginning, including that of Jesus himself throughout the Gospels, that the Word of God is binding upon us.
Intervarsity will likely receive much negative press for their decision, and will also likely be kicked off some college campuses in an ironic appeal to tolerance.  Whether one agrees with the conclusions reached by Intervarsity or not, whether one agrees with their decision regarding their staff members in light of those conclusions or not, the most important thing in this whole episode will be that a Christian organization decided to follow Scripture, after much study and contemplation of it, instead of the culture in which they operate.  For the Church, this is the path forward, this is how we act as salt and light in our world, by being steadfast in our commitment to let the Word of God rule in our hearts in all things.

Why did they go astray? Why the authority of the Bible is crucial.

After learning of the struggles in the United Church of Canada about defrocking a self-proclaimed Atheist minister named Gretta Vosper, those unfamiliar with this denomination (like myself, an American) were probably left wondering, how did they ever get to a place where a minister could openly denounce belief in God without being thrown out by his/her own congregation, let alone the denomination?  In its article on her "coming out" as an Atheist, the Toronto Star provided the answer: "In her sermons each Sunday, Vosper spoke openly about how she did not believe the Bible was “the authoritative word of God for all time” — a conviction she’d held long before her ordination, and one that is not uncommon among United Church of Canada clergy."  To Vosper, the Bible had long since become secondary.
If the authority of the Scripture is laid aside, if it becomes the words of men instead of the Word of God, there is nothing left to build upon, sooner or later, the whole edifice of the Church will come crashing down.  It is evidently not uncommon for a UCC pastor to view the Bible as optional, a position that Vosper learned, horrifyingly enough, in seminary.  There is no doubt that a similar story could be told about several American denominations, we have the same problem of abandoning the Bible here as well.
For those who don't understand all the hub-up about Andy Stanley's recent comments that we need to downplay the Bible and instead emphasize Jesus, it is the mess like the one the UCC finds itself in that frightens those who have taken umbridge with Stanley.  Andy Stanley has since responded that, “the Bible is without error in everything it affirms” and that he “believe[s] what the Bible says is true, is true,”  Where Andy Stanley was hoping to go with his message, and where those critical of that message were afraid his idea would lead, are not one and the same, but one would hope that both his supporters and his detractors can see why such comments aroused the response that they did.  
As a Church, and for myself as one of its many pastors, we must always be on our guard against the devaluation of the authority of Scripture, it is the Rubicon that we cannot ever cross.  Once that river is crossed, nothing is out of bounds, nothing is essential, Christianity without the infallible Word of God is Christianity in name only.

Sermon Video: Do what the Word says - James 1:22-25

We have all experienced the distinction between listening and hearing.  Parents and wives of husbands watching football are familiar with this phenomenon.  How do we know if somebody is actually hearing what has been communicated to them?  For James, regarding the Word of God, the answer is simple: those who hear are those who obey.  If we don't do what God's Word tells us to do, our knowledge is merely self-deception.  We must be a people who live in obedience to God.
Humanity has a tremendous capacity for self-denial and refusal to accept even patently obvious truths in our willful stubbornness.  However, as Christians, we cannot put our will above that of God.  When we walked in darkness we were incapable of obedience to God, our sin nature enslaved us, but now that we've been transformed by the Holy Spirit, not only is our obedience possible, it is necessary.
In the end, our own will is not freedom, it is merely slavery to sin, and obeying God may be self-denial, but it is also self-fulfillment, for in obedience to God do we find freedom and a life of purpose.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Is it right in God's sight? - Acts 4:13-22

After having been detained by the Sanhedrin following the healing of a man born lame, Peter and John as told that they may no longer preach anything about Jesus.  This decision is reached by those in authority despite the obvious miracle of the man standing before them.  In response, Peter asks if it is right to obey men or God.  The disciples cannot stop preach the Gospel, nor will they.  At this point the religious leadership lets them go despite their desire to further punish Peter and John because of the fear they have of the people (who are amazed at the miracle).  How do we know if we should disobey an unjust law or corrupt regime?  In the end, Jesus is our example, in this as in all else.

To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video