After the politics, will you listen?

After you vote today, after the cheering or cursing that will come tonight when the results are known, after the gloating or seeking of blame, will there be an opportunity for the Church to speak Truth and be heard before the partisan passions close people's hearts and minds ahead of the next election?  I know that in the modern American political system that campaigning never ends, that spin is ceaseless, and strategic planning a constant, but perhaps, if the LORD gives us this grace, we might take a step back, turn down the volume of rhetoric and vitriol we're listening to, and open ourselves up to the Word of God that it might speak to us.
What would happen if the people of God viewed the political realm through a Biblical lens instead of viewing the Bible/Church/Gospel through a political lens?  What would change in the Church (and individual Christians) if the world we live in, its problems, and our attempts to "solve" them, were seen through the mind of Christ?  Can you imagine a Church devoid of the need for wealth and power, and instead wholly focused upon holiness, righteousness, and servant-hood?  At present, as is typical in Church history, there are pockets of believers living their lives with Christ at the center, as obediently following the Word of God as their imperfect minds and still present sinful natures allow (As always, by God' s grace and through the power of the Holy Spirit).  There are also, however, once more in typical Church history pattern, those within the Church (whether they truly belong to Christ or not) who have chosen instead to live according to the rules of the kingdom of man instead of the kingdom of God.  They retain a lust for power not acknowledging that our Lord and Savior sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven with unassailable glory and might, and it has corrupted them (us).
What would happen if the Church listened to God, not just some of us, and not just superficially, but most of us, and with all of our fiber and being?  I pray that God will be this gracious to us, will allow us a chance to mend our ways and seek him faithfully, and perhaps he will, but it also seems clear to me that as long as the Church is using politics to interpret the will of God, we won't hear the Word of the LORD when it speaks to us.

Philippians 2:5-8 New International Version (NIV)
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

1 John 2:16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.

This blog was "blacklisted" by Facebook, here is my response.

As some of you may have heard, my blog (a link to which I cannot provide here for reasons that will become clear shortly) was "blacklisted" by Facebook's automated system on Wednesday of this week " because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive." Well, at least that's the error message I'm getting, since there are no actual human beings at FB to help with such issues, I'll never know who objected to my blog posts (shared on FB), how many people objected, which post(s) they objected to, nor what about my posts bothered them so much...

So let me muse about what it might be. Some things are relatively easy to ascertain...

1. It isn't about politics, at least it shouldn't be. The only comments I've made in the past 7 years about politics are responses when politicians, pundits, etc. have invoked the Bible, have claimed to be representing Christian morals/principles. As a pastor, I have both the education and the obligation to defend the Christian worldview against those who would bend and twist it to satisfy their own lust for power. If taking the stand that Christians should not trade their souls for temporal power has offended some Christians, I refer such feelings to the one who commanded them to devote themselves to Him alone.

2. It isn't because I've insulted people, which I haven't. It isn't because I've bullied anyone, haven't done that either. The only times I've named individuals in my blog posts have been when I'm quoting them. Many of those being quoted are long dead (like Machiavelli, I was hard on his this week, but since he died in 1527, I don't think it was him), or else are public figures who have made their opinions known (Bart Ehrman, James White, Andy Stanley, Pope Francis, etc.) in topics directly related to Christianity. Even when I've disagreed, strongly, with these individuals (Bart Ehrman for example), I've done by best to quote them in context, to represent their views fairly, and to explain why I disagree (when I do) with their statement/idea/belief without resorting to name calling, mocking, or hysterics.

3. It isn't because I revel in hot-button topics. Go ahead, visit my blog, look at the topic list on the right...I'll pause, since there is not direct link, it might take a second...In about 8 years, I've written about homosexuality 8 times (Gay marriage and gay rights brings the total to 14), I've written about Islam 16 times, sex/sexuality a total of 28 times...compare that to: The Gospel, 95 times, the Church, 121 times, poverty 38 times, prayer 35, Jesus 138 times, The will of God 84 times, forgiveness 42, faith 83, I think you get the point. I write about what my congregation needs to be thinking about, what I encounter in my pastoral work, the issues that face our community of Franklin, and the wider issues affecting the Church as a whole. I don't choose things to be "click bait", I don't say things I don't truly believe just to rile people up, and I don't make statement that aren't backed up by Scripture (to the best of my understanding and ability).

So, in light of this little introspection, what am I going to keep doing?

Will I continue to call upon Christians to live like Christ, and point out the hypocrisies and failures of the people of God when we do not? Yep.

Will I continue to reject the siren's call of power, wealth, and fame which have so infected so many claiming the name of Christ in America? Yep.

Will I continue to advocate for the poor, the downtrodden, the refugees, homeless, despised and rejected of society? Yep.

Will I continue to call for ecumenism within the Church and for adherence to the Gospel's call of universal Truth and application to people of every tribe, nation, and language? Yep.

The truth of the matter is that I have no idea who objects to views or why. I doesn't really matter, I've been called by God, ordained by his Church, chosen to shepherd this particular local church here in Franklin, and dedicated my life to the cause of Kingdom of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the living out of the Fruit of the Spirit. My course is set, my life is not my own, I was bought with a price, the precious blood of the lamb.

Facebook has been a help to getting people to see my blog posts, and working around the blocking of my site will be annoying for as long as it lasts, but I'm not changing a bit. Not because of pride, nor stubbornness, but because I've always approached the words I speak and the words I type with gravity, and so I will quote the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms (without any pretense to my situation being at all of the gravity of his)..."Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."

How should Christians feel about refugees?

There are few topics as explosive in the West today as that of illegal immigration and refugees.  Fear of immigrants (legal or otherwise) is certainly not new, one need only recall the "no Irish need apply" signs during the period in American history when immigration from Ireland was relatively high.



The desire to keep those defined as the "other" (whether due to religion, ethnicity, or race) from "invading" one's own land is as old as human history, and also unlikely to end anytime soon.  In light of the lowering of the refugee quotas for the United States in 2019 to 30,000, the lowest amount since 1980 (the actual number admitted could be far lower than that), the question arises, how should Christian Americans feel about refugees?  Note that our brothers and sisters in Europe and around the world face the same questions, and bear the same responsibility to bend their own thoughts/attitudes to the mind of Christ.

Washington Post 9/17/18: U.S. slashes the number of refugees it will allow into the country

The Church today is the sequel (for want of a universally accepted term) to Israel.  The LORD made a covenant with Abraham regarding his literal descendants, but also promised Abraham that all nations would be blessed through him, a promise kept through the advent of the Messiah.  Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures the idea of protecting those whom society might otherwise oppress is repeated many times by multiple authors in a variety of settings.  The Word of God mandates protections for aliens, widows, orphans, and the oppressed in general.  While the Church has not inherited every element of the covenant with Abraham/Moses/David (such as circumcision, the kosher laws, or the Sabbath), we are heirs to the moral code that underlines it, for that moral code was derived from the character of God himself, and since God does not change, neither does right and wrong.

It is unacceptable for Christians, living in any land, to treat those from other lands as less-worthy of the love of God.  We do not believe that there was anything special about ourselves which led to our inclusion within the people of God, it was an act of God's grace, and therefore we do not look at any person or people as beyond the reach of God's grace, and thus all people are in a real and tangible way our responsibility if they need help and we can provide it.  The principle is beautifully illustrated by Jesus in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, in which the hero of the tale is a hated Samaritan, while those refusing to help are considered pillars of the Jewish community.

If Christians allow the siren's call of Nationalism to blind them to their responsibility as the people of God to be a balm to those in need and representatives of the love of God here on earth, they will answer to God for that failure.  If Christians join in and heap condemnation on those seeking succor, treating them as less worthy of God's love, and shutting the door literally or figuratively in their faces, they will answer for that as well.

Is the refugee in question white like me?  That doesn't matter at all, and if you even care about the answer you're not thinking like Christ.  Is the refugee a fellow Christian like me?  If so, my obligation is even greater, if not, my obligation remains and must be fulfilled.  There are ways to rationalize away the call of those in need, political and economic reasons why their cries should be ignored, but they're not Christ-centered reasons, and while they may garner votes for politicians, they won't do you any good when you stand before a Holy God and need to explain the hardness of your heart.

Below is a selection of the array of references in the Scriptures on this topic, see for yourself, this is just the tip of the iceberg:

Exodus 22:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

 Psalm 9:9 New International Version (NIV)
9 The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed,
    a stronghold in times of trouble.

Psalm 146:7-9 New International Version (NIV)
7 He upholds the cause of the oppressed
    and gives food to the hungry.
The Lord sets prisoners free,
8     the Lord gives sight to the blind,
the Lord lifts up those who are bowed down,
    the Lord loves the righteous.
9 The Lord watches over the foreigner
    and sustains the fatherless and the widow,
    but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.

Isaiah 58:10 New International Version (NIV)
10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
    and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
    and your night will become like the noonday.

Luke 4:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
    and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,

Sermon Video: Debatable Matters Part 3 - 1 Corinthians 8:9-13

There is a tension that exists between the assertion of individual rights and the obligations those same individuals have to other people.  That tension exists regularly within modern society, especially in the United States, but it is far more acute within the Church.  As disciples of Jesus Christ, we have been called to a life of service and self-sacrifice on behalf of both our brothers and sisters in Christ and the Lost to whom we are obligated to share the Gospel in love.
Paul understood this tension as he wrote to the Christians at the church in Corinth that although they were free to eat meat that had been offered to idols, for in reality idols are nothing for there is only one God, yet those same Christians needed to "be careful" lest the exercising of their freedom might inadvertently lead to the temptation to sin on the part of fellow Christians who did not posses the same level of knowledge.  It is Paul's contention, and thus our command from Holy Scripture, that as Christians we must be willing to sacrifice our individual rights, even if the action is in no way a sin for us, if it will be an example that leads others into sin, it will then become a sin for us.  The action itself doesn't go from being a matter of freedom to being a sinful choice, it is the action toward our fellow Christians, influencing them toward temptation (for them) that makes it a sinful choice for us.  I know that's somewhat complicated, here's it in a nutshell: If an action is ok for me, but not ok for a fellow Christian, and my doing that action might lead him/her into temptation, I am obligated to abstain for their sake.  Our obligations outweigh our rights, love must triumph over freedom.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The Narcissism of Nationalism is spreading

Much is being made, globally, of the rise once again of nationalism after a lull following the end of the Cold War.  "America First" is a cry being echoed, in altered form of course, in England, France, Germany, and a host of other countries.  The sense that we're in this together is being challenged by the cry of every man for himself.  An example of this tendency in action is the ongoing controversy in Gdansk, Poland regarding the WWII museum set to open next month.  This museum was designed years ago to focus upon the civilian suffering, worldwide, that WWII caused.  Nationalist Polish politicians, however, want this global focus scrapped in favor of a museum that focuses on the heroics of the Polish army and resistance.  Instead of a museum that reveals the horrors of nationalist wars, they would have a museum that glories in the futile effort of the Poles to withstand the Nazis and Soviets at the same time.  The second museum isn't a bad idea, per se, the story of what happened in Poland during WWII, to Jews and Poles alike, needs to be told, but the rationale behind the animosity toward the original idea is a telling example of why nationalism can never be compatible with Christianity.  The foundation of nationalism is the belief that our people are worth more than their people.  It is a clear "us" vs. "them" mentality that ultimately devalues the lives of people living beyond our borders.  Those wanting to change the museum in Gdansk believe that Polish lives today, and the tragedy of lost Polish lives in WWII, carry more value than those of people elsewhere.  The ideology of the Nazis is simply this idea taken to its extreme form.
The Christian must reject the claim of nationalism that his life, or the life of people like him, have a greater value than those of a person who happened to be born elsewhere.  Paul makes the Christian ideal of equality clear in Galatians 3:28 when he writes, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all on in Christ Jesus."  Our ancestors failed to heed this command in the word of God, and willingly marched off to war, generation after generation, to seek national aggrandizement at the expense of their neighbors.  Humanity ought to have learned the horror of going down this road before, WWI and WWII should have been enough of a lesson, but humanity doesn't change, and one generation's call to "never forget" fades into the background as demagogues of a new generation seek power through nationalist grievances.  It may be inevitable that nationalist forces claim supremacy for "us" over "them", but Christians, those who take seriously the Word of God, must reject this call, always.

The "lesser of two evils", an anti-Biblical viewpoint

Much has been said of late about the desire to choose between the "lesser of two evils".  These two choices being discussed by many self-declared Christians are both acknowledged to be "evil" to one degree or another.  Which raises the question: Is it Biblical to choose between the lesser of two evils?  Why do I ask if it is Biblical?  Because this is the only standard by which we, as Christians, have been commanded to order our worldview.  Thus if something is anti-Biblical, it is by necessity anti-Christian.  A person may disagree with an assessment that both choices that are being considered are indeed "evil", but once that assessment has been made without self-interested excuses in the way, it is incumbent upon the Christian to refuse to choose either.  The lesser of two evils is still evil.  Nowhere in the Scriptures are we commanded, encouraged, or even permitted to choose evil.  God's Word to us is rather this, "Be holy, for I am holy."
The philosophy behind the "lesser of two evils" mentality is Pragmatism, otherwise known as Utilitarianism.  While this may be an exceedingly popular way of governing in the world today and throughout human history, the common usage of pragmatism in moral decision making in no way makes it Christian.
Let me offer some examples from recent American history, beginning with WWII, to illustrate decisions that were made with a "lesser of two evils" viewpoint.  Again, a person may disagree with one of these examples, thinking that in these difficult situations that it can be excused and not called an "evil", but the consequences of these actions weigh against that conclusion. (1) The appeasement of Hitler prior to WWII, putting off the confrontation until Germany was far stronger and making the Holocaust a possibility. (2) The alliance with Soviet Russia, and evil regime if ever there was one, during WWII, which led to 70 years of Communist domination of Eastern Europe. (3) The fire bombing of German and Japanese cities during WWII, which caused hundreds of thousands of non-combatant deaths and failed to shorten the war at great cost in material and lives on the Allied side. (4) The use of the atomic bomb on two cities to end WWII. (5) The failure to prosecute fully Nazi war crimes because those same Nazis were useful for the West in the Cold War. (6) Alliances made with brutal dictators all over Africa, Latin America, and Asia during the Cold War because they were anti-communist.  (7) Support of the Shah of Iran, leading to the revolution which set the groundwork for the anit-Western obsession of Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorism plaguing the world today. (8) Involvement in Vietnam to stop the "domino effect" of communist expansion. (9) Leaving Saddam Hussein in power in 1991, and then coming back twenty years later to remove him. (10) The U.S. government allowing and/or encouraging torture following 9/11.
The list could be longer, I could keep listing pragmatic decisions by world leaders throughout history, many of which led to more evil, not less.  These leaders may have thought that they had no choice, or that the choices before them were only evil, but such thinking will not stand up before a holy and just God's scrutiny.
For Christians, it is tempting to excuse immoral behavior by saying that the only choices available are bad ones, therefore we must choose one of them.  For all those who choose to embrace an evil choice, remember this, you will answer for all of your decisions in life, and the attitudes that led you to make those choices, while standing before Almighty God.  Far too often, Christians have embraced pragmatic morality in their pursuit of wealth, fame, and power, this has to stop.  It is time for the Church, for Christian organizations, and for individual Christians to disavow pragmatic morality.  We have been called to live holy and righteous lives, we will be judged for how we live, for we are Christ's ambassadors here on earth, our Savior never chose the "lesser of two evils".


Romans 3:8  Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!
- The context is about sinning so that God's holiness can be more clearly seen, yet Paul's emphatic reply should be warning enough against attempting to justify an evil choice on the hope that good will come of it.

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.

Sermon Video: A Jealous God? - James 4:4-6

James, like John and Paul, warns of the danger of "friendship with the world".  The question, of course, is what does this mean?  Instead of reading into the text our own beliefs about the subject (which would be the error of interpretation called eisegesis), we need to allow the text to speak for itself, seeking out the original meaning of the author and the original understanding of the audience/reader (the correct mode of interpretation, exegesis).  Therefore, any definition of "the world" which relies  upon modern concepts like an anti-technology explanation or one concerning democracy or capitalism, is certainly an anachronism that would have been unintelligible to both James and his readers.  This same concept is important in all areas of Biblical interpretation.  In order to honor God's word and show it respect, we need to seek the plain meaning of the text first.  Once we have ascertained what the text meant then, we can seek to understand how we ought to apply the text now.
So, what is "the world"?  In the context of James, the world is everything which is opposed to God, all that carry someone away from God.  James gives plenty of example of the types of behavior that we need to avoid, beginning in chapter two, and when we combine that contextual understanding with an overall sense of what Scripture as a whole requires of us, it becomes clear that "loving the world" equals disobedience to the commands of God.
We, as followers of Jesus Christ, cannot afford to be dual-minded, we cannot serve to masters, the choice before us is simple: Love God or love the world.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Politics and Dangerous Assumptions

Presuppositions can be dangerous.  We all have them, they’re the foundational ideas that we hold, often without even being aware of them, that underpin our beliefs and belief systems.  There is a presupposition that was once assumed in the American political landscape, even if our nation didn’t always live up to its lofty ideal, yet now it is being directly challenged.  You ought, I hope, to recognize this presupposition, it is after all something we hold to be self-evident: all men are created equal.  The belief in the equality of humanity is directly connected to the belief in God who created mankind.  Because God made us all, we must therefore be equal.  How could any race or nation be valued more, and more importantly, how could any be valued less, if all were alike created by God?  And yet, this idea is under assault in the political discourse today.  It isn’t being directly stated as such, but the assumption that American lives are worth more than non-American lives underpins many of the issues as they are being discussed today, from refugees and immigration, to trade agreements and foreign policy.  It may seem natural for an American politician to value American lives more, after all a Roman politician would have valued the lives of Roman citizens far above those of non-citizens, let alone the “barbarians” beyond the Empire’s borders, but if those same politicians are claiming to be themselves Christians, and are claiming to represent Christians, it must be pointed out that their belief system is built upon an idea that is anti-Christian.  The idea that God’s people don’t have to care about the lives of Syrians, Mexicans, the Chinese, Muslims, or any other group, is a grave insult to the cross upon which Christ died to offer salvation to the world.  That some of those being labeled in political discourse as the “them” that “we” don’t have to care about (and can even hate), are in fact our fellow Christian brothers and sisters, is a grave sin.  If those claiming the name of Christ don’t have love for their fellow Christians, how can the love of God be in them? (I John 3:16-17) Likewise, those of the “other” who are not Christians fall into the second category of people, for in the Christian mind there can be only two, the Redeemed and the Lost.  How should we treat the Lost?  If we treat them with disdain, if we dismiss them, revile them, hate them, how can we possibly share the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with them?

Are you a Christian?  Do you care about those living in abject poverty around the world, or is American prosperity more important to you than their suffering?  Do you care about the rights of people who don’t look or think like you?  If you let a politician sell you on the idea that you must choose “us” over “them”, you are walking away from the call of the Son of God to share the love of God.  Politicians love to have villains, it is an age old tactic to make the foreigner the enemy, but it is not, nor can it be, a Christian one, for it was our king who said, “Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you”, and “take up your cross and follow me.”  There isn’t any room near the cross for the politics of division and hatred.

In Defense of Morality: The War on Terror and Strategic Bombing in WWII

It is rare, sadly, to find someone interested in what the perspective of history has to teach us about current events, politicians seem particularly oblivious to this need.  That being said, the bombing of German and Japanese cities during WWII as part of the Strategic Bombing campaign carried out by the British and American air forces offers us a much needed dose of morality regarding Western Civilization's (and these days, seemingly civilization in general) now fifteen years of actively fighting against those who would utilize terrorism for political/religious ends.  Early on in the British attempt to bring the fighting to Germany after having evacuated the continent at Dunkirk, it was discovered that attempts to selectively hit targets such as factories producing munitions and armaments had failed miserably, as "Less than one-third of its bombers were dropping their loads within five miles of the specific industrial targets they were attacking." (from Williamson Murray, "Did Strategic Bombing Work?").  Failing to destroy the intended targets was compounded by the horrendous costs to the bomber crews paid to achieve such paltry results.  Having failed to selectively target legitimate war-related targets, Bomber Command switched to "area bombing" hoping to "dehouse" the Germany urban population and break the morale of the Nazis by killing non-combatants because hitting the center of a city with firebombs is a much easier task that would certainly produce "results".  Until the end of WWII, this policy was continued, with the Americans eventually attempting their own strategic bombing campaign and eventually joining in with the British to wipe German cities off the map (with the corresponding effort in the Pacific to demolish Japanese cities).  Despite the horrific loss of life, hundreds of thousands of non-combatant men, women, and children killed, the will of the Germans and the Japanese to fight on never wavered.
In his essay on the effectiveness of the Strategic Bombing campaign in WWII, historian Williamson Murray wrote, "World War II was a matter of national survival, a war waged against a tyranny that represented a hideous moral and strategic danger.  Consequently, any judgment on the Combined Bomber Offensive must rest on the grounds of expediency rather than on those of morality."  In that essay, Murray seeks to establish that the bombing campaign was indeed effective in helping shorten WWII, but the vast majority of the evidence he presents revolves around actual strategic bombing of transportation networks and military targets (which was effective) rather than the indiscriminate destruction of cities (which was not).  Why did the Allies target cities?  Because they felt the need to do something, and this was what they could actually do.  Plus, there was also the desire to punish the German and Japanese people for the actions of their political leadership and military, and the unspoken belief that the lives lost in the bombing campaign were a part of the cost of winning the war, thankfully, being paid by the other side.
How do we evaluate Williamson's claim, and what does this have to do with terrorism?  The claim that any national emergency can set aside morality as the judge of our actions, and WWII was certainly a serious existential threat that is not in dispute, must still be categorically rejected by a Christian worldview.  If we can abandon the principles by which we seek to imitate Christ when our lives or even our civilization is threatened, of what value are those principles?  It is when we are being threatened or oppressed, as individuals, as a Church, and as a nation, that our feet should be most firmly planted on the solid rock of Christ.  If we instead call a "timeout", wage war by any means necessary to protect ourselves, and then seek to put the genie in the bottle again afterwards, we will instead only discover that we ourselves have changed in the process of defeating our foe, and not for the better.  I don't doubt for a moment the valor and service of the men who flew the bombers over Germany and Japan in WWII, but I cannot accept the defense of the strategy that sent them there to firebomb cities as being "necessary" at the time.  Necessity may be the mother of invention, but it is also the author of immoral behavior.
The War on Terror that started, for most of our awareness of it at least, with the horror of 9/11 and the deaths of so many innocent people, cannot be allowed to devolve until we are little better in our actions than those we are seeking to destroy.  We have already made mistakes and taken steps in that direction, the fact that politicians and talking heads debated whether or not torture should be one of the tools of our forces tells us as much.  The shame of Abu Ghraib is another example, along with the ongoing secret targeting of threats with drone strikes, suggestions that we can solve the ISIS problem by "carpet bombing" Syria, and now the ludicrous suggestion by one political candidate that Muslims be banned from entering the United States.
Terrorism is not nearly the threat to Western Civilization that the fascism of the Nazis and Japanese was.  Terrorism also is not nearly the threat to Western Civilization that Communism once was.  Terrorism is psychologically disturbing, creating fear that never seems to dissipate, but all the world's terrorists and would-be terrorists have a comparatively tiny amount of power versus the threats that have already been defeated in the modern era.  It would be a strategic mistake, and certainly an ethical one, if we allowed terrorism to change who we are, if we abandoned our optimism and desire to help those in need because of fear.
The morality taught to us by Jesus Christ is not an optional morality.  We cannot put it on when useful and take it off when it gets uncomfortable.  We must live, regardless of the threats against us, as disciples of Jesus Christ, the last thing we need to do is to start targeting the innocent alongside the guilty.

Why Christians cannot claim all Muslims are the same

On a recent podcast, James White, author and debater on a variety of Christian topics, explained why it is not only dangerous, but ultimately sinful for a Christian to paint all Muslims with a broad stroke as terrorists.  It has been popular in some circles to claim that all Muslim are interested in Jihad, that a global caliphate achieved by violence is inherent to all Muslims.  Rather than argue about the nature of Islam, let us instead focus upon our responsibility as Christians to witness to the Gospel.  Why can't Christians dismiss all Muslims as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers?  The answer is simple: It destroys any hope you may have of sharing the Gospel with a Muslim.  Maybe you don't care, maybe you're so afraid of Islam, or so angry about terrorism that you simply don't care if there are Muslims who are non-militant (which there are).  Well, that's too bad, you don't have the choice to act that way because you have been commanded by Jesus Christ to share the Gospel with the whole world.  We must care for all of the Lost, even those who dislike us or hate us.  We have been called to show compassion to the Lost, we have been called to bear witness to the trans formative power of the Gospel.  This is not optional, to dismiss a type of person or group of people as being beyond the scope of the Gospel is a sin on our part.  It is not acceptable.  The "throw them all out of the country" attitude is not acceptable.  The "kill them all before they kill us" attitude is reprehensible.  We must reject, without reservation, the temptation to make the world an "us" vs. "them" fight; why, because the Gospel requires us to.  Our response as Christians must be that of our Savior, that is our only option.  It is easier to hate, but it is not Christian, not even a little bit.

The video by James White, pertaining to this topic, begins about 44 minutes into the video and runs for the next 5 minutes or so, and then also picks back up about 1:13:30 until around 1:15

James White on the Dividing Line

And this video from James White as well, beginning at about 38:30, with the most clear explanation coming toward the end of the video

James White on the Dividing Line - video #2

** Disclaimer, I don't agree with James White on everything, primarily we would disagree about Ecumenism (esp. regarding Catholicism), but his work on textual issues (i.e KJV only debate and history of the Bible stuff) is top notch, and his views on Islam are both informed and Biblical. **

Sermon Video: Only the foreigner praised God - Luke 17:11-19

On his way to Jerusalem with his Passion drawing nigh, Jesus is confronted by ten men suffering from leprosy who cry out to him for pity.  In response, Jesus sends the men to the priest to be certified as being cleansed, before they are healed.  When they act in faith and begin the journey, all ten of them are healed.  Only one of the ten, however, takes the time to return to Jesus to praise God, and that one was a foreigner, a Samaritan.  This episode is one of many in which Jesus finds greater faith among foreigner than among his own Covenant people.  This phenomenon reinforces his teaching that Paul will later make explicit that with God there are no racial, geographic, or class distinctions.  There is one Lord, he is Lord of all, and all who would approach him must do so alike through grace by faith.
There is thus no room, whatsoever, in the Christian faith for prejudice or racism of any kind.  It is incumbent upon us, as followers of Jesus, to be on the side of the refugees, the aliens, and generally all those who are treated like "them" by "us".  In Christ, distinctions of "us" and "them" become meaningless, for there are only two types of people in the kingdom of God: sinners and redeemed sinners.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Back to the basics, what is a Christian?

All of this time spent during the past week defending the modern Biblical text against KJV Only advocates was necessary, but unfortunate when so much work is needed for the kingdom of God.  With that in mind, let me return to a topic that has been close to my heart for years and about which I wrote a book several years ago:  What defines a Christian?  How do we know if someone is a Christian or not?  The source for these thoughts is exclusively the first letter of the Apostle John, one of my favorite portions of Scripture, during which he repeatedly states this three-pronged thesis in a variety of ways.  The three part standard of John is reflected in fifty-two statements in his letter that will confirm or deny that someone is a genuine follower of Jesus Christ.  Those fifty-two statements are easily placed into three categories: (1) Belief, primarily that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, (2) Love, primarily for fellow Christian brothers and sisters, and (3) Obedience, focused on keeping the commandments of God.
In his letter, John makes 17 statements about belief, 14 statements about love, and 19 statements about obedience.  All three are necessary, to be a Christian, one MUST believe in Christ, one MUST love other Christians, and one MUST become obedient to the commands of God.  None of this is optional, none of this can be excused in the name of some other cause.  In other words, to defend Christ by showing hatred to other Christians cannot be the proper path.  Likewise, compromising any one of the three will endanger our ability to have any real confidence in our own salvation.

For a full examination of this issue, as well as an attempted application of it regarding various groups that hang around the fringes of Christianity like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, please read my book.  And yes, I know the introduction needs to be updated to reflect my work here in PA and our newly arrived bundle of joy; I'll get to that at some point.

Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of I John

Sermon Video: "while we wait for the blessed hope" - Titus 2:13-14

What impact does the knowledge that a Christian has of how the story ends have upon his or her life?  In Titus 2:13-14, Paul continues with the previous two verses' idea of how grace teaches us to act morally by expanding the perspective of our need to be a people who are "eager to do what is good" to include God's overall plan and purpose for ourselves, Christians in general, and the world.  While we learn from grace, we also await the "blessed hope" of the return of Christ in glory.  That knowledge ought to give Christians optimism, encouragement, hope, and instill in us boldness as we know that we are already on the winning side of the future when we are on the side of the king of kings.  We have hope for our own lives, that heaven awaits us beyond the grave, but we also have hope for the world, for Christ will return, not to strive once more in the world, but to reign.  In the meantime, God's plan is to create a people brought together by faith in Christ, a people purchased by his blood and transformed by the Holy Spirit, who will be his instruments for the kingdom of God in this world.  How will we accomplish the plan of God, by being a people who are eager to do what is good.  Our calling is a high one, but we have been equipped for it by the Holy Spirit, and we know that our side cannot lose, more than that, that it is guaranteed to be victorious in the end, for Christ will come again in glory.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video, "rejoice that your names are written in heaven" - Luke 10:17-20

When the seventy-two, sent out by Jesus to prepare the towns and villages for his arrival, return full of joy at their major success, they share with Jesus their enthusiasm that “even the demons submit to us in your name.”  Jesus confirms their success by relating to them that he witnessed the fall of Satan, “like lightning”, and then he goes further by telling them that they will do even greater things for the kingdom because he has given them his authority and power.  With that ability the followers of Jesus, soon to become the Church after Pentecost, are entirely capable of overcoming the forces of darkness and carrying the Gospel’s saving grace to the ends of the earth.  There is much in Jesus words to give us confidence and hope as we continue to be beacons of light in a dark world.

                After building up their enthusiasm and expectation, Jesus ends the conversation by reminding his followers that wielding power in his name, even over the forces of darkness, is not an end in and of itself, but rather an outcome of the foundational work which he is about to accomplish on Good Friday and Easter.  Jesus reminds them that the most important thing is that they can rejoice that their “names are written in heaven.”  If we, as individuals and as a Church, don’t have that, we don’t have anything.  This perspective has major implications for each one of us and for our collective efforts to do fulfill our mission through the ministry of his Church. 

                Is this then a call, by Jesus, to place our focus entirely upon evangelism to the exclusion of service?  Of course not, that would fly in the face of the approach that Jesus himself used as he continually met the physical needs of the people he met in the process of sharing with them the Good News of the Gospel.  This is not a call to divorce evangelism from service, rather it is a reminder that the two must be inextricably linked, because the evangelist who cares not for the people will soon have no audience, and the servant who doesn’t bring the Gospel with him/her will have no message.  In the end, figuring out how we combine service and evangelism in our personal, Church, and para-church efforts will be an ongoing task, but as long as we keep the proper perspective from Jesus that there is only one foundation we can build upon, we will continue to be useful to the kingdom of God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video

Democracy, The Free Press, and Facebook

Something struck me as I was working my way through William Shirer’s massive and insightful “The Collapse of the Third Republic”, which is his accounting through first-hand insight as a newspaper correspondent, and massive research after the fact, of the weaknesses that brought about the quick collapse of France in WWII.  It serves as a companion to the equally massive and equally insightful “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” which he also wrote.  In his account of the chaos and strife that enveloped France from the time period before WWI until their defeat by Germany in WWII, Shirer lays much of the blame for the divisions and hatreds within France upon the invective and clear falsehoods of the publications of both the Left (Communist, Socialist) and the Right (Fascist, Royalist).  The papers were filled with shrill accounts with little basis in reality that stoked fear and pitted Frenchmen against each other as each side envisioned that the other was on the verge of a coup that would destroy the Republic.  The press, and the politicians who were no better, treated each electoral defeat as the end of the world for their side, and vilified the opposition to the extent that mobs took the streets when urged to take matters into their own hands: assassinations, protests that turned violent, and other such drastic measures pushed France further and further down the road that had already destroyed the Weimar Republic in Germany and replaced it with Hitler’s Fascist police state.

                Why all this talk about France almost one hundred years ago, and what does any of this have to do with Facebook?  The reading of history is of course its own reward, a pursuit that enlightens today as it revels to us yesterday.  I saw just this week on Facebook, yet another dubious story about the imminent overthrow of America at the hands of the insidious Islamic revolutionaries who are even now plotting to take over the country and impose Sharia Law.  This latest version, reported by plenty of people on Facebook as if it was a proven fact, is saying that the FBI knows of dozens of terrorist training camps in America, but isn’t taking any action against them.  The story should be, on its surface, so ludicrous that no one would be willing to pass it along, yet there it is on Facebook, shared and re-shared over and over.  Stop and think for a moment; in order for the story to be true, the FBI would have to have sold out their own country, these brave men and women of law enforcement, some of the best patriots in our nation, would not sit by and choose political correctness over their own country.  Certainly there are terrorists out there trying to establish a worldwide Caliphate, but they're not evenly remotely close to doing anything of the sort, they've taken over pieces of a few war torn failed states, they're not a threat to topple the world's most powerful country.  Stories such as this, and there are plenty of other topics equally butchered on Facebook and other online sites by both the Right and the Left, contribute nothing to a democracy but fear, cynicism, division, and hatred.

                The willingness of a population to let their fears cloud their judgment so that they accept what they fear as the truth without questioning it, is not in any way a new facet of democracy.  It has happened before in our own history, at the very beginning, when John Adams, as ardent a patriot as the Founding Fathers ever had, was accused in the press by the opposition of secretly desiring to return America to King George if Adams should win the Presidency.  Ridiculous nonsense, yet willingly spread by those opposed to Adams’ politics and believed by far too many regular people who should have known better.  A similar story could be told of Athens during its glory days, when Alcibiades was convicted in absentia of desecrating the gods and condemned to death; when he heard the news he was in the middle of fighting for his city on foreign soil, a fact that his enemies used against him as he could not defend himself in the courts.  Likewise, the aged war hero and philosopher of Athens, Socrates, was also vilified without factual basis and convicted of corrupting the youth of the city, he too was condemned to death, and unlike Alcibiades, who fled and switched sides to fight for Sparta, Socrates willingly took the hemlock to die as a martyr.

                There are two equally unpalatable explanations as to why ridiculous scare tactics would be utilized by a free press: (1) the people writing these stories know that they’re false, but care so much about their cause, and hate their opposition so much, that they don’t care about the Truth. (2) The people writing such stories believe them to be true because their ideology has clouded their rational minds to the point that everything is seen through that prism.  Neither of those scenarios are a good one.  The first envisions a limitless supply of morally repugnant behavior in the pursuit of an ideal, and the second requires a human mind so blinded by its own convictions that rational thought is not to be found.  When a society is infected with this sort of rancor, both purposeful falsehoods and willing blindness are at work.

                The reason why this diatribe about the portions of the Press (which includes many outlets claiming to be journalism, but falling far from that standard) that are partisan, and the ongoing manifestation of truth-less claims in Facebook arguments, are being included in my blog about the Christian Faith and my life as a Pastor is that I have personally witnessed the negative effects of this on morally upright Christian men and women.  There are people I have known, some for decades, who now only listen to one side of any political story, who now assume that the opposition is full of scoundrels and turn a blind eye to the moral deficits of their own champions, and who seem to have accepted the false premise that the cure for what ails America is to be found at the ballot box, in Congress, the White House, or before the Supreme Court.  This is a false hope, one that will continue to cheat and frustrate those who put their trust in it.  The only true hope for America, for any nation, is to bring about spiritual revival through the local churches, one person saved by the grace of God and transformed at a time.  The time, energy, and passion spent indulging in fears about the future, in listening to and creating salvos about the wickedness of the other side, and in looking for a political savior when only a spiritual one will do, is sadly time, energy, and passion that could have gone far in building up the Kingdom of God. 

                I’m not surprised that Facebook, and the internet in general, are where those without a filter indulge their capacity for spreading rumors as if there were facts, but I am saddened and troubled to see Christians, those taught by the Word of God, committed to the Truth, and servants by choice of the Kingdom of God, joining in on this farce to their own detriment.  This isn’t a new problem, for democracy or for Christianity, but it is one that we ought to be on the side of combating, or at least ignoring, instead of passing it along.

Sermon Video: Who is the greatest, and who is on our side? Luke 9:46-50

Just prior to his decision to set out resolutely for Jerusalem, Jesus deals with two misconceptions on the part of his disciples.  Both of these questions involve the warped perspective of humanity versus the correct perspective of God.  In both instances, Jesus reveals to his disciples that the viewpoint of God is what they must adapt to because it is the basis of the kingdom of God.

            In the first episode, the disciples are busy arguing amongst themselves about which of them will be the greatest when the Messiah establishes his kingdom.  Forget for a moment that Jesus just told them once again that his future contains suffering; the debate is still woefully misplaced because it focuses on the human preoccupation with appearing great instead of God’s judgment regarding true greatness.  Jesus corrects their error by using a child with no rank, status, or privileges to illustrate that in the kingdom of God greatness will be awarded to those who serve the least in this world.

            In the second instance, the disciples attempt to stop a man who is copying their ministry by casting out demons in the name of Jesus.  Jesus responds to this desire to monopolize the work of the kingdom by declaring the very generous parameter that, “whoever is not against you is for you.”  In working for God, we don’t have the luxury deciding who we want to work with and who we want to be accepting of.  Everyone who is working by the power of the Holy Spirit, for the sake of the Gospel, and the glory of the Father, is on our side.  All of our excuses to exclude those we don’t like or don’t agree with fall by the wayside in light of Jesus’ declaration of unity for all those who follow him.

            It isn’t easy to adopt either of these perspectives.  Our human nature seeks aggrandizement at the expense of others; it is only by the power of God that we can hope to seek the benefit of others in a Christ-like manner.  Likewise, it is clear that those who follow Christ are not united, that divisions have always plagued his Church, but that is no excuse for us to perpetuate the mistakes of our ancestors in the faith.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video

Are 95% of self-proclaimed Christians really still Lost? An answer to John MacArthur

The question of who is, and who is not, a Christian never seems to go away.  I know that the Bible goes to great lengths to define how a disciple of Jesus Christ thinks, what they feel, and what they do, but the vast variety of people utilizing the name of Christ continue to bring this question to the surface.  In my book, Christianity's Big Tent, analyzing 1 John, I relied solely upon his three tests of faith: Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God?  Do you love your fellow Christians?  And do you obey the commandments of God?  For some, however, such a broad definition leaves too many unanswered questions.

            I was watching a couple of YouTube videos last night of John MacArthur, a man whose name carries a lot of weight among Evangelicals, in which he clearly threw both Catholics and Charismatic Christians out of the defined Church.  In both cases, MacArthur believes that the vast majority of people, who belong to those Churches, are in fact non-Christians still destined for hell.  As I’ve said before, this way of defining the Church leaves us with an end result where 90-95% of the people in the world who think they are a Christian are not, and leaves us with a Church that can only be described as a pathetic version of the triumphant Church that was supposed to take the Gospel to the whole world.

            In the case of the Catholic Church, the primary objection of men like MacArthur, such as RC Sproul and John Piper, is the way in which the Catholic Church (as well as the Orthodox, Anglicans, and to a lesser extent,  Lutherans and Methodists too) defines what is happening during Communion.  Because these followers of Jesus take his words “literally”, instead of seeing it as a symbolic act, they are doomed.  There is more to it than that, such as objections about the elevation of tradition to the level of the Scriptures and prayer to the Saints and Mary, but the heart of the objection to the Catholic Church has always been transubstantiation.  The Council of Trent is still a difficult thing to deal with, its doctrines in response to the Reformation were not helpful, but then again neither was the 30 Years War.  Even with that historical baggage, shouldn’t Vatican II mean something?  Should we let the failures of the past that brought the Church to the point of schism be perpetuated?

With that in mind, here is the tally of what the average Catholic believes that isn’t supposed to help save them due to a faulty understanding of Communion:

1. There is only one God, a trinity consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

2. The Bible is the Word of God, inspired and to be revered.

3. All of humanity is sinful; each of us must repent of our sins.

4. The only hope for us to overcome our sin is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

5. Prayer and worship are important parts of being a Christian

6. Obeying God’s law is important, as are acts of loving kindness.

            Can you have all of this, and still be a “Church of Satan?” as MacArthur concludes?  RC Sproul believes that praying to the Saints is belittling the desire of God to use his grace by thinking that you need an intermediary.  Whether or not this objection is valid, isn’t saying that 95% of would-be Christians have failed due to their theology, despite the fact that they affirm the Nicene Creed, an insult to the power of the grace of God?  Did Christ really die for the sins of the world only to have that power fail 95% of the time?

            The objection to the Charismatic movement follows similar lines.  In this case it isn’t any core doctrine that is being misunderstood but an objection to the idea that the gifts of the Spirit as seen in Acts are still in use today.  Once again, this is a question of interpretation of Scripture, with one side seeing God’s work as a temporary solution and the other as a part of God’s ongoing plan.  That there are legitimate reasons to be concerned with the Prosperity Gospel movement is no reason to throw all those who still believe in the gifts of the Spirit out the door of the Church.

            One last thing that I find troubling with John MacArthur’s view of the Church is that he believes that between AD 400 and AD 1500, there was no real Church, only an Apostate Church.  Thus for 1,100 years, the Church of Jesus Christ was only a shell that required any “real” Christians to not be a part of the community of believers, but instead to be rebels and martyrs.  The Church certainly had flaws during that time period, as it does today, but to dismiss the work of God in our world for over a millennium is a startling conclusion.

            Why do so many Evangelicals, of which I am one, prefer to think that the Church is a tiny persecuted minority, a frail and threatened thing that is dwarfed by apostasy?  Is this some sort of perverse glory in being the only ones who have it right?  Is this the result of dispensational theology, a pre-tribulation emphasis that almost hopes that the world is getting worse and the Church failing so Christ can return soon?  Whatever the reasons are, I can’t be on board with that attitude, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is far too powerful to be thought of as so very weak.

The Dangers of Assumptions about the Future.

One of the things that most people don’t realize is just how much the underlying assumptions in their thought processes affect the way that they look at the world around them.  From this point I could illustrate what I mean using any number of fields, from politics, to philosophy, from current events to pop culture.  The area that I’m going to focus upon is the affect that a pre-millennial and pre-tribulation interpretation of the portions of Scripture that refer to the End Times can have upon Christians who subscribe to them.  A term that encapsulates these beliefs and others related to the relationship between Israel and the Church, Dispensationalism, likewise carries with it implications for how those who hold to it look at the world around them and how they interpret Scripture.

            This is not intended as a critique of Dispensationalism, although the notion often associated with it that the Church (or even America) has replaced Israel in God’s Covenant deserves to be critiqued, rather I am simply pointing out the affect that such a viewpoint can have upon one’s outlook even without the person who thinks these things being aware of where those notions originate.  Nor is this a refutation of pre-millennial or pre-tribulation interpretations of the End Times, I myself hold to both of them, though certainly not with dogmatic fervor due to the very strong warnings in Scripture that the End Times will come like a “thief”.  I have always maintained that anyone who claims to know anything about when the Second Coming of Jesus is going to happen is either trying to sell something or woefully misinformed about Scripture.

            So, what is this viewpoint altering phenomenon that happens to those who hold to pre-millennial, pre-tribulation, and/or Dispensational beliefs?  Pessimism, pure and simple.  Anyone who believes that human history MUST greatly decline BEFORE the return of Jesus Christ while not be surprised by news of tragedy in our world, will not have much hope for the future, and may even welcome news of woe as a sign that the end is nigh.  I have witnessed this twisted welcoming of tragedy, be it wars, pestilence, natural disasters, or the Church supposedly slipping toward Apostasy, on the part of people whose belief that the future can only be a downward curve precisely because they are convinced that Scripture predicts just such a trajectory to history.

            Forget for a moment that history moves in vast swings, from good to bad, from prosperity to want, and from liberalism to conservatism, such that storms could be on the horizon now, and yet sunshine could be just around the corner.  I say that because Christians continue to convince themselves that Jesus Christ will return in their own lifetimes, despite the warnings from Scripture, because we can’t help but think of our own generation as the pivotal one in history.  Even if the next hundred years are a mitigated disaster, as anyone looking at 1914-1945 would have to conclude, who is to say that the decades to follow wouldn’t be one of peace and progress?

            The point that I’m hoping you will see is that those who look to the future and see only woe before Christ will return can’t help themselves when they read the news, they see signs of decline, skip signs of good things, and confirm their own assumption that the future must be bleak.  Of course this attitude has vast implications as those who don’t believe that the future holds any hope won’t be very keen to invest themselves in project or efforts designed to alleviate things such as world hunger or disease and are likely to care little about the environment, just to name a few. 

            In regards to the Church itself, a similar pattern of pessimism unfolds.  Those who believe that the Church MUST be in a state of Apostasy BEFORE Christ can return are forever looking for signs that the Church is failing in its mission.  How can this not have a negative effect upon missions, church unity, and ecumenism?  There are far too many Christians who believe that they can write off all of the Orthodox, Catholic, mainline Protestant, and plenty of other people who call themselves Christians, who have put their faith in Jesus Christ, and who seek to be his disciples, simply because a worldwide Church that is succeeding and triumphing doesn’t fit their own viewpoint.  In essence, they look at 95% of all of the people who have called upon the name of the Lord, as Paul says in Romans 10:13, and conclude that the grace of God is incapable of saving them because only a tiny minority of the universal Church is not in a state of Apostasy.  Needless to say, I cannot understand how the Church of God, empowered by the Holy Spirit, can be thought of as being so impotent. 

            If pre-millennialism and pre-tribulation beliefs, along with Dispensationalism, tend to lead to these fatalistic and pessimistic viewpoints, what can we do about it?  Do we have to adopt a post-millennial belief in order to be optimistic and therefore anticipate the triumph of the Church BEFORE Jesus can return?  We don’t have to do that, unbridled optimism has similar pitfalls (such as not thinking anything needs to be done because the future of necessity must get better), although without the doom and gloom mood.  Being aware that such attitudes are a danger is the beginning of keeping yourself from falling prey to them.  I have no idea if the next 100 years are going to be a golden age or a wasteland for America, the Church, or the world; but neither do the pre-millennial OR the post-millennial advocates.  What we think the future holds, affects how we view today; since only the Father truly knows the future, why don’t we stop acting like we have inside information.