Why I wrote the Pastoral Letter to the Cornerstone Board of Trustees

This video delves into the passion and concern that inspired and shaped the letter, as well as that of my collaborators in the project, Pastor Noah Filipiak and Dr. David Turner (thank you both).  This is from the heart and deeply rooted in the valuable education I received from 94-98 and 2000-01 at Cornerstone University.

Sermon Video: The LORD and Abraham "cut" a covenant - Genesis 15:7-21

As a sign to offer reassurance about the future to Abraham, the LORD utilizes an Ancient Near Eastern custom involving the cutting-in-two of animals to symbolize the seriousness of the covenant should anyone break it.

In addition, God explains the upcoming 400 years of sojourning in Egypt that Abraham's descendants will endure in part because his wrath against the Canaanites is not yet ready because theirs sins have not yet reached the "full measure."  This has implications for how we understand God's judgment against sin and evil here in this life.

Illustrating the types of cultural response available to Christians with the Barbie movie as the example

 

Full disclosure: I haven't seen the Barbie movie.  If my 8 year old daughter hadn't been out of town with my wife Nicole since it came out, no doubt we would have taken her to see it (although with respect to Oppenheimer, I'm on my own).

When it comes to the culture that we live in, whatever nation or era that might be, Christians have four primary options when it comes to how they will interact with it: Promotion, Animosity, Withdrawal, and Engagement.  Let me illustrate what these might look like with respect to the summer blockbuster that is The Barbie Movie.

1. Promotion

"The Barbie movie illustrates what God intended gender roles to be."  Admittedly, I haven't seen anything like this in the many online commentaries and comments swirling around.  Aside from a TV show like The Chosen, you don't often see commentary written from a Christian perspective that explicitly endorses cultural artistic expressions, but on the somewhat rare occasion that a particular song, play, show, movie, etc. does indeed reflect the Judeo-Christian worldview, it would be appropriate to point that out.  {FYI, just because the content in question is produced by a "Christian" studio/writer/director, etc. doesn't mean it will properly reflect a Biblical mindset, such creations ought to still be held up to God's Word for evaluation on their own merits.}

2. Animosity

"Demonic plot of Barbie movie revealed!" "Liberals are trying to indoctrinate your kids through the Barbie Movie!" "Feminist Crap!"  I have actually seen each of those headlines in recent weeks, in all cases the message is clear, "Don't watch this movie because it is liberal/feminist/demonic."  An entire cottage industry has evolved, and is making a lot of money, creating just this sort of antagonistic response to most everything produced by the entertainment industry today.

A brief note on the problem with the "all animosity all the time" approach: (1) It has the tendency to convince both fellow Christians and non-believers that we have nothing to offer each other, that in fact we are enemies and should treat each other as such. (2) It quickly becomes a "boy who cried wolf" phenomenon.  When everything produced by Disney, for example, is labeled as demonic by online pundits and cable news talking heads, whatever values such warnings may have ever had becomes diluted (and non-believers look even more skeptically at Christianity wondering what on earth we're thinking). (3) The end result of this type of response is that it becomes an exercise in preaching to the choir, those who shout "amen" are with you, but everyone else decides to keep their distance.

3. Withdrawal

"Haven't seen it, don't really care."  Now, the Barbie movie is the example, and that won't be on everyone's must-see list no matter how much money it makes (after two weeks the answer is a whole lot of money), and certainly not every Christian thinker needs to weigh in on every cultural moment of import.  The withdrawal impulse is reflected in the "moat mentality," as I like to call it.  By that I mean the tendency of many Christians to view their neighbors and country as a lost cause and respond by digging a proverbial moat around themselves and ceasing to engage altogether. 

This is, in the end, a self-defeating option, retreating to the modern equivalent of monasteries is not a viable option.  No need to have an informed opinion on everything, but walking away entirely is not going to help anyone.

4. Engagement

"Our culture is struggling with questions about power, gender, purpose, and death. Barbie raises these questions brilliantly, but believers can point to the One who ultimately answers them: the Triune God who created all humans with purpose and for partnership."  You probably noticed that the engagement option wasn't very headline worthy, that's part of the point.  Rather than click-bait, true engagement seeks to look at something produced by human beings, flawed as we all are, and evaluate it through the lens of the Judeo-Christian worldview.  In doing so, we hope to highlight that which is in keeping with the Word of God, point out that which is contradictory to it, and offer insight that illustrates how the Gospel would fill in the gaps or correct the shortcomings of the what is being evaluated. 

The above quote was taken from the review of the Barbie movie by Professor Amy Peeler, professor of New Testament studies at Wheaton College.  Having already written a book entitled, Women and the Gender of God, she was well positioned to offer insight into the issues about gender roles raised in the movie.

Neither Barbie Nor Ken - A Barbie Movie Review - by Professor Amy Peeler

Note: I have seen numerous people respond with animosity toward the director of the Barbie movie, and/or the movie itself, by attacking Professor Peeler as if writing a review of a movie (or book, song, show, etc.) automatically means that you somehow endorse everything in it.  That is nonsense and immoral, but far too commonplace in the social media realm.  For example, I mentioned the death of Jon Snow from Game of Thrones in my sermon on Sunday as an example of how characters with a moral code suffer when those around them live by a survival of the fittest mentality.  It would be unfair to then smear me (so please don't) by pointing out non-Christian ideas that exist in Game of Thrones (of which there are plenty to choose from) simply because I used that as an example.  To engage with the culture thoughtfully does not make you responsible for the entirety of that cultural expression.

That's the danger of participating in engagement.  When one puts commentary out there, slings and arrows are often the primary response you see, often times from both the right and left of what you've written/spoken, no matter how far to the right or left your position actually may be {online there is always someone more to the margins willing to shoot at you}.  Nevertheless, engagement is what true Christian apologetics consists of, it sometimes will be a positive review and interaction with the material created by others, sometimes it will be a negative review, the important connector will be honest and thoughtful responses.  

Be honest, you'd rather see more kind dialogue than the endless stream of click-bait anger, wouldn't you?  

Call me an optimist, I have to hope you're as sick of the endless invective as I am.

Jason Aldean's "Try That In A Small Town" and the dangers of conflation

 

Much has been said about country music singer Jason Aldean's recent song and accompanying music video, "Try That In A Small Town."  In addition to those who have pointed out that the courthouse in the video was the scene of a horrific lynching in 1927, and suggestions by some that the music video encourages racism and/or vigilante justice, there have also been voices on the other side of the cultural/political divide in America quick to say, "I stand with Jason Aldean."  Lost in the not-unexpected yelling back and forth by politicians and pundits, and the chiming in of regular folk on social media to proclaim which side they are on, is a technique used in the music video, and to a lesser extent in the song lyrics, that is as troubling as it is common in our cultural/political discourse: conflation.

conflation: The merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one.

Which two ideas are being merged into one in this example: protesting and criminal behavior.

[Note: To a segment of the American population, an example of which being the stereotype of it portrayed for laughs by Carroll O'Conner as Archie Bunker on All In the Family, protest of any kind will always be considered un-American.  To those individuals, no conflation is necessary, protesting already is criminal behavior in their eyes.]

In America, each of us has a constitutionally guaranteed right to protest, both for and against, any issue.  We have the right to assemble to make that protest known, including with marches, speeches, sit-ins, and the like.  The same right that should have kept Civil Rights marchers from being set upon by firehoses, batons, and police dogs when they exercised their rights, protected the mass marches of the KKK a generation earlier (most of which were met, to our ancestors shame, not with governmental oppression, but with cheering crowds).  The right to protest is available to liberals and conservatives, and has helped advance causes dear to the hearts of both groups in American history.  While this is not a right enshrined in the Bible, it is certainly one that Christians should cherish, utilize when their conscience compels them to do so, and Christians should also be willing to protect that right when others seek to exercise it, even if we strongly disagree with their motives/goals.  {FYI, Christians should likewise be willing to fight for Freedom of Religion, when it affects fellow Christians, AND when it affects those who follow other religions}

In the song and video, however, images of protests (mostly after the murder of George Floyd, especially images of flag burning that have a very emotionally impact on many Americans) are combined with those of theft, looting, and street violence.  When these two ideas are put together like this, casually, the impression (desired or not by the creator of the content) is that they are in the same legal/moral category, that in effect, to be a protester is just as immoral and undesirable as to be a criminal, and as the song says, people in small towns know how to respond if you try it there.  Intentional or not, and I know nothing of Jason Aldean motives and heart, nor of the songwriter's, the conflation of the two ideas is very dangerous in a society that should value the right to protest, even of those with whom we disagree.

Let's be honest, politicians and pundits pull this trick all the time.  It is such a common staple, that if you spend an hour watching cable news you will see it over and over: two ideas/people linked together so that the one the audience doesn't like already has its stink smeared onto the one the politician/pundit wants them to dislike moving forward.  It is manipulation plain and simple, and it is sadly very effective.

One of the most dangerous examples I have seen of this in recent years is the near constant use by a number of pundits of George Soros as the boogeyman rich Jew whose efforts to support causes he believes in (as is his right) are tied to many a cause that the politician/pundit doesn't like (truthfully or not), allowing the despicable age old "rich Jews are secretly running the world" trope to do its work.  The audience is left angry at the idea/cause in question and wanting to oppose it because the pundit has left the impression that it is the puppet of a "rich Jew."  Conflation is a staple of antisemitism (and racism in general).

Another example occurred in 2019 when Founders Ministries released a trailer for their upcoming documentary which smeared sex abuse victim advocate Rachel Denhollander with images/audio that suggested she was part of a "godless conspiracy" {see my post on this, "By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}

What am I hoping for?  Perhaps a more honest discourse, a bit more integrity from advocates, less anger from the people who are being manipulated in this way.  A pipe dream?  Perhaps, but if we don't at least try to be better, how can we expect better results in the future?  In the end, as Americans, and as Christians, we need to do better than this, we need to be willing to judge people and ideas on their own merits and not simply find a convenient way to smear and dismiss them through conflating them with something else we already dislike.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #26: Luke 18:9-14

Luke 18:9-14     New International Version

9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

You're probably wondering right away, how on earth is he getting from the Chicken Dance to the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector?  Stay with me, there's a method to the madness.

The Chicken Dance performed at weddings is a glaring example of how idiosyncratic culture can be.  The things people wear, say, and do at weddings, and the celebrations afterwards, vary greatly depending on where on the planet and when in history we look.  Future generations may look on in horror at the prominence of the Chicken Dance at American weddings and see it not as a whimsical bit of nonsense, but a sign of some deeper disturbance that confirms what they think of our culture from their point-of-view.  Personally, I'm not a fan, evidently others love the silliness of this dance.  In the end, there probably isn't anyone who thinks of the Chicken Dance as a moral imperative either way, but much of our cultural heritage, the things we hold near and dear to our hearts as THE way they must be done, are just as morally neutral as the Chicken Dance.

The Pharisees that Jesus contends with so often in the Gospels had elevated their own cultural expression, based on Mosaic Law, but still just their own viewpoint as to exactly how that Law should be interpreted and applied, and made it normative for everyone, period.  In other words, the Pharisees were so convinced that they were right, about everything, that they scorned the way that fellow Jews worshiped God as something between insufficient and outright sacrilegious.  They were far too sure of themselves, and it showed.  It takes confidence like that to be militant, to hold that you know exactly what the government, society, or your religion needs and nobody else has a piece of the truth, nobody else can be trusted, they must all be opposed and crushed if they disagree with you.

Here is where 'Christian' Nationalism comes in.  It has decided that one particular expression of the Church, from one time and place, should dominate not only all other current expressions of the Church, but the entirety of society as well.  It is only our own pride and ignorance that would allow us to think that Anglo-Saxon Protestant Christianity as expressed in America {that's a pretty specific sliver both globally and historically} deserves total power in society over both other variations of orthodox Christianity currently alive America and also over those following other religions, or none at all.  If you think that 'Christian' Nationalism can equally embrace all facets of the Church and America today, you don't know how power in this world works, sharing is not in its nature.

Do I think that I'm following God correctly according to the scriptures and the wisdom of Church history?  Of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't be an American Baptist I'd be something else.  But I am far from being prideful enough to think that there is no possibility that I'm wrong on some aspects of the way that my faith is interpreted from the scriptures and expressed in the life that I'm living.  My brothers and sisters in Christ here in America that follow different traditions have things to teach me, not to mention the majority of the Church that isn't American, Protestant, White, or Western.

'Christian' Nationalism doesn't exist without certainty of its own superiority to everything else.  Unfortunately, much of that certainty is based upon a particular cultural expression, not timeless truth, and it fails to reckon with God's work not only throughout history, but throughout the world today. 

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

1. The Gospel isn't only about saving souls.

One of the things that has been misconstrued, particularly by some Protestants, and often by Evangelicals in particular, is the notion that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is only really about saving souls.  This tends to manifest itself in an abnormal focus on getting people to say a 'Sinner's Prayer' together with a lack of follow-up discipleship.  In other words, it is a focus on the beginning of the Christian experience to the detriment of what follows after, on becoming a Christian but not on being a Christian.  This imbalance isn't healthy, and it isn't what the Scriptures have taught us about how the Church should function. 

Ephesians 2:8-10  New International Version
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Too often, Ephesians 2:8-10 is quoted as Ephesians 2:8-9, but Paul didn't end his thought there, our salvation by grace through faith is the first step toward the 'good works' that we are called to do once we are saved.  These 'good works' are not an optional part of being a Christian, for God himself has 'prepared in advance' what we are to accomplish because of our redemption has made us capable of so doing.

James 2:14-18  New International Version
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

Here we see faith in action, knee deep in issues of poverty, those same issues that are often derided as 'social justice' by those who claim the Gospel has no room for them.  Can we afford to address social issues ONLY and neglect the spiritual need of the Lost?  Of course not, but we are equally unbalanced when we, as a Church, put all our emphasis on spiritual needs and neglect physical/emotional/social needs.  Every Christian, and every church, needs to be able to 'show me your faith' through acts of righteousness.

2. The Bible is full of examples of systematic actions taken in response to sinful behavior.

If the only progress we could make in society against evil was to convert the Lost, why in the Bible is God always taking larger, more systematic actions?  The examples are plentiful, from the flood of Noah, to Joseph's program to feed the people during the famine, to Moses leading the people out of slavery (when Pharaoh was in no mood to change his mind), to the punishment of the people of Israel wandering for 40 years in the desert, to the command to Joseph to eliminate the Canaanites as God's wrath against multiple generations of wickedness, to the the Law of Moses' provisions to help the widows and orphans (which benefited Ruth because Boaz obeyed them), not to mention the Year of Jubilee's commands to free all slaves and forgive all debts.  The ideal society, envisioned by the Law of Moses, contained example after example of rules, from God, designed to ensure justice and to eliminate generational poverty.  When the prophets cried out against the mistreatment of the oppressed, they were addressing the spiritual need of the people, because that injustice was one of the ways in which spiritual illness manifested itself.  Pastor Jeffress rightly understands that racism is connected to darkened human hearts, but has decided that only one tool can be used to combat it, thus abandoning the example of how the prophets sent by God addressed the spiritual need of Israel: holistically.  The cancer analogy he uses is a false one.  When fighting against cancer, doctors use everything that will help the patient survive, just because chemotherapy (for example) is what is needed to kill the cancer cells and other efforts would be futile without it, doesn't mean the patient won't also receive IV fluids or steroids; a holistic approach is needed in medicine, and in society as well.
Jesus himself continues this trend, challenging the Pharisees by healing on the Sabbath, overturning the tables in the Temple, and even rejecting the half-measure of establishing a Messianic Kingdom in favor of a far deeper and more systematic upheaval in the form of his own vicarious death and resurrection.  When Jesus saw injustice at work, he confronted it directly on an individual level, challenged those who upheld the system that created it, and ultimately gave his very life to destroy the root of the problem.  Had Jesus followed Pastor Jeffress' racism approach, he would have told those seeking healing that their suffering was a symptom, and thus not his problem, would have ignored the Pharisees (rather than going out of his way to confront them), and would have simply waited until his Passion to address the 'real problem'.  Jesus, of course, did not such thing.  Even though he fully intended to conquer sin and death to set the spiritual captives free, he still did everything he could to help both the individuals who were suffering and to challenge society's injustices.
The Bible doesn't advocate a principle of minimalism regarding societal evil.  It doesn't consider these evils to be inevitable or beyond change.  The reality of human nature, fallen and in rebellion against God, guarantees that we cannot create an utopia on earth, but the impossibility of eliminating an evil entirely in no way diminishes our responsibility to mitigate it in our time and place.  While the Word of God calls for individuals, families, communities, and even whole nations to repent and turn to the Lord (i.e. to have changed hearts), it doesn't hit pause on the need for structural change until that day comes. 

Zechariah 7:8-14  New International Version
8 And the word of the Lord came again to Zechariah: 9 “This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’
11 “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and covered their ears. 12 They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry.
13 “‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty. 14 ‘I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations, where they were strangers. The land they left behind them was so desolate that no one traveled through it. This is how they made the pleasant land desolate.’”

Does God care about societal justice?  God was willing to send his people, those with whom he had a Covenant, into exile because they weren't willing to change their hearts and minds, as evidenced by how they treated the widow, orphans, foreigners, and the poor.  Are we to understand that God would have told the Jews living prior to the exile to not bother fighting against injustices because their efforts were only 'a Band-Aid'?  Note also, the entire nation was sent into exile, including the righteous, because of the collective injustice (sin) of the people.  Surely God takes injustice seriously.  Here's the thing, America isn't in the place of privilege of Israel (Judah), we don't have a Covenant with God, which should make us less complacent about injustice in our society, for there is no promise from God to America that would ensure a return from exile should God, by way of administering his justice, choose to punish our nation.  God was willing to chastise his own children, can we expect to escape unscathed?

3. When will there be 'enough' Christians to confront racism in America? 

If America didn't have enough hearts trusting in Christ during the height of the Jim Crow era (when the vast majority of Americans were self-professed Christians), when exactly in the future is Pastor Jeffress suggesting it will be time to confront racism?  If America couldn't mitigate racism through the hearts and minds of individuals, alone, when 75%+ of those individuals claimed to follow Jesus, what percentage is required?  Clearly, the Church is not capable of eradicating racism, even within its own members, through solely spiritual means.  The shameful evidence of our past and present confirms this.  There needs to be an effort, in combination with, ongoing efforts to win souls to Christ  to address the legal and societal frameworks of systematic racism.  That some Christians are unwilling to consider this option, or even actively oppose it, calls into question how serious an evil they believe racism to be.
A parallel might help with understanding the situation.  Abortion has been legal in America since Roe vs. Wade.  Over the past few generations, Christians (and others) have worked continuously to shape hearts and minds on this issue, AND at the same time have opened hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers (We have one here in Franklin, ABC Life Center), have supported adoption agencies, fought battles over school sex education curriculum, put together lists of judges who are Pro Life, and have again and again advocated for and supported political candidates who promise to work to overturn Roe vs. Wade.  In the case of abortion, we are not told to wait until the day when Christ has changed enough hearts, but to fight on every front, to continue the fight year after year until the goal is achieved.  Why can't we wait until the demand for abortion ceases because Christ has changed hearts?  Because unborn lives matter. 
Perhaps you may have heard, Black Lives Matter too.  But with racism the answer is different.  Some say that racism isn't real, and even complain about reverse racism.  Others deny that racism is systemic, claiming that only 'bad apples' exist, and that every law and policy is already as it should be, that race isn't a factor in justice (again, some even going further, claiming society favors minorities above Whites).  Evidence to the contrary is belittled, treated as anecdotal only, or simply smeared with political epitaphs like 'socialism' or 'liberal'.  There is absolutely a different tone and attitude among millions of (mostly White) Christians (going by self-profession) when it comes to racism. 

4. You don't have to wait for the cure to fight against evil.

The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly taught us the need to take steps against it while we wait for a vaccine.  By the same logic employed by Pastor Jeffress, the only cure for COVID-19 is a vaccine, any efforts at social distancing, mask wearing, or therapeutic treatments being researched to keep those infected alive, are only a Band-Aid.  We have already lost 180,000 Americans, and rising, to COVID-19, imagine the death toll if we had taken no measures against it.

The Gospel's efforts to rescue hearts and minds from darkness have not made murder disappear, but it is still illegal, those who commit it are prosecuted, and a myriad of measures are in place to mitigate the risk that those willing to commit murder would be able to do so.  Likewise, after 9/11 we didn't wait to convince the Jihadists of the error of their ways, we took extraordinary safety measures, and took military action against terrorists and their supporters.

The ultimate, final, solution against any evil is the victory of Jesus Christ over sin and death.  What Christ has accomplished for us, and what Christ can do for anyone wiling to repent and believe, does not eliminate our responsibility to do our part to fight against evil.

I refuse to believe that we have to wait to fight against racism. 

Open Letter to White Christians: When it Comes to Racism, Changing Hearts Isn’t Biblical Enough - by Pastor Geoff Holsclaw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 For you created my inmost being;

    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

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

    your works are wonderful,

    I know that full well.

Jeremiah 1:5 English Standard Version (ESV)

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

and before you were born I consecrated you;

I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

The challenge of being salt and light - Matthew 5:13-16

Matthew 5:13-16 New International Version (NIV)
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

The Church is made up of people attempting to be disciples of Jesus Christ.  It is made up of people who have been called from a state of living in darkness, who have been introduced to the light of the Gospel (the Good News of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on their behalf), and who by the power of the Gospel (through the Holy Spirit) have been transformed in their hearts and minds.  It is the will of God that those people, set free from bondage to sin, but not yet fully transformed to Christ-likeness, should remain living upon the earth to act as the "salt and light" that Jesus commanded them to be.  This is where it gets difficult.  Exactly how these redeemed, but not yet fully sanctified, disciples of Jesus can remain pure (salt) and at the same time live and minister in a world that remains dark (where they are to be a light) does not have a one-size-fits-all answer.
One option that has been tried from time to time in Church history has been that of withdrawal from society.  Beginning in the Early Church with hermits who literally withdrew to lonely places to avoid much of human contact, or even the Stylites ("pillar-dwellers" primarily in Syria) who lived at the top of stone pillars, to the later development of Monasticism where those living withdrawn from society did so in a community of like-minded people.  Without downplaying the importance of the monastic system for preserving knowledge from the Fall of Rome until the Renaissance, none of these attempted solutions were full answers to the command of Jesus, for while they may have been helpful in preserving purity (saltiness) they were at best only partly effective in sharing the Gospel with the Lost (being light).  If you withdraw from society, you may cut down on its ability to influence you toward immorality, but how can you influence it toward righteousness.  The same holds true for interactions with individual people, much of our potential sin involves interacting with other people, and so avoiding people might lead to less sin, but at the same time, most of our potential for righteous deeds involves interactions with other people, and curtailing those interactions will decrease righteousness as well.
Because withdrawal can, at best, only be a half or partial measure, the heart of the matter is how Christians can remain on the path of increasing Christ-likeness, thus preserving their saltiness, while at the same time engaging with the culture and people among whom they live so that their light will shine in the darkness.  The first step for any individual Christian in his/her need to be both "salt" and "light" is for that individual to not attempt the task as merely an individual Christian.  Like the Apostles that Jesus called to be in a community with him, and the other men and women who followed his ministry, Christians of every era, no matter how hostile or cooperative the culture they live in, need to be a part of something more substantial and more stable than anything they can do on their own.  The community created by Jesus, specifically for that purpose, is the Church.
How then does the Church help individual Christians retain their "saltiness" and enable their "light" to shine?  The purity (moral character) of individual Christians is enhanced and strengthened when they interact regularly with each other in community worship, prayer, service, and mentoring relationships.  It is easier to accomplish a difficult task, and rejecting sinful impulses to embrace a servant's heart of righteous self-sacrifice certainly qualifies as a difficult task, when attempting that task as part of a team.  Having other Christians by your side, to serve as both examples of how victory is possible, and to correct us when we go astray, is a boon whose worth cannot be calculated.  In addition, our ability to be a light in our community, to witness to the truth of the Gospel, is also enhanced by our connection to the community of believers.  One candle shining in the darkness will draw attention, yet it is difficult for that one light to sufficiently illuminate the way for others, but dozens of people holding lit candles will function more as a lighthouse or beacon.  For example: When a Christian participates in a ministry of the local church to which he/she belongs, like volunteering at a food pantry that the church runs, he/she not only gains valuable character shaping experience, but also is participating in an outreach effort that demonstrates to the Lost the love of God for them reflected in the love of God's people for them.
We don't expect all of our interactions as a Christian to be connected to our Church, at work and with our family and friends we will often be apart from the support and group effort of that community, but having the local church as one of the most significant aspects of our lives will absolutely make it easier for us to continue to be "salt" and "light" in those instances as well.

How important is your church community in your life?

How important is it to you to be in church on Sunday, to worship, pray, learn, and serve with God's people?

If you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you are commanded to be "salt" and "light", it is not optional, to accomplish that task you need to be a part of the community that Jesus created.

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:

Fight or Flight? Self-Segregation is the death of the Church's Gospel mission

The list of companies being boycotted by various Christians and/or conservatives has grown rather long: Walmart, Kroger, Walgreens, CSV, Disney, Nascar, Amazon, Google, basically the biggest and most popular corporations in America, all having done something regarding guns, homosexuality, or politics to put them on "the list".  No, I'm not going to enter into the boycott argument, and yes, a similar list exists among liberals listing different companies (or sometimes the same companies for different reasons).  What do we make of this, and how does it impact the Church and the Gospel?
We are currently trending, heavily, as a culture and a country toward greater degrees of self-segregation.  Not the old-school racial segregation enforced by zoning laws and bat wielding rednecks, but instead a version we are choosing to embrace based upon politics/morality/religion, which is showing itself both in the urban/rural divide and in the coastal/interior divide.  The Red areas are becoming deeper shades of Red, and the Blue areas are becoming more uniformly Blue.  People are moving within their communities to neighborhoods were people are more like them (it can mimic racial segregation in that people who look like us are more likely to think/act like us, but it has now transcended that as well), within their states to areas where people are more like them, and within the country to states where people are more like them.  We are more likely to live in an echo chamber, massively assisted by social media and cable news/talk radio, where the only voices we hear are ones that reinforce what we believe and demonize what "they" believe.  Some of our politicians are thriving in these chum-infested waters, some talking heads are getting rich off of it, but the American Republic is much worse off.  {FYI, gerrymandering is a symptom of this, making primaries the only race that matters}.  I won't tell you how to solve this problem on the political/national level, but I can intelligently (I hope) ponder what this is doing to the Church.
In 1 Corinthians 15:33, the Apostle Paul quotes the Greek poet Menander when he writes, "Do not be misled: 'Bad company corrupts good character.'"  In that particular context Paul is discussing the resurrection and those who disbelieve it, people we would call heretics or apostates.  He utilizes a Greek poet to remind the Christian minority in Corinth that they can be negatively influenced by those around them.  In his next letter to that church, Paul broadens the warning a bit in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 when he writes, "14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 Therefore,“Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.  Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” 18 And, “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”  Twice then, Paul warns about becoming too entangled, "yoked together" with unbelievers (whether the Lost or those who have walked away from the Light, i.e. apostates).  At the same time, the Apostle Paul spent decades risking his life to take the Gospel, as an observant Jew, among the Gentiles to show them the light of Christ.  Certainly Paul did not withdraw from the world, enter a monastery, and seek to be free from the 'infection' of the pagan culture that he lived and worked within.  Paul was aware of the danger, yet it didn't stop him from seeking the Lost where they were.
What then is the answer?  Jesus also highly stressed the need for purity, even emphasizing that our thoughts count as well as our actions, and yet he ate with 'tax collectors and sinners' as recorded in Matthew 9:10-17 (and Mark 2:15-22, Luke 5:29-39) 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”  12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”  Nobody has lived a pure life of comparison with Jesus Christ, and yet he was willing to be scorned by the Pharisees, the group who stood for strict adherence to the Law of Moses and the rejection of Greek culture, in order to minister to the outcasts of society.  In fact, Jesus reprimanded the Pharisees for focusing on ritualistic purity without having hearts of mercy.
This seems like a contradiction in the Scriptures, a gotcha moment for agnostics and atheists to laugh at our silly devotion to 'God's Word', but it isn't.  Instead, it is something extremely profound and often overlooked by Christians (and Judaism before us): purposeful tension.  That's right, the Scriptures contain opposed but complimentary ideas that are designed to be held in tension.  It was a college professor of mine, Dr. Ronald Mayers, who first introduced me to the idea of a Both/And rather than an Either/Or perspective in Scripture. {Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic by Ronald B. Mayers}  Not all issues, to be sure, but many of them contain a Both/And element.  For example: As Christians we are already saved, and yet we are not yet what we will be for we our sanctification is ongoing.  We are already in Christ, but not yet Christ-like.  Likewise, we believe in the sovereignty of God and the freedom of human beings to make real decisions, both God's will and human freedom.
Which brings us to the current situation in America and within the Church.  At the same time we are called to be pure, 1 Peter 1:16, " for it is written: 'Be holy, because I am holy.'" AND Matthew 5:13-16, "'You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."  We must be 'in the world, but not of the world' (An attempt to summarize the teaching of Scripture on this issue), a delicate balance but one we must not shrink from finding.
This is our challenge as the Church in America in the 21st century.  We are interacting less and less with those who are non-Christians, and even those who are fellow Christians, but who disagree with us.  We are called to be salt and light, but within our own echo chamber, what good are they?  We are called to not be "yoked together" with unbelievers, but also to eat with "tax collectors and 'sinners'".  As much as we might want to retreat into our own world, to wall ourselves off from that which makes us uncomfortable and that with which we disagree, we cannot.  We must be pure, but not at the cost of disengaging from those who live in darkness. {As some are calling for us to do, see one popular version of the retreat strategy: The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post Christian World - by Rob Dreher}
Our mission is not to save ourselves, our mission is not to save our church, our mission is not even to save The Church, our mission, given to us by Jesus Christ, is to use the Truth of the Gospel, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to save the World.  Salt must stay salty in order to be effective, but salt left in the salt shaker doesn't help anyone.

After another mass shooting, what can be said?

Update: This post was originally written in August of 2019 after mass shootings occurred on consecutive days: The El Paso, Texas Walmart shooting that killed 23 people and wounded 22 more, and the Dayton, Ohio shooting that killed 9 and wounded 17 more.  It has been updated, today (10/26/23) while the mass murder in Lewiston, Maine is still at large, having killed 18 last night and wounded at least 30 more.  However, this same lament could have been reposted after Monterey Park, CA (1/21/23, 12 killed), Uvalde, TX (5/24/22, 22 killed), Buffalo, NY (5/14/22, 10 killed), San Jose, CA (5/26/21, 10 killed), or Boulder, CO (5/22/21, 10 killed), that is if we're only listing the massacres where ten or more were murdered here in America since August of 2019.

On many issues, I am a realistic optimist, that is, I believe that things can get better with hard work, support systems, collaboration, prayer, and the grace of God.  However, I don't have any illusions about human nature changing, nor hopes that we can put an end to violence whether we're talking about an individual harming one person or a war ravaging a whole country, and honestly, I don't have any real hope that anything will change for the better on this issue of mass violence in my lifetime.  

Perhaps God will be pour out his grace upon us and help us with the mess that we've created, short of that I can't see how any progress other than that which is local and limited can be made (that level of matters enough to be worthy striving for, we all should at least be willing to work for that).  And so I pray for God to be merciful upon us, not because we deserve it, but because so many of us are crying out for deliverance.  

The original post is below:

It has been about a year and a half since I wrote, "If I say anything about guns", in which I expressed my desire to not allow my views and opinions (no matter how well informed or articulately shared) about the issues of America's culture wars to become a smokescreen that prevents those both within and outside the Church from hearing my voice about the Good News that Jesus Christ died to set them free from their sins.  In the intervening year and a half, the issues of the culture wars have grown more contentious, more polarizing, not less.  {Update 10/26/23: Things have hardly improved on this front since 2019, sadly.} A cursory glance at social media today showed several of those among my FB friends who have decided to post pro-gun memes in the aftermath of the two most recent shootings.  Rather than showing restraint in the face of yet two more examples of how one person with hate in his (I could say, "or her", but statistically this is a "his" problem) heart can murder at a rate of twenty people per minute (or more), there is a significant percentage of people who feel the need to defiantly defend the circumstances which make such rapid lethality possible.  This is not the first time I have seen this response, and not the only issue where the reaction of many is to defend their own position no matter the context.  In this case those posting pro-gun sentiments after a mass shooting are very conservative, after the next tragedy or disaster, it may be those who are very liberal defending a different sacred cow.  Such responses are a human problem, not a conservative or a liberal one.

I was sheltered as a child, I grew up in a rural community that was almost exclusively white, highly conservative on a variety of issues, and mostly Protestant.  And yet, even in that bubble I did not sense the all-pervasive animosity of the deep seated us vs. them mentality that seems today to pervade our culture.  This isn't the America I grew up in.  It is more divided, more partisan, more bitter, more prone to treat those it disagrees with as enemies, and more likely to resort to violence when things aren't to its liking.  A lot of things have contributed to where we are now: The internet, 9/11, 24 hour cable news networks, social media, Citizens United (the Supreme Court case allowing for unlimited political contributions, i.e super-PACs), gerrymandering (making politicians in the middle vulnerable, as the only serious challenge is from the more extreme wing of either party during the primary stage), just to name a few. 
Perhaps we are not too far along this path as individuals, and as a culture, to want to turn back.  Perhaps we can seek solutions rather than simply demonizing those with whom we disagree, perhaps reconciliation and healing can overcome hatred and violence.  I, for one, am doing what I can to help and trying to not be the person who makes things worse.  Trying to mold and shape the congregation I have been entrusted with, and perhaps my community as well, with the Love of Jesus Christ, one day, one person, at a time.  This is the slow and steady path that will be mocked by partisan zealots on both sides, it will encounter jeers of "cowardice" from those who would rather burn the village than let the enemy have it.  So be it, I answer to a higher authority than peer pressure.
Perfect solutions do not exist, they all have flaws, but the direction we are traveling in as a culture and a nation is not sustainable.  Either things will continue to devolve further and further into factionalism and hatreds, or we will find a way to live in peace, even if we are not in harmony.  To continue to do nothing about mass acts of violence (primarily from those wielding guns) has been morally unacceptable since at least Columbine, this issue, along with a host of other pressing concerns, requires true moral leadership with the courage to seek solutions (or at least attempted solutions) that, while imperfect, at least have a chance at making things better.  Where that courage will come from, I do not know, for we have seen precious little of it in the last two decades, and it is getting more rare by the day.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

{Update 10/26/23: Rereading this post actually hurt my heart, it was written before the bitterness of the 2020 election and the Covid pandemic, before the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent aborted reckoning with racism in America.  Four years later it is very hard to find more optimism than I had in 2019, with war raging in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, there are reasons to have less.  And yet, God is good, the triumph of evil is always temporary, it is always darkest before the dawn.  Perhaps my daughter's generation will have had enough of our folly, perhaps they will learn from our generation's mistakes.}

Sermon Video: Propriety in Worship - 1 Corinthians 11:1-16

Having dealt with issues relating to how Christians ought to function within the outside culture, Paul now turns to the proper function of the Church itself, beginning with propriety of worship.  In doing so, Paul relates the 1st Century viewpoints regarding what is fitting and proper for both men and women to show respect for God while at worship to the Genesis account of Creation, a connection aimed at ensuring that the way in which the Christians were conducting themselves would bring glory to God, not man.  In doing so, Paul appeals to traditions that he taught to the church when he founded it, reminding us that our worship (and the way our local church or denomination functions in general) is by necessity both a reflection of theological choices and the culture from which we are drawn.  As such, it is not incumbent upon 21st Century Christians to imitate the style of worship of our ancestors in the faith, but rather to ensure that our worship is also fitting and proper, that it glorifies God and serves as a witness to those outside of the Church of our submission to the Lordship of Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The fault in an argument about the Catholic Church firing a gay teacher

 Below is the text of an article written by Ellen Kobe, a professed Catholic.  I will intersperse my response to her argumentation (not the question of whether or not a Christian school should hire/fire any particular staff member per se) throughout using brackets and bold: {Like this}  This is not a question of what ought to be legal in America regarding employment, but rather what moral principles ought to guide any institution/organization which claims to be following the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Ellen Kobe has charged the Church with "repulsive" "bigotry", but on what  basis?

Ellen Kobe is an associate producer on CNN's social publishing team. She is a 2009 graduate of Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School. The views expressed here are solely those of the author.

Why a Jesuit School was right in refusing to fire a gay teacher

(CNN)Catholics in my hometown of Indianapolis are in the midst of a culture war -- a battle between church leadership and some of its parishioners that could be played out in other communities if it hasn't already.
Last month, news broke that the Archdiocese of Indianapolis would no longer recognize my alma mater, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School, as a Catholic school. Why? The Archdiocese insisted the school dismiss a longtime teacher who is in a civilly-recognized, same-sex marriage, a statement from the school said.
The archdiocese also released a statement saying: "This issue is not about sexual orientation; rather, it is about our expectation that all personnel inside a Catholic school -- who are ministers of the faith -- abide by all Church teachings, including the nature of marriage."  {An important question: What moral standard ought a Christian school/charity/church require of its non-ordained personnel?  We ought to expect those who have taken ordination vows to uphold a higher moral standard (sadly we are too often disappointed) but what about people for whom their work is more akin to a job than a calling?  The expectation of the Catholic Church, at least regarding school teachers, is that they support Church teaching with the way they live their lives.  If this is unreasonable, are there any standards at all that the Church could enforce without being accused of imposing morality upon its employees?}
Brebeuf firmly pushed back, saying this "highly capable and qualified teacher" will continue to teach here.
Brebeuf's actions protected this employee and other LGBTQ members of its community by sending the message: You are welcome here; you are safe here. On my social media feeds, it was a day of celebration among the Brebeuf community and local Catholics. I saw only positive messages about the decision.  {This is not a moral argument, of any kind, let alone one pertaining to what Christianity ought to be.  Social media opinion is the last place we should turn to gauge a question of theology...Secondly, in order to be "welcome" and "safe" within the Church, the Church must accept/celebrate the choices made by people?  All choices, regardless of what they are, or just the choices being celebrated here?  What happened to the idea of the Church as a place for sinners seeking repentance and depending upon grace?}
But the mood took a turn just days later when nearby Cathedral High School was faced with the same command by the Archdiocese regarding a teacher in a same-sex marriage. Cathedral decided to dismiss, not support, its teacher.
There was resounding anger, heartbreak and disappointment from members of the Cathedral community on social media. It's not lost on me that my social media feeds could be reinforcing my own beliefs or that those who believe these employees should've been fired aren't voicing their opinions. {At least she sees the danger of living in a self-reinforcing bubble.  Again, social media feeds have ZERO to do with what is morally acceptable for a church that claims allegiance to Jesus Christ.  Christianity is NOT a democracy, nor even a representative republic.  It is a benevolent dictatorship; one founded by, directed by, ruled by, and in service to, Jesus Christ.  What we think, how we feel, what we want, is immaterial compared to this question: What promotes holiness and righteousness?  What brings glory to God and empowers the Gospel to save the Lost?}  Nonetheless, there is a distinct fissure in the way many practicing Catholics feel about the LGBTQ community versus how the Church's leaders believe we should treat them.  {Has the Church in the past, and in the present, treated some sins as "acceptable" while harshly condemning others?  Absolutely.  This is human failure, our sinful nature and weakness in action.  At the same time, "the way many practicing Catholics feel" is once again NOT a theological/moral argument but an appeal to numerical support.  Might the majority, or even a vocal minority, be theologically/morally correct on an issue and the Church's leadership wrong?  Certainly, but not on the basis of, "this is how we feel", instead the question must hinge upon a proper understanding of the Word of God, an appeal never made in this opinion piece, nor even hinted at.}
The stark contrast in these schools' decisions is just one of reasons I strongly identify with the Jesuit philosophy. When I think of my Catholic identity, nearly all of it stems from the values instilled in me at Brebeuf.
The Jesuit tradition focuses on the education of the person as a whole, emphasizing these five virtues: being open to growth, intellectually competent, loving, religious and committed to promoting justice. These "grad at grad" values, as the Jesuits call them, might sound like a hokey mission statement, but they were taken seriously at Brebeuf. They weren't just written on hallway walls, T-shirts and in the school handbook, they were preached and exemplified by each of our teachers on a daily basis. Living out these qualities wasn't simply a goal, it was a duty.
It is the last of these principles -- committed to promoting justice -- that launched me into a career in journalism. When my teachers saw I was interested in writing, they didn't just teach me how to write better. They encouraged me to write for the greater good.  {The Greater Good!  Absolutely, but on what basis is the Greater Good to be determined?  Hopefully not social media support, nor the whims of the culture at large.  Surely Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier had some objective standard in mind built upon the Word of God, Apostolic teaching, and Church tradition.  The Greater Good cannot blow where the wind takes it, it must be anchored or it will twist about endlessly and be capable of justifying anything.}
When Brebeuf defied the Archdiocese's demand, I thought of the "grad at grad" moral standards that Brebeuf is living out and which the Archdiocese sorely lacks.  {This is a high-handed claim, the Archdiocese lacks a moral standard, but the portion of the Jesuits in question have one?}
The Archdiocese is unfairly targeting members of the LGBT community, bigotry {Christianity (as Judaism before it) is inherently bigoted.  Let that sink in.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ claims to be the sole path to God, the only means of salvation, and the necessary answer for every man, woman, and child who has ever lived.  It condemns as false all other paths, whether self-help or organized religion.  It condemns as immoral a host of human behavior that affects everyone, and declares that none are righteous apart from a righteousness gifted to us by Jesus Christ.  It declares a moral standard that must be present in its followers and condemns those who speak but don't act as Christ-followers.  There can be no Truth without condemnation of falsehood.  There can be no Morality without condemnation of immorality.  If this essence is removed from Christianity, it ceases to be, becoming devoid of all power and less than meaningless...To make the case that to single out one particular type of sin is unfair, while ignoring others, is one thing (a sense of balance Pope Francis has repeatedly called for), but to label that bigotry is to reject Christianity for what it is and must be.} that is beyond repulsive in 2019 {What does 2019 have to do with a question of morality?  Is the standard by which we are to judge matters of morality based upon the year in which we live?  We all know that our ancestors had blind spots concerning certain immoral behavior (slavery comes to mind, as well as antisemitism) but they were still wrong to behave that way, even if they couldn't see it for themselves...Evidently, by 2019 the author thinks the Church ought to have capitulated and abandoned its teaching regarding sexual ethics and marriage, the past 3,500 years of Judea/Christian ethics be damned.  The "failure" to do so, is evidently repulsive.} but all too real in religious communities across the globe. {The anger here is directed inward toward Christianity, but other religions will be targeted next.}  Gay or otherwise, Brebeuf employees provided me with a rigorous education and a caring environment. Brebeuf's tolerance -- no, outward support -- for its LGBTQ faculty and students has fostered thousands of accepting and loving alumni.  {Results based morality.  A person can accomplish good and positive things without being morally upright, the Church always works with flawed people.  However, "accepting and loving" is an odd standard for gauging success the way it is being used here.  We, as Christians, certainly are called to be loving, and to love both friends and enemies, both family and strangers, but the relatively recent choice to connect "acceptance of behavior" with "loving people" as a take it or leave it, all or nothing, proposition is not associated historically with Christianity.  Jesus called people, all sorts of people, to follow him, but he did so on the basis that all of them needed to repent, to leave their lives of sin, and be like him.}
Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit priest, tweeted about the contradictions of what the Archdiocese is asking Catholic schools to do. If employees must be "supportive of Catholic teaching," as Martin points out, a wide swath of Catholic school employees would be subject to termination, including straight people living with a significant other outside of marriage, married couples using birth control and Catholics who don't go to Mass, {Because Justice is not applied to all, evenly and thoroughly, it must be abandoned?  Fr. Martin is correct that the Church has often focused more energy upon certain sins than upon others, and he is correct that the sins of people who are unlike ourselves are more readily condemned than sins that hit closer to home.  This is a failure of God's people that is neither new nor acceptable.  However, this is NOT an argument against having a moral standard at all, but only one against having a poorly articulated/applied moral standard.} as well as those who practice another religion or none at all. {Do Fr. Martin and Ellen Kobe believe that Catholic schools should be forced to hire teachers who are Muslims, Hindus, and Atheists?  This is a new frontier facing Christian Education, the demand that they abandon the reason why they exist in the first place and replace a Christ-centered education, and a Christ-following staff with something more broad and less restrictive.} I think that's pretty much every person I know.  {I know this is meant to be sarcasm, but really?  Everyone you know is either defying the Church's teaching on marriage, birth control, and/or not going to Mass at all?  You don't know anyone who lives according to the traditional teachings of the Church?  Is this not a cause for concern?  How can one claim ownership over the direction of the Church, call it "repulsive" and "bigoted" when one's viewpoint is surrounded by those who reject the teachings of, and participation in, that same Church?}
Brebeuf didn't have much to lose in its relationship with the Archdiocese, which doesn't provide the school with any funds or ministers, according to the Indianapolis Star. Cathedral's defense of their decision notes everything they would've lost, including permission to refer to itself as a Catholic school, the ability to celebrate the Sacraments and its status as an independent nonprofit organization.
These would be tough challenges to face. But when leaders of Catholic institutions focus solely on doctrine, status or other rules of the Church, {Agreed.  To focus solely upon doctrine is to lose touch with its application among human beings.  Is this really what Catholic institutions are doing?  Have all the hospitals, orphanages, schools, and charities ceased to exist?  Have the thousands of parishes living in community together while seeking Christ disappeared?  When you disagree with a particular doctrine, make a rational case for that disagreement, one that seeks some grounding in Scripture.  To claim those who disagree with you are heartless is not the same as making a case for your position...On the flip side, when doctrine/theology is no longer central, when Truth is relegated to secondary status, Christianity's days are numbered, its churches are adrift, and its people will latch on to all manner of ideas and beliefs that would have found no home among the Apostles.} they lose sight of what this religion is all about -- {What is the purpose of religion?  An important question, but far more relevant here ought to be: What is the purpose of the Church created by Jesus Christ after his resurrection and empowered by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?  What religion, in general, is all about is not a relevant discussion for what Christianity should be.}  God's unconditional love for all people. {Not the right answer by a long shot for one very important reason: God's love is not unconditional.  Period.  God's love is in complete harmony with his holiness and justice.  If God's love for all people was unconditional, why do we worship a crucified and risen Savior?  Why did God institute the Mosaic sacrificial system, why did he call Abraham and replace his polytheism with monotheism?  Even a cursory reading of the Scriptures reveals God's anger at sin, his judgment upon those who defy him, and his absolute insistence upon obedience.}
Brebeuf unified around faith. Cathedral allowed doubt to take over. What good is the designation of being a "Catholic" school if you lose your values in the process? {A very important question: What is the point of wanting to be Catholic, or any subset of Christianity, if that designation is no longer anchored to the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, and Holy Scripture?...Is it truly "doubt" to remain committed to what the Church has taught for 2,000 years?  Is standing firm in the midst of change somehow a lack of faith?} As Martin says, Brebeuf protecting its LGBTQ employee "is the most Catholic thing that the school, and the Jesuits, could do."  {Wow, "the most Catholic thing"?  Again, what is the basis for this claim?  Upon what Biblical principle does this rest?  What teaching of Jesus, and how is that being applied?}
By the way, wasn't June Pride Month?  {And this has what to do with a moral question within the Church of Jesus Christ?}

{In the end, this article is an opinion piece, what it is not is any reason to justify its author's very strong moral condemnation of the Catholic Church with anything beyond how the author feels, a reference to the "greater good" that is not defined, and the consensus of a particular social media bubble.  While reasoning such as this may be standard within the culture as a whole, or in the political realm, it is not how the Church of Jesus Christ discusses, debates, or even changes theological positions.} 

Sermon Video: Humbling ourselves for the sake of the Gospel - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

Are we responsible for presenting the Gospel to the Lost in ways that mesh with their cultural and intellectual/emotional state?  The Apostle Paul thought so.  He was willing to humble himself to reach as many of the Lost as possible.  Figuring out how to do this may be difficult in practice, but the principle is firmly grounded, we ought to be "all things to all people so that by all possible means I (we) might save some."

To watch the video, click on the link below:

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

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

The Pursuit of Happiness?

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" may be the unofficial motto of America, but it is not, much to the chagrin of many, the mantra of our Creator, in particular the last part.  The goal of the will of God for humanity as a whole and individual human beings as well, is not happiness but godliness.  In other words, God's aim is not that we feel happy, but that we be holy and righteous.  And while there is some overlap between feeling happy and being a person who practices holiness and righteousness, there are most certainly not the same thing.  To be a person who,  by the grace of God, chooses holiness and righteousness in this fallen world, is to be a person at odds with the prevailing self-centered worldview upon which human culture, not just American culture, is built.  It is to be a person who eschews personal gain in favor of service to others, who rejects temporary advancement in favor of projects whose fullness will not be realized until our lives are over, and it is to be a person who is willing to sacrifice one's own comfort and material possessions in the service of a kingdom which, while already established, awaits the return of its king and the manifestation of his justice.  It is, then, to be a person somewhat out of time and out of place, a person serving a king and belonging to a kingdom whose reality is not yet what it one day will be, and thus a person who is not seeking happiness, not at least according to any definition that those living for their own ends and purposes would understand or accept.  And yet, with far-ranging negative consequences, much of modern Christianity seems to have missed this point, to have accepted that the job of the Church is to help people be happy (or worse yet, to make them happy).  This is both a deviation from Biblical teaching, and a great hindrance upon the mission of the Church: to share the Gospel and make disciples.

One of the more well known portions of Scripture regarding this topic is this:
Matthew 16:24-26 New International Version (NIV)
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

There are many more examples of the call in the Word of God to serve through self-sacrifice, among them, these words of John:
1 John 3:16-18 New International Version (NIV)
16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

In the end, as a Christian, a disciple of Jesus Christ, it isn't just about you.  Christians are part of something greater than themselves, part of God's plan for all of humanity, and have committed themselves (whether they know it or not) to serving the Kingdom of God, which means that our lives are not about pursuing happiness.

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.