Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #6: Isaiah 1:11-18

 

Isaiah 1:11-18     New International Version

11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—

    what are they to me?” says the Lord.

“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,

    of rams and the fat of fattened animals;

I have no pleasure

    in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

12 When you come to appear before me,

    who has asked this of you,

    this trampling of my courts?

13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!

    Your incense is detestable to me.

New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—

    I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.

14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals

    I hate with all my being.

They have become a burden to me;

    I am weary of bearing them.

15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,

    I hide my eyes from you;

even when you offer many prayers,

    I am not listening.

Your hands are full of blood!

16 Wash and make yourselves clean.

    Take your evil deeds out of my sight;

    stop doing wrong.

17 Learn to do right; seek justice.

    Defend the oppressed.

Take up the cause of the fatherless;

    plead the case of the widow.

18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”

    says the Lord.

“Though your sins are like scarlet,

    they shall be as white as snow;

though they are red as crimson,

    they shall be like wool.

As someone who has belonged to and served only small churches (yes, the building we have here is huge, the congregation hasn't been big since the 1970's), I can attest to the desire and hope for growth coupled with the insecurity about the future that typifies small churches and their pastors.  We want our churches to grow, and we want the Church in America to grow.  What I don't want, and what I hope most of my fellow pastors can see to be for what it is, is insincere or coerced growth.  What is the value of a church bursting at the seams if the Gospel is not preached, if lives are not being transformed by the Spirit, and if the prayers offered up are not sincere?

As the prophet Isaiah made clear, God is not impressed with acts of worship from hearts that are far from him, even multitudes of them.  When it seems that everyone in a community is a Christian, the pressure to fit in can result in people being along for the ride, enjoying the benefits (economic, cultural) of belonging to the group without any of the personal sacrifice and commitment demanded of disciples of Jesus.  Bonhoeffer railed against this shallowness in the German Lutheran and Catholic Churches, calling it "cheap grace."  Such a scenario existed in America during the 1950's, for example, often seen as the Golden Age that 'Christian' Nationalists are hoping to bring back, but outward conformity does not guarantee a healthy Church, Jim Crow's power among millions of 'Christians' made that clear enough.

Now, however, with Church attendance declining, the temptation offered by  'Christian' Nationalism is to compel various forms of participation on behalf of an unwilling population, to fill our churches again with the stick since the carrot is not longer available.

One of the clearest example of this type of mandatory participation would be the reimposition of prayer in the public schools.  While millions of American Christians would cheer this as a victory, the cost to future evangelism would be high, and the result far less than what is promised.  Would God suddenly bless America's geopolitical position in the world and economy because school children are required to say a prayer written by a government official?  Isaiah knew the answer to that one.  In fact, God would be angry rather than impressed with such empty gestures.

{The theology of mandated/compulsory prayer in public schools is atrocious, its implementation would be worse.}

In the end, the path that 'Christian' Nationalism offers is a worldly solution (ironic isn't it) to a spiritual problem, both our theology derived from the Bible, and our knowledge of Church History assure us that it won't work.  The Church's ultimate victory will not be won at the ballot box, by legislation, or as has been tried far too many times, by the sword.  

What should the Church be doing instead of scheming to wield political power?  As vs. 16-17 explain, what God actually wants from his people is a (1) rejection of immorality, (2) an embrace of righteous living, (3) and a genuine commitment to work on behalf of those facing injustice and oppression.

Sermon Video: Speaking Truth to Power - The Martyrdom of John the Baptist, Mark 6:14-29

 When confronted with a morally repugnant situation, John the Baptist spoke with clarity, unafraid of the power wielded by Herod Antipas. As a result, he was imprisoned, and eventually martyred. Why did he speak? Because he represented God, and God's Word on the matter was clear. When called to speak, we need the three things that John had: (1) A righteous reputation that doesn't allow our words to be dismissed, (2) Knowledge of the Truth, and (3) the courage to speak, especially to those with power. While you or I may never speak before a king or president, our own families, workplaces, and communities also have those with power, when they abuse it, when they utilize it for immoral purposes, we too must speak up.

The downward spiral of Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas

At a recent rally, noted author Eric Metaxas, whose book on Bonhoeffer is tremendous (Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy) called Americans who are unwilling to shed blood over the election a parallel to the Germans who stood by while Hitler took power {thus equating, at least on some level, Biden/Harris with Hitler's regime}.  "Everybody who is not hopped up about this … you are the Germans that looked the other way when Hitler was preparing to do what he was preparing to do. Unfortunately, I don’t see how you can see it any other way."  If you're not on board with Metaxas about the election, you're no better than a Nazi enabler!  To top it off, Metaxas sees NO other way to evaluate the current state of America.

I knew nothing about Metaxas when I read the Bonhoeffer book {like many books, I found it at the bookstore, thought it looked interesting, and bought it}, and knew little else about him until recently when he has become extremely political, militantly so.  {To the point of advocating killing in the name of 'fixing' the election: “We need to fight to the death, to the last drop of blood, because it’s worth it.”}

Eric Metaxas' American Apocalypse - by Rod Dreher at the American Conservative {Shared as a source for the Metaxas' quotes/video, not an endorsement.  I don't think Dreher's idea of cultural withdrawal (as the polar opposite of militant partisanship) is the path forward either; here's my response to his book: Fight or Flight? Self-Segregation is the death of the Church's Gospel mission  Dreher himself is, with some irony, far more political than I am willing to be.}

Here are Metaxas' own words from an interview when his book on Bonhoeffer was released: "Bonhoeffer was not a liberal or a conservative, but a Christian. He was zealous for God’s perspective on things, and God’s perspective is inevitably wider than the standard parochial political points of view. It sometimes forces us toward a liberal view and sometimes toward a conservative view." {On Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Six Questions for Eric Metaxas Adjust Share By Scott Horton on December 23, 2010, Harpers Magazine}

However the road led to this point where Metaxas' is on the precipice of violence for political ends, it is sad/troubling/frightening to see Metaxas ignore what he seemed to have known about Bonhoeffer, that being a Christian comes first before one's own political views, and especially the truth that God's view is wider than our incessant partisan squabbles.

This sentiment is extremely dangerous: “So who cares what I can prove in the courts? This is right. This happened, and I am going to do anything I can to uncover this horror, this evil.”  Partisanship does not require Truth, or even truth.  Not an acceptable Christian viewpoint {Christian Worldview self-destruction: A culture without Facts is a culture without Truth}

Eric Metaxas interviewed by Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA {The interview where the quotes in Dreher's essay originate; Kirk likewise elevates partisan politics above Christianity and invokes God's name/will to further his politics}

Partisan Political Christianity is one of the Church's greatest stains, its most horrendous evils were committed under that guise (think 4th Crusade, Inquisition, 30 Years War, etc.}, but it is also 100% illegitimate, an abomination that bears no true allegiance to the Cross of Jesus Christ.  Jesus' kingdom was not of this world, and neither is ours.

That a significant portion of the Church in America is trending in this dangerous direction, hard, is clear, that it will lead to disaster and self-destruction is both history's lesson and the Bible's warning.  What Metaxas (and Kirk) are calling for, whatever portion of the Church follows, will be fighting against God, not for him.

Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before me."

Exodus 20:7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.

John 4:24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

The Dangerous Idolatry of Christian Trumpism We can pray peace will prevail, but we’d be fools to presume it will - by David French {David French points out the danger of Metaxas' words, and broadens it out to other calls for violence/war like the Texas GOP's call for secession.  Like Dreher, French is more overtly political in his commentary than I choose to be, but the warning of the danger of the path chosen by many American Christians is accurate.} 

Some Christians express concerns over ‘bizarre’ pro-Trump Jericho March Some Christians express concerns over ‘bizarre’ pro-Trump Jericho March By Jackson Elliott, Christian Post {Another related article, this one quotes Metaxas as introducing 9/11 conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as his 'good friend'.  If that isn't evidence that Metaxas has gone far too far down this rabbit hole, I'm not sure what else you need.}

Eric Metaxas, Christian radio host, tells Trump, ‘Jesus is with us in this fight’ - Religion News Service {A further example of blasphemy/taking the name of the Lord in vain, by declaring that Jesus is on 'our side' in an election...The article contains a link to a story from the summer when Metaxas punched a protestor riding by on a bike in the face (Metaxas was not detained or charged for the assault, even though the protestor was detained then released).}

God and Politics: Greater than, less than, or equal to?

 I often speak and write about the danger of a too cozy relationship between the Church and political power, but this warning also begs a further question: What is the proper relationship between God and Politics?  The various answers will fall on a continuum from one end of the spectrum that places the Church above earthly power feuds all the way to the other extreme which subjugates the Church to the dominion of temporal power structures.  Some will respond to the 80's sitcom question, "Who's the Boss?" by emphasizing God's sovereignty (an idealist and/or Rationalist position) and others by accepting the limitations of life as we know it (a pragmatic and/or Empiricist position).  Truth be told, when studying philosophy, I always preferred the logic based approach of Descartes or Kant to the observational style of Hume or Locke.  I will focus upon three primary points on this continuum, feel free to carve out a place for others in between or at the ends of the spectrum, the goal is to spur discussion and contemplation, not to squelch it.

1. God < Politics  = Principles are expendable 

One option would be to merge Christian belief and practice INTO the current political goals of a party or system.  This option would be much worse if the system were itself overtly evil, like the German Lutheran Church's acquiescence to Nazi rule, but it still contains pitfalls even if the political philosophy one merges into is not outwardly immoral.  Why is that?  If one's commitment to political goals/methods is greater than one's commitment to God, it will only be a matter of time until that political system goes astray from the principles of faith and requires one to abandon them.  An example that might illuminate this type of arrangement is the 'deal' that Lando makes with Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back.  Lando believes he has no choice, that a harsh reality requires him to compromise 'for the greater good', but soon realizes that his 'deal' can be altered at any point because he is subservient.  If you prefer a more classical example, the deal that Dr. Faustus makes with the Devil is a parallel, it too trades temporary benefits for long-term destruction.  While we might typically think of this choice as relevant to Christians living under oppressive regimes that try to force obedience upon them, for examples the Early Church when facing Rome, or Christians in China today, the real danger comes not from an aggressive and antagonistic power structure, but a welcoming one.  The promise of wealth and power are far more dangerous to the Church than the threat of oppression.  If power is more important than principle, where is the basis for criticism of the power structure?  What is the role of the prophet when the Church has handed over authority to political masters?

2. God = Politics = Principles are negotiable 

Option #1 only happens most clearly when dealing with a corrupt political leadership as when Henry VIII removed the Church of England from its relationship with Rome in order to allow himself to obtain a divorce.  An arrangement more likely to occur in 'ordinary' times would be one in which the Church considers Politics to be a partnership, simply a means to an end that can be managed (after all, how often are we really dealing with a Vader?).  In this case, Christian belief and practices are not merged INTO the system, but rather emphasized or minimized in accordance with the current political goals of the party (or a particular leader) that one chooses to partner with.  Criticism isn't excluded, as in #1, but simply muted for the sake of Realpolitik.  Principles and morality are not expendable, but they are negotiable, becoming a part of the game that must be played.  The time will come when the Word of God is weighed against a bargain that must be made (to get legislation passed, or to win an election), and tossed aside.  This arrangement it typified by the actions of Saruman in The Lord of the Rings, whose study of the power of Sauron convinces him that the best course of action is not to oppose him (for he sees no hope in victory), but to work with him.  Gandalf, realizing that Saruman has traded morality for power, continues to fight on, even against hopeless odds.  If the Church allows its principles to be dictated to it by popularity (for what is politics but a popularity contest?  Even dictatorships require popularity among the ruling clique), it will forever shift with the needs of the moment.  Most of Church History reflects this middle of the road, pragmatic, view.  There will be times when this partnership seems to be beneficial to the Church, when it yields results, and may even advance worthy causes, but these victories will inevitably give way to setbacks and compromises.

3. God > Politics = Principles are foundational

But what if the Church chose to proclaim Christian belief and practice APART FROM the current political goals of any party?  Such a Church would be beholden to none, would compromise its beliefs for no promise of power.  The Church could then criticize whatever policies and proposals it saw as unjust or immoral, it could support those that align with biblical principles, supporting ideas that it judged to be moral, not politicians or parties.  It could cooperate when politicians chose to align with the Church's goals, engage on its own terms, and do so for God's purpose.  Is such a stance naive?  Impossible in the 'real world'?  Or have too many of the Church's leaders lacked the courage to stand their ground?  The example that comes to mind here is the decision of Steve Rogers, Captain America, to refuse to sign the Sakovia Accords in Captain America: Civil War because he believed that giving up the ability to decide for himself the difference between right and wrong was a dangerous path.  (Yeah, I'm Team Cap when watching that movie.)  There are actually numerous biblical precedents for this stance: When the Prophet Nathan saw that King David had chosen an immoral path, he opposed that path and called the king to question.  When the Prophet Elijah saw that King Ahab and Queen Jezebel had embraced the idolatry of Baal worship, he took it upon himself to oppose the prophets of Baal, earning himself a death sentence from the king and queen in the process.  Likewise, John the Baptist did not consider Herod's role as king to make him exempt from the Law of God and rebuked him for his unlawful marriage (this opposition cost him his life).  Fast forward to the situation described in option #1, that of the German Lutheran Church succumbing to Nazi control, and you see in opposition to this betrayal the faithful work of the Confessing Church, led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who also lost his life because of this stand).  The Church fulfills its relationship with earthly power most faithfully when it maintains its prophetic ministry of speaking Truth to the powerful, of opposing immorality wherever it originates.  

Are there other options?  The Amish have decided that they'd rather not be involved at all, withdrawing from society, as have the Jehovah's Witnesses (somewhat less dramatically).  While this removal from the questions of power and politics removes the temptation to compromise, it also abdicates the responsibility given to the Church to stand for justice and protect the oppressed.

Isaiah 1:17    New International Version

Learn to do right; seek justice.  Defend the oppressed.  Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.

Leviticus 19:15    New International Version

“‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Psalm 82:3    New International Version

Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.

While it is true that the Church is not Israel, and we do not live (nor should we seek to) in a theocracy, the Church still has a role to play in upholding and advocating for morality in the societies and power structures that it finds itself a part of.  What the Church has at times forgotten, especially when offered earthly power, is that God does not accept that the pathway to good can be paved with evil. (Romans 12:21 (NIV)  Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.)  

When I was eighteen I strongly considered majoring in political science and seeking to serve my country in the realm of politics.  In the end, I rejected that path for two primary reasons: (1) I hated the idea of constantly asking for money, (2) I knew that I would be forced to choose between proclaiming what was True and Right and thus ending my career at some point when those things were opposed by the needs of the party, or muzzling my beliefs (or worse yet changing them) in order to move ahead.  I don't doubt that thousands of Christian politicians from the local to the federal level struggle with what their faith demands of them, with the demand to compromise principles for the sake of politics.  What if the Church supported them by not playing the political game?  What if the Church offered these politicians an example of moral fortitude that might inspire them to stand for justice even when it wasn't convenient?  

We've never truly seen what the Church could become if it took all of Jesus' teachings to heart.  What would our world look like if Christ's followers really 'turned the other cheek' and 'repaid evil with good'?  We fall short, we repent, we lean upon the Spirit and seek to imitate Christ-likeness better the next time.  Imagine also if the Church truly believed the words of Paul, Philippians 3:20 (NIV) But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.

God is already sovereign, what if the Church started acting like it knew that to be true?

Philippians 4:8  New International Version

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

  

The theology of mandated/compulsory prayer in public schools is atrocious, its implementation would be worse.

Prayer is not a "to whom it may concern" letter.  Prayer is a conversation with God on the part of those who have a relationship with him, not a magic formula that if said by enough people will cause God rain down blessings on a land.

I write this knowing that a number of my brothers and sisters in Christ, whose motives I am not assuming or judging, will strongly disagree with this assessment of prayer in public schools.  This issue is, however, connected to numerous others respecting the separation of Church and State, the impact of politics and political tactics upon the Church, and our intended role as Christians first and Americans second.

Note: I put the word compulsory in the title alongside mandated because any practical application of mandating that prayer must be administered by public schools would naturally entail a compulsory element to force compliance upon the schools themselves (the most likely thing being the threat to withhold federal education funding) and the students (detentions, expulsions for those who refuse?).

Why is mandated/compulsory prayer in our public schools such a bad idea?

1. Prayer is already in public schools, each time a teacher or student chooses to pray.

Contrary to what you may have heard, prayer in schools (or anywhere else) has never been illegal.  How could it be?  Prayer is a conversation between yourself and God, one that nobody else is privy to, nor able to control.  In addition to the continued availability of private prayer, prayer that is student initiated and student led (See You At the Pole for example) has always been, and will remain perfectly legal.  {No, having a student lead a prayer over the loudspeaker while students are required to be quiet and listen is not the same thing}

2. We have no need to be led in prayer.

I'm not talking about corporate worship, when the people of God are gathered together and one person leads either a pre-written or spontaneous prayer, as that individual (pastor or otherwise) is acting as a spokesperson for us and focusing our group prayer in one direction; we are praying with him/her, they're not praying on our behalf; that's an important distinction.  With that caveat in place, it is absolutely clear in Scripture that because of the nature of the New Covenant, with Jesus serving as our mediator, that we can approach God directly in prayer.  We have direct access to the Father. 

Ephesians 3:12 New International Version

In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

Hebrews 4:16 New International Version

Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

Romans 8:14-15 New International Version

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”

3. Rote, compelled, and thus insincere prayer (like worship) is not only not honoring to God, it actually offends and angers God.

What would mandated/compulsory prayer in public schools actually be?  Would it be sincere acts of worship?  How could it be for the millions of school children (and teachers) told to pray to a God in whom they do not believe, or told to pray in a way contrary to the dictates of their conscience?  How could these prayers possibly be genuine and from the heart?  What they would actually be is a repeated affront to God, as if God is compelled to bless our nation because we've required everyone to pray, as if God is beholden to us, and not the other way around.  God will not be manipulated, and God will not be mocked.

Jeremiah 7:9-11 New International Version

“‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? 11 Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the Lord.

Hosea 6:6 New International Version

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Isaiah 1:11-15 New International Version

“The multitude of your sacrifices—
    what are they to me?” says the Lord.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
    of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
    in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
    who has asked this of you,
    this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
    Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
    I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
    I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
    I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
    I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
    I am not listening.

Your hands are full of blood!

4. Requiring non-Christians to pray a Christian prayer hurts evangelism.

How does evangelism work?  What are the most effective methods for sharing the Good News that Jesus Christ has died for our sins and been raised from the dead for our justification?  An important question, and one studied and debated by those engaging in missions and evangelism both here in America and throughout the world.  The answer to that question is never: force people to read the Bible, pray, and attend church.  Why not?  Because it doesn't work.  Only God can make a planted seed grow, only the Holy Spirit can soften the hard heart of human rebellion.  The only thing that compulsory participation, in a religion that you don't believe in, consistently causes in those it is forced upon, is resentment and anger.  State mandated 'Christian' prayer demonstrates to Muslims, Hindus, or Atheists that we do not respect them as Americans, let alone as human beings, how exactly are we creating an opportunity for them to hear the Gospel?

5. A one-size-fits all prayer to God(s) that tries to please everybody, is the most likely outcome.

The last thing I want is a politician or a government employee writing the prayers that our children are required to listen to, and/or recite.  A prayer not directed at God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is not a Christian prayer.  What kind of prayer would we be talking about?  It would have to be one mandated/written by the Federal government at the Department of Education, and thus one designed to please Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, Agnostics, Atheists, and thus equally offensive to all and pleasing to nobody.  I absolutely believe in intra-faith prayer, Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians can and should pray together.  I absolutely do NOT believe in inter-faith prayer, for how can we pray together when we don't agree upon who we're praying to?

6. Focus on prayer in schools is thinking like an American 1st, a Christian 2nd.

This may be hard for some to accept, but as a Christian my citizenship is in Heaven.  That I am an American, while being an honor and a blessing for which I give thanks and a responsibility that carries with it civic duties that I take very seriously, is still in the end, only incidental compared to knowing that my soul has been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb.  As such, I must always consider what is right in God's eyes, what is beneficial to the Church and its mission to share the Gospel, before considering what I think is right for America.  Often the two are compatible, but there is a divergence more often than many of us are willing to admit.  For example: It may benefit (at least in the short-term) America to 'win' at the expense of another nation economically or militarily, but those who live in that land are human beings just like me, created in the image of God, and thus either fellow followers of Jesus Christ, or those in need of the Gospel.  Either way, as a Christian I look at the world, and my nation's place within it, differently when I consider myself a Christian 1st and an American 2nd.  We call this a Christian Worldview, and it is something more Christians need to embrace.  Trying to revitalize Christendom, through official governmental pronouncements and symbols like prayer in schools, is a nation centric-view, not a Christ-centered view.

7. Societies with compulsory Christian behavior were NOT more Christian in their outcomes.

History teaches us, clearly, that requiring Christian behavior like baptisms, church attendance, and public confessions doesn't create the thoroughly Christian society that the outward appearance projects.  This is not a question of public morality, and has nothing to do with marriage, abortion, or other topics where Christian morality is in conflict with a secular viewpoint.  Morality is a different issue that requires a different theological basis.  We have already seen from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea (which Jesus quotes) that insincere public acts of worship have the opposite affect of what is intended by those who do them or require them.  This is born out by the clear cut examples of Spain following the Reconquista in which the Inquisition utilized threats and torture to force Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity, and the more recent example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Germany, where nearly everyone was a 'Christian', having been baptized at birth, supporting the Church through taxes, and in his words so fooled by "cheap grace" that their unredeemed hearts still enthralled to sin readily swallowed the godless hatred of the Nazis.  Where did the Holocaust occur?  In the heart of 'Christian' Europe, with the help of millions of people who would have claimed that they were Christians.  Are more examples needed?  Calvin's Geneva, where the Church literally ran the town, was not sustainable (and burned heretics at the stake), nor was the Pilgrim's isolated community (Witch Trails being the most well known flaw).  As we have seen time and time again with the Amish, compelled behavior leads to rebellion, even among those who do believe.

8. Our ancestors in the faith died as martyrs to governments that tried to compel them to not worship, or to worship against their conscience; how can we do that to anyone else?

As a Baptist, this is the final nail in the coffin regarding mandated/compulsory prayer in public schools.  The Roman Empire persecuted Christians because they would not worship the Emperor, murdering untold numbers of them, often in purposefully cruel ways.  During the Reformation, and especially during the horrors of the Thirty Years War, Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Christians all were willing to persecute the Anabaptists who insistence upon believer baptism (the idea that the Church is not everyone in town, only those who demonstrate genuine faith) offended all sides equally.  Many of them were drowned in rivers, by those claiming to be 'good Christians' in mockery of their embrace of immersion baptism.  Sadly, years later when the Puritans came to America and finally had power over their own society, they immediately began persecuting anyone showing signs of dissent.  The United States of America was a bold social experiment in that at the time it was one of the few nations in the history of the world to not have an official state religion.  More than that, religious tolerance was enshrined in the Bill of Rights, protecting the Church from the State, and the State from the Church.
I find it ironic that many of the same voices crying out for a ban on Sharia Law in the United States (where it is not even a remote possibility with the Muslim population at 1%), and who, correctly, decry the oppression faced by our brothers and sisters in Christ in Muslim countries and in Communist China, will then turn around and call for the shoe to be on the other foot here in America.  The degree of compulsion may not be the same, nor the penalties for stepping out of line, but the idea of mandating religious behavior is.  What is morally wrong in other countries ought to be morally wrong here as well. 

Kids and teachers pray in school every day that the school is in session, when they choose to.  God is not asking us to pretend that America is a Christian nation through insincere public acts, but to transform our families, churches, and communities through deep commitments to righteous living and sustained efforts at evangelism.  What will propel the Church in America forward is not policies foisted upon an unwilling or indifferent public, but sincere worship, servant's hearts, and morally upright living on the part of God's people.  If you want to transform America, start with the Church.

Timeless truths in Karl Barth's Barmen Declaration, written against the Nazi dominated Evangelical Church in Germany

Written in 1934, the Theological Declaration of Barmen was the response of the Confessional Church, those Christians who had left the official Church in Germany because of Nazi influence.  While they represented Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches, they held in common a revulsion at Nazi ideology, and an unwillingness to ignore its corrupting influence upon both the German Church and German people.  The primary author of the declaration was the Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), mentor to German leaders of the Confessing Church like Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
While it is typically folly to compare any situation to that of Nazi Germany, for the German Church certainly faced challenges with few parallels in the rise of Hitler's political party, there remains within the Barmen Declaration a number of truths which transcend the historical moment which inspired its writing. (The words of the Declaration appear below in bold, my commentary in normal font.)

8.04 Try the spirits whether they are of God! Prove also the words of the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church to see whether they agree with Holy Scripture and with the Confessions of the Fathers. If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God, in order that God's people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith experience what he himself has said: "I will never leave you, nor forsake you." Therefore, "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

No matter what circumstances an individual Christian, a local church, denomination, or the Church as a whole, may find itself in; whether that circumstance be one of abundance or scarcity, of peace or persecution, the response of God's people to that circumstance can only be validated or denounced based upon the teachings of Holy Scripture.  Let the people of God clamor for leaders who will build their ministry upon God's Word, and may they ignore those who would teach anything contrary to it.  I have told my own congregation, on a number of occasions, that as an American Baptist Church with a congregational polity, that they are the ones responsible for testing my sermons, bible studies, classes, blog posts, etc. by the standard of God's Word; and that should I fail to adhere to that Word, that I would expect them to call me on it, to challenge me, and if necessary to remove me from this position of authority in Christ's Church should I refuse to bend my will to that of God's Word.  This should be the standard for those who serve the Church in every denomination, whether it be on the authority of a bishop from above, or a local congregation's members, we must demand that God's Word remain the standard.  As Barth urged, if we are convinced that the path we tread is the path of faithful obedience to God's Word, let no fear or temptation keep us from following, for we can be assured that God goes with us.

8.08 As members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches we may and must speak with one voice in this matter today. Precisely because we want to be and to remain faithful to our various Confessions, we may not keep silent, since we believe that we have been given a common message to utter in a time of common need and temptation. We commend to God what this may mean for the interrelations of the Confessional Churches.

How does the Church speak with one voice when there are so many competing opinions being offered by its leaders?  For Karl Barth and the Confessing Church, it was necessary to set aside their denominational distinctions, to come together and hammer out a statement of common belief, and share that message with the world.  What will it mean for the barriers that exist between churches when they can find common ground in God's Word in the midst of extraordinary challenges?  The answer can hardly be detrimental, and holds promise of great benefit for the Kingdom of God.  What are the challenges today that the Church can come together and speak about from God's Word with one voice?  Sadly, the growing trend is for 'liberal' churches of various denominations, and 'conservative' churches of various denominations to find common ground with each other against the positions of their liberal or conservative brethren, thus resulting in a Church that speaks with two voices, one corresponding to each of the major political parties in the United States.  The long-term effects of this alignment are far from clear. {In other words, it is not so much Catholic vs. Protestant or Baptist vs. Methodist anymore, but rather conservative Catholic and conservative Baptist vs. liberal Catholic and liberal Baptist}.

8.15 We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.

The Nazis demanded total allegiance, and would not share it with Jesus Christ.  Like the Early Church's refusal to worship the Roman Emperor, this led to persecution and martyrdom.  Barth was absolutely right in declaring that no segment of our lives, as Christian disciples, are outside of the control of the lordship of Jesus Christ, and that no other authority can supersede our allegiance to God, for any purpose.  This idea was front and center at the start of the 20th century, as Nationalism grew steadily throughout Europe, resulting in millions of people viewing themselves as British Christians or German Christians rather than as Christian Brits or Germans.  Whatever other allegiances we may have in life, they cannot come first, they cannot be allowed to demand of us things contrary to the Word of God.  {And if they attempt to do so, we must resist, as Barth and Confessing Church were doing}.

8.17 The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.

This is simply an eloquent answer to the question: What is the Church?  Notice the radical commitment, a bold departure from what Dietrich Bonhoeffer diagnosed as the ill of the practice of faith exercised by German Christians: Cheap Grace.  A discipleship which costs nothing, which asks little of us, is no discipleship at all.


8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

The Church has a divinely appointed purpose and mission.  This is not open for negotiation.  It cannot allow itself to abandon this calling, nor can it allow itself to be bullied into silence.  We are in the business of making disciples.  We do this by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Good News that Jesus died for our sins and was raised to new life for our justification.  This message is for everyone, period.  This message is to be accompanied by acts of love and charity, by grace and truth.  Whatever self-interest, whether power, money, or fame, whatever ideology or political cause would seek to turn the Church from its God-given task, must be rejected.  {I may have written a few times about the Church's need to protect the Gospel from politics.}

8.21 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.

The Nazis claimed the authority to appoint the leaders of the German Church, as if the Church were subservient to the state {An arrangement that existed for centuries in the Byzantine Empire with the Eastern Orthodox Church, and one that caused the Investiture Controversy in the 11th century as Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV squared off against Pope Gregory VII.  This episode is one of the portions of Church History highlighted in my class: What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History}.  This same dilemma exists for Christians in China, with the Communist Party insisting upon the right to appoint its leaders, thus driving into unofficial 'underground' churches, those who would not be subject to that illegitimate authority. 

8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well.


8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.

Why do Baptists traditionally espouse the Separation of Church and State?  For the very reasons cited here: The temptation for the State to try to do the Church's job, and for the Church to try to function as an arm of the State (or control it outright).  The State does not function well as an arbiter of our relationship with God {examples of which are plentiful, from the Salem Witch Trials to John Calvin's Geneva burning a non-Trinitarian heretic at the stake: The dark side of the Reformation: John Calvin and the burning of heretics - by Joseph Hartropp }, nor can the Church function properly as a witness to the Kingdom of God when it becomes enmeshed in the business of temporal kingdoms.  How the line is to be drawn between Civil and Church responsibility is a tough one, as is the question of cooperation in areas of mutual interest {For example: the mutually beneficial work of Mustard Seed Missions of Venango County in cooperation with the Human Services Department of Venango County}.

8.27 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.

This is the Truth at the core of Barth's statement: The Church serves the will of God, it honors and obeys the Word of God, and it seeks to build up the Kingdom of God.  How could any diversion of that effort, and compromise of that cause be tolerated, and how could the Church allow itself to become the tool of any other vision?  It seems obvious that the Nazis were not the right ones to hand over control of the Church to, they had the mark of villains from the very beginning.  Nor would people within the Church be rushing to be under the authority of the Chinese Communist government, for their stated purpose is hostile to religion.  But temptation typically comes in subtler guise.  What about using the Church to help 'our side' win an election?  What about utilizing the worship service of our Lord to promote a politician or political party?  To think that Barth's warnings only apply when dealing with fascists or communists is naive.  The Church has a singular mission, the Church has a singular authority, and the Church bows its knee to only one Lord; those truths are timeless.

Sermon Video: Paul appeals to Caesar - Acts 25

Having newly been appointed governor of Judea, Festus visits Jerusalem to acquaint himself with the leadership there, and while doing so, is made aware of the ongoing desire on the part of the leading priests to rid themselves of Paul.  Festus wastes no time in beginning the trial, but is dumbfounded by the bizarre (to him) Jewish theology which is at issue between the two sides.  Unable to decipher what is going on, Festus suggests moving the trial to Jerusalem, prompting Paul to appeal to Caesar to avoid the corrupt influence of the Sanhedrin in the trial.  Having little choice but to send Paul on to Rome, Festus asks Herod Agrippa II, whom the Romans considered to be an authority on Judaism, to hear Paul's case and offer a suggestion as to what to write to the emperor about Paul.

Throughout the proceedings, Paul maintains his position as a reformer and not a rebel, and is willing to utilize his rights as a citizen in his own defense.  Throughout Church history the line between reformer and rebel has been a difficult one to walk, with Paul being the first of many to attempt it.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Assassinations, Pastor Jeffress, and Romans 13

I've written often enough about the danger to the Church in America of an unequal marriage with politics and politicians, especially when that marriage envisions an American triumphalism and nationalism that seeks to equate being a good Christian with being a patriotic American.  The truth of the matter is that no nation has the right to claim God's special favor, apart from ancient Israel, and those who have claimed such a right have done so with disastrous results; one need only examine the WWI era rhetoric of nations comprised primarily of Christians fighting against each other to conclude that God was not in favor of the war aims of any of the combatants.  Can any Christian theologian really defend the notion that German territorial expansion or British colonial interests were the will of God and thus worthy of the countless lives shed in pursuit of them?
And yet, that same temptation to mix Christianity with political nationalism remains, and was given a boost recently by Pastor Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, a mega-church with 3,700 weekly attendees.  Pastor Jeffress is no stranger to politics, having been an outspoken advocate for one candidate during the last presidential election.  Now, given the tensions between the United States and North Korea, Pastor Jeffress felt it necessary to express that God has given the moral authority, according to Romans 13:1-5, for the President to "do whatever, whether it's assassination, capital punishment, or evil punishment to quell the actions of evildoers like Kim Jung Un."  So, if the President of the United States determines that a person is an evildoer, he has the moral right to assassinate him/her without due process, without a trial, and without the consent of Congress?  When Paul wrote Romans 13, was he really advocating that governmental leaders, most of whom in the years since have not been Christians, or have been nominal Christians at best, have God's blessing to take pre-emptive action, including starting wars, against those who do threaten evil?
What is the response of Jeffress to those who caution that advocating war, and assassinating the leader of North Korea would surely lead to war, maybe even nuclear war, is not the will of God?  "Some Christians, perhaps younger Christians, have to think this through.  It's antithetical to some of the mushy rhetoric you hear from some circles today.  Frankly, it's because they're not well taught in the scriptures."  Well, ignoring the insult that those who advocate for peace are just "mushy", it is certainly not the only interpretation of Romans 13 to encourage the government to utilize assassinations and pre-emptive wars, for such a stance doesn't even meet the level of the traditional Just War Theory of Thomas Aquinas.  (Primarily because it is far from the last resort, and would lead to far greater evil in terms of civilians deaths than it could possibly prevent.)

For an opposing view of the responsibility of the Christian and Church regarding war and peace, note the words of the martyr Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer who died at the hands of the Nazis:
There is no way to peace along the way of safety.  For peace must be dared.  It is the great venture.  It can never be safe.  Peace is the opposite of security.  To demand guarantees is to mistrust, and this mistrust in turns brings forth war.  To look for guarantees is to want to protect oneself.  Peace means to give oneself altogether to the law of God, wanting no security, but in faith and obedience laying the destiny of the nations in the hand of Almighty God, not trying to direct it for selfish purposes.  Battles are won, not with weapons, but with God.  They are won where the way leads to the cross.  Which of us can say he or she knows what it might mean for the world if one nation should meet the aggressor, not with weapons in hand, but praying, defenseless, and for that very reason protected by 'a bulwark never failing'? - The Church and the People of the World, from the Ecumenical Conference at Fano, 1934.

What is the purpose of a pastor of the Church of Jesus Christ?  If you answered: To encourage a governmental leader to start a war that will kills thousands, perhaps millions of innocents, you're evidently not alone, but just the same, I'm frightened of what that says about the priorities and perspective of some Christians.  As always, the marriage of Politics and Church is an abusive relationship, what may be gained by it is a paltry excuse for what is lost, that observation just got a lot more serious.

To read the Washington Post article which contains the quotes of Pastor Jeffress, click on the following link: ‘God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un,’ evangelical adviser says

Sermon Video: The cost of discipleship - Luke 14:25-35

Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote an essay entitled, "the Cost of Discipleship" in which he decried the prevalence of "cheap grace" in the Church that he knew.  Cheap grace was not something that Jesus advocated, quite the opposite, for Jesus spoke on many occasions of the high cost of being his disciple.  Here in Luke 14, Jesus tells a crowd of volunteer disciples that had been following him on his travels that they must "hate" their family and their own lives if they hope to be his disciple.  The "hate" that Jesus is speaking of is a comparative hyperbole, much like the sentiment, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated", which speaks to the necessity of having our love for and dedication to God far and above that of anything else.  In the end, when we "hate" our family and ourselves by loving God so totally we actually can finally love our family, our neighbors, and ourselves properly.  When we put any of these in God's place, we're not actually elevating them, we're lowering them because the love that we have in that case is not the pure and holy love of one who already loves God with all of their heart, soul, mind, and strength.
After the tough talk about hate, Jesus continues the reality check of discipleship by declaring that anyone wanting to be his disciple must also pick up a cross, in other words, be willing to pay whatever the cost to life, liberty, and property may be required of those proclaiming the name of Jesus.  We know of the cost in righteous living that is necessary for any and all followers of Jesus, what we do not know is how much more will be asked of us, but each who would be his disciple must be willing to pay that cost if asked.
Finally, Jesus concludes by telling the crowd that they need to calculate their own level of commitment to see if, in light of the high cost, they are still willing to pursue being a disciple.  The same question lies before us, we must be aware of the cost of discipleship, it will not be cheap, and we must be willing to pay it.  What if we are not, what of those who wish to follow Jesus without such a commitment, Jesus calls them salt without saltiness.  They may look the part, but lack the benefit of the real thing.  The Church doesn't need bland Christians, it needs ones dedicated to the Cross, for only they will through the power of the Holy Spirit be God's instruments to change the world.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

"What part of, 'about that day or hour no one knows', are you not getting?" - God

Speculation is endless, and perhaps inevitable, that the End Times are upon us.  This is nothing new, the history of the Church is full of "signs" and "portends" that were sure signs that the end was nigh.  Yet here we are, the world goes on and so does the Church.  American Evangelicals, in particular, seem to be infected with the notion that things happening in our world today, and in our country in particular, are signs of the decline that they are sure must happen if their interpretation of prophecy is about to be fulfilled (A Pre-Tribulation, Pre-Millenial, Rapture is typically viewed as happening AFTER a steep and momentous decline of the Church and society).  This pessimism is an easily self-fulfilling prophecy, as there will always be more bad news than good news in the news.
Many of those who are convinced that they see the signs are the same people obsessed with taking the Bible "literally", which of course nobody does because it is full of metaphors and hyperboles, along with figurative language like poetry and proverbs.  Not to be side-tracked by the issue of Biblical interpretation, but why won't they take God "literally" when Jesus said that ONLY the Father knows when the End will come.  Jesus doesn't know, the angels in heaven don't know, so why do you think that you've somehow cracked the code and now you see that the latest earthquake or terrorist attack was a "sign" from God?
A related issue is the American overvaluation of him/herself in the will of God.  When something bad happens here, in our society or our Church, it seems bigger, more important, than what is happening in Christ's Church in Africa, South America, or Asia.  If the American Church shriveled to nothing (not something I see happening, but let's look at the worst case), but the Third World Church doubled, would Christ's Church be growing or shrinking?  Would that be a sign that the End is near, or that the Spirit of God was moving in power among his people?  Western, affluent, white, souls aren't worth any more to God than Eastern, poor, dark skinned ones.  Many American Christians would never say that they think that, they probably don't even consciously think it, but it is reflected in their insistence that a setback in the Church here is so important that it must be a sign.
Are you aware that violent crime in America is now at its lowest rate since the 1970's?  This is a decades long trend, and is matched by an ever lower trending abortion rate.  The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage was a right.  Which of those three facts are being touted by the pessimist that insists that America is over, Facism is around the corner, and the Anti-Christ is waiting in the wings?  The search for signs is a waste of time, and shows a lack of trust in the will of God, but even if it wasn't, why are the negative signs important but the positive ones ignored?
It has been suggested that American Christians will soon be faced with a dilemma much like that of Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Nazi Germany in the late 1930's.  Unfortunately for those hoping for hysteria, the historical parallels between America in the 2010's and Germany in the 1930's are non-existent.  They had a state sponsored/run Church, our Church is independent.  They had a police/military that was willing to follow a Facist path and attack its own people, we do not.  They had an infant Republic that was easily replaced by a dictator who voted in his own "emergency" powers, we have a 200+ old Republic that has survived the Civil War, the Great Depression, and WWII.  There are Christians in many countries in the world today facing persecution on a level that Bonhoeffer would have recognized, Americans are not among them; for that we must continue to be thankful to our Father, when he's ready, he'll send his Son back, and like he said, it'll be a surprise.

Sermon Video - "The battle is not yours, but God's" 2 Chronicles 20

                After barely escaping his disastrous alliance with Ahab, King Jehoshaphat returns to Jerusalem where he faces rebuke from God’s prophet.  Jehoshaphat proves his character by taking the criticism, and returning to the work he should have been doing, the administration of justice and support of God’s Law for his people.  In the midst of this renewed effort to be the type of king the people of God need, calamity strikes without warning: Jehoshaphat is informed of a league of three kingdoms to the east that have joined to invade Judah, and they’re already on this side of the Jordan River.

                In the midst of a crisis that could end his kingdom and destroy his people if not thwarted, Jehoshaphat turns not to his palace to meet with his generals, but to the temple to lead the assembled people of God in prayer.  With the invading army only a day away, Jehoshaphat prays before the people, recalling God’s seat upon the throne of heaven, his promise to Abraham, and ending by recalling that his ancestors had shown mercy to the Edomites who are now amongst those invading Judah, which leads to a call for God to show justice.

                The response to Jehoshaphat’s powerful prayer is impressive: God speaks through a Levite in attendance at this assembly in the temple courtyard to assure his people that they need not be afraid even of an approaching army, for “the battle is not yours, but God’s”.  This is the key truth for Jehoshaphat and for us today.  The true battle between Good and Evil was never ours to win or lose, it was always the responsibility of God, and the outcome of victory was never in doubt.  The champion of the cause of right is the Lamb of God, who is indeed worthy.

                The battle is God’s, but his people still need to put on their armor and take the field.  Jehoshaphat leads the army out of Jerusalem with a choir of men in front praising God, “Give thanks to the LORD, for his love endures forever.”  As the people praise, God throws the enemy army into confusion and they turn upon each other and destroy themselves.  What was the key to victory?  The power of God fulfilling his Word.  And how was that power accessed?  By the fervent prayer of his people, gathered together, and their subsequent steps of obedience in faithful trust. 

To watch the video, click on the link below:

 Sermon Video

The future and the hope of the Church is found in the poor

In reading through A Testament to Freedom: The Essential Writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I came across an insight about the Church from his doctoral dissertation The Communion of Saints.  When looking out at the Church in his native Germany, Bonhoeffer encountered a comfortable middle class church that while still offering social programs for the poor, had failed to include them in its community.  He wrote,

"for the church of today everything depends on its once more approaching the masses which have turned away from it, and, moreover; in such a way that the church brings the gospel into real contact with the present situation of the poor working classes, in full attentiveness to how these masses look upon the gospel."

There are some churches, particularly in blighted urban areas, who have successfully brought the Gospel to the working poor and made them part of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Unfortunately, for too many of our churches, this is not the case.  The Church has lost the rich, but it rarely has ever had them anyway, and it has lost the poor.  The majority of my church, and all of our churches, is middle class people.  Here in our county the working poor and the non-working poor are a large percentage of the population, but a very small percentage of our churches.  How did this happen, how can it be solved?

            Bonhoeffer continued with his line of thought by adding, “the future and the hope for our ‘bourgeois’ church lies in a renewal of its lifeblood, which is only possible if the church succeeds in winning over the poor working classes.”  Don’t let the fancy French word “bourgeois” mess you up, just substitute “middle-class” in its place and you’ll be fine.  Finding a way to make the Church appeal to the rich will never be the answer.  The Church in Franklin, in Venango County, in Pennsylvania, and in America will begin to find revival when it finds a way to reach the poor amongst us with the Gospel and truly make them a part of our community.  Hope that we can accomplish this should not be hard to find, for “there is no modern power that is basically more open to the Christian gospel than these poor workers.  These avid, poor workers know only one affliction, isolation, and they cry out for one thing, community.”  I have certainly seen this with my own eyes.  In our work with Mustard Seed Missions we have been able to help hundreds of families with serious physical needs, but the greatest need for nearly all of them is to be part of a community; that is why our organization always makes its last step in helping someone the sending of a church near to them to do follow-up and offer them the chance to be a part of a community.  The idea of belonging to a neighborhood no longer exists as it once did in America.  People move too often, we drive too far to go to work and to church for any neighborhood to exist on its own.

            How do we know if our churches have become isolated from the poor in our midst?

“The best proof is that the poor working classes have turned away from the church, whereas the bourgeois have remained.  So the sermon is aimed at relatively secure people, living adequately in orderly family circumstances, relatively ‘educated’ and relatively solid in their morality.”

Here Bonhoeffer’s wisdom hits us squarely in the chest.  Why do people in our churches deplore the morality of “them” and choose to fight in a social war rather than take the gospel to the poor?  Because we’re comfortable here; because the Church has managed to create a little sanctuary within our community where things are a little better than out there, but only at the expense and with the consequence of making those on the outside no longer feel welcome amongst us.  In such a situation, “The danger of the church’s becoming a mere association is obvious.”  What prevents a group of relatively well off Christians from acting like a social club instead of being on fire for God’s work in our world?  It will only be our connection to, and acceptance of, the poor in our midst.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s observations about the churches of Germany in 1930 are entirely relevant for the Church in America today.  When we find a way to make the poor feel like this is their church too, when their problems become our problems, God will truly be alive and well in our midst.

Sermon Video: "The LORD is my refuge" - Psalm 11

David is confronted with two conflicting things that he knows to be true.  The wicked assault the righteous (as Saul did to him), and God is in control of this world.  The solution to that dilema is two-fold; to become part of the process of giving refuge to those in need (i.e. being a part of God's refuge) and accepting by faith that God will in the end judge the world, that those who are martyred in the cause of Christ are victorious.  For David, he still had to hide in caves from Saul, but he refused to raise his hand against the LORD's annointed; instead, he placed the outcome in God's hand; the LORD was his refuge.

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

The Road to Freedom, April 9th, 1945

On the monday morning, with the war only weeks from ending, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed by the Gestapo.  It marked the end of a decade of resistance by Bonhoeffer, first to the offical German Church's embrace of Hitler's Nazi racial theology, eventually to the Hitler regime itself culminating in his joining with the plotters in the failed Valkyrie plot.  In the end, Hitler personally ordered the death of Bonhoeffer and many other of the conspirators while he cowered in the rubble of Berlin awaiting his own suicide.  Evil, when it cannot have victory, is content with spite.  Similiar scenes were taking place all over Nazi occupied Europe as concentration camps hurried to kill as many innocents as possible before Allied troops arrived.

To Bonhoeffer, this end was a choice he would embrace if it was what God asked of him.  He could have stayed safely in America with rewarding teaching opportunities at seminaries that certainly would have benefited from his wisdom, but he chose to return to Germany to be with the Confessing Church (the opposition church formed to counter the Nazi takeover of the offical German Lutheran Church) pastors in their ongoing struggle against Hitler.  To give oneself wholly to God was the passion of his life.

If we allow ourselves to be sub-divided into a spiritual side that we give to God and a secular side that we reserve to ourselves, we will never be the Christians that God wants us to be.  Nor will we ever be as useful for the Kingdom of God as we could be.  It is only when we have decided firmly in our hearts that our lives are not our own that we can truly find lives of purpose and meaning.  This radical wisdom comes from Christ himself who said, "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 10:39)  Bishop Bell, a friend of Dietrich from his ecumenical efforts in London, ended his memorial sermon with the words, "The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church".