Sermon Video: Having grace in disputable matters, part 1 - Romans 14:1-9

Chapter 14 of Romans is Paul's full argument as to why Christians ought to treat each other with grace with respect to "disputable matters."  In this first part, we see two key truths: (1) The need for grace when Christians disagree, and (2) the reality that disputable matters do indeed exist, they are not a flaw but rather evidence of our freedom in Christ.

How can Christians be OK with disagreement?  Simple, it is the will of God.  To further explain, God made us in his image with the ability to discern what is the best path for us in our circumstances when the issues at hand are not questions of morality but rather preference, personality, style, or emphasis.  We absolutely must have agreement on the core beliefs of our faith (i.e. orthodoxy), but outside of these truths the rule of thumb is grace.

Sermon Video: Pastor Powell and Pastor Phillips, The Harvest is Plentiful - Matthew 9:37-38

To commemorate the reopening of our building's original worship space (now known as Clark Hall) after the collapse of the ceiling two years ago, we decided to worship alongside Redeemer Anglican Church, a congregation which has been sharing our space for the past two years.  Pastor Eric and I thus divided up the passage in Matthew, I preached first on 9:37 and he followed after with 9:38.

What does it mean when Jesus tells his disciples that the harvest is plentiful?  Why doesn't it seem that way to us?  Also, why are the workers too few, and what does God tell us to do in response to this challenge?

My thoughts featured by the Project on Rural Ministry (of Grove City College)

Recently I was asked by Pastor Charlie Cotherman if there was something about rural ministry that I might write for the Project on Rural Ministry (of Grove City College).  After a short period of thinking the obvious choice was to write about the lessons learned from the success of the non-denominational parachurch ministry, Mustard Seed Missions, that I was blessed to be part of the founding and have continued since it began in 2012 as its President. 

Stand in the Gap, Together: How Cooperative Ministry Can Empower Small Churches

Did God answer Jesus' prayer for Unity among his followers? - John 17

 

A memento for the once dominant multi-clergy trivia team created
by my wife Nicole (our one non-clergy member on the team,
 but representing yet another faith tradition).

John 17:20-23     New International Version

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Recently a wise Christian brother from my parents' generation wrote this to me: "I have always been puzzled that the Father never answered Christ’s prayer for Christian unity in John 17".  After reading the email I came back to that statement.  If Christian unity was a debate topic, it seems you would have plenty of people willing to argue that the Church is not now, nor rarely has been, unified.  But that sentence stuck with me, and I wrote him back that I just might want to argue the opposite in a blog post, so here we are.

One of the community wide ecumenical planning meetings
that would soon lead to the founding of Emmaus Haven
(Note: Clara Powell ready to share her input)

Is the Church 'one' and does that level of unity encourage others to believe that the Father sent the Son?

To begin to answer such a wide ranging question we must first ponder its basis.  What would unity look like among followers of Jesus Christ, and how would that differ from disunity?  Peaceful co-existence vs. violent antagonism is one measure, and we can consider how much of that those claiming to be Christians have shown to each other.  But what other measures should we consider?  What about commonality of Authority?  Creeds?  What about leadership structure, is unity defined by having one ecclesiastical flow chart, or by having a variety of entities that all more/less follow Paul's writings on how a church ought to be governed?  Is unity of worship style part of the discussion, or is that a cultural manifestation instead? {I would argue that cultural unity of style was never Jesus' intention}  In the end, how much unity or disunity one finds in the Church today or in various points in its history, will depend to an extent upon how many factors are being considered and which ones receive the most emphasis.  In brief, then, let me offer the following marks of unity for consideration:

1. The functional unity of the Early Church

While our evidence is somewhat scanty, the period from the founding of the Church by the generation that witnessed Jesus' life, death, and resurrection firsthand, until the years of great persecution by the Roman Emperor Trajan (AD 250-260) saw the Church functionally as one unit with a loose and developing ecclesiastical structure that began with virtual local church autonomy in the first few generations, and then in succeeding generations saw the bishops of the great Christian communities like Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome gain authority in their areas, all without significant schism or heretical movements.  As the Church's leadership structure and connectivity was developing (organically, not by the will of any one person of group), the Church was also able to informally develop a common canon of authoritative scripture with remarkable levels of agreement regarding its contents.

Following Trajan's persecutions there some cracks in the unity of the Church began to develop.  That these developments became more acute following the embrace of Christianity by Constantine and the Church's quick turn from being a persecuted minority to having the world's most powerful man as a benefactor is noteworthy.  How much of a factor acquiring power in this world was on straining Church unity is open for debate, that it had a negative impact is not.  Following Trajan's persecutions Christians in North Africa who had refused to denounce their faith in the face of persecution, refused to allow 'lapsed' Christians who had done so to save their lives to return to fellowship without the express forgiveness of a bishop.  This led to what is called the Donatist Controversy involving rival claimants to be the rightful bishop, an argument that Saint Augustine joined on the side of those advocating amnesty for those who had renounced out of fear.  After Constantine's embrace of Christianity, Augustine approved of using Imperial troops to force the Donatists to rejoin the 'rightful' Church.  The effort failed, and the Church in North Africa remained divided until the region was conquered by Islamic armies nearly four centuries later.  Localized rifts like that of the Donatists aside, the Church remained a remarkably unified organization, and despite a growing East/West divergence (cultural more than theological) it remains one unit until the Great Schism's dual excommunications by the Roman Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054.  Thus for the first thousand years of its existence, for the vast majority of its adherents, the Church was functionally and technically one.  Remember that this period saw not only the break-up of Rome which led to generations of chaos, but also the rise of a massive external threat from Islam which threatened both East and West alike.  Given how far and wide the Church spread in its first 1,000 years, and the massive disruptions it faced, that unity lasted as long as it did, and functioned as well as it did, seems rather evidence of divine guidance and mercy than of human failing for the schism that eventually occurred.

2. The acceptance of the Nicene Creed (the triumph of the trinitarian viewpoint)

The development of trinitarian orthodoxy, and with it the complex questions of the dual nature of Jesus as both God and Man, certainly seems like an area where a disunited Church would have faltered and fractured.  The discussions among theologians were both deep and technical, opinions were deeply held, and there was the added confusion of translations of theological terms between Greek and Latin to contend with.  In the end, however, the vast majority of the Church, both ancient and modern, has been and continues to be in full agreement with the decisions of the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) which led to the nearly universally accepted and acclaimed Nicene Creed, which with the exception of three words added later in the West, holds to this day for Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians.  Thus even in that great three-way divide, there remains unity of belief about the most essential questions of the nature of God.  Were there some who refused to accept Nicaea's dictates?  Yes, but statistically a small minority that grew smaller over time.  There remain some who reprise the heresy of Arius, notably the Jehovah's Witnesses fit this bill, but they, like the Mormons who also askew trinitarian belief, are not properly a part of the Church and thus fall outside the scope of Jesus prayer for unity among his followers (they also constitute less than 1% of those claiming to be Christians in our world today).

3. The triumph of the Gospel's emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus

This may seem to be a given, but when Jesus prayed for unity among his future followers he had not yet gone to the Cross.  That his future followers would universally proclaim that the foundation of their belief was the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, a death he entered into willingly on their behalf, is a remarkable level of consistency.  Down through the centuries, when other issues drove a wedge between Catholic and Orthodox, and later between Protestant and Catholic, no significant portion of anything that could be called the universal Church has embraced any other aspect of the life of Jesus as the cornerstone of their faith, nor has any significant portion of the Church attempted to replace Jesus with any other Savior.  It may seem like a stretch to consider adherence to Jesus and his work on the Cross as a mark of unity, for we take that belief as a given among anyone who follows Jesus, but who is to say that this outcome had to be?  As the Gospel spread throughout the world, and new peoples, cultures, and languages were added to the great diversity of the Church, the focus on Jesus Christ and his sacrifice remained front and center.  While Christians across time and cultures would have difficulty understanding each other, they would have common ground on the one thing that brings that matters most: Jesus Christ died to save sinners who have faith in him.

4. The healing of schism's animosity has begun

While it is unlikely (and unnecessary) that the Church will again be one ecclesiastical unit with all roads leading to a common human leadership, it has been remarkable how much healing has taken place in recent history of both the Great Schism (now 1,000 years old) and the Protestant/Catholic divide (now 500 years old).  It would have seemed unlikely, even 100 years ago, but in 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I formally withdrew their predecessors' excommunications.  In the decades that followed, ongoing outreach between Orthodox and Catholic Christians have continued.  Likewise, the Second Vatican Council (known as Vatican II, 1962-65) saw the formal adoption by the Vatican of recognition that God is working with his Church beyond Catholicism, that true followers of Jesus are to be found in the Protestant and Orthodox churches.  

In the end, my answer to the question of whether or not God answered Jesus' prayer for unity is as personal as it is historical.  I serve an American Baptist Church as an ordained Baptist minister.  Baptists are famous for being separatists, for being willing to disfellowship each other over things as minor as the use of a guitar in worship (how dare they!!), but here in Franklin, PA where I serve that history seems to matter very little.  We have a ecumenical county-wide ministerium that organizes joint worship each year on Palm Sunday and the Sunday before Thanksgiving.  Those services are attended by Christians representing, on average, thirty churches from nearly a dozen denominations.  Our differences and peculiarities are nowhere near anyone's minds as we worship, pray, and fellowship together.  Similarly, I am the President of Mustard Seed Missions, a para-church ministry supported by volunteers and donations from dozens of area churches, and throughout our ten years of existence helping for than 5,000 clients we have never encountered an issue that was a stumbling block because of the differences between Methodist and Lutherans, or Catholics and Brethren.  The mission of helping others in the name of Christ overshadows the things we do and believe that are different.  The more recent Emmaus Haven, whose building renovations Mustard Seed Missions had a large hand in making happen, also has the same ecumenical history and support.

Did the Father answer Jesus' prayer for unity?  Yes he did.  It may not always look like what we would expect unity to look like, and it hasn't always been supported by people claiming to be Christians (some genuine, some not), but it has endured, and in our world today it is once more gaining momentum. 

Sermon Video: "whoever is not against us is for us" - Mark 9:38-41

 The Church has struggled (and Israel before it) throughout its history to properly define what it means to be 'one of us'. We either subtract something that God has required, or more often, we add hurdles and restrictions of our own. Here Jesus tells his disciples to not hinder someone who was using the power of God, in Jesus' name, to help people, even though the disciples did not know who this person was. He punctuates his command with a profound statement, "whoever is not against us is for us." In this context Jesus is saying that anyone who is helping the Kingdom of God, who is furthering God's will, is on our team. Why? Because nobody can access God's power without being in relationship with God, therefore anyone who is able to work via the Spirit of God must indeed be 'one of us.'

Sermon Video: "Do we not all have one Father" Malachi 2:10

The prophet Malachi reminds us that everyone who is in a relationship (covenant) with God has the same father.  One Father = One Family.  In addition, he then reminds us that all of humanity has one Creator.  One Creator = One Human Race.  The prophet's subsequent question, "Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?" reminds us that there is no place in the Church of Christ for racism or discrimination of any kind.  All those who are in Christ share the same Father, and all of humanity as a whole shares the image of God.  Therefore, the Church must be proactive in supporting and defenders our brothers and sisters in Christ who face racism or discrimination, who suffer injustice.  Additionally, the Church has no room for Nationalism or other false ways of dividing the world into groups of 'us' and 'them'.  Silence is not an option, inaction is not acceptable.  It is long past time for the entire worldwide Church to speak together against racism (for example) in ways that transcend politics, affect our own hearts and minds, and impact our family, friends, and neighbors.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The people who made Paul's ministry possible - 1 Corinthians 16:10-24

As he wraps up his letter to the church in Corinth, the Apostle Paul reminds them of his partners and colleges in the work of the Lord, from Timothy to Apollos, to a trio of men who assisted him, to the husband and wife team of Priscilla and Aquila. The point? The work of the Lord is a team effort. We need everyone in the local church to contribute, and we need partnerships with other churches and para-church groups. We're in this effort together, and everyone who works along with us to accomplish the Lord's work is our teammate.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

What if we don't need a new church plant?

In 2016, Pastor Charlie Cotherman led the planting of Oil City Vineyard Church just upriver from us in Oil City.  I know Charlie, and God has blessed his vision for Oil City with a church that is thriving.  That same year, Pastor Joseph Gibson led the planting of Cranberry Community Church (Assemblies of God) a few miles 'uphill' from us in Cranberry.  I know Joseph as well, and God has also blessed his vision for Cranberry with a church that is thriving.  Planting a new church is often seen as a way of waking up a community, of bringing something new and potentially exciting to the mix, and ultimately (hopefully) of tapping into the work of the Spirit and reaping a harvest for the Kingdom.
But what if a village, town, or other relatively small community already has more churches than average?  What if that town has quite a bit more than one would expect to find for a town its size? {More than it needs?  Is that a real thing?}  The town of Franklin has just over 6,000 people (it was 6,500 in 2010, this year's census will provide new numbers), and with that population, contains 1 Catholic, 3 Church of God, 1 American Baptist (that's us), 1 Nazarene, 2 United Methodist, 1 Free Methodist, 1 Wesleyan Methodist, 1 Christian Missionary Alliance, 1 Presbyterian, 1 United Brethren, 1 Episcopal, 1 Lutheran, 1 Pentecostal, and 1 Foursquare.  In addition, across the river in Rocky Grove we have another United Methodist church, another Church of God, another Presbyterian church, and a Pilgrim Holiness church; I can think of another 7 churches within three miles of town (4 UMC, 2 Independent Baptists, 1 Community).  If we add in Rocky Grove, that's 20 (27 in a 4 mile radius) churches for a population of about 7,000.  If everyone in town went to church each Sunday, we'd each have about 350 people.  There are 3 churches with that number or more, but most have between 50-125.  In theory we could fit all 7,000 people in our church pews, maybe needing a few 2nd services.  {That's with 100% attendance, those who are home-bound take several hundred off of that potential group, but at a very healthy 50% attendance rate, we'd still have more than enough church pew space}.  With a population that has been in steady decline since the 1970's, and a number of churches that still reflects the glory days of the Oil Boom (when my church regularly had over 1,000 people on Sundays, and others were packed too), it would seem illogical to consider adding another church to Franklin's already massive and diverse repertoire.
Oil City didn't suffer from a lack of churches when Charlie and his family arrived, although it seems that he filled a niche that may have been underutilized.  The same seems true with Joseph and Cranberry, given its smaller population than either Franklin or Oil City, but also the lack of any church in our area associated with the Assemblies of God (the one in Franklin closed several years ago).  How do we know if God's purpose would be better served by focusing our energy and vitality on reviving that which is already here, or trying to build something from scratch?  The Book of Acts in the New Testament doesn't offer us any direction as to how many churches should exist in any particular community, so we're not going to find easy answers.
There are a lot of under-served communities in America, and tens of thousands of them worldwide.  These are places with one church per 10,000 people, and even far worse ratios.  Compared to them, Franklin is overly, abundantly, blessed, as is our county as a whole {with about 50k people and well over 100 churches}.  If God has plans to send us someone like Charlie or Joseph (and their wives and kids), I'll welcome them with open arms, but if God's plan is instead to work with what we already have here, I've no doubt that we can get the job done with the churches (both the communities and the buildings) we already have serving this community.

Sermon Video: Work together for the truth - 3 John 1-8

Continuing the themes from 2 John, the Apostle commends a leader from a church that he is connected with named Gaius for his devotion to the hospitality that was necessary in the 1st century Church to support the traveling missionaries and teachers of the first generation Church.  In doing so, John calls attention to the need for building relationships between churches, for each church to assist the Missions effort, and for churches to work together for the common goal of supporting the truth (i.e. the Gospel).  With that in mind, this message considers, and encourages, the partnerships that 1st Baptist has with denominational entities (ABCUSA, International Missions, ABCOPAD), national/regional ministries (The Gideons, Youth For Christ, Child Evangelism Fellowship), county-wide organizations (Venango County Christian Ministerium, Mustard Seed Missions, Emmaus Haven, ABC Life Center), and finally local Franklin efforts (the Central Help Fund, Shepherd's Green Food Pantry, Franklin Ministerium {cross-walk, Good Friday Service, 4th of July service}).  By participating in, and actively supporting, these efforts, the people of 1st Baptist can multiply their effort, increasing the impact of our congregation for the work of the Kingdom of God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Our mandate to be intrafaith but not interfaith - 1 Corinthians 10:18-22

While trying to help the community of the church at Corinth, a small minority among the people of Corinth, Paul warns them about "participating" with the pagan idol worship of their neighbors.  While Paul concedes that idols "are nothing" in reality, he still warns them that to worship anything/anyone other than God himself is to become "participants with demons".  What are we to make of this perspective?
As Christians, we believe in the Gospel proclamation that Salvation is found in/through Jesus Christ, and no other source.  As such, we cannot pray/worship with those who follow other religions, as these are not valid paths to God.  It is not a question of respect or dignity, for Christians ought to treat everyone with kindness, but a question of Truth.  It is perfectly acceptable (and encouraged) for Christians to dialogue with those of other faiths, to work together on things like disaster relief and public health initiatives, and to insist upon their equal right to live and worship freely, but the line has to be drawn between working and living peaceably together, which is good, and worshiping together, which is not acceptable.  Why not?  Because, as Paul says, "Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy?"  God refuses to share the devotion of his people.  If we, as Christians, attempt to divert our required devotion from God to other things, (whether they be other religions or materialistic pursuits) we will, as Israel of old learned, anger God.

To watch this video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" - Acts 26:1-16

Imagine spending your life, all of your passion and effort, on behalf of God, only to learn at the end that your entire attempt was not simply ineffective, but actually entirely counter-productive and detrimental to the very cause you thought you were serving.  Such was the mind-blowing revelation that occurred to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus when he discovered that the voice from Heaven was that of Jesus.  Up until that moment, Saul had been firmly convinced that he was doing the right thing, that his violent response to the followers of Jesus was justified by zeal for the Law of God.  Saul was, catastrophically wrong, and but for the amazing grace of God he would have gone to face his Maker with their blood upon his hands.
Certainty without wisdom is folly.  As Christians, there are a limited number of core Truths regarding the Scriptures, the nature of God, and the person and work of Jesus about which we must be certain, and for which we ought to be willing to lay down our lives (although not be willing, ever, to kill for them).  Upon these central Truths we must stand and not be moved, but beyond them we claim absolute certainty at our own peril, and would better be served by confident belief that allows for others to disagree.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Debatable Matters Part 2: Consistency vs. Conscience, 1 Corinthians 8:4-8

As Paul continues to speak to the issue at Corinth of whether or not Christians there should eat meat that had been previously offered as part of idol worship, he next delves into the topic of consistency.  It seems that the Christians at Corinth, like most everyone else, lacked true consistency in their thinking.  They knew that there is only one God, and that therefore idols do not represent anything real, but they still felt guilty about the association with them that eating meat entailed for them.

Inconsistency in our Christian Worldview is a common problem, and at times an exceedingly dangerous one, for all Christians.  While we may know the Truth, we do not always think and act in accordance with it, often resulting in contradictions that deny by our words/actions what we claim to believe.

Is our conscience the solution to an inconsistent worldview?  Unfortunately, as the Christians in Corinth were experiencing, our conscience can become warped or blunted through association with un-Biblical ideas and sinful actions.  The value, then, of our conscience is more along the lines of an early-warning system, something to cause us to be cautious, than an actual decision making tool.  In time, as our minds become more Christ-like through spiritual growth and discipleship, our conscience will follow suit, becoming more effective.

In the end, it is beneficial for Christians to focus upon the common ground that we all share (belief in one God, the Trinity, the Word, salvation by faith in Christ, etc.), those areas which are not debatable, as we recognize that we must agree on these core beliefs, but were not meant to agree on the host of secondary issues.  Within that common ground of belief, we also as Christians share a common purpose, for regardless of our background or perspective as Christians, we all have been called to live by and for God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A review of: "Side by Side" - Being Christian in a Multifaith World by Dr. Richard Olson

On February 1st of this year, Judson Press published a book by Dr. Richard Olson, retired seminary professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas, entitled "Side by Side" - Being Christian in a Multifaith World.  The following is a review of that book that I'm writing as a Christian pastor who is intimately and regularly involved in the related, and often confused with inter-faith ecumenism, topic of intra-faith ecumenism.

My evaluation of Dr. Olson's book is of two kinds, while I find much to admire concerning inter-faith dialogue, peace, justice, and the plight of refugees, at the same time, the further step taken beyond these by Dr. Olson to embrace religious inclusivism is a bridge too far.  It is not an easy task to promote dialogue and peace between religions while at the same time holding firm to one's own belief that the Gospel is the Absolute Truth for all mankind.  It was just this sort of delicate balance that has sparked vicious unwarranted criticism by a few zealots of Christian apologist James White's willingness to debate Muslim apologists in a respectful way while both speakers maintained their claim to absolute truth.  It is an uncomfortable and difficult place to be, defending Truth while also promoting tolerance and peace, but it is the role given to us as disciples of Jesus Christ.  If we reject peace and embrace hate, we quench the fruit of the Spirit within us, if we reject Truth and embrace inclusivism, we set our understanding above that of Holy Scripture.  The goal of tolerance and peace is to be applauded and deserves our active participation, however the method to achieve it of saying, "We all worship the same God", must be rejected if the Gospel of the Apostles is to remain at all attached to its historical foundation.

Let me interact with quotations from Dr. Olson's book, highlighting both that which I agree with and those things regarding which I believe him to be in error.

In the introduction, Dr. Olson writes of an experience from his youth as the son of Baptist missionaries in South Dakota.  A friendship between his father and the local Roman Catholic priest, in a pre-Vatican II setting, and the improving relationships between Catholics and Protestants post-Vatican II, led to this conclusion, "If Catholics and Protestants can overcome ancient barriers, learning from one another and developing deeper bonds of fellowship, we may experience unimagined results in our interfaith relationships." (p. XIII)  The step being advocated by Dr. Olson, from intra-faith relationships/dialogues/worship to their inter-faith equivalent is in the end a comparison of apples to oranges.  Those who engage in intra-faith ecumenism, that is bridge building and cooperation including worship along fellow Christians be they Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant, may also be willing to extend those same activities with non-Christians in inter-faith efforts or they may not, but the basis for that choice is not the same unless one is committed to the notion that all religions are participating in the same God and seeking the same Truth.  If religious exclusivism is maintained, there is indeed a basis for inter-faith dialogue, peace, and efforts concerning justice and poverty, but there is not a basis for inter-faith prayer or worship.  Confusion over what is being discussed, whether it be inter-faith or intra-faith, especially from critics not overly concerned with giving the benefit of the doubt, only makes it more difficult for sincere adherents of exclusive theology to reach out to those of other religions without being labeled an inclusivist/pluralist.  Dr. Olson also wrote, "The need for personal relationships with those of other faiths and a deeper understanding of one another's faith and heritage grows more urgent by the day." (p. XV)  In a world of rising violence and polarization, this is certainly true as hatred grows most readily in ignorance.

Regarding effective dialogue, Dr. Olson quoted the guidelines of the World Council of Churches, "Partners in dialogue should be free to 'define themselves'" and added to it, self-serving descriptions of other people's faith are one of the roots of prejudice, stereotyping, and condescension." (p. 7)  This is certainly true, not only is the cause of peace hampered when adherents of a religion are not allowed to define themselves (often instead being defined by their enemies) but so too is the cause of evangelism.  If a Christian believes a false stereotype of a Muslim to be true, and then actually meets a Muslim, how effective will the witness of that Christian be if he/she is acting upon false and likely derogatory impressions?  As Christians, we ought not be afraid of reality, facts, history, and truth.  We must interact with the world as it is, for that is the world we have been called to be salt and light to, not the world as we wish it to be.

In regards to the three faiths who claim Abraham as a forefather, it would be foolish of us to ignore or downplay what we have in common, and at the same time foolish of us to pretend we do not have fundamentally relevant differences.  Dr. Olson acknowledges both aspects of the issue saying, "We have a similar starting place, but we need to be sensitive about presumptions of sameness and instead ask many questions related to beliefs about God's nature and what we mean when we affirm God as one." (p. 32)  Indeed, the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim belief that God is one, i.e monotheism, is a common bond, but what we mean by declaring that God is one is surprisingly different, perhaps a startling revelation those who simply assume that all three are worshiping the same God.  Dr. Olson quotes Stephen Prothero who, "contends that those who write about the oneness of all religions 'are not describing the world, but reimagining it.  They are hoping that their hope will call up in us feelings of brotherhood and sisterhood." (p. 32)  Our world could use an increase in brotherhood and sisterhood, assuming that leads to more peace and less violence, but not at the expense of lying to ourselves about reality.  Dr. Olson goes on to summarize Prothero's words in God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World - and Why Their Differences Matter by saying, "what we share most fundamentally is the conviction that something is wrong with the world.  Life is out of balance; something has gone awry.  Religions differ, however, in diagnosing what has gone wrong, and, therefore, what the prescribed solution is." (p. 33)  Including Prothero's viewpoint acknowledges how this issue undermines the notion that Jews, Christians, and Muslims could be worshiping the same God and yet understand both humanity's problem and the necessary solution so differntely, nevertheless, Dr. Olson will later attempt to bridge that gap while leaving Prothero's objection unrefuted.

There isn't much in "Side by Side" regarding intra-Christian ecumenism, but one comment is worth noting, "We Christians are a varied lot today.  Within Christianity we find those who are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox...and a wide variety of Protestants...as well as less orthodox traditions such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and Jehovah's Witnesses." (p. 42)  White there are some within the Church who struggle to see Orthdoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism as all being "within" Christianity, wrongly in my understanding but I understand the objections, it is a whole different set of issues to assert that the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are "within" Christianity and simply "less orthodox".  Less orthodox?  Both are non-trinitarian, both have an extra-biblical authority, both see themselves as the only true remnant of the Church.  Less orthodox is far too generous a term, non-orthodox would have been more accurate, for how can something which defies the Nicene Creed be "within" the Church?

One observation from Dr. Olson should hit many Christians squarely and accurately with an uncomfortable truth, "It is easy to see (or imagine) what's wrong with another's religion...And it is even easier to take the inherent goodness of one's own religion for granted...this practice of religious self-justification and criticizing the other is resurfacing with urgency in our interreligious world." (p. 59)  We ought not be shocked to learn that this is true, after all Jesus spoke about planks in our own eyes and specks in the eyes of our brother, how much easier to ignore our own faults and focus upon those of people we consider strange, different, even a threat.  Once again, Christians must be grounded in truth and reality, for example: Are there aspects of Islam today that are steeped in violence?  Absolutely, are there aspects of Islam today that have rejected violence in favor of tolerance?  Yes.  Those unwilling to acknowledge that not all Muslims are cheering on the Jihad against the West, are also likely to ignore or gloss over the horrendous history that Christianity has not too recently emerged from of violence, persecution, slavery, and antisemitism.   We cannot have a productive discussion about Islam and terrorism if we fail to disavow the stereotype that all Muslims think alike and refuse to acknowledge that our own family tree has some real ugliness, some of it not that far from where we sit, just visit a Holocaust museum if you need a reminder.

In a precursor to the eventual rejection of the New Testament passages expressing the exclusive claims of Jesus, Dr. Olson correctly writes that, "Those using absolute truth claims may choose particular texts from their Scriptures, read them selectively (and probably out of context), and them apply them absolutely." (p. 64)  While agreeing that such things happen, far too often and with often disastrous results by all manner of people, not just those seeking absolute truth claims, it is not apparent, nor does Dr. Olson make a concerted effort to demonstrate, that such out-of-context interpretation has been done by the majority of the Church historically which has understood the New Testament to proclaim Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life.  In that same section where Dr. Olson is explaining how a religion can have evil followers, he also rightly points out the dangers of blind obedience, focusing upon a soon to come utopia, believing that the ends justify the means, and ultimately choosing to engage in a holy war.  Extremism that embraces such practices is a threat to any religion.

Dr. Olson attempts to paint a positive view of Jesus in the Qur'an, and while it is appropriate to acknowledge that the Qur'an portrays Jesus as an important figure and a prophet, even as "Messiah", the Jesus of the Qur'an is not in any real way the same as that of the New Testament.  The Qur'an specifically denies the Incarnation (Surah 112), the Trinity (Surah 5:116) and the Crucifixion (Surah 4:157)  Dr. Olson concludes with a quote from Tarif Khalidi (from The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature) that Jesus, "ceases to be an argument and becomes a living and vital moral voice, demanding to be heard by all who seek a unity of profession and witness." (p. 99)  Yet as C.S. Lewis famously pointed out, Jesus must be either God, a fraud, or a madman, for he is clearly portrayed as divine in the Gospels and throughout the New Testament (Muslims claim these are all corruptions of the original Biblical text).  How is it that Jesus can be a "moral figure" to unite Christians and Muslims when such a role would have been antithetical to everything we know about Jesus from the Scriptures?  The only way for such a middle-ground with Muslims concerning Jesus would be to concede that critics like Bart Ehrman are right and everything about Jesus' divinity was added later by a corrupt Church intent upon securing its own power over the people.  Unfortunately for Ehrman, and Muslim apologists who have latched onto his arguments, the crushing weight of historical evidence regarding N.T manuscript production and distribution, prior to the Council of Nicea, denies such a conspiracy theory.

The ultimate question from Dr. Olson, beyond less controversial matters of inter-faith dialogue and efforts at peace and justice is simple, "Do I believe that persons devoted to these religions can be in a right relationship with God, both here on earth and hereafter in eternity?  In other words, is salvation possible within these three religions?  These aren't simple yes-or-no questions." (p. 113)  Before answering the question, Dr. Olson briefly interacts with the N.T's many exclusive claims as typified by John 14:6 and Acts 4:11-12 where he says regarding John 14:6, "I do not believe that Jesus intended the rest of the verse ('no one comes to the Father but by me') to be an absolute statement of exclusion for all people for all time...I also believe that the unconditional love of God, mediated by Jesus to us, has led some closer to God, even though they may not name Jesus as their Savior." (p. 119)  The basis for saying, "Jesus didn't mean what you think he meant", {I can almost hear Vizzini from The Princess Bride saying "inconceivable" and Fezzik replying, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."} is to say that John's Gospel "offers a mystical reflection on the meaning of Jesus for the world." (p. 119)  In other words, John's words don't really mean what those words normally mean.  Also, how does the notion of "the unconditional love of God" fit with Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of the world?  How can God's love be so unconditional if he cares about sin and holiness, and why would Jesus die for anything less than absolute necessity?  If salvation is to be found elsewhere, through other means, why would Jesus die?  Lastly, what does "led some closer to God" mean?  Is closer to God enough?  How is God's love through Jesus leading people closer to God who have no idea who Jesus is or who reject Jesus explicitly?  In relation to Acts 4:12, Dr. Olson rejects the universality of Peter's words as hyperbole intended to sway his Jewish audience, nothing more, "Is it intended as an  inclusion-exclusion statement for all believers of the various religions for all time?  Each reader will have to decide.  In light of the context of this statement, I personally don't think so." (p. 119)  Thus the nature of John's Gospel and the audience for Peter's words negate the plain meaning of the text within their own given context in both instances.  While I recognize that this is necessary to move to an inclusivist viewpoint without claiming that the Scriptures are tainted, it is an example of eisegesis not exegesis, putting into the text a meaning one hopes to derive from it rather than letting the Word of God speak for itself.  The rest of the N.T.'s exclusive texts are mentioned later (on p. 146) but no effort is made to interact with any of them (1 Corinthians 3:11, 1 Timothy 2:5, 1 John 5:12, Romans 1:21, 3:9, and John 3:36 just to list the ones Dr. Olson acknowledges).

In the end, Dr. Olson openly and honestly admits, "I am an inclusivist...I also believe that the prophets of these other religions received authentic revelation from God and that persons can be in a right relationship with God within those religions." (p. 122)  Leaving out the more complicated questions of "authentic revelation" between Judaism and Christianity {For example: Yes, Isaiah's revelation was certainly authentic, but we differ greatly on what it means}, how is that possible with Islam?  The diagnosed problem with humanity and mandated solution in Islam is diametrically opposed to that of Christianity.  Islam offers a list of things to do, Christianity requires a cessation of self-righteous effort in order to accept by faith what has already been done on our behalf.  If God spoke to both Jesus and Muhammad, how did the message become so garbled?  Either humanity is fallen or it is not, either works are the answer or faith is, this is a fence that cannot be straddled unless we jettison any effort at logic and consistency.  Dr. Olson goes on to say, "One other factor contributes to my conclusion - probably the most powerful and important one: my experience with persons of these other religions...As I sense the goodness of these persons...and as I worship as a guest in their places of worship, I have a clear sense that I am in the presence of God and of God's saints, whatever their religion."  (p. 122)  In the end, this is a choice to embrace experience over revealed truth, a feeling of having found "good people" over the Church's two thousand years of preaching the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.  And while I don't doubt that Dr. Olson knows "good people who follow other religions, it is odd to hear a Baptist say that the most important factor in making a monumental theological change is belief that he experienced the presence of God in a mosque and a synagogue, there is no sense here of an allegiance to Sola Scriptura, let alone Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, or Solus Christus, which leaves one to wonder, how can this then be Soli Deo Gloria?  Inclusivism is by necessity a clean-break from the Reformation along with an abandonment of the Early Church as typified in the ecumenical creeds.

The section relating to the Spiritual But Not Religious (SBNR's) as well as the "nones" does not offer anything beyond what is already known, that the Church is struggling to connect with Millennials, but it does offer a sense that those who like Dr. Olson have drifted toward or to inclusivism, if not outright pluralism, are doing so in part because they feel it is a necessary tactic for the Church to woo back this "lost" generation.  If that is the case, Churches which abandon their Gospel heritage to embrace the minority within a generation who seem content to leave "organized religion" behind will likely only succeed in driving away the roughly 2/3 of Millennials who remain committed to their faith.

"Side by Side" ends with a story of a pastor whose church went where most will be unwilling to go: they allowed neighboring Muslims who were building a mosque to use their church for prayer during Ramadan.   (p. 151-52) This episode is presented as an example of "love they neighbor" but one does not need to reject the sacred nature of our places of worship in order to love our neighbors.  On the other hand, Dr. Olson offers four challenges for followers of Jesus Christ that we should all be able to embrace, "- To become more deeply involved in friendship, conversation, and dialogue with persons of other faiths where we live and work. - To be aware, supportive, and proactive when negativity, threats and attacks happen to persons and places of worship of other faiths. - To be compassionate and active in responding to the worldwide refugee crisis, including at the local level. - To offer understanding, care, and support to the vastly growing number of interfaith marriages and families."  (p. 153)  These four goals are noble and worthy of followers of Jesus (with only one caveat, that the Church should not encourage new interfaith marriages {which are not the same as intra-faith marriages like my own where we share a devotion to Christ} while it supports those who already are a part of an inter-faith marriage in accordance with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 712-16).

There is much to appreciate in Dr. Olson's personal experience with, and sharing of, other examples of inter-faith dialogue, friendships, and cooperation regarding peace and justice.  We certainly need more of this attitude in the Church today and less confrontation and hatred.  This goal can, and should, be accomplished, however, without abandoning the exclusive claims of the Gospel. I as a Christian ought to be fully capable of calling a Hindu, Muslim, or Atheist my neighbor, and yes friend, without at the same time letting go of my concern for the salvation of his/her soul.  The focus of Dr. Olson's book was primarily the Abrahamic faiths, but inclusivism within them naturally leads to pluralism as well.  If there is no Truth, then there isn't any truth either.  Mankind is lost, fallen and depraved, with this diagnosis only a fool or one ignorant of the world today and man's history would disagree.  The most important question for humanity thus remains: how can what is wrong with us be fixed?  Only Jesus offers a solution that is within our power: salvation by grace through faith in him.  Thus while I appreciate the openness with which Dr. Olson address the topic of inter-faith relations, and laud his goals of peaceful coexistence, I cannot cross the bridge that he would construct to inclusivism, for the Church and the Gospel are on this side of the river.

Judson Press link to "Side by Side"

When cooperation becomes capitulation: The Koran in Church

Those who have followed this blog for any length of time, or who know me personally, are well aware that I am an advocate for intra-Christian ecumenism.  I believe, on the basis of the teaching of Scripture, that all those who are truly disciples of Jesus Christ ought to be working together for the sake of the kingdom of God, as partners not rivals.  There will always be debate and discussion, a healthy thing, regarding our definition of who is and who is not a Christian, with some drawing the circle smaller, and some larger, than others.  I wrote a good deal about that particular question with respect to the teaching of I John some years ago, a booklet you can read by clicking on this link: Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of 1 John.

The subject of this post is not intra-Christian ecumenism, however, but inter-faith cooperation.  If we're talking about something like disaster relief, peace initiatives for war torn regions, or a campaign for civil rights of a persecuted minority, it is not unreasonable for Christians to work with non-Christians on these issues, including those of other faiths, Muslims for example.  These are not issues that are particular to Christians, and are areas in which we can work with anyone who is willing to truly help those in need.  There are ways in which these things can be done that do not require a Christian to compromise his/her faith.

The waters get murky when we begin to talk about inter-faith worship.  The elephant in the room is of course the obvious observation that Christians, Muslims, and Jews (to pick the most common groups that might consider such things) cannot all be right in their declarations of what is true, in particular regarding the person of Jesus Christ.  If one proclaims him to be a false Messiah, one a respected prophet, but the third the very Son of God, God in the flesh, these three groups can hardly pray to God or praise God in any meaningful way without one or more of the groups being compromised.  In the end, it is demeaning to all involved if we try to call on the greatest common denominator (to use a math term) that we are supposedly worshiping the same God, when we have such radical departures on what God has done, and is doing, in our world.

The latest episode to illustrate the pitfall of intra-faith worship happened during an Epiphany celebration in Glasgow, Scotland.  The Anglican Cathedral there, St. Mary's, invited a local Muslim teen to read from the Koran about Jesus during the worship service which is supposed to be celebrating the arrival of the Magi to worship Jesus.  The biggest problem with this reading, other than the question of why someone would allow the Koran to be read in Christian worship, is that the passage in question directly contradicts the Gospel accounts by denying the deity of Christ.  Much has been written about this episode, and the backlash it has spawned in England and around the world, for a good article on it, click on the following: Cathedral Marks Epiphany with Koran reading

The most important question now is this: What went wrong in the theological understanding of the leadership of St. Mary's that they didn't see the utter foolishness of allowing the Koran to be read during a service of Christian worship?  There was a failure here to understand the implications of this gesture of cooperation, which was in fact far closer to an act of blasphemy toward Jesus than it was an act of Christian bridge building with a minority.  This is not what ecumenism is, this is not an example of fostering peace and brotherhood, it is instead an act of capitulation that will only confuse those who don't understand the differences between the Bible and the Koran, between Christianity and Islam, and at the same time it will be used by those who oppose legitimate intra-Christian ecumenism to build up the wall and moat around their church even more.

I'm all for intra-Christian ecumenism, and happy to have the necessary discussion of how we define those who are Christian and those who are not.  What happened in Glasgow is a whole different topic, and one that rightly will cause significant ripples throughout the UK and beyond.  The Koran being read in a Christian church is not only a bridge too far, it is an abandonment of the exclusive claims of the gospel about Jesus Christ.

Note: I'm not saying that Christians shouldn't learn about Islam, every Christian should know the Five Pillars of Islam, and the basics of what the Koran teaches, just as they should know about the beliefs of Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc.  One can teach and learn about another religion while showing respect to those who follow it, without including those teachings in Christian acts of prayer and worship.

Sermon Video: The Sorrow of Divisions within the Church - 1 Corinthians 1:10-17

The first issue dealt with by Paul in his letter to the church at Corinth after his introduction is unity.  Paul had received a report that the church was divided, with various members claiming to follow different leaders, including Paul himself, instead of being united under the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ.  To Paul this was an intolerable situation, one that prompted him to ask the rhetorical question, "Was Paul crucified for you?"
Division within the Church is nothing new, local churches can be divided over all manner of issues, from finances to leadership, not to mention theology, and we know full well that the global Church is hopelessly divided into a multitude of parts.  If we cannot rectify this situation, and that seems clear, Christ himself is likely the only one who will be able to unravel the know we've created, what then do we do in response?  The reality is that the Church is divided, how do we leave honoring Jesus' call for unity in a divided Church?
Every Christian who is a true disciple of Jesus Christ, that is any person who has been washed by the blood of the Lamb by the grace of God and through faith, and who has thus been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, must belong to the Church of Jesus Christ, there is no other church but His Church.  It doesn't matter how we divide things here upon earth, there is only one Church.  Therefore, we must work with, not against, anyone who is a disciple of Jesus Christ, and likewise with any church that proclaims the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus.
If we are united on the foundational things, nothing that separates us on the peripheral things can divide us, likewise if we are divided upon the foundational things, nothing that we have in common on the peripheral things can unite us.  Christ is the foundational issue, we have one and only one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Warning signs of an unbalanced worldview

As I was meandering about on Youtube recently, looking to see if there were any new interesting videos posted in the areas of textual criticism and the KJV Only debate, I happened across a series of videos made by Chick Publications that reminded me of the warnings signs of a Christian organization/church that is dangerously unbalanced.  There could be many ways in which those who claim to follow Jesus become lost in warped thinking, these ones are prevalent among them:

1. The Conspiracy Theory - It doesn't matter who the villain of the theory is, although the most common choices are the Vatican (i.e. the Jesuits and Illuminati), the Jews (the Rothschilds and Zionists) and the United Nations (the New World Order is the code word for various one-world gov't theories).  If a central tenant of the belief system of the individual/organization/church is a grand conspiracy theory, this mindset will warp and twist all manner of other thoughts and attitudes and end up leading to isolation and paranoia, not good qualities upon which to minister for the Gospel.

2. The Eisegetical Scripture Citation Defense - That doesn't really work as an acronym, what it means is that the common defense of such groups is to utilize a Scripture reference as a comeback or rebuttal to any criticism instead of utilizing historically accurate facts and/or logically sound reasoning.  The primary problem with such a method is that the Scripture cited is almost invariably unrelated to the conversation at hand.  An out-of-context eisegetical (which means "reading into" the text) citation is NOT a valid argument.  For example: To cite Psalm 12:6 as a defense of KJV Onlyism is an affront to the words of David who was in no way talking in that Psalm about translations of the Bible, certainly not about English translations, and was also certainly not declaring that the KJV Bible would be a second work of inspiration for his words two thousand years later.  And yet this verse is routinely cited by KJV Only advocates as if the mere citation of Psalm 12:6 proves something for them.

When the primary defense of a position advocated by a Christian individual/group/church is to improperly cite Scripture that does not apply to their situation, it is a sure sign of lazy thinking, poor scholarship, or most likely, a very weak position in the first place.

3.  The We're the Only Ones Going to Heaven conclusion - Another common trait among groups that have lost their way and strayed from the Gospel is the firm conviction that they, and they alone, are in possession of the knowledge that will lead to eternal life, all other so-called "Christians" are at the least deluded, and in all likelihood in league with Satan.  Set aside for a moment the sad state of the Church of Jesus Christ if this were true (how weak would should a Gospel be to be misunderstood and misapplied by so many, and how ineffective would the Holy Spirit be if 99% of those who thought they were Christians were on their way to hell?), and just contemplate the megalomania required to convince yourself that everyone else is wrong, nobody else can see the Truth, only you and those like you have penetrated the lies and schemes of Satan to be saved.  Yikes!  And yet such groups exist, persistently in their bunker mentality, scorning cooperation between churches, calling Ecumenism the work of the Devil (no doubt as part of some vast Vatican conspiracy), and waiting for the sky to fall.  How can this attitude lead to an effective witness for the Gospel or effective help for those in need?

Other warnings signs could be added, these happen to crop up again and again among these individual and groups.  There are many, many churches alive and well within the Church of Jesus Christ today, places where the Gospel is being preached, where truth and facts are elevated, and where the victory that Christ has purchased for us is being realized, there is no need to buy into what they're selling.

Sermon Video: "How many will be saved?" Luke 13:23-30

In this passage, Jesus responds to a very important question that is asked of him, "how many will be saved?"  Will the grace of God be triumphant, bringing in vast multitudes of the Lost into the kingdom of God, or will only a tiny remnant be saved with many who thought they were following Jesus disastrously mistaken?  Those within the Church who tend toward universalism see the grace of God as victorious, perhaps even beyond the boundaries of the Church to include other religions and philosophies.  On the opposite end of the spectrum from this optimistic viewpoint, lies those whose pessimism sees the holiness of God as victorious, even within the boundaries of the Church where they look and see mostly apostasy.  Which is the correct view, should we expect a Church that is overcoming the World, or one that is hemmed in on all sides and persecuted?
Jesus doesn't, as usual, directly answer the question, but instead he offers an analogy about entrance into the kingdom of heaven, declaring that it is only through a "narrow door" that requires "every effort" to walk through.  There are several ways in which the "door" to heaven could be thought of as "narrow".  That there is only one door, one way to heaven, is one way, and that the door is only accessible to those who have been washed clean of the impurity of sin is another.  It might also be that the door is narrow because only few will enter into it.  While it is true that Jesus speaks negatively of the chances of the rich entering through such a narrow door, the end of his answer makes it clear that heaven will be filled with those who have come to accept the Gospel from all over the world.
The universalist is too optimistic, for there is only one door and those who have not put their trust in Jesus won't find it, but the pessimists on the opposite end of the spectrum are equally wrong, for the grace of God will surely save all those whose trust is in Jesus.  After all, our hope is in Him, and in what He has done, not in our own imperfect understanding of it.  The wisdom of Jesus' answer to the question is that heaven will be missing people who expected to be there, for whatever reason, but failed to trust in him, but at the same time, heaven will be overflowing with those who were written off by men, only to be redeemed by God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

From where does my belief in Christian unity come?

In light of the baptism of my daughter Clara, there are likely some who are wondering where my belief in Christian unity (ecumenism) has its origins.  From a theological footing, I have been heavily influenced by the words of I John and the prayers of Jesus for the unity of his followers.  While I was at college, learning theology and philosophy, I became more certain of the fundamental things, and more generous with the permissible/debatable things.  This maturation of my mind is a natural process when know it all teens are confronted with the truth that the world is larger and more complicated than they once thought.  In my case, it was seeing the ebb and flow of history, secular and church, that taught me humility in the light of those who have served the Church in generations long past.

I had already begun down a path toward a stronger commitment to Christian ecumenism when my beliefs were confirmed by two extraordinary women of faith who evident love of Jesus Christ and staunch faith in him was in no way compromised by their adherence to Catholicism.  The first of the two was the young woman who would eventually become my girlfriend, and then my wife, and the second was her mother.  Through my love for Nicole, I began to attend Mass with her, coming for the first time on a regular basis into contact with Catholics in a religious setting, and witnessing firsthand their faith and their devotion to Christ.

Theology prepared the ground on my ecumenical journey, but experiencing the love of Jesus Christ alive and well within the Catholic Church provided the passion.  Are there still issues between Catholics and Protestants?  Of course there are.  The defensive positions adopted as part of the Counter-Reformation at Trent remain, but the pendulum began to swing back toward the Evangelical position with the Second Vatican Council.  The theologians will still have plenty of room to disagree, most notably upon Transubstantiation, (and on that the Catholics still have Luther on their side, the Reformed theologians could not budge him from that belief) and upon the relevance of tradition and authority to theology, but one thing to me is clear: I have found many whose hope is in faith alone, who trust not in their own works, who wholly depend upon the sacrifice of Christ, among my Catholic brothers and sisters.  If faith is alive there, as it is amongst my church, who am I to deny it?

My mind started me on this path, my heart made gave me joy in the journey.

A father's prayer of thanksgiving to God

This is the closing prayer that I gave at the end of the baptism of our daughter, Clara.  My wife, Nicole is Catholic, I am the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Franklin.  Our marriage is a testament to the spirit of Ecumenism that I have hoped for (and found here in Franklin) in my ministry.  Thus long before Clara was born, we had already decided to honor her mother's tradition, and that of her mother's family, should we have children, through baptism into the Catholic Church.  Clara will be brought up to honor and respect the traditions of the faith of both her mother, and her father, attending as both Nicole and I do, church on Saturday (at St. Pat's) and Sunday (at 1st Baptist).

A message of salvation by grace through faith.

Nicole and I were in church today listening to a preacher utilize Ephesians 2:8-9 and John 3:16 to talk about how salvation cannot be merited, earned, or purchased in any way, but is entirely an act of grace by God.  He used the analogy of a lifeline thrown to a drowning victim whose only part in the process is holding on for dear life.  It was a message straight out of Martin Luther's sola fide, sola gratia, with the entire emphasis on what God has done through Christ to save a helpless humanity.
For those who don't believe in ecumenism, who disdain efforts among the splintered portion of the Church to work together, the source of this message won't make you happy, for those of us who work every day with our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ from different faith backgrounds to help those in need, it is further confirmation that we're on the right course.  The message was the homily of Msgr. Herbein, the priest of St. Patrick's Church down at the end of our block.  Msgr. Herbein is by no means a "radical" priest out of touch with the Catholic Church, rather he is simply one parish priest among many, reading the scriptures and speaking the truth they contain.  There's hope for healing within the body of Christ, we may be one Church in polity, that ship has likely sailed for good, but we can be one Church in spirit when the grace of God is preached and faith the people gathered in the house of God are pleaded with to accept it by faith.