Sermon Video: God's Wrath and Noah's Righteousness - Genesis 6:7-13

 

As the Flood narrative begins, God expresses his intention to pour out his wrath on the human population which had embraced evil, especially violence.  At the same time, we note that Noah is different, his life is characterized by righteousness and a deep relationship with God.  As this re-creation through the Flood unfolds, we will see Noah's faithfulness and note that the righteousness of even one person can change the course of history.

Sermon Video: Having Grace in Disputable Matters, part 2 - Romans 14:10-14

Continuing his teaching that Christians must show grace in disputable matters, the Apostle Paul adds the new consideration that we will all stand before God one day and answer for how we have lived our lives (i.e. we will account for judging others unnecessarily, and we don't need to judge when God will take care of it in his own time).  In addition, Paul explains that at the heart of the truth that there are indeed disputable matters is the reality that no thing is good or evil (clean or unclean to use terminology related to the Law of Moses) in itself.  It isn't things that cause evil, so in Christ there is no need for a continuation of the Mosaic purity laws, nor for a Christian version of them.  Lastly, Paul warns those who extend God's rules beyond what he has stated that they will be bound by their own rules (lest they sin by, in their own mind at least, rebelling against God).

Sermon Video: Crime and Punishment from God's point-of-view, Romans 13:3-5

What does an ideal government do with respect to crime and punishment?  The Apostle Paul was well aware of the shortcomings of human governments, all of them fail to varying degrees to live up to the standard of being God's servant in this category, but there is still value in understanding what the responsibility of a government should be even when they fall short.

Sermon Video: "No condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus"! - Romans 8:1-4

Having established, in Romans, that all of humanity is alike condemned for sin, the Apostle Paul has offered up salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, a gift from God, as the answer.  Here, in Romans 8:1, Paul emphatically declares just how far and how lasting that salvation really is.  Where once there was universal condemnation, now NO condemnation remains for each man, woman, and child who is in Jesus.  The implications are astounding (and the rest of Romans 8 will dive deeply into them), but for a moment just enjoy the wonder of being set free from sin and death.

Sermon Video: Nobody is Good Enough for God - Romans 3:9-20

Before offering hope in the subsequent verses, the Apostle Paul emphasizes the conclusion that ON OUR OWN nobody is good enough for God.  All, both Jew and Gentile alike, are "under the power of sin" therefore tainted and corrupted by it, unable to keep the whole Law of God.

Why the emphasis on the negative?  Stark reality is needed to overcome human pride and pave the way for people to seek God in repentance and by faith.

Sermon Video: Those who are Righteous in God's sight - Romans 2:12-16

Long story short, the only ones whom God will declare to be righteous are those who obey his Law (that of Moses for the Jews of the Abrahamic Covenant, that of Jesus' Gospel for everyone after he fulfilled the former).  That nobody can live up to this standard is the conclusion Paul is building toward, but for now he lays part of the foundation by proclaiming that those without divine revelation will be judged by their consciences, and those who have received divine revelation (i.e. God's Word) will be judged by what it proclaims.

To those of us who have been blessed to hear God's Word this is not a comfort, but a hard dose of reality reminding us that only perfection will suffice (in a few paragraphs Paul will proclaim how Jesus resolved this fatal flaw in humanity).  To those who only have conscience as a guide, the specific accountability will be less, but the judgment to come remains.  In the end, both those who know more and those who only have what is common to all humanity made in God's image will have to reckon with the fact that with God knowledge is not enough, only obedience is acceptable.

Sermon Video: God: Good will be rewarded, Evil punished - Romans 2:5-11

In the process of explaining to those who think they're on God's good side, but who in fact have stubborn and unrepentant hearts, that they are in fact angering God and storing up wrath for themselves, the Apostle Paul hits upon a universal truth: Good will be rewarded, Evil will be punished.  It may not seem like it now, but ultimately Justice will prevail.  Why?  Because God is Just, it is his nature.  That God offers grace to all who will repent and believe does not negate this fact, God didn't ignore the sin's of humanity, Jesus paid for them.  The implications of this truth are voluminous, among them the hope and encouragement those living righteously by faith receive knowing that their labors are not in vain.

Sermon Video: "the end is still to come" - Mark 13:1-19

Days before his own Passion, Jesus drops a bomb on his disciples that the Temple in Jerusalem is going to be completely destroyed. The disciples follow up with the most pressing question, when? Rather than offer up a timeline, Jesus begins to develop a theme of preparedness and faithfulness through the coming trials and tribulations.

Sermon Video: The Parable of the Tenants: Don't Ignore God - Mark 12:1-12

In this allegorical parable, Jesus recounts the history of the Abrahamic Covenant and the Israelite people leading up to his own arrival as the Son sent to 'collect the rent' who will end up being murdered by the corrupt tenants. The meaning is straightforward and was not lost on the original audience: God's isn't messing around, repeated disobedience will be punished, and rejected blessings will be bestowed elsewhere. A fit message for any Age, and as applicable to the Church as it was to Israel.

Sermon Video: Pluck out your eye? Mark 9:42-48

 Utilizing brutally stark imagery, Jesus seeks to impress upon his disciples the seriousness of the things that people do (or fail to do) that lead others into sin or otherwise cause them to 'stumble', particularly when those being affected are those who believe in Jesus.  In addition, Jesus also warns about the seriousness of sin to our own condition, equating it with the kind of handicap that we do fear, when tragically many do not concern themselves with the much greater reality of hell.  What would we be willing to pay, what hardship would we be willing to endure in order to avoid damaging our relationship with God?  For far too many Hell is treated like a remote possibility (like being bitten by a shark in the ocean) rather than the inevitability that it is for all those who spurn the Son of God.

"You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview

If you're like me, this meme below has floated through your Facebook feed at some point since the pandemic hit America.  It presents a binary choice that is not compatible with how contagions work in a pandemic, and of course makes it clear which of the two choices is to be preferred by anyone who is "not afraid" or who wants to choose freedom over the unspoken but implied opposite of tyranny.  Rather than delving into the topic of COVID-19 restrictions (which I'm guessing we're all tired of talking/hearing about by now), let us consider the foundational philosophy of this meme from the standpoint of a Judeo-Christian worldview, that is the way of thinking that is molded and shaped by Judaism (the Hebrew Scriptures) and Christianity (the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament).

A classic either/or false dichotomy

"You do you, I'll do me" is a very American sentiment.  It sums up nicely the Laisez Faire attitude of Ayn Rand {The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: Hatred of the Authority of God}, as well as the 'Rugged Individualism' championed by Rush Limbaugh {Pope Francis' views on Capitalism and Rush Limbaugh}, and the 'Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' mantra that is far easier said by those who had ample help in achieving their level of success than by those with extra hurdles in their path.  "You do you, I'll do me" also touches upon the American distaste for governmental authority, as evidenced by the ongoing popularity of "Live free or die" and "Don't tread on me" slogans.  It is then not surprising at all that the American governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic has created a backlash, nor that the heart of the messaging of the backlash is individualism.

What then is the disconnect between individualism, as evidenced by "You do you, I'll do me" and the Judeo-Christian worldview?

1. God judged Israel (and other nations) collectively regarding both blessings and curses.
The principle of collective judgment, whether it be positive or negative, seems incompatible with modern legal systems and with American civil rights in particular.  It is, however, one of the ways that God consistently acts in history.   When seeking to understand God's judicial actions in the day of Noah, or with Sodom and Gomorrah, with Egypt during the plagues of Moses, or with the inhabitants of Canaan during Joshua's invasion, it is impossible to comprehend the divine justice involved without seeing that entire towns, tribes, and peoples were being judged as a whole for the evil committed by some, many, or most of them {including their ancestors no longer living} .  That these passages are brought up consistently by atheists, agnostics, and apostates as one of their reasons for rejecting either the Bible as God's Word or the idea of God itself, should show just how difficult this concept is to square with modern views, particular those of post-modern Western peoples. 
Israel is treated the same way under the Covenant of Moses.  While there are examples of individuals being rewarded or punished for their actions, there also abound instances where the actions of a leader (think Saul's defeat at the hand of the Philistines) or of a significant portion of the people affect many others, including those who are in our minds, 'innocent bystanders'.  The point is simply this, my actions do not affect me alone, and your actions do not affect you alone.  No man is an island (to borrow the phrase from John Donne's poem), every action of both good and evil has a ripple effect, even if there were no God, doubly so when God's judgment is factored in as well.

Exodus 34:6-7 New International Version (NIV)
6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

Leviticus 18:24-28 New International Version (NIV)

24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

2. The repeated teachings of Jesus about responsibility for others.
Of the teachings of Jesus regarding our responsibility toward our fellow man, these three will suffice to demonstrate: (1) The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31, (2) The Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37, and (3) The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46.  When combined with his own actions in reaching out to "tax collectors and 'sinners'" along with the reviled minority Samaritans, lepers, and the demon possessed, it becomes clear that for those who wish to follow Jesus' example and heed his teachings, a philosophy which draws a thick line between myself and other people, for whatever reason, will be unacceptable.

3. The call for Christians to embrace the heart of servant.
Compassion for the needs of others is the beginning, working with a servant's heart is how we put it into action.  Jesus demonstrated this through word and deed, famously washing his disciples' feet before the Last Supper (John 13:1-17).  Likewise, the Apostle Paul was willing to go to great lengths, and set aside rights and privileges in order to fulfill the call of the Gospel:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New International Version (NIV)
19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Self-sacrifice for the greater good is at the heart of Christianity, as is laying aside 'my rights' to help others.

4. The Church as one body with many parts.
Lastly, the very idea of considering myself as an individual without responsibility toward those around me flies in the face of the way in which the Word of God describes the function of the Church.  The entirety of the Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians has value (in full here: 1 Corinthians 12:12-27), but the last three verses in particular make the point:

1 Corinthians 12:25-27 New International Version (NIV)
25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Whether or not one agrees with any particular restriction or recommendation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, the foundation for that belief cannot be, "You do you, I'll do me" if holding a consistent Christian worldview is to be accomplished.  Individualism is simply not a philosophy/morality of either Judaism or Christianity.  The same principle of collective responsibility holds true in the racial tensions involving the shootings of Ahmaud Marquez Arbery in Georgia on February 23rd, and the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25th.  While I may never be targeted for any form of discrimination because of my appearance, it is not 'their' problem, it is our problem. Know this: we share a common humanity with every oppressed and mistreated individual and group.  We also posses the clear teaching of God's Word that we were not called to individually pursue discipleship, nor to care solely for ourselves and are own family, but to an understanding of all of humanity as created in the image of God, of collective concern and responsibility which includes 'the least of these', and of service together to a cause greater than ourselves.  Stop thinking about you and me, we need to figure out what we can do together.

Friendly Fire? Why examination and censure by Christians belongs primarily on us, not them

I have been asked variations of this question, "Why all the focus on Christians?"  (Or conservatives, evangelicals, Republicans).  And while for some people, there tends to be a blind spot or rose colored glasses regarding those like themselves, that is a flaw that Christians cannot afford to indulge.  So then, if I interact more with the words and actions, including criticizing them, of pastors than lay people, that's purposeful.  When I focus more upon baptists, evangelicals, or conservatives, that's in part because of familiarity and the ability to understand where they're coming from and 'speak the language', but also partly an intentional choice.  The same holds true on the larger categories, with more focus upon Americans than the rest of the world, and more focus upon Protestants than Catholic or Orthodox Christians.  From time to time an idea put forth by, for example, a British liberal atheist may be significant enough (for better or for worse) to merit a response, but those on the outside of Christianity, while remaining the focus of evangelistic efforts, are purposefully not the primary audience of my preaching or teaching (nor by extension, of this blog).  Why?

1 Timothy 4:6 New International Version (NIV)
If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 New International Version (NIV)

24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 New International Version (NIV)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Jude 3 New International Version (NIV)
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

1. The example of Scripture.
The book of Jonah is a prime example.  While the purpose of the book is ostensibly the journey of one of God's prophets to condemn the wanton immorality of the people of Nineveh, as the story unfolds it becomes evident that the real problem is not with the godless Ninevites, but with the prophet himself, who does not want God to show mercy to the enemy of his people.  Likewise, when reading the Gospel accounts one discovers that while Jesus certainly called all people to repentance, it was only the self-righteous Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-36),corrupt Sanhedrin (Matthew 21:12-13), and the people from near his hometown who had witnessed his many miracles but rejected him (Matthew 11:20-24) to whom he responded with anger or scorn.  When examining the Hebrew Scriptures, it is certainly possible to find God's anger directed at Sodom and Gomorrah, Egypt, or the Canaanites (whom he commanded Joshua to wipe out), but the vast majority of the prophetic utterances are issued against the failure of God's own Covenant people to obey the Law of Moses.  God does not forget the immorality of those who have not seen his wonders or heard his Word, but the focus of Scripture remains squarely upon God's chosen people, whether in the Old Covenant or the New.

2. Am I not my brother's keeper?
In Genesis 3:9, Cain famously asks, "Am I my brother's keeper?"  The answer to that question is, yes.  The Church of Jesus Christ is one body (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-30), and while we have individual congregations and separate denominations, what is going on in other parts of the body of Christ affects us all.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon those called to shepherd the various flocks in God's pasture, that we be on the lookout for wolves, even if they are not targeting our flock directly.  Likewise, the integrity and reputation of the Church as a whole, and all those who make up its many parts, is of concern to all of us.   Dangerous ideas within the body of Christ are a cancer, if left unchecked they will spread.  The great Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church offer us an example as they brought together leading Church authorities from across the Roman Empire (and beyond) to by consensus condemn with one voice the heresies denying the deity and humanity of Jesus.  In our much more divided global Church, it would be impossible to duplicate their unanimity (316 out of 318 bishops voted in favor of the Council of Nicaea's decree), but the example of contending together for the sake of the purity of the Gospel and the health of the Church remains for us to emulate. 

3. The Gospel I preach is affected by the Gospel preached by others.
When the true Gospel is preached from any pulpit, we all benefit, and when a false gospel is spread, we all suffer.  It is not the duty of the Lost to make a distinction between Steven Anderson's Faithful Word Baptist Church in Phoenix, AZ and that of Pastor Randy Powell's First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA.  It would make my life easier if nobody gave credence to ministers who spread heresy or who are in this profession to seek wealth and fame, let alone those who will eventually be caught in a sex scandal, but it is certainly not a realistic expectation.  I have been asked, "What's the connection between your church and Westboro Baptist?" (Topeka, KS)  Fortunately, there is no direct connection, but the prominent use of the name Baptist in every story about that church's protests at the funerals of fallen American soldiers is a stain that all of us who share the name must bear.  {A similar burden falls upon our Catholic brothers and sisters following the child sex abuse scandal, although that shame has since spread to other denominations too.}
Like it or not, the world connects us to the charlatans, whether they be fake faith healers, those telling their audience that God wants them to have a private jet (naturally connected to the request for $), the outright heretics, and those simply consumed with hatred (wrongly) in God's name.  Thus, for the sake of the Gospel mission, a "Christian" minister preaching death to homosexuals or a holy war against Islam is far more dangerous than a secular humanist praising abortion or a Muslim Jihadist preaching "Death to America!".

4. I hold us to a higher standard (as does God).
Those who are Lost, who are enmeshed in the world's false promises can be expected to live their lives by a moral code that falls short of the Law of God.  This is not unexpected, nor is it even correctable as those who live outside of the Covenant do not have the Spirit of God to empower them.  The best of those living apart from God seek to follow a noble morality while falling short as all people do, while the worst embrace the rebellion of hedonism and narcissism.  The people of God, however, are called to a higher standard.  The Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) being a monumental way to live, and one certainly only within our grasp through both God's power and his grace, nevertheless it is this very standard of Christ-like behavior by which we must judge both ourselves and the rest of our fellow Christians.
What about, "Judge not lest ye be judged?"  This oft misunderstood passage (Matthew 7:1-5) ends with this key thought, "and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."  It is not the suspension of all judgment, as if each individual Christian is an island unto him/herself, which would not fit well at all with Paul's vision of the members of the Church as part of the same body, but rather a strong warning against judgment that is not self-aware and thus hypocritical.  As I was told many years ago, before you preach a sermon, preach it to yourself first.  I certainly do not claim to be entirely free of the faults that infect the body of Christ, nor even of the ones that I have pointed out over the years when refuting the actions/words of others, but imperfect vessels are the only type of preacher that Christ has to work with, and we must hold ourselves, our congregations, and the Church as a whole to a higher standard.

5. There is ample criticism, already, of the immorality of the world from a variety of Christian sources.
One of the additional reasons why I spend less time railing against the 'godless abortion providers' or the 'Hollywood heathens' (to pick two random ones among the many potential targets) is that those topics are already being covered many times over by voices that represent, rightly or wrongly, Christianity .  At some point, this criticism becomes counter-productive, sounding in the ears of the Lost like the condescension of the Pharisees toward the "tax collectors and 'sinners'", rather than Jesus' compassionate "Go now, and leave your life of sin."  In the end, those who need Jesus will more often be swayed by Christians living morally upright lives who build personal bonds with them out of genuine compassion, than they will by fiery denouncements from the pulpit.  There is a time and a place for pronouncements from God's Word against the World, but for many Christians it has become to central a focus.

6. A common worldview is the ground upon which my reasoning stands.
The vast majority of my appeals are based upon the assumption that those reading my words hold the Word of God as authoritative over their lives.  I am capable of arguing from the perspective of moral philosophy, i.e. aiming at the common good necessary for a civil society to function, but that is not the heart of either my own reasoning nor my exhortations.  When I appeal to fellow Christians it is on the basis of a shared history, a common bond in Christ, and a fundamental willingness (hopefully) to accept that God's Word is the final arbiter when we disagree.  If I say, "The Word of God says", what is that to one who does not believe in God?  There is thus a presupposition in all of my thinking that is built upon Martin Luther's "Sola Scriptura", and where that presupposition is not shared my potential for persuasiveness will be inherently less.  It is certainly possible, and frequently a reality, that those who likewise value the Word of God as the final authority will disagree with a position that I hold, and vice versa.  This does not negate the commonality of our shared worldview, and isn't even necessarily a negative provided that neither of us are adhering to an immoral position, as it does still offer us the ability to stand upon the same foundation, share the same motivations, and ultimately seek the same goal of advancing the Gospel and glorifying our Father in Heaven. 

7. The doer of the thing does not affect the morality of the thing.
Motivation aside, evil is still evil, truth is still truth, and compassion is still compassion, no matter who the person is that is responsible for it.  When Christians commit acts of evil or distorts the truth, the consequences are real.  The fact that we're forgiven because of God's grace has an obvious impact upon our eternal disposition regarding these acts, but it doesn't mitigate the impact of that immorality upon the world around us here and now.
In the end, that which is morally upright for a Christian is morally upright for a non-Christian, and that which is sinful/evil when done by a Christian is sinful/evil when done by a non-Christian as well.  How these actions are judged by God in eternity will certainly be affected by the relationship (or lack) that each person has with God, for those who are redeemed will be clothed with the righteousness of Christ and those who are not cannot please God with their own righteousness.  That being said, in our world here and now, the morality of an action is not materially affected by whether or not the hero or villain of the tale is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or atheist.  To use an example from recent history: It is equally dangerous for the sake of our republic when President Trump is called Hitler by liberals as it is when Speaker Pelosi is called Hitler by conservatives.  However, for the sake of the Gospel, and the integrity of the Church, if either of those speakers, whether liberal or conservative, is claiming to be a Christian, there is an additional concern, and one that concerns me even more as an ordained minister than the negative impact of such behavior on America, namely the negative impact upon Christ's Church.

Sermon Video: A world without life after death - 1 Corinthians 15:29-32

What would be different about our world if we knew that there was no life after death? Considering that most people both now and throughout history have some sort of belief in an afterlife, the changes would not be small. The Apostle Paul outlines three of them, (1) we would lose our connection to our ancestors, (2) any rationale for self-sacrifice {much less worth dying for}, and (3) any hope for final Justice. In the end, without a resurrection the most likely human response is, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Hedonism and hopelessness are a toxic combination. Thankfully, Paul's thought is only a hypothetical, for the resurrection of the dead IS a reality, there will be a Judgment Day, and we have every reason to Hope beyond this life when we are in Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A Refutation Of: White evangelicals' attacks on James Cone are about power, not truth by Andre Henry

The opinion piece in italics below was written by Andre Henry the program manager for the Racial Justice Institute at Evangelicals for Social Action.  It was published by Religion News Service on January 9th.  {White evangelicals' attacks on James Cone are about power, not truth}  I have not previously written about James Cone, for reasons that will become clear below, his philosophy/theology falls outside of that which I would read for my own edification/enlightenment, nor have his books ended up in my pile of non-orthodox/non-Christian books to read in order to understand the beliefs of others.  That being said, I have no pre-conceived ideas either for or against James Cone (If Andre Henry is mis-representing him let me know), and am only interacting with the author's assertions about the reasoning behind the critiques of those who have studied and written in response to James Cone.  My thoughts will be interspersed below {bracketed in bold}.

(RNS) — A specter has been haunting white evangelicalism. It comes in the shape of James Cone, one of the founders of black liberation theology.  {What is liberation theology?  The short answer: A synthesis (combining) of Christian theology with socio-economic analysis, often Marxist, that fuses the spiritual liberation of the Gospel with economic/political liberation for oppressed/poverty stricken peoples.  Throughout the history of the Church, attempts have been made to fuse Christianity with various philosophies, governmental systems, and cultures.  The Early Church was deeply affected by Platonic Greek philosophy, the Eastern Church with the Byzantine vision of its divinely appointed right to rule over the Church, an idea that in the West led to countless struggles (even wars) between Popes and kings and emperors.  Christianity in the 18th century began to be fused with the ascendant Nationalism, with horrific results culminating in WWI and WWII.  Lastly, American Christianity has often been fused with ideas such as Rugged Individualism, Manifest Destiny, Democracy, and Capitalism.  Some of these combinations have been beneficial to the Church and Christian theology, some have been disastrous, most are a mixed bag of blessings and curses.  Liberation theology, while emphasizing the need for care for the poor (a positive if handled correctly) is not without its drawbacks.}

As last year ended, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary President Daniel Akin tweeted in response to a (since deleted) tweet, “James Cone was a heretic & almost certainly not a Christian based on his teachings. ... We do not legitimize him.”  {A tweet by the President of a Seminary carries weight, and ought to be nuanced, perhaps with an opening phrase like, "While I don't know his heart/mind, and God alone is our judge..."  However, the portion in the ellipsis should not have been left out by Andre Henry as it runs counter to his point.  The full tweet's text: "James Cone was a heretic & almost certainly not a Christian based on his teachings. But, to understand him you should/must read him. Then you provide a fair, honest & balanced critique. That is a basic requirement for a good education. Hope that helps. We do not legitimize him."  The full quote is far less strident when the middle is left in.  It is, in part, the job of leadership in seminaries to protect against heresy, to warn of dangerous ideas, and to try to steer the Church toward the Truth.  With a better preface, Akin is simply doing his job, whether or not one agrees with the conclusion.}

After significant pushback, Akin made an amendment: “Though his writings & statements give me pause & great concern for his soul, if when I get to heaven I discover that James Cone is there, I will humbly, gladly & joyfully greet him as my brother in Christ as we together worship King Jesus for His amazing salvation, grace & love.”  {This is a better way of putting it.  There are a number of Christian leaders, theologians, and writers, past and present, whose ideas stray from orthodoxy, who personal lives exhibited hypocrisy, and who generally leave us with questions about how they stood with God.  If, in the end, our worries about them prove less than God's grace, we will rejoice to find that fellow brother/sister in Christ in heaven.}

Some other Christian thought leaders found this too generous. The Rev. Josh Buice, a Southern Baptist pastor, suggested that Akin had “normalized an enemy of the gospel.”  {Here is where things get tricky as we strive to define the ideas which are the foundation of our faith, and how they can acceptably be expressed, in order to define what is/is not orthodox, and thus those who are/are not promoting heresy.  The Early Church dealt with this powerfully in AD 325 during the Council of Nicaea during which they rejected a definition of Jesus' humanity (a core issue about who Jesus is) put forth by a Christian priest named Arius, which then led to the creed bearing the same name that helped teach future generations of Christian to avoid the errors that Arius had made...What then do we do in response to those who reject orthodoxy, who stray near the edges?  Assuming the issue at hand is key and not a matter of conscience, a range of responses are required from Scripture, beginning with a personal appeal to the one in error, and ending with some form of shunning/excommunication, as in 2 John 7-11 or Romans 16:17-18.  Christians with good intentions can, and do, disagree about which issues are core, the range of acceptable expressions of those issues, and what to do in response in particular cases of unorthodox beliefs.  In this case, the Reverend Josh Buice worried that perhaps President Daniel Akin was being too soft, while the author of the article believes that Akin's response was much too harsh.}

It’s not entirely clear what had occasioned this discussion of Cone, a longtime professor at Union Theological Seminary who died in 2018. But his sins against the white evangelical establishment date back to 1969, when he published “Black Theology and Black Power,” which interpreted the faith through the lens of the black freedom struggle.  {Why write/speak about a topic now?  Often a good question, but the more important one is this: Were the ideas championed by James Cone acceptable expressions of Christianity, were they unorthodox heresy, or something in between?}

In the book’s introduction Cone explained: “I wanted to speak on behalf of the voiceless black masses in the name of Jesus whose gospel I believed had been greatly distorted by the preaching and theology of white churches."

His major themes include the idea, summarized in the mantra “God is black,” that God always sides with oppressed people, that the black experience is a legitimate source for doing theology and that the task of theology is liberation.  {This is far from a full response to the theology of James Cone, that's why books are written, not blog posts; a few thoughts: Undoubtedly the Gospel had been distorted in the white churches that had twisted the Scriptures to support slavery and racial supremacy, a fact repeatedly brought to the forefront by the Abolitionists who opposed them, in Great Britain, and then here in America...Any mantra like "God is white" "God is an American", or "God is a woman" is ridiculous, theologically unsound, and leading toward a distorted viewpoint (ironic given the stated aim of undoing a previously distorted view).  God is above our categories, above our divisions, and above belonging to any of us.  God is the Creator, the Sovereign, holy and immutable.  When we speak about God using human categories, we are presumptuous to use any beyond those which God himself chose while revealing himself to the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles {i.e. God calling himself Father}...Lastly, the task of theology is liberation, but the important part of that thought is this: liberation from what, and liberation how?  The answer is crucial.}

He raised questions about some tenets of faith that white evangelicals cherish, particularly the inerrancy of Scripture and the concept that Jesus died the death we deserved because of sin.  {Here is where Andre Henry goes far astray.  The inerrancy (accuracy/reliability/divine origin) of Scripture and Substitutionary Atonement are NOT 'white' ideas.  They long preceded our modern issues with race, and are cherished by orthodox Christians throughout the world (of all races) and throughout Church history.  To reject them is to take issue with the Apostle Paul, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and many others.  It is NOT an issue of race, but of ideas, ideas that lie at the heart of historic and apostolic Christianity.  Ideas embraced (in their own ways) by Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians alike.  When Joseph Smith rejected the orthodox/apostolic understanding of Jesus and Salvation and proclaimed that he had received a new revelation, it was not race that led the Christian Americans who lived near him to soundly reject his heresy, but his ideas.  The Truth or error of an idea is not related to the race or gender of its proponents or opponents, nor to their nationality, age, or status.  Truth exists apart from us.}

Perhaps the biggest problem white theologians have with Cone’s work is his emphasis on Jesus’ humanity over his divinity, and his conviction that salvation is as much about saving black people from the Klanner’s noose, or the officer’s chokehold, as it is about going to heaven when we die (if it has anything to do with the latter at all).  {'humanity OVER his divinity'?  Yeah, that's a problem, the flip-side of the one rejected by the Council of Nicaea.  Whenever either portion, humanity or deity, is elevated/deflated it has massive implications for Christian theology...Salvation is not 'as much about' anything as it is about saving our souls by restoring a right relationship with God.  That process requires repentance and righteous living, here and now, but in service to that larger vision of God's redemptive work within/through us.  There are many important issues and causes that we face in this life because of our Christian faith, but none of them hold a candle to the transformation of our hearts/minds/souls through the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives as the result of what Christ accomplished through his life, death, and resurrection.  This is THE heart of Christianity, it cannot be shared or replaced with anything else...'if it has anything to do with the latter at all' is full-blown heresy on the part of Andre Henry.  Who Jesus is and what he accomplished (i.e. the Gospel, salvation) may not have anything to do with whether or not we go to heaven (or hell) when we die??  This thought is incomprehensible when reading the Scriptures, the writings of the Church Fathers, or virtually any Christian theologian remotely near orthodoxy.}

What Cone decidedly did not lack was sincere devotion to the way of Jesus as he understood it.  No, the heresy Cone is guilty of is denying white Christian leaders’ authority to define what Christianity should look like for black people.  {Sincere devotion is not good enough, as Jesus himself makes clear in Matthew 7:13-23, although sincere devotion is absolutely required as a manifestation of the belief of those who have been saved.  Christian leaders must define what Christianity looks like for Christians.  That is there God-ordained task, to examine the Scriptures, and by the Spirit lead the people of God in applying its timeless words and wisdom to our lives today.  The authority does not lie in the race, nationality, or gender of the leader/theologian, but in the Word of God that he/she serves.  The Gospel looks EXACTLY the same for all peoples in all times.  When Christ sent his Apostles into the world to preach the Gospel he sent them to the ends of the earth, to everyone.  The Apostle Paul spent a lot of time and energy trying to figure out how best to explain that Gospel message to the Greek gentiles he was sent to, but hear this, the message itself did not change, at all, only its delivery.  (Galatians 3:26-28)}

What constitutes heresy in the church depends on where the boundaries for orthodoxy (meaning "right belief") are drawn. The Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches excommunicated each other, in 1054, partly because of differing views on the nature of the Holy Spirit. Protestants were declared heretics by the Roman Catholics, and Protestants considered Catholics heretical, largely on the issue of papal authority.  {This is correct, orthodoxy is staying within the defined boundaries.  The Church took several generations to establish/explain/defend the boundaries of the faith they inherited from the Apostles and the Scriptures, but those definitions hold to this day.  It is true that the Church split in half about 1,000 years ago, and that the Western half split again just over 500 years ago, but that does not invalidate the idea of orthodoxy, nor the need for a standard by which we can judge ideas/people to be promoting Truth or error.}

Generally, white evangelicals claim Scripture as the sole standard for measuring orthodoxy. They don’t admit, or don’t see, the white frame that informs their theology.  {Martin Luther's rallying cry was Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), and of course he didn't fully live up to that cry as evidenced by his retention of a traditional sacramental Eucharist and infant baptism, but it was a watershed idea to treat the authority of Scripture ABOVE that of tradition...Do white evangelicals have a lens/frame that clouds their view of the Scriptures?  Of course they do, all people have biases and blind spots, inconsistencies and errors in judgment.  That is why orthodoxy has two powerful correctives: (1) The Word of God given by inspiration, and (2) the collective wisdom of the Church throughout the generations in understanding and applying it.  In addition, the same Holy Spirit works within Christians of all races to correct the errors we bring to the text, to rebuke us when we go astray, and to enable us to see the error of those who speak with a voice different from that of the Good Shepherd.}

Framing, something like a mental field of vision, determines what we don’t see and how we interpret what we do see. White people’s frame tends to ignore the systems of anti-black violence and white supremacy, both subtle and overt, that permeate American society.  {It may tend to, but it doesn't have to.  I am well aware of the flaws of American society, flaws that have negatively affected a wide variety of groups for a number of reasons.  To say that this affects 'white people' in any unique way is incorrect.  The Fallen Nature of humanity affects us all equally, as does the redemptive power of the Gospel.}

This explains how some of the founders of American evangelicalism, George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, could emphasize God’s wrath and the need for repentance from sin while also owning slaves. They framed their reading of Scripture in such a way that it didn’t interfere with their white supremacy.  {Every movement has flawed founders, flawed people are the only ones available.  No excuses, they should have seen the sin of their involvement with slavery.  How does this relate to the question at hand: Why do (white) evangelicals today object to the theology of James Cone?  Guilt by association?  That's a pretty tenuous connection and an unbiblical methodology.}

Today that kind of framing leads Whitefield's and Edwards' heirs to miss the connection between social action and Christian faithfulness. Mistaking their frame for the whole picture, they claim that what they can't see isn't there, and they dress their biases in religious language.  {Some evangelicals do miss the connection between being a faithful Christian and working for justice in our society, but not nearly as many as the author implies.  What is actually happening is a difference of opinion as to which social causes Christian faith speaks to, what one should do about those causes in a pluralistic republic, and how much of our witness as a Christian, or as a Church, ought to be invested in these areas vs. the more focused expressions of Gospel witness.  These are complicated issues, with serious and thoughtful answers available that have nothing to do with the race of the people trying to faithfully live as Christians.}

Cone recognized that black Christians needed to embrace a frame of their own. He said, rightfully, that black people and other persecuted groups don’t organize their faith around ruminating on theological propositions, but around encountering God in their struggle for freedom.  {A false dichotomy, all Christians need 'theological propositions', i.e. Truth, and they need to put that faith into action in the time/place/culture in which they live.  A Truth-less faith, or a Truth-lite faith is not the answer for any group of people, no matter what their history of privilege or oppression might be.}

This experiential emphasis for knowing God can coexist with the white church's emphasis on propositions, but Akin and Buice and similar thinkers can’t help but assert that their frame is better.  {The frame isn't in question, the Apostle James made it very clear that experience (action) is the partner of faith, rather it is the content of those very propositions that James Cone called into question.  This is a question of faith AND action, mind AND heart, not an either/or.}

And that is how many a theology curriculum is organized, with white male theologians — Luther, Calvin, Barth — as required reading, and everyone else listed as extra credit (if that).  {If the writer in question is a Christian, speaking the Truth, why does race or gender matter?  A broad curriculum is important, but one based on a thorough understanding of the ideas in question, not one that places thinkers into better/worse categories based on who they are.  In the Kingdom of God, these distinctions are meaningless.  I've said that already, but Andre Henry doesn't seem to believe it anymore than the racist white supremacists (whom I have repeatedly condemned).}

Cone was no more heretical than any white theologian celebrated today. White Christians simply don’t stop and frisk white theologians for doctrinal contraband as they do black thinkers.  {That's a smear, and an unfair one.  The list of rejected white male heretics is long, with today's leader among them being Bart Ehrman, and yesterday's being Bishop John Shelby Spong, both rejected by the Church as a whole for heresy/apostasy with no thought to racial solidarity.  I don't know how to weigh more/less heretical, being a heretic is a problem, even when it is only a little bit of heresy about a core issue.  'He's only as big a heretic as other white guys you aren't complaining about' isn't much of an argument even if it was true.}

Martin Luther, for example, slips through security with his anti-Semitic writings without seminary presidents expressing "concern for his soul." Thinkers like Cone set off the alarm, on the other hand, because they dare to hold theologians like Luther accountable.  {Martin Luther's anti-Semitic writings are a grave stain upon his legacy, what theologian has discounted that?  It had horrific consequences when it was embraced by later generations whose own writings inspired the Nazis.  Martin Luther doesn't get a free pass because he was white.  Flawed Christians can still write the Truth, we as thinkers, given that power by God, can sift the wheat from the chaff.}

This racist exceptionalism is not restricted to Cone. At their recent Social Justice and The Gospel Conference, a panel of male Southern Baptist leaders who drafted a statement on social justice griped that more people didn’t raise issues about Martin Luther King Jr.’s theology, which also held that salvation had to do with social equity.

(They also raised the civil rights icon’s reported infidelities, but men in their position often manage to speak of Karl Barth without speaking of his mistress, Charlotte von Kirschbaum.)  {If Barth is given a pass by some who criticize King Jr. that's on them.  Moral failings are an equal opportunity flaw, affecting many of the heroes of the faith who ideas/work we would otherwise celebrate without reservation.}

Even though both Cone and King rely heavily on Scripture and center their work on the person and work of Jesus every bit as much as white theologians do, the black thinkers are threatened with hellfire for not staying within the confines of white evangelicalism's tiny gospel.  {Wow.  'tiny gospel' is a brutal phrase aimed at the traditional and apostolic Church's testimony regarding the Gospel for two thousand years.  'within the confines' means within orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy matters, it has always mattered.}

The difficulty men like Akin face in disposing of Cone or King is that white men no longer have ownership of hell. The days of handing heretics over to the state to be burned at the stake or drowned are long gone. Even excommunication only works if the “heretic” is accountable to a religious governing body. The threat of sanctions is the only thing that once made charges of heresy meaningful.  {This is true, and that loss of 'control' isn't necessarily a bad thing, given how real or imagined heretics were treated in the past.  What ought the Church to do with heretics and apostates?  When Bart Ehrman walked away from the faith he kept his job and sold a lot of books, getting rich and famous in the process.}

The internet’s democratizing influence makes even social excommunication — currently known as “being canceled” — useless. Remember when conservative heavyweight John Piper famously tweeted “Farewell, Rob Bell” when Bell’s 2011 book, “Love Wins,” questioned the existence of hell? Bell went on to publish a New York Times bestseller about the Bible, and there was nothing Piper could do about it.  {No, but Rob Bell did walk away from the community to which he had belonged.  Whether or not somebody has a NYT bestseller is hardly a fitting evaluation of their orthodoxy and whether or not they still belong within the Church.}

This brings us back to questions of power and truth. Evangelical Christians have long expressed their deep concern about an immanent postmodern apocalypse that would annihilate the notion of “absolute truth.”  {A terrifying prospect, perhaps one at times overblown in 'sky is falling' fashion, but a real concern given the developments of philosophy and religion from the Enlightenment to Post-Modernism.}

The advent of fake news in a post-truth presidential administration shows that their anxieties weren’t altogether unwarranted. But truth is not altogether gone. It’s just that we understand the difference between a landscape and someone’s field of vision — their frame.

Is the truth a landscape before us, which each of us sees only in part? Or is truth the power to force everyone to see the world through one frame?  {This reminds me of Obi-Wan's 'from a certain point of view' speech.  However, it has little to do with traditional/apostolic/orthodox Christianity.  For Truth transcends these barriers and limitations for it is God's Truth, it does not belong to us, nor was it created by us.  In that sense, Truth cannot be destroyed, even if a particular culture declares the death of Truth with a capital 'T' and seeks to replace it with 'my truth' and 'our truth'.  This point works against the author's overall theme.  Truth exists beyond the lens/frame/filter that both he and James Cone would view it through (and beyond that of the white theologians he appears to disdain as well).  Attempts to minimize and contain that Truth are as futile as they are dangerous in the short-term.}

Whiteness has often defined “truth” as the latter — the acceptance of a white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy as orthodoxy, as normal and ideal, with the threat of violence forcing compliance from those who suffer under that narrative.  {The Gospel is NOT 'Whiteness', is does not belong to any race or nationality, it never has.  Orthodoxy is defined by the Scriptures and the Church (with the Spirit), any true understanding of the Gospel has no room whatsoever for racial supremacy, nationalism, politics/economics, etc.  That the Church in America today struggles with these boundaries is evident, but our failure in no way diminishes the power of orthodoxy itself, for that standard comes from God and will be judged by God.}

By rejecting that one story, many marginalized people are simply stating that the white frame never fit us. It isn’t a loss of truth that’s at stake. It’s the white establishment’s loss of control over the frame, their power to define the boundaries of truth.  {The 'power to define the boundaries of truth' has always belonged to God.  God gave revelation and established His Church in fulfillment of that authority.  When the Church began it was a small minority, soon to be persecuted, it was full of women, slaves, and the rejects of Greco-Roman society who saw the Hope that the Gospel offered to even them.  Did the Church gain temporal power?  Indeed it did (and its corrupting influences), but what it didn't do is change the orthodoxy that had been handed down to it from the Apostles (Bart Ehrman strenuously objects to that thought, but what he has is zeal, the evidence of history says otherwise).  The Church today still follows the orthodoxy established by a traveling Jewish rabbi who taught it first to a group comprised primarily of Jewish fishermen.}

Cone is among those defiantly asserting that white people have no governing role over the religion of black Christians. He reminded us that the white evangelical frame for their gospel has nothing to do with meeting God in the black freedom struggle. He’s an example to us all. And there’s nothing white evangelicals can do about it.  {One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.  Either there is One Church, comprised of all those who have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, or the Gospel as it has been understood and preached for two thousand years is meaningless.  There is not a church for each race, there is not a church for each gender, and there is not a church for each nationality.  We, human beings, have contributed to these false barriers through our failures and our sin, but they do not in reality exist.  Jesus Christ is Lord of all, his Word has authority over all who believe.  To attempt to sub-divide that Church is as dangerous and foolish today as it was when white racists would not allow their black slaves to worship with them at church.}

Why would we celebrate the death of the wicked?

When word spread that Adolf Hitler had taken his own life on April 30th, of 1945, most of the world rejoiced, for a great evil had been removed from the world, and perhaps peace might not be far off, at least in Europe.  The war in Europe officially ended on V-E Day, May 8th, with Germany's unconditional surrender, with WWII continuing until V-J Day, on August 15th, after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atomic bombs.  Millions had died, and more would die in the refugee crisis that followed, but citizens in the Allied countries rejoiced at the cessation of war, as well they should.  As Christians, it is incumbent upon us to adopt a Christian Worldview, a way of thinking and feeling that reflects the teachings of Holy Scripture, and in particular, the life of Jesus Christ.  The ending of a war can certainly be a moment worthy of celebratory feelings, but should we feel the same way about the death of the wicked, however it comes about?  Two recent events have brought this question to the forefront: the killing by a church member of an armed intruder after he had taken the lives of two people during a church service in Texas {‘I Feel Like I Killed Evil’: Jack Wilson Praised For Killing White Settlement Church Shooting Suspect}, which was a split second reaction to a gunman, and the calculated decision by the government of the United States to kill Maj.Gen. Qassim Suleimani, an Iranian national, in a foreign country, with a missile fired from a drone. {What to Know About the Death of Iranian General Suleimani by Karen Zraick of the NY Times}  These two incidents had one primary thing in common: the person killed had been responsible for the death of innocent people prior to being killed.  Beyond that, the circumstances vary greatly, as does the debate about the legal and moral justification for responding to violence with lethal force, but there remains one more thing that both have in common and share with many other incidents when criminals, terrorists, and/or those accused of being involved in evil behavior are killed, whether in the moment or after judicial proceedings, whether by private citizens acting in self-defense or governmental authorities: the tendency to rejoice at the death of the wicked.  And while the call to celebrate the death of the Texas church shooter was muted (but still noticeable), the request to celebrate the death of Suleimani was instantly amplified and muddled by American politics {GOP lawmakers celebrate Soleimani’s death: ‘He was an evil bastard who murdered Americans’ by Mike Murphy of MarketWatch}.  The question, then, that we must ask ourselves, as Christians seeking to live by a Christian worldview, is this: Does God celebrate the death of the wicked, even when it is necessary to save lives?  The short answer is: No.

Ezekiel 18:23 (NIV)  Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Luke 6:27-28 (NIV)  “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

2 Peter 3:9 (NIV)  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

The above texts are simply a sampling, and while the Bible certainly contains repeated examples of the wrath of God in action, and calls for God's intervention against the enemies of the righteous (see David's Psalms in particular), it at the same time makes it very clear that God takes NO pleasure in the death of the wicked, even when his own judgment brings their lives to a close.  Why not?  Every life of a human being that ends with that person remaining in a state of rebellion against God results in a person created in God's image who will be separated from God for eternity.  Whatever opportunity for repentance that existed is now over.  While it may be a common question to ask seminary students to grapple with the notion of God's mercy in Christ Jesus being sufficient to forgive even the worst humans in history, like Adolf Hitler, had he repented in his bunker after having the blood of millions upon his hands {which to our knowledge he showed no signs of repentance, although other mass murders have done so}, it is not merely a hypothetical question.  Why not?  Because the vilest of human beings can be saved by the grace of God, the worst among us can receive forgiveness, IF they repent and receive God's salvation in Jesus Christ.  Thus the killing of anyone, even those most deserving of death because of their extreme evil deeds, is still a spiritual tragedy, for it is a soul lost from the Kingdom of God, one less person to celebrate at the Wedding Supper of the Lamb and glorify the name of God.  Even when there is no choice, as in the case of the Texas church shooting {aside from the view of total pacifists who would deny that any killing is justified}, there is no room in a Christian worldview for celebration. 

Some additional related thoughts...

1. Not all our enemies are God's enemies.  The people of God have at times condemned the righteous, or at least the innocent, alongside (or instead of) the wicked.  See for example: The Thirty Years War, the Inquisition.  What if the 'evil' we eliminate turns out to be closer to the martyr Jan Hus burned at the stake rather than Jack the Ripper?  We dare not pretend that our designation of human beings as an 'enemy of God' is anything but a folly.  FYI, and this may sting a bit: The enemies of America (or Israel) are not synonymous with the enemies of God (that distinction works on the personal level too, those people who are your 'enemies' may be just that, your enemies).

2. God will judge the wicked, but in his time, and according to his righteousness and mercy.
Romans 12:19 (NIV)  Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.  The related warped thought of those who hope for the destruction of Muslims in general, {in response to terrorism, or in reaction against the calls for a worldwide Caliphate...In the past this, "kill 'em all, let God sort them out" sentiment was expressed toward Native Americans, with the vile, 'the only good Indian is a dead Indian'.} rather than their acceptance of the Gospel, thus showing an emphasis on physical/temporal issues above the spiritual cause of the Kingdom of God.  Is the Gospel not capable of overcoming the resistance of any religious/ideological group?  The Vikings were an existential threat to the Christian communities of Medieval Europe, and then missionaries (some of whom were martyred in the process) brought the Gospel to them, and the threat evaporated as God's grace transformed their culture.

3. Governmental authorities do have a mandate to protect the innocent and punish the evildoer, but it is not limitless.  For example: The firebombing of German and Japanese cities during WWII, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while part of a cold calculation about potential lives lost without those actions, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. (see below about the 'lesser of two evils')  Or more recently, the now almost ubiquitous use of a drone missile to blow up a house containing a terrorist(s) but also potentially innocent bystanders, and of course the numerous Death Row inmates who have been exonerated after their innocence was proven.

4. Choosing the lesser of two evils, is still choosing evil.  IF the choice must be made, it ought not be celebrated.
Romans 12:21 (NIV)  Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.  Throughout Church history, God's people have been tempted to embrace 'the lesser evil', but is this not a lack of faith, and/or a lack of living as citizens of Heaven whose kingdom is not of this world?  The Civil Rights Movement demonstrated the power of overcoming evil with good, but as a tactic/strategy it has been utilized rarely, often only when desperation (i.e. a lack of power) eliminates other, more conventional, choices.  It is folly to think that good came come from doing evil, but is it not also dangerous to believe that a 'greater' evil can be prevented by doing a 'lesser' evil?

In the end, it has been the general consensus of Christian thinkers throughout the centuries that there is a legitimate role for the civil and military use of force {See the Apostle Paul's thoughts in Romans 13 and Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas' thoughts on Just War Theory}, but we must not allow ourselves to celebrate the destruction of the wicked, even when it is justified, even when there seems to be no other choice, for in the words of the Christian martyr John Bradford, as he watched a criminal being led away for execution, "there but for the grace of God, go I."

Sermon Video: The LORD dwells in Zion - Joel 3

The finale of the message of the prophet Joel is upon God's ongoing concern for the people and land of Israel.  "In those days", in other words, during the End Times, God will administer his justice upon those who have chosen to mistreat the descendants of Abraham, a strong warning against the evil of Anti-Semitism.  At that time, Jesus will also reign from Jerusalem, as God once more dwells within the Holy City.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: "Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved" Joel 2:12-32

In the midst of a message of woe, the prophet Joel shares the desire of the LORD to relent and heal his people.  "Even now," the message begins, for it is not too late because God is "gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love," if the people will repent, God will forgive and save them.  This is the heart of the Gospel.  God is indeed a holy and righteous judge, and the great day of his wrath will one day come, but he also abounds in love and mercy and desires that all men would repent and be saved.  Why speak of judgment when offering a message of hope?  Because humanity's rebellion is a deep-seated condition, and most will not repent until they realize the extent of their danger and have given up trying to save themselves.  Hope remains, all those who call upon the name of the LORD, who hope in him, will be saved.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Gospel, simply - John 3:16

Life is complicated, problems and their solutions are often difficult to understand.  Thankfully, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not complicated.  The message itself can be contained in one sentence, and even though entire books can hardly contain all of its implications, the Gospel can be readily understood by ordinary people, including children.  What then is the Gospel?  As John so eloquently summarizes it in John 3:16, it includes the following: (1) The existence of God as Creator and Judge, (2) the love of God for humanity {the world}, (3) the sacrifice on our behalf of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, (4) our needed response, "believe in him", (5) and lastly, the result, eternal life. 
John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
This is the Gospel, the Good News about Jesus, simply.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Self-Examination - 1 Corinthians 11:27-34

At the end of his instructions for the church at Corinth regarding the Lord's Supper, Paul warns them of the danger of participating in an "unworthy manner" which would result in a believer committing a sin "against the body and blood of the Lord."  Paul's warning remains for us today, we need to approach God (specifically regarding communion, but in all areas of worship as well) in a way which respects the holiness of God.  As such, it is incumbent upon as, as those redeemed by the Lamb, that we practice self-examination, seeking to eliminate sin in our hearts and minds.  What is the alternative to self-judgment?  God's judgment.  As our Heavenly Father, God will correct his children, disciplining them to prevent their own self-destruction, therefore it is both wise and respectful of God's grace toward us when we practice self-examination, admit our faults before God, and repent of our sins.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A Refutation of: Easter isn't about sacrifice, it's about faith and love - by Jay Parini

The opinion piece from CNN was written by Jay Parini, an author and English teacher at Middlebury College.  It appears that his perspective is that of someone who believes Jesus to be a good example, but not the Son of God, and the Bible to be a useful book, but not inspired Scripture.  My comments on his essay will appear in italics and bold interspersed throughout.

(CNN)You think you know what Easter means?

Even when people have no idea about this season, around this time of year there is an awareness that something is happening. A person comes into the office or classroom with a charcoal cross on his or her forehead; a friend or colleague is taking a trip to see family for the holiday; the stores are selling Cadbury eggs.

Certainly the calendar marks off the day as something special, and there is also a general sense of the turning season: the long winter has ended and summer itself winks in the margins of daily life.

Indeed, Easter marks a change, and it has to do with the feeling of rebirth or regeneration. But it is more complicated than that.

I have a visceral sense of all this, having been raised in a fundamentalist household, and my memories of Easter reach back to beginnings: my father, a Baptist minister, understood the centrality of this special day, even the whole Easter weekend. As a boy, I fidgeted through long services on Good Friday and listened to readings of the seven last words of Jesus on the cross, which built up to the resounding: "It is finished."

I recall being quite upset, imagining the cruelty of the sacrifice of God's only son. I thought it was horrific. I didn't want him to have to die for miserable sinners like myself.

Soon enough I grew to dislike this version of Easter, with the crucifixion as some form of blood-revenge. Why would a God who had gone to the trouble to create humanity take such umbrage? Why would he need to put his only son on the cross and see him publicly tortured—brutalized--to satisfy his feelings of disappointment and anger at what his people had done? Was I missing something?

Short answer; yes, you were certainly missing a great deal.  First off, you should be upset imagining the cruelty of the sacrifice of God's Son, it is a horrific death of an innocent man.  Whether you wanted him to die on your behalf or not, isn't the question.  The real question is what God wanted to do, and God was not content to let humanity remain in rebellion against him, was not content to let that rebellion result in the destruction of those he had created in his image.  God decided to rescue humanity, and God alone had both the wisdom to understand what that would entail and the power/righteousness to carry it out.

The famous hymn about being "washed in the blood of the Lamb" sounded, to my young ears, increasingly disturbing. God is better than this, I thought. The human beings he had created were surely good enough for him?

One of the great conceits of the modern age: We can define God ourselves (or eliminate him altogether).  God is holy, perfect, free of any contamination of sin.  "Good enough" is not an option, it is not even close.  To be in the presence of God is to likewise be holy, or to be dead.  The design of the Tabernacle and Temple illustrated this barrier between God and humanity with its concentric layers of approaching God's presence and the limitation of only the High Priest on the Day of Atonement being allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies and see the presence of God between the cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant.  Why would a Messiah have been necessary at all if humanity was "good enough"?  And what would Jesus' mission have been if not the salvation of humanity?  Either Jesus Christ came to save Lost sinners, the only way that it could be done, or he died a failure upon that Cross.

Simplistic ideas about the meaning of the crucifixion still abound, and there is a vast industry founded on what is called "substitution theology." One can easily dig through the Hebrew and Greek scriptures to snatch occasional verses that seem to support this transactional theology, with God in a bargaining mode, needing "payment" for our sins.

This paragraph is dripping with disdain for those of us (that is, anyone retaining the Orthodox Christianity of the Early Church, Ecumenical Councils and Creeds, the Reformers, etc.  Not to mention the authorial intent of every NT author) who understand that what Jesus accomplished on the Cross was a substitute for the punishment that each of us has earned through rebellion against God.  And yes, one can easily read both the Old and New Testament and find passages of Scripture that support the understanding that what Jesus did was a payment for our sins.  This traditional, mainstream, accepted interpretation of the Scriptures on the question of the purpose and efficacy of the Cross is far from "simplistic", it is an awe inspiring act of Amazing Grace, unparalleled love, and selfless sacrifice.

But I've studied the scriptures carefully, especially the gospels and Paul's letters, and I see no reason to capitulate to this downsized version of Easter weekend, with a vengeful God putting up his own son on a cross for satisfaction of some kind.

"I see no reason to capitulate to the Scriptures"  Not exactly what he said, but the essence of the point.  I have no idea how God's willingness to redeem humanity from sin, and in the process destroy the power of sin and death, can be viewed as a "downsized version of Easter".  I am also at a loss how anyone can honestly have studied the Gospels and Paul's letters and not see the repeated quotations of Jesus that this is the plan of God (Mark 8:31 for example: He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again) and the repeated explanations of Paul that this sacrifice was on our behalf (Romans 3:25 for example:  God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—).  FYI, maybe read the book of Hebrews too, the entire thing is about the superiority of Jesus' sacrifice.

That Jay Parini thinks that Jesus upon the Cross has anything to do with vengeance shows a significant lack of understanding of the theology he has decided to reject.  Holiness, righteousness, justice, grace, love, and mercy are the themes around which the discussion of God's redemptive plan revolve, not vengeance.

In any case, the idea of satisfaction or "payment" is fairly recent, tracing back to St. Anselm in Cur Deus Homo? This treatise, written in the late 11th century, put forward the idea of the death of Jesus as atonement for human sins, a "satisfaction" for the wrath of God.

A century or so later, Peter Abelard famously rejected Anselm's theory, suggesting that the death of Jesus was simply an act of love, showing humanity a way forward, an example of divine benevolence. Jesus lived and died to teach us how to live and die ourselves, or how to "empty ourselves out," as St. Paul says. The crucifixion is first and foremost a prelude to the Resurrection.

This "fairly recent" argument is utterly specious.  I suppose you can't trace the idea of substitutionary atonement back to the New Testament itself if you utterly ignore the portion of Scripture that teach it (Matthew 20:28 or Colossians 1:19-20 for example).  It is true, but not some sort of important point, that nobody stated the theory expressed in the NT exactly the way that St. Anselm did until he did it, but perhaps Jay Parini has forgotten about St. Augustine who wrote the following in On the Trinity in the 5th Century, “What, then, is the righteousness by which the devil was conquered? What, except the righteousness of Jesus Christ? And how was he conquered? Because, when he [the devil] found in Him nothing worthy of death, yet he slew Him. And certainly it is just, that we whom he [the devil] held as debtors, should be dismissed free by believing in Him whom he [the devil] slew without any debt. In this way it is that we are said to be justified in the blood of Christ. For so that innocent blood was shed for the remission of our sins…  He conquered the devil first by righteousness, and afterwards by power: namely, by righteousness, because He had no sin, and was slain by him most unjustly; but by power, because having been dead He lived again, never afterwards to die. But He would have conquered the devil by power, even though He could not have been slain by him: although it belongs to a greater power to conquer death itself also by rising again, than to avoid it by living. But the reason is really a different one, why we are justified in the blood of Christ, when we are rescued from the power of the devil through the remission of sins: it pertains to this, that the devil is conquered by Christ by righteousness, not by power.”  The list could go on and on of those who believed that Jesus died for our sins from the Early Church Fathers to the Reformers, but if St. Augustine isn't enough of an example to ignore this paragraph of the essay, nothing else will be.

So this is the "grand vision" of Easter that he prefers?  Jesus lived and died to show us an example of how to "empty ourselves" {To what end?}  How is this a solution to the problem of sinful human nature?  How does this address the fundamental questions of sin, justice, death, and the afterlife?  To think that a perversion of Easter where Jesus dies as some sort of example, and accomplishes nothing else, somehow paints a kinder view of God is ludicrous.  What then of the prayer that the cup be taken away in the Garden?  What then of the refusal to save himself?  The entire Bible falls apart when you jerk away the foundation upon which it is build, to ignore so much of Scripture because you prefer that it say something else is not an option open to those who would have faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus had faith in God, resting in the arms of an all-embracing love. That's a fancy way of saying that Jesus trusted that all would be well in the end, which is what Easter teaches us. And a crucial text here -- a key one -- is Romans 3:22, where Paul suggests that reconciliation with God, which is a better way to define "righteousness," is achieved through imitating Jesus in his self-abandonment on the cross on Good Friday.

Yes, Jesus had faith in God (more specifically the Father, Jesus himself was just as much God as the Father), and yes, he knew that all would "be well in the end" (Hebrews 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.)  But that is NOT what Easter teaches us.  Hey man, just chill out, it will all work out just fine in the end.  Sigh, We are so far off from Orthodox Christianity and the traditional accepted meaning of Scripture that it is hard to find a point of commonality.  The quotation of Romans 3:22, certainly an important passage, is odd to say the least.  Paul is NOT suggesting that reconciliation/righteousness is achieved through OUR imitating Jesus; quite the opposite in fact.  Paul is stating categorically that our righteousness comes FROM God through faith in Jesus (Note the crucial parallel discussion in Ephesians 2:8-9, For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.).  If only he had kept reading, for in Romans 3:24 the true source of our justification (the repair of our relationship with God) is made clear, "and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."  Are we to imitate Jesus?  Absolutely.  Does that imitation reconcile us to God?  Not in the least, and for a very good reason.  We have no chance, no hope, of imitating Jesus until AFTER we have been reconciled to God through faith in Jesus, at which point we receive the Holy Spirit who empowers us to live like Jesus.  Neither our salvation nor our subsequent imitation of Jesus is on our own merit, nor does it puff up our pride, all of it is according to God's grace.

I would translate this critical verse in this way: "We are reconciled with God by imitating the faith of Jesus, and we hold him dearly for this." (I always prefer to use the phrase "hold dearly" for "believe," as this is the root of the word. It has no reference to "belief" in the epistemological sense of that term.) There is clearly a huge difference between having "faith in Jesus" -- a nod of assent -- and imitating the "faith of Jesus."

This entire paragraph is meaningless.  You do not have permission to translate Scripture in ways that suit your fancy.  Yes, there can be more than one acceptable translation of the Bible's Hebrew and Greek into English, and they do vary slightly, but not like this.  The original Greek of Romans 3:22 and Jay Parini's preferred self-translation are saying the opposite.  Paul wrote about God's righteousness, available to us through faith in Jesus.  Parini's mis-translation is about our own supposed righteousness achieved through our own effort.

Yes, there is a difference between having "faith in Jesus" (necessary for salvation) and imitating the "faith of Jesus" (discipleship).  One is how we become reconciled to God, the other is how we walk once we have received reconciliation.  He evidently wants to eliminate the need for "faith in Jesus" and replace it with imitating the "faith of Jesus"  Nope, we need both, and we need "faith in Jesus" first.

Easter teaches Christians this, I believe: to emulate the faith of Jesus in the goodness of the universe-- to rest in God, whatever we mean by that great holy syllable, which seems a stumbling block for so many in our highly secular world. It teaches us about what it means to lose ourselves, our petty little selves, in order to gain something larger: reconciliation with creation itself.

Christians all walk with Jesus out of the tomb on Easter morning, reborn as free people, released from the straightjacket of time itself. And this is nothing but joy.

Holy non-sequitur Batman; Jesus had faith in the goodness of the universe??  The universe is not good (or evil), how can an inanimate object have a moral quality?  God is Good.  We are NOT to seek reconciliation with Creation itself (some sort of Pantheism?).  Our sole need/priority/purpose is to be reconciled with God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).  Jesus died to make that reconciliation possible for us, he was raised to life again to proclaim his victory over sin and death and to give us the hope that if we place our trust in him we too will be raised to life on the Last Day.  

I pity an interpretation of Easter that is about relaxing and not getting too caught up in a busy life.  We need not be liberated from time itself.  We are not prisoners of time.  We, as human beings, are enslaved to sin (rebellion against God).  Our only hope, our only recourse, is to stop trying to dig our way out of the hole, put our trust in what Jesus Christ has already done on our behalf (shedding his blood in payment for our sins and rising from the dead), and start living by the Spirit according to Jesus' example and God's Word.  The true meaning of Easter?  Give me that old time religion, it's good enough for me.  Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, nothing less; my hope is in the crucified and risen Savior.