My one powerful conversation with Tony Campolo

 

Today many of my friends and collogues in ministry are sharing wonderful stories of their many interactions over the decades with American Baptist pastor, scholar, and advocate Tony Campolo.  As most of you know, I didn't grow up in Pennsylvania, nor in an American Baptist Church.  Tony's name was not one that I ever heard discussed, in fact I knew little about him until he was invited to speak at First Baptist Church of Linesville (in our French Creek Association) for the Spring Gathering of 2013.  Being new to NW PA and the kind of fellowship that associational events and relationships can offer, I had every intention of attending.  I'll share the text from my 2013 post on the evening next, but after that make sure you read the next portion because there was a lot more to that story that I didn't share back then.

From 2013: This past spring our regional Baptist association invited Tony Campolo to speak at our annual gathering.  The suggested topic for Tony was the problem of complacency among Christians (in other words, what do we do to get people on fire for serving God?).  Prior to going to the event, I received a letter written by one of the pastors of our association and signed by all of his board members that condemned the invitation of Tony and warned us that his teachings were dangerous.  The letter included snippets of quotes from a variety of Professor Campolo's books, many of which seemed to be out of context.  As a former English teacher, seeing quotes taken out of context sends up a huge red flag to me.  I went to the meeting, having heard good things about Tony's presentations from my friends, Pastor Jeff Little (First UMC) and Mother Holly (St. John's Episcopal).

What type of message would we hear?  Would the Gospel be clear or lost in the social efforts that Tony's critics accuse him of replacing it with?

It is amazing what you can learn when you give someone the chance to share what is on their heart.  Throughout his presentation, Tony Campolo gave a heart stirring call to the Church to truly be the servants of Jesus Christ that we have been called to be.  The Evangelical nature of his message was beyond doubt, there at the heart of everything he was preaching was the need for each man, woman, and child to find a relationship with God, through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and to turn that relationship into a life-altering experience of righteous living.  What more could any believer in the fundamentals of the faith want?

The hype, fodder for television commentators and blog posts, was entirely overblown.  The venom directed at Tony from his critics was a farce.  If this man's commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not genuine, then nobody who publicly declares their faith in Christ can be trusted.  If this man's passion for the Lost is not acceptable to you, then your problem is with the call of Jesus to champion the poor.

Which brings me to his book, Speaking My Mind, which I finished reading today.  I won't claim that everything in the book made me happy, nor am I in agreement with all of it, I will however confirm that the passion for the Gospel I found while listening to Tony last spring is part and parcel of his written works as well.  Are there things in the book that will cause some Christians to write Tony off as a liberal?  Yes.  Are there things in the book that those same Christians need to hear because they echo the words of the Gospel?  Yes.  Do yourself a favor, read the book, think about it, weigh what it says by the scale of Scripture, and then decide what God would have you do about poverty, nationalism, homosexuality, environmentalism, politics, etc.

If you close your mind, you won't be listening to God either.  If you truly are committed to being a disciple of Jesus Christ, don't you owe it to God to admit when you are in error?  Speaking My Mind may not have all the answers, but at least Tony Campolo was brave enough to ask the questions.

Listening to Tony Campolo in-person certainly put to bed any hesitation to think of him as a positive force for the Church today.  He was that and then some.  There are two other aspects of that story I'd like to share now in his memory.  The first is that I went to the gathering at Linesville with Arlene Harrington.  Those from my church remember Arlene fondly, she was the widow of our long-time pastor, John Harrington who served my church for twenty years from 1964-1983.  After his passing she moved back to Franklin and rejoined the church where they had spent so many years together.  Arlene was a pistol.  When I arrived here she told me, "Let me know if you have any trouble with anyone, I lived in that parsonage before you did, I'll handle it."  Thankfully, I never had to take Arlene up on her offer, but I appreciate her passion for protecting me as her pastor.  We had a wonderful conversation on the drive there about how she used to go to French Creek Association gatherings as a child in her parents' model-T.  On our way home after hearing Tony's message we were in the middle of another conversation when I pulled the car over and told Arlene, "I need to go back."  She graciously allowed me to follow what my conscience was saying to me, fifteen minutes later we reentered the church to find Tony still talking with the people that remained.

What made me turn the car around?  During his message Tony had offered up supporting Compassion International as one way in which those attending could make a difference for the Kingdom in this world.  He encouraged us to sponsor a child, holding up pictures of several to inspire us further.  I hadn't responded.  The reason was simple, my wife and I were still massively in-debt from the decade of multiple part-time jobs that I had struggled through in Michigan before we moved here.  The math just didn't work, that's what my mind told me.  We were living without much fluff, I couldn't justify $30 per-month, I just didn't have it to spare.  But God spoke to me as I drove away from the church, it wasn't an audible voice, but it was real, it was a gut-check moment, and I responded to it.

I told Tony this when there was a break in his conversation with the others who remained, and took one of his cards.  I don't remember the words we exchanged 11 years ago, I just remember the impact that his passion for those in need had on my heart.

There is an epilogue to this story.  My wife Nicole told me she was pregnant in the Fall of 2014.  As previously mentioned, we were still trying to claw our way out of debt, perhaps 50% of my paycheck went to that cause each month.  I knew we'd have to tighten our belts even further, and that's what we did.  I didn't want to, but I called Compassion International, told them what we were facing, and let our then 18-month-old sponsorship lapse...Fast forward to 2019.  We had finally put our debt in the past, our beautiful daughter Clara was 4 years old, it was time to find a way to sponsor another Compassion International child.

That's Sonite.  She's the child that my daughter chose to sponsor.  I showed Clara pictures of a dozen or so girls born on the same day that she was, and she chose this precious child from Haiti.  Clara and Sonite exchange letters, our small connection to her life circumstances teaches my daughter valuable lessons about how blessed we are in life and our obligation to share some of that blessing with the many in our world who are much less fortunate.  It is one of the ways that we're trying to mold Clara into the kind of kid whose heart and mind beats like that of Tony Campolo.  

"Well done good and faithful servant."

John MacArthur's denial of the existence of mental illness is shameful, harmful, and outright false

 

Beth Moore, doctor criticize John MacArthur for claiming mental illness isn’t real - by Leonardo Blair, Christianpost.com

‘There’s no such thing as PTSD, OCD, ADHD,’ John MacArthur declares - by Mark Wingfield, Baptistnewsglobal.com

I've been married to my beautiful wife Nicole for nearly 23 years.  Nicole hasn't hidden from the fact that she has suffered from clinical depression since she was a teenager.  During our years together she has had good days and bad days, good years and bad years, with respect to this disease.  At times, she hasn't needed any medication or counseling in order to live her life normally, we thank God for the blessing of those seasons of relief.  But at other times, some brief and some long, she would not be able to go about her day-to-day responsibilities without support beyond her own willpower, prayer, and a husband who tries his best to make things easier.  She can't do it alone, and her husband doesn't have the power to fill the gap.  Why not?  Because clinical depression is real, and you can't overcome it with hard work or determination.  {National Institutes of Health: Depression}.  When things have been bad, my wife has needed the health of both medication proscribed by a physician, and counseling from a trained professional.  These supports are not an admission of weakness, they are choosing a wise path.  

This is reality, and it is one that millions of families in America, and hundreds of millions of families around the world, know to be true.

Pastor John MacArthur begs to differ.

After watching John MacArthur deny the danger of Covid19 four years ago {John MacArthur jumps the shark with COVID-19 response } and then later in the year declare that true Christians must vote for one party, and one party only, in America {Beware of the Political Church: John MacArthur declares, "any real true believer" can only vote one way. }, I'm not surprised that he's continued to say things that are both untrue and dangerous to the Church.  By proclaiming that mental illness is a fabrication, and that neither medication nor psychological counseling are of any value, John MacArthur has once more tarnished his own reputation and put his considerable authority (in some circles) behind ideas that will bring real harm to Christians and non-Christians alike.

“The major noble lie is there is such a thing as mental illness."

This pronouncement from MacArthur is made without any offer of proof, any data or studies, he simply asserts it as fact, but it isn't a fact, it is a lie (or a self-delusion).

"There's no such thing as PTSD. There's no such thing as OCD. There's no such thing as ADHD. Those are noble lies to basically give the excuse to, at the end of the day, to medicate people. And Big Pharma is in charge of a lot of that,”

This is a slap in the face of every veteran, police officer, nurse, abused spouse or child, assault survivor, and on and on who has suffered in the grip of PTSD.  One would have thought that we've moved past the days when General Patton felt free to slap a soldier in the face who was suffering from, "the shakes," but in reality there still is a huge stigma attached to mental illnesses, one that contributes to the woefully high suicide rates among those who suffer from them.  John MacArthur's conspiracy theory laden words will make things worse.

Is there a conversation to be had, rationally and with evidence, about the dangers of over-medicating, especially with kids?  Absolutely, but this isn't that, not by a long shot.

“We are trying to make clear to parents that behavior is essentially the result of choices that kids make and if you parent them properly, they’ll make right choices,”

Now the circle of harm grows wider.  Parents who listen to John MacArthur and ignore sound medical advice when their child has a real mental illness by refusing to allow them to be treated will also carry with them undeserved guilt when things go awry (as they almost always will because mental illness is real) because he has told them that good parents will teach kids to make choices that lead to good outcomes.  This is dangerous with respect to parenting even without the topic of mental illness attached.  Parents lead by example, they offer wisdom and boundaries, but children are not a math formula, sometimes loving parents who do their best have kids who struggle in life; that too is a fact.

“literally turning your child not only into a potential drug addict, but maybe a potential criminal because they never learned how to negotiate and navigate life in a socially acceptable way.”

Once again, a bold statement without any evidence or proof.

In the end, MacArthur paints a picture of those who suffer from mental illness as weak people who make all of their "bad choices" in a vacuum.  Thank God that our Heavenly Father doesn't judge us in this black/white way without compassion.

How does this pronouncement from John MacArthur about mental health make me feel as a pastor, a husband, and simply as a human being that has compassion on those who suffer?  Honestly, it is a mixture of sadness at seeing a man degenerate this far into self-destruction of his reputation and ministry, and anger because I know that people who fight each day against mental illness will be harmed needlessly by this nonsense.  The cult of personality around famous pastors enables foolishness like this, the Church is worse off because of it.

As a pastor, I also want to say this: If you suffer from mental illness, please don't hold back from seeking help, every pastor I know will respond to you with compassion and understanding to help you, and we all are willing to admit that we need the help of healthcare professionals to assist in the areas in which we don't have training and expertise.  

Please seek help if you need it, don't suffer alone, don't suffer in silence.  God bless all those who, like my wife and I, and so many others, know that mental illness is all too real.

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

There have been too many days like today...

On days like today, there have been too many, far too many, days like today...

I kissed my daughter as the school bus pulled up, we hugged each other, and I told her, "I love you", she's young enough still that she says it back, "love you."  That's our daily routine at the bus stop.

Today nearly two dozen families in Texas will never again have the chance to hear their child say, "I love you."

One of the reasons I am steadfastly non-partisan in my public commentary (I know some will disagree with that self-assessment, so be it) is that I don't hear any voice in American politics today that is holistically pro-life.  I have two thousand years of Church history and an entire Bible of commands and obligations that have convinced me that nothing less will satisfy what God requires of me, so to whom should I turn?

Congress has 535 members, but not one speaks from the position that all life is made in God's image, is thus sacred, and as such their task is to protect and support to the best of their ability every permutation and segment of humanity, not just in our nation but around the world.  There are always caveats, groups left behind, forgotten or deliberately excluded (sometimes with venom and glee no less).  There are always reasons of expediency and tribalism that supersede the needs of real people, excuses why party loyalty rates higher than principled morality.  It isn't even really close, politics misses the mark of what God has called his people to embrace on so many levels.  To think that any party, past or present, could be a 'Christian' party would be laughable if it weren't such a dangerously blasphemous idea.

I honestly don't expect change, not on a national level.  On many of the holistically pro-life issues that matter to me, as a Christian and as a minister, we're not even able to have the conversation about HOW to best solve the needs we can all see in healthcare, education, poverty, criminal justice, racism, the environment, foreign policy, violence, and on and on.  We're too entrenched in our positions to even be willing to talk about anything beyond how 'we' can stop 'them'.  The task confronting the politician isn't easy, there isn't any one solution to any of these endemic issues, and I wouldn't expect everyone to agree on the best way to confront complicated problems with multi-faceted roots, but hope doesn't come from partisanship.  

So I'll continue working with local elected officials, local non-profits (like the one that I'm the President of), local churches (like the one whose leadership I've been entrusted with), and people who care about the needs of people here in our community.  At least here we can make a difference, at least here people are willing to put the us vs. them partisan hatred aside and focus on how to actually help people.

Don't expect me to believe in anyone running for Congress or the Presidency, don't expect me to mold and shape what God's Word has taught me to fit their far more narrow and targeted belief systems.  I've lived through too many days like today.

"Satan controlling the Church"? Marjorie Taylor Greene's dangerous view of Catholic Relief Services assistance to migrants

 

They really need to stop pretending to be theologians.  Politicians who claim to know the will of God are not only a danger to the Church and an detriment to evangelism, but they're also begging for God's judgment when they pervert his Word.  For their sake, and ours, this needs to stop.

James 3:1 (NIV)  Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, first term congresswoman, recently told Church Militant {One of the most extremely political 'religious' sites I've ever seen} that the work being done by Catholic Relief Services to help migrants in the U.S. is, “What it is, is Satan’s controlling the church, the church is not doing its job, and it’s not adhering to the teachings of Christ, and it’s not adhering to what the word of God says we’re supposed to do and how we’re supposed to live."  She then went on to say, with a mocking voice and gestures, "What they're doing by saying 'Oh, we have to love these people and take care of these migrants and love one another.  This is loving one another'.  Yes, we are supposed to love one another, but their definition of what 'love one another' means destroying our laws, it means completely perverting what our constitution says, it means taking unreal advantage of the American taxpayer, and it means pushing a globalist policy on the American people and forcing America to become something we are not supposed to be."

MTG interview clip {To watch the clip quoted above, click on the link}

Ok, so a politician has declared that when Catholic Relief Services helps migrants they are abandoning the Word of God and the teachings of Christ, that any definition of 'love one another' is only applicable to those who, evidently, have not broken society's laws (in this case regarding immigration).  What then did Jesus say on the matter?

The text that MTG appears to be quoting (and horribly misunderstanding) is John 13:34-35

John 13:34-35 (NIV)  “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.  35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

In that context, Jesus is telling his disciples that once he is gone, they will be known to the world as his followers if they demonstrate love to each other.  In other words, the followers of Jesus Christ are commanded to love each other, it is not optional.  What then does love look like?

I'm glad you asked, because the answer is important.

1 John 3:17-18 (NIV)  If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

The Apostle John gives an illustration of what Jesus' command means.  In order to love a brother or sister in need, one must be willing to share material possessions with them. A person who claims to be a Christian, but is unwilling to help someone in need, especially a fellow believer, is not really a believer at all, as John said, "how can the love of God be in that person?"

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

Likewise, James the half-brother of Jesus, is incredulous that anyone could claim to be a person of faith and yet not do anything to alleviate the physical needs of a brother or sister in Christ.

Are the migrants trying to come to America Christians?  So as to remove any wiggle room, there isn't any either way, but this sharpens the point, yes they are.  Overwhelmingly the migrants coming from Central and South America are professed followers of Jesus Christ.  They are NOT 'them', they are NOT an 'other'.  As believers in the universal Body of Christ, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, they are us, and we are them.  They are as much a part of the Universal Church as we are, and failing to help them, when and where we, individually and collectively, can is not simply a political choice, it is a sin.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (NIV) Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

So, rather than being a perversion of the Gospel, helping migrants in need, who are also Christians, is exactly what Jesus would command us to do.  We are all a part of the Body of Christ.  Need more proof?  That's fine, the Scriptures have plenty to spare.

Matthew 25:34-40 (NIV) “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Because they may be in our country illegally, MTG (and many other politicians and pundits) have declared their need to be 'off limits'.  To help them is to encourage their lawbreaking, to have compassion on them is to endanger our nation, they say.  This is the opposite of what God's Word declares.  It is thinking like an American, not a Christian, and it is yet another illustration of the oft proved fact that when the Church and State mix together, it is the Church whose reputation is sullied.  When we think of America First, and our Christian obligations sometime later (if at all), we sin.

This teaching of Jesus is not something confined to the New Testament, it is simply taking the lessons of the Hebrew Scriptures and broadening them to fit the New Covenant's global ambitions.  A classic and powerful example of this is the book of Ruth.  Ruth is a Moabite, a nation connected to Abraham's nephew Lot, and by the time of the her story, a bitter enemy of the Israelites.  Ruth marries a Jew when he travels to her land with his family as refugees from a famine.  When he dies, Ruth travels with her mother-in-law Naomi back to Judea to Naomi's husband's (also now deceased) village with little hope for the future.  Ruth in Judea is not 'one of us', she is an outsider.  The entire story's gloomy trajectory changes when a righteous man named Boaz ignores Ruth's ethnicity by going above and beyond what was required in the Law of Moses of landowners at harvest time to support widows, orphans, and foreigners.  The extra kindness of Boaz begins a process which leads to his eventual marriage with Ruth and the bearing of a son named Obed, the grand-father of the great King David.

Leviticus 19:9-10 (NIV) “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.

It can be difficult to interpret and apply the Scriptures.  Some passages are hard for us to understand, and some circumstances in life are convoluted enough to make finding the moral choice challenging.  Whether or not to help migrants in need, no matter what nation they come to, or what nation they come from, is not such a case.  It is a 'textbook example' of God's Law in action, reminiscent of Boaz's compassion on Ruth, and following the words of Jesus, James, and John.  

Catholic Relief Services is NOT an example of "Satan controlling the Church".  Helping migrants in need is NOT a perversion of 'love on another'.  Politicians really need to stop pretending that they know the Bible well enough to speak for God.

Isaiah 5:20 (NIV)

20 Woe to those who call evil good

    and good evil,

who put darkness for light

    and light for darkness,

who put bitter for sweet

    and sweet for bitter.

** Another implication of MTG's worldview is that 'they' don't deserve our help.  This too is a massive fallacy when compared with the actions of Jesus.  Jesus spent time, purposefully, among tax collectors, prostitutes, and 'sinners' precisely because the self-righteous in his generation declared them to be off limits to God's love; by finding faith among them and bringing them to repentance, Jesus proved otherwise.

We are not absolved of our command to help others in the name of Christ if those others in question are deemed by our society to be unworthy of compassion.  No such distinction exists in the Christian worldview, all alike are sinners saved by grace, the hope of the Gospel is for everyone.  When the AIDS crisis first hit, many self-righteous Christians didn't want to get involved because it was a 'gay problem', this was an abandonment of Jesus' own strategy, let us not repeat the mistake by casting aside those seeking refuge in our nation. 

Luke 5:30-32 (NIV) But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

31 Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Our place, a Christians, and as a Church, is among the lawbreakers, the outcasts, and the forgotten.  

Further reading:

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

Martin Luther's experience with the plague spoke powerfully during COVID, his understanding of our obligation to our neighbors fits here as well.

How should Christians act during a pandemic? - Wisdom from Martin Luther's experience with the Plague

The 'sin of empathy' fiasco is cut from the same cloth as MTG's new definition of 'love one another'

The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism

Sermon Video: "You stood aloof", the failure to love your neighbor - Obadiah 10-21

The Folly of Angry Witnessing and the Folly of attacking Christians who befriend the Lost

Sermon Video: Tradition Needs Integrity - Mark 7:9-13

 Having reprimanded the religious leadership of Judaism for clinging to tradition without sincerity, now Jesus focuses upon one example of a second problem: tradition without integrity.  They had used a loophole in the Law to negate the command to honor one's parents by allowing resources to be offered to God instead, a case of greed masking itself as piety.  Whatever traditions, habits, or cultural norms we use to excuse immorality and/or excuse a lack of righteousness, it won't work with God.  God sees the heart, and knows our intentions.  We need to examine ourselves, remove our excuses, and rededicate ourselves to devotion to God and family; no excuses.

Sermon Video: Five loaves and two fish - Mark 6:30-44

 Instead of finding rest in a solitary place, Jesus and the disciples are met with a large crowd.  Jesus has compassion on them and teaches them, but when the disciples observe that the people need food, Jesus says, "You give them something to eat."  HOW?  They can't solve this problem, but Jesus still asks them to try, to asses their resources, and then uses their small contribution (5 loaves and 2 fish), blesses it, and then has the disciples be the one to pass out the food to the crowd.

What is our lesson in all this?  19th century missionary William Carey said it best, "Expect great things from God.  Attempt great things for God."

When is governmental action morally justified? The morality of COVID-19 responses to protect less than 1%.

This is a serious question, I'm actually curious about what you would answer:

Given that as of today, 10/13/20, there have been at least 214,000 COVID-19 deaths in America, and given that those numbers are expected to be nearly 400,000 by February of 2021 (that is, only 111 days from now): At what point would governmental (local, state, or federal) restrictions (shutdowns, crowd limits, mask mandates) be justified in your mind?

1% of the current US population (331 million) would be over 3 million deaths. Thankfully, we have avoided this nightmare scenario {thanks in part to mitigation efforts, both voluntary and imposed}. Should we, as a society, take self-sacrificial actions in hopes of preventing the deaths of less than 1%? Is economic hardship justified for less than 1%? Are limitations on the freedom of a country's citizens justifiable for less than 1%?

For comparison: In the U.S., about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected with the Spanish Flu 1918-1920, and 500,000 to 850,000 died (0.48 to 0.81 percent of the population in 1918, those % amount to 1.588 million to 2.681 million Americans with today's larger population)

{COVID-19 death projections}

As of today, we are approaching 1/10th of 1% of America's residents killed by COVID-19 (331,000), and should surpass that number before Christmas. Should we, as a society, take self-sacrificial actions in hopes of preventing the deaths of 1/10th of 1%?

The final number killed by this pandemic will, Lord willing, remain significantly less than 1%. What then does the Christian worldview offer to guide us regarding our level of concern for harms that may come to a small minority among us?

1. Abraham's conversation with God about Sodom and Gomorrah

Genesis 18:20-32 (NIV) 20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” 22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord.[a] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[b] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” 26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” 27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.” 29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.” 30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.” 32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

If there had been 10 righteous people in Sodom (sadly, there were not even 10), the city would have been spared. Without knowing the population of the city at that time, it is impossible to judge how small a minority this would have been, but it seems clear that it was less than 1% (i.e. that the city contained more than 1,000 people). While this example involves divine judgement, not governmental policy, it illuminates a principle that can be applied from the former to the latter.

2. Jesus' parable of the 99 and the 1 sheep.

Luke 15:3-7 (NIV) 3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

The numbers here are helpful, only 1% of the sheep are in danger in Jesus' parable, yet the shepherd leaves the 99 'in open country', not safe in a pen or with another shepherd, in order to rescue the lost 1. Once again, this is a spiritual example involving God's justice and mercy, but it too vindicates concern for the minority, even one as small as 1%.

3. Any is too many when Peter reflects on God's purposes.

2 Peter 3:9 (NIV) 9 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.

Governmental officials, not having the wisdom or power of God, have to make hard choices. They sometimes must make choices that will lead to the harm of some in order to protect others. From God's perspective, there are no 'throw away' people. All of humanity is created in the image of God. Every person has a soul, every person is one for whom Christ was willing to die.

Conclusion: From a Christian worldview perspective, whether one is a libertarian or a socialist, a Republican or a Democrat, or any other political view or allegiance, the biblical model remains clear: One is worth sacrificing for, tiny minorities have value in the sight of God.

What precautions should be taken, and who should be encouraging or ordering them is a political question. Christian men and women of good intentions can and do disagree about HOW to put our concern for those in need into action {and not just on this topic}. However, what we don't have the luxury of doing, as Christ followers, is making a cold calculation that 1/10th of 1% of Americans are not WORTH sacrificing for. That this pandemic primarily affects the elderly and those with underlying conditions is irrelevant from a moral point of view. As Christians, we remain beholden to the Law of Love:

Mark 12:28-31 (NIV) 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

How should Christians act during a pandemic? - Wisdom from Martin Luther's experience with the Plague

The response of American Christians to the COVID-19 pandemic has run the gamut from faithful adherence to CDC guidelines, to open and proud defiance of recommended precautions.  The root causes behind these extreme variances is itself an interesting, but separate topic.  The question of the moment is this: How should Christians act during a pandemic?
On August 2nd, 1527, the bubonic plague (Black Death) returned to the German city of Wittenberg.  Many of the town's residents fled (the students and faculty of the University were advised to flee the city), but Martin Luther stayed put.  1527 was 10 years after the posting of Luther's famous 95 thesis, 6 years after Luther was excommunicated in 1521, the same year that he defended his beliefs before the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms.
The risk of staying to Luther and his family was not insubstantial.  While his wife Katie survived a bout of the Plague while pregnant with the family's second child, the girl Elisabeth died in infancy before her eighth month (perhaps weakened by the Plague, perhaps not).

An English translation of the text of Luther's letter in its entirety may be read here: Whether One May Flee From A Deadly Plague - by Martin Luther.  Relevant excerpts will appear below in italics with my commentary in bold.  Three factors to consider when weighing Luther's words: (1) The way in which the plague spread was little understood, except that contact with those infected was dangerous.  (2) There was little in the way of efficacious treatments with death rates as high as 30%, and (3) there was no system of hospitals to care for the sick, if family or friends could not help, the sick would die alone.

Grace and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. Your letter, sent to me at Wittenberg, was received some time ago. You wish to know whether it is proper for a Christian to run away from a deadly plague. I should have answered long ago, but God has for some time disciplined and scourged me so severely that I have been unable to do much reading or writing. Furthermore, it occurred to me that God, the merciful Father, has endowed you so richly with wisdom and truth in Christ that you yourself should be well qualified to decide this matter or even weightier problems in his Spirit and grace without our assistance.

Luther wrote to Rev. Dr. Johann Hess, a fellow Lutheran pastor at Breslau.  Before giving his own opinion on the matter, Luther expresses confidence that the wisdom of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit, should have made the answer to Hess' question apparent without Luther's insights.  In our current situation, facing COVID-19, one would hope that Christians could arrive at God honoring positions through applying the wisdom that they already should posses as followers of Jesus Christ.  Given the wide-range of responses, however, as well as the animosity that these various positions have brought with them toward those who hold differing views, it seems that we too need Luther's wisdom to help us see things more clearly.

Those who are engaged in a spiritual ministry such as preachers and pastors must likewise remain steadfast before the peril of death. We have a plain command from Christ, “A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep but the hireling sees the wolf coming and flees” [John 10:11]. For when people are dying, they most need a spiritual ministry which strengthens and comforts their consciences by word and sacrament and in faith overcomes death. However, where enough preachers are available in one locality and they agree to encourage the other clergy to leave in order not to expose themselves needlessly to danger, I do not consider such conduct sinful because spiritual services are provided for and because they would have been ready and willing to stay if it had been necessary. We read that St. Athanasius fled from his church that his life might be spared because many others were there to administer his office. Similarly, the brethren in Damascus lowered Paul in a basket over the wall to make it possible for him to escape, Acts 9 [:25]. And also in Acts 19 [:30] Paul allowed himself to be kept from risking danger in the marketplace because it was not essential for him to do so. 

In Luther's view, the clergy were obligated to ensure that ministry continued among the people, even during times of plague.  He did however, note an important caveat, only such as were needed should expose themselves to danger.  This theme will be developed by Luther throughout the letter: to expose oneself unnecessarily to danger is to tempt God, and is thus immoral.  This has relevance for the ongoing debate about 'reopening' churches.  {update 8/21: The same principle applies regarding mask wearing and vaccinations, as those issue continue to be contested}  We are blessed in this generation with the ability to worship remotely.  In this way, we can both fulfill our obligation to continue to worship and teach the Word of God, and minimize the risk of spreading contagion.

Yes, no one should dare leave his neighbor unless there are others who will take care of the sick in their stead and nurse them. In such cases we must respect the word of Christ, “I was sick and you did not visit me …” [Matt. 25:41–46]. According to this passage we are bound to each other in such a way that no one may forsake the other in his distress but is obliged to assist and help him as he himself would like to be helped.

Given the lack of public medical care, one of Luther's primary concerns was that brotherly/neighborly love be maintained as a witness to Christ.  Times of disaster do not put our obligations to each other on hold.  {Update 8/21: This same passage is one reason why I have not kept silent in the face of anti-vax attitudes based upon non-factual (that is, lies) information.  Should I turn a blind eye to those who if they continue on this path are likely to become sick, and some die??  No, for the same reason that I would caution against other choices that a Christian would make to harm his/her Temple, we are not our own, our bodies do not belong to us, Jesus paid the price for them.}

 To flee from death and to save one’s life is a natural tendency, implanted by God and not forbidden unless it be against God and neighbor, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 4 [5:29], “No man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it.” It is even commanded that every man should as much as possible preserve body and life and not neglect them, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12 [:21–26] that God has so ordered the members of the body that each one cares and works for the other...How much more appropriate it is therefore to seek to preserve life and avoid death if this can be done without harm to our neighbor, inasmuch as life is more than food and clothing, as Christ himself says in Matthew 5 [6:25]

Much has been said during this pandemic about 'living in fear', as if taking precautions is somehow against living by faith.  Martin Luther disagreed, strongly.  He saw fear of contagion and death as a natural, even God given, tendency.  As a member of the body of Christ, we each have an obligation to protect our own health, as much as possible, "unless it be against God and neighbor".  Rather than a sign of weakness, or of lack of faith, taking necessary precautions to protect own's own life is a sign of gratitude toward God (for the giving of that life in the first place).

Examples in Holy Scripture abundantly prove that to flee from death is not wrong in itself. Abraham was a great saint but he feared death and escaped it by pretending that his wife, Sarah, was his sister. Because he did so without neglecting or adversely affecting his neighbor, it was not counted as a sin against him. His son, Isaac, did likewise. Jacob also fled from his brother Esau to avoid death at his hands. Likewise, David fled from Saul, and from Absalom. The prophet Uriah escaped from King Jehoiakim and fled into Egypt. The valiant prophet, Elijah, 1 Kings 19 [:3], had destroyed all the prophets of Baal by his great faith, but afterward, when Queen Jezebel threatened him, he became afraid and fled into the desert. Before that, Moses fled into the land of Midian when the king searched for him in Egypt. Many others have done likewise. All of them fled from death when it was possible and saved their lives, yet without depriving their neighbors of anything but first meeting their obligations toward them. Yes, you may reply, but these examples do not refer to dying by pestilence but to death under persecution. Answer: Death is death, no matter how it occurs. According to Holy Scripture God sent his four scourges: pestilence, famine, sword, and wild beasts. If it is permissible to flee from one or the other in clear conscience, why not from all four? Our examples demonstrate how the holy fathers escaped from the sword; it is quite evident that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob fled from the other scourge, namely, hunger and death, when they went to Egypt to escape famine, as we are told in Genesis [40–47]

Here Luther cites numerous examples from the Heroes of the Faith, that even men such as Abraham and David fled from danger.  In Luther's mind, to wisely flee from the threat of violence is not different than protecting oneself against wild animals, famine, or in this case, pestilence.  {Update 8/21: This line is so important, "Death is death, no matter how it occurs", Luther saw it as a Christian duty to avoid unnecessary risk, not a matter of personal choice or freedom at all}

By such reasoning, when a house is on fire, no one should run outside or rush to help because such a fire is also a punishment from God. Anyone who falls into deep water dare not save himself by swimming but must surrender to the water as to a divine punishment. Very well, do so if you can but do not tempt God

Here Luther counters the folly of fatalism from those who proclaim any misfortune to be God's punishment.  When taken to its logical extreme, such people should not seek food or shelter either, trusting in God's providence.  Today's version of this outlook is on display from those who ignore social distancing while yelling, "I'm covered by the blood of Jesus".  To ignore the wisdom which God has given us, through modern medicine, as some sort of way of publicly proclaiming one's faith, is both an act of pride, and an attempt to tempt God into protecting us from our own folly.  {Update 8/21: Likewise, those who proclaim that faith is the best defense, making a vaccination unnecessary are tempting God, to do so is BAD theology}.  

We should then need no apothecaries or drugs or physicians because all illnesses are punishment from God. Hunger and thirst are also great punishments and torture. Why do you eat and drink instead of letting yourself be punished until hunger and thirst stop of themselves? Ultimately such talk will lead to the point where we abbreviate the Lord’s Prayer and no longer pray, “deliver us from evil, Amen,” since we would have to stop praying to be saved from hell and stop seeking to escape it. It, too, is God’s punishment as is every kind of evil. Where would all this end? From what has been said we derive this guidance: We must pray against every form of evil and guard against it to the best of our ability in order not to act contrary to God, as was previously explained. If it be God’s will that evil come upon us and destroy us, none of our precautions will help us. 

The proper outcome of faith is not fatalism, but realism.  If medicine exists, use it.  If precautions can be taken, follow them.  If, after having done this, it is still the will of God that we should become ill, and having done so, that we should die, so be it.  The people of God were told to pray for deliverance for a reason.  Luther was clear about whether or not we need to do our part to protect ourselves against the evil of the plague, "guard against it to the best of our ability".  The important questions for much America's Christians: Why are small precautions, that cost us comparatively little, the cause of such anger and defiance?

In the same way we must and we owe it to our neighbor to accord him the same treatment in other troubles and perils, also. If his house is on fire, love compels me to run to help him extinguish the flames... A man who will not help or support others unless he can do so without affecting his safety or his property will never help his neighbor. He will always reckon with the possibility that doing so will bring some disadvantage and damage, danger and loss.

Once again, our obligation to our neighbor is no different when facing an invisible contagion than when facing visible flames.  It will always cost us something to help our neighbor, and there will always be excuses to hand for those who want to find them.  {Update 8/21: Love compels me to urge my family, friends, and neighbors to be vaccinated, Love compels me to 'run to help'.  Don't tell me to ignore the Law of Love when God has commanded me to follow it!}

It would be well, where there is such an efficient government in cities and states, to maintain municipal homes and hospitals staffed with people to take care of the sick so that patients from private homes can be sent there — as was the intent and purpose of our forefathers with so many pious bequests, hospices, hospitals, and infirmaries so that it should not be necessary for every citizen to maintain a hospital in his own home. That would indeed be a fine, commendable, and Christian arrangement to which everyone should offer generous help and contributions, particularly the government. Where there are no such institutions — and they exist in only a few places — we must give hospital care and be nurses for one another in any extremity or risk the loss of salvation and the grace of God. Thus it is written in God’s word and command, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and in Matthew 7 [:12], “So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”

Public healthcare was almost nonexistent in Luther's day.  We are so very much more blessed in that regard.  Our response today?  Continue to support those institutions, the workers who risk their lives there, and the politicians who ensure that they have the resources they need to help the sick.  {Update 8/21: Having prayed with nurses and staff in our local hospital during the height here locally of the pandemic, this sentiment is only strengthened in me; they were (are) doing the Lord's work and require our support.  Additionally, note that Luther was in favor of government's involvement in healthcare, he wanted them to help the people.}

 Because we know that it is the devil’s game to induce such fear and dread, we should in turn minimize it, take such courage as to spite and annoy him, and send those terrors right back to him. And we should arm ourselves with this answer to the devil: “Get away, you devil, with your terrors! Just because you hate it, I’ll spite you by going the more quickly to help my sick neighbor

This is the balance that Luther is calling for: One the one hand, take necessary precautions to protect our own lives and not spread contagion, on the other, do what needs to be done to help those in need.  Thanks to our much greater understanding about how disease is spread, we have the opportunity to do both of these things without compromise.  We can make sure that our neighbors are not neglected during times of crisis like this pandemic without recklessly endangering them or us.

This I well know, that if it were Christ or his mother who were laid low by illness, everybody would be so solicitous and would gladly become a servant or helper. Everyone would want to be bold and fearless; nobody would flee but everyone would come running. And yet they don’t hear what Christ himself says, “As you did to one of the least, you did it to me” [Matt. 25:40].

Who is my neighbor?  Luther imagines the throng of people willing to volunteer if Jesus or Mary were ill, but then reminds us that each of 'the least' among us should be treated the same way.  By the way, Luther goes on to point out the folly of thinking you'd be willing to help Jesus if you aren't willing to help others in the here and now.

Others sin on the right hand. They are much too rash and reckless, tempting God and disregarding everything which might counteract death and the plague. They disdain the use of medicines; they do not avoid places and persons infected by the plague, but lightheartedly make sport of it and wish to prove how independent they are. They say that it is God’s punishment; if he wants to protect them he can do so without medicines or our carefulness. This is not trusting God but tempting him. God has created medicines and provided us with intelligence to guard and take good care of the body so that we can live in good health. 

{Update 8/21: Wow, rereading this section is a gut punch.  So many within the Church today are 'proud' of not taking precautions, 'proud' to refuse vaccination, shouting slogans of 'freedom!' as they do so.  Hear this, Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, calls this "not trusting God but tempting him."}

If one makes no use of intelligence or medicine when he could do so without detriment to his neighbor, such a person injures his body and must beware lest he become a suicide in God’s eyes. By the same reasoning a person might forego eating and drinking, clothing and shelter, and boldly proclaim his faith that if God wanted to preserve him from starvation and cold, he could do so without food and clothing. Actually that would be suicide. It is even more shameful for a person to pay no heed to his own body and to fail to protect it against the plague the best he is able, and then to infect and poison others who might have remained alive if he had taken care of his body as he should have. He is thus responsible before God for his neighbor’s death and is a murderer many times over. Indeed, such people behave as though a house were burning in the city and nobody were trying to put the fire out. Instead they give leeway to the flames so that the whole city is consumed, saying that if God so willed, he could save the city without water to quench the fire. 

{Update 8/21: Once again, these words hit far harder today than when I first published this.  Martin Luther is telling you that refusal to take precautions against a pandemic (whether that be masks when necessary or vaccinations) is akin to suicide, and that if your prideful refusal results in the deaths of others you will stand before God as a murderer.  Martin Luther wrote this, doesn't it have weight to you?  As a minister of the Gospel, I consider it a sacred duty to try my best to prevent my brothers and sisters in Christ from, in Luther's words, committing suicide or murder. }

No, my dear friends, that is no good. Use medicine; take potions which can help you; fumigate house, yard, and street; shun persons and places wherever your neighbor does not need your presence or has recovered, and act like a man who wants to help put out the burning city. What else is the epidemic but a fire which instead of consuming wood and straw devours life and body? You ought to think this way: “Very well, by God’s decree the enemy has sent us poison and deadly offal. Therefore I shall ask God mercifully to protect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine, and take it. I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance infect and pollute others, and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs me, however, I shall not avoid place or person but will go freely, as stated above. See, this is such a God-fearing faith because it is neither brash nor foolhardy and does not tempt God.

A long section, but the heart of the matter as Christians today argue about how we should respond to things like government mask-wearing mandates.  Notice that Luther compares the cavalier attitudes of those who take no precautions to that of a suicide.  He also considers those who knowingly spread the contagion to be murderers.  Even conceding that the Plague was 30x more deadly than COVID-19, Luther's moral premise remains.  In this pandemic many more people will 'get away with' it because the results of our actions will not be readily apparent.  The best phrase in the section, "act like a man who wants to help put out the burning city."  That is the true test, do our actions help or hurt the spread of the pandemic?  Are we helping our neighbors in need, or ignoring them?  
" I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance infect and pollute others, and so cause their death as a result of my negligence."  Is your presence necessary?  500 years ago Martin Luther was considering the dictates of social distancing.

Perhaps it was foolish for Martin Luther to remain in Wittenberg, especially with a pregnant wife and young child to care for.  Had there been ample public health facilities, and other ministers who could have taken his place, he may have followed his own advice and declared his presence there to be not 'necessary'.  The point of examining Luther's words from five centuries ago during a far more deadly outbreak is simple: If the Christians of medieval Europe could find ways to care for their neighbors AND take the threat of contagion seriously, why can't we?

Sermon Video: If the Lord permits: Making Plans - 1 Corinthians 16:1-9

2020 has been, thus far, to say the least, a time of changed plans. First the pandemic cancelled things, rearranged things, and left us wondering when it was safe to reopen. Then, on May 25th, George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis and our focus as a nation shifted abruptly from Covid-19. As the people of God, we must plan for the future and we must be ready when it surprises us. The Apostle Paul planned a collection from the Gentile Churches of Asia Minor and Greece to save Judean Christians from starvation. In doing so, he (1) used what worked in one churches in other churches, (2) encouraged each church (and each family within) to consider their resources and act accordingly, (3) prepared for success, (4) was a specific with his plans as possible, (5) retained flexibility, (6) and most importantly, remembered that the Lord holds the future. As we look ahead, as long as we are dedicated and hard working in our service to the Lord, whatever comes next, we will be ok.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Stand firm if you're doing the Lord's work - 1 Corinthians 15:58

As the culmination of his message about the triumph of Jesus over sin and death, and the future resurrection that awaits all those who believe in him, the Apostle Paul exhorts us to stand firm and serve.  If we are IN Christ, we're standing in the right place and must continue to do so, for were else would any of us go, and why?  While there, we need to serve.  The Church fulfills its mission when volunteers take it upon themselves to move forward the cause of the Gospel.  As important as our clergy are in leading the Church, the laity are the ones who impact the community the most.  In addition, Paul promises us that our labor for the Lord will never be in vain.  Whether or not we see results, those who serve from the heart will be rewarded in heaven and receive the transformation of their character here and now.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

"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.

Sermon Video: When we can't meet together - Hebrews 10:24-25

In this time of national pandemic quarantine, it is a powerful reminder to us of the immeasurable value of being a part of the fellowship of a local church. As a local church, it is our obligation to "spur one another on towards love and good deeds". We build each other up, we mentor and disciple each other, inspiring our fellow Christian to live as Jesus lived by doing so ourselves. It is an amazing asset that some are in the habit of neglecting, of treating as an inconvenience, or at least a choice when other more interesting ones are not there. We cannot afford this bad habit as a Church. When the church is doing something, we need to be a part of it, as much as we are able.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Coronavirus: It will reveal our true character

In the past twenty-four hours, the impact of the Coronavirus upon life in America accelerated greatly:  The NBA is on hiatus (with other sports and entertainment events soon to follow), colleges are sending students home (primary schools will be next), and as expected the stock market is in free fall.  At this point, certainty about the eventual impact upon both lives lost and the global economy is impossible.  It will be significant, it will last a while, people will lose their jobs, and some their lives.  This is not the first time that a global pandemic has brought life to a halt, with the 1918 Influenza Pandemic as the worst example in modern history.  This pandemic will not result in a Mad Max style apocalypse, but it will have a significant impact, no matter what precautions are put in place.
The question today is this: What will this crisis reveal about our character?  Will it showcase our xenophobia, our greed, and our callousness to the potential harm of others, or will it remind us that we all live on the same planet, that resources are not our possession but gifts from God, and that our proper response to the needs of others is compassion?  In other words, will be respond to this crisis with good or evil?  In our everyday lives we face opportunities to choose to act in selfless righteousness, and opportunities to act in selfish immorality.  These are only made more acute and more consequential during a crisis.  Who you truly are is revealed when pressure is applied.  To whom you owe allegiance is made manifest when tough choices need to be made.
For Christians, the answer to this crisis is simple: continue to embrace righteous living and reject immorality, continue to serve others, continue to place your faith and hope in the Lord, continue to pray.  We as a Christian community fail to fully live up to this standard when times are easy, we are not an unvarnished reflection of our Savior, and for this we are rightly criticized and must repent.  A crisis like this will propel some Christians to extraordinary acts of bravery and charity, and it will reveal the deficiencies in the character of other Christians.  Every crisis is an opportunity to rise to the occasion, in the weeks and months ahead the world will be watching to see how the people of God react; for the sake of the Gospel, we must, by the grace of God and through the power of the Spirit, reveal ourselves to be true disciples of Jesus Christ in word and in deed.
In the Gospels, the repeated response of Jesus to the need of individuals and large crowds is compassion (Matthew 9:36, 14:14, 15:32, 20:34; Mark 6:34, 8:2; Luke 15:20).  In each case that compassion leads to action.  What actions we can take, as a Christian community, to help during this public health crisis are not yet clear, but they will be.  The opportunity to help will arise, we must be ready and willing.

The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: Hatred of the authority of God

Years ago, I slogged through Atlas Shrugged out of the same sense of obligation to have read influential books that caused me to attempt, but choose to abandon, reading War and Peace.  Atlas Shrugged is not a well written novel, its plot is nonsensical, its protagonist is loathsome, and it contains extremely lengthy speeches given by various characters as a way of sharing Ayn Rand's philosophy.  The list of famous novels that don't deserve their accolades is not all that short, but Atlas Shrugged remains notable despite its fundamental flaws because of the impact of Rand's philosophy.  The 'rugged individualism' put forth by Rand is both a reaction to the authoritarianism of the 20th century, and a quintessential American idea, for few cultures have elevated the individual above the group as thoroughly and consistently.   As a teen the philosophy of Laissez-faire governance appealed to me, as it does to many a young person, but that appeal has soured over the years, in part because of a recognition that government has a crucial role to play in restraining human immorality, and also given my years of cooperation with our local government in anti-poverty and anti-homelessness efforts, in particular the county of Venango and the city of Franklin.  Whereas it is certainly possible for a Christian to take a libertarian view because of a mistrust of human governments (as they must be populated and run by sinful human beings and have a track record of misdeeds), there is no way for the hyper-libertarian views of Ayn Rand to be compatible with any sort of Christian worldview.  In fact, the moral philosophy advocated by Ayn Rand, ethical egoism, is a rejection of everything associated with Christian ethics, Rand's Jewish heritage, and religion in general.  To embrace ethical egoism is to reject, wholeheartedly, any obligation to God.



1.  Ethical egoism makes each individual the arbiter of right and wrong.
Historically speaking, it isn't a good idea to share philosophical/ethical space with Friedrich Nietzsche, but uncomfortable compatriots aside, ethical egoism's foundation is the belief that each individual should act in his/her own self-interest.  When ethical egoism is combined with Rand's libertarian political viewpoint, the result is a hoped-for false utopia in which no individual is required to do anything that isn't in their self interest.  It is a world free of compulsion.  In other words, I could help my neighbor, but only if I wanted to, to force me to pay a tax to support (or virtually any tax in Rand's view, for any purpose) a homeless shelter would be immoral.  It is only natural that human beings place themselves at the center of their own universe.  The word natural in that last sentence is used in the sense of 'expected', not in the sense of 'proper'.  As human beings who have a flawed human nature, one fully capable of doing evil, placing our own judgment and self-interest at the center of any ethical or governmental system cannot possibly produce a positive result.  It will merely make our own self-interested choices reality writ-large, enshrining in law and cultural practice the wants and desires of the selfish human heart.  Far from being an utopia, a fully realized Rand inspired society would be hell on earth, a danger eloquently expressed in William Golding's The Lord of the Flies.  Rand rightly abhorred the evil of the authoritarian systems of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, but replacing one egotistical maniac in the cases of Hitler or Stalin with millions of individual dictators running their own lives as they see fit will only disperse the moral evil, not eliminate it.  Whatever ethical, philosophical, or governmental system is created, if it is built upon human self-interest, it will fail, and fail spectacularly.  In the end, Ayn Rand's philosophy is simply the other side of the authoritarian coin, replacing one unaccountable dictator over society, with many unaccountable dictators over their own lives.

2.  If the individual is at the center, God must be displaced.
Atlas Shrugged, and Rand's philosophy in general, is extremely hostile toward religion.  Why?  Virtually all religion has this in common: it displaces the individual from the center and puts God(s) there instead.  In other words, the very concept of religion is based upon the premise that you and I are not the culmination of life in this universe, nor its final purpose.  To understand how we came to be, why we are here, and where we are going, human beings must look up, the answer does not lie within ourselves.  These are of course generalizations about religion, how Buddhism fits within this is of course a bit complicated, but the premise holds: religion is hostile to ethical egoism because religion recognizes that individual human beings do not belong at the center.
It is, of course, the Christian understanding that the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob who came in the flesh as Jesus Christ deserves to be at the center, due to both power and holiness that God alone possesses.  What happens when Christianity is led astray by a belief that warps the Gospel and moves individuals back toward the center?  The Prosperity Gospel.  The Prosperity Gospel is a heresy precisely because it elevates the individual, making our health and wealth God's priority, rather than maintaining the age-old understanding of both our Jewish and Christian ancestors in the faith that they were servants in the house of the LORD.  Another more radical example of a Christian-based system that has been warped, in this case beyond recognition, by the removal of God as the center is Mormonism.  The goal of Mormonism is to become god-like, to advance to the point of possessing the power of a god able to create worlds of our own to rule. 

3.  Christianity requires that individuals bow the knee to the authority of God.
Neither an authoritarian dictator, nor a 'rugged individualist' like Rand would be willing to bend their will to obey God.  Both are in rebellion against that higher authority, that one of them seeks to dominate others and the other to 'liberate' them is a difference of degree, not of kind; both extremes place the individual at the center, both reject any obedience to God or any other external moral authority, and both are a dead end.
One cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ without acknowledging, and welcoming, the authority of God over one's life.  This attitude of obedience is infused throughout the teachings of Jesus, summed up in his endorsement of the greatest commandment:
Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Notice also that the 2nd commandment is our moral obligation to other people, one that will often come at significant expense to ourselves.)

Jesus also embraced the authority of the Father, even though he too was God, as an example for us all (see Philippians 2:5-11):
John 6:38 (NIV)  For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

For those of us who live in a free society, and Americans in the 21st century have freedoms our ancestors could scarcely comprehend, it is tempting to elevate ourselves to the position of being the arbiter of right and wrong, the determiner of purpose and meaning.  It is tempting, but it is a fool's errand, for that power and wisdom is beyond us, and pretending to possess it is the path of self-destruction.  The Church can ill afford to be infected with these notions, we have seen the results when it has been compromised in this way, from the support of millions of German Christians for the Nazi regime, to the hucksters on TV promising God's blessings to those who will send them money.  Ayn Rand believed that a truly 'free' society of individuals serving their own self-interests would be a paradise, she was wrong.