Sermon Video: A Depraved Mind, the Cost of Ignoring God - Romans 1:24-32

Having demonstrated that humanity is without excuse for failing to acknowledge God, Paul then explains the consequence of this rebellion: God lets humanity experience the consequences of their own lustful and depraved hears and minds.  This takes a variety of forms, one that stood out because of its connection to Ancient Near East pagan worship is Lust.  The mixing of worship of the gods with fertility rites of human sex is an example of this process in action as that which is intended for our benefit is traded for a self-destructive version.  Paul goes on to connect this to the larger issue of sex/sexuality apart from God's design, the variety of forms of which are also by definition perverse (that is, contrary to the intended purpose).  In the end, the picture is a difficult one, humanity in rebellion against God embracing all manner of 'things that ought not to be done', but the solution will always be the same: repent, receive grace, and believe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 For you created my inmost being;

    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

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

    your works are wonderful,

    I know that full well.

Jeremiah 1:5 English Standard Version (ESV)

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

and before you were born I consecrated you;

I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

The logical and historical implications of a Pro-LGBTQI+ Church and/or Pro-Abortion Church

In the moment, when our passions are aroused, we have a hard time seeing it.  But there are always logical and historical implications when an organization (governmental, corporate, charitable, educational, religious, etc.) makes a momentous change.  In 1215, When King John signed the Magna Carta , the trajectory of Western Civilization was dramatically altered, although none then could have imagined that it would one day lead to English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean declaring their independence of the British Crown.  So it is with the sea change that is taking place in portions of the Church today.  What we are now experiencing is a significant change from what was generally accepted as the Truth by the Christians who passed down their faith to us.  There will be logical implications to these that we have not fully thought through, there will be unintended consequences, and there will be historical implications to this that we cannot yet see.  Perhaps, as we continue to lob verbal grenades at each other, and continue to fight this theological war as a proxy in the political realm, we ought to try to take a step back and consider what some of those implications might be.  What will we hand down to future generations in the faith?
Let us then posit the existence of a Church that by and large has become Pro-LGBTQI+ and/or Pro-Abortion.  {Not a Church that considers how to show compassion toward and minister to those who embrace LGBTQI+ behavior, nor to those who have had abortions.  Both of those things the Church should already be doing, although doing so is certainly difficult.  Nor a Church that is neutral toward these issues, neither celebrating nor condemning them.  The question at hand is this: What about a Church that has chosen to celebrate these things?}  These are the two primary ideas that the Church is being asked to accept, that some within the Church have reluctantly tolerated, and some have enthusiastically embraced.  With all of the yelling going on, perhaps looking toward the past and future will offer some perspective. 
1. Our perspective of the past will change significantly
We are always reevaluating the past, appreciating things we hadn't noticed before and regretting things that were once commonplace.  This is not new, not avoidable, and not necessarily a bad thing.  Our ancestors once considered slavery to be something they could not rid the world of, until a Christian named William Wilberforce (among many others) spent his adult life convincing England to outlaw the practice.  Now, when we consider that chattel slavery was once practiced by "fine Christian gentleman" it makes our skin crawl.  So what will we think of (for example) Moses, Paul, Augustine, Martin Luther, or Billy Graham should the Church fully embrace these two moral positions?  All of them will be viewed as much more flawed than they currently are.  And while no man or woman called by God to serve his kingdom is free of flaws, it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that these former stalwarts of the faith were either cowards (for failing to be a lone voice in their culture) or bigots (for actively opposing the behaviors in question).  In other words, nearly all of our heroes of the faith, certainly almost all those who lived before the 20th century, will have to be reevaluated, and most will end up on the list of "enemies of God".  Instead of good men and women who did their best by faith, they will be fools who were blind to the 'truth'.  It will not be a stretch to then believe that if their hearts could be so closed to what now has been determined to be true, that the vast majority of the heroes, and regular folk, who proceeded us in the faith, are in fact in Hell {for those who retain a belief in Hell}.  If one hates what God loves, and forbids what God celebrates, what other conclusion is left?  Hebrews 11 offers Christians a "great cloud of witnesses", heroes in the faith from the past to inspire us to live faithfully today.  What happens to that inspiration when the past has been rewritten and the heroes are now all villains?
In addition to the reevaluation of individuals, ancient Israel and the Church until the 21st century will also come under scrutiny for their 'unenlightened' viewpoints.  And while there were dark periods for both Israel and the Church in their history, times when people claiming to follow God have acted in shameful ways that we rightly condemn, it has until now been accepted that orthodox belief and practice did in fact triumph, by and large, in the end.  That when Israel embraced as canonical the writings of the Tanakh (what we call the Old Testament) and treated them as Holy Scripture, that they were correct to do so.  That when the Church accepted the brilliance of St. Augustine's argumentation, that it was correct to do so.  But if both Israel and the Church have been so egregiously in error, about so fundamental and issue as human sexuality or the sanctity of life, does it not follow that the entire contribution of these two would now become suspect?  That our connection to both Ancient Israel (as the tree onto which the Church was grafted) and the Early to Modern Church is false?  What they believed, will no longer be what we believe.  What they condemned, we will celebrate.  The connection to the 'faith of our fathers' will be lost.
2. God will not have been active (or effective) in the past
If, as some within the larger Church are now contending, it was always God's intention to be pro-LGBTQI+ and/or pro-abortion, if these things are not merely permissible in a civil society (where we are now) but far beyond that, to be encouraged, celebrated, and embraced as glorifying to God, then it becomes readily apparent that God's effort to share this viewpoint with his people, and have them conform to it, was woefully inadequate in the past.  There is not a plethora of writings from rabbis or church elders urging the acceptance of (let alone celebration of) these two activities, which either indicates that such voices were crushed by orthodox ones, revealing that God was powerless to promote and preserve them, or they did not in fact exist, in which case God was powerless to inspire those voices.  Either way, for the past 4,000 years, God has done a woeful job of making this aspect of morality known to his people, and thus to the world.
As a corollary, if only orthodox voices were accepted, promoted, and preserved by Israel and the Church (reflected thus in the canonical scriptures), then immediate questions arise concerning the truthfulness and value of the scriptures that we do have.  Because the Bible does not promote {Yes, I know a no-holds-barred battle is raging about whether or not the Bible condemns either homosexual behavior or abortion, this is the question beyond that one} homosexual behavior and abortion, as morally good and upright acts of righteousness (as is does, for example, repeatedly and strongly promote caring for widows and orphans, obeying your parents, or having a servant's heart), but those positions are now being declared to be such by the Church, the implication is that the Scriptures are corrupted in deep fundamental ways.  As such, trust in the scriptures as a guide to life and morality will be, in a future Church which has chosen to be pro-LGBTQI+ and/or pro-Abortion, far less absolute, thus bringing to a final end Martin Luther's call for Sola Scriptura as well as the Catholic Church's reliance upon the traditions handed down from the Apostles.
3. Jesus will not be the Jesus of our ancestors in the faith
As much as we might admire the Apostle Peter or Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in the end, it all comes down to Jesus.  To change our perspective regarding the hundreds of men and women who have walked in obedience before God as Jews or Christians is one thing, to take the traditional, orthodox, view of Jesus, and redefine it significantly is another.  As is the case with the Bible as a whole, the Gospels do not make any sort of pro-LGBTQI+ or pro-abortion case.  The Jesus that they relate to us, while full of compassion for the downtrodden of society, is at the same time extremely serious about the need for purity before God and the impact of sin upon the lives of people.  That these two issues were settled matters within 1st century Judaism (thus largely explaining Jesus' lack of focus upon them), would thus not excuse Jesus from speaking out in favor of those with non-traditional sexual desires, or unwanted pregnancies.  If Jesus is the champion of those in need that we all believe him to be, why did he leave the people in his midst who had these issues in the lurch?  Jesus was willing to eat with "tax collectors and 'sinners'", it would have been even more scandalous, and thus made his point about self-righteousness even more poignantly had Jesus sought out an example from either of these two groups to embrace in front of the Pharisees.
And yet Jesus didn't do this (or at least the Gospels don't record it, which instead of lowering the view of Jesus, lowers that of the Scriptures, an equally untenable solution).  He didn't take the opportunity to overturn the Jewish understanding of marriage and the sanctity of life.  Judaism in the first century viewed marriage and children as highly admirable, as the ideal for all those who could enjoy its blessings, and yet Jesus didn't call them out for their, apparent, bigotry.  The Jesus of the Gospels (the only one we know) is no hero to the LGBTQI+ movement, nor to pro-abortion champions, and thus he too will be reevaluated by a future Church that has embraced these ideas.

There are more implications for the future relating to the debates raging within the Church today than these three, but these three ought to be sufficient to give committed Christians a reason to think more deeply about these issues.  Set aside the politics, set aside the cultural implications, ask the most important question: How will this change affect the Church/Gospel/Bible if it is fully embraced?  The Church is a living thing, made up of flawed but redeemed people, and it needs to find a way to face the challenges of today without abandoning its historic and scriptural roots; to do so we need compassion, courage, and wisdom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Authorial Intent still matters: Utilizing Jesus' command, "Lazarus, come out!" as an LGBTQ metaphor

Examples of the misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture are legion.  They abound in both the ancient and and modern Church, and are committed by both those from conservative (traditionalist) and liberal (progressive) perspectives.  Some of these errors are fairly benign and others are highly injurious to the health of the Church.

In news stories relating to the Vatican's recent publication of, "Male And Female He Created Them", the most commonly cited critic of the Catholic Church's defense of traditional/biblical definitions of human anthropology (gender, marriage, sexuality, etc.) is New Ways Ministry, a group that advocates for LGBTQ Catholics.  While examining their website (something I often do when pondering stories in the news, i.e. go to the source), I discovered a section entitled, Journeys: A Scriptural Reflection series for LGBT People and Allies.  Curious, I read through the reflection questions written for the respective Scriptural passages.  One such in particular caught my eye: The story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead in John 11.  This passage is a well known episode in John's Gospel, one that for centuries has highlighted both Jesus's humanity, in weeping at the grief of death affecting himself and his friends, and Jesus' divinity, as he overcomes the power of death with a word.  This passage is an amazing precursor to Jesus' own impending victory over sin and death, as well as a further affirmation of the legitimacy of his claim to be the Son of God.  The potential applications of such a passage highlighting both Jesus' compassion and his unique authority/power are many and reasonably diverse, but is there not a limit to how far afield from the original context and purpose a passage of Scripture ought to be taken?

I am well aware than in many modern literary circles that authorial intent is no longer considered to hold much, if any, value {See: Reader-Response Theory}.  The intentions of the author have been replaced with the experiences of the audience.  "What is the author trying to say?" has been swapped out for, "What does it mean to me?"  Setting that issue aside as it relates to literature in general, we cannot treat Scripture in the same way, as if we are the most important factor in its interpretation/application, for an extremely simple and important reason: It is God's Word.  Behind the examination of human authorial intent, and real and important questions surrounding the Biblical authors, lies the fundamental doctrine of inspiration.  It has been an accepted and celebrated doctrine of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, that the sacred texts upon which our religions are founded are more than the writings of mere men.  And while it is true that Islam views the Qur'an as eternal and not the product of Muhammad, and that both Judaism and Christianity affirm the role of real human beings whose viewpoints, experiences, and syntax were utilized by God who spoke through them, all three religions depend upon the article of faith that the Word of God was the end result.  {Recognizing, of course, that while all three can be correct about the divine origin of the Hebrew Scriptures, only one can be correct about the New Testament or the Qur'an}.

Given this emphasis on the human/divine nature of the Scriptures, it is neither respectful to its author, nor helpful to those who would use it as a guide of faith, to treat the Bible as something which can be bent and twisted to fit whichever notion the reader would like it to say.  I know full well that this happens all the time, and am under no illusion that conservatives/traditionalists do this any less than liberals/progressives, but since the criticism of the message from the Vatican concerning the original intent of Scripture regarding human anthropology has been both loud and vehement, the illustration from New Ways Ministry's utilization of the story of Lazarus is a fitting point of comparison.

When Jesus spoke to Lazarus {whether in Aramaic or Greek we cannot be certain, John records it in Koine Greek}, telling him to "come out" (deuro exo), it is a certainty far beyond a reasonable doubt that neither the Apostle John nor his original audience had any inkling that Lazarus "coming out" of the tomb had anything to do, whatsoever, even metaphorically, with anyone revealing a hidden secret to their friends and family; let alone that this phrase would have a meaning in English (a language more than 1,000 years from existing at that point) to generations 2,000 years later about non-traditional sexuality.  Jesus was not speaking about what we hide from other people, John was not writing in any way about sexuality, and making this passage a metaphor for that issue is a massive disservice to the intent of both Jesus, who spoke the words, and John who recorded them.

As New Ways Ministry writes,
In the raising of Lazarus, the Gospel of John exemplifies the decisive power of Jesus over humanity’s last and most dictating enemy – death.

For the LGBTQ community, this resurrection story may well come to symbolize God’s promise of life to those excluded, marginalized or emotionally imprisoned. “Lazarus, come out!” commands Jesus in a loud voice, and to the people around, Jesus further directs, “Unbind him, and let him go!”

People can, and will, utilize Scripture for their own purposes, but to say that the story of Lazarus, "may well come to symbolize" a vindication of "coming out of the closet", is stretching the Gospel of John far beyond the breaking point.  If the story of Lazarus can "come to symbolize" this, it can symbolize anything.  If Scripture can stand for anything, it stands for nothing.

If the LGBTQ community wants to debate the proper translation into English of the Greek phrase, malakoi oute arsenokoitai used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (and the similar wording in 1 Timothy 1:10), that's a debate that (at least in theory) respects the Word of God.  If they want to make the argument from silence that Jesus didn't specifically call out non-traditional sexual expressions when he very much emphasized the permanent nature of marriage while he rejected divorce (Matthew 19:3-12, Mark 10:2-12), that's another approach that at least treats what is written as key to the conversation.  And if they want to argue that the Mosaic Law's prohibitions against unions other than marital male-female are akin to the Mosaic Law's Sabbath and Kosher rules and thus no longer valid in the Church Age, while I will disagree and offer a New Testament based counter-argument, I can at least respect the effort to work within the framework of the Scriptures. 

If the Bible can mean anything, even opposite things, based upon its audience, then it loses its value as a bedrock upon which to build individual relationships with God, church communities, and society as a whole.  We cannot afford to jettison the guardrails of authorial intent (along with original audience understanding when that can be determined), no matter which individual or group would like to do so, no matter what motive lies behind the effort, and no matter whether we agree with the causes attempting to make the Scriptures their own, or oppose them.

Why the American Baptist Churches won't split apart over homosexuality or abortion

As the Culture War rages on in America with no end in sight, resulting in animosity and deep divisions in the political sphere, as well as schism within various Christian denominations, the question on many minds within the Christian community is: Who is next?  The Presbyterian Church in America splintered in the 1970's and 1980's over homosexuality and abortion, forming the PCA and PCUSA {How to tell the difference between PCA and PCUSA}, and many observers both inside and outside of the United Methodist Church either fear or hope that they will soon follow suit after years of contentious votes and behavior in that is in rebellion against their Book of Discipline.  Given this volatile climate, and the real differences of theological interpretation that exist geographically in the United States {primarily urban vs. rural and East/West vs. Middle}, can we expect the 5,000 congregations and 1.1 million members of the American Baptist Churches to follow the Presbyterians and Methodists (evidently) along the path of schism?

While the future is not ours to know, the short answer to this question is: no.  The reasons are not based upon greater unity withing ABCUSA over the issues at hand or upon a greater desire for unity despite disagreements, both of which would be transitory even if they were apparent, but instead are rooted in the denomination's structure.  In other words, it is not a quality of the people involved {i.e. we're not better than our brothers and sisters in the UMC, for example} that carries the most weight here, but a lack of top-down authority that prevents any one "faction" {if such a term were applicable, it really isn't} within the ABCUSA from imposing its will upon the rest of the denomination, whether that "faction" be conservative or liberal, traditional or progressive.

For those who are not familiar with it, what then is this structure which precludes our own version of the UMC's raucous 2019 General Conference?

The 1.3-million members and over about 5,000 congregations of American Baptist Churches USA share with more than 42 million Baptists around the world a common tradition begun in the early 17th century. That tradition has emphasized the Lordship and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, believers’ baptism, the competency of all believers to be in direct relationship with God and to interpret Scripture, the importance of the local church, the assurance of freedom in worship and opinion, and the need to be Christ’s witnesses within society. 

For American Baptists the local church is the fundamental unit of mission in denominational life. 

Baptist roots date back four centuries to a people seeking the opportunity to worship God as individual members of freely organized and freely functioning local churches. Baptists always have maintained the need for autonomous congregations, responsible for articulating their own doctrine, style of worship and mission.  {From: ABCUSA's website: 10 Facts You Should Know About American Baptists}

This may seem like a foreign concept to those from a Christian (or even non-Christian) denomination with a top-down structure, where uniformity and obedience to directives exist at least in theory, but for Baptists and other like-minded congregational churches, the sanctity of the autonomy of the local church is foundational.  There are no denomination-wide committees, boards, or assemblies with the power to make decisions that member churches or clergy must obey, there is also no fiscal means of compelling financial contributions from local congregations, nor is the local property of the church owned by anyone other than the congregation itself.

Perhaps you're thinking that this is all a smoke screen, that in reality power must reside at some regional or national level capable of determining what is required of a American Baptist churches, clergy, and congregations.  Not so, consider the self-limiting nature of the Policy Statements and Resolutions from ABCUSA:

American Baptists over the years developed Policy Statements and Resolutions on a range of issues. Those documents were authorized by votes of what at one time was called the ABC General Board. In January 2012, the governance structure of the denomination was changed. Presently the work of the ABCUSA Office of the General Secretary is administered by the Board of General Ministries.In the current structure, it is understood that while the work of the Board of General Ministries continues to be guided by established and future Policy Statements, Resolutions and other declarations, they “in no way obligate American Baptist congregations or regions to any position or course of action.” Under the present structure only the Office of the General Secretary is specifically guided by those documents. {From: ABCUSA's website: policy statements and resolutions}

ABCUSA: Resolution on Abortion

ABCUSA: Responses/Actions pertaining to homosexuality

Can local congregations defy without real repercussions these and any other decisions from the Office of the General Secretary?  Yep.  Can local congregations vote to leave the denomination if they are upset about any particular issue, or simply because they want to go their own way?  Yep.  The largest example of such a "walking away" came in 2006 when the 300 churches of the Pacific Southwest region voted under their region's leadership to leave as a group.  The issue at hand?  They were upset that ABCUSA wasn't taking a more active role in disciplining local churches, primarily in the NW and New York, that were accepting unrepentant homosexuals as members.  Might other groups of churches, or even a whole region, follow suit and leave because they're upset about this issue or some future issue?  They might, but that's about as far as it can go.  Our denomination might crumble, losing bits and pieces here and there, but it won't splinter down the middle into large chunks.

Whether the leadership of ABCUSA wanted to act, or not to act, and in which direction, regarding the acceptance or rejection of practicing homosexuals by local congregations {or regarding any other issue} within ABC is irrelevant.  By its nature {and by design, this is on purpose}, ABCUSA is not a denomination which can make a local congregation "toe the line" on any issue, and would have trouble doing so even if it tried on issues even more fundamental than human sexuality to the orthodoxy of our faith.  Why is that again?

1. The local church owns its property.
2. The local church can give, or not give, to regional or national ministries at its own discretion.
    {Together these two facts eliminate the $ leverage angle that so complicates divisive issues}
3. The local church calls its own pastor, is entirely responsible for how long he/she retains the role.  While the region may assist in the search process by providing a list of potential names, local churches are free to find their own candidates and need no approval from any denominational staff or board when choosing their next minister.  If a regional or national executive wanted to remove a local pastor from his/her congregation (for example: for obvious heresy like denying the Resurrection) there is no way to make this outcome a reality beyond putting non-financial pressure on the local congregation to vote to remove him/her.  {ABCOPAD does have "An Ecclesiastical Process For Review Of Ministerial Standing" which could remove the recognition of the ordination of a minister for financial or moral misconduct.}
4. While the denomination recognizes ordinations {that meet its parameters}, it does not act as a gate-keeper to prevent those  who are not ordained, nor those ordained by an outside source, from being called to serve a local ABC congregation.  Thus ABC's recognition of one's ordination, while helpful in the job search process {where pastors are essentially free agents, finding their own work}, is not mandatory, nor does the withdrawal of that recognition bear anything like the stigma of being defrocked as a Catholic priest or a UMC minister.
5. Any resolutions or policies adopted by ABCUSA are by their very nature non-binding on local congregations.  {Even if they were, contrary to tradition and our belief system, designated as somehow "binding", there are no enforcement mechanisms, and precious few carrots/sticks available to compel those unwilling to obey.}

Does this "loose" denominational structure have its own pitfalls and dangers?  Absolutely, there is no way to organize human beings, even groups of them primarily composed of those transformed by God's grace, into structures that do not have flaws that will then be exploited by fallen human nature.

What lies in the future for the American Baptist Churches?  Only the Lord knows, but it won't be angry dramatic votes followed by legal wrangling over property, and for that at least we can be thankful.

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

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

One way to redefine Biblical morality: theorize the original text meant the opposite

In an article recently published in the New York Times, The Secret History of Leviticus by Idan Dershowitz, the author claims that the text of Leviticus that is known to history (the earliest manuscripts, the LXX and DSS, as well as the rabbinical commentaries) is not the original text of Leviticus and that this hypothetical original text in two very culturally significant instances, that of Leviticus 18:22 ("Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable") and 20:13 ("If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.") the original text's intention was in fact the opposite.  In other words, Dershowitz is theorizing that Leviticus was changed (sometime before our earliest extant evidence of the text) from his theoretical text which permitted sex between men to the text that is known which prohibits it.

Two paragraphs from the essay by Dershowitz will uncover his viewpoint:

Like many ancient texts, Leviticus was created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer. Many scholars believe that the section in which Leviticus 18 appears was added by a comparatively late editor, perhaps one who worked more than a century after the oldest material in the book was composed. An earlier edition of Leviticus, then, may have been silent on the matter of sex between men.

But I think a stronger claim is warranted. As I argue in an article published in the latest issue of the journal Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel, there is good evidence that an earlier version of the laws in Leviticus 18 permitted sex between men. In addition to having the prohibition against same-sex relations added to it, the earlier text, I believe, was revised in an attempt to obscure any implication that same-sex relations had once been permissible.

In the first paragraph, Dershowitz makes it clear that he does not hold to any version of the inspiration of Scripture, but rather like many modern critics views it as a collection of the ideas of various men that changed (in this case dramatically) over time.  That this theory is anti-supernatural goes without saying, but his utilization of redaction criticism (theorizing various stages of edits in the text, in this case without any manuscript evidence to support the claims) is built wholly upon what he believes an earlier text might have said.  In his essay (and the journal article it is based upon), Dershowitz does offer up some grammatical "evidence" to support his theory, but this falls far short of being convincing evidence that the text of the Bible used to mean the opposite of that which our earliest extant copies claim.  {For a more detailed refutation of the thesis of Dershowitz read the following article by Dr. Albert Mohler, the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: Leviticus in the New York Times: What's the real story here? }

In the end, the reason why I comment upon this opinion piece from the NYT is not to start a new round of debate about human sexuality, homosexuality, or any other related topic (so please don't respond by arguing about it), nor is it to bash the NYT for publishing the article (so don't waste your time venting at the messenger), instead my sole purpose is to bring attention to the ongoing  and far too prevalent practice of twisting the Word of God into a pretzel by both scholars and laymen in order to get it to say what the person doing the twisting wants it to say.  Such twisting happens with good intentions and bad intentions, by those trying to defend God and those looking to jettison belief in him.  Motives and intentions do matter, but it is unethical and dangerous when the Scriptures are treated as a means to an end, just another tool to advance a viewpoint.

We can, and should, have discussions (informed by scholarship and research) about the history of the text of Scripture, that is indeed a topic that interests me greatly.  We can, and will, disagree upon how to interpret and apply the text of Scripture once we've reached a consensus about what it said in its original Hebrew and Greek and thus how it ought to be translated into English, those discussions interest me a great deal as well.  But we cannot, in any meaningful way, utilize the Word of God as anything beyond a historical curiosity if those who disagree with the text that has been historically established, decide that they will simply rewrite the text to their liking out of whole cloth.

Let those who do not view the Bible as the Word of God say what they will about it, let them twist it and warp it into anything they like, for to them it has no authority, no power.  It is unrealistic of those who belief in the Scriptures, to expect those who do not, to treat it with the respect that it deserves.  The Church, however, must reject this path of tailoring the text to suit our own opinions, in all its forms, the Church must affirm and reaffirm its commitment to the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God, as the foundation for both our salvation from our own sins, and our moral guide in this world.  A method used to redefine the text of Scripture today pertaining to one topic, will be used to redefine it another day for a different topic.  If you build your house upon the sand, don't expect it to stay standing when the rains comes.

Sermon Video: Sexual Immorality among God's people - 1 Corinthians 5:1-5

There are few issues more frequently discussed or arousing more passionate responses than those relating to sex and sexuality.  Both the Old Covenant given under Moses, and the New Covenant initiated by Jesus, contain significant portions dedicated to defining the proper boundaries of sexual expression.  In both cases, that definition relegates such expression to that within the marriage of one man and one woman.
In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul expresses his dismay that the people of that church have failed to live up to that standard in that they have not disciplined a member who has married his former step-mother.  In addition to pronouncing judgment on that individual, Paul also commands the church to publicly expel the offending member in the hope that "tough love" will be the necessary prompt to cause repentance.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

God loves you too much to ignore your sexuality.

People want to do what they want, when they want to do it, and how they want to do it.  People don't like being told what they can and cannot do.  This isn't a mystery, its obvious, a commonality of us all.  Our feelings about sex and sexuality are no different.  In order to fulfill humanity's desire to be autonomous, to make our own rules, elements of society have always sought to ignore the clear consequences of sexual activity outside of marriage, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, the desire to be autonomous and reject limitations remains the same.
Sexuality has significant consequences for individuals and society that we ignore at our peril.  It can be a force for good when contained within a loving marriage, an expression of fidelity and love, but it can also be a powerful destructive force when it exceeds that boundary, resulting in STD's, divorce, rape, abortions, and all manner of non-marital sexuality, including homosexual expressions.  Sexual expression has to have limits, no society can function without them.  Biology ought to be one obvious restraint on human autonomy, after all, it takes a man and a woman to reproduce, but even this fact of nature comes under assault when people seeking autonomy are willing to ignore nature and embrace homosexual and transgender perspectives.
God isn't interested in ruining fun, God doesn't want to quash happiness or love, but God, as our Heavenly Father and our Creator, is not going to sit by and let human beings pursue dead-end paths that are only self-destructive, he loves you too much.  God, in the created order, has set limits upon our expressions of sexuality.
All sexual expressions outside of the marriage of one man and one woman are sin, not because I say so, but because the Word of God declares it to be so, thus the cheating husband is as equally ignoring God as the person seeking a lesbian sexual relationship.  All sin is an affront against God, if the Church has failed to make clear its opposition to ALL forms of sexual sin, especially our own, that is our failure.  If Christians have seemed more interested in opposing homosexuality than in helping the people of the Church overcome adultery, that is also our failure.  We, the Church, have failed in this arena, far too often.  Holiness begins at home, the people of the Church have failed to live sexually pure lives, for this we need to repent and return to being what God has called us to be.  As a people redeemed by God, we cannot pretend that sin, of any kind, is ok.  It won't be popular to say so, and we shouldn't expect those who don't believe in God to be happy to hear it, but God loves you too much to ignore your sexuality, and as imitators of Jesus Christ, so does his Church.

My words are primarily for myself, my family, my church, and beyond that, the greater Christian community.  If they spur the people of God toward self-examination, and greater efforts at holiness (by God's grace) they will have achieved their purpose.  If my words speak to the Lost, to those without God, let them hear me clearly: God loves you, his Son died to set you free, God wants you to come home to him, whatever your past, whatever your present, God can and will forgive you if you put your faith in him.  When you do believe, join a local church, it is the place where the people who were lost, but now are found, gather together to celebrate God's mercy and grace, and to share his love.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Mark 10:8b-9 "So they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Matthew 5:28 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 "It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him.  The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you.  For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.  Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit."

In defense of brotherly love - Samwise Gamgee and Hermione Granger

As is well known, my favorite book is The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien.  In this masterpiece that launched the modern fantasy novel genre, the character of Samwise Gamgee follows his "master" Frodo on the journey to Mordor to destroy the one ring.  It is well known that Tolkien modeled the relationship between Frodo and Sam after the relationship between officers in the British army during WWI and their assistants, known as a "batman".  The relationship between Frodo and Sam is one of the greatest example in literature of brotherly love, loyalty, and friendship.  It should come as no surprise, then, that some would rather view this relationship through a sexual lense, wanting to see the Sam/Frodo relationship as a homosexual one.  Such a view would obviously ignore the intent of J.R.R. Tolkien, as the author, although for many this hurdle means nothing, but it would also destroy the nobility of the relationship for it would take away its most important quality: selflessness.  Sam is loyal to Frodo, and loves him like a friend, is there something wrong with leaving it at that?  Must every relationship have a sexual angle, can nothing be altruistic?
A similar thought occurs with J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, it has been reported that the author considered having Harry fall for Hermoine, instead of what she actually wrote which had Harry's friends Ron and Hermione end up together.  What was written is far superior, however, for it makes the friendship between these three paramount, and their willingness to risk their lives to support Harry in his quest is more noble without the angle of sexual attraction and romance that would have made Hermione's choice to stay with Harry when Ron left temporarily in the Deathly Hollows a self-centered one instead of a self-sacrificial choice.
Romantic love is crucial to society, helping to hold marriages together, but there is something to be said for simple brotherly love, devoid of sexual connections, for love such as this has often changed the world.  "For God demonstrates his own love for us in this, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

The Word of God or the words of man?

There are few questions you can answer as consequential as this: Is the Bible the Word of God, or merely the words of men?  From your answer will flow all manner of impactful beliefs and decisions.  If the Bible is the Word of God, it has a claim on your life, you must consider its statements and commands and respond to them, for you will be judged one day by God.  If the Bible is the words of men, it can be argued with, co-opted, taken piecemeal with only the things we agree with given any weight, or ignored all together.

Virtually every moral or ethical issue that we as a society face, has been, or will be, profoundly impacted by our viewpoint upon the Bible.  Is abortion the murder of a child created in the womb by God and given a soul, or the choice to be made by an individual with no moral implications?  Those two conclusions could hardly be further apart, and they both reflect a firm stance on the origin of the Bible.  Is homosexual behavior a reflection of the human sin nature, like all of our other sins and akin to heterosexual lust, or is it a wonderful expression of love?  Once again, opposite viewpoints on an important issue that reflects what we believe the Bible to be.  Is divorce something which God hates, with exceptions for only the abused or cheated upon, or is it simply a personal matter of convenience that either of the two parties to a marriage can choose if they not longer want to be married?  This same divergence of moral viewpoints could be demonstrated again and again.  The key issue will always continue to be our definition of authority.  If the Bible is God's Word, it has authority over us.  If it is but the work of fallible men, any claim to authority is moot, and thus we can be our own authority and make our own decisions based upon whatever standard suits us.

What is the Bible?  Your answer matters, more than your may realize. 

How do I know what to believe? Intervarsity, Human Sexuality, and the authority of Scripture

There isn't an issue more talked (argued) about in recent American culture than human sexuality.  Many in our culture have arrived at conclusions that in previous generations would have been considered very radical.  It is one thing for non-believers, i.e. the Lost, to change their beliefs, this is to be expected as human wisdom changes over time.  It is quite another for a Christian, a self-acknowledged disciple of Jesus Christ, to change what he/she believes about an issue of moral significance.  That this has happened, for many Christians, raises an important question: On what basis is the change in moral understanding being made?
For Christians, the answer should only be: Because that is what we understand the Word of God to be teaching.  It is entirely possible for Christians to come to a new understanding of Holy Scripture, for better or worse, Church history is full of examples of both.  What is not acceptable is for a Christians to arrive at a moral position in opposition to the teachings of Scripture, or without concern for what Scripture teaches.  In other words, a moral understanding based upon emotion, feelings, logic, philosophy, science, or any other basis that circumvents or ignores the revelation of Scripture is an act of rebellion against the authority of God.
This devotion to the teachings of Scripture applies in every moral question and controversy, not just human sexuality, from the Christian attitude to war, to gambling and alcoholism and everything else.  What is important, is the attitude of submission to the revealed will of God.  If we lack that willingness to submit, we will find a way to ignore the teachings of Scripture.
Recently Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, the largest evangelical Christian organization on college campuses with chapters at 667 colleges and 1,300 staff members, released a position paper entitled, A Theological Summary of Human Sexuality.  In light of the moral position that Intervarsity is taking on such an issue of significance, the organization has asked its employees to voluntarily quit their jobs if they are unable to accept it and live by it.  This is the same commitment to an organization's mission and statement of faith expected of employees at Christian colleges, charities, and churches throughout the world.  In other words, it would be no news at all if not for the current debate ongoing in America on the issue of human sexuality.
What is more important, over the long-haul, than the particular conclusions of those who put together Intervarsity's statement, is the way in which they came to those conclusions.  The statement itself is full of references to Scripture that demonstrate a desire to be obedient to the original intention of the text and the Church's understanding of the text throughout its history, as well as a desire to follow the whole council of God and not cherry pick it.  Putting references into a statement regarding a moral position does not make one necessarily right, we all know the danger of proof-texting, but it illustrates that Intervarsity's motivation in this endeavor was to be ruled by the authority of Scripture.  This is, and must be, the way in which individual Christians, Christian organizations, and the Church itself operates.  If we ever deviate from this path, and for those who already have, the consequences we will face will be the judgment of God against us for putting our own will above that of God as revealed in holy Scripture.  For those who do not value the authority of Scripture, what I am saying is a moot point, but it has been the belief of the Church, since the beginning, including that of Jesus himself throughout the Gospels, that the Word of God is binding upon us.
Intervarsity will likely receive much negative press for their decision, and will also likely be kicked off some college campuses in an ironic appeal to tolerance.  Whether one agrees with the conclusions reached by Intervarsity or not, whether one agrees with their decision regarding their staff members in light of those conclusions or not, the most important thing in this whole episode will be that a Christian organization decided to follow Scripture, after much study and contemplation of it, instead of the culture in which they operate.  For the Church, this is the path forward, this is how we act as salt and light in our world, by being steadfast in our commitment to let the Word of God rule in our hearts in all things.

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

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

Getting shot at from both sides...

I thought of something today; the kind of thing you probably should keep to yourself unless you want to get people mad at you...As you may know, that's not really my worry in life, God has placed a burden of truth telling on my heart; so here goes...

I know there is a lot of angst and soul searching going on over this week's election.  There are plenty of God-fearing Americans who are worried about the future of their country...

Let me offer this historical analogy: It took Abraham Lincoln (a politician) to finish off the drive to end slavery, {the parallel in England is William Wilberforce, a generation earlier} but it took Harriet Beecher Stowe to galvanize the people into seeing slavery as a moral evil.  For decades, Abolitionists worked to win hearts and minds when there were no political prospects, and in the end, they fought by teaching people that the Bible speaks of all mankind as made in God's image, not a select group of humanity.  A finale to the drama was in the political arena (as the upcoming Lincoln movie demonstrates), but the work was done in churches long before.

America is a democracy (a representative republic for the technical minded people out there).  We have the government that the people want.  If you aren't happy with the government the people have, you need to change the people, not the politicians.  They reflect society; they reflect the morality of this nation, they do not create it.  America isn't ready for Lincoln, if he came now we'd boo him off the stage.  We will not have another Lincoln until we have another Stowe; we won't change the immorality of American society until we make the Gospel of Jesus Christ known to the lost among us.  The world will be what it is.  We cannot expect Christian morality from those who do not know Christ.  If you want to change the politics, change the people; show them the love of Christ through your actions, not your words. 

This is the dangerous thought: If those on the right are afraid for those on the left because of the alliance between sexual immorality (abortion, homosexuality, etc.) and the Democratic Party, shouldn't those on the left be afraid for those on the right because of the alliance between money (greed and avarice) and the Republican Party?  The Bible speaks an awful lot about sexual immorality and condemns it in no uncertain terms; the only thing that seems to tick God off more is the abuse of money.  What makes one side feel like they have God's ear more than the other, when both sides have made an unholy alliance in the name of politics?

What is the solution?  We must solve the moral issues that plague our society ourselves.  We, as a Church, must witness to a lost world, and we must cleanse our own house of the immorality that has infested those who claim the name of Jesus Christ.  The politicians will not save us no matter what party they belong to; Jesus Christ already has.

Commence firing!  I'm ready for the arrows from both sides.