Moral Clarity: God help us if we can't see that Vladimir Putin and his war are Evil.

Commenting on the social media feeds of others is "like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get."  I recently wrote in support of a post from a fellow minister (who lives outside PA) who had shared a story from The Gospel Coalition regarding a statement released by ten seminaries that were formerly behind the Iron Curtain against Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. {10 Seminaries from Post-Soviet States Issue a Joint Statement - The Gospel Coalition}.  The response to that posting from an individual that I don't know anything about (other than we have one mutual FB friend) was shocking, to me.  This individual called the Gospel Coalition's story propaganda, "TGC has a tendency to push the accepted narrative, and in this case they're apparently declaring which side God and the Church is on and/or routing for. It reads like propaganda."  After further discussion, with myself and the clergy member who posted the link, he wrote, "I don't believe Putin is trying to harm civilians—he certainly has more important locations in mind. There's going to be wars and rumors of wars until the Lord returns, and I don't plan on falling for the cookie cutter narrative pushed by the mainstream media and big tech any time soon."  In the end, I walked away from the conversation (and that of another commenter on the post who shared Russian posts and claimed it was a 'civil war'), as there seemed to be no common understanding of the facts that allow a fruitful discussion to take place, if the video of residential buildings on fire and refugees fleeing don't make an impact, neither will my words.

As the war in Ukraine unfolds, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, displacing millions of refugees, wrecking cities, destroying the Ukrainian economy, and of course maiming and killing countless innocents, it seems clear to most, myself and every clergy person I know included, that this war and the person primarily responsible for starting it is Evil.  Yes, the capital 'E' is on purpose.  It pains me to think that there are Americans, hard to say how many, who could look at the actions of Vladimir Putin over the last two decades, the litany of murdered dissidents, journalists, and exiles killed in the countries they had fled to, plus the cities leveled in Chechnya, Syria, and now Ukraine without being able to call this evil.  It should disturb us all if some claiming to follow Christ can only view this war through their own American Culture War glasses {the dig at the 'mainstream media' being my clue as to that motivation, I don't know the writer of those words at all, but he claimed to be a follower of Jesus}  If this litany of bloodshed, if this repetition of violence isn't evil, what is?

Isaiah 5:20 (NIV)

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.

This is indeed an ongoing danger to the Church, one that has reared its ugly head many times in Church history, when those who claim to follow Jesus at the same time embrace for themselves, or others, doing acts that are exceedingly immoral whether in service of 'the greater good' (The Crusades, Inquisition) or enslaved to their own sinful desires (such as Putin's dream of a new Russian Empire for which he is willing to kill many thousands).  

Should we pray for Vladimir Putin?  Certainly not for his success or the continuation of his autocratic rule, for his desires are evil, and actions causing suffering on an epic scale.  For the salvation of his soul?  Absolutely, the same as we pray for the Lost the world over, for by the fruit of his actions he has repeatedly declared himself to be in need of repentance.  God can forgive the vilest of sinners, but not until they turn from their wickedness, of that we have yet to see any sign.

The Holocaust was Evil, and so were the actions of everyone who aided it.  Anyone who cannot see that, who either denies that it took place, or attempts to minimize or justify it, is living in darkness of heart and mind.  There is no comparable action in human history to the Holocaust, it is the ultimate example of the depravity of humanity both singularly (Hitler) and collectively (his willing executioners).  I dislike both as a student of history and a minister, attempts to compare people to Hitler and events to the Holocaust.  To say that something is less egregious, or less evil, than the Holocaust is a given, but sadly there are still many others things that rightly deserve the label, they may not be the ultimate example of evil, but evil they are.  Unless Putin unleashes nuclear weaponry and threatens the existence of life on this planet, he will remain a notch below Hitler, but with every passing day that this war continues, he moves further down that path.

We may not always agree on what ought to be, on what the best path forward is (and that disagreement can be, to an extent, healthy for the Church), but God help us as a Church if we can't see evil for what it is and denounce it.  

Why Legalism doesn't work: Footloose and the self destruction of Jerry Falwell Jr.

 I recently watched the movie Footloose for the first time, and can concur with Peter Parker's response to Star-Lord's assertion in Avengers: Infinity War that it is indeed not the greatest movie of all time.  It is, however, an attempt to assert, although through a flawed vehicle, the known truth that Legalism does not work.  In the movie, Kevin Bacon's character Ren McCormack moves with his mom to a small town in the Rocky Mountain foothills only to discover that the town council under the leadership of John Lithgow's character, Rev. Shaw Moore, have instituted a total ban on youth dances (along with youth drinking) following a tragic car accident that claimed the lives of several of the town's teens, including Rev. Moore's son.  Of course, Ren considers the ban to be oppressive, and is helped in his rebellion against it by the Rev. Moore's own daughter, Ariel (Lori Singer), who rebels against her father through promiscuity, drinking, and a pair of death-wish style stunts.  In the end, Rev. Moore realizes his zeal has gone too far when his acolytes organize an impromptu book burning on the steps of the library.  Moore reluctantly backs down, fearing the worst but resigned to face it, as the teens enjoy their victory with a senior prom.

You might be wondering, what does a movie about the older generation trying to rein in teens via a ban on dancing in 1984 have to do with the cascade of news about the President of Liberty University, Jerry Falwell Jr? {Jerry Falwell Jr. says he's resigned from Liberty Univ. after sex scandal revelations, confusion over future - Fox News}  Footloose is a fictionalized repudiation of Legalism, Liberty University and Jerry Falwell Jr. are a real life testimony.  Liberty University under Jerry Falwell Jr.'s leadership has become one of the largest Evangelical institutions in the world, with 15,000 students on campus, and 95,000 students online.  As such, they carry tremendous influence, influence that has increased dramatically following Jerry Falwell Jr.'s very public foray into American politics in 2015.  Liberty University has an honor called called The Liberty Way, like many Christian educational institutions, which prohibits premarital sex, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and of course, social dancing.  The Liberty Way also requires that students submit to random drug tests, and declares that, "Students must dress modestly and appropriately at all times."

To be sure, organizations need rules and regulations.  Schools need to set boundaries for their students, parents need to define for their children what is, and what is not, acceptable, and have appropriate consequences when those rules are broken.  The opposite of Legalism, Anarchy (Individualism) is certainly not the solution either.  But why doesn't Legalism work?  Why can't we simply list every possible negative behavior, prohibit them all, and watch people follow the rules?

1. Rules by themselves have no power.

The University that I graduated from, Cornerstone University, had rules.  In decades past those rules were not that different from those of Liberty, but from the outside looking in, the attitude behind the use of rules seems very different.  At Cornerstone, our professors were consistent in their quest to teach student how to think, not what to think.  Why?  Cultural mores change, constantly.  What belongs on the 'list' of prohibited behavior is a snapshot of today's standards.  To teach young people to memorize a list is not to teach then how or why such things end up on the list, and it doesn't help them to understand how to react to situations not covered by the dreaded list.  In other words, sustainable and effective morality depends upon enlightened and discerning minds and upon self-awareness and self-control, not upon perfecting a system to take agency away from the individual.  

Without a corresponding attitude of the heart, rules will always fail.  In the Gospels, Jesus contends with the Pharisees, a 1st Century group of zealous Jews who believed they could legislate their way to a moral society.  To be sure, the Law of Moses contains rules, and Jesus was not a rebel who denounced the Law, but he could also see that his opponents were placing burdens upon the people that could not be kept, rather than focusing upon building up the character qualities that would enable people to freely choose to embrace morality.

Matthew 23:1-4 New International Version  23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

2. Making actions forbidden/taboo altogether gives them an allure or mystique.

Romans 7:7-12 New International Version 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

The Apostle Paul, no fan of immoral behavior, recognized the danger associated with making rules, even though many of them are necessary.  This is not news to any parent, one need only tell a two year old that they can't do something in order to encourage that very behavior.  

Take dancing, for example, rather than forbidding all social dancing, why not seek to educate young people on appropriate forms of dancing?  Surely there isn't anything morally objectionable in many forms of dancing, nor to much of the music to which people would dance?  If some kinds of dancing, by some people, lead to temptation, must we ban it all for everyone?  So, why the total ban, what does it accomplish except to encourage young people to engage in the same behavior, but on the sly rather than in public, off the radar, rather than openly.  In other words, Legalism creates some of the very temptation that it thinks that it is suppressing by making the behavior more desirable as an act of rebellion. 

3. Rebellion against unnecessary rules becomes its own snare.

Romans 14:16-23  New International Version  16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.  19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.  22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Continuing with the dancing example.  If a Christian is firmly convinced in his/her own mind that social dancing is not immoral, that he/she can engage in it without temptation to sexual sin (the typical rationale for banning it), then he/she should be able to do so, unless that action causes another person to stumble.  This is Paul's way of balancing Christian liberty and responsibility to others.  However, when an authority over a Christian (parents, church, school) prohibits a behavior, even one that would NOT be sinful for that person to engage in, if that person does it anyway, he or she is still committing an act of rebellion in the process of doing what ought not be for him/her an immoral act.  In other words, the existence of the rule requires rule breaking to engage in behaviors that the Word of God has not prohibited, that conscience and the indwelling Holy Spirit have not warned against.  An offense is created where none need exist.  Rebellion is fostered among those who simply want to be disciples of Jesus.

Back to Jerry Falwell Jr.  In the past, Falwell has been photographed at a dance club, apparently enjoying alcoholic beverages, and recently with his arm around a young woman whose pants are unbuttoned, as are Falwell's, while he holds what he assures in the caption is not really alcohol.  

The bottom 1/3 of the photo was cropped, no need to show the whole thing.

Here's the thing, if Falwell wasn't the head of Liberty University, with its Liberty Way that applies to all students, he would be free to go to a club and enjoy dancing, even drink alcohol in moderation (I know that's taboo for many Evangelicals, but there is no Biblical prohibition on consumption, only drunkenness).  The picture with the young woman would have been over the line, but it wouldn't also reek of hypocrisy as he once again flaunts to the world that he doesn't need to follow the rules that he requires of others.

4. Boundaries can still exist without attempting to limit all possible sources of temptation.

When I was in Antigua,Guatemala, many years ago, I saw an odd sight.  An arch built over the road.  What was its purpose?  To prevent the monks in the monastery on one side from seeing the nuns in the nunnery on the other.  Lust is certainly a temptation to be wary of, and on guard against, but if the only way that we can tame it is to make sure that men and women don't see each other, we're in deep trouble.  Rather than detailed rules that spell out every conceivable temptation and prohibit as much of them as possible, why not teach young people how to think about morality, how to discern between right and wrong, and how to face temptation without succumbing to it?  We need guard rails to keep young people, and ourselves, from going off the road to our destruction, rather than straight jackets to keep them (and us) from doing anything but stay in our cell.  Legalism doesn't work, it never has.  It is far better for the Church, and other Christian organizations, to focus upon teaching and training hearts and minds, and importantly, leading by example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sermon Video: God's grace is not a license to sin - Jude 1-4

Jude, half-brother of Jesus (along with James "the just", the leader of the Jerusalem Church), begins his letter by speaking of the common salvation he shares along with those whom God has called, love, and kept for Jesus, a salvation that results in our being given mercy, peace, and love.  Unfortunately, Jude cannot continue writing about these uplifting topics as he must warn the recipients of the letter about individuals within the Church who have embrace a form of Gnosticism (apparently) that both denies Jesus Christ (probably by denying that he came in the flesh, see 1 John for a parallel) and bizarrely claims that God's grace which has been given to us is in fact a license to sin.  The Apostle Paul rejects this same line of thought in Romans 6, for how could God's grace take us further from God by encouraging us to continue to sin?  In addition, taking advantage of grace would be an insult to the blood of Christ, poured out for us, as well as a narrow focus upon our relationship with God being only about forgiveness of sins, rather than about total transformation that must begin here and now.  Lastly, any view of our relationship with God that tolerates the ongoing indulgence in sin is incompatible with the presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who have been redeemed.  For reasons such as these, Jude warns his fellow believers against this dangerous notion.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Dark Side of Church Leadership - 3 John 9-14

Having commended Gaius for showing hospitality to the missionaries/teachers that the Apostle John had sent, John next turns his attention to that same church's leader, Diotrephes, who rather than being cooperative has allowed his ego to warp him into opposition toward the work of the Gospel.  Here we see what happens when those in leadership in the Church embrace immorality, a "my way or the highway" mentality, or a "win at all costs" mantra.  The destruction such leadership can threaten the very life of a local church.  It is unacceptable for any disciple of Jesus Christ to "walk in darkness" rather than exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, but when it comes from those in authority the consequences can be far reaching.  In the end, there is no room in Church leadership for dictators or egomaniacs, no space for immoral and unethical people, for the Bride of Christ's reputation must not be besmirched on this way, and the work of the Gospel is far to important to be squandered by the sinfulness of God's people.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A rejection of a One-Party Church, and pastors as political operatives

In a response to essays by Pastor Timothy Keller (How Do Christians Fit Into the Two Party System? They Don't), and Pastor Kevin DeYoung (The Church at Election Time) David Closson of the Family Research Council wrote his own opinion piece that disagreed with the warnings of Keller and DeYoung (and my own over the years to my much smaller audience, I concur with most of what both Keller and DeYoung wrote) of the Church becoming too closely connected to one political party.  Instead, Closson advocates in his essay (How Shall We Engage Politically? A Response to Timothy Keller and Kevin DeYoung) that American Christians ought to do nearly the opposite, support wholeheartedly one party, and one party only.  Please read the three essays above so as to understand the positions each one is taking, my response {in brackets} to Closson's advocacy is below:

while believers can register under a party affiliation and be active in politics, they should not identify the Christian church or faith with a political party as the only Christian one. There are a number of reasons to insist on this.
One is that it gives those considering the Christian faith the strong impression that to be converted, they need not only to believe in Jesus but also to become members of the (fill in the blank) Party. It confirms what many skeptics want to believe about religion — that it is merely one more voting bloc aiming for power...Another reason Christians these days cannot allow the church to be fully identified with any particular party is the problem of what the British ethicist James Mumford calls “package-deal ethics.” Increasingly, political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions. - Pastor Timothy Keller, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NY

As Christians, we should take seriously our responsibility to be salt and light in a world that is often rotten and dark.
And yet, I believe pastors must be careful how they lead their churches in our politically polarized culture. I know there are good brothers and sisters who may disagree with these principles and their practical implications. But at the very least, pastors must disciple their leaders and their congregations in thinking through these matters wisely and theologically...The point is to protect Christian freedom and preserve Christian unity, both of which are ultimately about maintaining a faithful gospel witness in our world...To be sure, Christians may seek to educate and mobilize their fellow American citizens. But the unique aim, purpose, and warrant of the church is to educate and mobilize our fellow citizens of heaven. We must not confuse one mission with the other.  - Pastor Kevin DeYoung, Christ Covenant Church, NC

However, despite Keller and DeYoung’s contributions to the question of Christian civic responsibility, the utility and real-world application of their advice is limited due to an underlying political theology that hasn’t fully accounted for the realities of the political system within which we have to work. Although their warning to not equate the church’s mission with the platform of a political party represents faithful Christian convictions, they don’t follow through with a remedy for our current situation. Christians are left asking: Well, then, how should I engage politically? - David Closson
{Here's the thing, when you hear, "that biblical/ethical/moral position is fine in theory, but this is the real world and it won't work" it ought to be a red flag.  (1) Why can't it work in the real world?  Is the way things are now the way they have to be?  (2) Is my primary allegiance to the real world, or to the God to whom I will one day account for my life?  Closson rejects the advice of Keller and DeYoung, not because they are unbiblical, for he several times recognizes the validity of their ideas, but because in the current American political climate, they are impractical.  To continue down this path is to walk out onto thin ice...Here is an uncomfortable truth: In the 'current situation' maybe there is no place for a consistent biblical worldview.  Perhaps the Gospel is so counter-cultural that neither political party is worthy of the allegiance of Christians.  This is not a conclusion, but it remains a possibility, one that Closson is not, at least in this essay, considering.  Jesus did not work with the Pharisees or the Sadducees, neither did he participate in the political system of his day, eschewing both the collaboration of the Herodians and the militant nationalism of the Zealots.  If Jesus was outside the box, must his followers always engage within it, playing by the rules set by others?}

 it is simply not enough for pastors to hope their congregations are informed about candidates and issues. If the act of voting is the act of delegating the exercise of the sword, pastors should communicate to their members “This is what Christians should do.” Given the unavoidable role of politics and the real-world impact that the state’s decisions have on people’s lives, downplaying the role of voting amounts to a failure in Christian discipleship and a neglect to offer neighborly love. - David Closson
{This is in response to DeYoung's explanation as to why his church doesn't host voter registration drives or put out voter guides.  This is a serious charge to level against every pastor who chooses to not use his/her pulpit, and/or the church's worship service, or the church building itself, to advocate participation in the political process.  A failure of Christian discipleship?  Neglecting love?  Are the people in our congregations so inadequate that they must be told to vote, and for whom, by their pastor?  Are pastors to make voting the right way a test of fellowship? (And how would we know, must we demand from our congregation proof of who they voted for, in contradiction to the Constitution?)  Would failure to vote be a reason for discipline within the Church?  If a pastor MUST advocate these positions as questions of black/white morality, it would only be logical for the next step to be treating failure to heed that teaching as rebellion/sin.  I know that Closson is advocating none of these follow-up positions, but can we say, 'this is what Christians should do' and stop there?  Is any of this responsibility within the scope of Paul's instructions to Timothy?  If, however, I teach my congregation to be Christ-like, grounding them in biblical principles and a Christian worldview, are they not capable of evaluating the questions related to voting on their own?  As a Baptist, I firmly believe in the Priesthood of All Believers (that the same Holy Spirit indwells us all, the laity no less than myself), yet this top-down viewpoint acts as if the laity are in some way inferior.  While it is true that I am more educated (regarding theology, philosophy, religion) than my congregation, and most pastors will be, it does not follow that I am naturally wiser regarding the 'real world' of politics, nor necessarily any less susceptible to prejudices, corruption, greed, blind spots, and arrogance when pontificating about politics.  I'm a Baptist, I trust the laity, they govern this church, I am only its steward.  Increase the power and influence of pastors?  No thank you I have enough responsibility already, I'll trust what Lord Byron had to say about the tendency of power to corrupt.}

pastors would do well to educate and equip their members to think biblically about political issues, candidates, and party platforms. It is not enough to espouse concern for human dignity but not support policies and candidates who will fight to overturn profound moral wrongs. In a Genesis 3 world plagued by sin, Christians are called to drive back the corroding effects of the fall wherever they exist. This must include the realms of law and politics. - David Closson
{There are two flaws in this line of thought: (1) That teaching Christians in our churches to think biblically has any limitations.  In other words, when the text of Scripture declares God's holiness and righteousness by relating it to a moral issue (typically in the life of Israel or the Early Church), that teaching automatically applies to family life our friends and neighbors, our work and business relationships, and our role as citizens.  To say that politics must be highlighted is to assume that politics is either somehow not automatically included, or somehow more important than the others.  Would David Closson, and the many evangelicals (and liberals) who hold such views of the role of a pastor, really want me to apply God's teaching about marital fidelity and adultery to current American politicians?  The Bible's teaching on the danger of wealth by examining from the pulpit the finances of various politicians? (2) The second flaw is that pastors ought to take it upon themselves to be judge and jury as to which policies best fit biblical principles, and which politicians truly embody them.  Is there only one economic system that is biblical?  Only one theory of taxation?  One monetary policy?  Are there politicians in whom a pastor can place his trust who will not subsequently cause shame and guilt by association through future immoral behavior?  Am I to yoke my reputation to that of a politician?  Are we, as Christians, to seek to 'overturn profound moral wrongs'?  Absolutely, it was Christians who spearheaded the abolition of slavery, both in England and America, and Christians who led the charge in the Civil Rights movement.  It does not follow, however, that advocating for 'political issues, candidates, and party platforms' will achieve the desired end of Justice.  What if the chosen position, candidates, and parties make things worse?  What of the Law of Unintended Consequences?  That Christians should be involved (politically or otherwise) in fighting against immorality is not the question at hand.  The question is: should pastors (and thus the church, at least in public perception) be the ones leading the charge, and should these efforts be mixed with Christian discipleship, Gospel proclamation, and Worship?  If this is something that Christians ought to do, it still remains an open question regarding whether or not this is the right way to do it, questions whose answers Closson are assuming to be affirmative.}

This idea that historic Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments grounds the outworking of Keller’s political theology. Although not explicitly stated, he suggests that while Republicans may hold a more biblical view on issues related to abortion and marriage, Democrats are more faithful in their approach to racial justice and the poor. Implied in this analysis is that these issues carry similar moral freight and that consequently Christians should be leery of adopting either party’s “whole package.” - David Closson
{This is a false dichotomy: In Closson's view there is not room for Christians to support a third party, because a third party does not currently have a chance of winning, only two choices may be considered.  In addition, Closson is setting up himself, or individual pastors, to be the sole arbiters of which moral issues belong in the 'first tier' (where is this defined in the Bible?  Where are abortion and marriage elevated above all other concerns?) and which can be secondary (and in practical political terms, mostly irrelevant).  If Christians decides how to vote only on 'x' issue, they show the political parties to whom they are wed that they are willing to compromise morally on all other issues.  For example: If abortion is the only issue that matters, Christians will still vote for us no matter what position we take on gambling, the treatment of immigrants, elective wars, and a host of other issues about which the Bible is also explicit.  Do they not also matter?  Do the lives of the unborn outweigh the lives of the living?  Must Christians swallow immorality in order to win politically?  While there will be defenders of the two major parties, insisting that everything they do is correct, can we really say that this is biblical?  Must pastors lead the charge by becoming cheerleaders for a party's entire platform?  If a party's platform is 51% consistent with Biblical principles, is that sufficient?  Is 90% sufficient?  What if the platform seems 35% biblical to me, but 65% biblical to you?  These are profound questions about which we would expect God-honoring, Bible believing, Christians to disagree.}

Consequently, the Bible speaks to the issues identified by Keller; committed Christians, therefore, must care about all of them. Faithfulness to God’s Word requires nothing less. However, the tension arises when it comes to application—when biblical imperative intersects with the realities of today’s politics. - David Closson
{Closson acknowledges that the WHOLE council of God must be considered, that we cannot focus upon one or two moral issues to the exclusion of all others, but then immediately downplays this biblical truth by saying that the 'realities of today's politics', at least in part, negate that concern.  Biblical imperative cannot be lightly set aside.}

However, it is also true in recent years the two major U.S. political parties have clearly adopted positions on first tier moral issues on which the Bible does speak. “First tier” moral issues include questions where the Bible’s teaching is clear and where specific, positive action is prescribed. - David Closson
{In the following paragraph Closson declares that the right to life and human sexuality are 'first tier' issues about which the Bible is clear.  Are there not others?  Are these the only two issues about which the Bible is sufficiently clear as to allow Christians to view them with certainty?  The Bible spends more time speaking to wealth and the abuses of it than any other moral topic.  Why are we creating 'tiers' of morality anyway?  "Be holy because I am holy" has devolved into 'tiers' of morality?  If 'life' is granted 1st 'tier' status, does it follow that the only issue related to 'life' is abortion?  This is thus an artificial list of two, and only two, priorities that fit nicely with the current two party system, and contrast favorably with the party that Closson identifies with.  Were there then no 'first tier' moral issues in America before Roe vs. Wade?  From the abolition of slavery until Roe vs. Wade, were Christians free to support any political party, but now are constrained and must actively and publicly support a particular party?}

In short, if theologically conservative Christians appear aligned with the Republican Party, it is only because Democrats have forced them there by taking positions on moral issues that oppose the Bible’s explicit teaching. Thus, while Keller is right that Christians should not feel perfectly at home in either political party, is it fair to suggest that they should feel equally comfortable in both?
In 2018 the answer would seem to be “no.”
It should also be noted that the challenges facing American Christians regarding politics is not unique; brothers and sisters in other nations face the same tensions. This is because there is no “Christian” political party; no party aligns perfectly with the Bible. This is true even in countries where dozens of political parties participate in any one election. This means that there is never a perfect choice when it comes to political engagement; on this side of the Parousia, faithful Christians will always be choosing from less than ideal options. This is why wisdom, prayer, and counsel are indispensable when it comes to Christian political engagement. - David Closson
{It is a long distance from 'equally comfortable' to 100% with one and 100% against the other.  Closson accuses Keller of creating a false dichotomy by pointing out the faults in both parties (subsequently Closson highlights the faults Keller mentions for one party but defends/minimizes them for the other) and yet only two choices remain to his question, Red or Blue?  Why are neither, some of both, or partial/conditional support of one of them not options?  Why must we be 'all in', especially given that Closson is willing to recognize the truth that no political party (in any country) has ever been perfect?  I am heartened that Closson is willing to acknowledge that there is not perfect answer, some pundits would never do that it speaks well of his integrity, but what if becoming a partisan is what perpetuates the status quo preventing the deep systematic change that our system needs, and what if not given a particular party the full allegiance of the American Church is what spurs that party on toward reforming itself?  Is is still possible for Christians to believe in the separation of Church and State, as a Baptist that is the viewpoint of my ancestors in the faith.  And it is also possible for a Christian to believe that the government is not the best enforcer of public morality (for example: the disaster of Prohibition), that today's Pro-Christian enforced morality could easily become tomorrow's Anti-Christian enforced morality, and thus Christians would be better off adopting a libertarian stance.  Again, these are not my beliefs, I'm trying to keep my beliefs out of this, but serious questions that must be addressed when pastors/churches are being told they need to 'get on board' or be labeled as either insufficiently Christian or insufficiently American.}

For the sake of Christian faithfulness, we need an informed Christian citizenry. It is not enough for pastors to acknowledge that various policy positions are profoundly evil yet withhold the requisite tools that empower concrete action. It is not enough to pray for candidates and speak on a handful of issues without equipping believers with everything they need to honor God in the voting booth.
Over the last few years, many Christian leaders have lamented the current state of American politics. They have reiterated that Christians have no home in either major political party (a state of affairs to which we might ask whether Christian indifference and distaste for politics has contributed to in the first place) and that in secondary and tertiary issues Christian liberty should abound. While these calls are helpful, people in the pews are yearning for more direction. Of course, it would be pastoral malpractice to pronounce a “Thus saith the Lord” when there is no biblical warrant. However, in areas where pastors and Christian leaders can say more, they should. These areas include grappling with the reality of our two-party system and following our political theology to its logical end by voting.
If political engagement is an aspect of Christian faithfulness, it is also a matter of discipleship. Thus, church members must be equipped to honor God in the political arena in a way that goes beyond merely describing current challenges. Applying a faithful political theology in our context requires a thorough understanding of biblical morality and an awareness of the positions of the political parties and candidates. As this dual knowledge is acquired, Christians will better understand the times and increasingly know what they ought to do in politics. - David Classon's conclusion in full
{'withhold the tools for concrete action'??  If a pastor doesn't preach/publicly endorse a party and its candidates, he/she is depriving Christians of the ability to take action??  When did pastors become the political gate-keepers?  My ordination oaths (both stated in the ceremony and those I made directly to God) were to serve his Church, to shepherd his people, and to seek the Lost with the Gospel.  I made no oath to defend, uphold, or advance the two-party political system of the United States (nor the United States itself, in America we don't take oaths of loyalty to the government; even those serving in the military swear to defend the Constitution, a key distinction).  And for good reason, as both Keller and DeYoung pointed out, when pastors become political partisans half of those with whom we must contend for the sake of the Gospel are less likely to hear the words of Jesus Christ rather than the Democrat gospel or the Republican gospel.  In addition, when pastors become political partisans, their congregations tend to follow suit, those who disagree (whether Republicans, Democrats, or Independents) are more likely to leave, hopefully finding a new church (although not always), and typically landing where others agree with them.  Thus the American Church continues to become polarized, where our congregation are not only racially segregated, but politically as well.  They then become echo chambers where an us vs. them mentality is fostered and a 'no proper Christian could see this issue any other way' attitude grows.  Classon wrote, 'it would be pastoral malpractice to pronounce a “Thus saith the Lord” when there is no biblical warrant'  Exactly!  Where is the Biblical warrant that tells me to support a candidate or party?  What text should I preach that under proper exegesis illuminates the 21st century American political landscape without doubt?  Know this, and know it well.  When a preacher preaches from the pulpit, calling upon the Word of God in support of the message, it is perceived by many to be a 'thus saith the Lord' pronouncement.  It is given authority because of the office and the pulpit.  If I can't say, 'thus saith the Lord' with conviction and based firmly upon God's Word, why am I preaching?
I have 25 hours in the pulpit each year (50 weeks times 30 minutes, I often go longer, but round numbers will suffice) during which I can expound upon the Word of God, a pittance and not nearly enough, but the only setting where the majority of the congregation (both members and non, regulars and irregulars) will be in attendance.  Why would I devote even one of those sermons to praising or denouncing a politician or a party?  The pulpit is a sacred trust, an awesome responsibility for which those of us ordained to lead the Church will one day answer.  I know that this opinion is wildly unpopular with many on both the Left and the Right, but I will not risk profaning the name of God, the reputation of the Church, and the glory of the Gospel, by staining it with the mud of politics.  John Calvin's Geneva merged Church and State, how well did that work out?  Is this a model to aspire to, or a warning sign?  Don't expect all Christians to agree on the answer.  Paul warned Christians to not be 'unequally yoked with unbelivers', referring primarily to marriage, but is not the union of Church and State, or Church and Party an unequal marriage?  Is not the Church the one being asked to compromise its beliefs, swallow the immorality of political leaders (in the church they ought to be removed, and persistent sin is absolutely disqualifying for a pastor to remain in the ministry, but in politics no such compunction applies; various politicians of both parties have been, and continue to be, immoral in their behavior, yet retain, or even advance, in leadership.  Is this an example that reflects well upon the Gospel?).
In short, while David Classon is willing to admit that both Keller and DeYoung make several valid points, his conclusion overwhelms them, while caution and thoughtfulness are praised, in the end the conclusion is stark: There is only one party in America that any thoughtful Christian could think to support, that support must be public, and ought to be championed from the pulpit (if the conclusion is inescapable and undeniable, no lesser platform will do).  This is a false choice, A or B, when in reality the 'real world' of politics also has a C, D, and E. (C:mostly A and a little B,D: mostly B and a little A,E: none of the above).  I will continue to teach my congregation the Word of God, continue to help them to see how that timeless world can fit into the 21st century, but I will choose to let them use their own God-given, and Spirit sanctified, minds to enter the political realm as their conscience dictates, not only because they are capable of choosing with integrity and wisdom, but because attempting to make those decisions for them is a path filled with danger, a temptation to replace spiritual transformation with earthly power, and a corrupting influence that will inevitably cause me to sacrifice my integrity for political expediency.  No thank you.

How a Christian must respond to adversaries

It has become readily apparent that a significant number of Christians have decided that those who oppose them, in a variety of settings that include church controversies, business, and politics, ought to be treated as an "other" and defeated by nearly any means necessary.  For too many of us, the ends justify the means because we have pridefully defined our chosen end as God's will.  And while history has shown how dangerous this attitude can be even when a nation is facing an existential threat {see for example: the firebombing of Dresden, and the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII}, it can in no way be argued, according to the Scriptures {which is what ought to matter to a Christian}, that this is the morally appropriate choice for an individual, or group, of Christians. 

Romans 3:8 New International Version (NIV)
8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

Romans 12:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Matthew 5:43-48 New International Version (NIV)
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

We, as Christians, have been called to a higher standard.  We have been charged with living as disciples of Jesus Christ and thus imitating our Savior in this world.  To "win" a battle utilizing immoral means is to lose the war. 

Hear this, and hear it well: God is the judge of the world.  It is better for us to lose morally than to try to win immorally.  We have not been given a command to be winners, we have been given a command to be righteous.  In this world, they're not typically the same thing.  Each time Christians choose to try to be winners rather than righteous, they demonstrate that they don't have sufficient faith in God's final victory and they taint the message of the Gospel {as hypocrites}.

Zechariah 4:6 New International Version (NIV)
6 So he said to me, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty.

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.} 

Sermon Video: Standing Firm Against Temptation - 1 Corinthians 10:12-13

"God will never give us more than we can handle"  Really?  Whether or not this popular phrase is valid depends upon how one defines the terms, but it certainly isn't true, as some contend, that God's people are immune to being broken down by life's turmoils.  Rather than a promise of victory over life's circumstances, what the Apostle Paul offers instead in 1 Corinthians is practical wisdom regarding the nature of temptation.  The goal of our lives, as followers of Jesus Christ, is not happiness or success, but rather righteous living in service to the Kingdom of God.  With that in mind, Paul assures us that we can stand firm against temptation for two crucial reasons: (1) The temptations we face are the same as those faced by everyone else.  We are not unique as individuals, nor are our situations unique with respect to temptation.  Others have faced these same temptations to sin, with the same strengths and weaknesses that we have, and others have been able to resist. (2) When faced with temptation, we are assured that there is always a morally upright way out of our dilemma.  Choosing sin is never required, and while we may not like the moral path, and it may cost us (financially, social standing, etc.), but it is always available because God has promised this to us.  These two truths give us a far deeper truth than, "God will never give us more than we can handle", for it assures us that, "God is faithful, he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear."

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: A warning about immorality - 1 Corinthians 10:1-11

Those who don't learn from history...The Apostle Paul reminds the church at Corinth about the failure of the people of Israel during the journey from Egypt to the Promised Land for a very specific reason: that they might learn from the mistakes of others and not repeat them.  The lesson is clear, the people of Israel, members of the Covenant and blessed richly with God's presence, failed to enter the Promised Land due to repeated episodes of immorality and unbelief.  If the Church does the same thing, why would we expect different results?  God will not tolerate immorality among his people, if it persists, a local church, or a whole denomination, can cease to function as a true church.  In other words, churches can commit suicide.  May we, by the grace of God, continue to walk in holiness and righteousness.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: An immoral people cannot expect God's blessings - Haggai 2:10-19

Utilizing an illustration involving consecrated food and the defilement associated with touching a dead body, the LORD utilizes the prophet Haggai to show his people the danger of disobedience.  During the 16 years when the temple was not being rebuilt, the LORD tried to get his people to pay attention by affecting their harvests and limiting their material successes.  This was not evidently noticed by the people because they didn't act until the prophet made the connection clear to them.  Moving forward, however, God promises to once more bless his people because they are no longer disobedient.  What then is the connection for the Church?  While not under the blessings and curses of the Covenant of Moses, we too are held to a high standard of holiness and righteousness as well as being required to put away immorality.  We do not look to the harvest for confirmation of how we're doing, nor do we need to, for the Word of God has made clear to us our obligations and the Spirit of God now dwells with God's people.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Why "winning" as the goal ought to be anathema to Christians

To 'win', at all cost, and by all means, whether in business, politics, or personal relationships, is an idea embedded in the human heart.  Unfortunately, the disregard for morality, and the value of other people, in the pursuit of 'victory', is a symptom of the darkened heart of mankind apart from God.  As such, the people of God, those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and are therefore no longer under the power of what the Apostle Paul terms, the "flesh" (our sinful nature), must forcefully and consistently reject the false claim that "the end justifies the means".

The modern era is not the first time that attempts have been made to remove morality as a check on human behavior, the Italian Renaissance political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli advocated the divorce of morality from politics in his seminal work, The Prince.  In it he wrote, "He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation."  Thus, immorality is to be excused when it is deemed necessary, hence the association with the immoral claim that "the end justifies the means."  Machiavelli, while influential, was certainly not the first to treat morality as a hindrance to be disregarded when necessary.  The first king of Israel, Saul, convinced himself that he needed to offer a sacrifice to God prior to an upcoming battle, despite knowing that he was not to usurp the role of the prophet Samuel, because necessity demanded it.  Saul's disregard for the expressed will of God was instrumental in his downfall and the choice of David to replace him.  By contrast, in Scripture there are examples of the rejection of this abdication of morality: Joseph remained true to the moral code of the God of Abraham despite the opportunities he had to abandon it when faced with the advances of Potiphar's wife.  Even as a wrongly enslaved man, Joseph refused to set aside his devotion to doing what was right.  In addition, the Apostle Paul and Silas refused to run from jail in Philippi, despite being unlawfully imprisoned, when an earthquake damaged the facility.

Throughout the Scriptures, those who abandon morality when convenient come to bad ends and those who hold true to the Law of God (whether specifically or in principle) are commended.  That is not to say that those who choose to do what is right are always vindicated in this life, nor are they promised such by God, neither do all those who choose to set aside right/wrong receive punishment for their immorality in this life.  Therein lies the rub.  When righteousness is not immediately rewarded, and wickedness is not immediately punished, the selfish and rebellious heart of man begins to seek ways to avoid the absolute demand of God that we live holy and righteous lives, it seeks loopholes, shortcuts, compromises, and makes Faustian bargains.  Such is the darkness of the heart of man in rebellion against God.  For the people of God, however, this cannot be tolerated or excused.  When we go along with immoral means with the hopes of achieving an end we deem to be worthy, we sully the name of Christ and grieve the Holy Spirit.  When we choose power, wealth, fame, or any other moniker of 'success', pursued by immoral actions, we abdicate our responsibility to be salt and light in this world, endanger our witness to the Lost, and call into question the genuineness of our conversion and discipleship.  

For all those who prioritize 'winning' or 'victory' above the call of God to live always, and in all things, according to his Holy Word, a series of warnings from God are a reminder of the futility of that path.

Psalm 1

1 Blessed is the one

    who does not walk in step with the wicked

or stand in the way that sinners take

    or sit in the company of mockers,

2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,

    and who meditates on his law day and night.

3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,

    which yields its fruit in season

and whose leaf does not wither—

    whatever they do prospers.

4 Not so the wicked!

    They are like chaff

    that the wind blows away.

5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,

    nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,

    but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.

Ephesians 5:5-7 New International Version (NIV)

5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.

Romans 3:8 New International Version (NIV)

8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

It may seem possible to play in the mud without getting dirty, it may seem possible to make bargains with or support others who act immorally without ourselves becoming tainted, but these are lies, lies from the Father of Lies, and lies of a mind not in submission to the will of God.  The choice is clear: Either we, as God's people called from darkness into light, walk in the light, win or lose, success or failure, or we don't.  

Mark 8:36-37 New International Version (NIV)

36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

When a church fails to protect the innocent...

Tennessee pastor apologizes for 'sexual incident' with teen - Article on CNN

Having read this story, plus much of the linked material, including the teen's own account of what happened, it seems certain that there is ample blame to go around beginning with the church in Texas which failed to have adequate procedures in place to prevent an adult from being alone with a child/teen, failed to report the incident to the police, failed to protect the victim by giving the youth pastor a "going away" celebration, and reportedly even sought to rehire him years later...There is also blame for the Memphis church who, although reportedly made aware of Andy Savage's past before hiring him, made the mistake of equating God's forgiveness (available to all those who sincerely seek it in Christ), with the ability of a minister to continue in the ministry having committed such a sin (and in this case, crime too).  Such a breach of trust cannot simply be forgiven and then moved on from. * Note, as of 1/12/18, Andy Savage has been placed on leave by Hightpoint Church pending an investigation. *
And while it is true that God can utilize former drug dealers, murderers, etc. once the Holy Spirit has transformed them, by sharing how God changed their wicked hearts, saying that someone would make a good inspirational speaker because they have been redeemed, is not the same thing as saying that he/she would make a good pastor.  This job is a sacred trust, one that requires safeguards, one that abhors cover-ups, and one that must put the sheep before the shepherds, the congregation before the church.
As pastors, we live in a glass house, and while we cannot expect to be perfect, we cannot allow ourselves to become immoral, for one serious breach of trust (whether financially, sexually, or otherwise) can, and likely should, end a career.

What should you do?

1. Make sure that your church has policies in place to ensure the safety of children and others, and that they're following them.
2. Reject the temptation to downplay and hush up allegations (at a church, school, or other organization), insisting that anything that may be a crime be reported to the police immediately.
3. Pray for your pastor and church staff, they like you are but forgiven sinners who need to say no to temptations.

Sexual Immorality disqualifies leadership

The harsh reality of the pervasiveness of sexual assault, harassment, and exploitation throughout society has been brought out of the shadows (where it, like much sin, hides) and into the light of public scrutiny following numerous accusations against powerful men in business, politics, and entertainment.  In many of these cases the person (almost universally male) accused of sexual deviancy has been fired or forced to resign, and in some of the more recent episodes, criminal charges may follow.

What then is the attitude of the Word of God, and hence hopefully the Church, regarding such things?  The N.T. is clear that among the people of God, "there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people." (Ephesians 5:3)  Rather than give sexual temptation a foothold, the people of God are told to "flee from sexual immorality" (1 Corinthians 6:18)

From a Christian leadership perspective, any sort of sexual immorality is disqualifying, it need not be any issue of force or coercion.  Consensual immorality, that is sexual conduct not between a husband and wife, is impermissible for those who would lead the people of God (and for the people themselves).  And while the Church recognizes that forgiveness for past sins will be granted to those who repent of them, and that sins committed before a person becomes a Christian are not disqualifying regarding future leadership once that person has matured in his/her faith, the Church ought to hold firm against any notion that ongoing unrepentant sexual immorality can be in any way overlooked or excused, especially by those in leadership positions.

Do Christian men and women in leadership still sin?  Of course they do, they are only sinners saved by grace, only imperfect vessels of the Holy Spirit striving to live righteously in this present age, just like those in the Church whom they minister to.  Are all types of sin disqualifying of Christian leaders?  Obviously not, or there would be nobody in leadership, for all of us who lead the Church remain sinners, none are perfect.  But there are a number of sins which do require the local church (if not the denominational leadership) to take immediate action (with due process), and on that list certainly ought to be sexual assault, harassment, and exploitation, along with adultery (for the married) and fornication (for the unmarried). 

What will happen to the various entertainers, business leaders, and politicians who have been accused of sexual immorality?  Time will tell, but within the Church we already know what the answer ought to be.  Am I afraid that such a message might boomerang back at me?  No, because there isn't a hint of sexual immorality in my life, nor will there be in the future, my vows to my wife are sacred, and she is the only person with whom anything sexual will happen in my life, as long as we both shall live.  I am fully aware that a failure in this venue would end my time here as the pastor of my church, but that's the way it should be for God's people answer to a higher standard and the leadership of the Church to a higher standard still.  The people of God have been called to be holy, and we must honor God.