Sermon Video: Sharing spiritual and material blessings, Romans 15:25-33

To the church at Rome the Apostle Paul explains why he is on his way to Jerusalem with a gift designed to help relieve the poverty of the Jewish Christian in Judea that he had collected from the Gentile Christians of the churches he had founded.  Why did this matter so much to him?  Paul had hopes that he could keep the Church united around its shared Lord and squelch the divisions of ethnicity and culture.  Why were they willing to give?  Gratitude.  They knew how great the spiritual blessings they have received from God, given through the Jewish Christian community, really was, and these first generation Gentile Christians were glad to be able to give a material blessing in return.

Under Jerusalem by Andrew Lawler: A book review

 

Having taken the trip of a lifetime to visit Israel and the Holy Land this previous May, I instantly ordered this book when I came across it this fall.  What then are my takeaways about Lawler's book?

1. He isn't writing from a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish perspective, this book isn't designed to bolster the claims of universal truth from any of them.

Archaeology being what it is, one part science and one part storytelling, Lawler's approach serves him well on this front.  He is able to talk honestly about both the finds that confirmed the narratives of each group, and the ones that confounded them, as well as present the characters who organized, funded, analyzed, or protested the digs under Jerusalem beginning in the 19th century according to the reputation their actions have earned, whether that be of a villain or a hero.

2. Even if you have visited Jerusalem, as I have, there is bound to be something shocking and/or wonderful in this book for you to still learn.

Part of me wishes I had read the book before we went, so I could have looked for some of the sites whose digs he describes, another part of me is glad I went there with less pre-conceived notions so I was able to soak in whatever my eyes were telling me.

3. While the book is written and published, the story of archeology under Jerusalem is, if anything, accelerating.

It was remarkable how much of the book takes place in the 21st century, and how many of the excavations he describes are still ongoing to this day.  More "shocking discoveries" in Jerusalem are inevitable, as are, sadly, more explosions of anger and violence because of them.

4.  Our tour guide in Israel emphasized over and over the layered nature of the area's history, how the new was built on top of the old again and again.  In Jerusalem, as emphasized in my recent seminar {What Every Christian Should Know About: The Holy Land} the layers run very deep, and each tells a story even if those digging are only interested in a fraction of it.

Overall, I'd highly recommend this book to anyone seeking to better understand the city in which much of the Bible's events take place, and the place where many of its pages were written.

Local Torah Club leader contends that Paul's Damascus Road experience was an "adjustment", hear how Paul actually describes his encounter with Jesus Christ.

The following was part of a series of comments on my YouTube channel, specifically the video introducing our objections as a ministerium to the Torah Clubs back in February of 2023.  Heather Mohnkern is the leading local Torah Club leader and their primary spokesperson in Venango County, she and her husband Keith were given an award by the First Fruits of Zion organization for outstanding service at the 2022 Malchut Conference.

To also add to the conversation…a recurring theme of the Gospels is Jesus pointing out the ‘religious hierarchies need to be theologically right’ took a secondary role  to ‘being in relationship and trusting the one walking with them’ and correcting established theology that had been misapplied.  Even Saul of Tarsus needed to have an ‘adjustment’ via his Damascus Road experience. He did not have to throw out his theology he just had to have an encounter with His G-d that bound the two together into something that would change the nations….relationship then theology.  And Paul never taught contradictory to Torah if you can remove supersessionism from hundreds of years of interpretations of his writings.  There is a whole academic explosion happening in the world right now to correct that which has  negatively impacted the greater Christian orthodoxy. - Heather Mohnkern, Franklin area Torah Club leader, 1/3/23

This then is the heart of the matter, did Saul of Tarsus only need an "adjustment" by encountering God, one that left his theology intact (or at least mostly intact)?  Was Saul of Tarsus on the right track in life, only missing that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, or did the roots of his murderous hatred toward the followers of Jesus run much deeper?  To be honest, I've never heard anyone downplay the Damascus Road experience before, but thinking about it, this is a necessary contention for First Fruits of Zion to make given that they believe (and teach) that Jesus was only a reformer of Judaism and that neither he nor Paul, nor any of Jesus early followers, intended to found the Church or Christianity.  From that viewpoint, Saul of Tarsus must have been one of the most excellent men of his day, for he was a follower of the Law of Moses with which few could compare.  Let's let Paul explain what really happened in his own words...

Galatians 1:13  New International Version

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

Before meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus, Saul of Tarsus was entirely opposed to the teaching and message of Jesus Christ, he wanted to destroy everything that Jesus had created.

Galatians 1:14  New International Version

I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

Saul was both full of zeal and following the dictates of the Law of Moses as understood by his rabbinic teachers to the fullest, few if any could compare with his accomplishments within that system.  And yet, looking back on this life, how did the now Apostle Paul think of it, how close to God was he in that previous life?

Philippians 3:4b-11  New International Version

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. 10 I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.

When Saul got up off the ground on the way to Damascus, having seen the risen Lord Jesus Christ, his entire understanding of what it meant to be in a relationship with God had changed.  His entire understanding of what God required of his people had shifted radically.  Faith, not works was the key.  Love, not precision in obedience to the minutia of the Law was its engine.  The man who wandered blind into Damascus to find Ananias was seeing things clearly for the first time in his life.  Prior to this he had known all about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but he had not known him at all.  Saul of Tarsus could not have been in relationship with God because he had not faith, only self-righteousness.

"He did not have to throw out his theology" is a claim that fits well with the teachings of TC/FFOZ, for they would love to hold up Saul the Pharisee and just add faith in Jesus to that foundation, but that's not what happened, that's not how Paul himself felt about it.  In fact, what Saul thought he knew about God needed to change dramatically before he emerged as the Apostle Paul, the champion of grace and faith.

An adjustment??  When God knocks you off a horse because you're on your way to murder his people, he's got more than an adjustment in mind.

The dangers of teaching that Gentiles must uphold Torah: As admitted by the leaders of First Fruits of Zion

At one point, in 2009, the First Fruits of Zion organization came to the realization that it's "One Law" theology was a practical disaster.  They had been massively invested in spreading this unorthodox and unbiblical view for years with their former partner Tim Hegg as the primary voice.  After significant objections from Messianic Jews that this theology would inevitably lead to a Two House viewpoint that is itself a form of Replacement Theology {Because it views those who keep Torah as the true Jews (literally or spiritually), not those who are descended from Abraham, thus gentiles who follow this view see themselves as authentic Jews, more so than ethnic Jews who don't keep Torah even; it is thus also a form of Antisemitism}.  In what could have been a watershed moment, the organization cut ties with Tim Hegg, and issued a form of repentance by saying,

"The result is a state of anarchy disguised under the name of Law.  Congregations split over calendar arguments.  People are embittered toward one another.  Close friends are separated...Communities shrink...there are no other Messianic believers in the are with whom they can sustain a relationship.  The program is not working...they reject Judaism and Jewish tradition, and they reject Christianity and Christian tradition." - Boaz Michael and D. Thomas Lancaster, One Law and the Messianic Gentile, Messiah Journal, summer 2009 {As quoted by: One Law, Two Sticks: A Critical Look at the Hebrew Roots Movement A position paper of the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues (IAMCS) Steering Committee 1/15/2014  The journal itself is behind the paywall on the FFOZ website, however the IAMCS position paper (link above) is deeply instructive and worth reading if you have any interest in understanding the Hebrew Roots Movement's danger from a Jewish point-of-view.}

When IAMCS released their paper condemning the Hebrew Roots Movement, including the Two House theology and One Law Theology under its umbrella in 2014, IAMCS was under the impression that FFOZ was no longer pursuing the goal of convincing gentile Christians that only through Torah keeping can they please God.  However genuine the change of heart was in 2009, it didn't last.  Having read hundreds of pages published by FFOZ in recent years during my effort of the last few months to understand and combat this false teaching that is spreading in our county and within some of our churches, it was very clear that FFOZ absolutely still believes and teaches that there is only one Law: the timeless Torah.

Rather than reproduce our research again, please see these primary source examples: An Examination of the unorthodox beliefs of the First Fruits of Zion, their Torah Clubs, and the Hebrew Roots Movement in general

In the end, the pastors of the Franklin Christian Ministerium have recognized the danger of this teaching and have taken steps to educate our community of its dangers; at one point at least, the leadership of FFOZ, Boaz Michael and Thomas Lancaster, could see it too.

Titus 3:10-11  New International Version

10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

They've known of the divisive nature of this movement for years.

Sermon Video: The value of the Judeo-Christian tradition, Romans 3:1-4

Given that ancient Judaism, and the Church of the past two thousand years have both been flawed vehicles of God's will, what do these imperfect communities of faith say about the value of what they offer to individuals and the world?  According to the Apostle Paul, the key reason why both God's people in the Old and New Covenants are necessary and impactful, even while being flawed, is that God has entrusted them with "the very words of God."  The Truths imparted by God, to Judaism and Christianity, today contained in the Bible, are available through no other source in our world.  Natural Revelation tells everyone that God exists and has tremendous power, but only his revealed Word tells us how to be in relationship with God.

In the end, the Church needs to do better, much better, in terms of righteous living.  At the same time, there isn't anywhere else for the Lost to go in this world, God in his wisdom has entrusted us with the Gospel's message of eternal life.

Sermon Video: Tradition Needs Sincerity - Mark 7:1-8

 When asked why his disciples were not participating in an oral tradition of Judaism that had been passed down through the years by various rabbis, Jesus responds by addressing the real issue: sincerity. Whether or not a tradition has value and should be retained and supported, or is harmful and should be discontinued depends upon two questions: (1) Does it conform to the Word of God? {Or is scripture silent on the issue} (2) Is the tradition being adhered to with sincerity of heart? Traditions in alignment with scripture have value, how much depends on us.

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

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

A classic either/or false dichotomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sermon Video: Trying to persuade people about Jesus - Acts 28:17-31

In the finale to the book of Acts, Luke shares the story of Paul's attempt upon his arrival in Rome to share the Gospel with the leaders of the Jewish community there.  It was not their first encounter with Jesus, they had been a divided community regarding the question of whether or not Jesus was the Messiah since at least AD 49 when Claudius expelled the riotous Jewish community from Rome about twelve years prior to Paul's arrival.  After a whole day of explaining the Gospel on the basic of the Law and the Prophets, Paul is able to persuade some, but only some, of the group.  Why is that?
Paul's explanation for the failure to see the Truth of the Gospel echoes that of the prophet Isaiah and of Jesus himself who also quotes Isaiah 6:9-10.  The problem is a hardened human heart.  It is not a matter of the eyes or ears (i.e. an intellectual problem) but of the heart (i.e. a spiritual problem) which has become calloused.  That frustration, of Paul, which echoes God's frustration, results in a decision that is relevant to the Church to this day.  If the Gospel will not be accepted by those privileged enough to receive it, it will be sent to others who are willing to believe.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Christian Antisemitism: An utterly absurd oxymoron

Tension between Judaism and Christianity goes back to the generation of Jesus and the Apostles.  John the Baptist was accepted as a prophet by the followers of Christ, but rejected by the official leadership of Judaism in Jerusalem.  Likewise, Jesus himself, although like John receiving support from the masses, was rejected by all but a few in the hierarchy of Judaism, a group that was the focus of much of Jesus' ire in his preaching.  In the Early Church, first centered in Jerusalem under the leadership of Jesus' half-brother James, and peopled almost entirely by converts from Judaism (who considered themselves to be reformers of Judaism, not founders of a new religion), there was also tension with the leadership of Judaism which led to the first Christian martyr after Jesus: Stephen. 
The Early Church might have retained a strong connection to Judaism if not for two later developments: the massive success of the Apostle Paul among Gentiles (and concurrent failure among his own people, leading to the anguished thoughts of Romans 9-11, excerpted below), and the destruction of Jerusalem leading to the end of 2nd Temple Judaism and the Diaspora.  As the first generation of the Church came to a close, the organization took on a distinctly Gentile character, and its Jewish origins faded into the background.
Animosity and hostility toward the Jewish minority in what was to become Christendom was not non-existent, but it was never widespread on the level that would become the later pogroms, forced conversions by the Inquisition, and then ultimately genocide at the hands of the Nazis until the Late Middle Ages.  In 1096, in response to Pope Urban II's call for a Crusade to recapture the Holy Land, Peter the Hermit, who raised an army in the Rhineland, perpetuated there the first large scale massacre of Jews by Christians.  To the shame of the Church, this trend has continued to this day, and while few are alive who witnessed the Holocaust, the scourge of Antisemitism residing within those claiming to be a part of the Church remains.

This is, of course, a patent absurdity.  There is no such thing as Christian Antisemitism.  There are those who claim to be Christian who espouse Antisemitism, and there may be those who are indeed Christians whose minds are still infected with Antisemitism, but the two mindsets are diametrically opposed to each other.  In the end, the mind of Christ will prevail, and hate will be banished, or the true un-regenerated nature of those claiming to follow Christ will be revealed and their ongoing hatred will refute any pretense of being a Christ-follower.

There is, and must be, a gap between Christianity and Judaism (as long as one accepts and the other rejects Jesus as the Messiah), but that gap ought to elicit sorrow and compassion on the part of Christians, as it did for the Apostle Paul, and not prejudice or hatred.  We have, as Christians, an undeniable debt toward Judaism, for our New Covenant and New Testament are built upon the Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenant and the Hebrew Scriptures.

It is incumbent upon Christians, always and everywhere, not as an option but an obligation, to reject Antisemitism in both its violent forms and its more subtle conspiracy theories and racial stereotypes, those who fail to do so are doing a disservice to the Gospel, and those who instead embrace them by their attitudes/words/actions are declaring themselves to be fighting against the Word of God, and calling into question their own salvation.

That the Church has failed to live up to the demands of Scripture by allowing Antisemitism to fester and even thrive in its midst, and that the people associated with the Church have been either bystanders to, or complicit in, the brutalization of the Jewish people and eventually their genocide, is the greatest shame and most enduring stain upon the Bride of Christ.  We, collectively, over the past 2,000 years, have failed in this, we will answer to God for that failure, for Christian Antisemitism is an abomination.

Romans 9:3-5 New International Version (NIV)
3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Romans 11:1-6 New International Version (NIV)

11 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Romans 11:11-24 New International Version (NIV)
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Sermon Video: Paul in the midst of a partisan feud - Acts 22:30-23:11

Following his near-death encounter with the mob at the temple, the Apostle Paul was brought before the Sanhedrin by the local Roman commander who hoped to ascertain the cause of the turmoil and thus know if Paul ought to be charged with any crime.  Standing before the Sanhedrin, Paul first declared his innocence, "I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day."  The High Priest, Ananias, ordered Paul struck in the mouth for that claim.  At this point, Paul switched his strategy and instead declared himself to be on the side of the Pharisees in their long-running feud with the Sadducees regarding the resurrection of the dead.  While the Pharisees did not believe that Jesus Christ had been raised from the dead, they were perfectly willing to defend the idea of the resurrection of the dead, and while they did not believe that Paul had been given a vision from God, they were willing to defend the idea of God speaking to his people through visions and angels.  In the end, the Sanhedrin's bitter divisions not only prevented them from taking action against Paul, but convinced the Roman commander that for Paul's safety he needed to be taken back to the barracks.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The word that made a crowd want to kill Paul - Acts 22:17-29

At the conclusion of Paul's defense before the mob that had moments before tried to beat him to death after dragging him from the temple in Jerusalem, Paul uttered a word that once more turned the crowd into a mob howling for his blood.  The word was no insult, it was not profane or blasphemous, but it was something that hit the crowd too close to home: gentile.  Paul said, "Then the Lord said to me, 'Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'" (Acts 22:21)  When Paul spoke of seeing the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus they did not shout "blasphemy" (as the Sanhedrin had at Stephen's testimony), but when Paul indicated that God had sent him away from his own people with a message of hope for the gentiles, they lost their composure.  Why?  The two-fold reason is simple enough, Paul going directly to the gentiles indicates a belief that the Jews/Judaism/Jerusalem are no longer needed as a conduit/gateway for gentiles to come to God.  Consequently, it also indicates a belief that the Jews and gentiles are on an equal footing before God, diminishing the privilege of being the Chosen People.  For daring to speak such taboo thoughts, the crowd declared that Paul deserved to die.  And yet, Christ came to bring the blessing of Abraham to all peoples, and after his resurrection, Jesus sent his disciples with the Gospel to the ends of the earth.  It was not what the crowd in Jerusalem wanted to hear, but it was the truth of God's love and mercy, opposing Paul wasn't going to stop it.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video - The Danger of a Mob Mentality, Acts 21:27-36

Fueled by racial hatred and an over-inflated sense of their own importance to God, a dangerous combination, a crowd among the worshipers gathered for Pentecost in Jerusalem seize the Apostle Paul and accuse him of violating the prohibition against bringing a gentile within the inner sanctum of the temple.  That this is a false accusation does not stop the mob that quickly forms from trying to kill Paul, nor does the fact that Judaism requires multiple witness and a trial before any capital punishment (nor the fact that the "crime" in question is not one based upon Scripture).  In the end, Paul is saved, not by any follower of God, but by a gentile Roman soldier who rescues Paul from the clutches of those who claim to be doing the work of God.  Aside from the obvious warning about racism and self-assurance for us today as Christians, this passage also strongly warns us about the danger of losing self-control, of giving in to emotional outbursts, whether part of a crowd or on our own, and of being a blind follower who does not verify the truth of the matter on one's own.  As Christians, we cannot allow ourselves to fall prey to either a mob mentality nor a herd mentality.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judson Press link to "Side by Side"