My reaction to the disturbing interview of Dr. Moreno-Riaño, President of Cornerstone University

I'm the author of the Pastoral Letter to the Cornerstone University Board of Trustees.  I'll put that right up front.  I've learned a lot about the leadership of Dr. Moreno-Riaño, and it saddens and disturbs me greatly.  That being said, this interview that he gave paints him as the victim, as someone unjustly opposed because he is doing God's will.  It also portrays the God-honoring men and women who opposed him, most of whom were fired or driven out, as "dross" that needed to be "refined" from the University.  This is both inaccurate (untrue) and highly dangerous.  It is unacceptable.  

In this video I react to the statements of Cornerstone's President, I do so based on both biblical truths about leadership and character, and based upon the testimony of those who have been hurt by the administration.

Why I wrote the Pastoral Letter to the Cornerstone Board of Trustees

This video delves into the passion and concern that inspired and shaped the letter, as well as that of my collaborators in the project, Pastor Noah Filipiak and Dr. David Turner (thank you both).  This is from the heart and deeply rooted in the valuable education I received from 94-98 and 2000-01 at Cornerstone University.

Sermon Video: The team of servants every church needs, Romans 16,1-16,21-23

The Apostle Paul shares the large team, highlighting the crucial role of numerous women, that helped him accomplish the task that the Lord had assigned to him of founding local churches and building them up in the image of Christ.  It is also encouraging to see how much affection that Paul feels toward these co-workers, for him they truly are friends.

The Church today can learn powerful lessons from Paul's experience, lessons about teamwork, mutual respect and affection, and friendship within the Christian community.

The Torah Clubs (FFOZ) remind us why we need an educated and accountable clergy - James 3:1 and 1 Timothy 1:6-7

 

The picture at the start of this article is the moment that Pastor James Frank, my mentor and the only pastor that I've ever had {he was at my family's church, Galilee Baptist of Saranac, when I was born, and was still there when I left to enter vocational ministry}, prayed for me while my first church, 1st Baptist of Palo's leadership placed their hands on me in a distinctly Baptist moment of ordination.  In the Baptist tradition, ordination is a local church matter, it may be recognized later by an association or regional body, but whether or not a person is worthy of serving the church in a role of ordained pastoral leadership is a collective act of the local church membership.  On the other end of the church polity spectrum, you have ordination's that take place under the authority of a bishop with a top-down ecclesiastical structure's approval.  In the end, while I firmly believe in the Baptist model of structure and governance, I can readily see that our system has both pros and cons built into it (both reality to the reality of human sinful nature), and so does that of the more tightly knit Christian faith traditions.  In our diversity, however, is woven a common thread: accountability. 

A Baptist minister is accountable to his/her congregation, they can vote him/her out for reasons both good and bad.  Additionally, if a Baptist minister lives in a way that is unworthy of being a pastoral leader, and/or teaches unorthodox and unbiblical doctrine, the church that ordained him/her can revoke that stamp of approval.  Similar checks and balances exist in Methodist, Episcopal, Catholic, and Orthodox (to name a few) traditions, they just flow more/less from the top-down instead of the Baptist's bottom-up.  Either way, we have a system of accountability, something that in theory will adhere to the Apostle Paul's lengthy and detailed requirements to be a deacon or elder.   Does the accountability of church authority work all the time?  Of course not, human sin has hampered it time and time again, but that accountability does exist, and that matters.

Which brings us to the current controversy here in Venango County revolving around the Torah Clubs (and their parent organization, the First Fruits of Zion).  As the Franklin Christian Ministerium's letter (link below) has pointed out, and backed-up with page after page of documentation, the teachings of this movement are clearly and repeatedly NOT apostolic, biblical, or orthodox.  

The answer from the local leadership of these organizations to the ministerium's effort could have been, "My God, we had no notion that the ideas we were promoting were so dangerous."  Or some such evidence of having heard the call to repentance, of heeding the collective wisdom of this town's pastoral leadership.  Instead, thus far, it seems our effort has had little effect.  We continue to pray that this will change, but the whole point of the theology of First Fruits of Zion is that orthodoxy, what the Church has taught and lived for the past two thousand years, is gravely wrong.  If leaving orthodoxy behind has no stigma, but rather is seen as a sign of God's blessing, how can an appeal to it be effective?  If Church History is supposedly one big mistake, why would anyone care that they're following a movement that mocks our ancestors in the faith?

Which is where education, training, experience, and accountability come into the picture.

James 3:1  New International Version

Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

As someone who felt the call to ministry, and responded with years of formal training and then sought a position of accountable leadership, this verse has always spoken to me powerfully.  What we, the men and women called to lead the Church, have done is take no small risk.  By daring to be teachers of the Word of God, we invite the judgement of God upon ourselves should we fail to teach it aright.  I typically teach at least 2 1/2 hours of new material each week between my sermon and bible studies, all of it opening myself up to rebuke from God should I lead people astray; that's a weight on my shoulders, one I need to bear with humility and perseverance. 

We have a significant shortage of trained and willing clergy in America today.  That's no secret, and it affects virtually every denomination, especially as Boomer pastors retire in droves with smaller succeeding generations behind them.  As the GPS (Geographic Pastoral Servant) for the NW of the American Baptist Churches of Pennsylvania and Delaware, one of my obligations is to help churches conduct pastoral searches (in the Baptist tradition local churches bear this responsibility, nobody is 'sent' to the church by a higher ecclesiastical authority).  Churches, especially small rural ones, are having significant difficulty finding someone willing to serve their congregations.  The solutions, while they need to be varied and flexible, must NOT include placing people in positions of leadership who fail to meet the standards Paul set forth of character, experience, and knowledge.  In other words, untrained clergy are not the answer to anybody's problem, they would only make it worse.

1 Timothy 1:6-7  New International Version

6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

The danger of teaching theology without church accountability has been made manifest in our midst as a Christian community.  When an outside organization, in this case the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) promotes unorthodox beliefs, and presents it as simply a 'bible study', who checks to see if what they are teaching is in fact biblical?  I am a firm believer in para-church ministry.  I've founded one (Mustard Seed Missions), helped found another (Emmaus Haven), and our church has consistently supported numerous such efforts including Youth for Christ and Child Evangelism Fellowship.  But, and this is key, these organizations are built upon orthodox teaching, they've never given us, as a ministerium, pause to have them operating in conjunction with our churches, they've never given us reason to worry about what is being taught.

When it comes to the Torah Club material, I have now read hundreds of pages of it.  On the surface, it appears to be a well produced set of materials, kudos to their publishing house, I'd be happy for them if what they were producing wasn't so dangerous.  It is possible to read a page or two of this material and get nothing more than what you would find in a typical biblical commentary on the text at hand, the kind of thing that I have on my shelf here in my office.  And then there's that one sentence, the one that hints at Modalism, or that other sentence, the one that paraphrases a NT quote by putting Torah in the place of the Greek term for law or commandment leading to a novel interpretation, or that other one, the one that claims that the good works that God prepared in advance for us to do (Ephesians 2:10) is the keeping of Torah!  A typical bible study this is not.

For an ordinary lay person, someone who has attended church for years but not undergone any rigorous theological training, the subtle distortions of theology coming from FFOZ in the Torah Club material might go unnoticed.  No doubt most of those participating here locally think they're just reading a serious bible study and have no idea that this organization is attempting to recreate the Church into a Torah observant community, that what they're consuming is an indictment of not only their church pastor but the very teaching and preaching of the Gospel as we know it.  

There's a reason why God chooses the sheep and shepherd analogy to talk about the church, not because those of us called to serve are any better than the laity, but because we've been given the tools and the authority to fight back against the wolves when they attack the flock.

There's a reason why the Church needs an educated and accountable clergy, what the Franklin Christian Ministerium has chosen to do by confronting the Torah Clubs is exhibit A.

"Who do you think you are!  What gives you the right to call this heresy!!"  If that thought has been expressed of late the answer is simple.  We are the men and women accountable to God for leading his church, and we've taken oaths to protect and defend not only the people of God, but the Gospel that showed them God's redemption in Christ Jesus.

The Franklin Christian Miniserium's warning against the Torah Clubs and the First Fruits of Zion

An Examination of the unorthodox beliefs of the First Fruits of Zion, their Torah Clubs, and the Hebrew Roots Movement in general

John MacArthur jumps the shark with COVID-19 response

John MacArthur preaches to a nearly full sanctuary with virtually no masks.

Let me start off by saying, Pastor John MacArthur has accomplished many great things for Christ's Church over his many decades of service.  Grace Community Church and The Master's Seminary are tremendous legacies, and of course there are likely thousands of people who have come to know Christ as Savior because of MacArthur's ministry.  That being said, nobody is beyond reproach.  In the past I wrote about my disagreement with John MacArthur's very limited ecumenism {Are 95% of self-proclaimed Christians really still Lost? An answer to John MacArthur} and more recently, when John MacArthur indulged in snarky laughter at Beth Moore's expense, I called him on it. {Why does John MacArthur think it is ok to tell Beth Moore to 'Go home'?}.  I'm sure if John MacArthur spent an hour reading my blog or watching my sermons on Youtube he'd find something worth criticizing, and if he did so from a place of principle, he'd be doing what I'm attempting to do right now: seek the Truth.
A number of well reasoned responses to the reopening of Grace Community Church in defiance of the restrictions put in place by the state of California have already been written: When John MacArthur Reopens His Church Despite COVID-19 Orders Civil disobedience, conscientious objection, and what to make of believers defying the government. - by Morgan Lee, Christianity Today

A Time for Civil Disobedience? A Response to Grace Community Church’s Elders - by Jonathan Leeman, Editorial Director of 9Marks

Response to John MacArthur's Statement of Defiance - by Jeff S. Kennedy, Senior Pastor of Christ Community Church / Idaho Falls, ID.

Let me, then, focus in on the brief interview given by Pastor MacArthur to Fox News' Tucker Carlson on July 28th, (to see the interview: John MacArthur on Tucker Carlson) which contains a number of troubling statments.

“First of all and foremost, it is a first amendment right,” MacArthur said. “This is the United States of America and the government cannot intrude into worship. We stand on that amendment.”

At this point, I'm already concerned.  Rather than address his primary responsibility to his congregation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, that of a shepherd watching over his sheep, MacArthur chooses to lay claim to First Ammendment rights.  What the government can or cannot do legally in America with respect to the Church is primarily a legal issue for politicians and lawyers.  What the Church should do is a moral question for pastors and church leadership.  MacArthur chooses to focus on what he believes his church can legally do, not what it should morally do.

“The second thing that makes this so sensible is that in the State of California there are 40 million people. 8,500 of them have died with COVID. That is .002 (percent),” MacArthur said. “So, in California you have a 99.99 percent chance to survive COVID. So why would you shut down the entire state?

Here's the thing, let's assume MacArthur's numbers are correct, that as of the end of July 2020, 8,500 Californians have died from COVID-19.  But COVID-19 is a pandemic, it isn't over yet, and tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of Californians will die in the future before it ends.  The chance of dying is not static, it can, and almost certainly will, continue to rise as the pandemic spreads.  The way in which MacArthur cavalierly embraces these stats without concern for the future, is bizarre.  This pandemic is not history, it is an ongoing threat.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, unfortunately, neither Pastor MacArthur (nor whomever is advising him) are statisticians or epidemiologists.

If the state is not allowed to meddle in Church affairs, should the Church refraining from administering public health policy?  As a Baptist, I continue to warn about the need for separation of Church and State, in this case, Grace Community Church is upset about what they perceive to be the state crossing the line in their direction, while aggressively returning the favor (by belittling social distancing and mask wearing, refusing to meet outside, etc.) in the other.

“We have had 21 weeks with no ministry to a thousand little children, to a thousand university students, to junior high students, to high school students to senior adults,”...“We’ve had no funerals. No weddings. I can’t go to the hospital. I’ve had to go on the phone to talk to dying people at the hospital,” MacArthur said.

When the church can't meet in the sanctuary for worship, does ministry stop?  The pandemic restrictions have indeed been troublesome, but the work of the Church continued, as it has always been more than what happens on Sunday morning.

“Finally, I started preaching in an empty auditorium. I did it two weeks, three weeks and then the people without saying anything started coming back. They didn’t buy the narrative,” MacArthur said. “They kept coming back and last Sunday 3,000 of them came back and they rejoiced. They hugged each other and they didn’t wear masks and they sang songs. They understand the reality of it.”

Where is the leadership at Grace?  People just starting coming back in, on their own, without the church's chosen leaders considering the implications and having a plan in place?  Before we re-opened for in-person worship with social distancing in June, my board met virtually to discuss the issues, until that moment, the only people allowed in the sanctuary were those responsible for making the service happen online.  What 'narrative' did his congregation reject?  The one where 150,000 (and rising rapidly) Americans have died?  The one supported by the CDC?  This is a serious issue with modern American Evangelicalism, scientific facts are not a narrative for us to buy or sell, they are facts.  This is a dangerous trend that is growing among Evangelicals, and sadly John MacArthur is endorsing it.  In addition, why couldn't they have met AND practiced social distancing, AND mandated the wearing of masks?  Are these precautions forbidden by the 1st Amendment?  Is there no room for caution, wisdom, compassion, humility?  By celebrating this decision, and the open defiance of social distancing and mask wearing, Pastor MacArthur has left himself and his church only one chance at a positive end to this path: If COVID-19 is an overblown hoax they'll turn out looking ok, if instead, as doctors around the world continue to warn, this is indeed a pandemic that is far from over, they will have helped spread it, and people will die when a church service at Grace Community Church becomes a super-spreader event.  What then will be the value of insisting upon rights while ignoring reality?

After decades of ministry, why risk it all on the hunch that you know more than those who have dedicated their lives to the study of medicine?  Sadly, for his congregation and his legacy, John MacArthur has jumped the shark.

{Update: John MacArthur believes the Bible trumps COVID-19 public health orders. Legal scholars say no - by Alejandra Molina, Religion News Service}

{Update: MacArthur asserts ‘there is no pandemic’ - by Mark Wingfield, Baptist News Global, 9/3/20}

Mega Churches, Cults of Personality, and Longevity

As illustrated in a recent Christianity Today article, {Willow Creek and Harvest Struggle to Move On The departures of Bill Hybels and James MacDonald leave churches waiting for new leadership and hoping to rebuild trust. - by ABBY PERRY} the transition period for churches that have grown to prominence under a charismatic founder can be extremely dangerous, especially if that founder leaves suddenly under a cloud of moral failure.  Churches both large and small are in danger when their pastor(s) is guilty of gross immorality, whether that revolves around sexual sin, financial theft (or gross luxury; i.e. a private jet and a mansion, even if authorized by the church board such compensation is a theft of funds that should be used for the ministry of the church), or simply an ego run amok.  It stands to reason that a small church, one perhaps barely able to pay its bills, if that, with only a few dozen faithful members would have difficulty in finding a new pastor following a disastrous tenure of a minister who was, or became, unqualified to lead God's people.  Much of that difficulty revolves around the limited resources available, both financial and manpower, to conduct a search and find an effective replacement.  Such constraints would seem to be less of an issue at a mega church with attendance upwards of 10,000, multiple sites, a large paid staff, and a weekly million dollar budget capable of paying a well established and experienced minister to be their next senior pastor.  And yet, as the article by Abby Perry shows, the emotional scars and questions of repentance revolving around those who failed to act earlier, are a common problem for both the tiny church and its seemingly very different mega cousin.
Cults of personality are deadly to a church no matter how big it is.  This may seem obvious when that minister is leading the church down a path of unorthodox heresy, and/or displaying dangerous apocalyptic fanaticism (like, for example, David Koresh), but it is also true when the church simply depends upon the personal leadership of that pastor so much that it cannot function without him/her.  Some churches are able to transition relatively smoothly to a second generation of leadership, many struggle mightily, some don't make it at all.  Coincidentally, this same phenomenon exists when a business attempts to replace an iconic founder, and on a smaller scale is equally challenging when a much simpler family business attempts to move on to a second generation.
Which brings into focus the larger question of mega churches.  I myself am not the pastor of a mega church, although if I would have been this church's 12th pastor instead of its 31st, I would have been preaching regularly to a crowd of over 1,000; likely one of the largest congregations in America at the start of the 20th Century.  Franklin today, however, has less than half the people living here than it did then, and 1st Baptist of Franklin is a small church (in a big building) in a small town.  Venango County only has about 50k people, so we're not going to have a church in our area with weekly attendance of 5,000+ (500 seems to be about the height at this point, we have one church a mile away at that number and another a block away a bit under that).  Thus while the mega church explosion is not directly impacting Church ministry here in rural Pennsylvania, and not likely to directly impact most of the sparsely populated areas of the globe, they still have a tremendous indirect influence upon the Church as a whole, especially given their high-profile ministers and multi-media products (think Hillsong's music {songs sung by 50 million people worldwide each Sunday}, Joel Osteen's books and TV show {7 million weekly viewers}, or Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life {32 million copies sold}.  Personally I appreciated Rick Warren's book, am ambivalent about Hillsong's music (not a strong music opinion person anyway), and think that Joel Osteen's theology would be dangerous at a church of twenty, but whether or not a particular manifestation of the mega church trend is in itself an overall positive or negative for the Church as a whole is actually a secondary question, for the Church has always had to contend with examples of poor leadership, with heretical authors/theologians, and cults of personality.  What has changed, differentiating these mega churches from anything previous in Church history is their very size. 
The Early Church began with house churches, limited in size by their obvious location constraints, after the legalization of the Church by Constantine {The Edict of Milan}, the trend toward an organized system of parish churches began in earnest.  Churches were established where another church was needed, and they were spread out sufficiently so as to not overlap, given that they were not in competition with each other.  Local Christians, at Christendom's height that meant everybody in the village or town, excluding any Jews or other religious minority, were expected to attend their local parish, and instances of going further away (travel being limited to walking or riding a horse) to another parish must have been rare.  A church in such a system could grow, if it convinced an even higher percentage of the local population to attend, or if the local population itself was growing, but it couldn't become any type of 'mega' church.  The cathedrals in principle cities were large, but they too were constrained by the simple fact that a 10,000 seat church was not an architectural possibility. 
Things have changed.  Many (if not most) Christians don't attend the church that is closest to their home, they drive past several seeking the one that they're connected to, thus even large rural churches, let alone mega churches, are drawing from a wide geographic area, not simply a neighborhood.
The parish system, by and large, functioned well for more than a thousand years.  We know that mega churches will not replace the far more numerous smaller churches, nor will they drive out of business, as it were, small churches like Walmart did to the small retailers.  Assuming that the reality of mega churches isn't going anywhere, seemingly a safe assumption, what role will they play in the Church of the future?  How stable will they prove as they transition from the first generation of their leadership?  Without the charisma of the founder, will such a massive organization be able to bring in the people and money it needs to continue?  These are certainly questions with implications for the Church as a whole, and largely ones that seem beyond our ability to have more than anecdotal answers to at this juncture; time will tell.  If the struggles outlined in Christianity Today's article at both Willow Creek and Harvest are harbingers of things to come, individual mega churches may not have the longevity of the small local church.

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:

The Church in America has lost Billy Graham, but doesn't seem to have a replacement

The man who preached in person to 100 million people the straightforward message of the Gospel during his 99 years has passed on to his reward, Billy Graham is no longer here, and it seems like the Church has nobody to replace him.  The combination of bedrock Gospel presentation with an apolitical attitude has gone out of favor among most of the preachers that you've heard of today.  Some have abandoned the Gospel of the Apostles, favoring either a version that demotes Jesus from being the Son of God and thus robs the message of its transforming power, or a version that distracts from Jesus with a focus upon wealth and prosperity, once again robbing the message of its trans-formative power.  Other preachers have retained their preaching of the Gospel, but have wedded that presentation so closely with the culture wars and their own support for (even unabashed support for, and excusing of, non-repentant sinners as "Christian leaders") politicians and political causes that they're only preaching to the choir, no longer able to be heard by the half or more of America that disagrees with the political party they've anointed as God's own.  Sadly, even Billy Graham's own son, Franklin, has fallen victim to this trend, having become a political cheerleader whose presentation of the Gospel is now weighed alongside his political pronouncements by those who need to hear the undiluted message of the Cross.

Can you imagine a popular preacher today who has the courage to maintain and defend the Gospel AND the kindness of heart and humility to minister to both Republican and Democratic presidents, or even just Republican and Democratic members of a congregation?  It may be a while before we see another preacher like Billy Graham, but our nation sure could use that voice sooner rather than later.

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.

Sermon Video: God curses unfaithful priests - Malachi 2:1-9

After warning the priests and the people about offering blemished sacrifices, Malachi's prophecy turns toward the priesthood in Israel itself, and admonishes them with dire warnings of blessings being turned into curses because of their failure to accurately teach the Law of God to the people and apply it impartially.  What happens when the leadership of the people of God fails to champion God's Truth?  They lead the people of God astray and stumble into error.  The warning of Malachi against this danger rings true throughout the history of the Church as well, when the priesthood/pastorate fails through a failure to preach the truth and/or a failure to maintain a morally upright example, it is the people of God who suffer.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The disastrous reign of Ahaz - 2 Chronicles 28

It takes a lot of incompetence or wickedness to be considered among the worst leaders in a nation's history.  History is full of candidates for the title of "worst leader ever", sadly there have been many vying for it.  The history of Israel is no different, both the combined kingdom and the split kingdoms of Israel and Judah had leaders who were disasters for their people.  Among this litany of woe is Ahaz in Judah, a king who only reigned for 16 years, but who nearly destroyed the kingdom even so.  Ahaz's father Jotham had been a great king, even if he is little known to us, serving the LORD faithfully his whole life.  Ahaz was the complete opposite of his father, he not only became an apostate himself, walking away from the LORD, but did seemingly everything in his power to lead the entire nation away from the worship of the LORD, going so far as to remove the sacrificial impliments from the temple and shut its doors.
In addition to his violations of the first and second commandment through apostasy and idolatry, Ahaz also practiced an abomination in his worship of the Canaanite god Molech: human sacrifice.  In this case it was even worse than what you're thinking, for the sacrifice was that of Ahaz's own infant son.  The moral bankruptcy of Ahaz and the people of Judah who followed after him, brought the wrath of God down upon them, leading to multiple losses in battle that severely crippled the standing of the nation.  Ahaz, however, did not repent, he only kept digging deeper, piling sin upon sin.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: A Gentle King - Zechariah 9:9-10

What sort of leader do people want?  What personality and character best defines a leader?  Historically, famous leaders have been bold and decisive, often ruthless, in their pursuit of power, many of them men of war like Alexander the Great or Napoleon.  The empire they built were built by the sword, and as often as not crumbled soon after.  In contrast, how does Jesus choose to portray himself at his moment of triumph while he enters into Jerusalem?  Jesus follows the prophecy of the prophet Zechariah and enters the city as a gentle king, riding a young donkey.  Jesus rejected the role of the conquering hero, scoring the easy path of political revolution and religious reform, in order to accept the role that only he could play: savior of the world.

It was through an act of humble submission, to his Father's will, that Jesus went to the cross, and it was unprecedented courage and strength that held him there as he bore the weight of humanity's sins upon his shoulders.  The world may think it wants a leader who will fight for them, but our only hope is that we have a leader who was willing to die for us.

Our hope, as Christians, is never in political or military solutions, for those are only the surface, humanity's true problem is deeper, and beyond the power of any to solve but God alone.  Our hope is in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the gentle king and humble servant who alone can make men free.

Zechariah ends by talking about the future reign of the predicted king in peace.  Our world today is mired in conflict, violence is never absent, war is a permanent part of our experience.  Yet one day that will all change, the Son of God will return in glory, will put an end to the rebellion of Satan, and will rule in peace, a peace that will have no end.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video, Sharing the Ministry - Acts 6:1-7

What is the proper role of a pastor?  What duties, responsibilities, and obligations should be carried out by the person(s) entrusted to lead God's Church?  The Early Church ran into this dilemma in its own way when some of the widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.  The disciples, keenly aware of their calling to witness and make disciples, declined to become personally involved in this aspect of the Church's ministry.  Instead, they had the church choose seven men with reputations for wisdom and spiritually maturity from among themselves.  The disciples then turned this ministry over to them and continued to concentrate upon prayer and the ministry of the Word.
The episode in the life of the Early Church beautifully illustrates the need for lay leadership in the church and the obvious truth that no pastor(s) can, or should, do everything.  The reasons why churches fail to share the burden of ministry vary, from ego to timidity to laziness, but the end result if the same: burnt out ministers and churches more dead than alive.  When God's people answer the call of service, there is no limit to what God can do in their midst.

To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video

Sermon Video: "failing to pray for you" - 1 Samuel 12:20-25

In part three of the four part series on the life of Samuel, the nation of Israel loses faith in their system of tribal theocracy and asks Samuel to choose a king for them.  This loss of faith was not due to a failure on God's part, rather it was the culmination of bad leadership (both Eli's and Samuel's sons were corrupt) and poor morality on the part of the people.  Ultimately, God allows Samuel to choose Saul as the first king of Israel, but not without the realization that they have chosen to no longer be the unique experiment that they were beginning with the Exodus.
In his farewell speech (several years before the end of his ministry), Samuel reminds the people of his own faithful leadership, God's past provision, and prompts them to realize that they have been unfaithful to the Covenant they have with God.
Will God abandon his people?  Will he become fed up with their lack of obedience?  Samuel assures the people that God's reputation and honor would not allow him to abandon his effort to build a Covenant people, nor would it allow God to give up on his efforts to reconcile the world through this same people.  Samuel urges the people to recommit themselves to following God with all their hearts, and in connection with the peoples' responsibility he lists his own: to pray for and teach the people.
For Samuel, not only was it unacceptable that he should fail to pray for this people, it was a sin.  He had an obligation to represent the people before God in prayer.  In addition, Samuel had the blessing and the burden of teaching the people the Word of God and how to apply it.
The lessons of Samuel speak to us today, we too must fully dedicate ourselves to God, with all our hearts, and we too must have proper leadership to pray for us and teach us.  After all, we have a New Covenant to keep, a commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ, and a world to minister to.

To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video

The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and Church transitions

The surprise announcement that Pope Benedict XVI will resign as Pope at the end of February was certainly a surprise, especially when you consider that it hasn't happened since Gregory XII in 1415.  In the very near future the College of the Cardinals will convene to select the next Pope in a process that is repeated, albeit with less grandeur and prestige at stake, all over the world each year when churches large and small select someone to take the place of a previous leader. 
There are several issues which can threaten a local church or even a whole denomination, change of leadership is one of the most regular and one of the most frightening.  Questions often abound about how the new leader(s) will be able to measure up to the old.  How will the current ministries of the church mesh with this new leader's vision?  Will changes be coming, and will they be for the better?
The issues are relatively the same for the Catholic Church's one billion followers and the small rural church of twenty.  Change, for better or worse, is often met with apprehension if not fear.  A dynamic leader is difficult to replace (and take it from the perspective of a minister, difficult to follow as well).  Sadly, many a church has been dealt a mortal blow due to the cliques that form around ex-pastors or the unwillingness of some in a congregation to accept that change is a necessary part of any healthy church.
So what can we rely upon to bolster us in times of change?  The first great anchor for any church must be the Cornerstone of our faith, Jesus Christ.  Whomever is chosen to lead us, by whichever selection process is used, he/she must affirm without any hesitation the sole headship of Jesus Christ and the absolute reliance upon his saving work upon the cross for our sins.  Secondly, we rely upon the continuity of the Scriptures.  The Word of God is the source of authority for us all regardless of the amount of authority a local leader or even denominational leader may or may not have at his/her disposal.  Those in leadership change, the Word of God does not.  Thirdly, we have tradition and the example of those who have gone before us to guide us.  The world around us changes all the time, yet nothing is new under the sun (Solomon knew that 3,000 years ago); the challenges facing our churches today are the challenges that the Church has overcome before and will again.  Why?  Because Christ has promised us that the "gates of hell will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).
In the end, each local body, and each larger denominational grouping, must protect the legacy that has been handed down to us from those who have lived as salt and light in this world before us, and we must find new ways to bring the same unchangeable Gospel of Jesus Christ to a world that continues to be in need of God's forgiveness.  We must choose our leaders wisely, and we must remember to support them in prayer.
Is it odd for a Baptist pastor to pray for the selection of the next Pope?  It shouldn't be, our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are embarking upon a new chapter in the history of the Catholic Church; a journey we too have taken in the past and we too will do so again soon enough.  The men and women who lead the Church on Earth are but servants of Lamb; we do his work for as long as we are blessed with the responsibility of shepherding his flock, and then we hand the staff on to another of God's shepherds.

Letting the public decide

I just read an interesting article in today's paper about the Art Prize contest that is being held in Grand Rapids right now. The over 1,200 entries are going to be judged by the votes of the public and cash awards given out to the winners. The article stated that some art bloggers have taken offense at the notion that the public would know anything about art, that we aren't trusting to the critics to tell us what good art is and what is not. Needless to say, I'm no fan of such snobbish behavior (I'm not usually a fan of what the art critics love anyway; Crucifix in a jar of urine remind anyone of something? The critics loved that one).

How does this art debate end up in my blog? There is a similar amount of snobbery amongst some Christian leaders when the people are allowed to read and understand the Bible for themselves. "What do lay people know about the complexities of theology anyway?" they wonder. The primary problem with this line of thought is that it places far too much confidence in the hands of the fallible men who've been called to shepherd God's flock. Yes, we have training and education, but no, we are far from always right. The worst theological notions and decisions in Church history came from the leadership of the Church (some of which we're still dealing with the legacies of). The second problem with reserving interpretation for a class of Church leaders is that the Bible clearly tells us that ALL Christians are equal believers before Christ, indeed we are a royal priesthood (see I Peter 2:9-10; in the past a select few were priests by birth; Peter declares us all to be priest set apart by God).

So, what then is the purpose of Christian leaders? Remember that we are shepherd; ours is not the job of telling each and every sheep what to do all the time; we must look for the stray, for those who have wandered from safety and bring them back home. As a pastor, it is my responsibility to be on guard for doctrine that threatens the faith, to set for the Gospel clearly and preach the Word, but NOT to be an authority and every little thing (we have a final authority, the Word, not any man).

The best thing a pastor can do is teach his people to think Biblically for themselves. Any pastor who wants more control than that is on an ego trip; we're the shepherds of the flock, we're not its masters. Teach the people to think Biblically for themselves.

Who's in Charge of this mess? I Samuel 9:1-2

What is it about man that we feel the need to have somebody in charge? It didn’t take the people of Israel long to decide that they wanted more than the prophets and judges that God had sent them; they wanted a king just like everybody else. Why a king? What’s the value of having someone visibly in charge, a representative of the people? For the people of Israel it was the hope that the repeated cycle of Judges could be ended with the dynastic line of a king. (The people sin, God brings judgment, the people cry out, God sends a deliverer, the people follow the judge till he dies, and then the people sin again; cycle repeats itself) Security and continuity was what the people were longing for. In the end, they chose Saul because he was tall and handsome (I Samuel 9:1-2). He was rather different from the judges whom God had chosen to lead his people.
We’ve haven’t changed much since their day. We still choose our leaders (both secular and religious) more on the outward appearance than we should, and we still crave the feeling of security that comes from believing that somebody is in charge. Sadly, we’re just as mistaken as the people of Israel were. Saul wasn’t in charge, God was and God is. Calling someone a king, or president, chairman or chancellor doesn’t change a thing. If you want to have peace of mind about your life, your community, or our nation, you need to start paying attention to someone what actually is capable of running things.