How have the Torah Clubs responded to the united warning of the Franklin Christian Ministerium?

The Franklin Christian Ministerium released its warning against the Torah Clubs and the First Fruits of Zion on February 16th, of 2023, along with a detailed listing of primary source quotations illustrating our concerns {Now updated to include further damning quotations from the Malchut 2022 Conference: The Unorthodox Beliefs of the First Fruits of Zion.  If you're read the previous version, it will be worth you time to see the new quotes too}.  We shared this information with every church in the county and with our own congregations and networks.  I have had many conversations, as have other pastors, with fellow men and women serving in pastoral leadership about this topic, both before the ministerium's statement and after.

Some may be wondering what the response has been, officially or otherwise, from either the First Fruits of Zion organization, the local Torah Clubs leaders, or any individuals that are/were participating in this.

1. There has been no response from the First Fruits of Zion organization.  

We do not know whether they are aware of our objections to their false teaching or not, but given that this organization's leadership believes that it is ordained by God to overturn the global Church (seriously, they believe their effort will bring about the End Times, no less), it would not be unusual for those with such lofty self conceptions to take attempts at correction from the established (traditional, apostolic, biblical) Church as a sign that they're on the right path.

2. There has been no response, directly to the ministerium, from the leadership of the local Torah Clubs.

We have not seen any effort to correct, supposedly, false impressions or conclusions (hard to do that when we shared twenty pages of direct quotes as evidence) about this movement or its theology addressed to either the ministerium as a whole, or individual pastoral leaders.  Having been called out publicly by an ecumenical representation of the Church for rejecting historic and apostolic orthodoxy, no direct response has been forthcoming. 

It has been noted that local Torah Club leaders have shared on social media that they are being "persecuted" by a few local church pastors, and claims have been made of support by many church leaders in this, although none to my knowledge have publicly defended this theology, but none of these online conversations have been directed at us.  Along those lines, there have been various things shared via social media equating the local Torah Club leaders with Martin Luther {ironic given the antipathy of the FFOZ toward the Protestant Reformation: Rethinking the Five Solae, a book they have published claiming that the roots of Protestant theology are the cause of antisemitism}, and presumably the Franklin Ministerium with the Catholic authorities that opposed him.  As a Baptist minister, I find it odd that an organization that condemns Sola Scriptura, would have local leaders quoting Martin Luther's famous, "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in the councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience is captive to the Word of God." 

3. When it comes to individual Torah Club participants, we have reason to hope.

Thankfully, I have not had anyone in my congregation fall prey to this movement, some of my fellow servants of Christ have not been so fortunate.  While the local leadership remains, as far as we can tell, defiant of orthodoxy, Church history, and local pastors' pleadings, we have seen some of those participating take a step away from the organization after hearing of our objections.  I can only share anecdotal observations, but those have typically followed the pattern of someone with an already existing relationship being key.  This is not a surprise, for all the bluster of punditry and online arguments that take place today, few people actually change their minds on important topics due to them.  What does affect people, as it always has, is relationships.  So pray for the Christians in our community that have relationships with Torah Club participants, may they act with wisdom and compassion when attempting to help those who have wandered from the Gospel.

4. How should we then pray for those influenced by the Torah Clubs?

We need your prayers.  As a local Christian community we always need the support of prayer, this is no exception.  Pray that those who have strayed from orthodoxy, {as most were previously deeply committed Christian believers, that's who FFOZ purposefully targets} will see the light of Truth and be given the grace of God to return to their first belief.  Pray that pride and stubbornness would be vanquished, that previous fellowship with a local church will prove the stronger.  And yes, pray for the local leaders of the Torah Clubs, as I have, should they return to orthodoxy from this error it would have a profound affect upon so many others.  

Thank you for supporting your local church pastor, we need it and appreciate it more than our words of gratitude can convey.

Sermon Video: Righteousness by Faith - Romans 1:16-17

It was the study of Romans, in order to lecture upon the letter, that led Martin Luther to question the accepted understanding of the relationship between faith and righteousness, and it was these two verses, in particular, that brought Luther into conflict with his contemporaries.

Romans 1:16-17 is Paul's thesis statement, the idea that he will prove in his letter moving forward.  Paul proclaims that the Gospel (the Good News about Jesus Christ) is the power of God on display for EVERYONE who believes.  How?  The Gospel combines both God's justice, for payment for sin is indeed necessary, and God's love/mercy/grace because that payment comes not form ourselves but through Jesus by faith in him.

It is not our righteousness that is revealed by the power of the Gospel, for we have none and that's the heart of the problem, but God's, which he has in abundance in the sinless life of Jesus Christ.  Thus it is not the wonders of Creation that most reveals the power of God, but the willingness to die upon a Cross.

The troubling whitewashing of Jonathan Edwards' ownership of slaves by John Piper

Coming to terms with the flaws of your heroes can be rough.  We all need heroes, mentors, those who will inspire us and open our hearts and minds as we grow toward intellectual and spiritual maturity, but those to whom we look are not flawless.  In some cases, the flaw if well known.  Martin Luther, for example, wrote and spoke in favor of kind treatment of the Jews of Europe earlier in his Post-Reformation career, only to change course around 1536, ultimately writing a disgusting tract entitled, On the Jews and Their Lies.  This change in his thinking taints the last ten years of Luther's life, increases the scrutiny of anything he wrote in that period, and of course complicates his legacy because his antisemitism was influential in the road that eventually led to the Holocaust.  When considering Martin Luther, the bravery of "Here I stand, I can do no other" is weighed with the darkness that made a home in his thinking later in life.  People are complicated, they all have flaws, heroes are no exception.  Not every hero has a glaring flaw, let us not be that jaded, but some do, and pretending otherwise is a bad idea.

Which brings us to one of Christianity's great preachers, Jonathan Edwards, a leader of the Great Awakening along with George Whitefield, who was used by God to bring about tremendous reform in the American Church.  And a slave owner. {Jonathan Edwards' disturbing support for slavery: some reflections, by David Baker }  In 2019, Pastor Jason Meyer wrestled with Edwards' legacy in light of his owning of slaves, Jonathan Edwards and His Support of Slavery: A Lament, without attempting to sugarcoat or excuse Edwards' choices:

Jonathan Edwards had more intellectual firepower than any person reading this article, and he was a systematic thinker. He could connect theological dots like no one else. If he could succumb to such obvious, woeful oppression and injustice and theological hypocrisy, then we should be spurred on to greater levels of self-examination. Where are our blind spots? Or where do we willfully turn a blind eye to things we’re simply afraid to address?

And then this month, Meyer's mentor, who picked Meyer to succeed him as the lead pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, decided to revisit Jonathan Edward's legacy by speculating that Edwards owned slaves with good intentions: How Could Jonathan Edwards Own Slaves? Wrestling with the History of a Hero:

I do not know whether Edwards purchased the 14-year-old Venus to rescue her from abuse. I do not know whether she was given care in the Edwards home far above what she could have hoped for under many other circumstances at age 14. I do not know if the boy Titus was similarly bought to rescue him from distress and was then given hope. I do not know if the Edwardses used their upper-class privileges (including the power to purchase slaves) for beneficent purposes toward at-risk black children. The scope of what we do not know is very great.

If someone says, “Piper, this is just wishful thinking,” my answer is that indeed it is wishful thinking. I do not wish for one of my heroes to be more tarnished than he already is. But perhaps it is not just wishful thinking. My wishes are not baseless, however unlikely they may seem against the backdrop of mid-eighteenth-century attitudes. All I know of the godliness that Edwards taught, and in so many ways modeled, inclines me to wish in just this way. It is the sort of dream that, if it came true, would not surprise me.

Rather than wrestling with the contradiction in Edward's life and testimony that the owning of slaves makes clear, Piper has decided (at this particular moment) to attempt to excuse/explain this flaw, leading to predictable blowback: Christian Leaders React to John Piper’s Thoughts on His ‘Hero’ Who Owned Slaves By Jessica Lea and John Piper's 'Wishful Thinking' about Jonathan Edwards and Slavery, by Chris Gehrz.

This change of tone is particularly disturbing, in part, because John Piper himself had a much more balanced and God honoring answer to the fact that Edwards owned slaves in 2013: Slavery and Jonathan Edwards.  Had he left it at that, we wouldn't be questioning his thought processes and conclusions now.  My past self doesn't always agree with my current self, but hopefully that's because I've grown in wisdom and knowledge, maybe even humility, it is hard for me to see how this could be the case regarding this particular issue and John Piper.

There is much to admire about the life and ministry of John Piper, even if one rejects his strict Complementarianism, as I do, but this late in life attempt to polish the image of Edwards is certainly troubling.  When taken together with the choice of the seminary that Piper founded to make its new president Pastor Joe Rigney, whose current crusade (along with other like minded fellows) is to declare Empathy a Sin: Have you heard the one about empathy being a sin? by Mark Wingfield at the same time that Pastor Jason Meyer resigned from Bethlehem Baptist Church, along with two other pastors.  The three pastors in question were, as noted by Christianity Today the staff's most empathetic pastors.  {This article is insightful: Bethlehem Baptist Leaders Clash Over ‘Coddling’ and ‘Cancel Culture’ A debate over “untethered empathy” underscores how departing leaders, including John Piper’s successor, approached hot-button issues like race and abuse. KATE SHELLNUTT}.  #1 Rigney vs. Empathy, #2 Meyer and other pastors resign, #3 Piper speculates that Edwards owned slaves for good reasons.  

In the end, I don't know John Piper personally, and he certainly has no idea who I am.  I've never been to Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis.  And yet, at the same time that John Piper and Joe Rigney are badmouthing empathy and disparaging the idea of feeling the pain of others {declaring it to be a SIN of all things},  John Piper also decides to look on the sunny side of Edwards' ownership of slaves.  Taken together, these two purposeful stances are an ominous sign that doesn't belong in any church of any denomination: The pain felt by the oppressed is not their problem.

For more discussion of the "Empathy is Sin" debacle:

Empathy is Not a Sin, by Warren Throckmorton

“Your Empathy Is a Sin”: A Response to Desiring God, by Rebecca Davis

Empathy is a Virtue SCOT MCKNIGHT

Is it my job to police the communion line?

 

The meme above has been bouncing around social media as a response to a recent vote (168 to 55, Abortion rights: US Catholic bishops face clash with Biden - BBC news) by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  The USCCB is attempting to provoke a showdown with Catholic politicians with whom they disagree, in this case on the issue of the legality of abortion, by potentially denying them the Eucharist (i.e. Communion).  This move is opposed by the Vatican, and unlikely to ever be enacted and/or enforced, but it raises an important question that reverberates outside of the Catholic Church as well (as evidenced, in part, by the above response from a gay Anglican priest in Toronto, of course on social media everyone seems to have a 'dog in the fight').  As an ordained American Baptist pastor, is it my job to watch the communion line?  {prior to COVID we passed the elements down each aisle with ushers, since then we've been coming up front one family at a time to take them from the altar, a practice we will likely continue post-pandemic; so technically there is a 'line' now}

Some background for those of you unfamiliar with how communion works in your typical baptist church (whether or not they belong to a denomination).  For us, the ordinance (the fancy word we use when we need to use a fancy word) of communnion  is not a question of transubstantiation or consubstantiation.  In other words, it isn't a question of whether or not the bread and wine are tranformed into the body and blood of Christ, however one chooses to describe it (that was the heart of the argument that led to the Reformation, and eventually people killed and were killed over the issue during the Thirty Years War.  {See: What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History, part 3 at the bottom of the page}  For a quick primer on the various Christian views of communion: Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or Something Else? Roman Catholic vs. Protestant Views of the Lord’s Supper - Zondervan Academic blog.  

Most baptists would agree with Huldrych Zwingli that communion is a memorial, with some leaning toward the view of John Calvin that the ordinance does invoke the spiritual presence of Jesus, albiet in a way significantly short of that embraced by the Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans.  That being said, as an American Baptist minister, when I preside over communion (which we do once a month, typically on the 1st Sunday unless I'm not here, then it gets bumped to the 2nd) I normally say, "We here at 1st Baptist celebrate open communion, by that we mean that if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you are free to join us if you choose."  Those words don't come from a book, or denominational HQ (that's not how things work when you're a 'low liturgy' baptist, each church/pastor decides many such for him/herself), they simply reflect what we believe, and when I remember to say them, they're an invitation to any visitors or relatively new people.  Morever, after I say the prayer (again, extemporaneously given) it has been my habit (learned from the independent baptist pastor, James Frank, who led my family church for 40 years) to simply close my eyes, bow my head, and spend the time until everyone is ready receiving the element(s) to pray.  The end result?  I don't know who is participating in any given week.  I don't know if a particular individual in my church skips communion on occasion, or regularly.  My thoughts on this matter mirror my thoughts about the offering.  When the plate is being passed (in the COVID era we just left it in the back, and that seems likely to continue) I don't look to see if anyone is putting something in or not.  The point with both is that the decision to participate (or give) is between that person and God.

As baptists we believe in the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.  Long story short, my role as pastor doesn't set me apart from the congregation, we all partake of the same Holy Spirit, we all are held to the same standards of conduct and service.  Using Paul's analogy of the body of Christ, we are all a necessary part.  This has numerous implications, one of which is the elevation of one's own responsibility before God (not to the level that it negates collective church discipline when necessary), particularly in matters of conscience.

Which brings us back around to communion.  Paul, writing to the church at Corinth about the Lord's Supper said this, 

1 Corinthians 11:26-32 New International Version

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

The key phrases here are: "in an unworthy manner" (vs. 27), and "Everyone ought to examine themselves" (vs. 28).  Given these instructions, it seems to us (as baptists) that it isn't up to a church officer (be he/she a deacon, pastor, bishop, or any other title) to decide who is, or is not, worthy of participating in the Lord's Supper.  Those who do so 'in an unworthy manner', perhaps by doing so with irreverance or with unconfessed sin between him/her and God, will be judged by God himself, not by me.

Lastly, Rev. Daniel and I probably disagree about a lot of things theologically speaking, but I certainly echo his final statement above, "What if somebody 'unworthy' receives it?"  "Uh, that would be everybody."  Our approach to the table is always an act of grace for known but Christ is worthy, our acceptance of the bread (body) and cup (blood) is always an act of grace for our sins doom us otherwise, no matter what we undertand the bread and wine to be.  At any given church service, at any kind of church, there are those who ought to abstain from participation until they confess their sins and repent, and there are those who are just going through the motions due to either unbelief or complacency.  In the end, seperating the 'sheep from goats' isn't my job, thanks be to God for that.

Would Americans accept Martin Luther today, or dismiss him for his 'radical' economic views?

It seems almost axiomatic that had Martin Luther King Jr. not been assassinated in 1968 at the age of 39, but instead lived and crusaded against the racism affecting minorities in America for decades longer, that he would have ended his days not as a beloved figure appreciated by even those who disliked his politics and/or theology, but as a 'radical liberal' dismissed by most white American Christians.  Martyrdom has made Martin Luther King Jr. more acceptable to American than are his contemporaries and those carrying on his legacy on behalf of the poor and mistreated.

I wonder, however, if the same isn't true of Martin Luther as well.  Has 500 years taken the 'edge' off of Martin Luther in similar fashion to what has transpired with Martin Luther King Jr? 

As an example, consider the words written by Martin Luther in a 1524 sermon, "On Trading and Usury":

"Buying and selling are necessary.  They cannot be dispensed with and can be practiced in a Christian manner, especially when the articles of trade serve a necessary and honorable purpose...Even the patriarchs bought and sold cattle, wool, grain, butter, milk and other goods.  These are gifts of God, which He bestows out of the earth and distributes among men.  But foreign trade, which brings from Calcutta, India, and such places, wares like costly silks, gold-work and spices, which minister only to luxury and serve no useful purpose, and which drains away the wealth of land and people - this trade ought not be permitted..."

At first, Luther sounds like a Free Market advocate, extoling the virtue of trade as a profession, but then he speaks of governmental controls on the trade of luxury goods, advocating an outright ban on some of these, and worrying about the affect of trade upon the 'land and people'.  Martin Luther didn't live in a democratic society, nor did he experience a modern economy, so perhaps he would have adapted his views to the times.  That being said, could we really expect Martin Luther to forsake his concern about purposeless luxury and his care for how our economic activity affects the 'land and people'?

Luther continued, "The merchants have among themselves one common rule...They say: I may sell my goods as dear as I can.  This they think their right.  Lo, that is giving place to avarice and opening every door and window to hell.  What does it mean? Only this: 'I care nothing about my neighbor, so long as I have my profit and satisfy my greed, what affair is it of mine if it does my neighbor 10 injuries at once?'  There you see how shamelessly this maxim flies squarely in the face not only of Christian love, but of natural law..."

Once again, the precise nature of Luther's objections wouldn't be exactly the same in a Free Market Economy, but the principle of absolute property rights (I can do whatever I want with what I own) that is championed by many Americans (and others of wealth and power around the world) seems hardly to fit with Luther's reminder that a true Christian cares about how his business practices affect his neighbor.

So, how would Luther respond to the economic injustices that he witnessed?  It is only speculation, but he wouldn't likely put his trust in the 'invisible hand' of the Free Market.  Luther's sermon continued with, "The best and safest way would be for the temporal authorities to appoint over this matter wise and honest men who would appraise the cost of all sorts of wares and fix accordingly the outside price at which the merchant would get his due and have an honest living...the next best thing is to hold our wares at the price which they bring in the common market or which is customary in the neighborhood...But when the price of goods is not fixed either by law or custom, and you must fix it yourself, then indeed no one can give you any other instructions except to lay it upon your conscience to be careful and not overcharge your neighbor, and seek not avaricious gain, but only an honest living."

Would Martin Luther's theology be respected by his theological descendants if they came in the same package as calls for governmental price controls, fair market rates, and above all else, conscience as a limit upon business profits?

To what end this musing?  The question struck me in part because of how fiercely Pope Francis is consistently attacked for his economic views about justice for the poor or care for the environment.  Were Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King Jr. alive today, would they not be treated the same way?

Two forces are at work here, both of which tend toward corruption/abuse: 

1. We smooth the rough edges off of figures of the past, making them more palatable to our ears, and thus their wisdom less cogent.

2. We tend to run theology and ethics through our political and economic lens, and not the other way around.

Sermon Video: A House Divided - Mark 3:20-34

 Accused by his critics of being an agent of evil, Jesus responds by warning of the danger of 'a house divided'.  The warning rings true to this day, whether it be a nation, a denomination, a local church, or a family, the danger of disunity and discord is real.  How do we combat it?  With the Fruit of the Spirit.  By working at building up and holding together, consistently and with great effort, so that we can overcome the efforts of those who would divide and destroy.  As Christian Americans, we must ask ourselves a question: Am I a part of the forces that restore, heal, seek justice, and build up, or a part of the forces that tear down and destroy?  There is always hope, as long as those who are righteous and filled with the Spirit are willing to continue working for it, unity is possible: for America, for the global church, for our local churches, and for each of our families.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Beware of the Political Church: John MacArthur declares, "any real true believer" can only vote one way.

This trend has been a long time coming within American Evangelicalism, and we have seen similar claims before, but Pastor John MacArthur, one of Evangelicalism's most noteworthy leaders, has declared that in 2020, in order to be a "real true believer" you can only vote for one political party. {John MacArthur interview, quote at 5:44 mark} {John MacArthur says 'true believers' will vote for Trump, can't affirm abortion and trans activism - by Michael Gryboski, the Christian Post}

The question, as John MacArthur is framing it is not, "Which candidate/party more closely adheres to Biblical principles and Christian ethics?"  But rather, "Are you a real Christian or not?"  These are monumentally different questions revealing a significant difference in Christian Worldview.  The first is a position of Grace that realizes that in this world we have no perfect choices, that every vote taken by a committed Christian is an act of compromise, for no candidate, and no party, can truly represent the leadership ideal embodied by Jesus, nor the fullness of his command to us, John 15:12 (NIV) "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."  In other words, a position influence by Grace and Christian Liberty will recognize the anguish felt by many Christians, both now and in generations past, when choosing between two imperfect choices, and would even recognize the possibility that a Christian might, in obedience to his/her own conscience and with principled understanding, choose to vote on the basis of other moral issues than the three or four MacArthur considers to be primary, might vote for a third party candidate, or even to NOT vote at all.  The second position reflects a binary (only two choices) position of Law: "either you're with us or against us."  There is no room here for discussion, debate, or nuance.  The choices are light and dark, good and evil, only a fake Christian (still then, presumably NOT redeemed and still headed toward Hell) could think otherwise.
This is not the first such binary choice that John MacArthur has embraced recently.  Following the controversial reopening of Grace Community Church for in-person worship {links to my two responses below}, Pastor MacArthur declared that churches that obeyed government mandates were not real churches, their leaders not real shepherds. {Excerpt from 1st sermon after reopening: “There has never been a time when the world didn’t need the message of the true church,” he said. “I have to say, ‘true church.’ I hate to think of that, but there’s so many false forms of the church. Let them shut down.” Evangelical pastor John MacArthur suggests churches that remain closed during COVID-19 are not “true” churches}.  A pattern of adding to the list of things that differentiate, in John MacArthur's opinion, true Christians/churches/pastors from false one is growing.
1. How any Christian votes is NOT a test of faith.
I know that John MacArthur takes Martin Luther's Five Solae seriously, in this case Sola Fide and Sola Gratia, so why is he (inadvertently?) adding to the Reformation's declaration the need for 'real true' Christians to vote the way he believes they must?  Instead of judging John MacArthur's intentions, let me simply observe that it has becoming increasing evident that he believes that the Church is on the precipice of a cliff, that America is lurching toward oblivion, and that these increased stakes have seemingly resulted in increasingly politically partisan stances. 
Here's the thing, even if everything John MacArthur believes about the Democrat Party is true, even if the Republican Party are the saviors of America, even if there is only one morally acceptable way for Christians who respect the authority of the Bible to vote, that would still fall far, far, far short of being a way to determine who is a genuine Christian and who isn't.  One of John MacArthur's regular emphases is (rightly) the sufficiency of Scripture {Sola Scriptura}, but where in Holy Scripture does it tell us that we can judge the sheep and the goats by how they vote?  Matthew 25:31-16 contains a dire warning from Jesus that God will separate the true believers from the frauds on the basis of acts of charity toward those in need, for these actions (or lack thereof) will be sufficient to demonstrate who is living by faith and who is not.  What Jesus doesn't mention, nor does any other NT writer, is a civic test of faith.  The reason for this is pretty straightforward:
2. Our citizenship is in Heaven.
One of the inconsistencies of John MacArthur's very public, and very partisan insistence upon opening up his church's 3,000 seat sanctuary without any social distancing and without masks {John MacArthur fails to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary risk, plus End Times anti-government speculation} {John MacArthur jumps the shark with COVID-19 response} is his very clear repudiation of the idea that Church and State have overlapping jurisdictions.  He even went so far as to write, "the church does not in any sense rule the state."  And yet, at the exact same time that he is fighting the state of California in court, and doing interview after interview in support of that fight, John MacArthur is also declaring that every "real true believer" in America is required to vote for one particular political party.  You can't have it both ways, either there is separation of Church and State or there isn't.  You cannot posit simultaneously time that Christians must be allowed by the government to do their own thing, without any restrictions, and that Christians should be intimately involved in the way in which government is run.  How can we be on the outside, and in charge, too?
In the end, whoever wins in November will have ZERO impact upon whether or not you, me, or John MacArthur is welcomed into heaven with the phrase, "Well done, good and faithful servant!" (Matthew 25:23). 
Why can't our civic responsibilities be the basis of judging our faith?  Philippians 3:20 (NIV) But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.  That I was born an American has nothing to do with my standing before Almighty God.  It doesn't help me or hurt me in any way.  That 95% of the world's population was not given this blessing at birth, has nothing to do with their standing before Almighty God.  Each and every genuine follower of Jesus Christ has a superseding citizenship, has been adopted into a heavenly family.  The Word of God has chosen to define its own tests of faith, to tell us how we can judge ourselves, and how we can evaluate others.  We have no right to add to that list.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sermon Video: Participating in the body and blood of Christ - 1 Corinthians 10:14-17

In his encouragement to the people of the church of Corinth that they should "flee from idolatry", the Apostle Paul appeals to the unity of the Church caused by the participation of its people in the body and blood of Christ.  But what does this "participation" mean, and what does it accomplish?  Through the past two thousand years of Church history, the interpretation of Jesus' words, "this is my blood", "this is my body", has broadened from the literal belief of the Catholic Church (transubstantiation) requiring a ordained priesthood to bring it about (sacredotalism), to the tweaking of this concept by the Lutherans (consubstantiation without sacredotalism), to the spiritual emphasis and rejection of the physical transformation of the Reformed, and finally the symbolic commemoration of the Baptists.  With such a continuum of belief/practice regarding communion (and baptism), is there hope for unity in a world where portions of the Church have been willing to kill and/or die regarding these differences?  Paul ends his mention of communion (in its anti-idolatry context) with a reminder that "there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf."  There can be only one Body of Christ, the divisions of Church History (and current reality) cannot alter that reality.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

When Protestants and Catholics agreed: the sun revolves around the earth

Despite the mathematical proofs of the Greek mathematicians Pythagoras (580-500 BC) and Eratosthenes (276-194 BC), the later of whom calculated the earth's circumference within 2% by comparing the angles of shadows at different locations on the earth, it was still possible to find Early Church leaders hundreds of years later who rejected the notion of a spherical earth based upon references in the Scriptures to the "foundations of the earth, "corners of the earth", pillars of heaven", and the "waters above the firmament".  While the prevalence of those believing in a "flat earth" prior to Columbus is often over-stated by prideful modern people disdainful of the wisdom of the ancients, it is clearly true that some within the Church had theological reasons for doing so that had nothing to do with scientific observations.

Eventually the Church embraced the Ptolemaic system (Ptolemaeus AD 83-161) which continued to place the spherical earth at the center of the universe and posited ten concentric spheres which rotated around it containing the heavenly bodies.

"The geocentric model represented the best that science had to offer during the time when it was firmly held.  It was entirely consistent with both naked-eye observation and philosophy.  It was equally accepted and endorsed by both science and religion.  The problem is that while scientific conclusions are always tentative, the Christian Church - just as some did with the ancient cosmogony - decided to build an elaborate theological and scriptural defense of the geocentric model.  By failing to apply the lessons of the past, the church once again foolishly committed itself to a popular scientific theory supposedly based on the testimony of the Scriptures." (Gordon Glover, Beyond the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation)

In the 16th century, when Copernicus proposed that the earth and all the planetary bodies revolved around the sun, a theory which would soon be confirmed by observation's made by Galileo Galilei with the newly invented telescope, it became a theological issue rather than merely an astronomical one because the Church had previously decided that the Ptolemaic system had the support of Scripture.  Thus Copernicus and Galileo would eventually be condemned as heretics by the inquisition; a stain upon the reputation of the Church that remains to this day {Galileo was not officially rehabilitated by the Catholic Church until Pope John Paul II did so in 1992}.

Protestants might want to snicker at the following words of Pope Paul V in response to Galileo, but they might want to hold that thought.  "The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.  The second proposition, that the earth is not the centre but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith."

There were few issues of agreement between the leaders of Catholicism and Protestantism during the 16th and 17th centuries, the two sides couldn't even agree to present a united front against the ongoing threat of Ottoman invasions.  And yet, both sides had chosen to elevate the language of Scripture into the scientific realm, turning any contrary scientific observations and theories into challenges to Church authority and potentially heresy.

Martin Luther (1483-1546): "People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.  Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best.  This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." (Martin Luther, Table Talk)

Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560): "The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours.  But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves...Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious.  It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it." (Philipp Melanchthon, Elements of Physics)

John Calvin: "We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center." (John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis)

With hind-sight, the words of these respected and often brilliant theologians seem both appallingly arrogant and exceedingly foolish, and yet they are a symptom of a larger problem that even those gifted by God to lead his Church can fall victim to: The Pride of Certainty.  I'm all for certainty in its proper place, without it we have only shifting sands and chaos.  We, as a Church, must be certain about the core tenants of our faith and the essence of the Gospel.  But what happens when we elevate other issues, other ideas and interpretations to the level of dogma and with disdain dismiss those who disagree with us as heretics?  In that case, not only does the Church suffer a lack of humility and grace, not only does it foster anger and divisions, but it also appears foolish to the Lost, to those with whom we are called to share the Gospel.

Consider, then, how the lesson of these futile attempts to deny that the earth revolves around the sun might be applied to the Church in our world today.  Let us take great care to distinguish between the Truth revealed to us by God's Word, a Truth that never changes and has no fear of knowledge and fact, and the interpretations and theories of men, however brilliant we might think them to be.

Sermon Video: Paul appeals to Caesar - Acts 25

Having newly been appointed governor of Judea, Festus visits Jerusalem to acquaint himself with the leadership there, and while doing so, is made aware of the ongoing desire on the part of the leading priests to rid themselves of Paul.  Festus wastes no time in beginning the trial, but is dumbfounded by the bizarre (to him) Jewish theology which is at issue between the two sides.  Unable to decipher what is going on, Festus suggests moving the trial to Jerusalem, prompting Paul to appeal to Caesar to avoid the corrupt influence of the Sanhedrin in the trial.  Having little choice but to send Paul on to Rome, Festus asks Herod Agrippa II, whom the Romans considered to be an authority on Judaism, to hear Paul's case and offer a suggestion as to what to write to the emperor about Paul.

Throughout the proceedings, Paul maintains his position as a reformer and not a rebel, and is willing to utilize his rights as a citizen in his own defense.  Throughout Church history the line between reformer and rebel has been a difficult one to walk, with Paul being the first of many to attempt it.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

This blog was "blacklisted" by Facebook, here is my response.

As some of you may have heard, my blog (a link to which I cannot provide here for reasons that will become clear shortly) was "blacklisted" by Facebook's automated system on Wednesday of this week " because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive." Well, at least that's the error message I'm getting, since there are no actual human beings at FB to help with such issues, I'll never know who objected to my blog posts (shared on FB), how many people objected, which post(s) they objected to, nor what about my posts bothered them so much...

So let me muse about what it might be. Some things are relatively easy to ascertain...

1. It isn't about politics, at least it shouldn't be. The only comments I've made in the past 7 years about politics are responses when politicians, pundits, etc. have invoked the Bible, have claimed to be representing Christian morals/principles. As a pastor, I have both the education and the obligation to defend the Christian worldview against those who would bend and twist it to satisfy their own lust for power. If taking the stand that Christians should not trade their souls for temporal power has offended some Christians, I refer such feelings to the one who commanded them to devote themselves to Him alone.

2. It isn't because I've insulted people, which I haven't. It isn't because I've bullied anyone, haven't done that either. The only times I've named individuals in my blog posts have been when I'm quoting them. Many of those being quoted are long dead (like Machiavelli, I was hard on his this week, but since he died in 1527, I don't think it was him), or else are public figures who have made their opinions known (Bart Ehrman, James White, Andy Stanley, Pope Francis, etc.) in topics directly related to Christianity. Even when I've disagreed, strongly, with these individuals (Bart Ehrman for example), I've done by best to quote them in context, to represent their views fairly, and to explain why I disagree (when I do) with their statement/idea/belief without resorting to name calling, mocking, or hysterics.

3. It isn't because I revel in hot-button topics. Go ahead, visit my blog, look at the topic list on the right...I'll pause, since there is not direct link, it might take a second...In about 8 years, I've written about homosexuality 8 times (Gay marriage and gay rights brings the total to 14), I've written about Islam 16 times, sex/sexuality a total of 28 times...compare that to: The Gospel, 95 times, the Church, 121 times, poverty 38 times, prayer 35, Jesus 138 times, The will of God 84 times, forgiveness 42, faith 83, I think you get the point. I write about what my congregation needs to be thinking about, what I encounter in my pastoral work, the issues that face our community of Franklin, and the wider issues affecting the Church as a whole. I don't choose things to be "click bait", I don't say things I don't truly believe just to rile people up, and I don't make statement that aren't backed up by Scripture (to the best of my understanding and ability).

So, in light of this little introspection, what am I going to keep doing?

Will I continue to call upon Christians to live like Christ, and point out the hypocrisies and failures of the people of God when we do not? Yep.

Will I continue to reject the siren's call of power, wealth, and fame which have so infected so many claiming the name of Christ in America? Yep.

Will I continue to advocate for the poor, the downtrodden, the refugees, homeless, despised and rejected of society? Yep.

Will I continue to call for ecumenism within the Church and for adherence to the Gospel's call of universal Truth and application to people of every tribe, nation, and language? Yep.

The truth of the matter is that I have no idea who objects to views or why. I doesn't really matter, I've been called by God, ordained by his Church, chosen to shepherd this particular local church here in Franklin, and dedicated my life to the cause of Kingdom of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the living out of the Fruit of the Spirit. My course is set, my life is not my own, I was bought with a price, the precious blood of the lamb.

Facebook has been a help to getting people to see my blog posts, and working around the blocking of my site will be annoying for as long as it lasts, but I'm not changing a bit. Not because of pride, nor stubbornness, but because I've always approached the words I speak and the words I type with gravity, and so I will quote the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms (without any pretense to my situation being at all of the gravity of his)..."Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."

The Reformation - How We Got Here

            Unity has always been a concept that it was easier for the Church to proclaim than to actualize.  When the Apostle John wrote his first epistle, as the first generation of Christianity came to a close and the second non-eyewitness generation came to the fore, it was already necessary for him to counter the heretical claims of the Gnostics by reaffirming the humanity of Jesus, both before and after the resurrection, as the one, “we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched.”  Three centuries later, the Arians would put forth the heresy that Jesus was less than God, the Church, now the official religion of Rome after remarkable growth from humble beginnings, responded under the leadership of men like Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, ultimately leading to the councils of Nicea and Calcedon where the theology of the person of Christ; handed down from the Apostles, was codified.  From that point forward, only fringe groups would challenge the humanity and deity of Christ, but even with theological unity regarding Jesus, division was still coming, developing along cultural lines as the Latin West drifted away from the Greek East.  The Emperor Diocletian had already administratively split the Roman Empire in half in A.D. 284, after the fall of the empire in the West in the 5^th century, the Latin Western Church and the Easter Greek Church grew more and more estranged.

          The Protestant Reformation, which began 500 years ago on October 31^st, 1517, was not the first major division within the Church, that occurred formally in A.D. 1054, and is known as the Great Schism.  In 1054, the functional East-West divide was made formal when the legate of Pope Leo IX excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius (Keroularios), who in return excommunicated the representative of the Pope.  There were theological and cultural issues that divided the two sides, but the proximate cause of the split was a dispute over power; Leo IX was seeking to assert universal papal authority, the bishops of the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople in particular, refused to accept that claim.

          While the Eastern and Western Churches went their own way, struggling to make a unified response to the rise of Islam and deepening their animosity when the army of the 4^th Crusade turned under Venetian prompting from Jerusalem to sack Constantinople, new issues of theology and politics developed in the West that would lead toward the spirit of reform which Martin Luther inherited.  The West had never been politically unified after the fall of Rome.  In the East, the Emperor of Constantinople held authority over the Patriarch, but in the West the authority of the bishop of Rome had been challenged by Charlemagne and his successors, the Holy Roman Emperors.  Dynastic feuds kept Christian vs. Christian warfare in the West at endemic levels as families vied for power, and the various kings claimed the right to choose their own bishops, typically choosing a family relative regardless of qualifications, as an extension of those power struggles.  On multiple occasions, the right to install a bishop was asserted against the claims of kings, by a Pope, leading to episodes like the excommunication of the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV in the 11^th century, who in response led his army over the Alps to besiege Rome, seeking to depose Gregory VII and replace him with a Pope who would do his bidding.

          The Fall of Constantinople in 1453 caused a flood of Greek speaking refugees to head west, sparking a renewed interest in the original Greek of the New Testament.  The Dutch priest, Desiderius Erasmus published his Greek New Testament in 1516, spurring on those who desired the Scriptures in the vernacular, for only the educated few could read Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.  In the 16^th century, ideas spread much more rapidly than in the past thanks to the invention of a workable printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in 1455; by 1500, 10 million books had been printed in Europe.

          Add to this mix of political turmoil and warfare, and ongoing struggles for power between kings and popes, a series of would-be reformers like the Englishmen John Wycliffe and the Czech Jan Hus.  Reforms did occur within the Church, but the pressure was building for more substantial changes, and that pressure burst forth when a young German priest named Martin Luther issued a call for debate concerning issues that troubled him regarding salvation theology.  Luther had been inspired by his readings of Saint Augustine, as well as Erasmus’ Greek edition at Romans 1:17 where the Vulgate’s Latin read “Justitia”, but the Greek read “dikaios”, that is righteousness rather than justice.  This translational nuance spoke to Martin Luther, leading him to issue his challenge by posting his 95 objections on the Castle Church door in Wittenberg on October 31^st, 1517.

          At this point, Martin Luther was no revolutionary in intent or spirit, merely a reformer, like many within the Western Church.  One hundred years prior, Jan Hus had been promised safe conduct to discuss his proposed reforms, by the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund himself, but had been burned at the stake anyway as a heretic.  Knowing this, Martin Luther still came to Worms to meet with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and Pope Leo X’s representative, Johann Eck.  Asked by Eck to recant his writings, Luther refused saying, “Unless I am convinced by testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason, I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.  I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against my conscience.  May God help me.  Amen.”

          The tribunal then issued the Edict of Worms, declaring Martin Luther to be a heretic and outlaw and excommunicating him.  Luther would have ended like Jan Hus, but several German princes, opposed to Charles V and seeking to curb his authority over them, sheltered Martin Luther, allowing him time to translate the Bible into German, and time for the spark which he had inadvertently lit, to fan into flame and turn from reform to Reformation, leading quickly toward conflict and war as Luther’s ideas spread throughout northern Europe, dividing the Western Church along roughly north-south lines. 

          How did we get here, how did the Church become divided, east-west, and then 500 years later, north-south too?  Theology was a necessary part of it, interpretation and application of Scripture being a task that often leads to disagreement, even among otherwise like-minded people.  Cultural and linguistic differences were also a part, when the fault lines did occur, there was a reason why they split so neatly where differences already existed.  But in the end, the one avoidable factor, the one factor that should have been absent within the Church, was the pursuit of power.  Fallible people lead the Church, they always have, and they are not immune to the siren’s call of power.  On all sides men made choices tainted by their own greed for power, and in the end, it was the unity of the Church of Jesus Christ which paid the price.

          Let us, then, recognize our theological and cultural differences, welcoming honest and respectful study, dialogue, and debate as we together attempt to be what the bride of Christ ought to be, but let us fully reject as folly unbecoming of servants in the kingdom of God, the desire for power which led our ancestors in the faith toward division, and ultimately toward violence and war amongst themselves; for regardless of what they did, and what we here do today, “God’s truth abideth still: His kingdom is forever.”

What is your authority? A historical parallel to the Protestant - Catholic/Orthodox divide

I love the way teaching my two Bible studies each week sometimes causes new ideas or connections to pop into my head in the middle of trying to explain a particular text of Scripture.  That phenomenon happened today allowing me to see for the first time what I think is a useful analogy for understanding the divide between Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox Christians over the issue of authority.

In the first century, Jesus confronted two of the groups of religious leaders within Judaism who had radically different approaches to the way in which they defined authority: The Sadducees and the Pharisees.  The Sadducees believed in the authority of the written text of Scripture alone (minus any oral tradition) and preferred to focus upon the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) within the Tanakh (the 24 books of the Hebrew Scriptures).  The Pharisees, by contrast, accepted the authority of the Tanakh and also that of the Talmud and Midrash (the many generations worth of rabbinic commentary upon, and interpretation of, the Tanakh).

Is the parallel obvious yet?  Protestantism was founded upon the principle of Sola Scriptura (along with Sola Fide and Sola Gratia, "Faith alone" and "Grace alone"), that is the idea that Christian theology must rest solely upon the Scriptures themselves.  The Catholic and Orthodox traditions accept the authority of Scripture, but in conjunction with the teachings developed over time by the Church (through the various councils, synods, etc.)

Is it any wonder that Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox Christians have a hard time finding agreement upon a host of issues?  If the authority to which we must appeal is not the same, how can the answers derived from it be consistent?

That we have a different viewpoint of authority is no new observation, Martin Luther himself realized five hundred years ago that he was rejecting the authority of the Church in favor of that of Scripture alone.  I'm sure somebody has previously noticed the parallel between the Sadducees/Protestants and Pharisees/Catholic/Orthodox in the realm of authority, but the connection was new to my brain today, so I thought I'd share it.

Just as a reminder, Jesus had plenty of criticism for both the Sadducees and the Pharisees, something to keep in mind when we're tempted to climb up onto a high horse.  Both groups appealed to a different authority, and both were wrong in their conclusions/attitudes, both were in need of reform to reclaim the heart which God requires of his people.

Sermon Video: Living Faith in Action - James 2:14-19

In an effort to explain why his previous instruction about favoritism and discrimination is of the utmost importance, even beyond the prior notice that doing so is breaking the royal law of loving our neighbor and thus rebelling against God, James follows those thoughts up with a stark example of inactive faith that does not lead to action.  The conclusion about such "faith", of a kind that could watch a fellow Christian in a near-death scenario of need and do nothing in response, is that it is dead.  James doesn't call such "faith" weak or diseased, he flat out labels it dead.  Without actions being produced by faith, actions of righteousness, the only conclusion we can reach is that the person in question has no real faith at all.
Intellectual assent to the idea of God is not enough.  Saying that you believe in Jesus is not enough.  If these words are not matched by actions derived from faith, then the words in questions are just words, and not life changing professions of repentance.  We cannot be saved by works, James agrees with Paul on that (sorry Martin Luther, you were mistaken on this one), but we must have works once we are saved, works that show that we are in possession of a living and active faith.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The agreement of Paul and James

The book of James has at times been viewed, most famously by Martin Luther, as being in opposition to the message of salvation by grace alone preached by the Apostle Paul.  While this misunderstanding of James has been explained and the reconciliation of James and Paul made clear by theologians long in generations past, an interesting bit of serendipity has occurred to me of late.  I have been preaching verse by verse through James on Sunday morning, and at the same time, working through Romans, verse by verse, in my Wednesday morning Bible Study.  Working on the two of them together, I have been impressed by how many times I have been able to explain something in Romans using a reference to what I had previously preached in James.
Paul's message of salvation by faith, through grace alone, is in no way opposed to James' emphasis on a living and active faith that demonstrates its viability through works of righteousness.  Paul is explaining how a person can become a Christian when he insists upon sola fide and sola gratia, James is showing instead how a person who already is a Christian needs to be living in order to prove it (A theme that the Apostle John takes up in I John as well).  We cannot be saved by our works, but she had better have them once we are saved.  This same point was made again and again by Jesus in the Gospels when he demanded "fruit" from God's people lest they be uprooted and tossed aside as worthless.
To put works before faith is to put the cart before the horse, but to preach a faith that never asks for works as a demonstration of that it is alive and well is empty and foolish.  If you want to quote Ephesians 2:8-9 to talk about salvation by grace through faith, that's the right place to start, but don't forget to keep reading through verse 10, "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."  God saved us by grace, we couldn't do it ourselves, but don't let the necessary emphasis on grace fool you into thinking you don't have work to do for the Kingdom of God.