Sermon Video: Paul prefers to boldly go where no one has gone before - Romans 15:17-24

After giving glory to God for the success of his ministry thus far, the Apostle Paul explains to the church in Rome that his previous hesitancy to visit them came from his own conviction that God wanted him to take the Gospel to places where Jesus was unknown.  After decades of doing this, now Paul is planning to visit the church at Rome on his way to another new frontier for the Gospel: Spain.

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

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

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

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

Galatians 1:13  New International Version

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

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

Galatians 1:14  New International Version

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

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

Philippians 3:4b-11  New International Version

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

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

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

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

The Apostle Paul: A Jewish Christian free to live like a Gentile for the sake of the Gospel - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 and Galatians 2:11-14

The antidote to lies is the truth, the antidote to heresy is orthodoxy.  In that vein, let me offer up an illustration from the life of the Apostle Paul, a man who formerly lived in the utmost strict observance of the Law of Moses as a Pharisee with a spotless reputation, but who after meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus had a very different understanding about the relationship between Law and Grace and how he now needed to live as a follower of Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23  New International Version

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

Given that the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs) assert that EVERY member of the Early Church during its first few generations fully kept the Law of Moses as Jesus intended them to do, both Jews and Gentiles, it behooves us to actually read God's Word and see the truth of the matter.  {For a detailed examination of the various unorthodox beliefs of this organization see: The Dangers of the First Fruits of Zion and their Torah Clubs} Ultimately, this bold claim of widespread Torah observance among early Christians (that supposedly justifies returning to this "pure" version of our faith) fails as a thesis historically, biblically, and theologically, the demonstration of which is a task worthy of a thick book, but can also be easily illustrated with these straightforward words of the Apostle Paul written to the church at Corinth and the churches in Galatia.

In this section (above) illustrating the freedom he has in Jesus Christ, Paul explains that he is willing and able to live both like a Jew (himself being a Jew) and live like a Gentile, if in doing so it would enable him to share the Gospel more effectively with either group.  This is not Paul compromising himself morally or going against his conscience in the name of evangelism, rather it is Paul living out his conviction that in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free.  To Paul, then, how he lived with respect to Torah observance was NOT a moral question, at all, but instead a practical one that related to how others perceived him.  To keep kosher, for example, was not a matter of conscience or morality for Paul, but a question of not offending those Jews with whom he hoped to share the Gospel.  When he was among his Jewish brethren, Paul kept the kosher rules along with all the other Jewish distinctives, but when he was among Gentiles he ate and acted according to their customs.  It was not Law that dictated Paul's actions, but love for those with whom he shared Jesus.

We should not be surprised to see Paul write with this expression of freedom in Christ to the church in Corinth given that years earlier he had confronted the Apostle Peter about the hypocrisy of pretending that he lived only like a Jew (i.e. according to the ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses) when in the company of some misguided Jewish Christians who lived as if they were still under the Law, when in fact both he and Peter knew better.  How do we know that Peter knew better?  He, "used to eat with the Gentiles."  Had Peter lived a fully Torah observant life AFTER the Resurrection and Pentecost, this would not have been possible.  The Apostle Peter had been living by grace until those embracing legalism led him astray, they even led Barnabas astray, but not Paul.

Galatians 2:11-14  New International Version

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

In the end, it was not a corruption of the original Gospel proclamation of Jesus when the Church fully embraced the truth that neither its Jews nor its Gentiles were under the Law of Moses, rather it was the result of the profound freedom offered by the renewal of our hearts and minds by the Blood of Christ, as well as the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, that quickly won the day in debates like that of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15).  

If it helps your Gospel witness to live like a Jew so that you can share the Good News that Jesus Christ is Lord among observant Jews, then go right ahead.  Paul did that when it helped the Gospel.  Likewise, if it helps your Gospel witness to live like the Chinese so that you can share the Good News within a Chinese cultural setting, then go right ahead.  Hudson Taylor did that in the 19th century and enjoyed massive success, much as had Francis Xavier and the Jesuits in the 16th century who employed the same openness to meet those with whom they shared the Gospel on ground that was familiar to them.  If your ministry is among motorcycle clubs, then embrace that culture's dress and tattoos if it helps you share the love of God with those who need to see and hear it.

In Christ we are free, free to serve the Kingdom of God and share the Gospel.  What we are not, however, is bound to any one cultural expression in doing so, for in the New Covenant all may approach God by the same route, the only route, by faith in Jesus Christ.  This truth has been known from the beginning, we see it in Paul's own words.  As always, the antidote to heretical lies is orthodox truth.

Sermon Video: The tragedy that broke Paul's heart - Romans 9:1-9

Having extolled the wonders of God's love for those who have been called to faith in Jesus in chapter 8, the Apostle Paul begins a 3 chapter exploration of those close to his heart who have not believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: His own people.

What kept the first century Israelites from accepting Jesus as the Messiah?

It wasn't a lack of preparation, Paul runs through that extensive list.  And it wasn't a failure on God's part to fulfill his Word, as Jesus was the ultimate fulfillment of prophecy after prophecy.  So what happened?

In this introductory message we see that far from being a unique generation, the one that rejected Jesus is symptomatic of not only the Israelites as a whole throughout their history, but importantly, of humanity as a whole too.  The reaction to Jesus would have been similar in any nation in any generation.

What do we do?  Love those who have not yet believed, witness to them, and keep praying for them.

Sermon Video: Live According to the Spirit - Romans 8:5-13

What is the difference between living according to the flesh (the fallen human nature we were born with) and according to the Spirit?  Death vs. Life.  The contrast could not be more stark.  As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are called to live according to the Spirit, a transformative process that begins with "putting to death" the actions, attitudes, and thoughts of our old selves.  Christ has set us free, therefore we can live by the Spirit.

Sermon Video: "I do not understand what I do", Romans 7:14-25

In this passage, the Apostle Paul discusses the war that rages within the human heart against sin. The two primary ways to interpret this section both reflect deep theological truths: (1) If this is Paul before he knew Jesus, when he was known as Saul, it reflects the utter hopelessness of human being to overcome sin by our own power, (2) if it instead is Paul after he was born again by faith in Jesus, it reflects the ongoing fight against our still-present sinful nature to imitate Christ. Because the Law of Love supersedes the Law of Moses by demanding right motivation and attitudes along with right action, even those who are in Christ and have the power of the Holy Spirit to bolster them still will have a fight on their hands to overcome not only temptation, but the thoughts that lead to it.

Sermon Video: "justified freely by his grace" - Romans 3:21-24

After establishing that the Law is incapable of saving those who have broken it, as all of humanity has, Paul then begins to explain HOW the righteousness of God, as revealed through the Incarnation, can be applied to humanity.  How can the righteousness of Jesus save us?  The answer is faith.  Faith, belief, trust, hope, in Jesus...From here the Good News gets better, everyone who believes in Jesus can be "justified freely by his grace."  What does this mean?  It means that God, as the judge of the living and the dead, will declare sinners 'innocent', not because of anything we have done, but because we have faith in what Jesus has done for us, taking our sins upon his shoulders while on the Cross.

Sermon Video: The insanity of: "Let us do evil that good may result" Romans 3:5-8

By way of answering a question about why our sinfulness doesn't make God's holiness more glorious, the Apostle Paul refutes a heretical path that might potentially be ascribed to Christians, "Let us do evil that good may result."  

Why can't evil methods or processes lead to good (righteousness)?

Among the reasons why this is fundamentally impossible are: the nature of evil, the nature of God, the power of God, the wisdom of God, and the will of God.  In order to believe that evil can result in good one must misunderstand all of these things.

In what ways are (have) Christians accepted this dangerously false premise?  In our personal relationships, our collective actions as a Church (think Crusades, Inquisition, burning people at the stake, and a host of immoral behavior to gain power and control over various portions of the Church), and growing more toxic each year, our politics as American Christians.

In the end, we must reject the false siren's call that we can utilize evil without being corrupted by it, whatever else it is, such a path is not God's.

There is no Christian justification for preparing to kill agents of your own government

 

For years I have been disturbed to hear again and again from those who claim to be Christians, or representing a Christian background, that they need various weapons, armor, and technology to defend themselves against the government of the United States.  In essence, they are saying that they need to be capable of killing representatives of the government if/when 'they' are threatened in some way by them.  It shocks my how casually people contemplate killing police officers, FBI agents, even members of the American military over issues of taxation, land use, various rules and regulations.  The thing is, there is ZERO theological justification for this attitude in the Christian Worldview.  Sadly, rather than leaning toward pacifism and making violence a resort only of protecting the weak against the strong, the Church for much of its history has tended toward militance and only used non-violence as a fallback position.  The passive resistance of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement should have been a tried and true tactic of Christian efforts to achieve Justice rather than an aberration, it should have had precedents going back to the Early Church which was non-violent, but it did not.

The Apostle Paul led a Church that faced an increasingly hostile Roman Empire, a government more powerful compared to its contemporaries and those living within it than the American government is to its citizens, and far more willing to use violence against those people, even enslaving more than a third of them.  And yet, one looks in vain in Paul's voluminous letters for any hint that Christians should be gathering weapons and preparing to kill Roman administrators and soldiers.  If any group of Christians were going to be told to 'fight fire with fire' and 'kill in Christ's name' it would have been those who would soon face the lions in the arena, but they were not.  What command, from God, did Paul offer to them?

Romans 12:14 (NIV) Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Romans 12:17-21 (NIV) Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;

    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.

In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Where is the militant attitude?  Where is the warning to prepare to fight?  The Word of God commands Christians to do the opposite from what large numbers of Americans who profess to be Christians have, by word and deed, declared their intention to do.  This is not an esoteric point of theological debate, but a core tenant of the Christian understanding of our world and our role in it.  God is the Judge, God is solely responsible (with governments deputized to protect the innocent as stewards, see Romans 13) for violence (wrath).  We, as Christians, have no legitimate reason to 'take matters into our own hands'.  When we do so, we demonstrate a lack of faith in God's sovereignty, in God's promise to reward good and punish evil, and in our commitment to judge the next life as more important than this one.  In other words, when Christians become militant, individually or collectively, embracing violence as a means to an end, they abandon the heart and soul of faith, choosing power in this life over devotion to the next.

It isn't just Paul whose words we should be following, Paul is but echoing Jesus when he told the Roman Christians, living in the very heart of the Empire that would soon be persecuting them, to "overcome evil with good."

Matthew 5:38-48 (NIV) “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

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

How do we go from this radical teaching of Jesus that flies in the face of our default human attitude, to "I need a stockpile of guns, ammunition, and body armor to protect myself against the government"?  Where is the love of our enemy? {Side note: that the American Government is 'the enemy' worthy of a violent response is itself a frightening thought}  Where is the willingness to sacrifice rather than respond with violence?

That our nation has those living in it so opposed to its laws that they would be willing to kill rather than follow them is nothing new, nor is it terribly surprising, most nations have at least some people violently opposed to the society they live in.  What is shocking, disturbing, and another sign of an unhealthy Church, is how little pushback is given to self-professed Christians who fall into this camp.  This is not a call for unthinking acceptance of any and all governmental policies.  In fact, the non-violent protests of the Civil Rights Movement illustrate how one can combine a Christian passion for Justice with a Christian ethic of loving one's enemy.  It is, however, a warning that the path of militancy, in the name of Christ, is stain upon the Bride of Christ, a detriment to Gospel witness, and a direct violation of the Word of God.

Thou shalt not murder is still in the Ten Commandments, being upset at the government in no way erases what God has written.

Your stockpile of weapons is a refutation of your claim to be living by faith.

Sermon Video: Paul's letter to the Church in Rome - Romans 1:1-7

Thus begins a long journey, a marathon not a sprint, of verse by verse preaching through the letter of Paul to the Church at Rome...In this introduction, Paul mentions some of the themes that he will soon delve deeply into: (1) that the Gospel is for all people, (2) That it requires obedience to the law of God (righteousness), (3) that such obedience is made possible by faith, (4) that the Gospel will glorify God, and finally that (5) those who become the people of God will have been 'called' by God.

The book of Romans is an intellectual and spiritual challenge, but also one that greatly rewards the effort.

"My body, my choice" is Individualism that spits in the face of God our Creator, Redeemer, and Lord - abortion and vaccine refusal

 

Actually, it doesn't count for either of you.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20     New International Version

19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Much of the Church in the modern West is wandering astray in a sea of Individualism.  Our Culture is so thoroughly inundated with the idea that our Rights rise above our responsibilities that we often don't even notice when we, as Christians who are called to live by a far different standard, go along with the flow.  Abortion and vaccine refusal are just two instances that happen to also be political cudgels using the same flawed slogan, there are many others including: euthanasia, alcoholism, drug addictions, gluttony, and sexual immorality.  In addition, we have also readily accepted the parallel lies: "My money, my choice" with all of its economic implications (gambling, wasteful consumerism, lack of charity) and "My time, my choice" (laziness, lack of direction and purpose, unwillingness to help our neighbors).  None of these individualistic perspectives conform to our calling as the people of God.  In the end, Satan does not have to lessen our devotion (emotionally, but also prayer and worship) to God if we've already placed severe limits on what we're willing to give over to God because we've declared both everyday activities and many of life's most important decisions to be 'my choice'.  Thus millions of Christians, who if they examined their own hearts would consider themselves to be fully devoted to the Lord, are in fact holding back from God's purview much of their lives in the name of personal freedoms.  This attitude is incompatible with the Covenants of both Judaism and Christianity, foreign to the Biblical narrative, and dangerously destructive of the mission of the Church in our world today.  Long story short: our Individualism is a cancer within the Church.

This isn't a Red/Blue or Left/Right issue, self-professed Christians from many different political perspectives offer up rationales (excuses) for their behavior built upon the notion that personal freedom is more important than group responsibility.  However one interprets the text of Genesis, the moral lesson of the Fall of Adam and Eve is that human autonomy apart from God is not only against God's explicit direction, but a really bad bargain.  We can cry 'Freedom!' all we want, but in rebellion against God that word is pitiful.  From its first chapters the Bible is the story of God restoring humanity to its proper relationship with its Creator, a relationship that cannot be built upon autonomy.

God our Creator

Hard for it to be 'your body' when you're not responsible for the fact that it exists.  That gift can be traced back to your parents and keeps going on and on until we arrive at the question of human origins.  While Christians may not all agree on how God brought about creation, we all acknowledge God as Creator.  The Apostle Paul emphasizes this by saying,

Romans 9:19-21

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

As Paul discusses the intersection of human freewill and the sovereignty of God in Romans he is far removed from 'my body, my choice' precisely because he has a clear view of God as Creator and is more focused on God's right as the one who made us than on our rights as the ones made.  This may not sit well with Christians flying their 'Don't tread on me!' flags, but it is biblical, and it is reality.

Not only were we made by the hand of God, we were made in the image of God (Imago Dei in Latin, Genesis 1:26) and this too has implications that refute Individualism.  Because God is trinitarian, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, those made in his image are likewise designed to exist in community.  The Genesis account emphasizes this truth when God says, "It is not good for the man to be alone.  I will make a helper suitable for him." (Genesis 2:18)  That need for mutual benefit between man and woman is subverted when Adam and Eve assert their independence from God, disobey the one (symbolic) rule in the Garden, and subsequently Adam blames God for putting Eve there with him for their failure (Genesis 3:12).  Instead of mutual help, the Fall reveals the human tendency in this state of rebellion toward 'every man for himself', in this case literally.

God our Redeemer

Given that we were designed to live in community, it is no surprise that when God begins to unfold his plan to restore humanity by calling Abraham he does so with the express intention of building up a people/nation (Genesis 12:2), one that will be a light shining in the darkness for all of humanity to see and seek.  The Law of Moses, instituted at Sinai, follows up on this intention by giving both broad and explicit instructions as to how these people, whom God has chosen, can live together in a just and righteous community in fellowship with each other and with God.  If you don't think God intended the Israelites to look out for each other, and be responsible for each other, just study the Year of Jubilee {Sermon Video: The Year of Jubilee (1st service at Franklin) Leviticus 25} or {Sermon Video: "The Year of Jubilee - Leviticus 25 (last sermon at Palo)}

This community-based plan is further developed beyond ethnic/national boundaries when the Apostle Paul writes just prior to his celebrated chapter on Love,

1 Corinthians 12:12-31     New International Version

12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

As members of a local church, and the universal Church, we are a people called out of Darkness into the Light for the purpose of taking our designated place within the Body of Christ and thereby contributing to the purposes of God here on earth.  When people tell me that they worship God on their own, apart from a connection to the Church, or that they don't need to participate in corporate worship with God's people, what they're really saying is that they as a hand, wrist, or spleen (to use Paul's body analogy) have no need of the rest of the body, thank you very much.  I understand that the church (locally or denominationally) may have failed you, it is comprised of redeemed by fallible human beings after all, but you cannot fulfill your purpose in this world apart from that community.  In fact, according to the Apostle John, you cannot even prove your salvation to yourself apart from demonstrating that you love other brothers and sisters in Christ, something that belonging to a church makes a weekly necessity. {For an in-depth analysis of John's 3 fold test of true Christianity, try my 'book': Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of 1 John}

As much as God loves you, the one lost sheep he was willing to seek and to save, he didn't save you so that you can elevate your 'rights' above your obligations to serve the people of God and the community in which that church is called to be salt and light.

If we claim Jesus Christ as Savior, why would we continue to live our lives as if we are still the master of our destiny, the writers of our own story?  When you bow the knee before the Lamb of God that life ends, and a new one begins.

Galatians 2:20     New International Version

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

God as Lord

Philippians 2:10-11     New International Version

10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

    to the glory of God the Father.

This is the vision of God triumphant that we, as Christians, proclaim, but also one that we struggle in this life to reflect.  If God is Creator, Redeemer, AND Lord, what limits are placed upon God's authority in our lives?  What prerogatives do we retain, what points of privilege and political preferences are we allowed to hold apart from the Lordship of Jesus Christ??  None, none at all.

A slave in the Roman Empire may have had less trouble with this topic, they were already being forced to bend their will to that of another.  When the Gospel proclaimed to them freedom it was not freedom free of obligation to a master, but a change of master to one whose love for them sent the Son to die on the Cross.  It was not an illusion of freedom in this life, but true spiritual freedom which only exists under the Lordship of God.

Colossians 3:22-4:1     New International Version

22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

1 Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

As modern Americans we rightly give thanks to God (and those people who have sacrificed for freedom's sake) that we are not under the thumb of an earthly master, but often it seems we forget that we, just as the Roman slave, have been called to serve a Heavenly Master.  Our bodies, our money, our time, our very lives, to not belong to us; remember, you were bought at a price.

Abortion

From the Christian perspective life is sacred because it was given as a gift by our Creator and reflects the image of God.  Thus while it is indeed a woman's body that is used to nurture that life from conception to viability, neither her own body nor that of the unborn child belong to her (nor by extension do they belong to the baby's father).  The protection of that mother-to-be by society, and the choices she makes that affect the future health of her child (for example: not smoking, drinking or doing drugs, plus having access to healthcare) are not questions of her 'rights', not simply because her choices affect a helpless and innocent child, but because those same choices were not her 'rights' before the pregnancy, nor will they be after.  God is the giver of life, to waste it through foolish or dangerous choices is to insult God, and to take it from another (except in clear cases of protecting against evil) is likewise an affront to God, a sin.  Note: Women who have chosen abortion in the past, like any other person who has sinned against God (and that means everyone) can be forgiven, the Blood of the Lamb is capable of washing away any stain from those who repent and believe.

Vaccine refusal

Our willingness to be given medicine, in this case vaccines, that will help stop the spread of communicable diseases, is likewise not a personal choice, not a matter of 'rights' at all, but also a question of community obligation.  I, as a Christian, do not have the right to waste my own life as it is a gift from God the use of which I must answer to God about, I also do not have the right to put the lives of others in danger.  This same perspective would apply to cases of drunk driving, the making of unsafe products, weapons in the hands of dangerous people, and many other instances when the actions/inaction of one person harms another person.  Intent to harm others would certainly increase the judgment of God against a person, but negligence also entails responsibility.  

There is a secondary related issue at work here as well.  The wisdom and talent necessary to create a vaccine, any vaccine or other treatment, is likewise a gift from God because the men and women working to develop it are using the talents, wisdom, and time that God has gifted them to help others. Were they not made in the image of God, they would be unable to unravel the mysterious of this created world.

The Christian Mind

These words were written in 1963, but they have become more relevant, more necessary as a warning,

“There is no longer a Christian mind.  There is still, of course, a Christian ethic, a Christian practice, and a Christian spirituality…But as a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization.  He accepts religion – its morality, its worship, its spiritual culture; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sets all earthly issues within the context of the eternal, the view which relates all human problems – social, political, cultural – to the doctrinal foundations of the Christian Faith, the view which sees all things here below in terms of God’s supremacy and earth’s transitoriness, in terms of Heaven and Hell.” (Harold Blamires, The Christian Mind, 1963, p. 3-4,)

Are we considering the issues of the day from a Christian Worldview?  Not if our priority is our own rights above our community obligations.

“We have inoculated ourselves against sensitive realization of the world’s evil…for we have now sufficiently secularized our minds to be in the habit of viewing the social and political set-up in which we are involved as something wholly, or largely, good in the eyes of God.  We have kept alive our Christian urge to discriminate between good and evil by the convenient device of labelling our own institutions good and those of our past enemies, or potential enemies, as evil…We complacently absolve ourselves from passing judgment on the set-up which nourishes us so comfortably.  We lean back in our armchairs, toast our toes by the electric fire, turn on the radio or the telly, and indulge in the righteous pleasure of learning how much evil there is in the world – elsewhere.” (Harold Blamires, The Christian Mind, 1963, p. 86-87,)

This speaks to our comfort with our own hypocrisy of demanding our own rights, when it suits us, and seeking to diminish those same rights when enjoyed by our political enemies.  Regarding 'my body, my choice' both the Left and Right invoke it, when it suits them, and both do so in defiance of God.

“Take some topic of current political importance.  Try to establish in your own mind what is the right policy to recommend in relation to it; and do so in total detachment from any political alignment or prejudice; form your own conclusions by thinking Christianly.  Then discuss the matter with fellow members of your congregation.  The full loneliness of the thinking Christian will descend upon you.  It is not that people disagree with you (Some do and some don’t)  In a sense that does not matter.  But they will not think Christianly.  They will think pragmatically, politically, but not Christianly.  In almost all cases you will find that views are wholly determined by political allegiance.  Though he does not face it, the loyalty of the average Churchman to the Conservative Party or to the Labour Party is in practical political matters prior to his loyalty to the Church.” (Harold Blamires, The Christian Mind, 1963, p. 14, emphasis mine)

I feel this loneliness on a regular basis.  I read what self-professed Christians write on social media and shake my head wondering where in that opinion is God acknowledged as Creator, Redeemer, and Lord.  Too often, our thinking (and thus our words spoken and written) is entirely self-centered, pragmatic and political, but hardly Christian.  For the sake of the Church's future in America, for the sake of our own local churches, and for our sake as those called by God to a higher purpose, this needs to change.

Earlier things I've written along these lines:

2020 has taken the measure of the Church, and found us wanting

This post is in many ways a follow-up to: "You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview

The Purpose of Freedom: A Christian Viewpoint

For a similar example of a Christian Worldview in conflict with American politics/culture: Christianity has always been a self-imposed Cancel Culture, on purpose

Sermon Video: By the grace of God I am what I am - 1 Corinthians 15:8-11

Having already detailed the many witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul offers his own experience last of all.  Paul does this for a very important reason, he was 'one abnormally born' in the Holy Spirit because he was called by God's grace when he was in the midst of persecution the Church.  God's grace reached out to Paul in a dramatic way, turning his life of violence into a life of self-sacrifice and dedication to the Gospel.  The thing is, everyone alive today is a recipient of God's grace, every breath we take is an example of God's grace falling upon the righteous and unrighteous alike {Jesus makes this point in the Gospels when referring to the beneficial rain falling for the both the just and unjust}.  We are all what we are because of God's grace.  As John Bradford said, "There but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford."  None of us deserve God's grace, both our sinful human nature and our broken human civilization (nurture) would doom us all to lives that are 'violent, brutish, and short' if not for the grace of God.  Like Paul, we too are dependent upon God's grace, and we too must respond to that grace with self-sacrificial service on behalf of the cause of the Gospel...The next time you see a Lost sinner, let this phrase be in your heart, "There but for the grace of God, go I", and then show God's love to that person.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Women should be silent? 1 Corinthians 14:29-35

As the Apostle Paul continues to explain the need for peace, not disorder, in the Church, he emphasizes that when the Word of God is shared, the audience ought to weigh carefully what is said.  In addition, Paul makes it clear that only one should speak at a time, emphasizing that the Church is not intended to be led by one voice only, and that those who prophecy need to exercise self-control.
At this point, the controversial portion of Paul's teaching occurs, the phrase, "as in all the congregations of the Lord's people" either ends the sentence, "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" or starts the sentence that ends, "women should remain silent in the churches."  As the original Greek contains no punctuation (including paragraph divisions), it is an interpreters choice whether that added emphasis belongs to the need for order or the call for women to be silent.  In addition, it is an open question whether or not Paul's instructions here regarding women are timeless or time-bound.  In other words, are they intended to be instructions for all churches, at all times, in all places, or are they instructions for the 1st century Greco-Roman churches.  Is it necessary for order for women always to be silent or simply in the cultural setting of the Early Church?  The majority of the disagreement about this passage (and similar instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12) can be seen through the timeless vs. time-bound debate, one that God-honoring people end up on both sides of.
Whatever one concludes about Paul's words here (for them and us, or them and not us) it is crucial that we keep central the Bible's (and thus God's) high view of the purpose and role of women.  Their absolute equality in relation to the Gospel, and crucial contribution to the health and vitality of every church, regardless of how that role is exactly defined.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: In Remembrance of Jesus - 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

In his effort to reform the way in which the church at Corinth was participating in the Lord's Supper, the Apostle Paul reminds them that his instructions were received, "from the Lord" and then passed directly onto them.  The Early Church greatly valued Apostolic Authority, the teachings that were received directly from Jesus and then passed on to the Church during its first generation.  It was this teaching that was then incorporated into the Scriptures, nearly all of which had an apostolic author or someone closely associated with an apostle (i.e. like Mark with Peter).  For the Church this connection to Jesus is crucial, providing confidence in what we believe and teach.
What Paul received from Jesus regarding Communion was simple enough: (1) Jesus gave thanks, (2) acknowledged that his body would be broken and blood shed, (3) and then distributed it to his disciples to partake.  Our task, as the Church, while not spelled out in great detail by Paul, is still simple: do likewise.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Humbling ourselves for the sake of the Gospel - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

Are we responsible for presenting the Gospel to the Lost in ways that mesh with their cultural and intellectual/emotional state?  The Apostle Paul thought so.  He was willing to humble himself to reach as many of the Lost as possible.  Figuring out how to do this may be difficult in practice, but the principle is firmly grounded, we ought to be "all things to all people so that by all possible means I (we) might save some."

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: How Much do we care about the Gospel? 1 Corinthians 9:1-18

Beginning with the remarkable story of Adoniram and Ann Judson who served in the 19th century as missionaries to Burma, this message utilizes the Apostle Paul's willingness to forego compensation as a minister of the Gospel, while at the same time advocating for the command to the Church that those who serve the Gospel be supported, to look at how we (as both a local church and an American Baptist Church) are doing in following this command.  After a look at my own experience of the ordeal of being a "free agent" trying to find full-time ministry, the message concludes with a call for each Christian to do more than support those serving as pastors and missionaries, as we all must be willing to sacrifice for the sake of the Gospel.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

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

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

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Danger of Assuming God's Will - Acts 28:1-16

Having survived a shipwreck after two weeks at the mercy of the storm, the Apostle Paul lands on Malta along with the rest of the ship's compliment and is warmly welcomed by the locals until he is bitten by a snake when feeding wood onto the fire they had made for the exhausted visitors.  Seeing Paul bitten by a snake, the Maltese assume that Justice (Greek goddess Dike) has sought to finish Paul off because he escaped the storm, thus he must be some sort of vile murder.  When Paul doesn't die from the bite, the people flip their opinion and assume that Paul must be a god.  The example of the people of Malta regarding Paul, and many such examples in Church history of judgments being made about the external circumstances of people lives (such as the superstition that led to witch trials) and equating them with either God's blessings or curses.
In the end, we do not have the wisdom necessary to discern the will of God based upon the good and bad things that happen in the lives of others, nor even in our own lives.  Just as it is immoral to judge a person based upon the color of their skin instead of the content of their character, so too is it foolish and immoral to judge people based upon their health (or lack thereof), wealth (or poverty), success or failure in life.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Anchor holds, in spite of the storm - Acts 27

During the journey to Rome, where he will face a legal trial despite his innocence, the Apostle Paul faces a more immediate threat: a terrific storm.  After enduring the storm for nearly two weeks, all those on board lost hope, including Luke, Aristarchus, and Paul.  Paul and his companions had not lost their faith, they still remained firmly convinced in the love and power of God, it was simply a question of whether or not God would choose to intervene in their current situation.  In other words, they did not despair regarding their souls, but saw no sign that their mortal bodies would survive the storm.  To lose hope, in this life, is NOT a failure of faith, for we have not been promised a life free of trial or tribulation, and everyone has a breaking point, nobody is impervious to being worn down by pressure (whether it be physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual).  We must, as Christians, be honest with each other regarding the troubles we're experiencing, we must admit when we are battered and worn, and be wiling to receive help, and we must be willing to give that help in turn.

When all hope was lost, an angel spoke to Paul and reassured him that the lives of all those aboard would be spared.  At that point, when God had spoken, Paul's outlook changed, hopelessness was replaced with confidence, because Paul knew God already, he had experienced the power of God in his own life, and had seen that the Word of God could be completely trusted.  Notice: God did spare all 276 aboard the ship, as he had promised, but the ship was still destroyed, the people aboard still had to swim to shore amidst the crashing waves.  That which God has promised, he will do.

The sermon title was obviously inspired by the Lawrence Chewning song, "The Anchor Holds" made famous by Ray Boltz.  Credit where credit is due.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" - Acts 26:1-16

Imagine spending your life, all of your passion and effort, on behalf of God, only to learn at the end that your entire attempt was not simply ineffective, but actually entirely counter-productive and detrimental to the very cause you thought you were serving.  Such was the mind-blowing revelation that occurred to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus when he discovered that the voice from Heaven was that of Jesus.  Up until that moment, Saul had been firmly convinced that he was doing the right thing, that his violent response to the followers of Jesus was justified by zeal for the Law of God.  Saul was, catastrophically wrong, and but for the amazing grace of God he would have gone to face his Maker with their blood upon his hands.
Certainty without wisdom is folly.  As Christians, there are a limited number of core Truths regarding the Scriptures, the nature of God, and the person and work of Jesus about which we must be certain, and for which we ought to be willing to lay down our lives (although not be willing, ever, to kill for them).  Upon these central Truths we must stand and not be moved, but beyond them we claim absolute certainty at our own peril, and would better be served by confident belief that allows for others to disagree.

To watch the video, click on the link below: