Yesterday my church was full of people...

As the pastor of a small church (in a huge building), I wish my church was full more often, it bothers me from time to time that my eight years here haven't resulted in full pews on Sunday morning.  We've added a number of great new people and families since my arrival, but I've also officiated at more funerals than I can count.  Yesterday my church was full of people.  We hosted a Christmas food voucher distribution run by Community Support Services (formerly OEO, under the Venango County Human Services Department) and the Venango County United Way.  Seven CSS workers distributed 450 vouchers beginning at 10 AM, we had people waiting to get into the church when our office manager Cheryl arrived at 7.  By 10 AM, there were nearly 200 people waiting in Miller Auditorium.  Rather than spend my morning in my office reading or writing, I gladly spent the bulk of yesterday interacting with my neighbors, many of whom I have now conversed with each of the last several years while they waited for a voucher.
Before my tenure as the shepherd of this flock reaches its termination, Lord willing many years from now, I certainly do hope that our worship service on Sunday morning fills our sanctuary to capacity (about 200+); maybe we will be blessed in this way, maybe not.  I don't know what the future holds for this congregation, nor what the results will be of the seeds we've endeavored to sow, but I do know that yesterday my church was full of people, and for the pastor of a small congregation, that warms my heart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life expectancy dropped in the U.S. last year; despair is blamed, hope is the answer, and we have it to share.

Life expectancy in the United States dropped last year, and not from disease, war, or natural disasters, but due primarily to increases in both suicides and drug overdose deaths.  The statistics can be read in this article: Fortune: Here's Why Life Expectancy in the U.S. Dropped Again This Year  The associate professor who co-authored the report for the CDC, Steven Woolf, said "We are seeing an alarming increase in deaths from substance abuse and despair."  On average, 115 people die in America each day from a drug overdose, six per day from alcohol abuse, and the suicide rate has increased 24% between 1999 and 2014.  As a nation, we are losing young people at an alarming rate from causes whose root is despair/hopelessness.

There are public policy answers that might help stem the tide, there are things that can be done in the arena of public health to mitigate the worst aspects of this crisis and save lives, but these are not solutions to the question of why so many people in America are hopeless.  Our ancestors had less food, less comfortable and secure shelter and clothing, more fear of lawlessness and violent deaths, lived in a less free society with more injustice, worked longer and harder, were more subject to sudden death by disease, lost more of their children to scourges we have cured, had less education, less recreation, and less opportunity to change their lives for the better.  And yet it is here in modernity, with our unparalleled access to recreation and entertainment that despair and hopelessness have taken hold.  Material prosperity is not alleviating emotional poverty, why?

The element that will typically be left unaddressed in the debate that will follow this alarming report is spiritual health.  Hope is not solely a factor of economic or political situations, well off people in free societies (i.e. America) do not automatically have it, and those living in crushing poverty under repressive regimes do not automatically lack it.  Hope is a quality that mankind can possess, which all other forms of life on this planet are unconcerned with.  Hope is a difficult to define state of mind, but one we recognize when it is present or missing.  Hope is built upon things greater than ourselves, it thrives in community and wilts in isolation, and it hinges upon our expectations of the future.

We are less connected to our community than our ancestors, that much is certain.  We may see far more people in a given day than they could have dreamed of, but we interact on a genuine human level with few of them, and our technology has consistently striven to eliminate the need for true human to human interaction.  This is a part of the problem, but not its root, for that we must go deeper.

When Job lost nearly everything of value in his life: his business, his children, and his health, his wife despaired; who can blame a mother for doing so after enduring such pain?  Job chose not to despair, not because he was a unique human being, but because he understood something fundamental about human existence: it belongs to God.  Job responded to his wife by saying, "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" (Job 2:10)  Later, in response to his friends' attempts to understand his tragedy, Job said, "Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him" (Job 13:15).  Job did not understand why he had suffered, he didn't see a purpose or a reason for it, but he did not give in to despair, he did not rage at God or take his own life, because even at the lowest point imaginable in his life he still knew who his Creator was, knew that God's love transcended the circumstances of life, and knew that one day he would stand before God in judgment.  Even when life told him otherwise, Job had hope because he was adamant in his belief in the goodness of God.

Hope is not our own creation, we cannot socially engineer it, we cannot package and sell it, it is a gift from God, a gift for those in relationship with the one who created them, sustains them, and will one day live with them.  As a runner, I can't help but like Isaiah 40:31

Isaiah 40:31 New International Version
but those who hope in the Lord
    will renew their strength.
They will soar on wings like eagles;
    they will run and not grow weary,
    they will walk and not be faint.

To live without hope is to live as a shell of what you were intended to be.  The Church of Jesus Christ is the caretaker of the hope that was given to humanity in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.  When he ascended into heaven, having completed the Father's mission by securing the ultimate victory over sin and death, Jesus entrusted the sharing of that Good News (i.e. The Gospel) to his followers.  Since that day, nearly 2,000 years ago, the Church has attempted to share the news that God is willing to forgive those who repent, is willing to save them from the fallen state of humanity if they believe in his Son, and is willing to transform them, by the Holy Spirit, into the likeness of Jesus.  This news is hope beyond our imagination, it is light shining in the darkness, water to those dying of thirst, and it is free.  Freely given, freely received.  It is also available to all, men and women, young and old, of any race or nation, all are eligible, all are invited to join those who have found hope in what God has done for us through Jesus.

Paul wrote in his letter to the church at Ephesus about the transition from hopelessness to hope:  "remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.  But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ." - Ephesians 2:12-13

Living life while ignoring our spiritual need, a need all human beings share, is the path to despair.  Faith in Jesus is not a magic elixir, it doesn't take away all our troubles, or make us immune to pain and sorrow, but it does provide a foundation upon which we can stand, a shelter in times of storm.  As the writer of Hebrews put it: "we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.  We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure." Hebrews 6:18b-19

The local church is a community, a group of people who have acknowledged their own shortcoming and have chosen to put their faith and hope in the sinless person of Jesus instead of themselves.  They are not perfect, but they are will one day be perfected by God.  They are not free from difficulty in this life, but they know that in the next they will see the face of God and all sorrow will be no more.  They worship, pray, and serve those in need, together, because God created us to be social, because we can shoulder each others burdens, and because there is great joy in being a part of the family of God.

Despair has lowered the life expectancy of the average American, but it doesn't have to be this way.  The problem derives from the spiritual barrenness that afflicts so many, and the solution addresses that very problem.  Belief in the saving power of Jesus Christ is faith, and faith belongs to a powerful trio: faith, hope, and love.

How should Christians feel about refugees?

There are few topics as explosive in the West today as that of illegal immigration and refugees.  Fear of immigrants (legal or otherwise) is certainly not new, one need only recall the "no Irish need apply" signs during the period in American history when immigration from Ireland was relatively high.



The desire to keep those defined as the "other" (whether due to religion, ethnicity, or race) from "invading" one's own land is as old as human history, and also unlikely to end anytime soon.  In light of the lowering of the refugee quotas for the United States in 2019 to 30,000, the lowest amount since 1980 (the actual number admitted could be far lower than that), the question arises, how should Christian Americans feel about refugees?  Note that our brothers and sisters in Europe and around the world face the same questions, and bear the same responsibility to bend their own thoughts/attitudes to the mind of Christ.

Washington Post 9/17/18: U.S. slashes the number of refugees it will allow into the country

The Church today is the sequel (for want of a universally accepted term) to Israel.  The LORD made a covenant with Abraham regarding his literal descendants, but also promised Abraham that all nations would be blessed through him, a promise kept through the advent of the Messiah.  Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures the idea of protecting those whom society might otherwise oppress is repeated many times by multiple authors in a variety of settings.  The Word of God mandates protections for aliens, widows, orphans, and the oppressed in general.  While the Church has not inherited every element of the covenant with Abraham/Moses/David (such as circumcision, the kosher laws, or the Sabbath), we are heirs to the moral code that underlines it, for that moral code was derived from the character of God himself, and since God does not change, neither does right and wrong.

It is unacceptable for Christians, living in any land, to treat those from other lands as less-worthy of the love of God.  We do not believe that there was anything special about ourselves which led to our inclusion within the people of God, it was an act of God's grace, and therefore we do not look at any person or people as beyond the reach of God's grace, and thus all people are in a real and tangible way our responsibility if they need help and we can provide it.  The principle is beautifully illustrated by Jesus in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, in which the hero of the tale is a hated Samaritan, while those refusing to help are considered pillars of the Jewish community.

If Christians allow the siren's call of Nationalism to blind them to their responsibility as the people of God to be a balm to those in need and representatives of the love of God here on earth, they will answer to God for that failure.  If Christians join in and heap condemnation on those seeking succor, treating them as less worthy of God's love, and shutting the door literally or figuratively in their faces, they will answer for that as well.

Is the refugee in question white like me?  That doesn't matter at all, and if you even care about the answer you're not thinking like Christ.  Is the refugee a fellow Christian like me?  If so, my obligation is even greater, if not, my obligation remains and must be fulfilled.  There are ways to rationalize away the call of those in need, political and economic reasons why their cries should be ignored, but they're not Christ-centered reasons, and while they may garner votes for politicians, they won't do you any good when you stand before a Holy God and need to explain the hardness of your heart.

Below is a selection of the array of references in the Scriptures on this topic, see for yourself, this is just the tip of the iceberg:

Exodus 22:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

 Psalm 9:9 New International Version (NIV)
9 The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed,
    a stronghold in times of trouble.

Psalm 146:7-9 New International Version (NIV)
7 He upholds the cause of the oppressed
    and gives food to the hungry.
The Lord sets prisoners free,
8     the Lord gives sight to the blind,
the Lord lifts up those who are bowed down,
    the Lord loves the righteous.
9 The Lord watches over the foreigner
    and sustains the fatherless and the widow,
    but he frustrates the ways of the wicked.

Isaiah 58:10 New International Version (NIV)
10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
    and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
    and your night will become like the noonday.

Luke 4:18 New International Version (NIV)
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
    and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,

Uncontrolled Capitalism is as Anti-Christian as Communism

What is the philosophical basis of  the economic system of Capitalism?  In simple terms: People do what is in their own self-interest, allowing them to do so is the key to prosperity.  You might recognize the pop culture version of this viewpoint from Oliver Stone's Wall Street where Gordon Gekko states unabashedly, "Greed is good".  Capitalism works more efficiently than a demand economy (whether that be at the direction of a monarch, dictator, or communist planning committee) because it spreads out the decision making, allowing individuals and companies to best decide where to invest their time, effort, and capital.  Capitalism is indeed the best economic system that mankind has thus far developed, there's no question that it creates more wealth and opportunity than its rivals, but that does not mean that Capitalism, left unregulated or uncontrolled, is by nature any more "Christian" than the less-efficient systems that it outproduces.

As an example of how unfettered Capitalism can be hostile to the morals and principles of Christianity, consider the case of Trevor Foltz an American child from Rhode Island whose life saving medication for seizures has risen in cost from $40 a vial in the year 2000, to $39,000 a vial in 2018, an astounding 97,000% increase in less than 20 years.  Please, read the whole article in the link, before finishing this post, it is worth your time.

Anatomy of a 97,000% drug price hike: One family's fight to save their son - by Wayne Drash, CNN

What then should a Christian perspective be regarding the tendency of Capitalism to reward greed on a level such as this?

What then should a Christian perspective be regarding the tendency of Capitalism to let slip through the cracks the most needy and vulnerable among us?


This is not a post about a proposed solution to problems such as those encountered by the Foltz family, not an advocacy for a particular way to regulate the Health Care industry, nor it is support for or criticism of, a particular politician or party.  What this is, instead, is a call for reflection on the part of those committed to following the example and teachings of Jesus Christ, as to how they ought to think, feel, and act in response to the inevitable abuses of the capitalist system.  If Christians think, feel, and act like people whose first priority is imitating Jesus Christ, the subsequent questions of how or what can/should be done in our particular political and economic circumstances to remedy the flaws particular to capitalism that have become manifest, have a chance of being answered with wisdom.

What then is the attitude of the Word of God, our definitive guide for morality, regarding the topics of greed and those in need?  You might not believe it from what Christians often focus upon, but the primary topic regarding our interactions with our fellow man in the Bible is money.  The Bible repeatedly, in strong and foreboding terms, rejects greed and compels the people of God to be generous with those in need.  A few examples will suffice to demonstrate the pattern:

Deuteronomy 15:11There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.

Deuteronomy 24:17 Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge.

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Luke 12:15 Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”

These are 4 examples, all part of larger conversations within Scripture about the issues of money, greed, justice, and generosity.  There are literally hundreds of other references related to a economic issues (both relating to personal behavior and that of a nation as a whole) for the people of God contained in the Scriptures, whether it be Israel or the Church, that speak to the seriousness to God (and thus to us) of how we treat those in need.

If the system, whatever it may be, rewards a select few with riches beyond the scale of ancient kings, and leaves by the wayside without help a multitude beyond count, then that system cannot be just, nor morally upright, as it is.  Such as system would need to be held accountable for its excesses and flaws, it would need to be made to remember those being left behind, even if by design it does not naturally do so.  No economic system is perfect, just as no political system is perfect.  There will be flaws, there will be injustices, and therefore there needs to be advocates who champion the poor, the downtrodden, the orphans, aliens, widows, and outcasts, a role that is tailor made for those who would be disciples of Jesus.

Where does the moral authority of the Church come from?

A comment on Facebook recently directed at me, and with me other Christians who likewise would proclaim that an objective Right and Wrong exists, can be known, and should be followed, stated that I (we) have no moral authority on any given issue of poverty or injustice unless I (we) are personally involved in helping to solve said problem.  In other words, I (we) cannot have a legitimate moral viewpoint on homelessness unless I (we) are running our own home as a homeless shelter, nor on abortion unless I (we) have adopted unwanted babies, or on the treatment of immigrants (illegal or otherwise) unless I (we) have opened up our home to house them.  The basis of this viewpoint is both dismissive and absurd, for it would limit morality to only those issues that one is personally involved with, and require silence on all others.  Since nobody can be involved in every moral crisis and issue relating to poverty and injustice in this world, for sadly there are far too many, such an assertion would, in essence, eliminate the moral authority of virtually everyone, creating a vacuum; perhaps this is the intended outcome, but it would create moral anarchy.

Before explaining where the moral authority of a pastor, such as myself, or a Christian in general, does indeed come from, let me simply assert that even on the basis of a premise designed to tell the people of God to "shut up and let immorality continue unless you're fixing it yourself" that the Church, and its leaders and people, are in a far stronger position to pass that "test" than any others.  For the past two thousand years the Church has been at the forefront of poverty relief, social justice, education, healthcare, disaster relief, and countless other efforts to better the lives of those around us, both in our own neighborhoods and countries, and around the world.  No government or institution has been as consistent, pervasive, and selfless in helping those in need as the Church of Jesus Christ.  Even as you read this, millions of Christians are volunteering their time to help those in need, not to mention giving of their resources to a vast array of causes supported by local churches, denominations, and a host of para-church organizations too numerous to count, working in virtually every country of the world.

For example: Our one local church, through both volunteer hours and financial support, contributes to a local multi-church food pantry (Shepherd's Green Food Pantry at St. John's Episcopal), a crisis pregnancy and motherhood support organization (ABC Life Center), a poverty relief agency (Community Services), a charity aimed locally at housing repairs, providing furniture and appliances to those with none, and giving rides to medical appointments (Mustard Seed Missions), the variety of efforts of our local Salvation Army, two local youth and teen evangelism and outreach efforts (Child Evangelism Fellowship, and Youth for Christ), a homeless shelter providing emergency housing here in Franklin and soon also in Oil City (Emmaus Haven), as well as a Central Help Fund contributed to by a dozen Franklin churches that helps dozens of families each year with their rent and utility bills.  In addition to these local efforts, 1st Baptist of Franklin supports the regional (PA/DE) efforts of ABCOPAD regarding disaster relief and economic development, the work of ABCUSA nationally and globally, and the missionary efforts of two missionary families in America, one in Papua, and one in Haiti.  Are these efforts collectively sufficient to grant the people or pastor of 1st Baptist of Franklin the moral authority to have a viewpoint on issues of poverty and justice??  If not, how much greater involvement would be required before our viewpoint on such issues is taken as sincere and not self-serving?  I could, in answer to the charge that was directed at me of not being personally involved in helping solve one particular moral dilemma, point out my own involvement in these causes and organizations, I could assert moral authority based upon my own years of work with those in need, but that too would be a fool's errand.  For indeed, my authority as a pastor does not rest primarily upon what I alone contribute to, for I am not alone in my efforts, I am a part of a far greater whole, the shepherd of a whole flock.  We as a local church are collectively making this effort, and we as a local church are but one part of the entire work of the universal Church.  We have, as individual Christians contributing to such efforts, as a local church, as a region within our denomination and our denomination as a whole, and as a universal Church around the world, a vast storehouse of moral authority based upon service to others.

And yet, I don't believe this approach to be the correct way to speak of the moral authority of the Church, of my own denomination, of my local church, or of myself.  Our authority is validated and enhanced by our service to others, but it is not where it begins.  The authority of anyone demonstrating a true commitment to being a disciple of Jesus Christ comes directly from the Word of God itself, the Bible.  Why must we care for the homeless, the widows and orphans, the aliens, refugees, outcasts, and more?  Because God has commanded it.  Not once, not with subtlety, not by allusion or inference, but repeatedly, clearly, and with grave warnings attached.  "Because the Bible says so", is not an evasion or a cop-out, it is a bedrock and fundamental principle for the people of God.  We do these things, act this way, make these sacrifices, because the God who sent his Son to shed his blood and save our lives and souls has commanded us to obey his Word.  Christians may disagree on the interpretation and application of the Bible, sometimes disastrously, but our authority rests squarely upon that which we have received from God.  Here's the thing you may not understand: The Church didn't write the Bible, it did not fashion the Word of God after its own passions, prejudices, or preferences, it received it from those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it.  We do not obey the Bible because it is convenient or profitable to us, far from it, God's Word demands of his people sacrifice after sacrifice of self-denial and service, we obey the Word of God precisely because it is the Word of God.

If I had to defend my record, or that of my church, or the Church as a whole, against a charge of moral posturing without moral action to back it up, whether historically or in the present day, I could easily do so, the evidence is by God's grace ample.  But I don't need to, it is God who has ordained holiness, righteousness, justice, and love, and it is God who has revealed to humanity what our obligations to our Maker, our neighbor, strangers, and ourselves really are.  Complain to me if you want about the demands of Biblical morality, but in the end, I just work here, you need to take that objection up with the Boss; good luck with that.

Sermon Video: Help the Weak - Acts 20:32-38

In the conclusion to his farewell address to the elders of the church of Ephesus, Paul speaks of his own hard work and diligence on behalf of the Gospel, using it as inspiration for his call to "help the weak".  In support of this charge, Paul utilizes a quote of Jesus that is reminiscent of the Beatitudes, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Helping those in need: the poor, the disabled, the addicts and prisoners, the persecuted and lost, is a Christian imperative for it is in this that we truly show the love of Christ to a world in need of the Gospel.  As individual Christians, and as a Church, we cannot solve every ill, but we can certainly make a difference somewhere, somehow, and we must, for our Savior, the Suffering Servant, demands it of us.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Revenge belongs to God alone, not you.

"If someone screws you, screw them back 10 times harder, at least they're going to leave you alone, and at least you'll feel good."  This is an entirely human sentiment, something that expresses well our sinful nature as children alienated from our Heavenly Father.  It is also, however, a sentiment in direct opposition to the Word of God.  What does God say about vengeance, what is our response supposed to be as followers of Jesus Christ?

Romans 12:14-21 (NIV)

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.  Do not be conceited.

17 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.

Matthew 5:38-48 (NIV)

38 “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.

The sentiment expressed in the quote at the beginning of the post came from a rich businessman in 2005, that same businessman is now one of the most powerful people in the world, Therefore his attitude regarding vengeance carries serious weight.  The thirst for vengeance, the desire to see enemies crushed, is not, nor can it ever be, the attitude of a disciple of Jesus Christ.  Revenge doesn't belong to you, it belongs to God, he will defend the righteous and punish the wicked, he will uphold the poor and the weak against the rich and the strong.  

A world without extra food: The not very distant past.

While reading Tom Holland's The Forge of Christendom: The End of Days and the Epic Rise of the West, I was struck once more with the realization that most of modern humanity has no real notion as to what life was really like only a few short generations ago before the food surpluses we enjoy came to be following the Industrial/Agricultural Revolution.  Our ancestors lived season to season.  Every spring was a time of want, last year's harvest having been exhausted and this year's produce not yet available.  A single bad harvest could throw a family, a village, even an entire region into famine and starvation.  Is it any wonder that a people living such a precarious existence, while having faith in God, were still superstitious as they looked to the heavens and prayed that nothing would destroy their crop before the harvest?
Famine still exists in the modern world, much of it the result of human malfeasance, but weather related disasters still occur that threaten once more to plunge people into hunger.  There is a profound difference, however, between modern hunger and its past manifestations.  When hail, locusts, or a band of marauders ruined the harvest in 10th century Francia, 12th century Bavaria, or 14th century Ireland, there was no outside help to come to the rescue.  The U.N. did not exist to send relief, nor did international charities, or friendly foreign governments.  We still have humanitarian crisis in our world, and they still do spiral out of control at times, but a possible solution to them always exists.  There is enough food in the world to feed everybody, our ancestors couldn't imagine such abundance.
If you know history, you learn perspective, if you have a reality based perspective on the world, finding wisdom is far easier.  Is life difficult now?  Yes.  Do people suffer in the Third World and in even rich nations?  Of course.  Understanding that things were worse, significantly worse, in the past doesn't minimize the suffering of the present, but it does remind us that gratitude ought to be near to our lips far more often than grumbling.  There are a lot of people who don't know what they will eat tomorrow, but gone are the days when nobody could prevent starvation following a bad harvest.  Shouldn't we be a people who don't have to be reminded to offer up thanksgiving to God?

Sermon Video: God's Misfits - 1 Corinthians 1:26-31

The message of the Gospel, a message of redemption and hope, naturally appeals more to the downtrodden and the poor than to the powerful and rich.  It is thus no surprise that the Church has always been more welcome among the outcasts of this world than among its upper crust.  But, as Paul informs us, it is not simply the appeal of the message that is responsible for this outcome, but the will of God itself.  God chose to focus on the lowly for his own purpose: to destroy human pride and ensure that all whom he calls to him will come in humility.  In the end, the only boasting available to the people of God is boasting of the awesome works of our God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Let the rich weep and wail - James 5:1-6

There are few topics as well represented, and at the same time, as unwelcome (to even God's people) in the Bible as that of wealth and poverty.  The Bible is replete with warnings about the dangers of wealth and its misuses, and also has ample demands upon the people of God to treat the poor with dignity and justice.  The words of James about wealth thus echo the prophets of old and the words of Jesus in the Gospels.  James points out four abuses of wealth that constituted guilt on the part of the rich: (1) hoarding wealth and leaving it unproductive or underutilized, (2) treating those working for them unjustly, (3) wasting resources in displays of vain luxury, (4) and utilizing the power that goes hand in glove with wealth to rig the system in their favor and deny justice to others.  All four of these abuses were rampant in the 1st Century Roman world, and they remain equally prevalent in our world today.  Wealth remains a grave temptation for abuse for those who have it, and the desire for and seeking after wealth by those who don't have it remains a major source of the sins of greed, envy, and pride, not to mention neglected and forgotten family responsibilities.
The Church has failed, in this area more than most, to live up to Jesus' expectation that worldly treasures would not be its focus, that worldly power and fame would not ensnare his people.  We need look no further than the popularity of the Prosperity Gospel to see the dangerous temptation of these things upon the Church.
It is long since past-due that Christ's followers reject wealth (fame and power as well) as a criteria for leadership, in our own affairs and in the politics we participate in.  That someone is wealthy is a horrible reason to entrust him/her with leadership, and yet such things continue with disastrous results.  We need to start taking the teachings of Jesus Christ on this issue seriously; it is not the rich who will inherit the earth, but the meek.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

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:

Sermon Video: The Problem of Favoritism - James 2:1-7

Favoritism, and its ugly flip-side, discrimination, is a facet of life we all deal with.  There are endless reasons why someone or some group of people might be shown favoritism or be discriminated against, all of which are unacceptable for the people of God.  The basis of our relationship with God is grace, unmerited favor, given to us freely by God.  How can we turn around and treat other people as if their poverty, race, gender, age, or any other factor makes them less deserving of the kindness we are supposed to show all people?
The example that James focuses upon is favoritism shown to someone with wealth coupled with disregard shown to someone who is poor.  The passage reminds us of the false promises of wealth, fame, power, and other pursuits that pull us away from the fruit of the spirit by exalting pride and pushing people away from a humble pursuit of God.
In the end, the Church needs to be a place where favoritism and discrimination are unknown.  The doors need to be open for all to come and hear the Gospel's call to repentance and promise of forgiveness, and everyone who walks through them needs to be treated like God treated us, as a lost child coming home to a Father's tear filled embrace.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Pure and Faultless Religion - James 1:26-27

The modern trend toward labeling oneself "spiritual, but not religious" is in many ways a rebuttal of the failures of organized religion.  If the practice of our collective faith in Jesus, i.e. the Church, was pleasing to God, as James calls it, "pure and faultless", it would certainly be worthy of joining.  What do we need to do, as a church locally and as a Church universally to earn God's favor?  The answer is simple, although it requires much work.  The way in which a church (or The Church) can be judged for its effectiveness is by how it treats the least among us.  James refers to "widows and orphans", the most vulnerable segments of his society, in ours those in need may be different, but our imperative to help those in need remains the same.  As individual Christians, as a local church, as a denomination, and as a universal Church, we must be seriously about the business of helping those in need.  This is not an optional part of Christianity, it is the heart of the fruit that the Gospel produces in us.  It is not simply what we do, it must be who we are.
The second indicator of genuine religion offered by James is for us to keep from being polluted by the world.  Moral filth exists in every society, for all mankind is in rebellion against God.  How do we, as Christians, avoid this pollution?  It isn't by avoiding society, how can we be helping those in need if we're hiding from the world?  That method is of limited value anyway, for temptation comes from within, we take it with us wherever we go.  The only effective means of avoiding moral pollution is to fill one's life with acts of righteousness, which will become righteous habits, and not allow sin the opportunity for a foothold.
When we as a church, locally or universally, are truly living our lives together in service to those in need and free from the pollution of immorality, we will not only attract those who need God's grace to us to hear the Gospel, we will by God's power at work in us, change our world.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Pride in Humble Circumstances - James 1:9-12

Continuing his discussion on perseverance, James brings the factors of wealth and poverty into the discussion by saying that the poor believer ought to take pride in his "high position" and the rich believer ought to take pride in his "low position".  What makes poverty "high" and wealth "low"?  We know that Jesus warned repeatedly about the dangers of wealth as a hindrance to entrance into the kingdom of God, so that can account for riches being called low, but what elevates poverty?  The simple truth of the fallen nature of humanity is that we turn toward God more readily when we feel a greater dependence upon him for our survival.  The more material things one has, the less likely he/she is to recognize the need for God in his/her life.  There are exceptions, of course, but generally this principle holds true.  The Church has always had far more poor people in it than rich people (of course the world contains far more poor people than rich, but they also believe at a higher rate than the rich do).  If dependence upon God for daily needs leads to acceptance of the Gospel's call for repentance, it is certainly something worth taking pride in.
Those Christians who happen to be rich, while a minority they do exist, can take pride in knowing that their wealth had absolutely nothing to do with their salvation.  They can to God by grace, just like the poorest among us, and they need God just as much.
In the end, rich or poor, high or low, we all need to persevere in our faith.  Whatever the circumstances we must endure, however hard the test, by faith we must stand firm in our commitment to God.  When we do stand, when our faith passes the test, we know that one day we will receive a reward from God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The Gospel, politics, and the poor.

As the American presidential campaign is now fully underway and will continue to be present in the thoughts of many all the way to November, as Christians, we ought to remind ourselves of the teaching of the Gospel, as outlined by Jesus himself, regarding a topic that comes up rather frequently in political debates and speeches: poverty.  Which solution to poverty will actually help the most is a matter for ongoing debate, not only among politicians but economists as well, but what our attitude, as Christians, toward those living in poverty ought to be, is not.  Our attitude is not optional, we have been commanded, as representatives of the Gospel of grace to treat the poor as Jesus did.  The words of the great commentator, Matthew Henry, written in 1721 when the political and economic landscapes were much different, still hold true today for they concern the Gospel's unchanging truths: "Those ought to be relieved by charity whom the providence of God has any way disabled to get their own bread...though there are cheats among such, yet they must not therefore be all thought such."
Why do so many Christians have a negative attitude toward the poor?  Is it that we give ourselves credit for our own success in warding off poverty, instead of giving God praise, so therefore we give the poor blame for their failure to avoid poverty, instead of seeing the providence of God at work there as well?  If so, our failure is a failure to recognize the authority and power of God.  Is it instead fear that motivates our lack of pity, a fear that recognizes that we ourselves could some day live in poverty if our ability to work were to be compromised, so therefore we blame the poor as a way of whistling past the graveyard and pretending we could never be in their worn-out shoes?  If so, our failure is that we lack trust in the goodness of God.  But perhaps the problem lies deeper, and darker, perhaps the reason that far too many Christians in America are dismissive of the poor, even hostile to the poor, is that we simply are not, as a Church, truly living out the Gospel.  We have instead adopted a Gospel-hybrid, mixing it with the American Dream and the promises of capitalism to replace the Gospel's call for a community that helps those in need with the American fixation upon the individual.  Maybe we, those who make up the Church, just don't like the poor.  Shame upon us to the extent that is true.
Let the politicians say what they will about poverty, we have to get our own house in order, we need to stop blaming the poor for being poor, and start loving them as Christ did, offering them grace and mercy in their time of need, and rejoicing when our effort in his name wins a victory for the kingdom of God.

Sermon Video: The Rich Man and Lazarus - Luke 16:19-31

In his ongoing effort to explain the deficiencies of the religion of the religious authorities, Jesus tells his last parable in the Gospel of Luke, the Rich Man and Lazarus.  The parable begins with an expected lesson about the limited value of riches in this life, relative to poverty, if the former does not lead to the spiritual renewal that will lead to heaven.  The rich man's riches do not avail him when he dies, for he ends up in hell, while Lazarus' extreme poverty is no hindrance to his final destination at Abraham's side in paradise.  The lesson is reinforced when the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to give him a slight momentary relief of a drop of cold water to ease his torment, only to find out that it is not possible for any to interfere with the punishment given to those who reject God.
The unexpected twist of the parable comes when the rich man follows up his rejected request by asking Abraham to send Lazarus instead to his five living brothers to warn them of what awaits them if they follow in his footsteps.  This request is also rejected, but not because it is impossible, instead it is rejected because the living already have a miraculous witness that they ought to be listening to, not someone raised from the dead, but the Word of God as revealed through Moses and the Prophets.  The rich man insists that a visit from the dead is what is necessary to turn his brothers from their path, but the parable ends with Abraham's ominous response that not even someone coming back from the dead would be sufficient if they have already rejected God's Word.  Thus the parable of Jesus, while continuing the warning about shallowness of riches, is really a much sterner and more important warning about the eternal consequences of missing out on the call of God to repentance.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: "No servant can serve two masters" - Luke 16:1-13

In a parable given to his disciples, Jesus tells a story where a corrupt business manager is unexpectedly commended after having defrauded his employer because after he was caught initially he continued to defraud his employer but did so by forgiving portions of the debts owed to his boss so that after he was fired he would have the gratitude of those who had benefited from his fraud to fall back upon.  This "shrewd" use of wealth is what is commended in the parable.  Why would Jesus tell a parable where an unrepentant thief is commended for being a shrewd thief?  Jesus uses this parable to illustrate that the "people of this world" understand that money is a tool in a way that the "people of the light", i.e. God's people, often don't understand.  Wealth is not an end in itself, it is simply a means to an end, one that should be directed toward eternal and not temporary goals whenever possible.
The parable reminds us of the needs to use wealth shrewdly, and the words of Jesus following it put the emphasis on being trustworthy as well.  God desires to entrust his people with great things, provided they show themselves worthy of trust in the little things.  The conclusion of Jesus' teaching on wealth leaves no room for Christians to be under the impression that the pursuit of wealth is compatible with our discipleship of Christ: "You cannot serve both God and Money."  We are all servants, we all serve, our pride may insist that we don't, but we do; the only question is, whom do you serve?  God isn't interested in sharing his servants, he desires 100% of our commitment, a level of commitment which is, by the way, the best way to ensure that we are what we need to be in all of our relationships and responsibilities, for the one who serves God fully will also love his neighbor as himself.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Thoughts on Pope Francis' speech to Congress

There are only a handful of people in our world today who could receive glowing coverage from CNN and Fox News at the same time.  The recent visit of Pope Francis to the United States saw such a confluence of the American political right and left, both of whom see something in Pope Francis that they would like to claim as their own (either through genuine admiration or hope of politically co-opting his popularity), and at the same time, both sides also see things in what he says and does that trouble them, things that they would rather ignore.  In this reaction, cheering for what we already believe and pretending not to hear what we disagree with, I see a microcosm of how Christians too often respond to the claims of the Gospel.  We embrace those portions of it that conform to our own ideas and try to ignore or twist into something they are not those portions that would require us to change.
For example: Republicans cheered when Pope Francis said, "I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without.  Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family."  Republicans saw this as a criticism of the legalization of gay marriage in America, they cheered, the Democrats were silent.  Elsewhere, however, it was the turn of Democrats to cheer and Republicans to sit on their hands when Pope Francis said about those hoping to travel north to America, "We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation.  To respond in a way which is always humane, just, and fraternal."  The same pattern existed, among Congress, and no doubt the audience watching at home, when mention was made of protecting the environment, abolishing the death penalty, halting the arms trade, and having an economy that "seeks to be modern, inclusive, and sustainable."
Politicians are happy to claim the Pope's popularity when it suits them, and just as quick to dismiss his ideas on the economy or social issues when what he says would challenge their political beliefs.  It is not necessary to agree with the solutions offered by Pope Francis to any particular issue, but we must, as Christians, at least be intellectually honest with ourselves by admitting when we too, like the politicians, are only listening to what we want to hear.
The teachings of Jesus Christ do not fit in cozily with the political views of either the Republicans or the Democrats, both of whom have made Faustian political compromises for the sake of expediency, Republicans with business interests at the expense of the poor, and Democrats with the intellectual class at the expense of the unborn, just to name the most obvious failure of each camp to follow the Gospel's declaration of the dignity and brotherhood of all men.  You cannot be an honest follower of Jesus Christ and ignore the need to help the poor.  You also cannot be an honest follower of Jesus Christ and ignore the sanctity of life and marriage.  It is not acceptable for Republicans to dismiss Pope Francis' cry to help the poor against the abuses of Capitalism by calling him a Socialist, and it is not acceptable for Democrats to drown out Pope Francis' plea for the unborn by calling the decision to end that life a "choice" or a "right".
Disagree with Pope Francis' politics if you want, this is America and he is just a man, even if he does have a fancy hat and a cool car, but dismiss the claim that the Gospel has upon you to protect the poor, the vulnerable, and the innocent among us at your own peril.  In the end, I'm glad that Pope Francis made both the Republicans and the Democrats uncomfortable in their turn, for as a representative of the Gospel, speaking to a culture in need of its transformative power, their is plenty in American politics and culture that Pope Francis has rightly diagnosed as being in need of change.