What the furor over the Witch Walk in Franklin can teach us about Christian cultural engagement

Downtown Franklin during last year's Witch Walk

As many of you in the Franklin area will have noticed, a post on the St. Patrick Parish Facebook page yesterday has gone viral (800+ shares and 3k plus comments on the original post in the first 24 hours, that's a whole lot for our small town). Here is the yourerie.com news story about the drama that has been unfolding.

While I have no desire to engage in the argumentation about the post's topic (their opposition to the upcoming Franklin Retail & Business Association's sponsored Halloween themed shopping event called the Witch Walk), and will gladly delete those who comment in that direction, this is absolutely a teachable moment with respect to Christian discipleship and engagement in the world.

Today's Wednesday AM Bible Study had come to 1 Corinthians 5:12-13: 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

Bible Study video, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 {We talked about this topic during the first 30 minutes of Bible Study, if you want to engage more deeply on the topic, watching it is a good place to start.}

This text leads us to an important question: When should Christians, in a free society like ours (we are indeed blessed with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion), engage in the culture at-large by either supporting or opposing what is happening around them?  In other words, when is what happens outside of the Church our business?

Some important context: 

(1) The mandate to protect the innocent from violence/exploitation/oppression supersedes this.  If/when that is what is happening, it is not a question of choice but an obligation, Christians must intervene, to the best of their ability, to protect those in need.  This then explains why Christians ought to speak out and fight against racism, injustice, homelessness, sexual abuse, violence, fraudulent practices, cults, and the like.  Real people are being hurt and even if that action is taking place outside of the Church (God forbid it is happening inside the Church, in that case our mandate is even stronger), we ought to act.  {Example: The Abolitionist and Civil Rights Movements, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church, etc.}

(2) When the topic is illegality, it isn't an option for the Church to handle it "in house."  This was one of the great sins of the clergy sex abuse scandal, to think that such illegal and evil acts could be dealt with through counseling and church discipline while at the same time hiding the truth from the proper legal authorities.  As Paul makes clear in Romans 13, we have human governments for a reason, when behavior is criminal (assuming the law itself is not immoral) the justice system is the primary remedy.

(3) Our house will always be made at least partly of glass.  The obvious and expected response to any negative cultural engagement on the part of the Church (officially through leadership or on the individual member level) is to point out the hypocrisy of all of the ways in which the Church, past and present, has failed to live up to the high standard of Christ-likeness.  That this objection is valid, those sins truly do stain the Bride of Christ, means that this will always be an impediment if/when the Church decides to take a side in a cultural issue.  If the response is to downplay or deny the evil that has been done by those who claim the name of Christian, it will only make matters worse.

(4) Hyperbole doesn't help matters.  I've often seen Christians take an issue that has some objectionable content in it and make it out to be something that Satan himself created.  The sky isn't falling, the Devil doesn't lurk behind every corner, and not everything is wholly evil that we take issue with.  Before we start yelling, "Burn the witches!" we'd better know if there are actual witches involved, actual pagan worship, and not just play acting.  By the way, even if there are real-life witches involved, the answer is never "burn them!", it is always pray for them and love them, for only Good can overcome Evil, utilizing different kinds of evil as a weapon is always counter-productive.

To sum up: I know well-meaning and God honoring Christians who are worried and want to do something about a whole range of issues, including the Witch Walk, and I know well-meaning and God honoring Christians who look at those same issues, including the Witch Walk, and come to a different conclusion.  Where one sees evil, the other seems harmless fun, where one sees a cause to champion, the other says, "Live and let live."  Because I believe so strongly in the breadth and depth of the Church in our world, I both expect and celebrate this diversity of viewpoint.  God has called so many people out of the darkness and into the light, from so many different backgrounds and experiences, that it would be folly to expect us all to look out at the complex world we live in and see it in exactly the same ways.  We are indeed one body, but designed to be many parts, and that's a good thing.

In the end, what we need is compassion, dialogue, patience, hope, and the willingness to agree to disagree.  These aren't the qualities that make good "click bait", but they are the ones that help us develop the Fruit of the Spirit and make a true positive impact upon the world that we live in.

* Note * This is not a pagan religious event, those wanting to share opinions about freedom of religion or the separation of Church and State are barking up the wrong tree, it is a business venture, and attempt to encourage shopping in the downtown district.

* Final note * In a deep irony that was expected, the local Torah Club leaders have praised the efforts of St. Patrick's social media account to "combat evil" and "stand for the Gospel", even going so far as to praise the Catholic Church (For context on why that is unusual, First Fruits of Zion, their parent organization, is strongly Anti-Catholic to its core).  This support from the Torah Clubs is deeply ironic for two reasons: (1) the Gospel itself is not at stake in this question, the Witch Walk is not an event where a version of the Gospel is being proclaimed in any way shape or form, thus whether or not a pastor or church supports, opposes, or says nothing about it, it is not matter of "standing for the Gospel."  (2) The Torah Clubs are 100% committed to overturning and replacing the Gospel as it has been preached for the past 2,000 years (replacing it with Torah observance as the true measure of devotion to Jesus), and the Franklin Christian Ministerium has spent the last year fighting against their malign influence and proselytizing of church members. 

Update 9/19/23: explorevenango.com, a website that publishes local news, wrote a story about the original post, how it targeted the Chamber unfairly, the uproar, and subsequent events.  I found it to be accurate and even-handed: Controversy Brewing Over Franklin Witch Walk - By Gavin Fish, October 18, 2023

Update 9/20/23: The News-Herald/Derrick, our joint Franklin-Oil City newspaper, wrote about all this in Friday's paper, below are photos of the story for those who don't live in the area.

Update 9/20/23: Erie News Now was in town yesterday, doing interviews about the story.  Their reporting doesn't add much except it is in the video format: Erie News Now story on the Witch Walk controversy

Update 9/22/23: Things went off without any controversy or contention yesterday, both at St. Patrick's and downtown.  My thanks to all who worked to make sure that was the case, if you dissuaded someone from doing something fueled by fear or anger you did the work of the Lord whether or not you knew it at the time.

When is governmental action morally justified? The morality of COVID-19 responses to protect less than 1%.

This is a serious question, I'm actually curious about what you would answer:

Given that as of today, 10/13/20, there have been at least 214,000 COVID-19 deaths in America, and given that those numbers are expected to be nearly 400,000 by February of 2021 (that is, only 111 days from now): At what point would governmental (local, state, or federal) restrictions (shutdowns, crowd limits, mask mandates) be justified in your mind?

1% of the current US population (331 million) would be over 3 million deaths. Thankfully, we have avoided this nightmare scenario {thanks in part to mitigation efforts, both voluntary and imposed}. Should we, as a society, take self-sacrificial actions in hopes of preventing the deaths of less than 1%? Is economic hardship justified for less than 1%? Are limitations on the freedom of a country's citizens justifiable for less than 1%?

For comparison: In the U.S., about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected with the Spanish Flu 1918-1920, and 500,000 to 850,000 died (0.48 to 0.81 percent of the population in 1918, those % amount to 1.588 million to 2.681 million Americans with today's larger population)

{COVID-19 death projections}

As of today, we are approaching 1/10th of 1% of America's residents killed by COVID-19 (331,000), and should surpass that number before Christmas. Should we, as a society, take self-sacrificial actions in hopes of preventing the deaths of 1/10th of 1%?

The final number killed by this pandemic will, Lord willing, remain significantly less than 1%. What then does the Christian worldview offer to guide us regarding our level of concern for harms that may come to a small minority among us?

1. Abraham's conversation with God about Sodom and Gomorrah

Genesis 18:20-32 (NIV) 20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” 22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord.[a] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[b] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” 26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” 27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.” 29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.” 30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” 31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.” 32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

If there had been 10 righteous people in Sodom (sadly, there were not even 10), the city would have been spared. Without knowing the population of the city at that time, it is impossible to judge how small a minority this would have been, but it seems clear that it was less than 1% (i.e. that the city contained more than 1,000 people). While this example involves divine judgement, not governmental policy, it illuminates a principle that can be applied from the former to the latter.

2. Jesus' parable of the 99 and the 1 sheep.

Luke 15:3-7 (NIV) 3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

The numbers here are helpful, only 1% of the sheep are in danger in Jesus' parable, yet the shepherd leaves the 99 'in open country', not safe in a pen or with another shepherd, in order to rescue the lost 1. Once again, this is a spiritual example involving God's justice and mercy, but it too vindicates concern for the minority, even one as small as 1%.

3. Any is too many when Peter reflects on God's purposes.

2 Peter 3:9 (NIV) 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Governmental officials, not having the wisdom or power of God, have to make hard choices. They sometimes must make choices that will lead to the harm of some in order to protect others. From God's perspective, there are no 'throw away' people. All of humanity is created in the image of God. Every person has a soul, every person is one for whom Christ was willing to die.

Conclusion: From a Christian worldview perspective, whether one is a libertarian or a socialist, a Republican or a Democrat, or any other political view or allegiance, the biblical model remains clear: One is worth sacrificing for, tiny minorities have value in the sight of God.

What precautions should be taken, and who should be encouraging or ordering them is a political question. Christian men and women of good intentions can and do disagree about HOW to put our concern for those in need into action {and not just on this topic}. However, what we don't have the luxury of doing, as Christ followers, is making a cold calculation that 1/10th of 1% of Americans are not WORTH sacrificing for. That this pandemic primarily affects the elderly and those with underlying conditions is irrelevant from a moral point of view. As Christians, we remain beholden to the Law of Love:

Mark 12:28-31 (NIV) 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

The SBC dis-fellowships a church which continues to employ a child-sex offender as their pastor: a step in the right direction, but not enough.

Christianity Today reported on the outcome of a recent SBC Executive Committee meeting: Southern Baptists Disfellowship Church Over Abuse for the First Time But victim advocates say the denomination hasn’t gone far enough. by DAVID ROACH

A small step in the right direction; a convicted child offender has no business serving in a pastoral role. God offers 2nd chances to those who truly repent, but the parameters for pastoral leadership as outlined by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1-12 and Titus 1:5-9 leave no room for church leaders with such sinful behavior in their past (the pastor in question sexually assaulted two pre-teen girls). In addition, a "we don't leave the child predator alone with children" policy is NOT sufficient. Churches must take sexual abuse seriously, of both children and adults. If this minister has turned his life around, has repented, let him serve in other ways, let him warn others to avoid his mistakes, minister to other sexual offenders, not assume authority over God's people; he is not qualified to do so.
Let us pray for our brothers and sisters in the SBC who are struggling mightily with the issue of sexual abuse in their churches (it is in every denomination, just as it infects nationwide schools, scout troops, sports teams, etc. none are immune to this scourge of human depravity). That the leadership of the SBC was willing to take this step is a positive sign, that many seem more afraid of 'liberalism' within the SBC (as the article and two sexual abuse survivors associated with the SBC are claiming) than sexual predators within the SBC is a disturbing sign that all is not well in the health of this denomination. In addition, the move to connect the effort to root out sexual abuse with 'liberalism' as a way of deflecting that effort (as evidenced by the video created by Founders Ministries which is led by an SBC pastor: By What Standard? God's world...God's rules whose video promo took a swipe at Rachael Denhollander {The first victim to publicly abuse Larry Nassar, who now advocates for abuse victims and the need to protect against new abuse}) is an extremely troubling development. To those within the SBC who are fearful of 'liberal' movements, is it compatible with Christian morality to use that fear (whether it is justified or not) as an excuse to avoid dealing with the full scope of the sexual abuse that has occurred with in the SBC? Defending the innocent and holding church leadership accountable is not a liberal or conservative issue, it is a moral imperative.

NOTE: As a minister within the American Baptist Churches denomination, and a representative on our regional board of directors, I fully recognize that our loose affiliation {regional executives can refuse to acknowledge an ordination, or remove an ordination recognition from a minister who has engaged in immoral (or heretical) behavior, but cannot remove that minister, for only the local church can hire or fire its own pastoral staff} makes the ABC vulnerable to issues like the one that the SBC is dealing with. Should it become known that an ABC church within ABCOPAD (my region) is employing a sex offender, and refusing to terminate that relationship, I would advocate for the removal of that church from our fellowship (which is the most we could legally do). Our loose affiliation and lack of regional record keeping regarding our churches means that sexual abuse within the ABC, and ABCOPAD in particular, is below the radar, but in no way is it non-existent.

For my previous commentary on the trailer for By What Standard?: "By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics

After another mass shooting, what can be said?

Update: This post was originally written in August of 2019 after mass shootings occurred on consecutive days: The El Paso, Texas Walmart shooting that killed 23 people and wounded 22 more, and the Dayton, Ohio shooting that killed 9 and wounded 17 more.  It has been updated, today (10/26/23) while the mass murder in Lewiston, Maine is still at large, having killed 18 last night and wounded at least 30 more.  However, this same lament could have been reposted after Monterey Park, CA (1/21/23, 12 killed), Uvalde, TX (5/24/22, 22 killed), Buffalo, NY (5/14/22, 10 killed), San Jose, CA (5/26/21, 10 killed), or Boulder, CO (5/22/21, 10 killed), that is if we're only listing the massacres where ten or more were murdered here in America since August of 2019.

On many issues, I am a realistic optimist, that is, I believe that things can get better with hard work, support systems, collaboration, prayer, and the grace of God.  However, I don't have any illusions about human nature changing, nor hopes that we can put an end to violence whether we're talking about an individual harming one person or a war ravaging a whole country, and honestly, I don't have any real hope that anything will change for the better on this issue of mass violence in my lifetime.  

Perhaps God will be pour out his grace upon us and help us with the mess that we've created, short of that I can't see how any progress other than that which is local and limited can be made (that level of matters enough to be worthy striving for, we all should at least be willing to work for that).  And so I pray for God to be merciful upon us, not because we deserve it, but because so many of us are crying out for deliverance.  

The original post is below:

It has been about a year and a half since I wrote, "If I say anything about guns", in which I expressed my desire to not allow my views and opinions (no matter how well informed or articulately shared) about the issues of America's culture wars to become a smokescreen that prevents those both within and outside the Church from hearing my voice about the Good News that Jesus Christ died to set them free from their sins.  In the intervening year and a half, the issues of the culture wars have grown more contentious, more polarizing, not less.  {Update 10/26/23: Things have hardly improved on this front since 2019, sadly.} A cursory glance at social media today showed several of those among my FB friends who have decided to post pro-gun memes in the aftermath of the two most recent shootings.  Rather than showing restraint in the face of yet two more examples of how one person with hate in his (I could say, "or her", but statistically this is a "his" problem) heart can murder at a rate of twenty people per minute (or more), there is a significant percentage of people who feel the need to defiantly defend the circumstances which make such rapid lethality possible.  This is not the first time I have seen this response, and not the only issue where the reaction of many is to defend their own position no matter the context.  In this case those posting pro-gun sentiments after a mass shooting are very conservative, after the next tragedy or disaster, it may be those who are very liberal defending a different sacred cow.  Such responses are a human problem, not a conservative or a liberal one.

I was sheltered as a child, I grew up in a rural community that was almost exclusively white, highly conservative on a variety of issues, and mostly Protestant.  And yet, even in that bubble I did not sense the all-pervasive animosity of the deep seated us vs. them mentality that seems today to pervade our culture.  This isn't the America I grew up in.  It is more divided, more partisan, more bitter, more prone to treat those it disagrees with as enemies, and more likely to resort to violence when things aren't to its liking.  A lot of things have contributed to where we are now: The internet, 9/11, 24 hour cable news networks, social media, Citizens United (the Supreme Court case allowing for unlimited political contributions, i.e super-PACs), gerrymandering (making politicians in the middle vulnerable, as the only serious challenge is from the more extreme wing of either party during the primary stage), just to name a few. 
Perhaps we are not too far along this path as individuals, and as a culture, to want to turn back.  Perhaps we can seek solutions rather than simply demonizing those with whom we disagree, perhaps reconciliation and healing can overcome hatred and violence.  I, for one, am doing what I can to help and trying to not be the person who makes things worse.  Trying to mold and shape the congregation I have been entrusted with, and perhaps my community as well, with the Love of Jesus Christ, one day, one person, at a time.  This is the slow and steady path that will be mocked by partisan zealots on both sides, it will encounter jeers of "cowardice" from those who would rather burn the village than let the enemy have it.  So be it, I answer to a higher authority than peer pressure.
Perfect solutions do not exist, they all have flaws, but the direction we are traveling in as a culture and a nation is not sustainable.  Either things will continue to devolve further and further into factionalism and hatreds, or we will find a way to live in peace, even if we are not in harmony.  To continue to do nothing about mass acts of violence (primarily from those wielding guns) has been morally unacceptable since at least Columbine, this issue, along with a host of other pressing concerns, requires true moral leadership with the courage to seek solutions (or at least attempted solutions) that, while imperfect, at least have a chance at making things better.  Where that courage will come from, I do not know, for we have seen precious little of it in the last two decades, and it is getting more rare by the day.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

{Update 10/26/23: Rereading this post actually hurt my heart, it was written before the bitterness of the 2020 election and the Covid pandemic, before the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent aborted reckoning with racism in America.  Four years later it is very hard to find more optimism than I had in 2019, with war raging in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, there are reasons to have less.  And yet, God is good, the triumph of evil is always temporary, it is always darkest before the dawn.  Perhaps my daughter's generation will have had enough of our folly, perhaps they will learn from our generation's mistakes.}

Would you tell your daughter NOT to report being raped?

There are a number of practical and societal reasons why someone (male or female) might resist reporting a sexual assault, from the fear of not being believed, to the very real possibility of retribution, to the tendency of many to victim blame.  If these were not enough, and of course we must add to them the often ridiculous back-log of untested rape kits, there has emerged in connection with recent events in America, a theological/moral argument to refrain from reporting/prosecuting sexual assault and rape that is being drawn from the Mosaic Law.

My introduction to this viewpoint came from a Christian apologist/writer whom I have expressed admiration for in the past, and whose writing on issues of Biblical Criticism are well researched and first rate.  Unfortunately, James White, of Alpha and Omega Ministries, took it upon himself to offer a political commentary regarding the controversy surrounding the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  As you know if you read my blog, I will refrain from making any political commentary, but the use of the Bible by James White (and others as well, he's just the most well known) to advocate for the silencing of those who have been the victims of sexual assault (or by extension, any crime without corroborating witnesses) deserves a response.  I reached out to Alpha and Omega Ministries a week ago with my concerns by email, but received not response.

Please watch the relevant portion of the video before proceeding, the link is below:

James White, Alpha and Omega Ministries, from 9/25/18

The relevant passage of the video begins at the 7:00 mark and last until the 19:29 mark...It references Deuteronomy 19:15-21 and Deuteronomy 22:23-27

19:15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, 17 the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.


22:23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.


25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

"If you can't prove it, you don't report it" (at 11:30 mark)

My rebuttal to the assertion of James White is not a dismissal of the Mosaic Law, nor is it an abandonment of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" (both of which he accuses those with a differing view of doing in the video).  It does not come from a secular viewpoint and a liberal agenda, I can't imagine anyone who knows me at all accusing me of either.  This issue is not a case of all-or-nothing as those with a political axe to grind on both sides would have us believe.  Our choice is not between always reflexively believing the man (no matter how many individual women make an accusation, each as the only witness to their alleged assault) or always believing the woman (no matter the collaborating evidence).  James White said that it is our task to "approximate" the justice of God, and he is absolutely correct in that, but then makes it quite clear that because he believes we are incapable of doing anything of the sort, thus any victim of a crime that was not witnessed by others ought to be told, "wait for God's justice, we've got nothing for you here."  Will God judge in the end with absolute truth and justice?  Yes, indeed, but that does not preclude us from doing our best here and now, nor does that excuse us as Christians or as a society from our moral obligation to fight against the evil that exists in humanity.

Is our criminal justice system capable of making mistakes, of letting the guilty go free and convicting the innocent?  Of course it is, sadly often based upon the poverty/wealth and/or skin color of the defendant.  The failure of our system to never convict the innocent does not give us the excuse to throw our hands up and stop trying to prosecute those who are truly guilty.

If a single victim should be morally prevented from reporting the crime which has been done to him/her, if those victims should be dismissed, even threatened with jail for speaking up (by making the assumption that as a single witness it must be a false allegation), we would still have an epidemic of predator priests raging in our nation, and around the world, we would still have Jerry Sandusky, Larry Nassar, and Bill Cosby preying upon their victims {of course, we know how many times attempts to report their heinous crimes were dismissed by those in authority, both in the Church and in the government, allowing the toll of victims to rise ever higher}.

I will continue to defend the need for the people of God to view the Bible as completely authoritative in their lives for both faith (theology) and practice (morality).  I will continue to defend its absolute relevance to us today, as it was to our ancestors in the faith.  I cannot, however, see that in this case, James White, and those who echo his words (more examples in the links below) are showing us the only way to do that.

A criminal justice system must presume innocence, and it must have a high bar of evidence to convict those accused, but it cannot tell the most vulnerable among us that they have no avenue for justice, and it cannot threaten victims with reprisal simply for asking to be heard.  As a society, and as a Church, we have failed to protect the weak and vulnerable from the strong and the privileged, we have far too often allowed politics to color our sense of justice, and we have been complicit in the heaping of shame upon those who have been victimized.  This cannot be what God expects of his people, our call to righteousness demands more.

A perfect system of justice is indeed unattainable, but we've got to do better than to say, "if you can't prove it, you don't report it."  May the LORD spare me from having to ever counsel my daughter about whether or not she should report being sexually assaulted, but I for one would not tell her to be quiet.





(Below are a few examples of Deuteronomy 19 being applied to the current political drama, simply there to show that the commentary of James White is echoed by others.)

AFA commentary: What Should Be Done About the Kavanaugh Nomination?

Engage Magazine: Brett Kavanaugh: Innocent till proven guilty

{Update 11/21  The James White that I used to listen to while working no longer has the same ministry.  In the past 3-4 years he has followed Eric Metaxas down the road of political 'sky is falling' conspiracy theory laden hysteria.  I no longer recommend listening to his messages with the exception of the older material related to textual criticism}

When a church fails to protect the innocent...

Tennessee pastor apologizes for 'sexual incident' with teen - Article on CNN

Having read this story, plus much of the linked material, including the teen's own account of what happened, it seems certain that there is ample blame to go around beginning with the church in Texas which failed to have adequate procedures in place to prevent an adult from being alone with a child/teen, failed to report the incident to the police, failed to protect the victim by giving the youth pastor a "going away" celebration, and reportedly even sought to rehire him years later...There is also blame for the Memphis church who, although reportedly made aware of Andy Savage's past before hiring him, made the mistake of equating God's forgiveness (available to all those who sincerely seek it in Christ), with the ability of a minister to continue in the ministry having committed such a sin (and in this case, crime too).  Such a breach of trust cannot simply be forgiven and then moved on from. * Note, as of 1/12/18, Andy Savage has been placed on leave by Hightpoint Church pending an investigation. *
And while it is true that God can utilize former drug dealers, murderers, etc. once the Holy Spirit has transformed them, by sharing how God changed their wicked hearts, saying that someone would make a good inspirational speaker because they have been redeemed, is not the same thing as saying that he/she would make a good pastor.  This job is a sacred trust, one that requires safeguards, one that abhors cover-ups, and one that must put the sheep before the shepherds, the congregation before the church.
As pastors, we live in a glass house, and while we cannot expect to be perfect, we cannot allow ourselves to become immoral, for one serious breach of trust (whether financially, sexually, or otherwise) can, and likely should, end a career.

What should you do?

1. Make sure that your church has policies in place to ensure the safety of children and others, and that they're following them.
2. Reject the temptation to downplay and hush up allegations (at a church, school, or other organization), insisting that anything that may be a crime be reported to the police immediately.
3. Pray for your pastor and church staff, they like you are but forgiven sinners who need to say no to temptations.

Sermon Video: God Hates Divorce - Malachi 2:13-16

We all know that God "is love", even those who rarely, if ever, attend church seem to know that, but does God "hate" too?  The Word of God makes it clear that there are things which God hates, primarily things connected to idolatry, false testimony and violence among his people, but included within that list is something generally accepted by society: divorce.  The prophet Malachi declares that the LORD has said, "I hate divorce", a statement of God's response to the dissolution of marriages that leaves little wiggle room to those who value the authority of the scriptures.

Why does God hate divorce?  Malachi lists several reasons: (1) It is the breaking of a vow witnessed by God, (2) it is a rejection of the design of God as our Creator that two would become one in marriage, (3) it has a negative affect upon our responsibility to raise up "godly offspring", and (4) it puts the vulnerable party, usually women and children, into danger by depriving them of support and protection.

The Church is not unfamiliar with divorce, we have seen ample evidence that the people of God, when society allows them to do so, are willing to utilize divorce at rates nearly equal to those of their non-believing countrymen.  What ought we to do in response?  First, we must follow Malachi's example and warn our fellow Christians of the emotional and spiritual consequences of divorce, then we must help those who have made the mistake of seeking divorce to find forgiveness, as well as helping those who have been harmed by divorce to find reconciliation and healing.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Apes, children, and the value of life.

There was a recent incident at the zoo in Cincinnati, Ohio, involving a three-year-old child falling into the gorilla enclosure and the subsequent killing of a male gorilla named Harambe by zoo officials who was either threatening or protecting the child, depending upon who you ask.  Setting aside the question of whether or not Harambe would have harmed the child if the zoo had instead tried to use a tranquilizer on him, for that ought to be a question answered by gorilla experts, we all ought to be able to agree that Harambe could have easily killed the child he was holding on to, whether intentionally or not.  Thus the question should not be about the intentions of the gorilla, but instead about the value of the two lives involved.  One of the two was a endangered gorilla, the other a human child.  How can these two lives be weighed, how can one decide their relative value?
For those who do not believe in God, and thus have no concept of humanity as having an immortal soul, nor of humanity created in the image of God, the question is a much more difficult one to answer.  If you don't believe in God, humanity is simply on step above primates, higher, but only relatively so.  If we are only the product of evolution, and our place at the top of this planet's food chain is only the outcome of chance, and not the design of a Creator, there will be little separating humanity from other life in terms of value.  For those who don't believe in God, the idea that a human life could have less value than an animal's life becomes a possibility.
To those who do believe in God as Creator, who see humanity as a reflection of the divine image, every human life must have an inherent value qualitatively different than any animal life.  Without God, human life is greater in a difference of degree, not a difference of kind.  But for those who see the hand of God in the face of every child, the gap between human life and animal life is, and must be, vast.
I would choose to save a human life, at the cost of any animal's life, even a great number of animal lives.  I would choose a 90-year-old with Alzheimers disease over an endangered baby animal.  I would choose a severely handicapped human life, mentally or physically, over any animal's life.  Why, because that human being has a soul, that life is a gift from God, and it is our duty to protect it in any way that we can.  In case this implication isn't clear too, I would also certainly choose the life of an unborn child over an animal's life as well.
Do I love animals?  I certainly do, some of my best memories and interactions have been with my dogs, and we've taken our one-year-old daughter to the zoo twice already.  My wife is obsessed with hiking in the woods out West to look for moose.  We've done this many times, and will undoubtedly do so again soon when our daughter is old enough to trek along.  I think moose are awesome, and would oppose cruelty or senseless killing of them or any other animals.  But don't think for a second that I would hesitate to protect my wife or child, or any other human life, if it was threatened by an animal.
This recent controversy over the killing of an ape to save a child has been greatly inflated by a significant number of people who have erroneously concluded that the life of the child and the life of the ape have a similar value.  Such belief is wrong, dangerous, and not connected to the teaching of the Word of God.  Perhaps the zoo could have used a tranquilizer, but to do so they would have put the life of a child at a greater risk in order to save the life of an animal, and that decision would have been not only unacceptable, but immoral.  They chose human life because they valued it as they should have.

In Defense of Morality: The War on Terror and Strategic Bombing in WWII

It is rare, sadly, to find someone interested in what the perspective of history has to teach us about current events, politicians seem particularly oblivious to this need.  That being said, the bombing of German and Japanese cities during WWII as part of the Strategic Bombing campaign carried out by the British and American air forces offers us a much needed dose of morality regarding Western Civilization's (and these days, seemingly civilization in general) now fifteen years of actively fighting against those who would utilize terrorism for political/religious ends.  Early on in the British attempt to bring the fighting to Germany after having evacuated the continent at Dunkirk, it was discovered that attempts to selectively hit targets such as factories producing munitions and armaments had failed miserably, as "Less than one-third of its bombers were dropping their loads within five miles of the specific industrial targets they were attacking." (from Williamson Murray, "Did Strategic Bombing Work?").  Failing to destroy the intended targets was compounded by the horrendous costs to the bomber crews paid to achieve such paltry results.  Having failed to selectively target legitimate war-related targets, Bomber Command switched to "area bombing" hoping to "dehouse" the Germany urban population and break the morale of the Nazis by killing non-combatants because hitting the center of a city with firebombs is a much easier task that would certainly produce "results".  Until the end of WWII, this policy was continued, with the Americans eventually attempting their own strategic bombing campaign and eventually joining in with the British to wipe German cities off the map (with the corresponding effort in the Pacific to demolish Japanese cities).  Despite the horrific loss of life, hundreds of thousands of non-combatant men, women, and children killed, the will of the Germans and the Japanese to fight on never wavered.
In his essay on the effectiveness of the Strategic Bombing campaign in WWII, historian Williamson Murray wrote, "World War II was a matter of national survival, a war waged against a tyranny that represented a hideous moral and strategic danger.  Consequently, any judgment on the Combined Bomber Offensive must rest on the grounds of expediency rather than on those of morality."  In that essay, Murray seeks to establish that the bombing campaign was indeed effective in helping shorten WWII, but the vast majority of the evidence he presents revolves around actual strategic bombing of transportation networks and military targets (which was effective) rather than the indiscriminate destruction of cities (which was not).  Why did the Allies target cities?  Because they felt the need to do something, and this was what they could actually do.  Plus, there was also the desire to punish the German and Japanese people for the actions of their political leadership and military, and the unspoken belief that the lives lost in the bombing campaign were a part of the cost of winning the war, thankfully, being paid by the other side.
How do we evaluate Williamson's claim, and what does this have to do with terrorism?  The claim that any national emergency can set aside morality as the judge of our actions, and WWII was certainly a serious existential threat that is not in dispute, must still be categorically rejected by a Christian worldview.  If we can abandon the principles by which we seek to imitate Christ when our lives or even our civilization is threatened, of what value are those principles?  It is when we are being threatened or oppressed, as individuals, as a Church, and as a nation, that our feet should be most firmly planted on the solid rock of Christ.  If we instead call a "timeout", wage war by any means necessary to protect ourselves, and then seek to put the genie in the bottle again afterwards, we will instead only discover that we ourselves have changed in the process of defeating our foe, and not for the better.  I don't doubt for a moment the valor and service of the men who flew the bombers over Germany and Japan in WWII, but I cannot accept the defense of the strategy that sent them there to firebomb cities as being "necessary" at the time.  Necessity may be the mother of invention, but it is also the author of immoral behavior.
The War on Terror that started, for most of our awareness of it at least, with the horror of 9/11 and the deaths of so many innocent people, cannot be allowed to devolve until we are little better in our actions than those we are seeking to destroy.  We have already made mistakes and taken steps in that direction, the fact that politicians and talking heads debated whether or not torture should be one of the tools of our forces tells us as much.  The shame of Abu Ghraib is another example, along with the ongoing secret targeting of threats with drone strikes, suggestions that we can solve the ISIS problem by "carpet bombing" Syria, and now the ludicrous suggestion by one political candidate that Muslims be banned from entering the United States.
Terrorism is not nearly the threat to Western Civilization that the fascism of the Nazis and Japanese was.  Terrorism also is not nearly the threat to Western Civilization that Communism once was.  Terrorism is psychologically disturbing, creating fear that never seems to dissipate, but all the world's terrorists and would-be terrorists have a comparatively tiny amount of power versus the threats that have already been defeated in the modern era.  It would be a strategic mistake, and certainly an ethical one, if we allowed terrorism to change who we are, if we abandoned our optimism and desire to help those in need because of fear.
The morality taught to us by Jesus Christ is not an optional morality.  We cannot put it on when useful and take it off when it gets uncomfortable.  We must live, regardless of the threats against us, as disciples of Jesus Christ, the last thing we need to do is to start targeting the innocent alongside the guilty.

Too dangerous to let them live?

Nicole and I went to the Tuesday evening cheap movies, as is our habit when there is something worth seeing, to see Insurgent, the second in the Divergent series.  I'll say this generically so as to not create a spoiler, in the movie, two primary characters who are identified with the "good guys" shoot two "bad guy" prisoners, one in handcuffs, the other in a prison cell.  The scenes themselves aren't graphic, the movie is PG-13, but still rather disturbing, and certainly a harsh topic for inclusion in a movie geared for teens.  This reminds me of the discussion about the end of the last Superman movie, Man of Steel, where Superman kills General Zod by snapping his neck to prevent him from killing some innocent bystanders.  My friend and neighbor, Pastor Jeff Little from First UMC, objected strongly to that decision because as life-long Superman fan, he was adamant that Superman always has to find a way to win without killing anyone.  With the finale of the Hunger Games due out this fall, and a sequel to The Maze Runner on the way, it seems clear that the topic of killing to protect the innocent, or to advance a worthwhile cause, will continue to be present in the movies.  This is starkly contrasted with the epiphany of Harry Potter at the end of that franchise when he finds pity for Voldemort instead of hatred, and the ending of the latest version of Cinderella, which happily ends with a moment of Christ-like forgiveness for one who doesn't deserve it.

We live in a world with dangerous terrorists, with those willing to blow up churches, mosques, pizza shops, planes, anything and everything in order to kill as many men, women, and children as possible.  Our government routinely orders remote drone strikes in foreign nations as a response to this threat, along with whatever other clandestine means are used to eliminate those who pose a threat, often before they can act.  I'm not offering up a solution to the moral dilemma of having government officials acts as judge, jury, and executioner over the lives of foreign citizens; the quagmire we find ourselves in does not allow for easy answers.  This is simply an observation that art is imitating life, our comic book and dystopian movies that we view as entertainment have come face to face with one of the moral questions that our society has yet to come to grips with.  To save the innocent is indeed noble, but what is it when that saving involves killing others without trial, and what is it when they're killed preemptively?  These are questions worth asking, questions our films are confronting more directly than our government.

Sermon Video: Athaliah chooses power over children - 2 Chronicles 22

How does someone who values human life, from conception until natural death, understand the thinking of someone who is convinced that abortion is an “act of love”?  In a new book called Pro, Katha Pollitt asserts that abortion is a social good for women, men, and children.  Where can we begin to unravel the thought process that leads to such a conclusion?

                In 2 Chronicles 22, the reign of Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, only lasts a year before he is killed alongside Ahab’s son Joram by the agent of God’s wrath against Israel’s wickedness, Jehu.  The kingdom of Judah has plummeted from its moral high-point under Jehoshaphat with the murderous reign of his son Jehoram and grandson Ahaziah.  Now, in the wake of Ahaziah’s death, his mother Athaliah (Ahab’s daughter) decides to take over the throne for herself and proceeds to attempt to wipe out any remaining descendants of David that had survived Jehoram’s killing of his six brothers and other relatives.  Even though God preserved Ahaziah for the sake of the line of David, it now appears that Athaliah will finish the job.  How can a woman turn against her own children and grandchildren and choose to murder them for the sake of power?  The darkness of the heart of mankind is a truly frightening thing when it destroys the natural bonds of love and protection that we expect from a parent and turns them instead into the total disregard for human life that Athaliah shows here.

                At this point in the story, modern man’s willingness to treat human life as expendable seems to be in keeping with our history, unfortunately.  When the children are about to be murdered, however, one of their aunts, Jehosheba, decides to risk her own life to act as she hides the year old Joash from Athaliah’s henchmen.  From that point on, Jehosheba and her husband Jehoida, a priest of the temple, hide the child for the next six years from Athaliah.  Where do they keep the only surviving heir of the line of David safe?  Within the temple of the LORD. 

                How do we as Christians respond to the threat against the innocent posed by abortion and euthanasia?  The political process cannot be our primary response, as it may never bear fruit and doesn’t help those vulnerable today.  We must commit ourselves, as a Church, to supporting the young pregnant girl, the exhausted parents of the special needs child, and the family wracked by end-of-life issues, we must offer concrete support to anyone we know in such a situation, and also support the organizations that are helping within our communities (such as ABC Life Center, here in Franklin) with our money, time, and prayer.

                We cannot understand how anyone could think of life as something to be discarded when inconvenient, but human history is full of examples of people doing just that.  We can, and must, do our utmost to protect the weak from those who, like Athaliah and Katha Pollitt, have decided that some lives don’t really matter.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video

The Shame of Joe Paterno

There is no excuse.  That the family is trying to spin the Freeh report to protect his "legacy" is only adding to the shame he deserves.  Joe Paterno may have served his fellow man for decades, and he did, but what will he be remembered for?  Looking the other way to protect his buddy and his football program as children were raped by the man whose office was next door.  The legal ramifications for Penn State will be huge, and they should be, but the moral ramifications are beyond the pale.  Each of those students who gathered to protest the firing of Joe must now look themselves in the mirror and realize that they were helping to protect a man who made an inexcusable evil choice. 
Those of us who serve the public as our life's calling know that everything we have worked for could be ruined by a false accusation.  It makes us tentative, causes us to have rules about ministering alone with anyone, and plays to our fears.  It cannot be helped.  The innocent deserve our discomfort.
If any of these 4 leaders at Penn State (plus who knows how many more further down the ladder) had any sense of courage or honor, they would have gone to the police regardless of the consequences.  It is not a choice, it is an obligation.  Everything else that may be offered in their defense is meaningless.  They knew enough, they knew children were at risk, and they walked away.  Only one person needed to do the right thing to put a stop to Sandusky's predatory rapes of children; at Penn State, to their shame, there was none.
There is no excuse, only shame.