Sermon Video: The Fall: Temptation and Rebellion, Genesis 3:1-6

When consider the Fall, the more important thing the text of Genesis is not how it happened, but why.  The why is straight-forward: autonomy.  Adam and Eve could have remained as they were, serving God in sacred space in a priestly function as our representatives, they could have continued to receive from God life and wisdom, but they chose instead a faux-independence on the false premise that things would be better if they went their own way.

Every generation since Adam and Eve has confirmed this choice, humanity continues to choose autonomy over obedience, the path of death and self-destruction over the path of submission that leads to life.

Sermon Video: A God honoring rebellion? Romans 13:1-2

In these verses the Apostle Paul lays out our responsibility as Christians to the human governments that we live under.  His statements are general principles rather than specific applications, and are based upon the reality that all authority ultimately rests with God (thus every human authority is a delegated one).

Church history has examples for us of the Church working to maintain the status quo, even when that state was unjust to most of its people, and examples of the Church standing with the oppressed and rebels, and bearing the consequences.

Rather than firm answers, this passage reminds us of the prayer, study, and deliberation that ought to go into our desire to live out our calling to be Christ-like in this world.  God-honoring Christians may arrive at different answers to these questions, what we all must do is respect God's authority enough to wrestle with them when we choose to act either for or against a particular governing authority.

Why Legalism doesn't work: Footloose and the self destruction of Jerry Falwell Jr.

 I recently watched the movie Footloose for the first time, and can concur with Peter Parker's response to Star-Lord's assertion in Avengers: Infinity War that it is indeed not the greatest movie of all time.  It is, however, an attempt to assert, although through a flawed vehicle, the known truth that Legalism does not work.  In the movie, Kevin Bacon's character Ren McCormack moves with his mom to a small town in the Rocky Mountain foothills only to discover that the town council under the leadership of John Lithgow's character, Rev. Shaw Moore, have instituted a total ban on youth dances (along with youth drinking) following a tragic car accident that claimed the lives of several of the town's teens, including Rev. Moore's son.  Of course, Ren considers the ban to be oppressive, and is helped in his rebellion against it by the Rev. Moore's own daughter, Ariel (Lori Singer), who rebels against her father through promiscuity, drinking, and a pair of death-wish style stunts.  In the end, Rev. Moore realizes his zeal has gone too far when his acolytes organize an impromptu book burning on the steps of the library.  Moore reluctantly backs down, fearing the worst but resigned to face it, as the teens enjoy their victory with a senior prom.

You might be wondering, what does a movie about the older generation trying to rein in teens via a ban on dancing in 1984 have to do with the cascade of news about the President of Liberty University, Jerry Falwell Jr? {Jerry Falwell Jr. says he's resigned from Liberty Univ. after sex scandal revelations, confusion over future - Fox News}  Footloose is a fictionalized repudiation of Legalism, Liberty University and Jerry Falwell Jr. are a real life testimony.  Liberty University under Jerry Falwell Jr.'s leadership has become one of the largest Evangelical institutions in the world, with 15,000 students on campus, and 95,000 students online.  As such, they carry tremendous influence, influence that has increased dramatically following Jerry Falwell Jr.'s very public foray into American politics in 2015.  Liberty University has an honor called called The Liberty Way, like many Christian educational institutions, which prohibits premarital sex, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and of course, social dancing.  The Liberty Way also requires that students submit to random drug tests, and declares that, "Students must dress modestly and appropriately at all times."

To be sure, organizations need rules and regulations.  Schools need to set boundaries for their students, parents need to define for their children what is, and what is not, acceptable, and have appropriate consequences when those rules are broken.  The opposite of Legalism, Anarchy (Individualism) is certainly not the solution either.  But why doesn't Legalism work?  Why can't we simply list every possible negative behavior, prohibit them all, and watch people follow the rules?

1. Rules by themselves have no power.

The University that I graduated from, Cornerstone University, had rules.  In decades past those rules were not that different from those of Liberty, but from the outside looking in, the attitude behind the use of rules seems very different.  At Cornerstone, our professors were consistent in their quest to teach student how to think, not what to think.  Why?  Cultural mores change, constantly.  What belongs on the 'list' of prohibited behavior is a snapshot of today's standards.  To teach young people to memorize a list is not to teach then how or why such things end up on the list, and it doesn't help them to understand how to react to situations not covered by the dreaded list.  In other words, sustainable and effective morality depends upon enlightened and discerning minds and upon self-awareness and self-control, not upon perfecting a system to take agency away from the individual.  

Without a corresponding attitude of the heart, rules will always fail.  In the Gospels, Jesus contends with the Pharisees, a 1st Century group of zealous Jews who believed they could legislate their way to a moral society.  To be sure, the Law of Moses contains rules, and Jesus was not a rebel who denounced the Law, but he could also see that his opponents were placing burdens upon the people that could not be kept, rather than focusing upon building up the character qualities that would enable people to freely choose to embrace morality.

Matthew 23:1-4 New International Version  23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

2. Making actions forbidden/taboo altogether gives them an allure or mystique.

Romans 7:7-12 New International Version 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

The Apostle Paul, no fan of immoral behavior, recognized the danger associated with making rules, even though many of them are necessary.  This is not news to any parent, one need only tell a two year old that they can't do something in order to encourage that very behavior.  

Take dancing, for example, rather than forbidding all social dancing, why not seek to educate young people on appropriate forms of dancing?  Surely there isn't anything morally objectionable in many forms of dancing, nor to much of the music to which people would dance?  If some kinds of dancing, by some people, lead to temptation, must we ban it all for everyone?  So, why the total ban, what does it accomplish except to encourage young people to engage in the same behavior, but on the sly rather than in public, off the radar, rather than openly.  In other words, Legalism creates some of the very temptation that it thinks that it is suppressing by making the behavior more desirable as an act of rebellion. 

3. Rebellion against unnecessary rules becomes its own snare.

Romans 14:16-23  New International Version  16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.  19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.  22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Continuing with the dancing example.  If a Christian is firmly convinced in his/her own mind that social dancing is not immoral, that he/she can engage in it without temptation to sexual sin (the typical rationale for banning it), then he/she should be able to do so, unless that action causes another person to stumble.  This is Paul's way of balancing Christian liberty and responsibility to others.  However, when an authority over a Christian (parents, church, school) prohibits a behavior, even one that would NOT be sinful for that person to engage in, if that person does it anyway, he or she is still committing an act of rebellion in the process of doing what ought not be for him/her an immoral act.  In other words, the existence of the rule requires rule breaking to engage in behaviors that the Word of God has not prohibited, that conscience and the indwelling Holy Spirit have not warned against.  An offense is created where none need exist.  Rebellion is fostered among those who simply want to be disciples of Jesus.

Back to Jerry Falwell Jr.  In the past, Falwell has been photographed at a dance club, apparently enjoying alcoholic beverages, and recently with his arm around a young woman whose pants are unbuttoned, as are Falwell's, while he holds what he assures in the caption is not really alcohol.  

The bottom 1/3 of the photo was cropped, no need to show the whole thing.

Here's the thing, if Falwell wasn't the head of Liberty University, with its Liberty Way that applies to all students, he would be free to go to a club and enjoy dancing, even drink alcohol in moderation (I know that's taboo for many Evangelicals, but there is no Biblical prohibition on consumption, only drunkenness).  The picture with the young woman would have been over the line, but it wouldn't also reek of hypocrisy as he once again flaunts to the world that he doesn't need to follow the rules that he requires of others.

4. Boundaries can still exist without attempting to limit all possible sources of temptation.

When I was in Antigua,Guatemala, many years ago, I saw an odd sight.  An arch built over the road.  What was its purpose?  To prevent the monks in the monastery on one side from seeing the nuns in the nunnery on the other.  Lust is certainly a temptation to be wary of, and on guard against, but if the only way that we can tame it is to make sure that men and women don't see each other, we're in deep trouble.  Rather than detailed rules that spell out every conceivable temptation and prohibit as much of them as possible, why not teach young people how to think about morality, how to discern between right and wrong, and how to face temptation without succumbing to it?  We need guard rails to keep young people, and ourselves, from going off the road to our destruction, rather than straight jackets to keep them (and us) from doing anything but stay in our cell.  Legalism doesn't work, it never has.  It is far better for the Church, and other Christian organizations, to focus upon teaching and training hearts and minds, and importantly, leading by example.

The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: Hatred of the authority of God

Years ago, I slogged through Atlas Shrugged out of the same sense of obligation to have read influential books that caused me to attempt, but choose to abandon, reading War and Peace.  Atlas Shrugged is not a well written novel, its plot is nonsensical, its protagonist is loathsome, and it contains extremely lengthy speeches given by various characters as a way of sharing Ayn Rand's philosophy.  The list of famous novels that don't deserve their accolades is not all that short, but Atlas Shrugged remains notable despite its fundamental flaws because of the impact of Rand's philosophy.  The 'rugged individualism' put forth by Rand is both a reaction to the authoritarianism of the 20th century, and a quintessential American idea, for few cultures have elevated the individual above the group as thoroughly and consistently.   As a teen the philosophy of Laissez-faire governance appealed to me, as it does to many a young person, but that appeal has soured over the years, in part because of a recognition that government has a crucial role to play in restraining human immorality, and also given my years of cooperation with our local government in anti-poverty and anti-homelessness efforts, in particular the county of Venango and the city of Franklin.  Whereas it is certainly possible for a Christian to take a libertarian view because of a mistrust of human governments (as they must be populated and run by sinful human beings and have a track record of misdeeds), there is no way for the hyper-libertarian views of Ayn Rand to be compatible with any sort of Christian worldview.  In fact, the moral philosophy advocated by Ayn Rand, ethical egoism, is a rejection of everything associated with Christian ethics, Rand's Jewish heritage, and religion in general.  To embrace ethical egoism is to reject, wholeheartedly, any obligation to God.



1.  Ethical egoism makes each individual the arbiter of right and wrong.
Historically speaking, it isn't a good idea to share philosophical/ethical space with Friedrich Nietzsche, but uncomfortable compatriots aside, ethical egoism's foundation is the belief that each individual should act in his/her own self-interest.  When ethical egoism is combined with Rand's libertarian political viewpoint, the result is a hoped-for false utopia in which no individual is required to do anything that isn't in their self interest.  It is a world free of compulsion.  In other words, I could help my neighbor, but only if I wanted to, to force me to pay a tax to support (or virtually any tax in Rand's view, for any purpose) a homeless shelter would be immoral.  It is only natural that human beings place themselves at the center of their own universe.  The word natural in that last sentence is used in the sense of 'expected', not in the sense of 'proper'.  As human beings who have a flawed human nature, one fully capable of doing evil, placing our own judgment and self-interest at the center of any ethical or governmental system cannot possibly produce a positive result.  It will merely make our own self-interested choices reality writ-large, enshrining in law and cultural practice the wants and desires of the selfish human heart.  Far from being an utopia, a fully realized Rand inspired society would be hell on earth, a danger eloquently expressed in William Golding's The Lord of the Flies.  Rand rightly abhorred the evil of the authoritarian systems of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, but replacing one egotistical maniac in the cases of Hitler or Stalin with millions of individual dictators running their own lives as they see fit will only disperse the moral evil, not eliminate it.  Whatever ethical, philosophical, or governmental system is created, if it is built upon human self-interest, it will fail, and fail spectacularly.  In the end, Ayn Rand's philosophy is simply the other side of the authoritarian coin, replacing one unaccountable dictator over society, with many unaccountable dictators over their own lives.

2.  If the individual is at the center, God must be displaced.
Atlas Shrugged, and Rand's philosophy in general, is extremely hostile toward religion.  Why?  Virtually all religion has this in common: it displaces the individual from the center and puts God(s) there instead.  In other words, the very concept of religion is based upon the premise that you and I are not the culmination of life in this universe, nor its final purpose.  To understand how we came to be, why we are here, and where we are going, human beings must look up, the answer does not lie within ourselves.  These are of course generalizations about religion, how Buddhism fits within this is of course a bit complicated, but the premise holds: religion is hostile to ethical egoism because religion recognizes that individual human beings do not belong at the center.
It is, of course, the Christian understanding that the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob who came in the flesh as Jesus Christ deserves to be at the center, due to both power and holiness that God alone possesses.  What happens when Christianity is led astray by a belief that warps the Gospel and moves individuals back toward the center?  The Prosperity Gospel.  The Prosperity Gospel is a heresy precisely because it elevates the individual, making our health and wealth God's priority, rather than maintaining the age-old understanding of both our Jewish and Christian ancestors in the faith that they were servants in the house of the LORD.  Another more radical example of a Christian-based system that has been warped, in this case beyond recognition, by the removal of God as the center is Mormonism.  The goal of Mormonism is to become god-like, to advance to the point of possessing the power of a god able to create worlds of our own to rule. 

3.  Christianity requires that individuals bow the knee to the authority of God.
Neither an authoritarian dictator, nor a 'rugged individualist' like Rand would be willing to bend their will to obey God.  Both are in rebellion against that higher authority, that one of them seeks to dominate others and the other to 'liberate' them is a difference of degree, not of kind; both extremes place the individual at the center, both reject any obedience to God or any other external moral authority, and both are a dead end.
One cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ without acknowledging, and welcoming, the authority of God over one's life.  This attitude of obedience is infused throughout the teachings of Jesus, summed up in his endorsement of the greatest commandment:
Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Notice also that the 2nd commandment is our moral obligation to other people, one that will often come at significant expense to ourselves.)

Jesus also embraced the authority of the Father, even though he too was God, as an example for us all (see Philippians 2:5-11):
John 6:38 (NIV)  For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

For those of us who live in a free society, and Americans in the 21st century have freedoms our ancestors could scarcely comprehend, it is tempting to elevate ourselves to the position of being the arbiter of right and wrong, the determiner of purpose and meaning.  It is tempting, but it is a fool's errand, for that power and wisdom is beyond us, and pretending to possess it is the path of self-destruction.  The Church can ill afford to be infected with these notions, we have seen the results when it has been compromised in this way, from the support of millions of German Christians for the Nazi regime, to the hucksters on TV promising God's blessings to those who will send them money.  Ayn Rand believed that a truly 'free' society of individuals serving their own self-interests would be a paradise, she was wrong.

Sermon Video: Don't Mess with God - Jude 5-11

Jude utilizes six examples from the Hebrew Scriptures to warn his readers about the danger of being ungodly in relation to God {the example in vs. 1-4 was of a group that tried to utilize God's grace as an excuse for immorality}. In each case the story doesn't end well for the person(s) who sought to rebel against and defy the will of God. As a counter-example, Jude offers the humility of the archangel Michael who, according to the Assumption of Moses, did not even slander Satan himself but simply replied, "The Lord rebuke you!" In this vein, consider the arrogance of the Prosperity Gospel (and its many proponents: Paula White Cain, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, TD Jakes, Joel Osteen, Robert Schuller, etc.), with its tendency to claiming the power to 'bind Satan' and grant material blessings to those who either have enough faith and/or (likely and) send money to the already wealthy 'minister' in question. We are not 'little gods', we are not the epicenter of God's will as they would have us believe, we are instead servants in the Kingdom of God, here to sacrifice on behalf of the Gospel, not to prosper from it. It doesn't end well for those who defy the will of God, who warp the Gospel for their own benefit.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Paul appeals to Caesar - Acts 25

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

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

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Why "winning" as the goal ought to be anathema to Christians

To 'win', at all cost, and by all means, whether in business, politics, or personal relationships, is an idea embedded in the human heart.  Unfortunately, the disregard for morality, and the value of other people, in the pursuit of 'victory', is a symptom of the darkened heart of mankind apart from God.  As such, the people of God, those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and are therefore no longer under the power of what the Apostle Paul terms, the "flesh" (our sinful nature), must forcefully and consistently reject the false claim that "the end justifies the means".

The modern era is not the first time that attempts have been made to remove morality as a check on human behavior, the Italian Renaissance political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli advocated the divorce of morality from politics in his seminal work, The Prince.  In it he wrote, "He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation."  Thus, immorality is to be excused when it is deemed necessary, hence the association with the immoral claim that "the end justifies the means."  Machiavelli, while influential, was certainly not the first to treat morality as a hindrance to be disregarded when necessary.  The first king of Israel, Saul, convinced himself that he needed to offer a sacrifice to God prior to an upcoming battle, despite knowing that he was not to usurp the role of the prophet Samuel, because necessity demanded it.  Saul's disregard for the expressed will of God was instrumental in his downfall and the choice of David to replace him.  By contrast, in Scripture there are examples of the rejection of this abdication of morality: Joseph remained true to the moral code of the God of Abraham despite the opportunities he had to abandon it when faced with the advances of Potiphar's wife.  Even as a wrongly enslaved man, Joseph refused to set aside his devotion to doing what was right.  In addition, the Apostle Paul and Silas refused to run from jail in Philippi, despite being unlawfully imprisoned, when an earthquake damaged the facility.

Throughout the Scriptures, those who abandon morality when convenient come to bad ends and those who hold true to the Law of God (whether specifically or in principle) are commended.  That is not to say that those who choose to do what is right are always vindicated in this life, nor are they promised such by God, neither do all those who choose to set aside right/wrong receive punishment for their immorality in this life.  Therein lies the rub.  When righteousness is not immediately rewarded, and wickedness is not immediately punished, the selfish and rebellious heart of man begins to seek ways to avoid the absolute demand of God that we live holy and righteous lives, it seeks loopholes, shortcuts, compromises, and makes Faustian bargains.  Such is the darkness of the heart of man in rebellion against God.  For the people of God, however, this cannot be tolerated or excused.  When we go along with immoral means with the hopes of achieving an end we deem to be worthy, we sully the name of Christ and grieve the Holy Spirit.  When we choose power, wealth, fame, or any other moniker of 'success', pursued by immoral actions, we abdicate our responsibility to be salt and light in this world, endanger our witness to the Lost, and call into question the genuineness of our conversion and discipleship.  

For all those who prioritize 'winning' or 'victory' above the call of God to live always, and in all things, according to his Holy Word, a series of warnings from God are a reminder of the futility of that path.

Psalm 1

1 Blessed is the one

    who does not walk in step with the wicked

or stand in the way that sinners take

    or sit in the company of mockers,

2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,

    and who meditates on his law day and night.

3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,

    which yields its fruit in season

and whose leaf does not wither—

    whatever they do prospers.

4 Not so the wicked!

    They are like chaff

    that the wind blows away.

5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,

    nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,

    but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.

Ephesians 5:5-7 New International Version (NIV)

5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.

Romans 3:8 New International Version (NIV)

8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

It may seem possible to play in the mud without getting dirty, it may seem possible to make bargains with or support others who act immorally without ourselves becoming tainted, but these are lies, lies from the Father of Lies, and lies of a mind not in submission to the will of God.  The choice is clear: Either we, as God's people called from darkness into light, walk in the light, win or lose, success or failure, or we don't.  

Mark 8:36-37 New International Version (NIV)

36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

How do I know what to believe? Intervarsity, Human Sexuality, and the authority of Scripture

There isn't an issue more talked (argued) about in recent American culture than human sexuality.  Many in our culture have arrived at conclusions that in previous generations would have been considered very radical.  It is one thing for non-believers, i.e. the Lost, to change their beliefs, this is to be expected as human wisdom changes over time.  It is quite another for a Christian, a self-acknowledged disciple of Jesus Christ, to change what he/she believes about an issue of moral significance.  That this has happened, for many Christians, raises an important question: On what basis is the change in moral understanding being made?
For Christians, the answer should only be: Because that is what we understand the Word of God to be teaching.  It is entirely possible for Christians to come to a new understanding of Holy Scripture, for better or worse, Church history is full of examples of both.  What is not acceptable is for a Christians to arrive at a moral position in opposition to the teachings of Scripture, or without concern for what Scripture teaches.  In other words, a moral understanding based upon emotion, feelings, logic, philosophy, science, or any other basis that circumvents or ignores the revelation of Scripture is an act of rebellion against the authority of God.
This devotion to the teachings of Scripture applies in every moral question and controversy, not just human sexuality, from the Christian attitude to war, to gambling and alcoholism and everything else.  What is important, is the attitude of submission to the revealed will of God.  If we lack that willingness to submit, we will find a way to ignore the teachings of Scripture.
Recently Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, the largest evangelical Christian organization on college campuses with chapters at 667 colleges and 1,300 staff members, released a position paper entitled, A Theological Summary of Human Sexuality.  In light of the moral position that Intervarsity is taking on such an issue of significance, the organization has asked its employees to voluntarily quit their jobs if they are unable to accept it and live by it.  This is the same commitment to an organization's mission and statement of faith expected of employees at Christian colleges, charities, and churches throughout the world.  In other words, it would be no news at all if not for the current debate ongoing in America on the issue of human sexuality.
What is more important, over the long-haul, than the particular conclusions of those who put together Intervarsity's statement, is the way in which they came to those conclusions.  The statement itself is full of references to Scripture that demonstrate a desire to be obedient to the original intention of the text and the Church's understanding of the text throughout its history, as well as a desire to follow the whole council of God and not cherry pick it.  Putting references into a statement regarding a moral position does not make one necessarily right, we all know the danger of proof-texting, but it illustrates that Intervarsity's motivation in this endeavor was to be ruled by the authority of Scripture.  This is, and must be, the way in which individual Christians, Christian organizations, and the Church itself operates.  If we ever deviate from this path, and for those who already have, the consequences we will face will be the judgment of God against us for putting our own will above that of God as revealed in holy Scripture.  For those who do not value the authority of Scripture, what I am saying is a moot point, but it has been the belief of the Church, since the beginning, including that of Jesus himself throughout the Gospels, that the Word of God is binding upon us.
Intervarsity will likely receive much negative press for their decision, and will also likely be kicked off some college campuses in an ironic appeal to tolerance.  Whether one agrees with the conclusions reached by Intervarsity or not, whether one agrees with their decision regarding their staff members in light of those conclusions or not, the most important thing in this whole episode will be that a Christian organization decided to follow Scripture, after much study and contemplation of it, instead of the culture in which they operate.  For the Church, this is the path forward, this is how we act as salt and light in our world, by being steadfast in our commitment to let the Word of God rule in our hearts in all things.

Sermon Video: Do what the Word says - James 1:22-25

We have all experienced the distinction between listening and hearing.  Parents and wives of husbands watching football are familiar with this phenomenon.  How do we know if somebody is actually hearing what has been communicated to them?  For James, regarding the Word of God, the answer is simple: those who hear are those who obey.  If we don't do what God's Word tells us to do, our knowledge is merely self-deception.  We must be a people who live in obedience to God.
Humanity has a tremendous capacity for self-denial and refusal to accept even patently obvious truths in our willful stubbornness.  However, as Christians, we cannot put our will above that of God.  When we walked in darkness we were incapable of obedience to God, our sin nature enslaved us, but now that we've been transformed by the Holy Spirit, not only is our obedience possible, it is necessary.
In the end, our own will is not freedom, it is merely slavery to sin, and obeying God may be self-denial, but it is also self-fulfillment, for in obedience to God do we find freedom and a life of purpose.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Batman v. Superman and the problem of evil

{No spoilers}  You might not expect a comic book movie to delve into one of mankind's oldest and most fundamental philosophical questions, but Batman v. Superman does just that by utilizing Lex Luthor to ask about how an all powerful and all good God can co-exist with evil/tragedy in our world.  In theology, we call this theodicy, or The Problem of Evil.  Evil, both human caused and natural (disasters/disease/death) does indeed exist, only a fool would try to call the inhumanity of man toward his fellow man anything but evil, and only someone who is heartless would not be troubled by the latest drought/plague/volcano, etc. to spread misery and destruction.  Lux Luthor, played by Jesse Eisenberg, shares his belief that God cannot be both all powerful and all good, a conclusion that apparently contributed to his path toward villainy, an assertion that is not met with a response, per se, by any of the movie's heroes apart from their subsequent self-sacrificial actions.  In the movie, Superman's motives and choices are called into question, because of his power, as characters wonder if Superman must save everyone who is in danger, and if he doesn't, is he responsible for that 'neglect'?  Bruce Wayne/Batman does indeed hold Superman at least partly responsible for the destruction caused in his efforts to fight evil {General Zod from the last Superman movie}.
So, what is the Christian response to the problem of evil?  There are three possible choices: (1) Emphasize the sovereignty of God, as typified by the book of Job, with a "who are you to question God?" response, (2) emphasize the freewill of humanity, as typified by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, who maintained that this is the best of all possible worlds that God could have created because human freewill with its accompanying evil is better than a world of automatons, (3) or attempt to meld some combination of God's sovereignty and human freewill.
A foundational belief that is built into Christian theology, which also has a significant impact upon theodicy, is Original Sin.  The idea that the world was created without flaws, humanity included, but that both humanity and the world around us (i.e. disease, natural disasters, etc.) are consequences of humanity's rebellion against God.  The finale of Christian theology, the End Times, as expounded primarily in Revelation, also posits that God will do away with this world, making a new heaven and new earth, one that is free of these causes of pain and suffering, at the same time that he removes the stain of sin, for good, from humanity.
Another aspect of the Christian response to the problem of evil is to consider the relationship between God and humanity within the analogy of parenting.  God often refers to himself in parental terms.  We know full well the warping danger of withholding consequences from our children, some of whom would become spoiled brats given that level of intervention, others of which would be psychopaths.  God must allow humanity to taste the bitterness of rebellion, of independence from him, if only to allow us to learn the value of obedience.
In the end, the problem of evil isn't going away any more than evil itself.  It will still cause skeptics to doubt God, it will still trouble believers (as it should), but the ultimate answer remains the same: Choose to trust in the goodness of God.

Sermon Video: The Priests' Revolution - 2 Chronicles 23

The courageous hiding of the child Joash by his aunt Jehosheba from the murderous intentions of Queen Athaliah was but the beginning of the efforts to resist her tyrannical and idolatrous rule.  For the next seven years, Joash was hidden in the temple by the priest Jehoida, Jehosheba’s husband, until Jehoida had been able to secretly build up enough support among the military, priests and Levites, and elders of Judah to attempt to overthrow the queen.

                The efforts of Jehoida, fraught with danger as they were should they be discovered prematurely, ultimately came off without a hitch as the conspiracy unfolded according to plan and the city of Jerusalem was quickly under the control of those who had proclaimed Joash, now seven years old, as the rightful king as the only surviving direct descendant of David.  The rebels had risked much in going against a queen willing to murder her own family to maintain power, but they had chosen to make that risk on the side of that which if right in fulfillment of God’s promise to protect the throne of David.

                The people of Jerusalem, upon hearing the proclamation that Joash is the new king, rather than hiding indoors and waiting to see who prevails between the queen and the rebels, instead throng into the streets to celebrate their liberation.  Athaliah, rejected by her subjects and bereft of supporters, makes a dramatic entrance into the temple courts shouting, “Treason!”, but to no avail.  Jehoida orders her taken back to the palace where she is put to death, fittingly in the building she was willing to kill in order to control.

                It was an unlikely revolution, centered around a dispossessed child-king, led by a priest, and yet it succeeded with very little bloodshed.  Those involved in the conspiracy had been ready to spend their lives for the sake of that which is right, because of the promise of the word of God and the support of the people of Jerusalem, they didn’t have to.

                What does this mean for us?  We are unlikely to find ourselves in the midst of a revolution against a tyrant, but we will still have opportunities for acts of courage in defense of the weak, acts of purity in defiance of corruption.  Jehoida and those who followed him risked death to do the right thing, we can certainly risk far less to do likewise.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video

Daniel prayed, "just as he had done before." Daniel 6:10

As Christians, should we be in conflict with our culture as part of our effort to be salt and light as Jesus commanded, or should we be trying to live in peace, "If it is possible, as far as it depends upon you"? (Romans 12:18)  The question is an important one because our mission of bringing the light of the Gospel to a world living in darkness is far too crucial to be squandered or impaired by our own mistakes.  The example of Daniel is useful for us because he was part of a distinct minority in the culture of Babylon.  Daniel didn't choose to live in Babylon, but he did choose to make the best of his life in Babylon.  Daniel worked hard and was straightforward in his honesty and integrity even though he was working for the government that had destroyed Jerusalem (the Babylonians, who were in turn conquered by the Medes-Persians during Daniel's tenure in Babylon).  He was a man who recognized his dependence upon the grace of God, but at the same time did not go out of his way to cause conflict that would have required God's intervention.  When Darius was tricked into issuing a decree that was in clear violation of Daniel's ability to worship and obey the God of Abraham, Daniel did the only thing he believed he could as a man whose first allegiance was to God.  He did exactly the same thing he had done the day before.  Notice, Daniel didn't go out on the street corner to protest this unjust law, even though it clearly was unjust, nor did Daniel hide his disobedience behind closed doors.  It was not rebellion against authority that Daniel craved, but obedience to God.  Until the moment of this decree, Daniel had lived in peace with his neighbors and the government of Babylon.  The consequences of choosing to disobey the king were well known to Daniel, but his trust was in God as the judge of both the living and the dead.
Do we, as Christians in America, a nation where we have the right to vote and protest, follow the example of Daniel?  Should we?  To seek out conflict with our culture or our government simply to prove ourselves as passionate Christians would be a self-serving motive more in tune with our own pride than with our witness.  At the same time, to shrink back before potential hardship would be to abandon the faith that saved you for the sake of convenience.  In reality, nobody in America is being threatened with death if they follow Jesus Christ.  Nobody in America is being told they cannot proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in person, by print media, audio or visual media, or anything else.  It is not laws that stop Christians in America from being true to their faith, but apathy, cowardice, or simply too much wealth and comfort.  It is not the outside world that we must be in conflict with in order to bear witness to our Savior, but rather our own sin natures that we must continue to battle.  What was the real reason why Daniel disobeyed the law against praying to God?  He was already in the habit of praying long before it was illegal.

Avoiding a "softening of the brain"

In his book, Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton has a quote that I thought worth sharing, "Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot.  Every man who will not have a softening of the heart must at last have a softening of the brain."  (p. 34)  At that point he was referring to the willingness of Nietzsche, and countless others like him since, to doubt everything.  Yet those who doubt everything in the end doubt themselves.  On what basis can you doubt everything?  There must be some standard, some truth, that is beyond doubt or all expressions of doubt become meaningless.  "By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything." (p. 34)  In the same way, those who say that all paths are true are equally stuck in a quagmire.  If every path is equally valid, how can any choice be made?  If no outcome is more desirable than any other, what is the point of choosing at all?  Thus the rebel who rejects everything, and the man of tolerance who accepts everything find themselves sitting at the same crossroad.  Chesterton pictured Nietzsche and Tolstoy sitting there together, our world today isn't short of others willing to join them.  "They stand at the crossroads, and one hates all the roads and the other likes all the roads.  The result is - well, some things are not hard to calculate.  They stand at the crossroads." (p. 34-35)
It is amazing that in 1908 Chesterton clearly saw that these two forces in philosophy/morality/government were on a collision course that would leave both without anything meaningful left to say.  In the last hundred years his prediction has certainly proven true.  Today our world is convulsed by rebels who hate everything and everyone and idealists who profess to love everything and everyone.  In the end neither of them is leaving that crossroad.