Sermon Video: Cain's descendants go their own way - Genesis 4:17-24

In the first of several explorations of the branches of Adam's family tree that do not lead to Abraham and the 12 sons of Jacob, Genesis takes a look at the descendants of Cain.  In the text they build a city, develops its culture, and even a form of case law.  All this to say, they do what mankind apart from a covenantal relationship is able to do and that's not a small thing because we are all made in God's image.  However, as Genesis will show again and again, the branches that are not a part of the upcoming covenant lack one key and insurmountable thing: a relationship with God.  Without God's grace, they lack the means of redemption, thus this passage serves as a reminder to us all of the necessity of God's grace.

Sermon Video: The Advantage of the Living Savior - Romans 5:9-11

Having established that our sins have been forgiven, and the wrath of God averted, by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, Paul now looks toward what our life in Christ should look like now and where we are ultimately heading.  He begins that process by reminding us that it is not simply the death of Jesus that saves us, for Jesus did not remain in the grave but rose to new life.  Given that Jesus now sits in glory at the Father's right hand, how much more has God planned for those he has redeemed?

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #9: Matthew 5:43-44

 

Matthew 5:43-44     New International Version

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

How does the Kingdom of God advance?  By doing exactly what is contrary to fallen human nature.  Our natural response to having an enemy in life is to seek to crush that enemy, but disciples of Jesus Christ are called to a far more difficult and radical commitment: love our enemies and pray for them.

'Christian' Nationalism, by immersing itself in the fight for control of the kingdoms of this world, and the fights among those kingdoms (i.e. geo-political rivalries and wars), has chosen to live according to realpolitik rather than the commands of Jesus.  How can we love our enemy, they say, when we're at war with them for control of America?  The stakes are too high to trust lover over power is the lie they're telling themselves.  How can we pray for our enemy, they say, when they are a rival to our nation?  We are God's chosen nation, his instrument in this world, is the lie their pride is telling them.

Lip service that 'Christian' Nationalism may pay to Jesus' teaching and attitude aside, the reality demonstrated again and again is that the struggle for societal/governmental control and domination inherent to 'Christian' Nationalism's ethos has already concluded that what Jesus taught his followers is unrealistic, if not outright naïve.  In fact, one recent political figure mocked Jesus' command to 'turn the other cheek' at a gathering of supposedly Christian political operatives.  {Donald Trump Jr. tells young conservatives that following Jesus’ command to ‘turn the other cheek’ has ‘gotten us nothing’ - Baptist News Global, by Mark Wingfield}.  That gathering was sponsored by Turning Point USA whose website (at the time) proudly proclaimed: “We play offense with a sense of urgency to win America’s culture wars.”

Here's the thing, Jesus didn't call us to "play offense...to win America's culture wars."  Jesus called us to live self-sacrificially while praying for our enemies.  Will this strategy 'win' in this world?  Probably not, but that's not where our priorities are supposed to be as Christians.  'Christian' Nationalists may have a long and bitter list of enemies, people and organizations they're willing to fight to the death (sometimes literally) to defeat, but followers of Jesus Christ have been forbidden, by God, from indulging our sinful nature in this vain pursuit.  Our calling is higher, purer, and far more difficult: "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

Sermon Video: "Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved" Joel 2:12-32

In the midst of a message of woe, the prophet Joel shares the desire of the LORD to relent and heal his people.  "Even now," the message begins, for it is not too late because God is "gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love," if the people will repent, God will forgive and save them.  This is the heart of the Gospel.  God is indeed a holy and righteous judge, and the great day of his wrath will one day come, but he also abounds in love and mercy and desires that all men would repent and be saved.  Why speak of judgment when offering a message of hope?  Because humanity's rebellion is a deep-seated condition, and most will not repent until they realize the extent of their danger and have given up trying to save themselves.  Hope remains, all those who call upon the name of the LORD, who hope in him, will be saved.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A Refutation of: Easter isn't about sacrifice, it's about faith and love - by Jay Parini

The opinion piece from CNN was written by Jay Parini, an author and English teacher at Middlebury College.  It appears that his perspective is that of someone who believes Jesus to be a good example, but not the Son of God, and the Bible to be a useful book, but not inspired Scripture.  My comments on his essay will appear in italics and bold interspersed throughout.

(CNN)You think you know what Easter means?

Even when people have no idea about this season, around this time of year there is an awareness that something is happening. A person comes into the office or classroom with a charcoal cross on his or her forehead; a friend or colleague is taking a trip to see family for the holiday; the stores are selling Cadbury eggs.

Certainly the calendar marks off the day as something special, and there is also a general sense of the turning season: the long winter has ended and summer itself winks in the margins of daily life.

Indeed, Easter marks a change, and it has to do with the feeling of rebirth or regeneration. But it is more complicated than that.

I have a visceral sense of all this, having been raised in a fundamentalist household, and my memories of Easter reach back to beginnings: my father, a Baptist minister, understood the centrality of this special day, even the whole Easter weekend. As a boy, I fidgeted through long services on Good Friday and listened to readings of the seven last words of Jesus on the cross, which built up to the resounding: "It is finished."

I recall being quite upset, imagining the cruelty of the sacrifice of God's only son. I thought it was horrific. I didn't want him to have to die for miserable sinners like myself.

Soon enough I grew to dislike this version of Easter, with the crucifixion as some form of blood-revenge. Why would a God who had gone to the trouble to create humanity take such umbrage? Why would he need to put his only son on the cross and see him publicly tortured—brutalized--to satisfy his feelings of disappointment and anger at what his people had done? Was I missing something?

Short answer; yes, you were certainly missing a great deal.  First off, you should be upset imagining the cruelty of the sacrifice of God's Son, it is a horrific death of an innocent man.  Whether you wanted him to die on your behalf or not, isn't the question.  The real question is what God wanted to do, and God was not content to let humanity remain in rebellion against him, was not content to let that rebellion result in the destruction of those he had created in his image.  God decided to rescue humanity, and God alone had both the wisdom to understand what that would entail and the power/righteousness to carry it out.

The famous hymn about being "washed in the blood of the Lamb" sounded, to my young ears, increasingly disturbing. God is better than this, I thought. The human beings he had created were surely good enough for him?

One of the great conceits of the modern age: We can define God ourselves (or eliminate him altogether).  God is holy, perfect, free of any contamination of sin.  "Good enough" is not an option, it is not even close.  To be in the presence of God is to likewise be holy, or to be dead.  The design of the Tabernacle and Temple illustrated this barrier between God and humanity with its concentric layers of approaching God's presence and the limitation of only the High Priest on the Day of Atonement being allowed to enter into the Holy of Holies and see the presence of God between the cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant.  Why would a Messiah have been necessary at all if humanity was "good enough"?  And what would Jesus' mission have been if not the salvation of humanity?  Either Jesus Christ came to save Lost sinners, the only way that it could be done, or he died a failure upon that Cross.

Simplistic ideas about the meaning of the crucifixion still abound, and there is a vast industry founded on what is called "substitution theology." One can easily dig through the Hebrew and Greek scriptures to snatch occasional verses that seem to support this transactional theology, with God in a bargaining mode, needing "payment" for our sins.

This paragraph is dripping with disdain for those of us (that is, anyone retaining the Orthodox Christianity of the Early Church, Ecumenical Councils and Creeds, the Reformers, etc.  Not to mention the authorial intent of every NT author) who understand that what Jesus accomplished on the Cross was a substitute for the punishment that each of us has earned through rebellion against God.  And yes, one can easily read both the Old and New Testament and find passages of Scripture that support the understanding that what Jesus did was a payment for our sins.  This traditional, mainstream, accepted interpretation of the Scriptures on the question of the purpose and efficacy of the Cross is far from "simplistic", it is an awe inspiring act of Amazing Grace, unparalleled love, and selfless sacrifice.

But I've studied the scriptures carefully, especially the gospels and Paul's letters, and I see no reason to capitulate to this downsized version of Easter weekend, with a vengeful God putting up his own son on a cross for satisfaction of some kind.

"I see no reason to capitulate to the Scriptures"  Not exactly what he said, but the essence of the point.  I have no idea how God's willingness to redeem humanity from sin, and in the process destroy the power of sin and death, can be viewed as a "downsized version of Easter".  I am also at a loss how anyone can honestly have studied the Gospels and Paul's letters and not see the repeated quotations of Jesus that this is the plan of God (Mark 8:31 for example: He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again) and the repeated explanations of Paul that this sacrifice was on our behalf (Romans 3:25 for example:  God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—).  FYI, maybe read the book of Hebrews too, the entire thing is about the superiority of Jesus' sacrifice.

That Jay Parini thinks that Jesus upon the Cross has anything to do with vengeance shows a significant lack of understanding of the theology he has decided to reject.  Holiness, righteousness, justice, grace, love, and mercy are the themes around which the discussion of God's redemptive plan revolve, not vengeance.

In any case, the idea of satisfaction or "payment" is fairly recent, tracing back to St. Anselm in Cur Deus Homo? This treatise, written in the late 11th century, put forward the idea of the death of Jesus as atonement for human sins, a "satisfaction" for the wrath of God.

A century or so later, Peter Abelard famously rejected Anselm's theory, suggesting that the death of Jesus was simply an act of love, showing humanity a way forward, an example of divine benevolence. Jesus lived and died to teach us how to live and die ourselves, or how to "empty ourselves out," as St. Paul says. The crucifixion is first and foremost a prelude to the Resurrection.

This "fairly recent" argument is utterly specious.  I suppose you can't trace the idea of substitutionary atonement back to the New Testament itself if you utterly ignore the portion of Scripture that teach it (Matthew 20:28 or Colossians 1:19-20 for example).  It is true, but not some sort of important point, that nobody stated the theory expressed in the NT exactly the way that St. Anselm did until he did it, but perhaps Jay Parini has forgotten about St. Augustine who wrote the following in On the Trinity in the 5th Century, “What, then, is the righteousness by which the devil was conquered? What, except the righteousness of Jesus Christ? And how was he conquered? Because, when he [the devil] found in Him nothing worthy of death, yet he slew Him. And certainly it is just, that we whom he [the devil] held as debtors, should be dismissed free by believing in Him whom he [the devil] slew without any debt. In this way it is that we are said to be justified in the blood of Christ. For so that innocent blood was shed for the remission of our sins…  He conquered the devil first by righteousness, and afterwards by power: namely, by righteousness, because He had no sin, and was slain by him most unjustly; but by power, because having been dead He lived again, never afterwards to die. But He would have conquered the devil by power, even though He could not have been slain by him: although it belongs to a greater power to conquer death itself also by rising again, than to avoid it by living. But the reason is really a different one, why we are justified in the blood of Christ, when we are rescued from the power of the devil through the remission of sins: it pertains to this, that the devil is conquered by Christ by righteousness, not by power.”  The list could go on and on of those who believed that Jesus died for our sins from the Early Church Fathers to the Reformers, but if St. Augustine isn't enough of an example to ignore this paragraph of the essay, nothing else will be.

So this is the "grand vision" of Easter that he prefers?  Jesus lived and died to show us an example of how to "empty ourselves" {To what end?}  How is this a solution to the problem of sinful human nature?  How does this address the fundamental questions of sin, justice, death, and the afterlife?  To think that a perversion of Easter where Jesus dies as some sort of example, and accomplishes nothing else, somehow paints a kinder view of God is ludicrous.  What then of the prayer that the cup be taken away in the Garden?  What then of the refusal to save himself?  The entire Bible falls apart when you jerk away the foundation upon which it is build, to ignore so much of Scripture because you prefer that it say something else is not an option open to those who would have faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus had faith in God, resting in the arms of an all-embracing love. That's a fancy way of saying that Jesus trusted that all would be well in the end, which is what Easter teaches us. And a crucial text here -- a key one -- is Romans 3:22, where Paul suggests that reconciliation with God, which is a better way to define "righteousness," is achieved through imitating Jesus in his self-abandonment on the cross on Good Friday.

Yes, Jesus had faith in God (more specifically the Father, Jesus himself was just as much God as the Father), and yes, he knew that all would "be well in the end" (Hebrews 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.)  But that is NOT what Easter teaches us.  Hey man, just chill out, it will all work out just fine in the end.  Sigh, We are so far off from Orthodox Christianity and the traditional accepted meaning of Scripture that it is hard to find a point of commonality.  The quotation of Romans 3:22, certainly an important passage, is odd to say the least.  Paul is NOT suggesting that reconciliation/righteousness is achieved through OUR imitating Jesus; quite the opposite in fact.  Paul is stating categorically that our righteousness comes FROM God through faith in Jesus (Note the crucial parallel discussion in Ephesians 2:8-9, For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.).  If only he had kept reading, for in Romans 3:24 the true source of our justification (the repair of our relationship with God) is made clear, "and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."  Are we to imitate Jesus?  Absolutely.  Does that imitation reconcile us to God?  Not in the least, and for a very good reason.  We have no chance, no hope, of imitating Jesus until AFTER we have been reconciled to God through faith in Jesus, at which point we receive the Holy Spirit who empowers us to live like Jesus.  Neither our salvation nor our subsequent imitation of Jesus is on our own merit, nor does it puff up our pride, all of it is according to God's grace.

I would translate this critical verse in this way: "We are reconciled with God by imitating the faith of Jesus, and we hold him dearly for this." (I always prefer to use the phrase "hold dearly" for "believe," as this is the root of the word. It has no reference to "belief" in the epistemological sense of that term.) There is clearly a huge difference between having "faith in Jesus" -- a nod of assent -- and imitating the "faith of Jesus."

This entire paragraph is meaningless.  You do not have permission to translate Scripture in ways that suit your fancy.  Yes, there can be more than one acceptable translation of the Bible's Hebrew and Greek into English, and they do vary slightly, but not like this.  The original Greek of Romans 3:22 and Jay Parini's preferred self-translation are saying the opposite.  Paul wrote about God's righteousness, available to us through faith in Jesus.  Parini's mis-translation is about our own supposed righteousness achieved through our own effort.

Yes, there is a difference between having "faith in Jesus" (necessary for salvation) and imitating the "faith of Jesus" (discipleship).  One is how we become reconciled to God, the other is how we walk once we have received reconciliation.  He evidently wants to eliminate the need for "faith in Jesus" and replace it with imitating the "faith of Jesus"  Nope, we need both, and we need "faith in Jesus" first.

Easter teaches Christians this, I believe: to emulate the faith of Jesus in the goodness of the universe-- to rest in God, whatever we mean by that great holy syllable, which seems a stumbling block for so many in our highly secular world. It teaches us about what it means to lose ourselves, our petty little selves, in order to gain something larger: reconciliation with creation itself.

Christians all walk with Jesus out of the tomb on Easter morning, reborn as free people, released from the straightjacket of time itself. And this is nothing but joy.

Holy non-sequitur Batman; Jesus had faith in the goodness of the universe??  The universe is not good (or evil), how can an inanimate object have a moral quality?  God is Good.  We are NOT to seek reconciliation with Creation itself (some sort of Pantheism?).  Our sole need/priority/purpose is to be reconciled with God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).  Jesus died to make that reconciliation possible for us, he was raised to life again to proclaim his victory over sin and death and to give us the hope that if we place our trust in him we too will be raised to life on the Last Day.  

I pity an interpretation of Easter that is about relaxing and not getting too caught up in a busy life.  We need not be liberated from time itself.  We are not prisoners of time.  We, as human beings, are enslaved to sin (rebellion against God).  Our only hope, our only recourse, is to stop trying to dig our way out of the hole, put our trust in what Jesus Christ has already done on our behalf (shedding his blood in payment for our sins and rising from the dead), and start living by the Spirit according to Jesus' example and God's Word.  The true meaning of Easter?  Give me that old time religion, it's good enough for me.  Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, nothing less; my hope is in the crucified and risen Savior.

Sermon Video: The Gospel of Reconciliation - Colossians 1:21-23

What is the status of humanity in the sight of God?  This is a question of the first importance, and one often answered with wishful thinking not based in reality.  Humanity is alienated from God, not simply by our actions, but the very mind of each human being has been darkened by our evil behavior.  Thankfully, God was not content to let this be the final answer, he reconciled to himself, through the death of Jesus Christ, those who believe, making them holy in his sight and free from accusation.  This is the essence of the Gospel message, hope through faith, a message to be proclaimed freely to all.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: We must settle our own disputes - 1 Corinthians 6:1-8

How can you tell if a church has significant problems?  One sure example of trouble would be the presence of lawsuits between members.  Paul addresses this issue within the church at Corinth where evidently multiple lawsuits had been filed between those who were a part of the church.  These lawsuits upset Paul in multiple ways, for they were both a poor witness to non-believers and evidence of an absence of love and humility (and conversely the presence of animosity, pride, greed, etc.).
What should the response of a Christian be to a brother or sister in Christ who has wronged him/her?  In the realm of non-violent wrongs, our goal should be forgiveness and reconciliation, something others in the church who are not directly involved can help facilitate.  What if that process fails?  As a Christian, I must decide that my rights are of less consequence to me than a fellow human being for whom Christ also died.  A selfless perspective will put aside pride, thoughts of vengeance, and will seek to end disputes, not escalate them.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

If God hasn't forgiven you, you're not a Christian, period.

"I have great relationship with God...I like to be good. I don't like to have to ask for forgiveness. And I am good. I don't do a lot of things that are bad. I try to do nothing that is bad...I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't."

The above quote is typical of a post-modern, "I'm good enough for God" attitude, one sadly often acquiesced to in some Christian circles, though they certainly should know better.  What would Paul's response be to such twisted thinking?  A few simple quotes from his letter to the Ephesians ought to illustrate it: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace (1:7)...As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins (2:1)...Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.  But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved. (2:3-5)...For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. (2:8-9)"

We are not good enough for God on our own, never, ever does the Bible say anything of the sort, the idea is anathema to the Gospel.  We must be forgiven for our sins, period, and this only by the blood of Christ, only through faith, only by grace.  Anything less, and we remain dead in our sins, to pretend otherwise is to leave the sinner separated from God.

The initial quote is from a famous person, somebody who claims to be a Christian, who is accepted as a Christian by many people, but who most certainly is not a Christian if those words reflect his/her heart.  The true follower of Jesus Christ knows that he/she is only a sinner saved by grace, and knows that God's forgiveness means everything.

Sermon Video: What If? James 5:19-20

The counter-factual is a staple of sci-fi writing, used to show how our world would be different if one event in the past were changed.  While this may spur our imagination, we know that the past cannot be changed.  It is the future that remains unknown to us, and it is to the future that James looks as his finishes his letter, speaking of what can be accomplished if a sinner is turned from the error of his way.
That Christians can "wander" away from their faith is taken as a given by James, and so is the hopeful response that they can be brought back again.  What you conclude about this leaving and returning will likely be a reflection of your own view of the Calvinist/Arminian debate, but for James, the important point is to reassure his readers that they should be active in the ministry of reconciliation because bringing a wandering believer back to obedience will not only save that person's life, but also "cover over a multitude of sins".  Imagine the impact of helping a wayward Christian to return to God, not only will countless sins that would have been committed had that path continued be negated, but a child of God will be returned to fellowship and once more be contributing to the kingdom of God through works of righteousness.
The focus of James is upon the wayward believer, and the value of bringing him/her home to God, but the same blessing is there when one of the Lost is shown the way of salvation and leaves a hopeless life to find new life in Christ.  Our purpose, as a Church, and as the individuals who make up the Church, must have as its foundation the ministry of reconciliation.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Faith needed to Forgive - Luke 17:1-6

What does it take to forgive, to truly forgive as we are required to do by God?  In this passage, Jesus speaks of sin, forgiveness, and faith and draws a connection between the three topics.  Sin is important in relation to forgiveness because if we took sin more seriously, and did more to help others when they struggle with it, there would ultimately be less sin that needed to be forgiven.  Jesus' teaching on forgiveness itself is very simple: If a brother or sister in Christ repents of their sin, we must forgive.  No caveats, no exceptions, and no circumstances of the situation are needed to render that verdict.  Because God forgives the repentant sinner, we must as well.  But what of the egregious sins, what of the persistent sins, must we forgive those too?  Jesus anticipates this objection and responds with a hypothetical seven sins, against you, scenario in one day.  In that case, Jesus concludes, if that brother follows up each instance of sin with repentance, we must still forgive after the seventh time.  In other words, God does not allow us to set time, repetition, or severity limits to our willingness to forgive, we must forgive.  How does faith connect to forgiveness?  The disciples responded to Jesus' command to forgive by saying, "Lord increase our faith!"  They thought they needed more faith to do as Jesus asked of them, and we would readily agree.  But to this request Jesus simply responds by illustrating the incredible power of a tine portion of faith in this world.  If mustard seed sized faith can uproot a tree and toss it into the sea, can't the faith that you already have, a normal and regular amount that it is, have the power to forgive?  We need faith to forgive, but not a saintly level of faith, just an ordinary amount, and that is something that every follower of Christ is already in possession of.  In the end, we ought to be confronting and combating sin, we must forgive for we have been commanded to, and we need to obey that command by living by faith.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: "he was pierced for our transgressions" - Isaiah 53:1-6

If you watch a movie about the death of Jesus Christ on the cross you would have an understanding of what happened.  It’s important that we know the details of what happened during the passion of Jesus, but it can’t end there, we need to know more.  We need to know why God would not only allow this brutality, but plan it.  We need to know what God was trying to accomplish by sending his only Son to die a martyr’s death.  There has to be larger purpose to the cross.

Isaiah 53 contains a detailed description of a servant sent by God who would one day be rejected by his people, suffer, and die.  In Isaiah’s prophecy we see that this servant would not attract people to himself because of his beauty (not a celebrity), and that instead he would be “despised and rejected by men”.  Sadly, that wouldn’t set him apart from the rest of the prophets, the majority of whom, like Isaiah, were rejected by the people of God.  We’re also told that he was a “man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.”  So, what is God up to?  Why would he send an ordinary looking servant, only to have him suffer real sorrows, what would that accomplish?

In verses four through six we find out that “he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows”, and that “he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities”.  How can this be?  You or I can’t do anything of the sort for those we love; any loving parent would do that for his/her child if possible, but we can’t.  So, how can this servant of God actually take these horrific things from us?  As a man just like us, but without sin, Jesus could do something you or I could never do.  Here is where we understand why the cross was necessary.  It enabled Jesus to stand in our place so that the “punishment that brought us peace was upon him.”  Sin is rebellion against God, it has consequences, it has to have consequences or else our existence is meaningless.  Without judgment, anarchy reigns.  Therefore God cannot just ignore our sins; he can’t just pretend it doesn’t matter.  Jesus wasn’t hiding our sin on the cross, he was carrying it.  Jesus wasn’t finding a way around the consequences for our sins, he was paying for them.

Why did Jesus die on the cross?  To save us from our sins.  It wasn’t to be a good example, it wasn’t to prove a point, it was to do the only thing that could be done to reconcile humanity to God.  The next time you watch a depiction of the crucifixion, or contemplate an artist’s rendering, consider something beyond the nails and the crown of thorn.  Consider the heaping pile of moral filth resting on the shoulders of the innocent Lamb of God.  It was this sin that caused the Father to look away for three hours as darkness covered the land; it was this sin that caused Jesus to cry out, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”  And it was this sin that Jesus knew he had fully paid for when he cried out at the end, “It is finished.”

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video 

Is the relationship between a pastor and his church like a marriage?

I've been thinking about the turmoil that can happen between a pastor and a church when the relationship goes sour.  I know of several pastors to whom this has happened over the years, some of which you might expect it, and others of whom anyone would be surprised to find them in that situation.  The same could be said of the churches, there are some whose "personality" is such that you aren't surprised to learn they ran another preacher out of town, and others that you thought it would never be involved in a bad pastor/church relationship.
So, is the best analogy to describe the relationship between a pastor and his church the familiar marriage covenant?  On the surface we know that most pastors will not stay at the church they begin with until "death do us part"; in many denominations they have no choice in the matter, a Bishop makes those decisions.  But aside from the realization that the relationship is not forever, the dynamic is very similar.
The foundation of marriage: mutual self-sacrificial behavior, is also crucial to a healthy ministry.  If the pastor simply gives, and the church simply takes (or vice versa) it won't last and it won't be healthy.  Likewise, the policy of honest communication and holding your tongue if you don't have anything constructive to say will help foster peace between a husband and wife as well as between a pastor and his congregation.  This sort of comparison could continue.  In the end, what is needed is a mutual relationship where neither side is dominated and neither side is used or neglected.
If the relationship between a pastor and his church runs into trouble that goes beyond the ordinary bumps in the road the same sort of messy divorce that sadly plagues marriages in America today also occurs.  There will be some who love the pastor and feel upset that he's been shown the door (or left of his own accord) and there will be some who hated the guy and are happy to see him go.  Children who have grown up in a divorced household will recognize this blame game and the guilt and regret that go with it.
Bad endings to a pastor/church relationships cannot be entirely avoided, neither can the hurt feelings that accompany them.  The burden that is placed upon us, as Christians, is to be people of healing and reconciliation.  To follow our God's example and offer second chances to those who have gone astray, and to protect and defend the God ordained relationship between a pastor and his church much as we would a marriage within our own family.  In the end, without mutual sacrifice, respect, and love; no marriage, whether between a husband and wife or a pastor and a church, can be expected to last.