Sermon Video: Crime and Punishment from God's point-of-view, Romans 13:3-5

What does an ideal government do with respect to crime and punishment?  The Apostle Paul was well aware of the shortcomings of human governments, all of them fail to varying degrees to live up to the standard of being God's servant in this category, but there is still value in understanding what the responsibility of a government should be even when they fall short.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #26: Luke 18:9-14

Luke 18:9-14     New International Version

9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

You're probably wondering right away, how on earth is he getting from the Chicken Dance to the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector?  Stay with me, there's a method to the madness.

The Chicken Dance performed at weddings is a glaring example of how idiosyncratic culture can be.  The things people wear, say, and do at weddings, and the celebrations afterwards, vary greatly depending on where on the planet and when in history we look.  Future generations may look on in horror at the prominence of the Chicken Dance at American weddings and see it not as a whimsical bit of nonsense, but a sign of some deeper disturbance that confirms what they think of our culture from their point-of-view.  Personally, I'm not a fan, evidently others love the silliness of this dance.  In the end, there probably isn't anyone who thinks of the Chicken Dance as a moral imperative either way, but much of our cultural heritage, the things we hold near and dear to our hearts as THE way they must be done, are just as morally neutral as the Chicken Dance.

The Pharisees that Jesus contends with so often in the Gospels had elevated their own cultural expression, based on Mosaic Law, but still just their own viewpoint as to exactly how that Law should be interpreted and applied, and made it normative for everyone, period.  In other words, the Pharisees were so convinced that they were right, about everything, that they scorned the way that fellow Jews worshiped God as something between insufficient and outright sacrilegious.  They were far too sure of themselves, and it showed.  It takes confidence like that to be militant, to hold that you know exactly what the government, society, or your religion needs and nobody else has a piece of the truth, nobody else can be trusted, they must all be opposed and crushed if they disagree with you.

Here is where 'Christian' Nationalism comes in.  It has decided that one particular expression of the Church, from one time and place, should dominate not only all other current expressions of the Church, but the entirety of society as well.  It is only our own pride and ignorance that would allow us to think that Anglo-Saxon Protestant Christianity as expressed in America {that's a pretty specific sliver both globally and historically} deserves total power in society over both other variations of orthodox Christianity currently alive America and also over those following other religions, or none at all.  If you think that 'Christian' Nationalism can equally embrace all facets of the Church and America today, you don't know how power in this world works, sharing is not in its nature.

Do I think that I'm following God correctly according to the scriptures and the wisdom of Church history?  Of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't be an American Baptist I'd be something else.  But I am far from being prideful enough to think that there is no possibility that I'm wrong on some aspects of the way that my faith is interpreted from the scriptures and expressed in the life that I'm living.  My brothers and sisters in Christ here in America that follow different traditions have things to teach me, not to mention the majority of the Church that isn't American, Protestant, White, or Western.

'Christian' Nationalism doesn't exist without certainty of its own superiority to everything else.  Unfortunately, much of that certainty is based upon a particular cultural expression, not timeless truth, and it fails to reckon with God's work not only throughout history, but throughout the world today. 

Sermon Video: Slaves to God? Romans 6:15-22

Contrary to post-modernism, American culture, and the tendency of Baptist theology, we are NOT autonomous individuals.  Here's the thing, there's only two choices: (1) Continue to be a slave to sin, or (2) become a slave to God (and righteousness).  That's it.  "Free agency" is not a thing when it comes to your immortal soul.

In case you're wondering, slavery to God is the path to hope, purpose, fulfillment, and joy.

Sermon Video: "do not let sin reign" - Romans 6:8-14

Having described the condition of the redeemed Christian as being 'dead to sin' and 'alive with Christ' and 'alive to God', the Apostle Paul focuses on one key implication of this changed status: Sin can no longer reign in our lives.

Given that we have the power, via the Holy Spirit, to have victory over sin, we must do so.  Instead of simply being a 'just say no' campaign, Paul tells us what must take sin's vacated place: the offering of our lives to righteousness.

Lastly, Paul ends with an additional reason for that we can achieve this transition from sin to righteousness, one he will develop fully in the book of Galatians: We are not under Law, but Grace.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #10: Matthew 6:33

 

Matthew 6:33     New International Version

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

When Peter Jackson adapted one of my favorite books, the LOTR, he and his screenwriters kept a line from Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring uttered by Frodo Baggins when he chooses to accept the burden of seeking the ring's destruction in the fires of Mt. Doom: “I will take the Ring", he said, "though I do not know the way.”  Frodo was willing to attempt the quest, but he admitted up front that he would need guidance if he had any chance of getting there.  The movie version adds a comical note when Frodo leads the Fellowship out of Rivendell asking at the very first fork in the road, "Mordor, Gandalf, is it left or right?"

What has this to do with 'Christian' Nationalism?  Everything.  As Christians, we already know our destination AND unlike Frodo we know the way to get there.  When God established the New Covenant, appointing the Church to be its steward and sending his Spirit to empower it, he also explained in more than sufficient detail how the journey from Dark to Light, Death to Life, Wickedness to Holiness, Fallen Humanity to Christ-likeness, had to be conducted.  God's kingdom has to come first, and it has to be pursued with righteousness.

'Christian' Nationalism has this wrong on both fronts.  It offers the siren's call of earthly power, of 'winning' here and now, instead of the far more impactful, and difficult, commitment to the Kingdom of God.  In fantasy terms, 'Christian' Nationalism is distracted by a side quest, not the true hero's journey, they've embraced Boromir's suggestion to go to Minas Tirith instead of Mordor.  In addition, 'Christian' Nationalism subsumes methods beneath goals, embracing such lies of the Devil as, "might makes right", "the ends justify the means", and "fight fire with fire."  In nerd terms, they think they can master the Ring and use it for good.  Tolkien new better than such nonsense, and so should we.

In the end, the focus of Christians, and the Church MUST be first and foremost the Kingdom of God, the kingdoms of this earth will come and go, but God's kingdom is forever.  The means of advancing and supporting that Kingdom MUST be righteous, or they will fail.  Any other goal, and any other method is a fool's errand.  

For a recent essay on this twisting of both goals and methods see: Christian Political Ethics Are Upside Down We’re adamant about politics and flexible about virtue. - by David French in The Dispatch

Sermon Video: Nobody is Good Enough for God - Romans 3:9-20

Before offering hope in the subsequent verses, the Apostle Paul emphasizes the conclusion that ON OUR OWN nobody is good enough for God.  All, both Jew and Gentile alike, are "under the power of sin" therefore tainted and corrupted by it, unable to keep the whole Law of God.

Why the emphasis on the negative?  Stark reality is needed to overcome human pride and pave the way for people to seek God in repentance and by faith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sermon Video: Those who are Righteous in God's sight - Romans 2:12-16

Long story short, the only ones whom God will declare to be righteous are those who obey his Law (that of Moses for the Jews of the Abrahamic Covenant, that of Jesus' Gospel for everyone after he fulfilled the former).  That nobody can live up to this standard is the conclusion Paul is building toward, but for now he lays part of the foundation by proclaiming that those without divine revelation will be judged by their consciences, and those who have received divine revelation (i.e. God's Word) will be judged by what it proclaims.

To those of us who have been blessed to hear God's Word this is not a comfort, but a hard dose of reality reminding us that only perfection will suffice (in a few paragraphs Paul will proclaim how Jesus resolved this fatal flaw in humanity).  To those who only have conscience as a guide, the specific accountability will be less, but the judgment to come remains.  In the end, both those who know more and those who only have what is common to all humanity made in God's image will have to reckon with the fact that with God knowledge is not enough, only obedience is acceptable.

Sermon Video: Righteousness by Faith - Romans 1:16-17

It was the study of Romans, in order to lecture upon the letter, that led Martin Luther to question the accepted understanding of the relationship between faith and righteousness, and it was these two verses, in particular, that brought Luther into conflict with his contemporaries.

Romans 1:16-17 is Paul's thesis statement, the idea that he will prove in his letter moving forward.  Paul proclaims that the Gospel (the Good News about Jesus Christ) is the power of God on display for EVERYONE who believes.  How?  The Gospel combines both God's justice, for payment for sin is indeed necessary, and God's love/mercy/grace because that payment comes not form ourselves but through Jesus by faith in him.

It is not our righteousness that is revealed by the power of the Gospel, for we have none and that's the heart of the problem, but God's, which he has in abundance in the sinless life of Jesus Christ.  Thus it is not the wonders of Creation that most reveals the power of God, but the willingness to die upon a Cross.

Sermon Video: The Way of the Righteous - Psalm 1

The psalm chosen to begin the collection of music brought together as the book of Psalms highlights two stark and divergent paths.  The righteous path delights in God's Law (his Word), studying it and living by it, and is rewarded with a steadfast and fruitful life (prosperity using God's definition).  In contrast, the wicked lack this anchor and nourishment and are ultimately unable to stand in the face of God's judgment.

As Robert Frost wrote, there is a choice of paths, but it isn't a question of which is more or less traveled by, the true question is: which path leads to God?

Sermon Video: Tradition Needs Integrity - Mark 7:9-13

 Having reprimanded the religious leadership of Judaism for clinging to tradition without sincerity, now Jesus focuses upon one example of a second problem: tradition without integrity.  They had used a loophole in the Law to negate the command to honor one's parents by allowing resources to be offered to God instead, a case of greed masking itself as piety.  Whatever traditions, habits, or cultural norms we use to excuse immorality and/or excuse a lack of righteousness, it won't work with God.  God sees the heart, and knows our intentions.  We need to examine ourselves, remove our excuses, and rededicate ourselves to devotion to God and family; no excuses.

Sermon Video: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:13-17

After preaching yet again to large crowds, Jesus decides to add to his group of disciples by making an unorthodox addition: the tax collector Levi (Matthew).  After this stunner, for the tax collectors were viewed as traitors and thus outcasts in Jewish society, Jesus goes a step further and has dinner with Levi and his friends.  The Pharisees, shocked by this co-mingling with 'sinners' ask for an explanation.  Jesus famously replies, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, bu the sick.  I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."  Jesus reaches out to society's outcasts, 'lost causes', and villains, hoping to find there those who recognize their lost state who might be willing to repent.  Jesus calls us to do likewise, finding ways to connect with those who aren't like us, remembering the grace we have received, that we too might help the 'sick' find the Great Physician.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The problem with fake Christians

Having warned about the danger of those denying Christ and using God's grace as an excuse for sin, Jude concludes that 'these people' (false teachers, divisive troublemakers, fanatics, and other fake Christians) are harmful within the Church because not only do they fail to produce the Fruit of the Spirit (nor could they, not having the Holy Spirit), they also confuse the Gospel message. Our response, as a Church, to fake Christians? (1) Don't let those without orthodox belief AND a demonstrated commitment to righteous living have any role in church leadership. (2) When necessary, remove from fellowship those who refuse to abandon heresy or renounce gross immorality. Lastly, and crucially, STOP believing the lie that a person can be a Christian without acting like Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Messiah Needed - Ecclesiastes 7:20

Are good people in heaven?  The problem with this question is that it assumes a definition of the term "good" that is not connected to the holiness and righteousness of God.  If we ask the question according to that standard of purity and perfection, the answer would be "yes", but with the important caveat that there are no such people.  A theme in the Bible, expressed here by Solomon in Ecclesiastes, is that humanity is fallen, in open rebellion against God, and without hope on our own of rectifying the situation.  It is not enough to claim to do 99 morally upright deeds for every 1 immoral act, nor even 999 to 1, for even such lofty aspirations fall short of the standard of righteousness that God set forth for the Messiah: sinless perfection.  Thus our need for a savior, a Messiah, comes into focus, if God had not come to save us, humanity would have remained in hopelessness.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

How a Christian must respond to adversaries

It has become readily apparent that a significant number of Christians have decided that those who oppose them, in a variety of settings that include church controversies, business, and politics, ought to be treated as an "other" and defeated by nearly any means necessary.  For too many of us, the ends justify the means because we have pridefully defined our chosen end as God's will.  And while history has shown how dangerous this attitude can be even when a nation is facing an existential threat {see for example: the firebombing of Dresden, and the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII}, it can in no way be argued, according to the Scriptures {which is what ought to matter to a Christian}, that this is the morally appropriate choice for an individual, or group, of Christians. 

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!

Romans 12:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Matthew 5:43-48 New International Version (NIV)
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

We, as Christians, have been called to a higher standard.  We have been charged with living as disciples of Jesus Christ and thus imitating our Savior in this world.  To "win" a battle utilizing immoral means is to lose the war. 

Hear this, and hear it well: God is the judge of the world.  It is better for us to lose morally than to try to win immorally.  We have not been given a command to be winners, we have been given a command to be righteous.  In this world, they're not typically the same thing.  Each time Christians choose to try to be winners rather than righteous, they demonstrate that they don't have sufficient faith in God's final victory and they taint the message of the Gospel {as hypocrites}.

Zechariah 4:6 New International Version (NIV)
6 So he said to me, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty.

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.

The Pursuit of Happiness?

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" may be the unofficial motto of America, but it is not, much to the chagrin of many, the mantra of our Creator, in particular the last part.  The goal of the will of God for humanity as a whole and individual human beings as well, is not happiness but godliness.  In other words, God's aim is not that we feel happy, but that we be holy and righteous.  And while there is some overlap between feeling happy and being a person who practices holiness and righteousness, there are most certainly not the same thing.  To be a person who,  by the grace of God, chooses holiness and righteousness in this fallen world, is to be a person at odds with the prevailing self-centered worldview upon which human culture, not just American culture, is built.  It is to be a person who eschews personal gain in favor of service to others, who rejects temporary advancement in favor of projects whose fullness will not be realized until our lives are over, and it is to be a person who is willing to sacrifice one's own comfort and material possessions in the service of a kingdom which, while already established, awaits the return of its king and the manifestation of his justice.  It is, then, to be a person somewhat out of time and out of place, a person serving a king and belonging to a kingdom whose reality is not yet what it one day will be, and thus a person who is not seeking happiness, not at least according to any definition that those living for their own ends and purposes would understand or accept.  And yet, with far-ranging negative consequences, much of modern Christianity seems to have missed this point, to have accepted that the job of the Church is to help people be happy (or worse yet, to make them happy).  This is both a deviation from Biblical teaching, and a great hindrance upon the mission of the Church: to share the Gospel and make disciples.

One of the more well known portions of Scripture regarding this topic is this:
Matthew 16:24-26 New International Version (NIV)
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?

There are many more examples of the call in the Word of God to serve through self-sacrifice, among them, these words of John:
1 John 3:16-18 New International Version (NIV)
16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

In the end, as a Christian, a disciple of Jesus Christ, it isn't just about you.  Christians are part of something greater than themselves, part of God's plan for all of humanity, and have committed themselves (whether they know it or not) to serving the Kingdom of God, which means that our lives are not about pursuing happiness.

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?

Sermon Video: God rejects moral equivalence - Malachi 2:17

It has been evident throughout human history that virtue is not fully rewarded and wickedness is not fully punished; in fact, at times wickedness seems to be rewarded and virtue punished.  This state of affairs have led some to conclude that God does not exist and therefore right/wrong are simply arbitrary constructs based upon human consensus and thus open to redefinition.  Others have attempted to fix the problem by claiming that God himself (whether personal or impersonal) is not wholly good, but contains within himself both virtue and wickedness.  While both of these attempted solutions are unacceptable (especially since they're not based in reality), what is the answer to the problem of the existence of evil?
The prophet Malachi rejects the attempt by the people of Israel to embrace moral equivalence, telling them that God is wearied by willingness in their ignorance to blame him for the evil in our world.  God is holy, having no part in anything immoral or evil, that such things exist in our world is our fault, not God's.  In the end, the "success" of the wicked will probe short-lived, the justice of God will prevail, and righteousness will be rewarded.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Mt Everest vs. Space: Why we can never reach God on our own.

When trying to explain why our own righteousness, that is the morally upright things that we do, can never be sufficient to please the holy God who created us, I hit upon an analogy that might help some understand what Jesus is trying to say in Matthew 5:20 "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."  Given that those two groups were believed to be the most righteous people in Israel, the words of Jesus seem like an impossibility.  Later on Jesus would explain the failures of the religious leaders of his people, focusing on their pride, failure to care about those in need, and the shallowness of their devotion, but the point about righteousness remains.  The statement by Jesus is intended to invoke a sense of despair, about our ability to please God on our own, hence setting aside our pride and allowing us to lean upon the grace of God.

So, how high can we climb on our own, and why isn't that good enough for God?  Let's suppose that you make it to the pinnacle of human moral achievement, climbing higher than anyone else.



That seems like a tremendous accomplishment, especially with so many other people falling far short of your lofty achievement and others not even trying.  But what is the goal, have you reached it, simply because you can't possibly get any higher?






But God is holy, perfect, without flaw; we are not.  Our highest possible ascent toward God, on our own, leaves us far, far short.  Could Sir Edmund Hillary have climbed from the summit of Everest into space?  Of course not, the gap is too wide, and there's nothing left to climb.  Our righteousness, whatever it might be, is equally hopelessly insufficient when compared to the holiness of God.

So, what is left for us to do, give up?  In a way yes, to come to God, we need to give up trying to fix ourselves and instead trust that the righteousness of Christ, who died and rose again on our behalf, will be applied to our account by God because of our faith in him.  So go ahead and climb the Mt. Everest of morality, doing the right thing is always the right thing, but not because it will make God accept you, do it because you wish to honor the sacrifice of Jesus and be as much like him in this life as possible.