Sermon Video: Cain: "sin is crouching at your door" - Genesis 4:1-7

The story of God's involvement with humanity continues in Genesis with the children of Adam and Eve: Cain and Abel. Cain's experience is a powerful lesson on both the reality of sin's tempting power, AND the ability we have (with God's help) to overcome it. Cain could have taken God's correction to heart, he could have learned from his mistake, but he chose anger instead, he chose to indulge sin. We need not follow in his footsteps.

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: The cause of Peter's bitter tears, Luke 22:54-62

Peter's denial of Jesus is famous, in part because all 4 Gospel accounts cover this low-point of the Apostle's life. But what caused Peter to shed bitter tears? How did he get to that point, what were the steps along the way? Importantly, what can we learn from Peter's experience?

Sermon Video: "I do not understand what I do", Romans 7:14-25

In this passage, the Apostle Paul discusses the war that rages within the human heart against sin. The two primary ways to interpret this section both reflect deep theological truths: (1) If this is Paul before he knew Jesus, when he was known as Saul, it reflects the utter hopelessness of human being to overcome sin by our own power, (2) if it instead is Paul after he was born again by faith in Jesus, it reflects the ongoing fight against our still-present sinful nature to imitate Christ. Because the Law of Love supersedes the Law of Moses by demanding right motivation and attitudes along with right action, even those who are in Christ and have the power of the Holy Spirit to bolster them still will have a fight on their hands to overcome not only temptation, but the thoughts that lead to it.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #25: Luke 16:13

 

Luke 16:13  New International Version

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

One of the most divisive changes made to the plot and characters of the Lord of the Rings by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson in the movie trilogy that premiered between 2001-2003 was the interaction between Frodo & Sam and Boromir's younger brother Faramir.  In the movie version, Faramir is tormented by his father's disapproval, and while not jealous of his older brother's successes, he knows that he can never measure up in their father's eyes.  This tracks closely with the novel thus far, but the screenwriters decided to change how Faramir reacts to this pressure when his men capture Frodo and Sam and Faramir learns that they are trying to take the One Ring to Mount Doom.  In the movie, Faramir starts off down the path of taking the Hobbits to his father Denethor at Minas Tirith, getting so far as the ruins of Osgiliath before Sam dramatically explains to him that desire for the Ring drove Boromir mad.  At this point Faramir comes to his senses, realizes that his true loyalty is to the larger effort to defeat Evil, not his father or even his kingdom, and lets Frodo and Sam go with his blessing.  The movie's version is dramatic, and full of tension, but not what Tolkien envisioned.

In the novel, the scene where Faramir learns about the ring unfolds much as it does in the movie (which contains much direct quotation), but turns away sharply from the movie's hesitation when the truth about the Ring is revealed:

Faramir confesses to Frodo that he has no desire to win glory through the methods of the Dark Lord.

'But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.'

'Neither did the Council,' said Frodo. 'Nor do I. I would have nothing to do with such matters.'

And moments later when Faramir learns that the Ring is indeed in his grasp if he should so choose:

'So that is the answer to all the riddles! The One Ring that was thought to have perished from the world. And Boromir tried to take it by force? And you escaped? And ran all the way — to me! And here in the wild I have you: two halflings, and a host of men at my call, and the Ring of Rings. A pretty stroke of fortune! A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality!'.... He stood up, very tall and stern, his grey eyes glinting.

Frodo and Sam sprang from their stools and set themselves side by side with their backs to the wall, fumbling for their sword-hilts.... But Faramir sat down again in his chair and began to laugh quietly, and then suddenly became grave again.

'Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!' he said. 'How you have increased my sorrow, you two strange wanderers from a far country, bearing the peril of Men! But you are less judges of Men than I of Halflings. We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt. Not if I found it on the highway would I take it I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them.

'But I am not such a man. Or I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee. Sit at peace! And be comforted, Samwise.... Your heart is shrewd as well as faithful.... For strange though it may seem, it was safe to declare this to me. It may even help the master that you love. It shall turn to his good, if it is in my power. So be comforted. But do not even name this thing again aloud. Once is enough.'

Faramir has no desire to claim the Ring as his own, unlike his more proud and headstrong older brother, and he considers his previous declaration ("Not if I found it on the highway would I take it") to be a binding oath as a matter of honor.  Faramir, in Tolkien's imagining of his character, has no internal conflict when it comes to right and wrong, no desire to serve two masters, the higher purpose always holds him fast against temptation.

In case you're wonder, both Faramir's brother Boromir and his father Denethor fall to the temptation to put their own nation above morality.  Both have a worldview that puts the continuation of Gondor above what is right for the rest of Middle Earth and are willing to commit dishonorable and immoral acts to maintain it {And, to be frank, their own positions of dominance in that kingdom, and added push from temptation}.

And here is where our ongoing discussion of 'Christian' Nationalism comes in.  The movement asks us to divide our loyalties, to take our focus off of the Kingdom of God and place our energies and efforts first and foremost into securing the advancement of a kingdom-of-the-world.  For Americans this is a strong emotional appeal, after all we have much to love for our country, much to be proud of, and much that we might believe it can accomplish in this world.  Citizens of a less powerful, less good, nation would be tempted less to make its success their idol.  Non-citizens and those neglected and abused by their society rarely feel this temptation as well.  The appeal of 'Christian' Nationalism is uniquely tailored, then, toward those of us with the potential to put political power to use, those of us who can imagine what we might do if people like us were in charge.  But, in the end, to the extent that participation in the power structures of this world causes in us any measure of divided loyalties, any distraction from Kingdom of God work, and any excuse to try to utilize evil in the name of good, that divided loyalty is sin.  Our allegiance is bought and paid for by the Blood of the Lamb, to divide it is an affront to the God who saved us. 

Our allegiance, therefore, can never be to any version of the kingdom-of-the-world, however much better we may think it is than any other versions of the kingdom-of-the world...preserving this 'alien status' is not an addendum to our calling as kingdom-of-God citizens; it belongs to the essence of what it means to be a kingdom-of-God citizen...We utterly trivialize this profound biblical teaching if we associate our peculiar holiness with a pet list of religious taboos (such as smoking, drinking, dancing, gambling, and so on).  No, the holiness the New Testament is concerned with is centered on being Christlike, living in outrageous, self-sacrificial love." (The Myth of the Christian Nation, Pastor Gregory Boyd, p. 70-71, emphasis mine)

Sermon Video: "we are those who have died to sin" - Romans 5:20-6:7

Having explained that we have died with Christ, and been raised together with him to new life, the Apostle Paul explores how we then should live now.  The first question is: Should we go on sinning?  To which he answers, "By no means!"  Why not?  Because we have "died to sin", it no longer has the mastery over us.  With the Holy Spirit's power, we can have victory over sin.  It won't be totally removed in this life, but that 'old self' is gone and buried.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #22: Luke 4:5-8

Luke 4:5-8     New International Version

5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 If you worship me, it will all be yours.”

8 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

How many Lord of the Rings references have I made over the years?  Too many to count, and with that in mind, here's one more:

Toward the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo offers the Ring of Power to Galadriel, and elven Lord who has taken a leading part in the war against evil (first Morgoth, now Sauron) for thousands of years.  What will she do if given the chance to end the fight, to take in her own hand sufficient power to put aside all doubt and fear that Evil might triumph over Good?

 “And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”

She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.

“I pass the test”, she said. “I will diminish, and go into the West and remain Galadriel.”

Galadriel passed the test.  She chose to reject the power of domination and subjugation in favor of trusting in the hope that Frodo can somehow destroy the Ring, "a fool's hope" as Gandalf describes it, but better than the folly of embracing evil to fight evil.

Jesus, of course, does the same thing.  He resists the easy path, the one without sacrifice, the one that has a deal-breaker of a caveat (worshiping the Devil), choosing instead to continue on the pre-ordained path of the Suffering Servant until the brutal end. 

How then does this apply to 'Christian' Nationalism?  A straightforward application, indeed.  'Christian' Nationalism's premise is that it can serve the purpose of God by dominating the kingdoms of this world, to do so it chooses to utilize the tools and methods of this world, crushing and subjugating all opposition, and somehow in the end hoping to create a nation that honors God.  It would be laughable if it were not so deadly dangerous.  It won't work, it cannot work.  Galadriel was wise enough to see the folly of trying to overcome evil with evil, Jesus wasn't about to entertain it, let alone try it, so why have so many self-professed Christians today decided that they can get the better out of a deal with the Devil?

Sermon Video: The Fall of Peter: Love and Fear - Mark 14:66-72

Alone in the courtyard while the trial of Jesus progresses, Peter is faced with three increasingly dramatic opportunities to affirm himself as a disciple of Jesus, famously he fails all three times.  Some combination of love, loyalty, pride, and stubbornness brought Peter to this moment, plus failing to heed Jesus' warning to him.  In the end, Peter falls, and reaps a bitter harvest to his lies.  What is the lesson for us?  Many (if not most) of the 'heroes of the faith' have a tragic self-inflicted wound, if they can fall so can we.  The episode of Peter's denial ought to be a reminder to us to shelve our pride, hold back our judgmentalism at the failings of others, and if we do fall, follow Peter's path of repentance with our own sorrow.

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.

Sermon Video: Jesus: Baptism, Temptation, and Proclamation - Mark 1:9-15

What does it take to get something big started? How much planning, what preparation? As the Gospel of Mark unfolds, Jesus travels to the Jordan to be baptized by John, and then into the Wilderness where he was tested by Satan. Following these two episodes of confirmation (the Spirit descending like a dove and the voice from Heaven on the one hand, and the ability to resist the Devil on the other), Jesus takes up John's message of repentance, adding to it the Good News that the Kingdom of God has come near (because he is here).

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Standing Firm Against Temptation - 1 Corinthians 10:12-13

"God will never give us more than we can handle"  Really?  Whether or not this popular phrase is valid depends upon how one defines the terms, but it certainly isn't true, as some contend, that God's people are immune to being broken down by life's turmoils.  Rather than a promise of victory over life's circumstances, what the Apostle Paul offers instead in 1 Corinthians is practical wisdom regarding the nature of temptation.  The goal of our lives, as followers of Jesus Christ, is not happiness or success, but rather righteous living in service to the Kingdom of God.  With that in mind, Paul assures us that we can stand firm against temptation for two crucial reasons: (1) The temptations we face are the same as those faced by everyone else.  We are not unique as individuals, nor are our situations unique with respect to temptation.  Others have faced these same temptations to sin, with the same strengths and weaknesses that we have, and others have been able to resist. (2) When faced with temptation, we are assured that there is always a morally upright way out of our dilemma.  Choosing sin is never required, and while we may not like the moral path, and it may cost us (financially, social standing, etc.), but it is always available because God has promised this to us.  These two truths give us a far deeper truth than, "God will never give us more than we can handle", for it assures us that, "God is faithful, he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear."

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?

Serving Two Masters: the Southern Baptist Convention and V.P. Mike Pence

In case we needed another reminder of the danger of trying to serve two masters (in this case, God and power/politics), the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting once again reinforced the applicability of the warning of Jesus in Matthew 6:24 against split loyalties.  The delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting were presented with a speech from the current Vice-President of the United States, Mike Pence.  Had the speech focused exclusively upon Gospel-centered issues, it would still raise the question: Why was a politician given this opportunity, here at a gathering of the leaders of the church, above a minister of the church?  A powerful politician is not being asked to address a gathering of the church because of his/her theological expertise or relevant experience as a church leader, but because of his/her possession of political power.  In the case of the speech by Vice-President Pence, the primary topic was not Gospel-centered, nor even centered upon moral issues of relevance to the Church, but rather a touting of the political accomplishments of the administration to which he belongs.  It was, in essence, a campaign speech.  Choosing to allow a campaign speech at a gathering of the leaders of a church, who have been designated to conduct the business of the church, whether from a Republican or a Democrat, or any other party, raises a host of issues all of which are potentially damaging to the Church's given mission to make disciples and share the Gospel: (1) It identifies the Church with a particular political party, thus discouraging anyone who does not support that party from attending/visiting churches affiliated with the denomination (and frankly other churches too, those on the outside looking in don't typically grasp our denominational divisions). (2) It creates an atmosphere within the church/denomination where dissent/disagreement regarding political issues and how to solve them (which is normal and to be expected) is treated as a spiritual matter.  In other words, if two people disagree on immigration policy or tax policy, one is viewed as more spiritual than the other because that person agrees with the church/party/politician and the other does not.  The line between politics and theology becomes hopelessly blurred, to the detriment of theology. (3) It opens up the church to legitimate questions of hypocrisy when the inevitable moral failings of political leaders are ignored in the pursuit of an ongoing relationship to those in power, failings that would be absolutely disqualifying for any leader within the church. (4) It opens up church leaders to temptation regarding the pursuit of wealth, fame, and power, an unholy trio of temptations that the Church has fallen victim too far too often throughout its history. (5) It treats the teachings of the Word of God, and by extension the ministers of the Gospel, as secondary to those of politicians, thus elevating earthly power and its pursuit above spiritual power and discipleship.  Within the Church, the Word of God ought to be the ultimate authority, and those called and ordained as ministers ought to be the guardians of God's Word.  Of what value to the Church is the opinion, influenced by political realities, of a politician?  The Church's role is to share the Word of God with the world, not receive the word of man from those who wield earthly power.

Below are links to one news article, and one opinion piece regarding this topic.

ABC News: Pence Gives Campaign-Style Speech to Southern Baptists

The Gospel Coalition: Truth, Power, and Pence at the SBC

I've written extensively about the danger of mixing religion and politics, from the perspective of history and current events.  Over the past two generations, the Church in the United States has moved closer to power and wealth, not further away.  It has been more willing to make moral compromises, and less willing to confront the influence of affluence.  This trend is not universal, some Christians, churches, and denominations, have rejected it, but overall the trend is clear.  The Church has become less spiritual, more material, less interested in service, more interested in power.  This flirtation with power/wealth/fame is dangerous, it is foolish, and it has already harmed, and will continue to harm,  both the Church and its mission.

As I have stated previously, this is not a political statement or endorsement on my part, that would obviously defeat the purpose.  The same warning applies two both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, to Baptist, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, and all the rest; the siren's call of power is threatening to shipwreck us all; "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?" (Matthew 16:26)

Sermon Video: Marriage and Temptation - 1 Corinthians 7:3-7

In 1 Corinthians 7:3-7, the Apostle Paul delves into a topic that most people would rather not talk about, or at least would be embarrassed discussing in public: sex within marriage.  While most people know that the Bible forbids sex outside of marriage in both the Old Testament and the New, the Word of God at the same time encourages sex within marriage as a blessing from God.  Far from elevating celibacy as holier than marital sex, Paul commends regular sexual activity between husbands and wives as the natural God-honoring consequence of their union as "one flesh".  To deny this within a marriage may lead to frustration, temptation, and eventually sexual immorality.  The hallmark of this passage of Scripture is the idea of a mutually beneficial sexual relationship within marriage.  The idea of dominance or selfishness is nowhere to be found, rather a servant's heart of putting your spouse's needs first is emphasized, which ought to result in both the husband and the wife being respected within the marriage.  Why does God care about what happens sexually in a marriage?  What kind of loving Father would not concern himself with such an important facet of the foundation institution of society?

To watch the video, click on the link below:

When a church fails to protect the innocent...

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

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

What should you do?

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

Sermon Video: The Growth of Sin - 1 Corinthians 5:6-8

As part of his ongoing warning to the church at Corinth to expel one of their own who has been living in sexual immorality, Paul further states his case by warning the church that sin, like a cancer, will spread if not removed.  To make his point, Paul uses the analogy of yeast within dough, making a connection to the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and thus a connection to Jesus as the Passover Lamb, and to the symbolic purity connected with the removal of yeast from Jewish homes for the Feast.
Ongoing sin within a church is a very dangerous thing.  The presence of sin may be unrecognized, or the particular sin may be tolerated by the people, either way, it is a sign of trouble within the community.  Sin will spread, it does not remain in its place, but will grow within the life of the one who is enslaved by it, and it will grow within a community of believers.  Our response, then, to sin must be both serious and at times drastic.  If one among us refuses to repent, and remains in rebellion against God, that individual must be removed from the church's fellowship until repentance has occurred.
Sexual immorality is a particularly dangerous sin for Christians.  Men or women, young or old, we must not allow temptation/opportunities to sin in this area to remain in our lives, it is far wiser to act preemptively to remove an external temptation (such as pornography, or a person one is sexually stimulated by that is not one's spouse) and thus allow our hearts a chance to overcome temptation than it is to try to remain steadfast in the face of continuing temptation.  Far too many Christians have allowed themselves to take small steps down the road of sexual immorality, only to continue on that path and eventually destroy their career/family/faith.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The Temptation to be a Culture Warrior as a Pastor, and why I'm not interested.

I've been a pastor for ten years, five at my first church in Palo, MI and five here at Franklin, PA.  During that time I've received many expressions of thanks and many heart-felt signs of appreciation for things that I've done in my capacity as a pastor such as funerals, hospital visitations, my class on the history of the Bible, and various sermons.  These are the kinds of things that keep a pastor going when his desk is covered in post-it notes, like mine usually is, of things to do.  This job is a calling, and the person who first said that you shouldn't be doing it if you can envision yourself doing anything else, was right.  It is uniquely demanding in many ways, but also uniquely rewarding.  I can't see myself doing anything else, and the only task that compares is one that I do as part of this profession anyway: teaching.

A couple weeks ago here in Franklin a controversy started brewing.  An anonymous letter writer threatened to sue the city of Franklin if the nativity scene that had long been placed in the downtown park's bandstand wasn't removed.  I was asked by the religion reporter of our excellent local paper if I would comment on the impending decision by the city council as to whether they would acquise to the threat of a lawsuit and remove the nativity, leave it as is and risk the cost of a lawsuit, or seek some sort of compromise.

Those of you who have followed this blog for some time, and/or know me in person, know that I've chosen to avoid politics in my public life.  I don't talk about politicians, elections, or the latest culture war issue raging on Facebook.  It is a choice I've made for reasons that I believe are extremely compelling.  They include: (1) That ministering to the Gospel is far more important than whatever political decision is currently being made, (2) that the marriage between the Church and politics has always been a one-sided affair that tarnishes the Church's reputation, and (3) that the last thing I want to happen is for somebody to avoid coming to my church to hear the Gospel, or choosing to leave it, because of a position that I might take on a political issue.  During the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. my patience was sorely tested, there were a great many things crying out for comment, but I refrained.

There are exceptions to this self-imposed rule, when the issue being discussed is primarily one of morality and not politics, and when the issue is of local concern.  My comments about the nativity fit that restriction.  I spoke to the reporter about why I'm troubled by the threat of a lawsuit being a reason to make a decision, whether it is a church, school, local government, or business that is being bullied by the threat.  I also spoke about how this was the type of issue that could easily have been dealt with locally by a compromise that works for all concerned rather than bringing outside organizations into it, thus making any equitable conclusion more difficult.  Those were carefully considered comments, and pretty much the limit of what I was willing to say about this topic.

Long story short, the city council voted unanimously to compromise by placing some secular items in the bandstand along with the nativity and thus hopefully negating the threat of the lawsuit without removing the nativity.  The crowd that had gathered at the council meeting cheered this outcome when the vote was taken.

What has happened since the article quoting me appeared in the paper is another reason why I remain committed to NOT being a culture warrior as a pastor: I've been congratulated, a lot.  I've received phone calls, personal remarks, even an old fashioned letter in the mail, cheering on my stand on this issue.  Are these appreciated and appropriate?  Sure, but they illustrate a very solid fourth reason why I should avoid politics and make only very rare exceptions to my own rule.  A pastor could easily grow to love the adulation and let it influence how he does his job.  It feels good to have so many people express confidence in you and say they're proud of you, it really does.  The never ending culture wars in America are a ready-made source of cheers for any pastor who wants to be their champion.  But that's not why I was called to be a pastor by God, and that's not the mission I'm responsible for.  If all I wanted was the cheers of men, I could easily have it by shouting about the latest battle in the culture wars, but Jesus warned us of this temptation, "when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men.  I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." (Matthew 6:5)

I don't need to tempt myself by doing things that will allow me to be "seen by men", I don't need to find out if my pride can be kept under control, if my preaching can be kept focused on what the Word of God is saying, not what I think people want it to say.  These are temptations that have ruined the ministry and reputation of far too many pastors.  If you want to be a culture warrior, that's your business, I've already got a job, and my boss' kingdom has higher priorities. 

Sermon Video: The Nature of Temptation - James 1:13-18

From the very beginning, man has sought to assign blame to somebody else.  This isn't a tactic that we need to be taught, children figure it out on their own.  The problem is, when blame truly does reside with us, foisting it off elsewhere doesn't make things better.  Temptation is just such an item.  People try to blame society, argue about nature vs. nurture, even go with, "the devil made me do it", all in a vain attempt to shift the blame for our moral failings elsewhere.  Unfortunately for us, temptation comes from within us.  External factors matter, as does parenting and a whole host of related positive and negative factors that affect a person's ability to resist temptation, but the origin of temptation is always from within.  James makes it clear that the villain that is dragging us away toward sin is our own evil desires.  The reason that Jesus successfully resisted temptation, from the devil himself, was his complete lack of wickedness in his heart.  God is all-sufficient, in himself, and thus beyond temptation, we on the other hand, act all the time out of our real or perceived lack, thus our temptation to do evil.  Correctly diagnosing the cause of temptation is an important step, it gives us hope that we can have victory over our temptation, by the power of the Holy Spirit, for we don't have to change the world to remove external temptations, we need only let God repair our damages hearts to remove them internally.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Ruth approaches Boaz - Ruth 3:1-18

As the story of Ruth continues in this fourth part of five, Ruth embarks upon a seemingly bold plan given to her by her mother-in-law Naomi to confront Boaz with his status as a kinsman-redeemer and prompt him to make a decision about marrying Ruth.  The plan, though seemingly very odd in our minds, works as Boaz agrees to marry Ruth, a decision he arrives at quickly once he realizes that Ruth is even interested in an older man like him.  Throughout this process, Boaz has shown himself to be above reproach.  We have already seen his kindness in action, in this episode he displays the fortitude that resists sexual temptation, as well as the honesty that resists taking the easy way out (he informs Ruth of the closer kinsman-redeemer).  Boaz is not willing to falsely elevate the pursuit of happiness above the maintenance of righteousness, a character trait we all ought to imitate.  It is possible for God's people to live according to righteousness, in the small things and the big things, by grace; Boaz is proof enough of that.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Temptation of the Son of Man - Luke 4:1-13

Nobody enjoys being tested.  We especially don't apprecaite being tested when we're already tired, sick, or weak.  Jesus, as a demonstration of his loyalty to his Father's will and an example to us all, underwent three tests delivered by Satan himself.  In each test, Jesus responds by correctly quoting Scripture and relying upon the promises of God.  Because Jesus stood by the Spirit's power, and not his own, he becomes an example to us all when we face trials and tribulations.  Jesus stood firm on the Word of God, we can too.

To watch the video, click on the link below:
Sermon Video