Sexist Gospels? Another reminder that Inspiration and Inerrancy matter

In a recent essay entitled, Toward non-gendered language for God, that was published in The Christian Citizen, which is a publication of the American Baptist Home Missions Societies (I am an ABC pastor, serving an ABC church), Dr. Molly T. Marshall who is the president of Central Baptist Seminary, argued that the Church's historic emphasis upon male language (pronouns, imagery) when speaking of God is exclusionary and thus harmful to women.  This particular point is controversial, and is of course wrapped in all manner of cultural and political debates beyond this specific point that Dr. Marshall is advocating.  That being said, a Bible-based conversation about gender equality can certainly be both helpful and necessary; for example, a discussion based upon Paul's words in Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Or perhaps a discussion pondering God's intentions for gender roles that examines texts like Genesis 2:18 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”  There is room within the Church for various understanding of the role of women in ministry, the way in which husbands and wives complement each other and work together, as well as what a Biblical view of gender within society as a whole ought to be.  That Dr. Marshall is advocating a particular view on these things bothers me not at all.  That others might see things rather differently is also not unexpected nor particularly worrisome provided that we can appreciate our diversity of viewpoints within the Church and still both love each other and work together for the sake of the Gospel.
So, that being said, why am I mentioning the article by Dr. Marshall at all?  The essay contains one paragraph that strays from the issue at hand and instead becomes her commentary upon the creation of the Gospel accounts about Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and in particular a critique of the authors.  In this paragraph (below), it becomes clear that Dr. Marshall's viewpoint of Inspiration and thus Innerancy {A definition: "The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms." - Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctine} does not seem to be within the bounds of the traditional/apostolic Church.
{Dr. Marshall readily admits to not accepting the doctrine of inerrancy in this essay: The peril of selective inerrancy , While I eschew the proposition of inerrancy,  believing that it claims for Scripture something it does not claim for itself}

In addition, the language Jesus used for God is warrant for many to speak of God only as Father.  Jesus’ language is much more about filial intimacy than ascribing literal gender. It is easy to see the growth of a tradition from Mark to John. In Mark, Jesus names God Abba 11 times; by the time John is written, this naming for God occurs 120 times. In the midst of great strides to include women begun by Jesus, the writers and editors of the Gospels wanted to ensure that a masculine vision of God safeguarded men’s prerogative and that women would remain secondary. We can see this effect by comparing the treatment of Peter and Mary Magdalene. Recent scholarship suggests that there was a concerted effort to subordinate her leadership to her male counterpart. - Dr. Molly T. Marhsall

Dr. Marshall is operating under the presupposition that the Gospel accounts are not the product of the authors that tradition ascribes to them, but rather an ongoing process of writing and editing that was affected by tradition, resulting in the earlier Gospel, Mark only using Abba 11 times, but the Gospel which was written last, John, using it 120 times {while there are various theories about the dates of the writing of each of the Gospels, John is generally understood to be last}.  Rather than wondering why the term 'Abba' might have more significance for John than Mark, as all 4 Gospel account are only snapshots of Jesus' life and hardly exhaustive {thus all 4 had their own moments and ideas to emphasize drawn from the larger tapestry of Jesus' life, ministry, and teaching}, Dr. Marshall instead chooses to see this 'growth' as the result of an Early Church tradition that was hostile to women, even ascribing nefarious (and sinful) motives to these unknown editors as sexist men who decided to warp Jesus' message in order to keep women in their place.  In other words, the writers/editors of the Gospels were unrepentant sexists opposed to the message of Jesus, working against his efforts, NOT honest and sincere chroniclers.  In addition to the 'evidence' of the use of Abba, Dr. Marshall also offers and argument from silence (a logical fallacy) in which the role of Mary Magdalene is alleged to have suppressed by these same wicked Early Church leaders in favor of elevating Peter {Set aside for a moment the actual portrayal of Peter in the Gospels, it is more often embarrassing than flattering}.
Where do these ideas for analyzing the text come from and what do they tell us about Inspiration and Innerancy?  Treating the text of the Bible like this is not new, it began to pick up steam in the 19th century and has since become the hallmark of liberal (not the political use of the term, think Bart Ehrman or John Shelby Spong as current examples) interpretation of Scripture.  What was once a 'high' view of Scripture, has become an extremely 'low' view.  What was once considered the sacred Word of God, as Paul declares it, 'God-breathed' (theopneustos in Greek, 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,) and created when its authors were 'carried along' by the Holy Spirit in Peter's description of it (2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.), has now become the work of various writers and editors according to their own agendas and steeped in their own sinful attitudes which must, presumably, then be purged from the text.  The Word of God, has become the flawed words of men.
The traditional view of Scripture, emphasized by the Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, is by contrast a 'high' view, one in which the Scriptures are suitable to be the sole source of faith and practice (Sola Scriptura) precisely because they are God-breathed and thus not subject to the same errors and biases as the writings/utterances/ideas of sinful men and women.  God used the human authors, purposefully choosing to work through their viewpoints and vocabulary, but NOT allowing their flaws (for all of the authors of Scripture were sinners needing to be saved by grace) to be transmitted into what they wrote.  It thus remains a divine document, one central to our faith, and one worthy of our trust.
Once the Scriptures have been downgraded from a product of the human/divine partnership described within Scripture itself, all bets are off regarding which can be called into question and thus targeted for removal/dismissal.  Let me emphasize this: These are not questions of interpretation, places where Christians who hold equally high views of Scripture can strongly disagree {a famous example in our generation has been the debate about the intended meaning of the Creation account in Genesis: Was it supposed to be a 'literal' account of events that occurred over a 6 day period 6,000 years ago, or a symbolic/allegorical account emphasizing God's role as Creator without answering questions of how or when?  Both interpretations come from a high view of inspiration and inerrancy, neither is treating the text like a myth or fairy tale}, but rather more fundamental questions of the nature of Scripture itself.  Using the methodology that influences Dr. Marshall's conclusions about Abba and Mary Magdalene, how could one defend against Bart Ehrman's contention that Jesus never claimed to be God, didn't believe himself to be God, and didn't rise from the dead?  Ehrman believes these elements were added to the Gospels centuries after Jesus lived by a militant Church hierarchy intent upon squashing disent (contentions based upon Ehrman's conjecture and anti-supernatural presuppositions, but lacking in actual historic evidence) and thus we should view Jesus as a good ethical teacher, but nothing more.  If Scripture represents the flawed views of its authors, what in it can be taken at face value?  On what basis do we declare any portion of Scripture to be Truth and not simply the opinion of one man?
We can, and should, have conversations within the Church about our failure to treat everyone equally, failures regarding both race and gender.  We can, and should, seek to be more Biblical in our understanding of how we ought to treat each other.  These things are necessary.  What we cannot do, what we must not do, is jettison the bedrock belief in the Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture simply because flawed human beings have failed to properly interpret and apply what God has written.  The Word of God was here before us, and it will be here after us, we cannot tear it down to compensate for our own mistakes or to make it conform to our opinions.

Does God even want state-mandated prayer?

Calls for a return of required prayer in the nation's public schools are common on social media and letters written to the editors of local newspapers.  Some who I would count as valued colleagues and friends are echoing this call.  As the theory goes, this is a key to turning around the American culture and bringing back a golden age of Christendom where America's status as a Christian Nation was unchallenged {A return to a supposed past Golden Age is a common trope in history, one rarely based in reality; a different topic for another time}.  Setting aside the question of whether or not state-mandated prayer in schools would benefit the culture (An assumption made in the argument, but how would one know if it is true: crime rates?  teen pregnancy? drug use?  Would prayer be expected to lower such things by 10%? 50%  With a complex system like a nation/culture, we cannot single out one factor for much of anything because of interconnected cause/effect.), or the Church itself (Was the Church healthier during periods when the population was required {on pain of various penalties} to pay nominal homage to God?  When everyone living in the land was assumed to be a Christian by simple right of birth regardless of any evidence of the Holy Spirit?  Was that marriage of Church/State a healthier Church?), even if we assume that both the nation and the Church would benefit, that there wouldn't be any unintended negative consequences to either, there still remains a fundamental question that is not being sufficiently considered: Does God want state-mandated prayer?
How can we know the mind of God?  A pertinent question, and one that has a simple answer: we can't, unless God chooses to reveal his mind to us, primarily through his revealed Word.  What then does the Word of God say on the subject?  How has God responded in the past to the worship/prayers/sacrifices of those whose hearts are not invested in the act (in other words, unwilling or indifferent participants)?  For rest assured, if prayer was mandated in the schools, there would be millions, likely a majority, of children and teachers who are not enthusiastic supporters of the particular prayer being offered {Certainly not for Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, or atheists, as well as those Christians who would disagree with the particular form and/or verbiage of the prayer being offered.}  A sampling of relevant texts of Scripture follows:

Proverbs 28:9 New International Version (NIV)
If anyone turns a deaf ear to my instruction, even their prayers are detestable.

Isaiah 1:13-18 New International Version (NIV)
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
    Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
    I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
    I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
    I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
    I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
    I am not listening.
Your hands are full of blood!
16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
    Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
    stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
    Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
    plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
    says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
    they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
    they shall be like wool.

Amos 5:21-23 New International Version (NIV)
21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
    your assemblies are a stench to me.
22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
    I will not accept them.
Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
    I will have no regard for them.
23 Away with the noise of your songs!
    I will not listen to the music of your harps.

Malachi 1:6-10 New International Version (NIV)
Breaking Covenant Through Blemished Sacrifices
6 “A son honors his father, and a slave his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the Lord Almighty.
“It is you priests who show contempt for my name.
“But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’
7 “By offering defiled food on my altar.
“But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’
“By saying that the Lord’s table is contemptible. 8 When you offer blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice lame or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?” says the Lord Almighty.
9 “Now plead with God to be gracious to us. With such offerings from your hands, will he accept you?”—says the Lord Almighty.
10 “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands.

Luke 18:9-14 New International Version (NIV)
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.”

These are not all of the texts of Scripture that reference insincere or tainted prayer/worship/sacrifices, but they will suffice to show the point: God does not desire, nor accept, from even his own people (or at the least, those claiming to be his people) prayer, worship, or sacrifices that do not come from a humble obedient heart.  If then, these unacceptable efforts were not helpful to the people of Israel, nor to the Church, because they were not genuine, how would they be acceptable to God coming from people of other faiths, or no faith, when compelled by the power/authority of the state?  What about those prayers would be pleasing to God?  Is it not as likely, if not more likely, that such disingenuous rote and compulsory prayer would anger God rather than please him?  Is false prayer better than no prayer at all?  The warnings of the Jewish prophets appear to say 'no'.

Two other factors to consider: (1) Any prayer designed by the government for use in public schools would by its very nature, in keeping with the 1st Amendment, be entirely devoid of specific reference to God.  It could not be a prayer to anything other than a generic god, for generic blessings, and generic guidance/help.  It could not mention Jesus, nor reference the Gospel's call for salvation by grace through faith.  It would, by necessity, be a bland prayer.  Would such a prayer be instructive to young people (what exactly would it teach them about the nature of God?) or pleasing to the God whose name and deeds that we do in fact know?  Even if the government were to somehow avoid violating the 1st Amendment while still including reference to Jesus, it would not differentiate the Jesus of the true Apostolic Church from the Jesus spoken of by the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons (both of whom speak highly of Jesus, but a Jesus whose nature and work is very different).  How could a prayer be constructed under the limitations that exist (Nobody is advocating for a repeal of the 1st Amendment, so we must consider this call for prayer in schools within that parameter) that would be properly honoring to God?  (2) If a conservative/evangelical inspired government (the only one likely to pursue this course and the background of those calling for a return of prayer to schools) were to impose school prayer, what is to stop a future liberal/secular inspired government from taking that same prayer and making it explicitly multi-faith (for example: replacing "God" with Allah, or Jesus with Buddha, or stating that all names/approaches to God are equally valid.  'O God, whose faces are many, though all people call equally to you...')?  What started out as a 'win' for Christendom could quickly become an exercise in blasphemy that Christian children would be required to participate in.  If then, that prospect causes anxiety, should not we, as Americans, not wish to put that same anxiety upon fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim, Hindu, Buddhists, etc?  Even though I am 100% convinced that there is only one God, and that he has made himself known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that does not mean I would welcome a return to the policies of past eras where people of other, or no, faith were compelled to acknowledge a God whom they do not believe in.  As a Baptist, I naturally look with trepidation upon any government compelling people in the realm of religion, our ancestors in the faith didn't enjoy being on the wrong end of that, and if we ourselves would object, we cannot advocate imposing the same thing upon others {"Do unto others..."}
The same objections to mandated prayer in school apply to mandated Bible classes in school.  As a former English teacher, I can see the value in teaching the Bible as literature (however, this viewpoint would also treat other religious texts like the Qu'ran in the same way; as literature for students to be made aware of as part of a well-rounded education), and the value in history classes of learning about the role of world religions in human history (a huge factor to be sure, to ignore it is to do a dis-service to history), but NOT the value of having public schools attempt to teach Christian theology.  The reasons are the same as above: (1) Any teaching would have to be generic, and thus liable to offend various Christian sects who vary on one point or another from the mainstream (i.e. Baptists being more/less on their own about baptism, any class on the basic of Christian theology would teach the majority viewpoint), (2) and any class set up to be acceptable to conservatives/evangelicals when they are in power could then be switched to one whose curriculum is approved by a liberal/secular government?  Once again, what started as a 'win' for Christendom could quickly turn into the means to advance what the traditional/apostolic Church considers to be heresy.  If the success of an idea depends upon 'our side' remaining in power, and would subsequently become anathema to us if 'our side' were to lose power, then perhaps that idea is best left on the shelf.

From a strategic standpoint, it seems to me that both prayer and Bible classes in the public schools are a bad idea for the Church, even if they are a 'win' for Christendom (a dubious claim at best).  Others will disagree and see these tools as a means for advancing the cause of the Gospel in the face of an increasingly secular society.  They will contend that the potential benefits outweigh the risks.  We can agree to disagree, as Americans we have that right.  The far more important question that is not being given enough consideration is this: Would God be pleased by these efforts, indifferent to them, or angered by them?  If the examples of Scripture are any indication, and since they are the revealed Word of God, and God does not change, they must indeed be instructive for us concerning the mind of God, the most likely response from God is anger, followed by indifference, leaving pleased as the least likely.  Perhaps there is a Bible-based counter-argument in favor of compulsory prayer and Bible education, given the antipathy shown in the Bible itself to fake prayer/worship/sacrifices, it would have to be extremely compelling.

Time-bound particulars or Timeless principles? David's sin with Bathsheba

When considering the interpretation and application of a passage of Scripture, it is necessary to evaluate it regarding whether it is an example of time-bound particulars or timeless principles.  An example debated within the Bible itself as recorded in the book of Acts is whether or not new Gentile Christians ought to obey the commands in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) regarding circumcision.  In the end, first Paul, and then the Jerusalem council agree that while the command of circumcision is normative for the descendants of Abraham (Jews) for all time, the time-bound particulars of it do not apply in the same way to Gentile converts operating under the New Covenant.  While the principle of being a sacred people, called by God to be holy, still applies to the Church (and its new initiation rite, baptism), the expression of that principle given to God for Israel did not apply to the Church.
Consider the case of David's lustful adultery with Bathsheba which is recorded in 2 Samuel 11.  On the one hand, the time-bound particulars of the situation might seem vastly different than any modern situational equivalent: David was a Jew (Law of Moses), living in ancient Israel, where he was a king, and his society still tolerated (wrongly) polygamy.  Where is the connection to your average Christian married man of Gentile background (Law of Grace), living in modern America, where he is an average citizen of no real power/wealth?  And yet, one need not find superficial connections between David's circumstances and those of a modern married Christian man because the timeless principles upon which David's actions are judged are not bound by his circumstances.  When David saw Bathsheba, lusted after her, sought her ought, had sex with her, and then conspired to have her husband killed so that he could keep her for himself, he violated the 6th and 7th commandments, "You shall not murder", "You shall not commit adultery", as well as the 10th, "You shall not covet your neighbor's...wife" {Exodus 20: 13,14,17 the numbering of the commandments varies by tradition}  If a modern married Christian man were to meet a woman, lust after her, have sex with her, and then conspire to have his own wife and her husband killed so they could be together, he too would be violating these same commandments.  While David was King of Israel, his actions were the same as thousands of other men (and women) who have befouled the sacred marital bed by allowing lust to lead to adultery.  While the circumstances surrounding a modern day affair (far too polite a word for actions that both anger God and tear families apart) bear little resemblance to David's palace intrigue, one need not struggle to apply the moral lesson given by the prophet Nathan to David when he rebuked him, "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes?" (1 Samuel 12:9)  Times may have changed, but lust is still lust, marital infidelity is still marital infidelity, and conspiracy to rid oneself of a rival is still murder. 
In the end, there are certain passages of Scripture, commands and rituals, which either no longer apply in the New Covenant to the Church, or no longer apply in a modern world with free democratic citizens; at least not in the same way that they applied to our ancestors in the faith.  On these occasions we must seek out the timeless principles upon which these passages rest and then consider how to apply those principles to our situation; a more difficult task.  However, this may not be necessary as often as we think, for human nature has not changed in the past few thousand years, God's nature, in particular his justice, holiness, and righteousness, have never changed.  The people of the Bible were people just like us, facing the same temptations and trials (even if in different packaging), and needing, just as we do, the grace of God to overcome them.

Why the American Baptist Churches won't split apart over homosexuality or abortion

As the Culture War rages on in America with no end in sight, resulting in animosity and deep divisions in the political sphere, as well as schism within various Christian denominations, the question on many minds within the Christian community is: Who is next?  The Presbyterian Church in America splintered in the 1970's and 1980's over homosexuality and abortion, forming the PCA and PCUSA {How to tell the difference between PCA and PCUSA}, and many observers both inside and outside of the United Methodist Church either fear or hope that they will soon follow suit after years of contentious votes and behavior in that is in rebellion against their Book of Discipline.  Given this volatile climate, and the real differences of theological interpretation that exist geographically in the United States {primarily urban vs. rural and East/West vs. Middle}, can we expect the 5,000 congregations and 1.1 million members of the American Baptist Churches to follow the Presbyterians and Methodists (evidently) along the path of schism?

While the future is not ours to know, the short answer to this question is: no.  The reasons are not based upon greater unity withing ABCUSA over the issues at hand or upon a greater desire for unity despite disagreements, both of which would be transitory even if they were apparent, but instead are rooted in the denomination's structure.  In other words, it is not a quality of the people involved {i.e. we're not better than our brothers and sisters in the UMC, for example} that carries the most weight here, but a lack of top-down authority that prevents any one "faction" {if such a term were applicable, it really isn't} within the ABCUSA from imposing its will upon the rest of the denomination, whether that "faction" be conservative or liberal, traditional or progressive.

For those who are not familiar with it, what then is this structure which precludes our own version of the UMC's raucous 2019 General Conference?

The 1.3-million members and over about 5,000 congregations of American Baptist Churches USA share with more than 42 million Baptists around the world a common tradition begun in the early 17th century. That tradition has emphasized the Lordship and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, believers’ baptism, the competency of all believers to be in direct relationship with God and to interpret Scripture, the importance of the local church, the assurance of freedom in worship and opinion, and the need to be Christ’s witnesses within society. 

For American Baptists the local church is the fundamental unit of mission in denominational life. 

Baptist roots date back four centuries to a people seeking the opportunity to worship God as individual members of freely organized and freely functioning local churches. Baptists always have maintained the need for autonomous congregations, responsible for articulating their own doctrine, style of worship and mission.  {From: ABCUSA's website: 10 Facts You Should Know About American Baptists}

This may seem like a foreign concept to those from a Christian (or even non-Christian) denomination with a top-down structure, where uniformity and obedience to directives exist at least in theory, but for Baptists and other like-minded congregational churches, the sanctity of the autonomy of the local church is foundational.  There are no denomination-wide committees, boards, or assemblies with the power to make decisions that member churches or clergy must obey, there is also no fiscal means of compelling financial contributions from local congregations, nor is the local property of the church owned by anyone other than the congregation itself.

Perhaps you're thinking that this is all a smoke screen, that in reality power must reside at some regional or national level capable of determining what is required of a American Baptist churches, clergy, and congregations.  Not so, consider the self-limiting nature of the Policy Statements and Resolutions from ABCUSA:

American Baptists over the years developed Policy Statements and Resolutions on a range of issues. Those documents were authorized by votes of what at one time was called the ABC General Board. In January 2012, the governance structure of the denomination was changed. Presently the work of the ABCUSA Office of the General Secretary is administered by the Board of General Ministries.In the current structure, it is understood that while the work of the Board of General Ministries continues to be guided by established and future Policy Statements, Resolutions and other declarations, they “in no way obligate American Baptist congregations or regions to any position or course of action.” Under the present structure only the Office of the General Secretary is specifically guided by those documents. {From: ABCUSA's website: policy statements and resolutions}

ABCUSA: Resolution on Abortion

ABCUSA: Responses/Actions pertaining to homosexuality

Can local congregations defy without real repercussions these and any other decisions from the Office of the General Secretary?  Yep.  Can local congregations vote to leave the denomination if they are upset about any particular issue, or simply because they want to go their own way?  Yep.  The largest example of such a "walking away" came in 2006 when the 300 churches of the Pacific Southwest region voted under their region's leadership to leave as a group.  The issue at hand?  They were upset that ABCUSA wasn't taking a more active role in disciplining local churches, primarily in the NW and New York, that were accepting unrepentant homosexuals as members.  Might other groups of churches, or even a whole region, follow suit and leave because they're upset about this issue or some future issue?  They might, but that's about as far as it can go.  Our denomination might crumble, losing bits and pieces here and there, but it won't splinter down the middle into large chunks.

Whether the leadership of ABCUSA wanted to act, or not to act, and in which direction, regarding the acceptance or rejection of practicing homosexuals by local congregations {or regarding any other issue} within ABC is irrelevant.  By its nature {and by design, this is on purpose}, ABCUSA is not a denomination which can make a local congregation "toe the line" on any issue, and would have trouble doing so even if it tried on issues even more fundamental than human sexuality to the orthodoxy of our faith.  Why is that again?

1. The local church owns its property.
2. The local church can give, or not give, to regional or national ministries at its own discretion.
    {Together these two facts eliminate the $ leverage angle that so complicates divisive issues}
3. The local church calls its own pastor, is entirely responsible for how long he/she retains the role.  While the region may assist in the search process by providing a list of potential names, local churches are free to find their own candidates and need no approval from any denominational staff or board when choosing their next minister.  If a regional or national executive wanted to remove a local pastor from his/her congregation (for example: for obvious heresy like denying the Resurrection) there is no way to make this outcome a reality beyond putting non-financial pressure on the local congregation to vote to remove him/her.  {ABCOPAD does have "An Ecclesiastical Process For Review Of Ministerial Standing" which could remove the recognition of the ordination of a minister for financial or moral misconduct.}
4. While the denomination recognizes ordinations {that meet its parameters}, it does not act as a gate-keeper to prevent those  who are not ordained, nor those ordained by an outside source, from being called to serve a local ABC congregation.  Thus ABC's recognition of one's ordination, while helpful in the job search process {where pastors are essentially free agents, finding their own work}, is not mandatory, nor does the withdrawal of that recognition bear anything like the stigma of being defrocked as a Catholic priest or a UMC minister.
5. Any resolutions or policies adopted by ABCUSA are by their very nature non-binding on local congregations.  {Even if they were, contrary to tradition and our belief system, designated as somehow "binding", there are no enforcement mechanisms, and precious few carrots/sticks available to compel those unwilling to obey.}

Does this "loose" denominational structure have its own pitfalls and dangers?  Absolutely, there is no way to organize human beings, even groups of them primarily composed of those transformed by God's grace, into structures that do not have flaws that will then be exploited by fallen human nature.

What lies in the future for the American Baptist Churches?  Only the Lord knows, but it won't be angry dramatic votes followed by legal wrangling over property, and for that at least we can be thankful.

Systematic expository preaching: What 7 years worth has wrought

I was raised under exceptional expository preaching.  From my earliest years until well into my adult years, Pastor James Frank preached systematically through portions of Scripture using an expository style.  Given that, I was predisposed to prefer that style when I sought to enter into the ministry.  Now, having been at First Baptist Church of Palo, MI for five years, and here at First Baptist of Franklin, PA for seven years, I can step back and see what choosing to work verse by verse through books of the Bible has accomplished.  And while I could go through my old sermons to figure out what I preached at Palo in five years (and that would take a while), I don't have to do that here at Franklin because I began keeping records when I started here.  Thus I can report that in seven years I have:

Preached the entirety of 10 books of the Bible: Ruth, Jonah, Malachi, Luke, Acts, Philippians, Titus, Philemon, Colossians, and James.

In addition, I've done substantial portions, but not yet finished with: Genesis (chapters 37-46), Joshua (chapters 1-7), 2 Chronicles (chapters 10-36),1 Corinthians (chapter 1-8), as well as individual passage here and there chosen for Christmas, Easter, and other special occasions.

That, in a nutshell, is what you get from about 350 systematic expository sermons over 7 years.  I don't expect anyone to remember what I said, after all half the people of the church we're here when I started anyway, but there is a method to my madness.

Why systematic?  So I don't/can't skip the hard or uncomfortable passages. {Acts 20:27  (NIV) For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God.}  I prefer to keep the focus on one thought from the author (that's how I decide how long the text needs to be for a sermon; typically it will be one thought in length which could be half a sentence or a whole paragraph) and not allow other passages, however relevant they might be, to distract us from what this particular text is trying to say to God's people.

Why expository?  So it is more likely to be the Word of God speaking than me.  While I know there are some phenomenal topical preachers who each week decide the topic and then search for a corresponding text(s) (and some lousy expository ones; preaching style doesn't equate to quality), for my own ministry it just makes sense to take the weekly topical choice out of my hands and let the text decide.  Yes, I know that one can shape Scripture, bending and twisting it, to suit a variety of ends, that danger remains no matter what style of preaching one adheres to.

So, here I sit, at my computer, with this week's sermon ready to go, the last for the book of Acts, considering where we will turn next.  Back to one of the series that have been begun but not yet finished, or somewhere else?  Wherever we end up, it'll be one verse, one thought, at a time until we've finished.

** Update**  I've figured it out: 2 messages for Obadiah, and 3 for Haggai (minus one week for being in MI for Alumni basketball) brings us to Palm Sunday.

Would you tell your daughter NOT to report being raped?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

Engage Magazine: Brett Kavanaugh: Innocent till proven guilty

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

One way to redefine Biblical morality: theorize the original text meant the opposite

In an article recently published in the New York Times, The Secret History of Leviticus by Idan Dershowitz, the author claims that the text of Leviticus that is known to history (the earliest manuscripts, the LXX and DSS, as well as the rabbinical commentaries) is not the original text of Leviticus and that this hypothetical original text in two very culturally significant instances, that of Leviticus 18:22 ("Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable") and 20:13 ("If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.") the original text's intention was in fact the opposite.  In other words, Dershowitz is theorizing that Leviticus was changed (sometime before our earliest extant evidence of the text) from his theoretical text which permitted sex between men to the text that is known which prohibits it.

Two paragraphs from the essay by Dershowitz will uncover his viewpoint:

Like many ancient texts, Leviticus was created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer. Many scholars believe that the section in which Leviticus 18 appears was added by a comparatively late editor, perhaps one who worked more than a century after the oldest material in the book was composed. An earlier edition of Leviticus, then, may have been silent on the matter of sex between men.

But I think a stronger claim is warranted. As I argue in an article published in the latest issue of the journal Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel, there is good evidence that an earlier version of the laws in Leviticus 18 permitted sex between men. In addition to having the prohibition against same-sex relations added to it, the earlier text, I believe, was revised in an attempt to obscure any implication that same-sex relations had once been permissible.

In the first paragraph, Dershowitz makes it clear that he does not hold to any version of the inspiration of Scripture, but rather like many modern critics views it as a collection of the ideas of various men that changed (in this case dramatically) over time.  That this theory is anti-supernatural goes without saying, but his utilization of redaction criticism (theorizing various stages of edits in the text, in this case without any manuscript evidence to support the claims) is built wholly upon what he believes an earlier text might have said.  In his essay (and the journal article it is based upon), Dershowitz does offer up some grammatical "evidence" to support his theory, but this falls far short of being convincing evidence that the text of the Bible used to mean the opposite of that which our earliest extant copies claim.  {For a more detailed refutation of the thesis of Dershowitz read the following article by Dr. Albert Mohler, the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: Leviticus in the New York Times: What's the real story here? }

In the end, the reason why I comment upon this opinion piece from the NYT is not to start a new round of debate about human sexuality, homosexuality, or any other related topic (so please don't respond by arguing about it), nor is it to bash the NYT for publishing the article (so don't waste your time venting at the messenger), instead my sole purpose is to bring attention to the ongoing  and far too prevalent practice of twisting the Word of God into a pretzel by both scholars and laymen in order to get it to say what the person doing the twisting wants it to say.  Such twisting happens with good intentions and bad intentions, by those trying to defend God and those looking to jettison belief in him.  Motives and intentions do matter, but it is unethical and dangerous when the Scriptures are treated as a means to an end, just another tool to advance a viewpoint.

We can, and should, have discussions (informed by scholarship and research) about the history of the text of Scripture, that is indeed a topic that interests me greatly.  We can, and will, disagree upon how to interpret and apply the text of Scripture once we've reached a consensus about what it said in its original Hebrew and Greek and thus how it ought to be translated into English, those discussions interest me a great deal as well.  But we cannot, in any meaningful way, utilize the Word of God as anything beyond a historical curiosity if those who disagree with the text that has been historically established, decide that they will simply rewrite the text to their liking out of whole cloth.

Let those who do not view the Bible as the Word of God say what they will about it, let them twist it and warp it into anything they like, for to them it has no authority, no power.  It is unrealistic of those who belief in the Scriptures, to expect those who do not, to treat it with the respect that it deserves.  The Church, however, must reject this path of tailoring the text to suit our own opinions, in all its forms, the Church must affirm and reaffirm its commitment to the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God, as the foundation for both our salvation from our own sins, and our moral guide in this world.  A method used to redefine the text of Scripture today pertaining to one topic, will be used to redefine it another day for a different topic.  If you build your house upon the sand, don't expect it to stay standing when the rains comes.

Where does the moral authority of the Church come from?

A comment on Facebook recently directed at me, and with me other Christians who likewise would proclaim that an objective Right and Wrong exists, can be known, and should be followed, stated that I (we) have no moral authority on any given issue of poverty or injustice unless I (we) are personally involved in helping to solve said problem.  In other words, I (we) cannot have a legitimate moral viewpoint on homelessness unless I (we) are running our own home as a homeless shelter, nor on abortion unless I (we) have adopted unwanted babies, or on the treatment of immigrants (illegal or otherwise) unless I (we) have opened up our home to house them.  The basis of this viewpoint is both dismissive and absurd, for it would limit morality to only those issues that one is personally involved with, and require silence on all others.  Since nobody can be involved in every moral crisis and issue relating to poverty and injustice in this world, for sadly there are far too many, such an assertion would, in essence, eliminate the moral authority of virtually everyone, creating a vacuum; perhaps this is the intended outcome, but it would create moral anarchy.

Before explaining where the moral authority of a pastor, such as myself, or a Christian in general, does indeed come from, let me simply assert that even on the basis of a premise designed to tell the people of God to "shut up and let immorality continue unless you're fixing it yourself" that the Church, and its leaders and people, are in a far stronger position to pass that "test" than any others.  For the past two thousand years the Church has been at the forefront of poverty relief, social justice, education, healthcare, disaster relief, and countless other efforts to better the lives of those around us, both in our own neighborhoods and countries, and around the world.  No government or institution has been as consistent, pervasive, and selfless in helping those in need as the Church of Jesus Christ.  Even as you read this, millions of Christians are volunteering their time to help those in need, not to mention giving of their resources to a vast array of causes supported by local churches, denominations, and a host of para-church organizations too numerous to count, working in virtually every country of the world.

For example: Our one local church, through both volunteer hours and financial support, contributes to a local multi-church food pantry (Shepherd's Green Food Pantry at St. John's Episcopal), a crisis pregnancy and motherhood support organization (ABC Life Center), a poverty relief agency (Community Services), a charity aimed locally at housing repairs, providing furniture and appliances to those with none, and giving rides to medical appointments (Mustard Seed Missions), the variety of efforts of our local Salvation Army, two local youth and teen evangelism and outreach efforts (Child Evangelism Fellowship, and Youth for Christ), a homeless shelter providing emergency housing here in Franklin and soon also in Oil City (Emmaus Haven), as well as a Central Help Fund contributed to by a dozen Franklin churches that helps dozens of families each year with their rent and utility bills.  In addition to these local efforts, 1st Baptist of Franklin supports the regional (PA/DE) efforts of ABCOPAD regarding disaster relief and economic development, the work of ABCUSA nationally and globally, and the missionary efforts of two missionary families in America, one in Papua, and one in Haiti.  Are these efforts collectively sufficient to grant the people or pastor of 1st Baptist of Franklin the moral authority to have a viewpoint on issues of poverty and justice??  If not, how much greater involvement would be required before our viewpoint on such issues is taken as sincere and not self-serving?  I could, in answer to the charge that was directed at me of not being personally involved in helping solve one particular moral dilemma, point out my own involvement in these causes and organizations, I could assert moral authority based upon my own years of work with those in need, but that too would be a fool's errand.  For indeed, my authority as a pastor does not rest primarily upon what I alone contribute to, for I am not alone in my efforts, I am a part of a far greater whole, the shepherd of a whole flock.  We as a local church are collectively making this effort, and we as a local church are but one part of the entire work of the universal Church.  We have, as individual Christians contributing to such efforts, as a local church, as a region within our denomination and our denomination as a whole, and as a universal Church around the world, a vast storehouse of moral authority based upon service to others.

And yet, I don't believe this approach to be the correct way to speak of the moral authority of the Church, of my own denomination, of my local church, or of myself.  Our authority is validated and enhanced by our service to others, but it is not where it begins.  The authority of anyone demonstrating a true commitment to being a disciple of Jesus Christ comes directly from the Word of God itself, the Bible.  Why must we care for the homeless, the widows and orphans, the aliens, refugees, outcasts, and more?  Because God has commanded it.  Not once, not with subtlety, not by allusion or inference, but repeatedly, clearly, and with grave warnings attached.  "Because the Bible says so", is not an evasion or a cop-out, it is a bedrock and fundamental principle for the people of God.  We do these things, act this way, make these sacrifices, because the God who sent his Son to shed his blood and save our lives and souls has commanded us to obey his Word.  Christians may disagree on the interpretation and application of the Bible, sometimes disastrously, but our authority rests squarely upon that which we have received from God.  Here's the thing you may not understand: The Church didn't write the Bible, it did not fashion the Word of God after its own passions, prejudices, or preferences, it received it from those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it.  We do not obey the Bible because it is convenient or profitable to us, far from it, God's Word demands of his people sacrifice after sacrifice of self-denial and service, we obey the Word of God precisely because it is the Word of God.

If I had to defend my record, or that of my church, or the Church as a whole, against a charge of moral posturing without moral action to back it up, whether historically or in the present day, I could easily do so, the evidence is by God's grace ample.  But I don't need to, it is God who has ordained holiness, righteousness, justice, and love, and it is God who has revealed to humanity what our obligations to our Maker, our neighbor, strangers, and ourselves really are.  Complain to me if you want about the demands of Biblical morality, but in the end, I just work here, you need to take that objection up with the Boss; good luck with that.

A brutally poor use of the Bible

I recently read a blog post made by an ordained minister (to keep your mind on topic, I'm not going to mention the name/gender/denomination of the minister) which cited the Biblical reference of Galatians 5:22-23 in a way that was one of the most ridiculously eisegetical misuses of Scripture I have ever read.  The Word of God cannot mean whatever we want it to mean, it cannot be divorced from its original settings, the intent of the author (in this case Paul and God), nor the understanding of the Church as a whole concerning the text throughout history.  If all of these safeguards are ignored, if proper exegesis is not done, you get the type of nonsense I read online.  Let me share the text of Galatians 5:22-23 and then explain what this minister said about it.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.  Against such things there is no law."

I'm also not going to share what particular issue this verse was cited in connection with, because it would also change most people's focus from the text itself to that hot-button issue.  In a nutshell, the minister cited this verse and then declared that something that the Bible in a variety of places calls a sin can no longer be considered a sin because some of those who commit this sin also (in the minister's opinion) display the fruit of the Spirit.  In other words, if the virtues listed by Paul are present in a person's life, whatever behavior that person is also doing, no matter what the Bible says specifically about such behavior, can no longer be judged as sinful and must therefore not only be accepted as legitimate but championed as good, beautiful, and pure.

Do you think that Paul wrote those words in order to destroy the Law of Moses?  Did Paul intend to eliminate the very idea that there are behavior which God has forbidden to not only humanity in general but his people in particular?  How could anyone possibly read these verses, in their context, and come up with such a conclusion?  To abuse Galatians 5:22-23 in this way is a crime against the Word of God, it is having a particular conclusion in mind and searching for a passage of Scripture to back up what you already want to believe.

The very words written by Paul both before and after vs. 22-23 utterly refute the contention that 5:22-23 negate the idea of behavior being sinful, In verse 19-21 Paul wrote, "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.  I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."  Following vs. 22-23, Paul continued, "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires." (vs. 24) The essence of the fruit of the Spirit is not only the presence of virtue, but the absence of vice.  We cannot possibly be living according to the Spirit of God, walking in his will, if we at the same time are indulging in sinful behavior.  And yes, the behavior that this minister was declaring to be good and pure, instead of immoral, is part of the list in vs. 19-21.  Nowhere in the Bible is this idea taught, nowhere does God give man the authority to define right and wrong.

If a thief displays the fruit of the Spirit, should we ignore the fact that he continues to steal?  If a liar displays the fruit of the Spirit, should we ignore the fact that she continues to bear false witness?  If adulterers display the fruit of the Spirit, should we ignore the fact that they are dishonoring their marriage?  The presence of virtue does not negate the presence of vice.  The implications of such an awful interpretation of Scripture are laughably absurd, yet this is the type of thing that people are willing to do to Scripture, bending and twisting, pulling and shoving, to try to make it fit what they want to believe.

Every lay person in the Church should know better, an ordained minister should be ashamed of such behavior.  The Bible is not a tool to suit or fancy, it is the Word of God, it deserves far more respect than that.

What is your authority? A historical parallel to the Protestant - Catholic/Orthodox divide

I love the way teaching my two Bible studies each week sometimes causes new ideas or connections to pop into my head in the middle of trying to explain a particular text of Scripture.  That phenomenon happened today allowing me to see for the first time what I think is a useful analogy for understanding the divide between Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox Christians over the issue of authority.

In the first century, Jesus confronted two of the groups of religious leaders within Judaism who had radically different approaches to the way in which they defined authority: The Sadducees and the Pharisees.  The Sadducees believed in the authority of the written text of Scripture alone (minus any oral tradition) and preferred to focus upon the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) within the Tanakh (the 24 books of the Hebrew Scriptures).  The Pharisees, by contrast, accepted the authority of the Tanakh and also that of the Talmud and Midrash (the many generations worth of rabbinic commentary upon, and interpretation of, the Tanakh).

Is the parallel obvious yet?  Protestantism was founded upon the principle of Sola Scriptura (along with Sola Fide and Sola Gratia, "Faith alone" and "Grace alone"), that is the idea that Christian theology must rest solely upon the Scriptures themselves.  The Catholic and Orthodox traditions accept the authority of Scripture, but in conjunction with the teachings developed over time by the Church (through the various councils, synods, etc.)

Is it any wonder that Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox Christians have a hard time finding agreement upon a host of issues?  If the authority to which we must appeal is not the same, how can the answers derived from it be consistent?

That we have a different viewpoint of authority is no new observation, Martin Luther himself realized five hundred years ago that he was rejecting the authority of the Church in favor of that of Scripture alone.  I'm sure somebody has previously noticed the parallel between the Sadducees/Protestants and Pharisees/Catholic/Orthodox in the realm of authority, but the connection was new to my brain today, so I thought I'd share it.

Just as a reminder, Jesus had plenty of criticism for both the Sadducees and the Pharisees, something to keep in mind when we're tempted to climb up onto a high horse.  Both groups appealed to a different authority, and both were wrong in their conclusions/attitudes, both were in need of reform to reclaim the heart which God requires of his people.

Where society leads, should the Church follow?

** Disclaimer **  This post is not about politics (none of mine are), so please don't project this into that realm.  All human beings deserve equal rights and equal protection under the law, what "equal" means and whether or not a particular situation is "equal" is a healthy debate for a free society, but not my intention here.  America is not a theocracy, nor would I wish it to be.  My job, as a pastor, is to shepherd my local church, and beyond that to help the universal Church in any way that I can. `


What is the relationship between the Church and the societies in which it operates?  Are we friends, competitors, enemies?  The answer isn't black and white, at times the Church and society can work together, at times the Church is competing with society, and at times society can be an enemy of the Church.  How do we know what the stance of the Church should be on issues of morality, and how do we know when the Church should defy society on an issue, even at its own peril?

Islam is a reflection of 7th Century Arab culture, it champions what that culture championed and rejects what that culture rejects.  Judaism and Christianity are different, however.  When it was given, the Law of Moses was a unique set of moral principles, one that did not simply reflect the society in which it was given, but transcended it.  Over the following 1,500 years, the authors of the various portions of the Bible interacted with that Law and sought to apply it to their time and place.  The New Testament writers, and the Early Church fathers, did not seek to undo the Law of Moses, but to fulfill it under the New Covenant.  Throughout its 2,000 year history, the Church has been both a minority in society, and the overwhelming majority, at odds with culture, and also at times the creator of culture.  The one constant throughout this combined 3,500 year history has been the authority of the Scriptures.  Neither the people of Israel, nor the Church, have been given the power to challenge that authority, nor to supersede it.  Why?  Culture is always changing, what once was shunned is now celebrated, and vice versa, why doesn't the Church change with it?  To answer that question, one needs to understand where the Scripture came from.

We call the Bible the Word of God for a reason.  Paul declared that the Scriptures were "God-breathed", Peter added that its authors wrote as they were "carried along by the Holy Spirit."  In other words, it is not the product of the mind of man, but of God.  As such, we cannot, even should we wish to, usurp its authority or declare its commands and principles null and void.

Modern Western society celebrates materialism, the Bible warns of the dangers of riches, many times, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against materialism.  It is not a question of what we want, or what we would prefer, but what God has commanded.  Society celebrates fame and pride, the Bible champions humility, and warns of the dangers of pride, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against the dangers of pride.  Society celebrates unfettered sexual expression, and an attitude of self-indulgence, the Bible champions self-restraint and self-control as well as purity, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against the dangers of self-indulgent sexuality in all its forms.

Jesus called his followers to be salt and light in the world, Saint Augustine wrote that the people of God are to be a "city upon a hill".    When society is wrong about morality, the Church needs to stand in contrast, it isn't our preference that matters, but God's Word.  It is unlikely that proclaiming the virtues of self-control and humility, regarding wealth, fame, or sexuality will be popular, but popularity is not our standard for morality.

I would love every church on Sunday morning to be bursting at the seems, full of people who have repented, been forgiven, and now are celebrating the love of God, but it would be the death of the Church if we sought to fill the pews by rejecting the authority of the Bible in favor of societal norms.  A church without the authority of the Bible, even if it is full of people, is on a path of spiritual oblivion.  We are the heirs of 3,500 years of God's work among his people, we cannot be the generation which abandons that legacy in order to be popular.

Sermon Video: Josiah - Renewal and Hope - 2 Chronicles 34

Josiah, the boy king, came to the throne at the age of eight following the assassination of his father, Amon.  The Chronicles doesn't tell us who acted as regent during his minority, nor who educated or trained the boy king, but we are told that at 16 Josiah began to seek the LORD.  At 20, Josiah began a systematic program of destroying and demolishing idols and altars to false gods throughout both Judea and also in the lands of the shattered kingdom of Israel.  At 26, Josiah oversaw the restoration of the temple complex whose repairs had been neglected for decades.  Having accomplished so much before 30, Josiah is an amazing example of youthful zeal for the LORD.
What Josiah would have attempted next we'll never know, for his future course was set by the discovery of the scroll of the Law in the temple.  Previous to this, for an unknown period of time, the people had been without a copy of the Law.  Imagine, Josiah sought the LORD without having personally read the Scriptures, with only second-hand knowledge of God.  The reforms of Josiah appear even more amazing given this limitation.  When the Scriptures were read in his presence, however, far from being reassured because of his personal faithfulness, Josiah was moved tear his robes in mourning as he realized just how far his nation had been, for generations, from the standard of God's holiness as outlined in the Law of Moses.
Knowing his people's sinfulness, Josiah humbly sought the LORD's forgiveness on their behalf, only to learn that the day of God's wrath in judgment could not be diverted.  God granted Josiah the mercy of peace during his day, because of his faithfulness, but assured him that soon judgment would come.  In response, Josiah gathered the people of Judah and Israel, from least to greatest, to rededicate themselves to the Covenant publicly.  This act of devotion to the LORD, knowing that the future held judgment, not blessings, was a further example of how thoroughly Josiah's generation sought the LORD.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Five years of preaching, how far have I gotten?

While planning out my sermons up through Easter (I normally only plan that far ahead in advance of Christmas and Easter, so as to ensure that my sermon focus lines up with those holidays), I took the time to look back on the past five years here at First Baptist of Franklin to see how much of the text of the Bible I have preached, verse by verse.  This tally doesn't include the five years prior at First Baptist of Palo, as that was a different audience, thus any repeated texts from then don't enter into it.

The results were interesting, to me at least.  I've completed preaching through six books of the Bible, verse by verse, start to finish: Ruth, Jonah, the Gospel of Luke, Philippians, Titus, and James.  I've also completed chapters 1-18 of Acts, and chapters 10-32 of II Chronicles.  Throw in five messages out of Isaiah (one of the Lenten series), and a couple out of Matthew (an Advent series), plus a half dozen Psalms, the sections of 1 Samuel covering Hannah and Samuel, and the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians (my current sermon thread), and that about covers it.  The stack of yellow legal paper I write my sermons upon is now impressively high.

Which makes me wonder: If, Lord willing, I continue on here at 1st Baptist of Franklin for, say 20 more years, to pick a round number, how close to preaching through the whole Bible will I be able to come?  The Bible contains sixty-six books, of varying length, Luke is the only one of substantial length I've finished thus far, but Acts and II Chronicles will be finished in a year or two.  In theory, after 25 years, I might be halfway to preaching through the whole Bible.  What would it take to get the whole way through, and has anyone really accomplished that goal while still doing justice to each phrase, sentence, and verse?  I don't think I have the additional 50 years of preaching in me that it might take for me to finish, but who knows, after all, I am training for the Oil Creek 50k again this year.

The Word of God or the words of man?

There are few questions you can answer as consequential as this: Is the Bible the Word of God, or merely the words of men?  From your answer will flow all manner of impactful beliefs and decisions.  If the Bible is the Word of God, it has a claim on your life, you must consider its statements and commands and respond to them, for you will be judged one day by God.  If the Bible is the words of men, it can be argued with, co-opted, taken piecemeal with only the things we agree with given any weight, or ignored all together.

Virtually every moral or ethical issue that we as a society face, has been, or will be, profoundly impacted by our viewpoint upon the Bible.  Is abortion the murder of a child created in the womb by God and given a soul, or the choice to be made by an individual with no moral implications?  Those two conclusions could hardly be further apart, and they both reflect a firm stance on the origin of the Bible.  Is homosexual behavior a reflection of the human sin nature, like all of our other sins and akin to heterosexual lust, or is it a wonderful expression of love?  Once again, opposite viewpoints on an important issue that reflects what we believe the Bible to be.  Is divorce something which God hates, with exceptions for only the abused or cheated upon, or is it simply a personal matter of convenience that either of the two parties to a marriage can choose if they not longer want to be married?  This same divergence of moral viewpoints could be demonstrated again and again.  The key issue will always continue to be our definition of authority.  If the Bible is God's Word, it has authority over us.  If it is but the work of fallible men, any claim to authority is moot, and thus we can be our own authority and make our own decisions based upon whatever standard suits us.

What is the Bible?  Your answer matters, more than your may realize. 

Being a Habitually Accurate person

Much was said in 2016 of the accuracy of the statements made by various American politicians and their surrogates, most of it not complimentary.  We, as a society, struggle with the desire to put Power above Truth, and the willingness to bend, or invent, "facts" in order to win.  These tactics, win or lose, come at a cost; those who utilize them pay by earning a reputation as a person who cannot be trusted, except when acting in their own self-interest.
The Church, and the people of God, must not allow themselves to be swayed by this siren's song of power to taint their trustworthiness with exaggerations, half-truths, bendable "facts", and outright lies.  Whatever is at stake, to "win" by such methods is to certainly lose.
Compare the current atmosphere's emphasis on finding things that are "true for me" with the timeless desire for Truth in the Word of God.  In F.F. Bruce's 1943 classic, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Bruce writes the following after citing dozens of examples of historical accuracy by Luke in his Gospel and in Acts.

"Now, all these evidences of accuracy are not accidental.  A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where the means for testing him are not available.  Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy) experience that some people are habitually accurate just as others can be depended upon to be inaccurate.  Luke's record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy."

These words bear weight in the ongoing apologetic effort to defend the trustworthiness of the Bible, but they also remind us of something important: that character (or the lack thereof) matters.
Are you accurate and reliable?  Do the things you say on social media, and the things you "like" and share also value Truth over Power?  If we are inaccurate in the small things, why will others trust us when we claim to speak the Truth about the important things?
The people of God cannot afford to sacrifice their love of the Truth in the pursuit of political power, and must certainly not sacrifice our reputation as Truth-speakers about eternity for any purpose in the here and now.  Speak the Truth, our Father loves the Truth, its that other guy that spends so much time crafting lies.

Sin remains sin, no matter what humanity thinks about it.

Pride is sin.
Greed is sin.
The love of money is sin.
Lust is sin.
Adultery is sin.
Vindictiveness is sin.
Cruelty is sin.
Bearing false witness is sin.

If this partial list bothers you, take it up with God, he's the one that created it, my job is to simply remind people that these things are not up for debate, nor can they be changed by any act of man.  God has ordained what is right, and what is wrong, based upon his own holiness.  Our willingness to accept this standard, and change our behavior accordingly (by the power of the Holy Spirit) is a necessary beginning of discipleship.

Anyone who continues in sin is not born of God (see 1 John 3:6), anyone who does not produce evidence of the fruit of the Spirit is not a child of God (see Galatians 5:16-26).  This is not negotiable, if anyone connected with a church told you otherwise, they'll have to answer to God for that one day.  Our culture regularly glorifies the sins listed at the beginning of this post; God condemns them.  You choose.

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

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

Why did they go astray? Why the authority of the Bible is crucial.

After learning of the struggles in the United Church of Canada about defrocking a self-proclaimed Atheist minister named Gretta Vosper, those unfamiliar with this denomination (like myself, an American) were probably left wondering, how did they ever get to a place where a minister could openly denounce belief in God without being thrown out by his/her own congregation, let alone the denomination?  In its article on her "coming out" as an Atheist, the Toronto Star provided the answer: "In her sermons each Sunday, Vosper spoke openly about how she did not believe the Bible was “the authoritative word of God for all time” — a conviction she’d held long before her ordination, and one that is not uncommon among United Church of Canada clergy."  To Vosper, the Bible had long since become secondary.
If the authority of the Scripture is laid aside, if it becomes the words of men instead of the Word of God, there is nothing left to build upon, sooner or later, the whole edifice of the Church will come crashing down.  It is evidently not uncommon for a UCC pastor to view the Bible as optional, a position that Vosper learned, horrifyingly enough, in seminary.  There is no doubt that a similar story could be told about several American denominations, we have the same problem of abandoning the Bible here as well.
For those who don't understand all the hub-up about Andy Stanley's recent comments that we need to downplay the Bible and instead emphasize Jesus, it is the mess like the one the UCC finds itself in that frightens those who have taken umbridge with Stanley.  Andy Stanley has since responded that, “the Bible is without error in everything it affirms” and that he “believe[s] what the Bible says is true, is true,”  Where Andy Stanley was hoping to go with his message, and where those critical of that message were afraid his idea would lead, are not one and the same, but one would hope that both his supporters and his detractors can see why such comments aroused the response that they did.  
As a Church, and for myself as one of its many pastors, we must always be on our guard against the devaluation of the authority of Scripture, it is the Rubicon that we cannot ever cross.  Once that river is crossed, nothing is out of bounds, nothing is essential, Christianity without the infallible Word of God is Christianity in name only.

Sermon Video: The Prideful Presumption of Uzziah - 2 Chronicles 26

One of the oldest and ongoing conflicts in human society is the struggle to define and maintain morality.  In the pride of the wickedness of the human heart is the presumption that we can overthrow or ignore that which God has decreed concerning righteousness and wickedness.  All those who attempt to do so, will fail, they must fail, for God has revealed what is holy and what is sinful in his Word, and all human attempts to circumvent this are but vanity.
As a king of Judah, Uzziah was a great success, both in foreign policy and domestic policy he was a wise and capable ruler.  Uzziah might have gone down as one of the greatest kings of the people of God, and he would have had he continued to walk in the ways of the LORD, but as his success increased so did his pride.  When God had granted Uzziah great blessings because of his obedience, Uzziah's pride brought about his downfall.  Uzziah decided to usurp the responsibility of the priestly descendants of Aaron by offering incense in the temple of the LORD.  While this might not seem like much of an offense to us, it was clearly forbidden in the Torah, making Uzziah's actions an act of rebellion against the authority of God.
God chose to respond to Uzziah immediately by striking him with leprosy after Uzziah had spurned the correction of the priest Azariah, a condition that remained with Uzziah for the rest of his days, days which he lived apart from his people and cut off from the temple.  It was a sad ending to a life of great accomplishments, but Uzziah paid the price for ignoring the Word of God by thinking that his will was above that of Almighty God.  For all those who follow in his footsteps, ignoring what they don't like about what the Bible says to them, the result will be the same: the judgment of God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The History of the Bible, five minutes a week.

Having taught my history of the Bible class several times now, I'm looking for ways to share this crucial information with those who have been unable to attend the whole class.  Two weeks ago I started something that I'll likely be continuing for months to come, that is working through the material of my six hour class (it gets longer each time I give it, imagine that) five minutes at a time at the end of the Sunday morning worship service.  During the first one, I talked about how the Bible's original languages were Hebrew and Greek (with a smattering of Aramaic), last week we covered the obstacle that the original autographs (those written by the hand of the authors) have not survived, leaving us with copies of their work.  This coming week we'll begin to look at the evidence we have from the copies that allow us to overcome the hurdle; and so on, and so on.  Eventually we'll get to the end of the story where our modern translated English Bibles emerge.  As a teacher, it isn't easy to open up a topic, talk about it for a few minutes, and then wait until next week because I want to keep going with the story.  It reminds me of reading the Sunday comics as a kid, there were several strips that only appeared in the Sunday edition, and to see what happened next, you have to wait till next week.  If the people are left wanting to hear more of the story each week, that isn't a bad thing.

There are crucial aspects of Church history, such as the history of the Bible, that God's people need to know about, things that are easier to cover in hour long classes, but we always miss some people when we limit this knowledge to those willing/able to come to a class.  Perhaps this is the start of something, at least it is my way of affirming that the Church is only benefited when the laity know its history.