What the furor over the Witch Walk in Franklin can teach us about Christian cultural engagement

Downtown Franklin during last year's Witch Walk

As many of you in the Franklin area will have noticed, a post on the St. Patrick Parish Facebook page yesterday has gone viral (800+ shares and 3k plus comments on the original post in the first 24 hours, that's a whole lot for our small town). Here is the yourerie.com news story about the drama that has been unfolding.

While I have no desire to engage in the argumentation about the post's topic (their opposition to the upcoming Franklin Retail & Business Association's sponsored Halloween themed shopping event called the Witch Walk), and will gladly delete those who comment in that direction, this is absolutely a teachable moment with respect to Christian discipleship and engagement in the world.

Today's Wednesday AM Bible Study had come to 1 Corinthians 5:12-13: 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

Bible Study video, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 {We talked about this topic during the first 30 minutes of Bible Study, if you want to engage more deeply on the topic, watching it is a good place to start.}

This text leads us to an important question: When should Christians, in a free society like ours (we are indeed blessed with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion), engage in the culture at-large by either supporting or opposing what is happening around them?  In other words, when is what happens outside of the Church our business?

Some important context: 

(1) The mandate to protect the innocent from violence/exploitation/oppression supersedes this.  If/when that is what is happening, it is not a question of choice but an obligation, Christians must intervene, to the best of their ability, to protect those in need.  This then explains why Christians ought to speak out and fight against racism, injustice, homelessness, sexual abuse, violence, fraudulent practices, cults, and the like.  Real people are being hurt and even if that action is taking place outside of the Church (God forbid it is happening inside the Church, in that case our mandate is even stronger), we ought to act.  {Example: The Abolitionist and Civil Rights Movements, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church, etc.}

(2) When the topic is illegality, it isn't an option for the Church to handle it "in house."  This was one of the great sins of the clergy sex abuse scandal, to think that such illegal and evil acts could be dealt with through counseling and church discipline while at the same time hiding the truth from the proper legal authorities.  As Paul makes clear in Romans 13, we have human governments for a reason, when behavior is criminal (assuming the law itself is not immoral) the justice system is the primary remedy.

(3) Our house will always be made at least partly of glass.  The obvious and expected response to any negative cultural engagement on the part of the Church (officially through leadership or on the individual member level) is to point out the hypocrisy of all of the ways in which the Church, past and present, has failed to live up to the high standard of Christ-likeness.  That this objection is valid, those sins truly do stain the Bride of Christ, means that this will always be an impediment if/when the Church decides to take a side in a cultural issue.  If the response is to downplay or deny the evil that has been done by those who claim the name of Christian, it will only make matters worse.

(4) Hyperbole doesn't help matters.  I've often seen Christians take an issue that has some objectionable content in it and make it out to be something that Satan himself created.  The sky isn't falling, the Devil doesn't lurk behind every corner, and not everything is wholly evil that we take issue with.  Before we start yelling, "Burn the witches!" we'd better know if there are actual witches involved, actual pagan worship, and not just play acting.  By the way, even if there are real-life witches involved, the answer is never "burn them!", it is always pray for them and love them, for only Good can overcome Evil, utilizing different kinds of evil as a weapon is always counter-productive.

To sum up: I know well-meaning and God honoring Christians who are worried and want to do something about a whole range of issues, including the Witch Walk, and I know well-meaning and God honoring Christians who look at those same issues, including the Witch Walk, and come to a different conclusion.  Where one sees evil, the other seems harmless fun, where one sees a cause to champion, the other says, "Live and let live."  Because I believe so strongly in the breadth and depth of the Church in our world, I both expect and celebrate this diversity of viewpoint.  God has called so many people out of the darkness and into the light, from so many different backgrounds and experiences, that it would be folly to expect us all to look out at the complex world we live in and see it in exactly the same ways.  We are indeed one body, but designed to be many parts, and that's a good thing.

In the end, what we need is compassion, dialogue, patience, hope, and the willingness to agree to disagree.  These aren't the qualities that make good "click bait", but they are the ones that help us develop the Fruit of the Spirit and make a true positive impact upon the world that we live in.

* Note * This is not a pagan religious event, those wanting to share opinions about freedom of religion or the separation of Church and State are barking up the wrong tree, it is a business venture, and attempt to encourage shopping in the downtown district.

* Final note * In a deep irony that was expected, the local Torah Club leaders have praised the efforts of St. Patrick's social media account to "combat evil" and "stand for the Gospel", even going so far as to praise the Catholic Church (For context on why that is unusual, First Fruits of Zion, their parent organization, is strongly Anti-Catholic to its core).  This support from the Torah Clubs is deeply ironic for two reasons: (1) the Gospel itself is not at stake in this question, the Witch Walk is not an event where a version of the Gospel is being proclaimed in any way shape or form, thus whether or not a pastor or church supports, opposes, or says nothing about it, it is not matter of "standing for the Gospel."  (2) The Torah Clubs are 100% committed to overturning and replacing the Gospel as it has been preached for the past 2,000 years (replacing it with Torah observance as the true measure of devotion to Jesus), and the Franklin Christian Ministerium has spent the last year fighting against their malign influence and proselytizing of church members. 

Update 9/19/23: explorevenango.com, a website that publishes local news, wrote a story about the original post, how it targeted the Chamber unfairly, the uproar, and subsequent events.  I found it to be accurate and even-handed: Controversy Brewing Over Franklin Witch Walk - By Gavin Fish, October 18, 2023

Update 9/20/23: The News-Herald/Derrick, our joint Franklin-Oil City newspaper, wrote about all this in Friday's paper, below are photos of the story for those who don't live in the area.

Update 9/20/23: Erie News Now was in town yesterday, doing interviews about the story.  Their reporting doesn't add much except it is in the video format: Erie News Now story on the Witch Walk controversy

Update 9/22/23: Things went off without any controversy or contention yesterday, both at St. Patrick's and downtown.  My thanks to all who worked to make sure that was the case, if you dissuaded someone from doing something fueled by fear or anger you did the work of the Lord whether or not you knew it at the time.

Rethinking the Five Solae - by Jacob Fronczak, First Fruits of Zion's failed attempt to label Protestantism as inherently anti-Semitic

 

Before I begin, an important reminder: The First Fruits of Zion (and the larger Hebrew Roots Movement) is NOT a part of Messianic Judaism, the book discussed below claims to speak on behalf of that perspective, but the author and the organization he represents do NOT belong to it {"FFOZ does not represent the messianic Jewish movement", a quotation from an email I received from a Messianic Jewish Rabbi serving in leadership with the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues (IAMCS) He also wrote, "Messianic Jewish leaders universally reject One Law theology. FFOZ is not a messianic Jewish organization or ministry."}

One of the primary defenses of those leading and participating in Torah Clubs here in Venango County has been, "it's just a Bible study."  As pastors, when attempting to do our duty before God of protecting the flock from dangerous theologies and attempts to divide our congregations and Christian community, it is important that we don't use hyperbole by claiming that bad ideas are heretical ones, or that things that we don't personally agree with are actually affronts to God.  That sort of foolishness happens all too often, and people are rightly wary when a religious leader warns those in his/her charge to completely avoid an idea, organization, or movement.  If you're familiar with my blog, you know how often I've warned against the all too common habit in America today of labeling those on the other side of an issue as evil or claiming their ideas would destroy the nation or church.  With that perspective in mind, and the, "Why are you calling a Bible study unorthodox?" question in firm view, continue reading.

When it comes to the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs), the evidence continues to mount that the warning from the Franklin Christian Ministerium was both warranted and on target {The Franklin Christian Miniserium's warning against the Torah Clubs and the First Fruits of Zion}.  After learning about this book (I just came across it yesterday), the case has only grown that much stronger.

Should Christians really participate in a Bible study designed and created by an organization that believes that each of the churches that you belong to are founded on inherently anti-Semitic beliefs?  If FFOZ doesn't actually believe such a loaded charge, and few accusations could be as damning if they were proved to be true, why would they publish a book built upon that premise?

The following quotations and commentary from Jacob Fronczak's book are pulled from the review of it by Rich Robinson as published in the journal Mishkan in 2021, you can read the full review here: Book Review of Fronczak, Why Messianic Judaism is Incompatible with the Five Foundations of Protestantism - by Rich Robinson {The quotations from Fronczak's book will appear in italics, the commentary from Robinson in bold, and my comments on both in ordinary text following them.}

In the preface to Rethinking the Five Solae, author Jacob Fronczak proffers the thesis that the five solae (or as more often anglicized, solas) of the Reformation are “themselves the root of Protestant anti-Semitism” (p. 2) and that “as they are normally understood, are designed to exclude Jews as much as Catholics from any definition of true and biblical religion” (ibid). These are serious charges, and so the book’s aim is “to re-examine the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective” (p. 3). Fronczak is himself non-Jewish, though moving in Messianic Jewish circles.

My comment: Is that not a serious charge!  That the very foundations of Protestant thought are the cause of Protestant anti-Semitism!  Let me be clear, the Church as a whole, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike, has a horrific and evil history of anti-Semitism, I will not minimize nor excuse an ounce of it, and have on numerous occasions called out and denounced its modern manifestations.  Each and every cause of Christian anti-Semitism should be examined and reckoned with.  But to say that the theology of the five solas are themselves the cause of the sinful anti-Semitism in Protestant history is to label the entire movement's premise as evil.  Again, hard to say that the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) are just organizing and leading Bible studies meant to enhance the Church, when this is what they are willing to publish about Protestantism.

For those who need a refresher on the Five Solas (or Solae), here they are: sola scriptura (according to Scripture alone), sola fide (by faith alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), solus Christus (by Christ alone), and soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone).

So, what powerful evidence of inherent anti-Semitism does Fronczak follow-up his explosive claim with?

Unfortunately, what the author really ends up addressing is misunderstandings, or misuses, of the solas rather than the way they are understood and utilized by responsible interpreters.

My comment: If all you have are examples of the ideas of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the rest being twisted and used in ways they themselves would have rejected, it becomes rather ludicrous to say that their ideas are the problem.

"I aim to show here that when a proponent of sola scriptura studies the Bible, he is relying on something other than the inspired Word of God, whether he realizes it or not. Furthermore, I seek to show that those who malign the investigation and examination of traditional Jewish literature to illuminate the text of the Scripture are themselves ignorant of their own reliance on tradition and the usefulness of extra-biblical literature." (p. 8) In these examples I find the author to be tilting at windmills. Who denies that we should look to extra-biblical sources (Jewish, Greco-Roman, ancient Near Eastern) to arrive at an understanding of Scripture? Sola scriptura teaches that the Scripture is the final, not the only, authority.  And who are these people who “malign” using Jewish sources? They are not scholars, and I’m not sure that I know of any pastors or lay people who would argue that way.

My comment: Tilting at windmills (nice literary reference there), indeed.  It is a rare Protestant who thinks that a high view of the authority of Scripture negates the role of scholarship, archeology, history, and a host of other disciplines that help the Church fully understand what God was trying to say to his people when the Word was given to its original audience, and how that truth can in turn be applied in our world.  Each an every week I lead two Bible studies where we go verse by verse through the Word of God.  Those who have attended (and you can listen to the audio of them here: Bible Study Podcasts) will tell you that we spend an awful lot of time talking about historical context, cultural settings, textual and translational issues, and more, all in the pursuit of that very Protestant belief in sola scriptura.  Like Rich Robinson, I am at a loss as to who Fronczak is thinking of when he claims that Protestants don't utilize or malign extra-biblical Jewish sources as potential insights into the text of Scripture.

Furthermore, Fronczak repeatedly insists that because the solas distinguished Protestantism from Catholicism, they were designed to draw circles and exclude others. Defining boundaries, however, is a part of life. If you are some things, then you are also not other things. This is just a statement of fact. It has precious little to do with denigrating Judaism or Catholicism or anything else.

My comment: From 1517 onward, it was pretty important to offer explanations of why Lutheranism differed with Catholicism, why the Reformed differed from Lutheranism and Catholicism, and for fun, why the Anabaptists disagreed with them all.  Can you differentiate your belief system and or group from similar ones with malice?  Absolutely, but that isn't inherent in the process, to claim that the five solae do this toward both Catholics and Jews could equally be said (and equally foolishly) of every effort that any movement in Church history has made to define itself.

In his conclusion, the author writes that, “In considering the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective, we have at times questioned their usefulness—at least as they seem to be understood by today’s evangelical Protestants” (p. 131). This however, is a far cry from showing that they are at the root of anti-Semitism (they aren’t) and far from showing that as properly understood, as opposed to popularly (mis)understood, they are not useful (they are).

My comment: Again, Fronczak uses a 'we' there that doesn't belong.  He is himself a non-Jew, the organization he represents, and the movement that it belongs to, have been categorically rejected by the largest Messianic Jewish organizations.  That they think they have become Jews, spiritually or otherwise, by following this theological path, is part of the reason why the Franklin Christian Ministerium has chosen to oppose them.

Robinson's review concludes that Fronczak has failed, entirely, to demonstrate at all his explosive premise.  

"It is contradictory to claim to live a Jewish life in Messiah and at the same time deprecate Jewish tradition (sola scriptura), minimize the importance of good works (sola fide), claim that traditional Judaism is legalistic (sola gratia), distance oneself from organizational Messianic Judaism (solus Christus), and refrain from giving honor to those who have gone before one, those on whose shoulders we all stand (soli Deo gloria)." (p. 134) This is simply put, a raw caricature of what the solas stand for.

My comment: To destroy a strawman is not that difficult, but it doesn't help anyone, and it proves nothing.  It is hardly worth explaining why each of Fronczak's charges against each sola is nonsense, it should be obvious to anyone who has studied Protestant theology.  In brief only, then: (1) Sola scriptura puts tradition in a secondary place, it does not depreciate it or ignore it. (2) Sola fide is a summation of the NT's emphasis on faith, neither Paul nor any other NT author diminishes the need for confirming good works to follow it (see for example: Ephesians 2:8-10, where vs. 8-9 declare the supremacy of faith and grace, AND vs. 10 proclaims that God has good works set aside for each of us to do). (3) The theology of sola gratia does not call the Law of Moses legalistic in the way that Fronczak is using the word, but would indeed take issues with the same abuses of 2nd Temple Judaism that Jesus repeatedly crushed the Pharisees for upholding. (4) Solus Christus in no way is aimed at organizational Messianic Judaism, how could it be?  For those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Christ alone makes all the sense in the world. (5) Lastly, Soli Deo Gloria directs all worship and honor to God, as it should be, it doesn't dishonor our ancestors in the faith.  The author of Hebrews was more than capable of lauding the heroes of the faith who had gone before him without taking an ounce of God's ultimate glory, displayed in even the triumphs of those men and women, away from God.

When you set out to prove that the heart of Protestantism is inherently anti-Semitic, but only end up trashing Straw Men that we don't even believe, why would an organization publish and promote such a baseless attack?  

In denigrating the five solas, he both fails to understand them and fails to allow Protestants to speak for themselves as to their meaning...I simply fail to grasp his rationale for choosing the solas as his whipping boy.

For the record, I am a Messianic Jew; I’ve been part of both messianic congregations and mainstream churches. I have studied at a Reformed seminary, I learned my basic New Testament as a young believer from a Catholic priest, and I have had many conversations at Hillel in college and over the years during my studies of Judaism and Jewish literature. I have no Protestant grist in my mill to grind about the solas. 

My comment: Why do I see danger signs blaring loudly when I read material published by the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs)?  If you we a pastor, and learned about a 'Bible study group' from an organization that believes these things about the Church, wouldn't you be?  

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #29: John 13:14-15

 

John 13:14-15  New International Version

14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.

For those of you who haven't watched Disney's 1992 Aladdin cartoon, which Robin Williams' voice acting elevates far beyond its otherwise pedestrian level, let me inform you how the evil vizier Jafar is outsmarted by the 'street rat' Aladdin in their final confrontation.  Jafar is consumed by a lust for power, simply supplanting the sultan turns out to be insufficient for him, so he commands the genie to make him the world's most powerful sorcerer.  Aladdin, hopelessly outmatched now in terms of power because he doesn't currently control the genie, makes a snide comment that ensnares Jafar, "The genie has more power than you'll ever have...Face it Jafar, you're still just second best."  Jafar then turns to the genie to say, "Slave, I make my third wish.  I wish to be an all-powerful genie."  The genie reluctantly complies fearing the worst, and only too late does Jafar recognize that he has fallen into a trap, for while a genie is indeed powerful, it is also shackled to a lamp and at the whim of a master.

This lesson in the danger of seeking power, and how that pursuit can corrupt those that embark upon the journey, is a lesson for humanity as a whole, one we've never seemed to learn.  At a much more intellectual level, Lord Acton (1834-1902), writing against the proposed doctrinal stance of his Roman Catholic Church known as Papal Infallibility said, "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

One of the reasons why 'Christian' Nationalism cannot be the answer to whichever question the Church is facing is simple: It is the path of power in this world, not service.  We didn't need Lord Acton, or Jafar, to teach us this lesson, Jesus himself proclaimed that his followers were to be those accepting humble service, not seeking lordship over others.  

How will disciples of Jesus Christ change the world?  Not by bending others to our will, but by bending our knees to serve them.

"Satan controlling the Church"? Marjorie Taylor Greene's dangerous view of Catholic Relief Services assistance to migrants

 

They really need to stop pretending to be theologians.  Politicians who claim to know the will of God are not only a danger to the Church and an detriment to evangelism, but they're also begging for God's judgment when they pervert his Word.  For their sake, and ours, this needs to stop.

James 3:1 (NIV)  Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, first term congresswoman, recently told Church Militant {One of the most extremely political 'religious' sites I've ever seen} that the work being done by Catholic Relief Services to help migrants in the U.S. is, “What it is, is Satan’s controlling the church, the church is not doing its job, and it’s not adhering to the teachings of Christ, and it’s not adhering to what the word of God says we’re supposed to do and how we’re supposed to live."  She then went on to say, with a mocking voice and gestures, "What they're doing by saying 'Oh, we have to love these people and take care of these migrants and love one another.  This is loving one another'.  Yes, we are supposed to love one another, but their definition of what 'love one another' means destroying our laws, it means completely perverting what our constitution says, it means taking unreal advantage of the American taxpayer, and it means pushing a globalist policy on the American people and forcing America to become something we are not supposed to be."

MTG interview clip {To watch the clip quoted above, click on the link}

Ok, so a politician has declared that when Catholic Relief Services helps migrants they are abandoning the Word of God and the teachings of Christ, that any definition of 'love one another' is only applicable to those who, evidently, have not broken society's laws (in this case regarding immigration).  What then did Jesus say on the matter?

The text that MTG appears to be quoting (and horribly misunderstanding) is John 13:34-35

John 13:34-35 (NIV)  “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.  35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

In that context, Jesus is telling his disciples that once he is gone, they will be known to the world as his followers if they demonstrate love to each other.  In other words, the followers of Jesus Christ are commanded to love each other, it is not optional.  What then does love look like?

I'm glad you asked, because the answer is important.

1 John 3:17-18 (NIV)  If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

The Apostle John gives an illustration of what Jesus' command means.  In order to love a brother or sister in need, one must be willing to share material possessions with them. A person who claims to be a Christian, but is unwilling to help someone in need, especially a fellow believer, is not really a believer at all, as John said, "how can the love of God be in that person?"

James 2:14-17 (NIV)  What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Likewise, James the half-brother of Jesus, is incredulous that anyone could claim to be a person of faith and yet not do anything to alleviate the physical needs of a brother or sister in Christ.

Are the migrants trying to come to America Christians?  So as to remove any wiggle room, there isn't any either way, but this sharpens the point, yes they are.  Overwhelmingly the migrants coming from Central and South America are professed followers of Jesus Christ.  They are NOT 'them', they are NOT an 'other'.  As believers in the universal Body of Christ, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, they are us, and we are them.  They are as much a part of the Universal Church as we are, and failing to help them, when and where we, individually and collectively, can is not simply a political choice, it is a sin.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (NIV) Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

So, rather than being a perversion of the Gospel, helping migrants in need, who are also Christians, is exactly what Jesus would command us to do.  We are all a part of the Body of Christ.  Need more proof?  That's fine, the Scriptures have plenty to spare.

Matthew 25:34-40 (NIV) “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Because they may be in our country illegally, MTG (and many other politicians and pundits) have declared their need to be 'off limits'.  To help them is to encourage their lawbreaking, to have compassion on them is to endanger our nation, they say.  This is the opposite of what God's Word declares.  It is thinking like an American, not a Christian, and it is yet another illustration of the oft proved fact that when the Church and State mix together, it is the Church whose reputation is sullied.  When we think of America First, and our Christian obligations sometime later (if at all), we sin.

This teaching of Jesus is not something confined to the New Testament, it is simply taking the lessons of the Hebrew Scriptures and broadening them to fit the New Covenant's global ambitions.  A classic and powerful example of this is the book of Ruth.  Ruth is a Moabite, a nation connected to Abraham's nephew Lot, and by the time of the her story, a bitter enemy of the Israelites.  Ruth marries a Jew when he travels to her land with his family as refugees from a famine.  When he dies, Ruth travels with her mother-in-law Naomi back to Judea to Naomi's husband's (also now deceased) village with little hope for the future.  Ruth in Judea is not 'one of us', she is an outsider.  The entire story's gloomy trajectory changes when a righteous man named Boaz ignores Ruth's ethnicity by going above and beyond what was required in the Law of Moses of landowners at harvest time to support widows, orphans, and foreigners.  The extra kindness of Boaz begins a process which leads to his eventual marriage with Ruth and the bearing of a son named Obed, the grand-father of the great King David.

Leviticus 19:9-10 (NIV) “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.

It can be difficult to interpret and apply the Scriptures.  Some passages are hard for us to understand, and some circumstances in life are convoluted enough to make finding the moral choice challenging.  Whether or not to help migrants in need, no matter what nation they come to, or what nation they come from, is not such a case.  It is a 'textbook example' of God's Law in action, reminiscent of Boaz's compassion on Ruth, and following the words of Jesus, James, and John.  

Catholic Relief Services is NOT an example of "Satan controlling the Church".  Helping migrants in need is NOT a perversion of 'love on another'.  Politicians really need to stop pretending that they know the Bible well enough to speak for God.

Isaiah 5:20 (NIV)

20 Woe to those who call evil good

    and good evil,

who put darkness for light

    and light for darkness,

who put bitter for sweet

    and sweet for bitter.

** Another implication of MTG's worldview is that 'they' don't deserve our help.  This too is a massive fallacy when compared with the actions of Jesus.  Jesus spent time, purposefully, among tax collectors, prostitutes, and 'sinners' precisely because the self-righteous in his generation declared them to be off limits to God's love; by finding faith among them and bringing them to repentance, Jesus proved otherwise.

We are not absolved of our command to help others in the name of Christ if those others in question are deemed by our society to be unworthy of compassion.  No such distinction exists in the Christian worldview, all alike are sinners saved by grace, the hope of the Gospel is for everyone.  When the AIDS crisis first hit, many self-righteous Christians didn't want to get involved because it was a 'gay problem', this was an abandonment of Jesus' own strategy, let us not repeat the mistake by casting aside those seeking refuge in our nation. 

Luke 5:30-32 (NIV) But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

31 Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Our place, a Christians, and as a Church, is among the lawbreakers, the outcasts, and the forgotten.  

Further reading:

"You do you, I'll do me" - Quintessentially American, but incompatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview

Martin Luther's experience with the plague spoke powerfully during COVID, his understanding of our obligation to our neighbors fits here as well.

How should Christians act during a pandemic? - Wisdom from Martin Luther's experience with the Plague

The 'sin of empathy' fiasco is cut from the same cloth as MTG's new definition of 'love one another'

The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism

Sermon Video: "You stood aloof", the failure to love your neighbor - Obadiah 10-21

The Folly of Angry Witnessing and the Folly of attacking Christians who befriend the Lost

Is it my job to police the communion line?

 

The meme above has been bouncing around social media as a response to a recent vote (168 to 55, Abortion rights: US Catholic bishops face clash with Biden - BBC news) by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  The USCCB is attempting to provoke a showdown with Catholic politicians with whom they disagree, in this case on the issue of the legality of abortion, by potentially denying them the Eucharist (i.e. Communion).  This move is opposed by the Vatican, and unlikely to ever be enacted and/or enforced, but it raises an important question that reverberates outside of the Catholic Church as well (as evidenced, in part, by the above response from a gay Anglican priest in Toronto, of course on social media everyone seems to have a 'dog in the fight').  As an ordained American Baptist pastor, is it my job to watch the communion line?  {prior to COVID we passed the elements down each aisle with ushers, since then we've been coming up front one family at a time to take them from the altar, a practice we will likely continue post-pandemic; so technically there is a 'line' now}

Some background for those of you unfamiliar with how communion works in your typical baptist church (whether or not they belong to a denomination).  For us, the ordinance (the fancy word we use when we need to use a fancy word) of communnion  is not a question of transubstantiation or consubstantiation.  In other words, it isn't a question of whether or not the bread and wine are tranformed into the body and blood of Christ, however one chooses to describe it (that was the heart of the argument that led to the Reformation, and eventually people killed and were killed over the issue during the Thirty Years War.  {See: What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History, part 3 at the bottom of the page}  For a quick primer on the various Christian views of communion: Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or Something Else? Roman Catholic vs. Protestant Views of the Lord’s Supper - Zondervan Academic blog.  

Most baptists would agree with Huldrych Zwingli that communion is a memorial, with some leaning toward the view of John Calvin that the ordinance does invoke the spiritual presence of Jesus, albiet in a way significantly short of that embraced by the Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans.  That being said, as an American Baptist minister, when I preside over communion (which we do once a month, typically on the 1st Sunday unless I'm not here, then it gets bumped to the 2nd) I normally say, "We here at 1st Baptist celebrate open communion, by that we mean that if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, you are free to join us if you choose."  Those words don't come from a book, or denominational HQ (that's not how things work when you're a 'low liturgy' baptist, each church/pastor decides many such for him/herself), they simply reflect what we believe, and when I remember to say them, they're an invitation to any visitors or relatively new people.  Morever, after I say the prayer (again, extemporaneously given) it has been my habit (learned from the independent baptist pastor, James Frank, who led my family church for 40 years) to simply close my eyes, bow my head, and spend the time until everyone is ready receiving the element(s) to pray.  The end result?  I don't know who is participating in any given week.  I don't know if a particular individual in my church skips communion on occasion, or regularly.  My thoughts on this matter mirror my thoughts about the offering.  When the plate is being passed (in the COVID era we just left it in the back, and that seems likely to continue) I don't look to see if anyone is putting something in or not.  The point with both is that the decision to participate (or give) is between that person and God.

As baptists we believe in the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.  Long story short, my role as pastor doesn't set me apart from the congregation, we all partake of the same Holy Spirit, we all are held to the same standards of conduct and service.  Using Paul's analogy of the body of Christ, we are all a necessary part.  This has numerous implications, one of which is the elevation of one's own responsibility before God (not to the level that it negates collective church discipline when necessary), particularly in matters of conscience.

Which brings us back around to communion.  Paul, writing to the church at Corinth about the Lord's Supper said this, 

1 Corinthians 11:26-32 New International Version

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

The key phrases here are: "in an unworthy manner" (vs. 27), and "Everyone ought to examine themselves" (vs. 28).  Given these instructions, it seems to us (as baptists) that it isn't up to a church officer (be he/she a deacon, pastor, bishop, or any other title) to decide who is, or is not, worthy of participating in the Lord's Supper.  Those who do so 'in an unworthy manner', perhaps by doing so with irreverance or with unconfessed sin between him/her and God, will be judged by God himself, not by me.

Lastly, Rev. Daniel and I probably disagree about a lot of things theologically speaking, but I certainly echo his final statement above, "What if somebody 'unworthy' receives it?"  "Uh, that would be everybody."  Our approach to the table is always an act of grace for known but Christ is worthy, our acceptance of the bread (body) and cup (blood) is always an act of grace for our sins doom us otherwise, no matter what we undertand the bread and wine to be.  At any given church service, at any kind of church, there are those who ought to abstain from participation until they confess their sins and repent, and there are those who are just going through the motions due to either unbelief or complacency.  In the end, seperating the 'sheep from goats' isn't my job, thanks be to God for that.

While the "nones" are growing, so are those who say they are "born again".

In a recent article {More Non-Evangelicals Are Calling Themselves Born Again A growing share of mainline Protestants and Catholics have taken on the once-distinctive label over the past three decades. by Ryan Burge}, Christianity Today makes note of an interesting, and somewhat unexpected given the doom & gloom mood that seems fairly common concerning Christianity in America, trend of steady growth, across all Christian segments, of those who answer affirmative to this question in the General Social Survey (GSS): “Would you say you have been ‘born again’ or have had a ‘born again’ experience—that is, a turning point in your life when you committed yourself to Christ?”  In other words, while much attention (rightfully) has been paid to the steady rise of those who claim "none" as their religious affiliation, especially among younger Americans, at the same time a growing percentage of Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, and Catholics, across racial lines, are self-identifying as being people who have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ.  The religious landscape in America is certainly changing, but in more than one direction.

One issue with Burge's reporting before pondering the larger question of why and what it might mean for the future: "The surprise comes with mainline Protestants, who have gone from 28 percent identifying as born again to 40 percent. And the portion of born-again Catholics has doubled (from 14% to 28%). Those increases are especially striking because neither tradition teaches that a born-again conversion is a necessary component of their faith."  This is over-simplification at best, misleading (in an insulting way) at worst.  Not every Christian community uses the same words and phrases in the same way.  If you ask a Catholic, "Are you born again?"  The answer is more likely to be 'no' than if you asked that same Catholic, "Have you made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ?"  Does that mean that the Catholic Church doesn't teach the necessity of individuals making a commitment to Jesus Christ?  Hardly they require it before any person can fully participate in the community, how else does one explain the milestones a young Catholic (or adult convert) goes through heading toward confirmation and first communion?  Similar questions of phraseology could be applied to other non-evangelical Protestant denominations.  The original survey question, first asked in 1988, was written from an Evangelical Protestant perspective, and likely confused many of the initial respondents from other Christian perspectives.  Over the years, as the Culture Wars continued to rage, and the phrase "born again" became more a part of the cultural vernacular, it would not be surprising to see the number of those who answer the survey with a 'yes' increase as a result.  Is that what's going on here or are deeper issues at work?

"Over the years, being born again may have evolved from being seen as a distinctive for evangelical Protestantism to a way to suggest that they are particularly active in their faith. Across Christian traditions, the more often a person attends church, the more likely they are to say they have had a born-again experience, regardless of their affiliation."  This is a more likely explanation than the previous statement implying that Mainline Protestants and Catholics just don't teach the need for conversion.


These charts are the heart of the story, and tell the most important tale.
Some observations on the chart relating church attendance to self-identification as being "born again": (1) How is it that 50% of those who call themselves evangelicals and African-American Protestants, who NEVER go to church, still think that they're 'born again'?  That's an absurdly high number or people who evidently have no real understanding of what is required of a disciple of Jesus Christ, because being a part of the body of Christ, serving the church and being under the tutelage of the Word of God isn't apparently a priority to that 50% who still identify themselves as being both 'born again' and belonging to one of those two groups without actually going to church.  For Catholics and Mainline Protestants the numbers are less than 20% among those who never go to church, still higher than we should be comfortable with, but not the over-inflated 50%. (2) Going to church matters!  I'm of course biased on this view, being an ordained minister called to lead a church, but that is what the Scriptures proclaim, and what 2,000 years of Church history attest, so I don't feel like I'm on shaky ground here in asserting the necessity of an individual Christian's (or 'Christian' as the case may be for those not-yet converted) connection to a local church.  (3) Going to church more matters more than going to church less.  That's a confusing sentence, but the charts seems fairly clear: those who go to church more regularly are more likely to have claimed to have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ than those who go to church only infrequently.  Go to church!  No, Christmas and Easter are not sufficient.  {Please come then if you don't go otherwise to hear about the Advent of Christ and then about his death and resurrection, those are key parts of God's redemptive story (all pastors are encouraged to see visitors at the holidays, they just want to see them more than that).}



First off, I have no love for the use of the term 'literal' when talking about the Bible; few words are more abused and less well understood.  Also, why was this question written to make a dichotomy between 'inspired' and 'literal'?  How can Scripture be the inspired but not 'literal' (ouch, it pains me to use it even with 'quotes') words of God? {See my 3 part discourse on the Bible to learn more about revelation, inspiration, interpretation, etc. What Every Christian Should Know About: The Bible}  Aside from the structural issues with the way this question was written, the data here is also interesting.  The more often people attend church, the more likely they are to honor the authority of God's Word (whether calling it 'inspired' or 'literal') and the less likely they are to consider it to be simply 'written by men'.  Not surprisingly, those who know more about God's Word, who hear it preached to them more regularly, and who place themselves under the instruction of the Holy Spirit, respond by embracing it.  Those who avoid the fellowship of God's people, who don't prioritize worship of God, tend to view God's Word with less reverence.  None of this is surprising to anyone working in vocational ministry.  Not surprising at all.
"It would appear that the term “born again” has evolved somewhat among the American public. What used to be seen as a touchstone experience for many evangelicals who went forward at a revival, youth camp, or especially moving Sunday worship service, now seems to mean something more. In essence, the word seems to have been adopted by people of other faith traditions as a way to indicate that they are a devout believer. The data suggests that individuals take the term to mean that faith plays an important role in their life and their religious activity serves more than a social purpose."  To quote my former college professor at Cornerstone University, Prof. Andy Smith: "Word usage determines word meaning."  The term 'born again' has evolved.  What was once a technical term that baffled many of the survey takers in the 1980's has now become a more general term that more broadly reflects its original biblical meaning: devout believer.  It doesn't take a recitation of a 'sinner's prayer' to become a Christian, it takes a changed heart, an act of faith, that comes from the calling of the Holy Spirit and results in a life whose direction has changed and results in the ongoing display of the Fruit of the Spirit.  It is a good thing if people in the Church are more focused on having one's life direction changed than on having a single experience.
What then does all of this mean?  The short version is this: The decline of the 'Christian American' culture is asking casual people to make a choice.  It isn't as easy as it used to be to float along in a Christian inspired river without making your own commitment.  When the change required of conversion becomes more stark, and the counter-cultural cost of discipleship becomes more evident, those who never go to church, but consider themselves to be 'Christians', shrink, while those who both openly reject Christianity/The Church, and those who openly embrace it, gain numbers.  As these trends continue, the commonalities between committed members of Christian communities will only grow more clear, the reasons for cooperative ministry more compelling, and if God is gracious to us, the percentage of those in some way connected to the Church willing to make a personal commitment (and follow through by being a part of the local church) will grow.

Impeachment aside, the President mocking the prayers of the Speaker should be disconcerting to all Christians.

Americans are evenly divided on the question of whether or not the President of the United States ought to be impeached and removed from office, multiple polls over the past few months have confirmed it.  This is, of course, no surprise given the increasingly antagonistic partisan nature of the political 'discourse' (an ironic term in the current climate) that takes place each day on television and social media, not to mention the vitriol coming from the politicians themselves.  America has had bitter divisions like this before, and survived them, but at great cost.  One of the things that, in theory, helps hold our nation together is the willingness of Christians to pray for God's blessing upon our nation, for peace and justice, even when their own party is not currently in power.  From the Christians I've known, and from being honest with my own heart, I've at times wondered how consistent and sincere our prayers are when 'they' are in power and not 'us'.  I know that some Christians are deeply committed to their prayer for the nation, and elections don't change their attitudes or habits.  But other Christians, who knows how many, treat their prayers to the Almighty as an extension of their own political preferences, beseeching God to give our 'holy and righteous' side victory and smite the 'vile and wicked' ways of the opposition.  Perhaps an equal number of Red and Blue Christians in America are committed to praying no matter what, and an equal number pray only in partisan terms.  {And here is where I'll lose some of you, upon reading that last sentence you'll either say to yourself, 'What Blue (or Red) Christians, they can't possibly be Christians if they support...Yes, that's a further symptom of how dangerously our politics has infected our theology.  I'm saved by the Blood of the Lamb, that and that alone, as is every Christian (and Old Covenant saint before Christ) who has every lived, my politics (or lack thereof) are NOT a factor, how could they be?}

Which brings me to the current example of our polarization.  I have no intention of offering an opinion regarding the President, the Speaker of the House, or Impeachment (If you expected that, you've not read my blog before).  What I am willing to speak about, however, is prayer.  I have doubts about the sincerity of the faith of a number of politicians, on both sides, who seem to utilize that faith when it will get them votes and ignore it when it gets in the way of tactics or their own moral choices.  Then again, I have doubts about the sincerity of the faith of a number of famous 'Christian' leaders, who seem more interested in power, wealth, and fame than in being a servant of the Gospel.  I also wonder about the sincerity of the faith of some of the people I know personally, for whom faith seems to be a matter of convenience more than conviction.  I have these doubts, and I believe them to be a healthy amount of skepticism, as Jesus reminded us, "16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." (Matthew 7:16-20)
In response to the impending Articles of Impeachment, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, issued a public letter written to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.  Among many a political invective in the letter is the section below:

Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by
continually saying "I pray for the President", when you know this statement is not true, unless it
is meant in a negative sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it,
not I!  {READ: President Trump Sends Pelosi Letter Protesting 'Partisan Impeachment Crusade'}

I don't know if Speaker Pelosi prays for the President or not, but I know that she says that she does.  I don't know what the content, attitude, and tone of the Speaker's prayers might be, perhaps they are infected with partisan attitudes, or maybe she rises above that and prays for the good of the country even if it means the success of her political enemy.  The point is, I don't know these things, and neither does the President.  The sad thing here is that an assumption is being made, one with a cynical heart: that a Democrat cannot possibly pray with sincerity for a Republican (and vice versa).  If we have descended this far into tribalism, if we are being asked to accept that the Universal Church can only contain people who think just like we do, then we're also being asked to write-off millions of Church going, self-professed Christians who claim that their faith is in Jesus Christ, as not simply still Lost, but our enemies. {My favorite example of this attitude is from an episode of Cheers - Woody Boyd : I love you, Kelly - that's why I'm now a member of the Lutheran Evangelical Church of America. Just like you.
Kelly Boyd : Oh, Woody! You saved our marriage... What a wonderful sacrifice! Now when we die and go to heaven, we won't be separated by barbed wire and barking dogs (for context, Woody was already a Lutheran, just a different branch of the tree)}.

Perhaps it is hopelessly optimistic of me to believe that as Christians our faith ought to transcend our politics and even our citizenship as the defining characteristic of our lives.  Jesus, of course, told us he would accept no less, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?" (Matthew 16:24-26).  As I read about Church history, I find plenty of examples of people for whom faith was seemingly the third or fourth most important thing (often behind their pursuit of wealth/power/fame or their own prejudices and hatreds), their stories could confirm that we shouldn't expect any better.  But I also read powerful stories of self-sacrifice, principled stands in the face of danger, and service to others, even to those who were considered to be "them" and not "us".    Men like William Wilberforce, and women like Sojourner Truth, hold the cynicism of reading history at bay, as do redemption stories like that of Saint Augustine, and the principled martyrdom of Jan Hus or Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  If men and women of extraordinary faith like that existed then, they are here among us now too.

To my fellow self-proclaimed Christians for whom politics is the primary lens through which you see the world: Do you pray for the opposition?  With sincerity, hoping that they will be transformed by the power of God's Word (if need be), not to see things as you or I see them, but as God would have them be seen?  If you are willing to pray for them, and they are willing to pray for you, perhaps I'm not as hopelessly optimistic as it seems.

The fault in an argument about the Catholic Church firing a gay teacher

 Below is the text of an article written by Ellen Kobe, a professed Catholic.  I will intersperse my response to her argumentation (not the question of whether or not a Christian school should hire/fire any particular staff member per se) throughout using brackets and bold: {Like this}  This is not a question of what ought to be legal in America regarding employment, but rather what moral principles ought to guide any institution/organization which claims to be following the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Ellen Kobe has charged the Church with "repulsive" "bigotry", but on what  basis?

Ellen Kobe is an associate producer on CNN's social publishing team. She is a 2009 graduate of Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School. The views expressed here are solely those of the author.

Why a Jesuit School was right in refusing to fire a gay teacher

(CNN)Catholics in my hometown of Indianapolis are in the midst of a culture war -- a battle between church leadership and some of its parishioners that could be played out in other communities if it hasn't already.
Last month, news broke that the Archdiocese of Indianapolis would no longer recognize my alma mater, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School, as a Catholic school. Why? The Archdiocese insisted the school dismiss a longtime teacher who is in a civilly-recognized, same-sex marriage, a statement from the school said.
The archdiocese also released a statement saying: "This issue is not about sexual orientation; rather, it is about our expectation that all personnel inside a Catholic school -- who are ministers of the faith -- abide by all Church teachings, including the nature of marriage."  {An important question: What moral standard ought a Christian school/charity/church require of its non-ordained personnel?  We ought to expect those who have taken ordination vows to uphold a higher moral standard (sadly we are too often disappointed) but what about people for whom their work is more akin to a job than a calling?  The expectation of the Catholic Church, at least regarding school teachers, is that they support Church teaching with the way they live their lives.  If this is unreasonable, are there any standards at all that the Church could enforce without being accused of imposing morality upon its employees?}
Brebeuf firmly pushed back, saying this "highly capable and qualified teacher" will continue to teach here.
Brebeuf's actions protected this employee and other LGBTQ members of its community by sending the message: You are welcome here; you are safe here. On my social media feeds, it was a day of celebration among the Brebeuf community and local Catholics. I saw only positive messages about the decision.  {This is not a moral argument, of any kind, let alone one pertaining to what Christianity ought to be.  Social media opinion is the last place we should turn to gauge a question of theology...Secondly, in order to be "welcome" and "safe" within the Church, the Church must accept/celebrate the choices made by people?  All choices, regardless of what they are, or just the choices being celebrated here?  What happened to the idea of the Church as a place for sinners seeking repentance and depending upon grace?}
But the mood took a turn just days later when nearby Cathedral High School was faced with the same command by the Archdiocese regarding a teacher in a same-sex marriage. Cathedral decided to dismiss, not support, its teacher.
There was resounding anger, heartbreak and disappointment from members of the Cathedral community on social media. It's not lost on me that my social media feeds could be reinforcing my own beliefs or that those who believe these employees should've been fired aren't voicing their opinions. {At least she sees the danger of living in a self-reinforcing bubble.  Again, social media feeds have ZERO to do with what is morally acceptable for a church that claims allegiance to Jesus Christ.  Christianity is NOT a democracy, nor even a representative republic.  It is a benevolent dictatorship; one founded by, directed by, ruled by, and in service to, Jesus Christ.  What we think, how we feel, what we want, is immaterial compared to this question: What promotes holiness and righteousness?  What brings glory to God and empowers the Gospel to save the Lost?}  Nonetheless, there is a distinct fissure in the way many practicing Catholics feel about the LGBTQ community versus how the Church's leaders believe we should treat them.  {Has the Church in the past, and in the present, treated some sins as "acceptable" while harshly condemning others?  Absolutely.  This is human failure, our sinful nature and weakness in action.  At the same time, "the way many practicing Catholics feel" is once again NOT a theological/moral argument but an appeal to numerical support.  Might the majority, or even a vocal minority, be theologically/morally correct on an issue and the Church's leadership wrong?  Certainly, but not on the basis of, "this is how we feel", instead the question must hinge upon a proper understanding of the Word of God, an appeal never made in this opinion piece, nor even hinted at.}
The stark contrast in these schools' decisions is just one of reasons I strongly identify with the Jesuit philosophy. When I think of my Catholic identity, nearly all of it stems from the values instilled in me at Brebeuf.
The Jesuit tradition focuses on the education of the person as a whole, emphasizing these five virtues: being open to growth, intellectually competent, loving, religious and committed to promoting justice. These "grad at grad" values, as the Jesuits call them, might sound like a hokey mission statement, but they were taken seriously at Brebeuf. They weren't just written on hallway walls, T-shirts and in the school handbook, they were preached and exemplified by each of our teachers on a daily basis. Living out these qualities wasn't simply a goal, it was a duty.
It is the last of these principles -- committed to promoting justice -- that launched me into a career in journalism. When my teachers saw I was interested in writing, they didn't just teach me how to write better. They encouraged me to write for the greater good.  {The Greater Good!  Absolutely, but on what basis is the Greater Good to be determined?  Hopefully not social media support, nor the whims of the culture at large.  Surely Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier had some objective standard in mind built upon the Word of God, Apostolic teaching, and Church tradition.  The Greater Good cannot blow where the wind takes it, it must be anchored or it will twist about endlessly and be capable of justifying anything.}
When Brebeuf defied the Archdiocese's demand, I thought of the "grad at grad" moral standards that Brebeuf is living out and which the Archdiocese sorely lacks.  {This is a high-handed claim, the Archdiocese lacks a moral standard, but the portion of the Jesuits in question have one?}
The Archdiocese is unfairly targeting members of the LGBT community, bigotry {Christianity (as Judaism before it) is inherently bigoted.  Let that sink in.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ claims to be the sole path to God, the only means of salvation, and the necessary answer for every man, woman, and child who has ever lived.  It condemns as false all other paths, whether self-help or organized religion.  It condemns as immoral a host of human behavior that affects everyone, and declares that none are righteous apart from a righteousness gifted to us by Jesus Christ.  It declares a moral standard that must be present in its followers and condemns those who speak but don't act as Christ-followers.  There can be no Truth without condemnation of falsehood.  There can be no Morality without condemnation of immorality.  If this essence is removed from Christianity, it ceases to be, becoming devoid of all power and less than meaningless...To make the case that to single out one particular type of sin is unfair, while ignoring others, is one thing (a sense of balance Pope Francis has repeatedly called for), but to label that bigotry is to reject Christianity for what it is and must be.} that is beyond repulsive in 2019 {What does 2019 have to do with a question of morality?  Is the standard by which we are to judge matters of morality based upon the year in which we live?  We all know that our ancestors had blind spots concerning certain immoral behavior (slavery comes to mind, as well as antisemitism) but they were still wrong to behave that way, even if they couldn't see it for themselves...Evidently, by 2019 the author thinks the Church ought to have capitulated and abandoned its teaching regarding sexual ethics and marriage, the past 3,500 years of Judea/Christian ethics be damned.  The "failure" to do so, is evidently repulsive.} but all too real in religious communities across the globe. {The anger here is directed inward toward Christianity, but other religions will be targeted next.}  Gay or otherwise, Brebeuf employees provided me with a rigorous education and a caring environment. Brebeuf's tolerance -- no, outward support -- for its LGBTQ faculty and students has fostered thousands of accepting and loving alumni.  {Results based morality.  A person can accomplish good and positive things without being morally upright, the Church always works with flawed people.  However, "accepting and loving" is an odd standard for gauging success the way it is being used here.  We, as Christians, certainly are called to be loving, and to love both friends and enemies, both family and strangers, but the relatively recent choice to connect "acceptance of behavior" with "loving people" as a take it or leave it, all or nothing, proposition is not associated historically with Christianity.  Jesus called people, all sorts of people, to follow him, but he did so on the basis that all of them needed to repent, to leave their lives of sin, and be like him.}
Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit priest, tweeted about the contradictions of what the Archdiocese is asking Catholic schools to do. If employees must be "supportive of Catholic teaching," as Martin points out, a wide swath of Catholic school employees would be subject to termination, including straight people living with a significant other outside of marriage, married couples using birth control and Catholics who don't go to Mass, {Because Justice is not applied to all, evenly and thoroughly, it must be abandoned?  Fr. Martin is correct that the Church has often focused more energy upon certain sins than upon others, and he is correct that the sins of people who are unlike ourselves are more readily condemned than sins that hit closer to home.  This is a failure of God's people that is neither new nor acceptable.  However, this is NOT an argument against having a moral standard at all, but only one against having a poorly articulated/applied moral standard.} as well as those who practice another religion or none at all. {Do Fr. Martin and Ellen Kobe believe that Catholic schools should be forced to hire teachers who are Muslims, Hindus, and Atheists?  This is a new frontier facing Christian Education, the demand that they abandon the reason why they exist in the first place and replace a Christ-centered education, and a Christ-following staff with something more broad and less restrictive.} I think that's pretty much every person I know.  {I know this is meant to be sarcasm, but really?  Everyone you know is either defying the Church's teaching on marriage, birth control, and/or not going to Mass at all?  You don't know anyone who lives according to the traditional teachings of the Church?  Is this not a cause for concern?  How can one claim ownership over the direction of the Church, call it "repulsive" and "bigoted" when one's viewpoint is surrounded by those who reject the teachings of, and participation in, that same Church?}
Brebeuf didn't have much to lose in its relationship with the Archdiocese, which doesn't provide the school with any funds or ministers, according to the Indianapolis Star. Cathedral's defense of their decision notes everything they would've lost, including permission to refer to itself as a Catholic school, the ability to celebrate the Sacraments and its status as an independent nonprofit organization.
These would be tough challenges to face. But when leaders of Catholic institutions focus solely on doctrine, status or other rules of the Church, {Agreed.  To focus solely upon doctrine is to lose touch with its application among human beings.  Is this really what Catholic institutions are doing?  Have all the hospitals, orphanages, schools, and charities ceased to exist?  Have the thousands of parishes living in community together while seeking Christ disappeared?  When you disagree with a particular doctrine, make a rational case for that disagreement, one that seeks some grounding in Scripture.  To claim those who disagree with you are heartless is not the same as making a case for your position...On the flip side, when doctrine/theology is no longer central, when Truth is relegated to secondary status, Christianity's days are numbered, its churches are adrift, and its people will latch on to all manner of ideas and beliefs that would have found no home among the Apostles.} they lose sight of what this religion is all about -- {What is the purpose of religion?  An important question, but far more relevant here ought to be: What is the purpose of the Church created by Jesus Christ after his resurrection and empowered by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?  What religion, in general, is all about is not a relevant discussion for what Christianity should be.}  God's unconditional love for all people. {Not the right answer by a long shot for one very important reason: God's love is not unconditional.  Period.  God's love is in complete harmony with his holiness and justice.  If God's love for all people was unconditional, why do we worship a crucified and risen Savior?  Why did God institute the Mosaic sacrificial system, why did he call Abraham and replace his polytheism with monotheism?  Even a cursory reading of the Scriptures reveals God's anger at sin, his judgment upon those who defy him, and his absolute insistence upon obedience.}
Brebeuf unified around faith. Cathedral allowed doubt to take over. What good is the designation of being a "Catholic" school if you lose your values in the process? {A very important question: What is the point of wanting to be Catholic, or any subset of Christianity, if that designation is no longer anchored to the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, and Holy Scripture?...Is it truly "doubt" to remain committed to what the Church has taught for 2,000 years?  Is standing firm in the midst of change somehow a lack of faith?} As Martin says, Brebeuf protecting its LGBTQ employee "is the most Catholic thing that the school, and the Jesuits, could do."  {Wow, "the most Catholic thing"?  Again, what is the basis for this claim?  Upon what Biblical principle does this rest?  What teaching of Jesus, and how is that being applied?}
By the way, wasn't June Pride Month?  {And this has what to do with a moral question within the Church of Jesus Christ?}

{In the end, this article is an opinion piece, what it is not is any reason to justify its author's very strong moral condemnation of the Catholic Church with anything beyond how the author feels, a reference to the "greater good" that is not defined, and the consensus of a particular social media bubble.  While reasoning such as this may be standard within the culture as a whole, or in the political realm, it is not how the Church of Jesus Christ discusses, debates, or even changes theological positions.} 

Sermon Video: Participating in the body and blood of Christ - 1 Corinthians 10:14-17

In his encouragement to the people of the church of Corinth that they should "flee from idolatry", the Apostle Paul appeals to the unity of the Church caused by the participation of its people in the body and blood of Christ.  But what does this "participation" mean, and what does it accomplish?  Through the past two thousand years of Church history, the interpretation of Jesus' words, "this is my blood", "this is my body", has broadened from the literal belief of the Catholic Church (transubstantiation) requiring a ordained priesthood to bring it about (sacredotalism), to the tweaking of this concept by the Lutherans (consubstantiation without sacredotalism), to the spiritual emphasis and rejection of the physical transformation of the Reformed, and finally the symbolic commemoration of the Baptists.  With such a continuum of belief/practice regarding communion (and baptism), is there hope for unity in a world where portions of the Church have been willing to kill and/or die regarding these differences?  Paul ends his mention of communion (in its anti-idolatry context) with a reminder that "there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf."  There can be only one Body of Christ, the divisions of Church History (and current reality) cannot alter that reality.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" - Acts 26:1-16

Imagine spending your life, all of your passion and effort, on behalf of God, only to learn at the end that your entire attempt was not simply ineffective, but actually entirely counter-productive and detrimental to the very cause you thought you were serving.  Such was the mind-blowing revelation that occurred to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus when he discovered that the voice from Heaven was that of Jesus.  Up until that moment, Saul had been firmly convinced that he was doing the right thing, that his violent response to the followers of Jesus was justified by zeal for the Law of God.  Saul was, catastrophically wrong, and but for the amazing grace of God he would have gone to face his Maker with their blood upon his hands.
Certainty without wisdom is folly.  As Christians, there are a limited number of core Truths regarding the Scriptures, the nature of God, and the person and work of Jesus about which we must be certain, and for which we ought to be willing to lay down our lives (although not be willing, ever, to kill for them).  Upon these central Truths we must stand and not be moved, but beyond them we claim absolute certainty at our own peril, and would better be served by confident belief that allows for others to disagree.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A Vatican approved journal denounces the Prosperity Gospel, and rightly so.

The portions below in italics are from the article by Antonio Spadaro, SJ - Marcelo Figueroa, published on July 18th, 2018 in the Vatican approved journal: La Civilta Cattolica  To read the full article, click on the following link: The Prosperity Gospel: Dangerous and Different   

To view my previous blog post related to the Prosperity Gospel, or both of the sermons from Malachi that relate to this topic, click on the following link: What I've written/said previously about the Prosperity Gospel.

As the Prosperity Gospel grows in its influence and numbers, it become more and more necessary for those who preach the Gospel as given to us by the Word of God to refute this man-centered perversion that replaces our call to be servants with a promise of material blessings.

The “prosperity gospel” is a well-known theological current emerging from the neo-Pentecostal evangelical movements. At its heart is the belief that God wants his followers to have a prosperous life, that is, to be rich, healthy and happy. This type of Christianity places the well-being of the believer at the center of prayer, and turns God the Creator into someone who makes the thoughts and desires of believers come true.

The lifeblood of everything positive and valid that has come out of Martin Luther's call for Reformation has been the reliance upon the "five solas" {Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"), Sola fide ("by faith alone"), Sola gratia ("by grace alone"), Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone"), Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")}  The rise of the Prosperity Gospel challenges, if not outright rejects, four of them when it takes scripture out of its original context and historic meaning in order to give it a individualistic/materialistic spin, devalues faith and grace by making people responsible for their own well being, and downplays the glory that belongs to God by moving the focus of the Gospel from God's amazing love and grace to our own wants.

What is absolutely clear is that the economic, media and political power of these groups – which we generically call “evangelicals of the American Dream” – makes them more visible than the other evangelical churches, even those of the classical Pentecostal variety. In addition, their growth is exponential and directly proportional to the economic, physical and spiritual benefits they promise their followers: all these blessings are far removed from the life of conversion usually taught by the traditional evangelical movements.

The Scripture passages that have been warped by advocates of the Prosperity Gospel are too numerous to briefly interact with, but common threads involve viewing the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant as belonging to the Church, downplaying the cost of discipleship and emphasizing the blessings for those who follow Christ, particularly the material ones here and now.

The pillars of the prosperity gospel, as we have mentioned, are essentially two: economic well-being and health. This accentuation is the fruit of a literalist exegesis of some biblical texts that are taken within a reductionist hermeneutic. The Holy Spirit is limited to a power placed at the service of individual well-being. Jesus Christ has abandoned his role as Lord and transformed into being a debtor to each one of his words. The Father is reduced to being “a sort of cosmic bellhop that responds to the needs and desires of his creatures.”

"Name it and claim it", what a warped reality.  Where is it written in the Scriptures that God is intent upon fulfilling our will?  Are we not called to serve the kingdom of God?  Are we not called to sacrifice of ourselves for others?

A refrain that many of these pastors use is “There is a miracle in your mouth.” The miraculous process is the following: visualize in detail what you want, declare it expressly with your mouth, claim it with the faith and authority of God and consider it already received. Effectively, “claiming” the promises of God, which have been extracted from the biblical texts or the prophetic word of the pastor, places the believer in a dominant position with respect to a God who is imprisoned by his own word, as perceived and believed by the faithful.

When you turn prosperity into a test of faith, you automatically devalue morality (who cares what sins you commit, if you're rich God must be blessing you) and mortally wound compassion.  What will the affect upon the Church be of such a movement?  Disaster, pure and simple.  Without a servant's heart, the Church is doomed, without compassion for others, the Church is doomed.  The Gospel cannot survive without them.

There can be no compassion for those who are not prosperous, for clearly they have not followed the rules and thus live in failure and are not loved by God.

Generally, the fact that there are riches and material benefits fall once again on the exclusive responsibility of the believer, and consequently so too their poverty or lack of goods. Material victory places the believer in a position of pride due to the power of their “faith.” On the contrary, poverty hits them with a blow that is unbearable for two reasons: first, the person thinks their faith is unable to move the providential hands of God; second, their miserable situation is a divine imposition, a relentless punishment to be accepted in submission.

The quote in the final paragraph from the article is from Pope Francis.  Whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not, whether you consider the Catholic Church to be a partner or a rival regarding the Gospel, those who adhere to the tenants of the Reformation ought to be encouraged to have an ally denouncing "justification by their own efforts" on the part of those who preach and follow the Prosperity Gospel.  The Gospel is not about me, its about God.  The Church doesn't exist to serve me, it exists to guide people to God (by grace through faith) and increase the worship of God by those he created.  When man is at the center, the Gospel fails.

As he wrote in his apostolic exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate, there are Christians who are committed to following the path of “justification by their own efforts, the worship of the human will and their own abilities. The result is a self-centered and elitist complacency, bereft of true love. This finds expression in a variety of apparently unconnected ways of thinking and acting,” among them “an excessive concern with programs of self-help and personal fulfillment” (No. 57).

To not "look Catholic" is a terrible rationale for a Baptist Church to base decisions upon.

The Red Bank Baptist Church of Lexington, South Carolina, recently voted (in Baptist Churches all members have a vote, and can vote at regular congregational business meetings regarding matters both great and small, i.e. the church budget, the calling/dismissing of a pastor, program and building issues, etc.) to remove a 7 ft. statue of Jesus which had been displayed outside the entrance to the church for the past decade.  According to Pastor Jeff Wright, "This is not a denomination issue, its a church decision.  We are removing it to end some confusion.  Some people have seen it, guests that have been here and have asked, 'Why is this on the front of a Baptist Church?"  In a letter the church sent to the artist, Delbert Baker Jr., Pastor Wright explained that the statue brings into question, "the theology and core values" of the church.

AP story: Baptist church's 'Catholic' Jesus statue to find new home

The Jesus statue at Red Bank Baptist Church that is being removed.

We live in interesting times.  On the one hand we have an ongoing debate that roils people's emotions and has led to protests and bloodshed concerning the removal of statues on public land which were erected to honor those who fought to retain slavery in America, and at the same time, we have a congregation choosing to remove a statue of Jesus from their property because it makes the building appear "too Catholic".

Whether or not a Baptist Church has a statue or painting of Jesus prominently displayed is not the most pressing theological question facing most churches, but the line of reasoning that led to the decision made by the people of Red Bank Baptist Church is of import to all churches, regardless of denomination.  We, as local churches and/or as part of a denomination, ought not to be deciding how we carry out our Biblical mandate to share the Gospel and make disciples on the basis of not doing so "like them".  The "them" in this case is the Catholic Church, but it could just have easily been the Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, or a host of others.  Why we do what we do, and how we do it, are questions far too important to be decided based upon a desire to have a unique "brand" as a church.

What is the proper standard for a church to base its decisions upon?  The bedrock standard is the Word of God itself.  Does the Bible encourage, prohibit, or is it silent on the issue at hand?  If the Bible encourages/commands the behavior/attitude in question, the discussion is over.  Our task is simply to obey.  If the Bible prohibits/condemns the behavior/attitude in question, again, the discussion is over, our task is to obey.  If the Bible is silent on the particular issue, we then look to see if principles contained in God's Word apply, we consider the wisdom of the collective Church's viewpoint on the issue over the ages, and we examine our own God-given reason and consciences as well.  These are the proper channels for discussion and debate among a local church or denomination regarding the choices we face and decisions we must make.  However, being "not Catholic", "not Pentecostal", or "not Presbyterian" is an invalid viewpoint, one that heightens divisions, encourages emotional instead of reasoned decisions, and in the end, leads to faulty theology.  In case you're wondering, making a decision based upon trying to mimic another church is an equally faulty methodology, albeit one that at least has a positive connotation.

Baptists are not alone in falling to this temptation.  Historically speaking many of the Counter-Reformation decisions of the Catholic Church were made on this same basis, to be "not Protestant", with less than helpful results.  Time and time again, churches have made decisions that were not based upon a careful and obedient understanding of God's Word, or upon wisdom received from our ancestors in the faith combined with our own reasons/consciences, but rather upon lesser criteria.  When we make decisions based upon reasoning and motivations that are less than ideal, or even downright foolish, how can we expect the decisions themselves to be God honoring and wise?

Not being privy to the internal discussions that took place at Red Bank Baptist prior to the decision, I don't know why they believe that the "theology and core values" of their church are threatened by an artist's depiction of Jesus, but if the answer contains any of this sentiment, "because it makes us look too Catholic", whether in the end they came to the right decision or not, the reasoning was dangerously faulty.




For some perspective, I write this as the pastor of an American Baptist Church with a rather unique architectural and artistic style among baptist churches that reflects the oil boom heritage of the Franklin area when the church sanctuary as it looks now was completed in 1904.  We have more art than most churches on the walls, including two giant murals of Jesus flanking the pulpit.  It would be a tragedy if a future generation decided to whitewash those murals to avoid looking like other Christians.

The sanctuary of First Baptist Church of Franklin