Sermon Video: Fishing for People - Mark 1:16-20

Now that Jesus is publicly proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God, he turns to the task of recruiting disciples to teach and train.  At the Sea of Galilee he finds two sets of brother, Andrew and Simon, and James and John; all fishermen from Bethsaida.  Having called each pair in turn, they quickly join Jesus who promises to send them to "fish for people".  This interesting metaphor connects to their background, and speak to the need to pull people in with the 'net' of the Gospel that they too might learn of God's forgiveness and love.  We continue that task to this day, as a Church, and as individual Christians, sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ with the Lost 'fish'.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Gospel according to Mark - Mark 1:1

Introductory information regarding the Gospel of Mark, including examining the genre began by Mark of writing a "Gospel about Jesus". Gospel is the Modern English pronunciation of the Old English: god (good) spel (news). Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew: Joshua, meaning "Yahweh is salvation". Messiah is the Greek word for 'anointed', the equivalent of the Hebrew word Messiah. In addition, Mark proclaims that Jesus is the Son of God, a far greater claim than being 'anointed' by God. This is the beginning of Mark's proclamation of Good News.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Heaven: Only Jesus look-alikes allowed - 1 Corinthians 15:44b-50

Having established our upcoming transformation at the resurrection, the Apostle Paul now focuses on the differences between our earthly beginning in Adam and our heavenly destination in Jesus.  The conclusion is stark: Our current state (flesh and blood, earthly, in Adam = rebellious state alienated from God) cannot enter the Kingdom of God (heaven).  Who can enter Heaven?  Only those who look like Jesus.  What picture of Jesus is painted in the Gospels?  Compassion, zeal, commitment, purity, love, humility, obedience, self-sacrifice, integrity, faith, hope, etc.  What chance have we of achieving this on our own? ZERO, NONE.  Our only hope is to accept God's grace through faith in Jesus.  Then, and only then, can we look like Jesus.
Have you put your trust in Jesus?  Have you turned from sin/evil in order to follow Jesus?  If you haven't, it is your only hope, as Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life, no one comes to the Father, but by me."  If you have, please get connected to a local church, become a part of what God is doing here in our midst.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Isolation from, or Engagement with, the World? 1 Corinthians 15:33-34

Having corrected the error at the Church of Corinth regarding the reality of the resurrection to come, the Apostle Paul concludes by reminding them that, "Bad company corrupts good character." Is it true that, "One bad apple spoils the bunch"? Or can a bunch of good apples help the bad one? Which was does influence flow? Good to bad, bad to good, or both? As Christians we have an obligation to be engaged with the world, building friendships and connections to non-Christian people for the sake of the Gospel. How can we be the salt that Jesus commands us to be if we stay safe in our salt shaker of isolation? At the same time, we must retain our salty nature by ensuring that the weightiest influences in our lives are ones that are righteous and holy. This is a balance between isolation (from the world's corrupting influences) and engagement (for the sake of the Gospel) that each Christian and each church must maintain in order to be effective. We do need to be salt (righteous influences upon those living in darkness), and we also need to surround ourselves with enough other grains of salt (mature Christians) that we never risk losing our saltiness.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: According to the Scriptures - 1 Corinthians 15:1-7

The Apostle Paul begins his extended discussion of the significance of the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ with a reminder to the church in Corinth that it is upon the historicity of the Gospel that he related to them that they have taken their stand.  By way of bolstering the claim of the eyewitnesses that Paul lists, he emphasizes that the death of Christ upon the cross, the meaning of that death, and the resurrection three days later were all foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures.  Far from being mere happenstance, the events that unfolded were in every detail a part of the plan of God, from beginning to end, accomplishing the goal set up by God: affecting a sacrifice of the perfect God-Man on our behalf, enabling those who believe to be forgiven because he took our place for the punishment (death) that our sins merited.  Thus Paul lays out the foundation of the points he will be making as the chapter unfolds concerning the necessity and implications of the Resurrection.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: God's grace is not a license to sin - Jude 1-4

Jude, half-brother of Jesus (along with James "the just", the leader of the Jerusalem Church), begins his letter by speaking of the common salvation he shares along with those whom God has called, love, and kept for Jesus, a salvation that results in our being given mercy, peace, and love.  Unfortunately, Jude cannot continue writing about these uplifting topics as he must warn the recipients of the letter about individuals within the Church who have embrace a form of Gnosticism (apparently) that both denies Jesus Christ (probably by denying that he came in the flesh, see 1 John for a parallel) and bizarrely claims that God's grace which has been given to us is in fact a license to sin.  The Apostle Paul rejects this same line of thought in Romans 6, for how could God's grace take us further from God by encouraging us to continue to sin?  In addition, taking advantage of grace would be an insult to the blood of Christ, poured out for us, as well as a narrow focus upon our relationship with God being only about forgiveness of sins, rather than about total transformation that must begin here and now.  Lastly, any view of our relationship with God that tolerates the ongoing indulgence in sin is incompatible with the presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who have been redeemed.  For reasons such as these, Jude warns his fellow believers against this dangerous notion.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A Refutation Of: White evangelicals' attacks on James Cone are about power, not truth by Andre Henry

The opinion piece in italics below was written by Andre Henry the program manager for the Racial Justice Institute at Evangelicals for Social Action.  It was published by Religion News Service on January 9th.  {White evangelicals' attacks on James Cone are about power, not truth}  I have not previously written about James Cone, for reasons that will become clear below, his philosophy/theology falls outside of that which I would read for my own edification/enlightenment, nor have his books ended up in my pile of non-orthodox/non-Christian books to read in order to understand the beliefs of others.  That being said, I have no pre-conceived ideas either for or against James Cone (If Andre Henry is mis-representing him let me know), and am only interacting with the author's assertions about the reasoning behind the critiques of those who have studied and written in response to James Cone.  My thoughts will be interspersed below {bracketed in bold}.

(RNS) — A specter has been haunting white evangelicalism. It comes in the shape of James Cone, one of the founders of black liberation theology.  {What is liberation theology?  The short answer: A synthesis (combining) of Christian theology with socio-economic analysis, often Marxist, that fuses the spiritual liberation of the Gospel with economic/political liberation for oppressed/poverty stricken peoples.  Throughout the history of the Church, attempts have been made to fuse Christianity with various philosophies, governmental systems, and cultures.  The Early Church was deeply affected by Platonic Greek philosophy, the Eastern Church with the Byzantine vision of its divinely appointed right to rule over the Church, an idea that in the West led to countless struggles (even wars) between Popes and kings and emperors.  Christianity in the 18th century began to be fused with the ascendant Nationalism, with horrific results culminating in WWI and WWII.  Lastly, American Christianity has often been fused with ideas such as Rugged Individualism, Manifest Destiny, Democracy, and Capitalism.  Some of these combinations have been beneficial to the Church and Christian theology, some have been disastrous, most are a mixed bag of blessings and curses.  Liberation theology, while emphasizing the need for care for the poor (a positive if handled correctly) is not without its drawbacks.}

As last year ended, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary President Daniel Akin tweeted in response to a (since deleted) tweet, “James Cone was a heretic & almost certainly not a Christian based on his teachings. ... We do not legitimize him.”  {A tweet by the President of a Seminary carries weight, and ought to be nuanced, perhaps with an opening phrase like, "While I don't know his heart/mind, and God alone is our judge..."  However, the portion in the ellipsis should not have been left out by Andre Henry as it runs counter to his point.  The full tweet's text: "James Cone was a heretic & almost certainly not a Christian based on his teachings. But, to understand him you should/must read him. Then you provide a fair, honest & balanced critique. That is a basic requirement for a good education. Hope that helps. We do not legitimize him."  The full quote is far less strident when the middle is left in.  It is, in part, the job of leadership in seminaries to protect against heresy, to warn of dangerous ideas, and to try to steer the Church toward the Truth.  With a better preface, Akin is simply doing his job, whether or not one agrees with the conclusion.}

After significant pushback, Akin made an amendment: “Though his writings & statements give me pause & great concern for his soul, if when I get to heaven I discover that James Cone is there, I will humbly, gladly & joyfully greet him as my brother in Christ as we together worship King Jesus for His amazing salvation, grace & love.”  {This is a better way of putting it.  There are a number of Christian leaders, theologians, and writers, past and present, whose ideas stray from orthodoxy, who personal lives exhibited hypocrisy, and who generally leave us with questions about how they stood with God.  If, in the end, our worries about them prove less than God's grace, we will rejoice to find that fellow brother/sister in Christ in heaven.}

Some other Christian thought leaders found this too generous. The Rev. Josh Buice, a Southern Baptist pastor, suggested that Akin had “normalized an enemy of the gospel.”  {Here is where things get tricky as we strive to define the ideas which are the foundation of our faith, and how they can acceptably be expressed, in order to define what is/is not orthodox, and thus those who are/are not promoting heresy.  The Early Church dealt with this powerfully in AD 325 during the Council of Nicaea during which they rejected a definition of Jesus' humanity (a core issue about who Jesus is) put forth by a Christian priest named Arius, which then led to the creed bearing the same name that helped teach future generations of Christian to avoid the errors that Arius had made...What then do we do in response to those who reject orthodoxy, who stray near the edges?  Assuming the issue at hand is key and not a matter of conscience, a range of responses are required from Scripture, beginning with a personal appeal to the one in error, and ending with some form of shunning/excommunication, as in 2 John 7-11 or Romans 16:17-18.  Christians with good intentions can, and do, disagree about which issues are core, the range of acceptable expressions of those issues, and what to do in response in particular cases of unorthodox beliefs.  In this case, the Reverend Josh Buice worried that perhaps President Daniel Akin was being too soft, while the author of the article believes that Akin's response was much too harsh.}

It’s not entirely clear what had occasioned this discussion of Cone, a longtime professor at Union Theological Seminary who died in 2018. But his sins against the white evangelical establishment date back to 1969, when he published “Black Theology and Black Power,” which interpreted the faith through the lens of the black freedom struggle.  {Why write/speak about a topic now?  Often a good question, but the more important one is this: Were the ideas championed by James Cone acceptable expressions of Christianity, were they unorthodox heresy, or something in between?}

In the book’s introduction Cone explained: “I wanted to speak on behalf of the voiceless black masses in the name of Jesus whose gospel I believed had been greatly distorted by the preaching and theology of white churches."

His major themes include the idea, summarized in the mantra “God is black,” that God always sides with oppressed people, that the black experience is a legitimate source for doing theology and that the task of theology is liberation.  {This is far from a full response to the theology of James Cone, that's why books are written, not blog posts; a few thoughts: Undoubtedly the Gospel had been distorted in the white churches that had twisted the Scriptures to support slavery and racial supremacy, a fact repeatedly brought to the forefront by the Abolitionists who opposed them, in Great Britain, and then here in America...Any mantra like "God is white" "God is an American", or "God is a woman" is ridiculous, theologically unsound, and leading toward a distorted viewpoint (ironic given the stated aim of undoing a previously distorted view).  God is above our categories, above our divisions, and above belonging to any of us.  God is the Creator, the Sovereign, holy and immutable.  When we speak about God using human categories, we are presumptuous to use any beyond those which God himself chose while revealing himself to the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles {i.e. God calling himself Father}...Lastly, the task of theology is liberation, but the important part of that thought is this: liberation from what, and liberation how?  The answer is crucial.}

He raised questions about some tenets of faith that white evangelicals cherish, particularly the inerrancy of Scripture and the concept that Jesus died the death we deserved because of sin.  {Here is where Andre Henry goes far astray.  The inerrancy (accuracy/reliability/divine origin) of Scripture and Substitutionary Atonement are NOT 'white' ideas.  They long preceded our modern issues with race, and are cherished by orthodox Christians throughout the world (of all races) and throughout Church history.  To reject them is to take issue with the Apostle Paul, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, and many others.  It is NOT an issue of race, but of ideas, ideas that lie at the heart of historic and apostolic Christianity.  Ideas embraced (in their own ways) by Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians alike.  When Joseph Smith rejected the orthodox/apostolic understanding of Jesus and Salvation and proclaimed that he had received a new revelation, it was not race that led the Christian Americans who lived near him to soundly reject his heresy, but his ideas.  The Truth or error of an idea is not related to the race or gender of its proponents or opponents, nor to their nationality, age, or status.  Truth exists apart from us.}

Perhaps the biggest problem white theologians have with Cone’s work is his emphasis on Jesus’ humanity over his divinity, and his conviction that salvation is as much about saving black people from the Klanner’s noose, or the officer’s chokehold, as it is about going to heaven when we die (if it has anything to do with the latter at all).  {'humanity OVER his divinity'?  Yeah, that's a problem, the flip-side of the one rejected by the Council of Nicaea.  Whenever either portion, humanity or deity, is elevated/deflated it has massive implications for Christian theology...Salvation is not 'as much about' anything as it is about saving our souls by restoring a right relationship with God.  That process requires repentance and righteous living, here and now, but in service to that larger vision of God's redemptive work within/through us.  There are many important issues and causes that we face in this life because of our Christian faith, but none of them hold a candle to the transformation of our hearts/minds/souls through the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives as the result of what Christ accomplished through his life, death, and resurrection.  This is THE heart of Christianity, it cannot be shared or replaced with anything else...'if it has anything to do with the latter at all' is full-blown heresy on the part of Andre Henry.  Who Jesus is and what he accomplished (i.e. the Gospel, salvation) may not have anything to do with whether or not we go to heaven (or hell) when we die??  This thought is incomprehensible when reading the Scriptures, the writings of the Church Fathers, or virtually any Christian theologian remotely near orthodoxy.}

What Cone decidedly did not lack was sincere devotion to the way of Jesus as he understood it.  No, the heresy Cone is guilty of is denying white Christian leaders’ authority to define what Christianity should look like for black people.  {Sincere devotion is not good enough, as Jesus himself makes clear in Matthew 7:13-23, although sincere devotion is absolutely required as a manifestation of the belief of those who have been saved.  Christian leaders must define what Christianity looks like for Christians.  That is there God-ordained task, to examine the Scriptures, and by the Spirit lead the people of God in applying its timeless words and wisdom to our lives today.  The authority does not lie in the race, nationality, or gender of the leader/theologian, but in the Word of God that he/she serves.  The Gospel looks EXACTLY the same for all peoples in all times.  When Christ sent his Apostles into the world to preach the Gospel he sent them to the ends of the earth, to everyone.  The Apostle Paul spent a lot of time and energy trying to figure out how best to explain that Gospel message to the Greek gentiles he was sent to, but hear this, the message itself did not change, at all, only its delivery.  (Galatians 3:26-28)}

What constitutes heresy in the church depends on where the boundaries for orthodoxy (meaning "right belief") are drawn. The Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches excommunicated each other, in 1054, partly because of differing views on the nature of the Holy Spirit. Protestants were declared heretics by the Roman Catholics, and Protestants considered Catholics heretical, largely on the issue of papal authority.  {This is correct, orthodoxy is staying within the defined boundaries.  The Church took several generations to establish/explain/defend the boundaries of the faith they inherited from the Apostles and the Scriptures, but those definitions hold to this day.  It is true that the Church split in half about 1,000 years ago, and that the Western half split again just over 500 years ago, but that does not invalidate the idea of orthodoxy, nor the need for a standard by which we can judge ideas/people to be promoting Truth or error.}

Generally, white evangelicals claim Scripture as the sole standard for measuring orthodoxy. They don’t admit, or don’t see, the white frame that informs their theology.  {Martin Luther's rallying cry was Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), and of course he didn't fully live up to that cry as evidenced by his retention of a traditional sacramental Eucharist and infant baptism, but it was a watershed idea to treat the authority of Scripture ABOVE that of tradition...Do white evangelicals have a lens/frame that clouds their view of the Scriptures?  Of course they do, all people have biases and blind spots, inconsistencies and errors in judgment.  That is why orthodoxy has two powerful correctives: (1) The Word of God given by inspiration, and (2) the collective wisdom of the Church throughout the generations in understanding and applying it.  In addition, the same Holy Spirit works within Christians of all races to correct the errors we bring to the text, to rebuke us when we go astray, and to enable us to see the error of those who speak with a voice different from that of the Good Shepherd.}

Framing, something like a mental field of vision, determines what we don’t see and how we interpret what we do see. White people’s frame tends to ignore the systems of anti-black violence and white supremacy, both subtle and overt, that permeate American society.  {It may tend to, but it doesn't have to.  I am well aware of the flaws of American society, flaws that have negatively affected a wide variety of groups for a number of reasons.  To say that this affects 'white people' in any unique way is incorrect.  The Fallen Nature of humanity affects us all equally, as does the redemptive power of the Gospel.}

This explains how some of the founders of American evangelicalism, George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, could emphasize God’s wrath and the need for repentance from sin while also owning slaves. They framed their reading of Scripture in such a way that it didn’t interfere with their white supremacy.  {Every movement has flawed founders, flawed people are the only ones available.  No excuses, they should have seen the sin of their involvement with slavery.  How does this relate to the question at hand: Why do (white) evangelicals today object to the theology of James Cone?  Guilt by association?  That's a pretty tenuous connection and an unbiblical methodology.}

Today that kind of framing leads Whitefield's and Edwards' heirs to miss the connection between social action and Christian faithfulness. Mistaking their frame for the whole picture, they claim that what they can't see isn't there, and they dress their biases in religious language.  {Some evangelicals do miss the connection between being a faithful Christian and working for justice in our society, but not nearly as many as the author implies.  What is actually happening is a difference of opinion as to which social causes Christian faith speaks to, what one should do about those causes in a pluralistic republic, and how much of our witness as a Christian, or as a Church, ought to be invested in these areas vs. the more focused expressions of Gospel witness.  These are complicated issues, with serious and thoughtful answers available that have nothing to do with the race of the people trying to faithfully live as Christians.}

Cone recognized that black Christians needed to embrace a frame of their own. He said, rightfully, that black people and other persecuted groups don’t organize their faith around ruminating on theological propositions, but around encountering God in their struggle for freedom.  {A false dichotomy, all Christians need 'theological propositions', i.e. Truth, and they need to put that faith into action in the time/place/culture in which they live.  A Truth-less faith, or a Truth-lite faith is not the answer for any group of people, no matter what their history of privilege or oppression might be.}

This experiential emphasis for knowing God can coexist with the white church's emphasis on propositions, but Akin and Buice and similar thinkers can’t help but assert that their frame is better.  {The frame isn't in question, the Apostle James made it very clear that experience (action) is the partner of faith, rather it is the content of those very propositions that James Cone called into question.  This is a question of faith AND action, mind AND heart, not an either/or.}

And that is how many a theology curriculum is organized, with white male theologians — Luther, Calvin, Barth — as required reading, and everyone else listed as extra credit (if that).  {If the writer in question is a Christian, speaking the Truth, why does race or gender matter?  A broad curriculum is important, but one based on a thorough understanding of the ideas in question, not one that places thinkers into better/worse categories based on who they are.  In the Kingdom of God, these distinctions are meaningless.  I've said that already, but Andre Henry doesn't seem to believe it anymore than the racist white supremacists (whom I have repeatedly condemned).}

Cone was no more heretical than any white theologian celebrated today. White Christians simply don’t stop and frisk white theologians for doctrinal contraband as they do black thinkers.  {That's a smear, and an unfair one.  The list of rejected white male heretics is long, with today's leader among them being Bart Ehrman, and yesterday's being Bishop John Shelby Spong, both rejected by the Church as a whole for heresy/apostasy with no thought to racial solidarity.  I don't know how to weigh more/less heretical, being a heretic is a problem, even when it is only a little bit of heresy about a core issue.  'He's only as big a heretic as other white guys you aren't complaining about' isn't much of an argument even if it was true.}

Martin Luther, for example, slips through security with his anti-Semitic writings without seminary presidents expressing "concern for his soul." Thinkers like Cone set off the alarm, on the other hand, because they dare to hold theologians like Luther accountable.  {Martin Luther's anti-Semitic writings are a grave stain upon his legacy, what theologian has discounted that?  It had horrific consequences when it was embraced by later generations whose own writings inspired the Nazis.  Martin Luther doesn't get a free pass because he was white.  Flawed Christians can still write the Truth, we as thinkers, given that power by God, can sift the wheat from the chaff.}

This racist exceptionalism is not restricted to Cone. At their recent Social Justice and The Gospel Conference, a panel of male Southern Baptist leaders who drafted a statement on social justice griped that more people didn’t raise issues about Martin Luther King Jr.’s theology, which also held that salvation had to do with social equity.

(They also raised the civil rights icon’s reported infidelities, but men in their position often manage to speak of Karl Barth without speaking of his mistress, Charlotte von Kirschbaum.)  {If Barth is given a pass by some who criticize King Jr. that's on them.  Moral failings are an equal opportunity flaw, affecting many of the heroes of the faith who ideas/work we would otherwise celebrate without reservation.}

Even though both Cone and King rely heavily on Scripture and center their work on the person and work of Jesus every bit as much as white theologians do, the black thinkers are threatened with hellfire for not staying within the confines of white evangelicalism's tiny gospel.  {Wow.  'tiny gospel' is a brutal phrase aimed at the traditional and apostolic Church's testimony regarding the Gospel for two thousand years.  'within the confines' means within orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy matters, it has always mattered.}

The difficulty men like Akin face in disposing of Cone or King is that white men no longer have ownership of hell. The days of handing heretics over to the state to be burned at the stake or drowned are long gone. Even excommunication only works if the “heretic” is accountable to a religious governing body. The threat of sanctions is the only thing that once made charges of heresy meaningful.  {This is true, and that loss of 'control' isn't necessarily a bad thing, given how real or imagined heretics were treated in the past.  What ought the Church to do with heretics and apostates?  When Bart Ehrman walked away from the faith he kept his job and sold a lot of books, getting rich and famous in the process.}

The internet’s democratizing influence makes even social excommunication — currently known as “being canceled” — useless. Remember when conservative heavyweight John Piper famously tweeted “Farewell, Rob Bell” when Bell’s 2011 book, “Love Wins,” questioned the existence of hell? Bell went on to publish a New York Times bestseller about the Bible, and there was nothing Piper could do about it.  {No, but Rob Bell did walk away from the community to which he had belonged.  Whether or not somebody has a NYT bestseller is hardly a fitting evaluation of their orthodoxy and whether or not they still belong within the Church.}

This brings us back to questions of power and truth. Evangelical Christians have long expressed their deep concern about an immanent postmodern apocalypse that would annihilate the notion of “absolute truth.”  {A terrifying prospect, perhaps one at times overblown in 'sky is falling' fashion, but a real concern given the developments of philosophy and religion from the Enlightenment to Post-Modernism.}

The advent of fake news in a post-truth presidential administration shows that their anxieties weren’t altogether unwarranted. But truth is not altogether gone. It’s just that we understand the difference between a landscape and someone’s field of vision — their frame.

Is the truth a landscape before us, which each of us sees only in part? Or is truth the power to force everyone to see the world through one frame?  {This reminds me of Obi-Wan's 'from a certain point of view' speech.  However, it has little to do with traditional/apostolic/orthodox Christianity.  For Truth transcends these barriers and limitations for it is God's Truth, it does not belong to us, nor was it created by us.  In that sense, Truth cannot be destroyed, even if a particular culture declares the death of Truth with a capital 'T' and seeks to replace it with 'my truth' and 'our truth'.  This point works against the author's overall theme.  Truth exists beyond the lens/frame/filter that both he and James Cone would view it through (and beyond that of the white theologians he appears to disdain as well).  Attempts to minimize and contain that Truth are as futile as they are dangerous in the short-term.}

Whiteness has often defined “truth” as the latter — the acceptance of a white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy as orthodoxy, as normal and ideal, with the threat of violence forcing compliance from those who suffer under that narrative.  {The Gospel is NOT 'Whiteness', is does not belong to any race or nationality, it never has.  Orthodoxy is defined by the Scriptures and the Church (with the Spirit), any true understanding of the Gospel has no room whatsoever for racial supremacy, nationalism, politics/economics, etc.  That the Church in America today struggles with these boundaries is evident, but our failure in no way diminishes the power of orthodoxy itself, for that standard comes from God and will be judged by God.}

By rejecting that one story, many marginalized people are simply stating that the white frame never fit us. It isn’t a loss of truth that’s at stake. It’s the white establishment’s loss of control over the frame, their power to define the boundaries of truth.  {The 'power to define the boundaries of truth' has always belonged to God.  God gave revelation and established His Church in fulfillment of that authority.  When the Church began it was a small minority, soon to be persecuted, it was full of women, slaves, and the rejects of Greco-Roman society who saw the Hope that the Gospel offered to even them.  Did the Church gain temporal power?  Indeed it did (and its corrupting influences), but what it didn't do is change the orthodoxy that had been handed down to it from the Apostles (Bart Ehrman strenuously objects to that thought, but what he has is zeal, the evidence of history says otherwise).  The Church today still follows the orthodoxy established by a traveling Jewish rabbi who taught it first to a group comprised primarily of Jewish fishermen.}

Cone is among those defiantly asserting that white people have no governing role over the religion of black Christians. He reminded us that the white evangelical frame for their gospel has nothing to do with meeting God in the black freedom struggle. He’s an example to us all. And there’s nothing white evangelicals can do about it.  {One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.  Either there is One Church, comprised of all those who have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, or the Gospel as it has been understood and preached for two thousand years is meaningless.  There is not a church for each race, there is not a church for each gender, and there is not a church for each nationality.  We, human beings, have contributed to these false barriers through our failures and our sin, but they do not in reality exist.  Jesus Christ is Lord of all, his Word has authority over all who believe.  To attempt to sub-divide that Church is as dangerous and foolish today as it was when white racists would not allow their black slaves to worship with them at church.}

Sermon Video: Wolves in Sheep's clothing - 2 John 7-13

Having established the need for the Christian community to be united by love in the truth of the Gospel (in vs. 1-6), the Apostle John concludes his short letter with a serious warning about the danger of heretics/apostates who have abandoned that truth and who now expound a different, lesser, version of Jesus Christ.  In the first century, that lesser version was typically a denial of the humanity of Jesus (Docetism, a manifestation of Greek Gnosticism), only different in its choice of what to reject from the account of the Apostles in the Scriptures than the post-modern materialistic denial of the deity of Jesus (often as part of an overall denial of the spiritual realm in its entirety).  However it comes about, such a rejection of the Gospel, for rejection it is indeed when the foundation of who Jesus is has been abandoned, cannot be tolerated in the Church.  John goes so far as to insist that these false teachers be denied even a shared meal, lest their teachings infect others and lead them astray.  Without opening ourselves up to the over-reaction of judgmental legalism (ostracism and denying fellowship over non-foundation matters), we must then follow suit and likewise protect the purity of the Gospel for the next generation, just as those Christians to whom John wrote protected it for their children, and on and on until it came to us.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

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

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

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Paula White: Charlatan, Heretic, and White House employee - terrifying in any administration

Paula White-Cain, the famous Prosperity Gospel huckster who has made millions of dollars telling people to send her money so that they will receive God's financial blessing, is now an official White House employee.  {For further information on Paul White: Paula White:The Prosperity Gospel, Celebrity, and Politics - A trifecta of Gospel compromise}.  As this article from CNN explains, Paula White stated that when she was asked to serve, "To say no to President Trump would be saying no to God", evidence of a disturbing level of idolatry: Paula White: Trump's televangelist in the White House - by Jeremy Diamond  When asked if Paula White was a good choice to represent the evangelical community (and Christians in general), the White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere called White "someone who has the respect and admiration of the faith community across the country."  With apologies to Judd Deere, whom I do not know, that statement flies in the face of reality.  Paula White is not respected and admired by the Christian community, she is however, rich, famous, and a gate-keeper to the most powerful politician in America.  IF it becomes true that Paula White is "respected and admired" by the faith community, and there can be little doubt that her popularity is growing rapidly, it will be powerful evidence of rot and decay within the American Church, a cancer of materialism and the love of power.
1. Paula White-Cain is a charlatan and a heretic.
2. Paula White-Cain is being heavily promoted as a leader of the Church in America.
3. Whether you love, hate, or are indifferent to President Trump, the elevation by the White House of Paula White is a threat to the purity and integrity of the Church and the Gospel.
For those who support President Trump, his embrace of Paula White, while not new, he has supported her for decades, should be a disturbing sign, a further reason to pray for him.  For those who do not support the President, his embrace of Paula White will further confirm their low opinion of him.  Either way, the Church is being placed in danger, and the Gospel message is being clouded by the ongoing and increasing placement of an unashamed Prosperity Gospel huckster as a representative of American Christians.  I often hear about threats to the Church of persecution from the outside, whether or not such things are based in reality {some are, some are not}, this threat is real and it is already on the inside.
This is NOT about politics, the elevation of Paula White would be endangering the Church no matter which party she had chosen to support.  As I have warned repeatedly, the marriage of Church and politics is an uneven one, resulting in stains upon the reputation of the Bride of Christ, this is a prime example.  Do you want political power at any cost?  The bill is now due.  If the Church gains political power by embracing the Prosperity Gospel, it will have forfeited its soul.

The Culture War rages on; the Church's role in it is toxic.

Why "winning" as the goal ought to be anathema to Christians

Paula White:The Prosperity Gospel, Celebrity, and Politics - A trifecta of Gospel compromise

In a recent opinion piece in Christianity Today, Leah Payne and Aaron Griffith, highlight the unholy alliance that has led famous evangelical leaders, Franklin Graham, Robert Jeffress, and Jerry Falwell Jr. to endorse the latest book by Paula White-Cain.  The theology espoused by Paula White-Cain has historically been anathema among evangelicals, but the appeal of Paul White's power, in particular her celebrity and close association with the President of the United States, have seemingly overshadowed any concerns about Paula White-Cain's personal history and Prosperity Gospel infused theology {9 Things You Should Know About Prosperity Gospel Preacher Paula White by The Gospel Coalition's Joe Carter}.  Before going on, read the full article, it is well worth it, I will interact with specific passages below: Paula White-Cain’s Evangelical Support Squad Isn’t as Surprising as It Seems

On the surface, White-Cain’s support among these conservative white Protestants is surprising. For one thing, she is a prominent prosperity preacher associated with the New Apostolic Reformation, a loosely connected group of Pentecostals and Charismatics. For decades, tongues-speaking, vision-reporting prosperity preachers like White-Cain have been a theological anathema to more traditional white evangelicals.  {The Prosperity Gospel has been making inroads for decades, inching closer and closer to being thought of as acceptable as its proponents' fame grows through their TV/online presence, book sales, and wealth from donations.  Yet, until the events described in the article, leaders like Franklin Graham would have never publicly associated themselves with those selling this Gospel-for-profit perversion.}

Before fundamentalist-modernist battle lines hardened in the 1920s, it was common to see theological liberals and conservatives sharing stages with one another at tent revivals. Conservative revivalists were willing to work with liberal Protestants if it meant that they could achieve their broader aim of preaching to more potential converts with the support of the local Christian community.
To be sure, the revival tent was big, but it still could be contested. For Billy Graham, his continuation of the evangelical pragmatist tradition in inviting Christians of all stripes—from Johnny Cash to the president of Union Theological Seminary—to support his crusades or sit on his revival platforms drew the ire of fundamentalists like Bob Jones, who saw this impulse as misguided theological capitulation. But Graham helped set the stage for later evangelicals to think creatively about how partnerships could widen their appeal.  {Here is the key fundamental difference between the actions of Billy Graham in previous years and those of Franklin Graham (and those of like mind) today: The purpose.  To what end, for what cause, was Billy Graham willing to work with those he disagreed with about theology?  For the sharing of the Gospel message and the saving of souls.  Not for political gain, not for power, certainly not for money, it was a cause about which the Apostle Paul wrote, "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)  Should we work with anyone, even non-Christians, including Muslims (for example), on disaster relief or humanitarian aid?  Absolutely, for here we are not making common cause theologically, are not claiming to share a Gospel motivation or mission.  To save lives we ought to be willing to work with whomever is willing to offer no-strings-attached aid.  Should we work with other Christians, of other denominations, with whom we disagree on other issue, but agree upon the Gospel in those same areas, while including a Gospel message, praying, and worshiping together?  Absolutely, for here the common bond of the Gospel supersedes our disagreements.  To save souls we ought to be willing to work with anyone who affirms salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  Should we work with non-trinitarians, with those who deny the God/Man nature of Christ or his resurrection, whose Gospel is man-centered, and though it pays lip service to Jesus, is instead focused upon elevating us to earthly riches?  Should we embrace this false-Gospel for the sake of politics, wealth, or fame?  May God forbid it.  Nor can we work with those who embrace a false-gospel in an effort to share the Gospel, for what would we share?(Obviously, in the 3 questions above we would exclude working with those engaging in moral evil; i.e. we wouldn't accept food aid from terrorists, or Gospel preaching aid from pedophiles, that ought to go without saying, but lest anyone say, 'what about..?')

White-Cain frames her self-help efforts in the contractual language of the “hard” prosperity gospel, a term coined by historian Kate Bowler to denote certain ministers’ emphasis on the direct and specific returns that result from faith. In the words of an offer on White-Cain’s website, sow a $130 “Favor Seed” and reap a “Triple Favor” as money flows back to you. But it is not that different from the “soft” prosperity exhortations of other evangelicals, including many in the SBC, who claim that following biblical principles improves marriages, lowers anxiety, and creates extraordinary lives of success and significance.
Though there are innumerable evangelicals who would eschew prosperity language of any sort, a focus on the personal benefits of the faith is everywhere. Focus on the Family’s aesthetic is certainly different than White-Cain’s, but the organization clearly states that familial and marital thriving is available through adherence to biblical teaching. Likewise, Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University claims that “biblically based, common-sense education and empowerment” will “give HOPE to everyone in every walk of life.” Less overly contractual language perhaps, but health and wealth all the same. {Here is where this analysis ought to be especially sobering.  While James Dobson and Dave Ramsey have some critics, and none of our techniques/methods are beyond criticsm, this is a more fundamental question than that.  Has our comfort as an American Church with health and wealth grown so deep and so widespread that we don't even notice it anymore?  Has it seeped into the fabric of who we are as a Church in America so much that we expect health and wealth to be part of Christian discipleship?  The Church certainly has plenty of issues to be worried about, and many things that need to be corrected so that the work of the Kingdom of God can flourish, this question needs to be on that list.}

Evangelicals also are avid participants in celebrity-driven media culture. Like other Americans, evangelicals buy books, check Instagram, and attend conferences. And the drivers of all these media tend to be big names, authority figures who know how to communicate their signature messages effectively.
As a form of American stardom, evangelical celebrity culture is ruthlessly capitalist. One’s star rises and falls based on how many books are sold or where they are slotted in a conference lineup. Part of building a celebrity brand means creating cross promotions on media platforms and exploring unexpected partnerships to open up new markets. Each can open doors for the other. As writer Katelyn Beaty noted, “so much of the endorsement machine is about maintaining relationships, not giving an honest assessment of a written work.”...
And Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University and another of White-Cain’s promoters, describes himself in precisely these market-driven terms, as a businessman who is to be evaluated by the financial health, growth, and notoriety his educational empire, not his theology. His promotion of White-Cain’s book can be interpreted as a logical follow-up to White-Cain’s presence (in support of her husband, Journey keyboardist Jonathan Cain) at Liberty’s convocation in 2017. With her massive media presence (nearly 700,000 Twitter followers and counting), it is understandable that other evangelicals like Falwell (with around 75,500 Twitter followers) would see promotion of White-Cain’s work as a way to link their name with hers, benefitting both in the long run.
 {As damning as the thought that leaders like Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr, and Robert Jeffress might be duped into not recognizing the Prosperity Gospel danger that Paul White represents, it is far more disconcerting to consider the alternative: they know it but don't care.  The allure of popularity, sales, and access to powerful people is too strong.  I would disagree strongly with someone who made such an alliance for the sake of political gain, such marriages always corrupt those who embrace them, but if any portion of that compromise is being driven by the greed for fame and money, the moral failure is far greater than simply one of being in error.}

For those who do not share her theological disposition, it is wishful thinking to pretend that she is not a major force within American evangelicalism. It is now Paula White-Cain’s world. The question is how we should live in it. {The conclusion of the Payne/Griffith article, one that reminds us that this issue isn't going away anytime soon.}

Conclusions:

1.  The Prosperity Gospel is anathema: The Gospel is about service for God, about selfless sacrifice in this life for the sake of the next, NOT about health, wealth, and fame here and now.
That the Church in America, even where the preaching and teaching remains orthodox, is infected with exceptionalism (i.e. God is for us more than other people, we're the special, chosen nation} and weakened by materialism, where the spiritual takes a back seat to the material, is now beyond doubt.  That we've grown comfortable with a lite-version of Prosperity doesn't make it any less dangerous.

2.  Any preacher who promises blessings from God in exchange for money is a charlatan who should be shunned no matter whether the theology that he/she is promoting is orthodox or not.
In this case, of course, the money seeking behavior is also coupled with deeply troubling theology.  I am well aware that Paula White-Cain's website contains an orthodox statement of beliefs under the heading, her beliefs, but video also exists of her denying the trinity and claiming that we are all little gods (reminiscent of the 'we will all be gods someday' heresy of Mormonism).  The theology is bad enough, couple together with a money-making scheme and Christian leaders ought to be putting up "DANGER" signs, not endorsing the latest book.

3.  Book sales, twitter followers, and appearances on TV are NOT an accurate measuring stick for who ought to be leading the Church.
You may perhaps already be aware of this, but the Apostle Paul wrote extensively to Timothy about the moral character, and lack of immoral behavior, required of those who would be called to lead the people of God.  Popularity is not on the list.

Additional material:

Jeffress Defends Endorsement of Paula White’s Book, But Admits He Hasn’t Read it “Word for Word” or Researched Her Theology by Julie Roys

Televangelist Paula White Hawks 'Resurrection Life' for $1,144 'Seed' by Leonardo Blair, Christian Post {An example of the absolute heresy of promising blessings to those who send you money, no better than the Papal Indulgences that infuriated Martin Luther}

Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore tweeted, “Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian, of whatever tribe.”

Sermon Video: The Gospel, simply - John 3:16

Life is complicated, problems and their solutions are often difficult to understand.  Thankfully, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not complicated.  The message itself can be contained in one sentence, and even though entire books can hardly contain all of its implications, the Gospel can be readily understood by ordinary people, including children.  What then is the Gospel?  As John so eloquently summarizes it in John 3:16, it includes the following: (1) The existence of God as Creator and Judge, (2) the love of God for humanity {the world}, (3) the sacrifice on our behalf of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, (4) our needed response, "believe in him", (5) and lastly, the result, eternal life. 
John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
This is the Gospel, the Good News about Jesus, simply.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Intelligible words in the Church - 1 Corinthians 14:13-19

Having established the priority of building up the Church when ranking the desirability of spiritual gifts, the Apostle Paul continues the theme by explaining that even 10,000 words given in a language unknown to the hearer(s) are worth less than 5 intelligible words whose meaning can be grasped.  In stating this, Paul asserts that our minds needs to be engaged in prayer and worship, not just our emotions, and that our end goal, edification, requires understanding (on the part of the recipient) in order to be fruitful.  Illustrations utilized: the Western Church's use of the Latin Mass (a barrier to understanding), the dense verbiage of Martin Buber's I and Thou (verses the accessibility of Max Lucado's Just like Jesus), and the unnecessary barrier of teaching English to non-speakers envisioned by Sam Gipp's KJV Only position.  In the end, it is incumbent upon us that we make a serious effort, in both evangelism and apologetics, to share, explain, and defend God's Word with both intelligibility and clarity.

To watch the video, click on the link below:  As a bonus, the introduction features the story of my preaching in Guatemala in 1997 through an interpreter, as well as my fumbling my way through a lesson in Spanish (not a pretty picture).

Fight or Flight? Self-Segregation is the death of the Church's Gospel mission

The list of companies being boycotted by various Christians and/or conservatives has grown rather long: Walmart, Kroger, Walgreens, CSV, Disney, Nascar, Amazon, Google, basically the biggest and most popular corporations in America, all having done something regarding guns, homosexuality, or politics to put them on "the list".  No, I'm not going to enter into the boycott argument, and yes, a similar list exists among liberals listing different companies (or sometimes the same companies for different reasons).  What do we make of this, and how does it impact the Church and the Gospel?
We are currently trending, heavily, as a culture and a country toward greater degrees of self-segregation.  Not the old-school racial segregation enforced by zoning laws and bat wielding rednecks, but instead a version we are choosing to embrace based upon politics/morality/religion, which is showing itself both in the urban/rural divide and in the coastal/interior divide.  The Red areas are becoming deeper shades of Red, and the Blue areas are becoming more uniformly Blue.  People are moving within their communities to neighborhoods were people are more like them (it can mimic racial segregation in that people who look like us are more likely to think/act like us, but it has now transcended that as well), within their states to areas where people are more like them, and within the country to states where people are more like them.  We are more likely to live in an echo chamber, massively assisted by social media and cable news/talk radio, where the only voices we hear are ones that reinforce what we believe and demonize what "they" believe.  Some of our politicians are thriving in these chum-infested waters, some talking heads are getting rich off of it, but the American Republic is much worse off.  {FYI, gerrymandering is a symptom of this, making primaries the only race that matters}.  I won't tell you how to solve this problem on the political/national level, but I can intelligently (I hope) ponder what this is doing to the Church.
In 1 Corinthians 15:33, the Apostle Paul quotes the Greek poet Menander when he writes, "Do not be misled: 'Bad company corrupts good character.'"  In that particular context Paul is discussing the resurrection and those who disbelieve it, people we would call heretics or apostates.  He utilizes a Greek poet to remind the Christian minority in Corinth that they can be negatively influenced by those around them.  In his next letter to that church, Paul broadens the warning a bit in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 when he writes, "14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 Therefore,“Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.  Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” 18 And, “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”  Twice then, Paul warns about becoming too entangled, "yoked together" with unbelievers (whether the Lost or those who have walked away from the Light, i.e. apostates).  At the same time, the Apostle Paul spent decades risking his life to take the Gospel, as an observant Jew, among the Gentiles to show them the light of Christ.  Certainly Paul did not withdraw from the world, enter a monastery, and seek to be free from the 'infection' of the pagan culture that he lived and worked within.  Paul was aware of the danger, yet it didn't stop him from seeking the Lost where they were.
What then is the answer?  Jesus also highly stressed the need for purity, even emphasizing that our thoughts count as well as our actions, and yet he ate with 'tax collectors and sinners' as recorded in Matthew 9:10-17 (and Mark 2:15-22, Luke 5:29-39) 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”  12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”  Nobody has lived a pure life of comparison with Jesus Christ, and yet he was willing to be scorned by the Pharisees, the group who stood for strict adherence to the Law of Moses and the rejection of Greek culture, in order to minister to the outcasts of society.  In fact, Jesus reprimanded the Pharisees for focusing on ritualistic purity without having hearts of mercy.
This seems like a contradiction in the Scriptures, a gotcha moment for agnostics and atheists to laugh at our silly devotion to 'God's Word', but it isn't.  Instead, it is something extremely profound and often overlooked by Christians (and Judaism before us): purposeful tension.  That's right, the Scriptures contain opposed but complimentary ideas that are designed to be held in tension.  It was a college professor of mine, Dr. Ronald Mayers, who first introduced me to the idea of a Both/And rather than an Either/Or perspective in Scripture. {Both/And: A Balanced Apologetic by Ronald B. Mayers}  Not all issues, to be sure, but many of them contain a Both/And element.  For example: As Christians we are already saved, and yet we are not yet what we will be for we our sanctification is ongoing.  We are already in Christ, but not yet Christ-like.  Likewise, we believe in the sovereignty of God and the freedom of human beings to make real decisions, both God's will and human freedom.
Which brings us to the current situation in America and within the Church.  At the same time we are called to be pure, 1 Peter 1:16, " for it is written: 'Be holy, because I am holy.'" AND Matthew 5:13-16, "'You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."  We must be 'in the world, but not of the world' (An attempt to summarize the teaching of Scripture on this issue), a delicate balance but one we must not shrink from finding.
This is our challenge as the Church in America in the 21st century.  We are interacting less and less with those who are non-Christians, and even those who are fellow Christians, but who disagree with us.  We are called to be salt and light, but within our own echo chamber, what good are they?  We are called to not be "yoked together" with unbelievers, but also to eat with "tax collectors and 'sinners'".  As much as we might want to retreat into our own world, to wall ourselves off from that which makes us uncomfortable and that with which we disagree, we cannot.  We must be pure, but not at the cost of disengaging from those who live in darkness. {As some are calling for us to do, see one popular version of the retreat strategy: The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post Christian World - by Rob Dreher}
Our mission is not to save ourselves, our mission is not to save our church, our mission is not even to save The Church, our mission, given to us by Jesus Christ, is to use the Truth of the Gospel, empowered by the Holy Spirit, to save the World.  Salt must stay salty in order to be effective, but salt left in the salt shaker doesn't help anyone.

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.

After another mass shooting, what can be said?

Update: This post was originally written in August of 2019 after mass shootings occurred on consecutive days: The El Paso, Texas Walmart shooting that killed 23 people and wounded 22 more, and the Dayton, Ohio shooting that killed 9 and wounded 17 more.  It has been updated, today (10/26/23) while the mass murder in Lewiston, Maine is still at large, having killed 18 last night and wounded at least 30 more.  However, this same lament could have been reposted after Monterey Park, CA (1/21/23, 12 killed), Uvalde, TX (5/24/22, 22 killed), Buffalo, NY (5/14/22, 10 killed), San Jose, CA (5/26/21, 10 killed), or Boulder, CO (5/22/21, 10 killed), that is if we're only listing the massacres where ten or more were murdered here in America since August of 2019.

On many issues, I am a realistic optimist, that is, I believe that things can get better with hard work, support systems, collaboration, prayer, and the grace of God.  However, I don't have any illusions about human nature changing, nor hopes that we can put an end to violence whether we're talking about an individual harming one person or a war ravaging a whole country, and honestly, I don't have any real hope that anything will change for the better on this issue of mass violence in my lifetime.  

Perhaps God will be pour out his grace upon us and help us with the mess that we've created, short of that I can't see how any progress other than that which is local and limited can be made (that level of matters enough to be worthy striving for, we all should at least be willing to work for that).  And so I pray for God to be merciful upon us, not because we deserve it, but because so many of us are crying out for deliverance.  

The original post is below:

It has been about a year and a half since I wrote, "If I say anything about guns", in which I expressed my desire to not allow my views and opinions (no matter how well informed or articulately shared) about the issues of America's culture wars to become a smokescreen that prevents those both within and outside the Church from hearing my voice about the Good News that Jesus Christ died to set them free from their sins.  In the intervening year and a half, the issues of the culture wars have grown more contentious, more polarizing, not less.  {Update 10/26/23: Things have hardly improved on this front since 2019, sadly.} A cursory glance at social media today showed several of those among my FB friends who have decided to post pro-gun memes in the aftermath of the two most recent shootings.  Rather than showing restraint in the face of yet two more examples of how one person with hate in his (I could say, "or her", but statistically this is a "his" problem) heart can murder at a rate of twenty people per minute (or more), there is a significant percentage of people who feel the need to defiantly defend the circumstances which make such rapid lethality possible.  This is not the first time I have seen this response, and not the only issue where the reaction of many is to defend their own position no matter the context.  In this case those posting pro-gun sentiments after a mass shooting are very conservative, after the next tragedy or disaster, it may be those who are very liberal defending a different sacred cow.  Such responses are a human problem, not a conservative or a liberal one.

I was sheltered as a child, I grew up in a rural community that was almost exclusively white, highly conservative on a variety of issues, and mostly Protestant.  And yet, even in that bubble I did not sense the all-pervasive animosity of the deep seated us vs. them mentality that seems today to pervade our culture.  This isn't the America I grew up in.  It is more divided, more partisan, more bitter, more prone to treat those it disagrees with as enemies, and more likely to resort to violence when things aren't to its liking.  A lot of things have contributed to where we are now: The internet, 9/11, 24 hour cable news networks, social media, Citizens United (the Supreme Court case allowing for unlimited political contributions, i.e super-PACs), gerrymandering (making politicians in the middle vulnerable, as the only serious challenge is from the more extreme wing of either party during the primary stage), just to name a few. 
Perhaps we are not too far along this path as individuals, and as a culture, to want to turn back.  Perhaps we can seek solutions rather than simply demonizing those with whom we disagree, perhaps reconciliation and healing can overcome hatred and violence.  I, for one, am doing what I can to help and trying to not be the person who makes things worse.  Trying to mold and shape the congregation I have been entrusted with, and perhaps my community as well, with the Love of Jesus Christ, one day, one person, at a time.  This is the slow and steady path that will be mocked by partisan zealots on both sides, it will encounter jeers of "cowardice" from those who would rather burn the village than let the enemy have it.  So be it, I answer to a higher authority than peer pressure.
Perfect solutions do not exist, they all have flaws, but the direction we are traveling in as a culture and a nation is not sustainable.  Either things will continue to devolve further and further into factionalism and hatreds, or we will find a way to live in peace, even if we are not in harmony.  To continue to do nothing about mass acts of violence (primarily from those wielding guns) has been morally unacceptable since at least Columbine, this issue, along with a host of other pressing concerns, requires true moral leadership with the courage to seek solutions (or at least attempted solutions) that, while imperfect, at least have a chance at making things better.  Where that courage will come from, I do not know, for we have seen precious little of it in the last two decades, and it is getting more rare by the day.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

{Update 10/26/23: Rereading this post actually hurt my heart, it was written before the bitterness of the 2020 election and the Covid pandemic, before the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent aborted reckoning with racism in America.  Four years later it is very hard to find more optimism than I had in 2019, with war raging in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza, there are reasons to have less.  And yet, God is good, the triumph of evil is always temporary, it is always darkest before the dawn.  Perhaps my daughter's generation will have had enough of our folly, perhaps they will learn from our generation's mistakes.}

Sermon Video: Humbling ourselves for the sake of the Gospel - 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

Are we responsible for presenting the Gospel to the Lost in ways that mesh with their cultural and intellectual/emotional state?  The Apostle Paul thought so.  He was willing to humble himself to reach as many of the Lost as possible.  Figuring out how to do this may be difficult in practice, but the principle is firmly grounded, we ought to be "all things to all people so that by all possible means I (we) might save some."

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: How Much do we care about the Gospel? 1 Corinthians 9:1-18

Beginning with the remarkable story of Adoniram and Ann Judson who served in the 19th century as missionaries to Burma, this message utilizes the Apostle Paul's willingness to forego compensation as a minister of the Gospel, while at the same time advocating for the command to the Church that those who serve the Gospel be supported, to look at how we (as both a local church and an American Baptist Church) are doing in following this command.  After a look at my own experience of the ordeal of being a "free agent" trying to find full-time ministry, the message concludes with a call for each Christian to do more than support those serving as pastors and missionaries, as we all must be willing to sacrifice for the sake of the Gospel.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

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

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

(CNN)You think you know what Easter means?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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