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

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

Sermon Video: Tradition Needs Sincerity - Mark 7:1-8

 When asked why his disciples were not participating in an oral tradition of Judaism that had been passed down through the years by various rabbis, Jesus responds by addressing the real issue: sincerity. Whether or not a tradition has value and should be retained and supported, or is harmful and should be discontinued depends upon two questions: (1) Does it conform to the Word of God? {Or is scripture silent on the issue} (2) Is the tradition being adhered to with sincerity of heart? Traditions in alignment with scripture have value, how much depends on us.

Sermon Video: The Authority of Jesus demonstrated - Mark 1:21-28

 What is the nature of authority?  Where does it come from and how do we know if we can trust it?  Jesus demonstrates one part of the answer by speaking in the synagogue of Capernaum with authority as he interprets the Scriptures.  As Christians, the foundation of our authority is the Word of God (Jesus as the Logos, was himself speaking God's Word that day, as every day).  Behind the Scriptures lies our own individual understanding, our corporate/congregational, tradition, ecclesiastical structures and decisions, and finally (for some Christians, and at some points in Church History) papal/patriarchal authority.  These various overlapping layers of authority are all subject to the Scriptures, which sift and judge them, spurring us to reject that which defies Scripture, and bolster that which follows it...In addition, Jesus that same day demonstrates authority in the spiritual realm as well, by casting out an impure spirit with a simple command.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The logical and historical implications of a Pro-LGBTQI+ Church and/or Pro-Abortion Church

In the moment, when our passions are aroused, we have a hard time seeing it.  But there are always logical and historical implications when an organization (governmental, corporate, charitable, educational, religious, etc.) makes a momentous change.  In 1215, When King John signed the Magna Carta , the trajectory of Western Civilization was dramatically altered, although none then could have imagined that it would one day lead to English colonies across the Atlantic Ocean declaring their independence of the British Crown.  So it is with the sea change that is taking place in portions of the Church today.  What we are now experiencing is a significant change from what was generally accepted as the Truth by the Christians who passed down their faith to us.  There will be logical implications to these that we have not fully thought through, there will be unintended consequences, and there will be historical implications to this that we cannot yet see.  Perhaps, as we continue to lob verbal grenades at each other, and continue to fight this theological war as a proxy in the political realm, we ought to try to take a step back and consider what some of those implications might be.  What will we hand down to future generations in the faith?
Let us then posit the existence of a Church that by and large has become Pro-LGBTQI+ and/or Pro-Abortion.  {Not a Church that considers how to show compassion toward and minister to those who embrace LGBTQI+ behavior, nor to those who have had abortions.  Both of those things the Church should already be doing, although doing so is certainly difficult.  Nor a Church that is neutral toward these issues, neither celebrating nor condemning them.  The question at hand is this: What about a Church that has chosen to celebrate these things?}  These are the two primary ideas that the Church is being asked to accept, that some within the Church have reluctantly tolerated, and some have enthusiastically embraced.  With all of the yelling going on, perhaps looking toward the past and future will offer some perspective. 
1. Our perspective of the past will change significantly
We are always reevaluating the past, appreciating things we hadn't noticed before and regretting things that were once commonplace.  This is not new, not avoidable, and not necessarily a bad thing.  Our ancestors once considered slavery to be something they could not rid the world of, until a Christian named William Wilberforce (among many others) spent his adult life convincing England to outlaw the practice.  Now, when we consider that chattel slavery was once practiced by "fine Christian gentleman" it makes our skin crawl.  So what will we think of (for example) Moses, Paul, Augustine, Martin Luther, or Billy Graham should the Church fully embrace these two moral positions?  All of them will be viewed as much more flawed than they currently are.  And while no man or woman called by God to serve his kingdom is free of flaws, it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that these former stalwarts of the faith were either cowards (for failing to be a lone voice in their culture) or bigots (for actively opposing the behaviors in question).  In other words, nearly all of our heroes of the faith, certainly almost all those who lived before the 20th century, will have to be reevaluated, and most will end up on the list of "enemies of God".  Instead of good men and women who did their best by faith, they will be fools who were blind to the 'truth'.  It will not be a stretch to then believe that if their hearts could be so closed to what now has been determined to be true, that the vast majority of the heroes, and regular folk, who proceeded us in the faith, are in fact in Hell {for those who retain a belief in Hell}.  If one hates what God loves, and forbids what God celebrates, what other conclusion is left?  Hebrews 11 offers Christians a "great cloud of witnesses", heroes in the faith from the past to inspire us to live faithfully today.  What happens to that inspiration when the past has been rewritten and the heroes are now all villains?
In addition to the reevaluation of individuals, ancient Israel and the Church until the 21st century will also come under scrutiny for their 'unenlightened' viewpoints.  And while there were dark periods for both Israel and the Church in their history, times when people claiming to follow God have acted in shameful ways that we rightly condemn, it has until now been accepted that orthodox belief and practice did in fact triumph, by and large, in the end.  That when Israel embraced as canonical the writings of the Tanakh (what we call the Old Testament) and treated them as Holy Scripture, that they were correct to do so.  That when the Church accepted the brilliance of St. Augustine's argumentation, that it was correct to do so.  But if both Israel and the Church have been so egregiously in error, about so fundamental and issue as human sexuality or the sanctity of life, does it not follow that the entire contribution of these two would now become suspect?  That our connection to both Ancient Israel (as the tree onto which the Church was grafted) and the Early to Modern Church is false?  What they believed, will no longer be what we believe.  What they condemned, we will celebrate.  The connection to the 'faith of our fathers' will be lost.
2. God will not have been active (or effective) in the past
If, as some within the larger Church are now contending, it was always God's intention to be pro-LGBTQI+ and/or pro-abortion, if these things are not merely permissible in a civil society (where we are now) but far beyond that, to be encouraged, celebrated, and embraced as glorifying to God, then it becomes readily apparent that God's effort to share this viewpoint with his people, and have them conform to it, was woefully inadequate in the past.  There is not a plethora of writings from rabbis or church elders urging the acceptance of (let alone celebration of) these two activities, which either indicates that such voices were crushed by orthodox ones, revealing that God was powerless to promote and preserve them, or they did not in fact exist, in which case God was powerless to inspire those voices.  Either way, for the past 4,000 years, God has done a woeful job of making this aspect of morality known to his people, and thus to the world.
As a corollary, if only orthodox voices were accepted, promoted, and preserved by Israel and the Church (reflected thus in the canonical scriptures), then immediate questions arise concerning the truthfulness and value of the scriptures that we do have.  Because the Bible does not promote {Yes, I know a no-holds-barred battle is raging about whether or not the Bible condemns either homosexual behavior or abortion, this is the question beyond that one} homosexual behavior and abortion, as morally good and upright acts of righteousness (as is does, for example, repeatedly and strongly promote caring for widows and orphans, obeying your parents, or having a servant's heart), but those positions are now being declared to be such by the Church, the implication is that the Scriptures are corrupted in deep fundamental ways.  As such, trust in the scriptures as a guide to life and morality will be, in a future Church which has chosen to be pro-LGBTQI+ and/or pro-Abortion, far less absolute, thus bringing to a final end Martin Luther's call for Sola Scriptura as well as the Catholic Church's reliance upon the traditions handed down from the Apostles.
3. Jesus will not be the Jesus of our ancestors in the faith
As much as we might admire the Apostle Peter or Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in the end, it all comes down to Jesus.  To change our perspective regarding the hundreds of men and women who have walked in obedience before God as Jews or Christians is one thing, to take the traditional, orthodox, view of Jesus, and redefine it significantly is another.  As is the case with the Bible as a whole, the Gospels do not make any sort of pro-LGBTQI+ or pro-abortion case.  The Jesus that they relate to us, while full of compassion for the downtrodden of society, is at the same time extremely serious about the need for purity before God and the impact of sin upon the lives of people.  That these two issues were settled matters within 1st century Judaism (thus largely explaining Jesus' lack of focus upon them), would thus not excuse Jesus from speaking out in favor of those with non-traditional sexual desires, or unwanted pregnancies.  If Jesus is the champion of those in need that we all believe him to be, why did he leave the people in his midst who had these issues in the lurch?  Jesus was willing to eat with "tax collectors and 'sinners'", it would have been even more scandalous, and thus made his point about self-righteousness even more poignantly had Jesus sought out an example from either of these two groups to embrace in front of the Pharisees.
And yet Jesus didn't do this (or at least the Gospels don't record it, which instead of lowering the view of Jesus, lowers that of the Scriptures, an equally untenable solution).  He didn't take the opportunity to overturn the Jewish understanding of marriage and the sanctity of life.  Judaism in the first century viewed marriage and children as highly admirable, as the ideal for all those who could enjoy its blessings, and yet Jesus didn't call them out for their, apparent, bigotry.  The Jesus of the Gospels (the only one we know) is no hero to the LGBTQI+ movement, nor to pro-abortion champions, and thus he too will be reevaluated by a future Church that has embraced these ideas.

There are more implications for the future relating to the debates raging within the Church today than these three, but these three ought to be sufficient to give committed Christians a reason to think more deeply about these issues.  Set aside the politics, set aside the cultural implications, ask the most important question: How will this change affect the Church/Gospel/Bible if it is fully embraced?  The Church is a living thing, made up of flawed but redeemed people, and it needs to find a way to face the challenges of today without abandoning its historic and scriptural roots; to do so we need compassion, courage, and wisdom.

Sermon Video: In Remembrance of Jesus - 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

In his effort to reform the way in which the church at Corinth was participating in the Lord's Supper, the Apostle Paul reminds them that his instructions were received, "from the Lord" and then passed directly onto them.  The Early Church greatly valued Apostolic Authority, the teachings that were received directly from Jesus and then passed on to the Church during its first generation.  It was this teaching that was then incorporated into the Scriptures, nearly all of which had an apostolic author or someone closely associated with an apostle (i.e. like Mark with Peter).  For the Church this connection to Jesus is crucial, providing confidence in what we believe and teach.
What Paul received from Jesus regarding Communion was simple enough: (1) Jesus gave thanks, (2) acknowledged that his body would be broken and blood shed, (3) and then distributed it to his disciples to partake.  Our task, as the Church, while not spelled out in great detail by Paul, is still simple: do likewise.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Propriety in Worship - 1 Corinthians 11:1-16

Having dealt with issues relating to how Christians ought to function within the outside culture, Paul now turns to the proper function of the Church itself, beginning with propriety of worship.  In doing so, Paul relates the 1st Century viewpoints regarding what is fitting and proper for both men and women to show respect for God while at worship to the Genesis account of Creation, a connection aimed at ensuring that the way in which the Christians were conducting themselves would bring glory to God, not man.  In doing so, Paul appeals to traditions that he taught to the church when he founded it, reminding us that our worship (and the way our local church or denomination functions in general) is by necessity both a reflection of theological choices and the culture from which we are drawn.  As such, it is not incumbent upon 21st Century Christians to imitate the style of worship of our ancestors in the faith, but rather to ensure that our worship is also fitting and proper, that it glorifies God and serves as a witness to those outside of the Church of our submission to the Lordship of Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: When rules choke out compassion - Luke 13:10-17

While teaching in a synagogue, on the Sabbath, Jesus was confronted with the implications of a cultural/religious phenomenon known as expansion of piety.  In this case, it was observance of the Sabbath that had grown more elaborate and restrictive over time to the point that by the first century, it was even considered to be a violation of the Law to heal someone of infirmity on the Sabbath.  This has, of course, nothing to do with the original intent of the law of Sabbath rest, but is instead a result of small incremental steps of increasing piety/devotion over time and the eventual integration of those new facets of keeping the Sabbath into the accepted form of obeying the Law.  Eventually, the traditions surrounding the Sabbath came to be accepted as being as sacred and binding as that which was contained originally in the Law of Moses.
This same phenomenon occurs in Church history, as pious scribes over time magnify the name of Jesus in the text that they are copying such that what was originally simply "Jesus" eventually becomes "our Lord Jesus Christ".  Similarly, appreciation for Mary as the mother of Jesus eventually builds and grows until it becomes full blown Marian devotion in the Middle Ages, the same thing applying to the Saints and their relics.  Likewise, the church liturgy itself, along with the church buildings, communion items like the candlesticks and cups, and the priestly vestments, all grew more elaborate and complex over time.
The problem with this tendency arises when a would be reformer seeks to return things to their original intent or purpose only to be viewed as a heretic for daring to attack the sacred when in reality he/she is only seeking to peel away the layers of human additions to what God instituted.  Some such additions and growths are harmless, but others, like the change of how the Sabbath was observed that Jesus confronted, can lead to a twisting of what the original purpose was to the extent that it actually becomes harmful.  The enhanced Sabbath observance not only led to hypocritical and silly extremes, but it eventually raised keeping the Sabbath above the needs of real people such that the crowd became indignant with Jesus when he dared to heal on the Sabbath.
In the end, what God had decreed, we have no right to change, what man has built upon that foundation, should always be open to reform, especially if what we have built puts tradition, rules, and preferences, above the needs of the people of God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Out with the old, in with the new?

We're in the middle of a kitchen renovation at the church parsonage.  Ross Kilian (from MSM, he's our contractor on this job) and I tore out the old cabinets and the old ceiling tiles on Monday.  The newspapers from behind the wall were from 1968 (the sports page had an article on Pistol Pete Maravich, he was held to "only" 28 points the previous day).  One of the things that we were able to do is reuse the old cabinets, two pair of them above the washer and two above the dryer as well as the other ones out in the carport to store garden tools.  We live in a culture where yesterday's anything is designed to be thrown away and replaced by the next greatest thing, that in turn will be discarded when a new whatever it is comes out in six months.  Living in a home that was built in 1904 helps us to appreciate the craftsmanship and quality of the work that they did back in the day even as we update the kitchen.  Just because something is new, doesn't mean that it is better.  Yes, we need to embrace progress and we need to be willing to change, but not simply change for the sake of change.
The attitude that allows for change, but seeks to do so with wisdom is valuable for the Church.  There will always be some people who seek to change the Church, and there will always be some who try to keep it the same.  How are we to judge who is right and who is wrong, how can we be relevant without being relativistic?  Fortunately for the Church, we have a bedrock of solid ground to stand upon.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the same for you and I as it has been since the days of Peter, and it will be the same long after today's fads had faded into the obscurity of answers to trivia questions.  The Word of God is the same for you and I as it was in the days of Abraham, Moses, and Paul, and it will be the same long after today's expert has been replaced with tomorrow's.  Because we stand upon solid ground, we as a Church do not have to fear change, we don't have to fight progress because our goal and our mission have not changed during the past 2,000 years.  Out with the old, in with the new?  Maybe, let's talk about it, think about it, pray about it, and find out what the Word of God says about it.

The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and Church transitions

The surprise announcement that Pope Benedict XVI will resign as Pope at the end of February was certainly a surprise, especially when you consider that it hasn't happened since Gregory XII in 1415.  In the very near future the College of the Cardinals will convene to select the next Pope in a process that is repeated, albeit with less grandeur and prestige at stake, all over the world each year when churches large and small select someone to take the place of a previous leader. 
There are several issues which can threaten a local church or even a whole denomination, change of leadership is one of the most regular and one of the most frightening.  Questions often abound about how the new leader(s) will be able to measure up to the old.  How will the current ministries of the church mesh with this new leader's vision?  Will changes be coming, and will they be for the better?
The issues are relatively the same for the Catholic Church's one billion followers and the small rural church of twenty.  Change, for better or worse, is often met with apprehension if not fear.  A dynamic leader is difficult to replace (and take it from the perspective of a minister, difficult to follow as well).  Sadly, many a church has been dealt a mortal blow due to the cliques that form around ex-pastors or the unwillingness of some in a congregation to accept that change is a necessary part of any healthy church.
So what can we rely upon to bolster us in times of change?  The first great anchor for any church must be the Cornerstone of our faith, Jesus Christ.  Whomever is chosen to lead us, by whichever selection process is used, he/she must affirm without any hesitation the sole headship of Jesus Christ and the absolute reliance upon his saving work upon the cross for our sins.  Secondly, we rely upon the continuity of the Scriptures.  The Word of God is the source of authority for us all regardless of the amount of authority a local leader or even denominational leader may or may not have at his/her disposal.  Those in leadership change, the Word of God does not.  Thirdly, we have tradition and the example of those who have gone before us to guide us.  The world around us changes all the time, yet nothing is new under the sun (Solomon knew that 3,000 years ago); the challenges facing our churches today are the challenges that the Church has overcome before and will again.  Why?  Because Christ has promised us that the "gates of hell will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18).
In the end, each local body, and each larger denominational grouping, must protect the legacy that has been handed down to us from those who have lived as salt and light in this world before us, and we must find new ways to bring the same unchangeable Gospel of Jesus Christ to a world that continues to be in need of God's forgiveness.  We must choose our leaders wisely, and we must remember to support them in prayer.
Is it odd for a Baptist pastor to pray for the selection of the next Pope?  It shouldn't be, our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are embarking upon a new chapter in the history of the Catholic Church; a journey we too have taken in the past and we too will do so again soon enough.  The men and women who lead the Church on Earth are but servants of Lamb; we do his work for as long as we are blessed with the responsibility of shepherding his flock, and then we hand the staff on to another of God's shepherds.