Sermon Video: Having Grace in Disputable Matters, part 2 - Romans 14:10-14

Continuing his teaching that Christians must show grace in disputable matters, the Apostle Paul adds the new consideration that we will all stand before God one day and answer for how we have lived our lives (i.e. we will account for judging others unnecessarily, and we don't need to judge when God will take care of it in his own time).  In addition, Paul explains that at the heart of the truth that there are indeed disputable matters is the reality that no thing is good or evil (clean or unclean to use terminology related to the Law of Moses) in itself.  It isn't things that cause evil, so in Christ there is no need for a continuation of the Mosaic purity laws, nor for a Christian version of them.  Lastly, Paul warns those who extend God's rules beyond what he has stated that they will be bound by their own rules (lest they sin by, in their own mind at least, rebelling against God).

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

Downtown Franklin during last year's Witch Walk

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

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

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

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

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

Some important context: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #11: Matthew 7:1-5

 

Matthew 7:1-5     New International Version

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

One of the most damaging aspects of 'Christian' Nationalism with respect to evangelism and the integrity of the Gospel is its built in tendency to shout from the rooftops about the sins of 'them' (the political enemies of 'our team'), and at the same time downplay or even cover-up the sins committed by 'us' (the political allies of 'our team').  This rank hypocrisy isn't fooling anyone, and both other Christians who disagree with the favored political stance of the 'Christian' Nationalists and non-believers can readily see it.

The question then becomes, "Why?"  Why are 'Christian' Nationalists so concerned with the sins committed by people they don't want to be a part of their group {either because they're Christians who don't think like them about politics, and therefore in their minds not Christians at all, or they're non-believers who aren't acceptable partners in such a 'holy crusade'}, and so unconcerned about the sins committed by the people that belong to their group?  The only possible answer is that this is being done in the pursuit of worldly power {and its unholy partners, fame and money}.  In order to 'win', morality must be set aside.  This not only applies to employing tactics and strategies that would otherwise be called evil {more on that with other texts}, but in this case being hyper-partisan in the use of the moral authority that they supposedly wield on God's behalf.

One of the key things to look for when this is happens is 'what-about-ism'.  When a person on 'our team', especially a powerful political leader or influential religious figure, is credibly accused of a deeply disturbing sin, even a heinous crime, the immediate response is to say in essence, "What about that person on the other team who did something else that isn't right?!?!"  This of course is a way of avoiding accountability and facing the hard truth that political allies not beholden to the demands of Christian discipleship are only playing lip service to the morality that 'Christian' Nationalists proclaim is essential to the future of America.

In the end, such hypocrisy may help win some elections, but the cost is always high, not only fostering schism and animosity within the body of Christ, but showing non-believers that to 'Christian' Nationalists at least, the sharing of the Gospel and the call to righteous living are commands of less importance {since they're willing to compromise them so thoroughly} than gaining and maintaining power here on earth.  Why would they seek salvation from such a Gospel?

Friendly Fire? Why examination and censure by Christians belongs primarily on us, not them

I have been asked variations of this question, "Why all the focus on Christians?"  (Or conservatives, evangelicals, Republicans).  And while for some people, there tends to be a blind spot or rose colored glasses regarding those like themselves, that is a flaw that Christians cannot afford to indulge.  So then, if I interact more with the words and actions, including criticizing them, of pastors than lay people, that's purposeful.  When I focus more upon baptists, evangelicals, or conservatives, that's in part because of familiarity and the ability to understand where they're coming from and 'speak the language', but also partly an intentional choice.  The same holds true on the larger categories, with more focus upon Americans than the rest of the world, and more focus upon Protestants than Catholic or Orthodox Christians.  From time to time an idea put forth by, for example, a British liberal atheist may be significant enough (for better or for worse) to merit a response, but those on the outside of Christianity, while remaining the focus of evangelistic efforts, are purposefully not the primary audience of my preaching or teaching (nor by extension, of this blog).  Why?

1 Timothy 4:6 New International Version (NIV)
If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 New International Version (NIV)

24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 New International Version (NIV)

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Jude 3 New International Version (NIV)
Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

1. The example of Scripture.
The book of Jonah is a prime example.  While the purpose of the book is ostensibly the journey of one of God's prophets to condemn the wanton immorality of the people of Nineveh, as the story unfolds it becomes evident that the real problem is not with the godless Ninevites, but with the prophet himself, who does not want God to show mercy to the enemy of his people.  Likewise, when reading the Gospel accounts one discovers that while Jesus certainly called all people to repentance, it was only the self-righteous Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-36),corrupt Sanhedrin (Matthew 21:12-13), and the people from near his hometown who had witnessed his many miracles but rejected him (Matthew 11:20-24) to whom he responded with anger or scorn.  When examining the Hebrew Scriptures, it is certainly possible to find God's anger directed at Sodom and Gomorrah, Egypt, or the Canaanites (whom he commanded Joshua to wipe out), but the vast majority of the prophetic utterances are issued against the failure of God's own Covenant people to obey the Law of Moses.  God does not forget the immorality of those who have not seen his wonders or heard his Word, but the focus of Scripture remains squarely upon God's chosen people, whether in the Old Covenant or the New.

2. Am I not my brother's keeper?
In Genesis 3:9, Cain famously asks, "Am I my brother's keeper?"  The answer to that question is, yes.  The Church of Jesus Christ is one body (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-30), and while we have individual congregations and separate denominations, what is going on in other parts of the body of Christ affects us all.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon those called to shepherd the various flocks in God's pasture, that we be on the lookout for wolves, even if they are not targeting our flock directly.  Likewise, the integrity and reputation of the Church as a whole, and all those who make up its many parts, is of concern to all of us.   Dangerous ideas within the body of Christ are a cancer, if left unchecked they will spread.  The great Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church offer us an example as they brought together leading Church authorities from across the Roman Empire (and beyond) to by consensus condemn with one voice the heresies denying the deity and humanity of Jesus.  In our much more divided global Church, it would be impossible to duplicate their unanimity (316 out of 318 bishops voted in favor of the Council of Nicaea's decree), but the example of contending together for the sake of the purity of the Gospel and the health of the Church remains for us to emulate. 

3. The Gospel I preach is affected by the Gospel preached by others.
When the true Gospel is preached from any pulpit, we all benefit, and when a false gospel is spread, we all suffer.  It is not the duty of the Lost to make a distinction between Steven Anderson's Faithful Word Baptist Church in Phoenix, AZ and that of Pastor Randy Powell's First Baptist Church of Franklin, PA.  It would make my life easier if nobody gave credence to ministers who spread heresy or who are in this profession to seek wealth and fame, let alone those who will eventually be caught in a sex scandal, but it is certainly not a realistic expectation.  I have been asked, "What's the connection between your church and Westboro Baptist?" (Topeka, KS)  Fortunately, there is no direct connection, but the prominent use of the name Baptist in every story about that church's protests at the funerals of fallen American soldiers is a stain that all of us who share the name must bear.  {A similar burden falls upon our Catholic brothers and sisters following the child sex abuse scandal, although that shame has since spread to other denominations too.}
Like it or not, the world connects us to the charlatans, whether they be fake faith healers, those telling their audience that God wants them to have a private jet (naturally connected to the request for $), the outright heretics, and those simply consumed with hatred (wrongly) in God's name.  Thus, for the sake of the Gospel mission, a "Christian" minister preaching death to homosexuals or a holy war against Islam is far more dangerous than a secular humanist praising abortion or a Muslim Jihadist preaching "Death to America!".

4. I hold us to a higher standard (as does God).
Those who are Lost, who are enmeshed in the world's false promises can be expected to live their lives by a moral code that falls short of the Law of God.  This is not unexpected, nor is it even correctable as those who live outside of the Covenant do not have the Spirit of God to empower them.  The best of those living apart from God seek to follow a noble morality while falling short as all people do, while the worst embrace the rebellion of hedonism and narcissism.  The people of God, however, are called to a higher standard.  The Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) being a monumental way to live, and one certainly only within our grasp through both God's power and his grace, nevertheless it is this very standard of Christ-like behavior by which we must judge both ourselves and the rest of our fellow Christians.
What about, "Judge not lest ye be judged?"  This oft misunderstood passage (Matthew 7:1-5) ends with this key thought, "and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."  It is not the suspension of all judgment, as if each individual Christian is an island unto him/herself, which would not fit well at all with Paul's vision of the members of the Church as part of the same body, but rather a strong warning against judgment that is not self-aware and thus hypocritical.  As I was told many years ago, before you preach a sermon, preach it to yourself first.  I certainly do not claim to be entirely free of the faults that infect the body of Christ, nor even of the ones that I have pointed out over the years when refuting the actions/words of others, but imperfect vessels are the only type of preacher that Christ has to work with, and we must hold ourselves, our congregations, and the Church as a whole to a higher standard.

5. There is ample criticism, already, of the immorality of the world from a variety of Christian sources.
One of the additional reasons why I spend less time railing against the 'godless abortion providers' or the 'Hollywood heathens' (to pick two random ones among the many potential targets) is that those topics are already being covered many times over by voices that represent, rightly or wrongly, Christianity .  At some point, this criticism becomes counter-productive, sounding in the ears of the Lost like the condescension of the Pharisees toward the "tax collectors and 'sinners'", rather than Jesus' compassionate "Go now, and leave your life of sin."  In the end, those who need Jesus will more often be swayed by Christians living morally upright lives who build personal bonds with them out of genuine compassion, than they will by fiery denouncements from the pulpit.  There is a time and a place for pronouncements from God's Word against the World, but for many Christians it has become to central a focus.

6. A common worldview is the ground upon which my reasoning stands.
The vast majority of my appeals are based upon the assumption that those reading my words hold the Word of God as authoritative over their lives.  I am capable of arguing from the perspective of moral philosophy, i.e. aiming at the common good necessary for a civil society to function, but that is not the heart of either my own reasoning nor my exhortations.  When I appeal to fellow Christians it is on the basis of a shared history, a common bond in Christ, and a fundamental willingness (hopefully) to accept that God's Word is the final arbiter when we disagree.  If I say, "The Word of God says", what is that to one who does not believe in God?  There is thus a presupposition in all of my thinking that is built upon Martin Luther's "Sola Scriptura", and where that presupposition is not shared my potential for persuasiveness will be inherently less.  It is certainly possible, and frequently a reality, that those who likewise value the Word of God as the final authority will disagree with a position that I hold, and vice versa.  This does not negate the commonality of our shared worldview, and isn't even necessarily a negative provided that neither of us are adhering to an immoral position, as it does still offer us the ability to stand upon the same foundation, share the same motivations, and ultimately seek the same goal of advancing the Gospel and glorifying our Father in Heaven. 

7. The doer of the thing does not affect the morality of the thing.
Motivation aside, evil is still evil, truth is still truth, and compassion is still compassion, no matter who the person is that is responsible for it.  When Christians commit acts of evil or distorts the truth, the consequences are real.  The fact that we're forgiven because of God's grace has an obvious impact upon our eternal disposition regarding these acts, but it doesn't mitigate the impact of that immorality upon the world around us here and now.
In the end, that which is morally upright for a Christian is morally upright for a non-Christian, and that which is sinful/evil when done by a Christian is sinful/evil when done by a non-Christian as well.  How these actions are judged by God in eternity will certainly be affected by the relationship (or lack) that each person has with God, for those who are redeemed will be clothed with the righteousness of Christ and those who are not cannot please God with their own righteousness.  That being said, in our world here and now, the morality of an action is not materially affected by whether or not the hero or villain of the tale is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or atheist.  To use an example from recent history: It is equally dangerous for the sake of our republic when President Trump is called Hitler by liberals as it is when Speaker Pelosi is called Hitler by conservatives.  However, for the sake of the Gospel, and the integrity of the Church, if either of those speakers, whether liberal or conservative, is claiming to be a Christian, there is an additional concern, and one that concerns me even more as an ordained minister than the negative impact of such behavior on America, namely the negative impact upon Christ's Church.

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: The Danger of Assuming God's Will - Acts 28:1-16

Having survived a shipwreck after two weeks at the mercy of the storm, the Apostle Paul lands on Malta along with the rest of the ship's compliment and is warmly welcomed by the locals until he is bitten by a snake when feeding wood onto the fire they had made for the exhausted visitors.  Seeing Paul bitten by a snake, the Maltese assume that Justice (Greek goddess Dike) has sought to finish Paul off because he escaped the storm, thus he must be some sort of vile murder.  When Paul doesn't die from the bite, the people flip their opinion and assume that Paul must be a god.  The example of the people of Malta regarding Paul, and many such examples in Church history of judgments being made about the external circumstances of people lives (such as the superstition that led to witch trials) and equating them with either God's blessings or curses.
In the end, we do not have the wisdom necessary to discern the will of God based upon the good and bad things that happen in the lives of others, nor even in our own lives.  Just as it is immoral to judge a person based upon the color of their skin instead of the content of their character, so too is it foolish and immoral to judge people based upon their health (or lack thereof), wealth (or poverty), success or failure in life.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Saved in spite of, not because of, their church

Last night was the first of three classes I'm giving on What Every Christian Should Know About: World Religions (You can watch the video, read materials here: World Religions class ) During that discussion, we talked about two religious groups that are associated with, but not a part of, traditional Christianity: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.  It was my conclusion, and I believe a fair and accurate one, that the theological differences  between these two groups and traditional Christianity (as typified by the Nicene Creed, as both of them are non-trinitarian) prevents them from being considered a part of the Church/Christianity.  It should be understood that such statements, whether coming from a simple local pastor like myself or an official body like the Southern Baptist Convention, the UMC General Assembly, or the Vatican (to name a few), are pronouncements directed at the official organization and its stated beliefs.  Such assertions ought not, and cannot, in a blanket way apply to individuals belonging to those groups anymore than they could speak on behalf of an American Baptist, Lutheran, or Presbyterian.  What applies to the whole does not automatically apply to its parts.  The reason why is very simple: Not everyone in any given church believes what that church officially believes.  I know, shocking, right?  Each church has people who rebel against official teachings, those who mistakenly believe things other than what their church officially believes , and those who are simply ignorant on the issues.

Which brings me to the point that prompted this post: The further that a church is from the heart of the Gospel, the more likely it will be that those who are a part of it who are/will be saved (however many that might be), were/will be saved in spite of not because of that church.  This could be true at a local church under the sway of a false teacher or faltering under a culture of apathy or pride, in a denomination which has forsaken its Gospel roots, or with groups that like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons who seem Christian to the general public despite their rejection of that which is affirmed by the Church as a whole.  God, and God alone, will judge the living and the dead.  He alone knows what level of belief and understanding (about who Jesus is, how redemption works, etc.) is necessary for salvation, what level of mistaken ideas can be present and yet the Spirit will still regenerate and indwell that person.  It does not seem radical to me to recognize that there are people in even the most theologically correct church/denomination who are unsaved due to an unrepentant heart (they have not heard the Gospel though it was preached to them), and at the same time, that there are people in some of the worst examples of theologically warped churches (even cults) who despite being exposed to false ideas about Jesus or salvation, have been called by the Spirit of God, have repented of their sins, and have been saved by his grace.  Far better, of course, for a church to be working with the Gospel than against it, far better to dwell in truth, than to see dimly through falsehood.  Far better to be a part of a church where the Biblical Gospel is preached and affirmed, than one where it can barely be glimpsed.

In the end, God will judge hearts and welcome those into his kingdom whom he has called, and he isn't asking us for our opinion on the matter.  As a people called to witness to the Gospel, we can only weigh statements and pronouncements whether from individuals or churches, judge them according to the Scriptures, and seek to promote truth and counter falsehood wherever it be found.  May the whole Church of Christ be a benefit not a hindrance to the Gospel.

Once again, rushing to judgment leads to error.

It should be obvious to Christians that being quick to judge another Christian, especially one you don't know personally, especially one who you only have an incomplete picture of, is both foolhardy and dangerous, and an avenue leading to sin.  While the phrase, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is ingrained in our minds, we are at the same time bombarded with snap judgments and half-truths (if that) from the constant stream of information flowing our way, much of it politically motivated, through both the news media and social media.  The desire to get a story out fast, and the ease of sharing or re-tweeting something, especially something that confirms our own viewpoint or something salacious, can turn a small story into an avalanche that leaves fact-checking and a balanced view in the dust.

In recent months, a handful of people with an online/media presence have hammered away at an apologist that I often listen to (though don't agree with on everything, of course) named James White.  I first came across James White in college when his book, The King James Only Controversy was required reading for my Biblical Criticism class, that book would later form the nucleus of my History of the Bible lectures.

Those critical of James White in relation to a two-part dialogue he participated in with a Muslim Imam, have filled the airwaves/internet with a vast amount of partial truths, innuendo, name calling, and outright lies (easily refutable ones).  Why would they be able to get away with such character assassination?  Because God's people have allowed themselves to become lazy.  They've been spoon fed opinions in the political realm, leaning one way or the other, and have long since grown accustomed to accepting what they hear as the truth without verifying it.  I know that while watching the news, or reading an article online, it isn't possible to verify everything that you see, but when the issue involves accusations of "heresy", "cowardice", and claiming that a Christian is in league with mysterious Islamic forces that are trying to take over the world, one would think that you and I would be willing to at least dig enough to see whether such startling accusations have a basis in the truth.

Throughout this whole ordeal, the video of the dialogue in question has been available online, easily accessible to any willing to watch before reaching a conclusion about it.  Unfortunately, many of those who have been critical have too much invested (politically, emotionally, financially) in an apocalyptic narrative that is threatened by peaceful dialogue with Muslims.  For some, a clash of civilizations, WWIII style, is a desired outcome.  They see this as a pre-cursor to the 2nd Coming of Christ, and/or are looking at this issue through Nationalist eyes and not through Gospel ones.  Do some within Islam want worldwide Jihad and death to all the infidels?  Of course, many of them have joined terrorist groups to further their vision of utopia.  Does their desire make such a global fight to the death inevitable?  Not at all.  The Cold War ended without WWIII erupting, that was a far more grave situation against an enemy far better equipped to wage war, yet it never fully erupted into all out war.  One should then ask, why are so many people in Europe and America so heavily invested in seeing the current level of conflict become a global war?  Why do they want the dream of the terrorists, global war, to come true?

For the sake of the Church, and the sake of the Gospel, we cannot afford, as Christians, to close our hearts and minds to the need of the Muslim people to hear and receive faith in Jesus Christ.  If we choose to write off a billion people as beyond the reach of the Gospel, great will be our shame, and severe our judgment before Almighty God.  If we choose to abandon them, for any reason, we will have failed as the people who have been called by God to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

We won't reach Muslims with the Good News by lumping them all into one group as terrorists.  We won't reach Muslims by shouting from street corners, posting insulting videos, or insisting that any conversation include condemnation of Muhammad.  That avenue offers no hope of success, only the self-righteousness of condemning those who are already lost (as if have been told to do so by God).  How will the Muslims of the world be reached for Christ?  Through patience, understanding, friendships, honesty, and kindness.  If you're not interested in being a part of such a loving approach, your problem isn't with James White or the countless missionaries at work for the Kingdom in Muslim countries today, your problem is with the Gospel.

For the sake of the truth, and to show at least a modicum of interest in it.  Read the article below published by ChristianNews.net  If you still think White is a "dupe" or Judas, dig further, or perhaps look in the mirror and ask yourself why you won't want Muslims to hear about Jesus.

Apologist James White Draws Concerns After Holding, Defending Interfaith ‘Dialogue’ at Church With Muslim Imam

FYI, one of the issues being condemned is the use of a church building for this event.  The Church in the NT is not a building, it is a people.  It is not the place which is sacred, but the people who meet there who make it so by having been saved by God's grace.  To use such a building to further the spread of the Gospel is a use that brings glory to God, not shame.

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

The Church:Cleaning our own house.

In the finale to a three-part message on 1 Corinthians 5 regarding sexually immorality within the Church that I will be preaching next week, Paul explains the necessity for the Church of expelling from their fellowship those who claim to be Christians, but who remain mired in immorality.  While beginning preparation for next week's message I was reading the commentary of Adam Clarke (1832) on vs. 9-13.  At the conclusion of the passage, Clarke wrote this:

If all the fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, extortioners, and covetous persons which bear the Christian name, were to be publicly excommunicated from the Christian Church, how many, and how awful would the examples be! If however the discipline of the visible Church be so lax that such characters are tolerated in it, they should consider that this is no passport to heaven. In the sight of God they are not members of his Church; their citizenship is not in heaven, and therefore they have no right to expect the heavenly inheritance. It is not under names, creeds, or professions, that men shall be saved at the last day; those alone who were holy, who were here conformed to the image of Christ, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Those who expect it in any other way, or on any other account, will be sadly deceived.

How many, how awful, would such an expulsion be?  That is indeed a sobering thought.  How many people would be left in the Church if those still living in immorality but claiming His name (not those who do not yet believe, nor claim to) were told they must leave the fellowship of God's people until such time as they had repented of their sins?  

The important question for the Church is this: How do we build a holy people, a people dedicated to living in Christ-like discipleship, if some in our midst are intent upon pulling us in the opposite direction through their continual choice of sin?  This was a problem that plagued the history of Israel in the Old Testament, and one that is certainly not new for the Church either.  Let us pray that those who claim the name of Christ, falsely, will see the folly of their ways, will be convicted by the Holy Spirit, and will repent, for the Church's task in the world is too vital to be diluted by in-name-only Christians.

Sermon Video: May we be found faithful by God - 1 Corinthians 4:1-5

We have been entrusted with the Gospel by God.  Individual Christians, working collectively as the Church, have been given the awesome responsibility of being the guardians of the Gospel's message to a world which desperately needs it.  The question for us is simple: Will we be proven faithful in this task by God?
Our judgment of each other in this matter, is not accurate, our judgment of ourselves in this matter, can be misleading, but God's judgment will be both accurate and entirely thorough.  God will reward those who faithfully serve his kingdom, as only a righteous and holy judge could.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: There is only one Judge - James 4:11-12

We are all faced with opportunities, usually on a daily basis, to be judgmental of others, to act as judge and jury regarding the actions of those we know and those we only know of because they are public figures.  American society is infected with this attitude, and the Church is not immune to it.  We judge fellow Christians, making assumptions about motives, assuming the worst, and sadly even taking enjoyment in criticizing those who are supposed to be our brothers and sisters in Christ.  There is, however, only one Lawgiver, and only one Judge.  It is God's right, and God's alone, to sit in judgment, for only God is himself holy and not likewise a lawbreaker.  How can we judge others for breaking the Law of God when we ourselves have broken it?  How can we judge others when we, unlike God, cannot save them from their sins?
It is common, and it is easy, to judge others; social media only makes it more so.  As a Christian community, we need to walk away from this temptation.  We need to reject the cruel and destructive politics that passes for leadership, and we need to ignore the temptation to allow what we say (or type or text) to usurp the role of God by judging others.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Woe to the phony believers - Luke 11:37-54

What is it about some Church going people that causes people who don't go to Church to stay away?  Two of the most common complaints are that Church people are judgmental and that they are hypocrites.  That this attitude exists should be no surprise to us, after all, Jesus confronted the same issues when interacting with the outwardly religious members of the Pharisees.  During a dinner to which Jesus had been invited by a Pharisee, Jesus offers a scathing rebuke to the outward piety and inward immorality of people like his host.  He goes on to offer six "woes" aimed at those who have zeal without love, are full of pride, have a facade of piety which hides wickedness, are beholden to legalism, ignore the spokesmen of God, and finally stand in the way of others coming to God for forgiveness.  The common theme in the list is that in each case those committing the transgression are guilty of shallow belief/obedience that only impacts the surface, it does not continue on to transform the heart.  Such surface belief naturally leads toward judgmentalism, for those who have not truly been forgiven often fail to forgive others, and hypocrisy, for how can anyone practice what they preach if not by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit?

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: "Do not judge" Luke 6:37-42

As Jesus' sermon continues, the ideas of "do to others" and "be merciful" are further developed by adding to them "do not judge", "do not condemn", and "forgive".  The call continues for followers of Jesus Christ to live a higher moral standard.  Why must we not judge, because we ourselves do not want to be judged?  Why must we not condemn, because God is merciful and so must we be.  Forgiveness offers the path to doing away with judgmental and condemnatory attitudes, when we learn to forgive as God forgives we no longer feel the need to elevate ourselves by bring others down. 
Jesus continues by explaining that the blind cannot lead the blind, we must follow the example of our teacher (himself) and learn from those who have become like him.  The final analogy, of the man with a plank in his eye trying to remove the speck in the eye of another shows the absurdity of those who have their own moral failings trying to correct those same failings in others.  Yes, we must help others in their efforts to be Christ-like, but we should do so by first examining ourselves that we may offer help from a position of victory over sin.

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

To Judge or not to Judge, that is the question.

Please don't judge me for borrowing Shakespeare's phraseology from Hamlet, that would make the rest of this post difficult to read.  The text that I'm going to be preaching this Sunday is Luke 6:37-42; it begins with the phrase, "Do not judge".  In the passage Jesus is warning us that the same way in which we judge, condemn, and/or forgive others will be the measure with which we ourselves are evaluated by God.  That certainly is consistent with the teaching back in vs. 31 "do to others as you would have them do to you".  Later in the passage Jesus explains that if we are trying to help others by pointing out to them the flaws in their own character (clearly something that needs to be done in humility) we must first remove the flaws in our own if we have any hope of seeing clearly.
As I write the sermon, I can't help but think about all of the judgments that I need to make each week to do my job.  As a committee member for Mustard Seed Missions, we evaluate need/resources each week as new people are brought to our attention.  How do we decide who we help and who we do not?  As the pastor of this church I need to evaluate calls for assistance that we get every week, how do I decide who to help and who to not, and to what extent?  I certainly also have to watch over this flock, to keep an eye out for troublesome behavior in this congregation and try to stamp it out for the benefit of the whole.  Along those same lines, I need to be on the look-out for false doctrines and harmful ideas lest they take root amongst us and do harm to God's people.
It seems as if my job requires me to be a judge over a great many things and people, yet Jesus' words have to apply to me just like everyone else.  In the end it all comes down to attitudes and the intentions behind our actions.  Do I have the best interest of others and the needs of the community to heart?  Are my decisions self-sacrificial or self-aggrandizing?  The same questions apply to us all in the myriad of decisions (judgements) we must make each day as spouses, parents, consumers, voters, and members of the organizations we belong to.  To remove ourselves from the equation (to not judge at all) would simply hand the decision over to those who have selfish goals in mind.  To sit in judgment gleefully would be an affront to God and the speedy road to our own destruction.
Do you and I have to judge things in life?  Of course, but we have no reason to be judgmental.  Do we have to condemn evil and work towards its destruction?  Certainly, but we have no reason to not hope for sinners to repent.  Do we have forgive others?  That is the most crucial question of all; if we fail to forgive, what hope have we when our own mistakes are brought into the light of day?  Forgive, be merciful, and remember the embrace of your Heavenly Father when you finally returned home.

Sermon Video: "no prophet is honored in his hometown" - Luke 4:22-30

As Jesus begins his public ministry he proclaims his calling in his hometown by reading a passage from Isaiah concerning the Messiah.  Those who knew him best were perplexed because his wisdom was obvious, but they were unwilling to accept such a claim by "Joseph's son".  The double mistake of being judgmental and unwilling to recognize error leads Jesus to tell the fellow Israelites of his hometown that God is willing to go to the Gentiles if his people reject their chance.  Rather than respond with repentance, the people attempt to kill Jesus, but he simply walks through the crowd and goes on his way.

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

Joseph: The all grown-up version

The story of Joseph is one of those that kids raised in the Church learned about early on.  We were told about his coat, his dreams, his brother's jealousy, his time in prison, and his eventual triumph and reunion with his family.  What strikes me as I prepare a series of sermons on Joseph is how brutal the life he lived must have been at times.  Not only was he betrayed by his own brothers and nearly killed, but he spent YEARS as a slave.  When things finally looked like they were turning for the better, Joseph found himself in prison for YEARS.  I don't know about you, but suddenly Joseph doesn't seem like a safe Sunday school story anymore.  There must have been huge swings in his emotions, from fear to rage, from fragile hope to crushing doubt.  How on earth did Joseph remain a man who followed the LORD through all of this?  My faith is strong, but is it that strong?  How would I react to betrayal by my own family, to loss of my freedom, and to years of waiting for things to get better?  The Old Testament saints may make for interesting Disney-style stories for children, but I have to look long and hard to find one of them I'd switch places with.  The next time you feel like looking down at the mistakes of the men and women of Scripture (and there certainly are plenty to point out), make sure you real the whole story with your eyes open first.

Prostitutes are people too

What are weird title for a post; the thought occurred to me because I was reading a novel where a spoiled rich youth in Victorian England had learned to his own discomfort that the prostitutes he frequented were women making desperate choices (in order to have food to eat, a place to live), whereas he had spent his whole life not having to worry about anything.  His private frivolity was their very public humiliation, and when he realized the truth of the matter his eyes were opened up to all new observations about poverty and crime.  It reminds me also of  story I read in the paper recently that chills the heart about the child sex slave trade in South East Asia.  These children, likewise, have not chosen to live such a life, they literally have no choice...In the end, such things should remind us that our own default judgemental superiority for those less fortunate is a very dangerous thing.  It allows us to separate the world into categories of "us" and "them" that are in direct conflict with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It was no accident that Jesus spent much of his time ministering to and witnessing to prostitutes and tax collectors.  He was mocked and criticized (Mt. 11:19) by the "righteous" people of his day who felt no such need to try to save the sort of people to whom Jesus' message of God's love and forgiveness appealed. 
Which group are we in?  The one that Jesus belongs to which considers all men, women, and children to be God's own, that puts compassion before judgmentalism and holds out a hand in hope; or, are we members of the group the Pharisees belonged to that is content to work with our kind of people and forget that there is a dark side to this world that we live in where people make choices far less free than our own?
What were Jesus' words to the woman caught in adultery when the Pharisees brought her hoping for a stoning?  "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:11)  When confronted with the wickedness of the rich, Jesus reacted with anger, when confronted with the wickedness of the poor and wretched, Jesus reacted with compassion.  There's a lesson to be learned there.

Leave the Judgment to God

The winter doldrums; a time of fleeting sunlight, persistent cold, and long nights. For many, this time of the year can be very depressing. As a Christian, we should not discount the difficulties that those around us are having, nor feel somehow guilty to be struggling ourselves. Christians are not immune to depression, nor can we simply “pray harder” or “have more faith” to overcome problems that are rooted in our physiology. God created us as complex beings with a myriad of needs both physical and spiritual. It always bothers me when Christians decide to dispense a quick diagnosis of someone else’s problem, especially when that diagnosis involves a snap judgment on the status of someone else’s faith. Our faith is NOT judged by the circumstances we’re facing in life. Only God knows the purpose behind the good and bad “fortune” that life brings our way, and last I checked, he hasn’t told any of us about it. If a Christian has cancer, it’s not because he/she is a sinner or because he/she lacked the faith needed to be healed. And yet, we always seem to be ready to jump to conclusions, to judge first. Or, if the problem is in our own life, we seem quick to look for the lesson that God is trying to teach us (perhaps in the hopes that it’ll end quicker if we can prove to God that we learned something). The mind of God is far higher than the mind of man, let’s just let him handle the hard thinking. Why don’t we focus on our responsibility? Do the right thing, obey God when times are good, and obey God when times are bad. Oh yeah, don’t forget to be the first one to lend a helping hand, and leave the judgment to God.