Sermon Video: Cain: "sin is crouching at your door" - Genesis 4:1-7

The story of God's involvement with humanity continues in Genesis with the children of Adam and Eve: Cain and Abel. Cain's experience is a powerful lesson on both the reality of sin's tempting power, AND the ability we have (with God's help) to overcome it. Cain could have taken God's correction to heart, he could have learned from his mistake, but he chose anger instead, he chose to indulge sin. We need not follow in his footsteps.

Sermon Video: "Everything that does not come from faith is sin." - Romans 14:22-23

Having established the grace we need to give each other in disputable matters, Paul ends the discussion with a warning toward those who might act against their own conscience, and thus do so without faith.

Along the way, we also have the important advice to "not condemn ourselves" by approving of things that we should not, and the clarification that it is not with respect to faith in God or his will that we should hesitate to act on faith if we doubt (in that case we ought to "dare Great things for God") but our own understanding, when we doubt ourselves Paul is telling us to err on the side of caution.

Sermon Video: "I do not understand what I do", Romans 7:14-25

In this passage, the Apostle Paul discusses the war that rages within the human heart against sin. The two primary ways to interpret this section both reflect deep theological truths: (1) If this is Paul before he knew Jesus, when he was known as Saul, it reflects the utter hopelessness of human being to overcome sin by our own power, (2) if it instead is Paul after he was born again by faith in Jesus, it reflects the ongoing fight against our still-present sinful nature to imitate Christ. Because the Law of Love supersedes the Law of Moses by demanding right motivation and attitudes along with right action, even those who are in Christ and have the power of the Holy Spirit to bolster them still will have a fight on their hands to overcome not only temptation, but the thoughts that lead to it.

Sermon Video: The Law reveals the depth of humanity's sin - Romans 7:7-13

Having established that we have "died to the law", the Apostle Paul next tackles the question: What then is the relationship between the Law of Moses and human sin?  On the way to the answer, Paul points out that the failure of the Law rests with the human beings whose hearts seized upon the commandments of the Law to add rebellion against it to the list of sins they were already committing (which the Law now explicitly forbade).

In the end, the primary achievement of the Law was to showcase, through a multi-generational failure to keep it on the part of the covenant people, that humanity absolutely needs a savior.  God gave humanity (through the representation of the Israelites as the test case) a system for living in fellowship with him, a system containing both blessings and curses (carrots and sticks) here in this life, but it wasn't enough to overcome the depravity of fallen humanity.  In the end, the Law showed up how far gone we really are, how dependent we are upon God's amazing grace.

Sermon Video: The Gospel in a nutshell - Romans 6:23

The Gospel in one sentence.  Think about that for a moment.  God's plan to redeem humanity from sin and death, to turn humanity history from a tragedy into a triumph, can be summed up in one sentence.  Romans 6:23 does this beautifully, and in it virtually word is worth our pondering.

Sermon Video: Slaves to God? Romans 6:15-22

Contrary to post-modernism, American culture, and the tendency of Baptist theology, we are NOT autonomous individuals.  Here's the thing, there's only two choices: (1) Continue to be a slave to sin, or (2) become a slave to God (and righteousness).  That's it.  "Free agency" is not a thing when it comes to your immortal soul.

In case you're wondering, slavery to God is the path to hope, purpose, fulfillment, and joy.

Sermon Video: "do not let sin reign" - Romans 6:8-14

Having described the condition of the redeemed Christian as being 'dead to sin' and 'alive with Christ' and 'alive to God', the Apostle Paul focuses on one key implication of this changed status: Sin can no longer reign in our lives.

Given that we have the power, via the Holy Spirit, to have victory over sin, we must do so.  Instead of simply being a 'just say no' campaign, Paul tells us what must take sin's vacated place: the offering of our lives to righteousness.

Lastly, Paul ends with an additional reason for that we can achieve this transition from sin to righteousness, one he will develop fully in the book of Galatians: We are not under Law, but Grace.

Sermon Video: "we are those who have died to sin" - Romans 5:20-6:7

Having explained that we have died with Christ, and been raised together with him to new life, the Apostle Paul explores how we then should live now.  The first question is: Should we go on sinning?  To which he answers, "By no means!"  Why not?  Because we have "died to sin", it no longer has the mastery over us.  With the Holy Spirit's power, we can have victory over sin.  It won't be totally removed in this life, but that 'old self' is gone and buried.

Sermon Video: "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:6-8

What is the value of one human life?  What would you be willing to risk, or lose, to save it?  God answers this question definitively from his point of view in that Jesus Christ was willing to die on behalf of the ungodly.  That is, Jesus came to die, not for family or friends, not for the good or the righteous, but for those who were powerless to change their own hopelessly sinful state, a group that happens to include all of humanity.

What did God prove by putting forth and accomplishing this plan of redemption?  How powerful, how effective, and just how amazing his love is, no wonder John would later write that "God is love".  Stand in awe of God's love for lost sinners.

Sermon Video: Jesus Christ: A Sacrifice of Atonement, Romans 3:25-26

On one level, the Gospel is as simple as knowing and accepting that Jesus Christ did for your sins, it is a message that a child can grasp and accept.  On a deeper level lie the questions about how this works and why it was necessary.  The Apostle Paul explains that the sins (rebellion against God) committed by those who have, or one day will, believed in Jesus are paid for by his shed blood on the Cross.  Jesus was a sacrifice of atonement, a substitution taking our place whose death satisfied the full and permanent cost of our sins, because Jesus was both God and Man, and because his life was without sin, his one sacrifice can cover multitudes beyond counting.

Sermon Video: The Resurrection of Jesus - Mark 16:1-8

Much of what we hear and read about in life is colored by hyperbole.  The greatest and most turns out to be a pitch.  Not so the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  This moment is the turning point of all history, not just human history, history itself.  Why?  Because this is the moment that humanity's two biggest problems, sin and death, were dealt a blow that will ultimately prove fatal.  It was also the moment that God's plan of reconciliation and renewal for all of Creation passed the point of no return; nothing can stop the final victory of Jesus and the triumph of his Church.

What is our response to this Good News?  Share it!  Tells others, bring hope and joy to places of darkness and despair.

Sermon Video: The Death of Jesus - Mark 15:27-39

Six hours upon the Cross, three of them in darkness, culminating in a cry of "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" What did it all mean? What did Jesus accomplish? How? While hanging on the Cross, Jesus was mocked by those around him, his love was stronger. Everything that was necessary to complete the redemption of humanity was carried out that day by Jesus, and when he set his life down, giving it up willingly, it was not defeat but victory that he ensured.

Sermon Video: Pluck out your eye? Mark 9:42-48

 Utilizing brutally stark imagery, Jesus seeks to impress upon his disciples the seriousness of the things that people do (or fail to do) that lead others into sin or otherwise cause them to 'stumble', particularly when those being affected are those who believe in Jesus.  In addition, Jesus also warns about the seriousness of sin to our own condition, equating it with the kind of handicap that we do fear, when tragically many do not concern themselves with the much greater reality of hell.  What would we be willing to pay, what hardship would we be willing to endure in order to avoid damaging our relationship with God?  For far too many Hell is treated like a remote possibility (like being bitten by a shark in the ocean) rather than the inevitability that it is for all those who spurn the Son of God.

"What does the Bible say about systemic racism?" by WWUTT.com - an error filled and shameful tragedy that only makes things worse

 

Every once in a while, you see something that reminds you of how far from the Truth Bible-believing, people of good intentions (giving them the benefit of the doubt on both counts) can be.  An example of which is the recent video by When We Understand the Text, a popular Youtube ministry of Pastor Gabriel Hughes, whose website states that the scripts of all videos are approved by the elders of the First Southern Baptist Church of Junction City, Kansas.  In addition to being incredibly dismissive and tone deaf about racism, the WWUTT team decided to make a video mocking the idea of systemic racism during the fall of 2020, after months of protests around the country (and even around the world) concerning this very subject.  They, evidently, wanted to push back against the ongoing American reckoning with racism; hard.  It isn't difficult to discern how Pastor Hughes and his church leadership feel about any attempts to rectify the racism that exists in America today after watching this video.

I've been aware of the WWUTT series for several years, and have often been bothered by the lack of actual biblical exegesis in these super short videos, especially since the very premise of the series is to consult the Bible for Truth, this latest one is probably the most egregious example to date.

1. To ask the question, "What does the Bible say about..." any modern topic, is both a waste of time, and a not-very-subtle attempt at dismissal.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the Bible doesn't use the words rocket or scientist.  Words for things which did not yet exist when a text was written (any text, not just the Bible) will not appear in that text!  The Bible also doesn't mention the internet, does that mean the the moral principles contained in the Bible have no bearing on how people use the internet?  Of course not, so why bring up this obvious lack of  biblical anachronism as your first point if you're not trying to set the tone that the Bible is against whoever is using this 'new fangled' notion called systemic racism?

2. After defining systemic racism, the narrator stunningly concludes that the definition of systemic racism means that everything is racist!

This after the definition that is quoted specifically says that systemic racism is about benefits and disadvantages (thus eliminating anything that doesn't produce one or both of those) designed to help Whites and harm minorities.  If you're going to 'win' a one-sided argument, one of the easiest things to do is to create a Straw Man, a fake version of what your opponent believes that you can then tear down, even though your opponent doesn't say or believe what you've pretended (by way of the Straw Man) that they do.  This is what WWUTT is doing here, citing a definition of systemic racism and then with no proof simply stating that systemic racism means everything is racist, which of course it does not.  This isn't argumentation worthy of a Christian apologist.

3. Follow up the Straw Man with Culture War red meat examples

Rushing past the "systemic racism = everything is racist" false assertion, the video next lists in quick succession four things that are designed to reassure White people that systemic racism isn't real but rather just a silly notion.  These include two decisions by private companies to alter their products (Aunt Jemima syrup and Land 'O Lakes butter), the decision of some realtors to stop calling the main bedroom in a house the 'master bedroom' (a reference to Southern slave masters, or aristocratic masters and servants), and finally the mix-up involving Bubba Wallace and the noose found at the NASCAR track.  None of these items has anything to do with real systemic racism, with real benefits to white and real harms to minorities, but by lumping these Culture War items in with the discussion, a Red Herring is created.  This is, sadly, another form of argumentation not worthy of a Christian apologist.  The next screen then shows a woman outraged at the seemingly never ending things that systematic racism will go after next, an appeal to hysteria, not actual real life.  At no point in the video, are the actual issues of systemic racism (criminal justice, education, voting, housing, healthcare, etc) even mentioned.

4. "That's what happens when you give up the Gospel"

Wow.  So anyone who believes that systemic racism is real has given up the Gospel?  Has walked away from the true Church?  Once again, no proof of this massive assertion is offered, simply another giant leap from talking about syrup bottles to the abandonment of the Gospel.  My apologies to the millions of Black followers of Jesus Christ in this country who know all too painfully that systemic racism is real, you do NOT have to pretend otherwise for the sake of the Gospel; this is a shameful assertion.

5. The claim that the debate over systemic racism doesn't offer any solutions

This is simply laziness.  Many different organizations and individuals have called for reform in the education system, the criminal justice system, and for the protection of voting rights, to name three massive issues that are plagued with ongoing racism, and regarding which, a variety of mitigating efforts are available.  That there is not an immediate and total solution to a problem doesn't make it any less real.  Was the Opioid Crisis in America only real once there were concrete plans offered to curb the devastation it was causing?  Is that crisis any less real because those solutions haven't been 100% effective?  Of course not, but WWUTT wants to dismiss systemic racism as a 'needless argument' on this basis. {Remember, they chose not to mention the real issues of real systemic racism}

6. The use of 1 Timothy's 6:4-5's warning against needless 'quarrels' is both selective and not exegetically sound.

On what basis is this text applied to this case?  Paul was writing to Timothy about internal Church arguments, are we to believe that Paul wanted Timothy to avoid dealing with issues of immorality and evil that infected the Church?  Is it not the function of Church leadership to be concerned with Justice and Peace in society?  Are these really the things that Paul wanted Timothy to clamp down on?  How does the discussion of racism in America in any way fit a definition of a waste of time??  None of these questions are addressed, but 1 Timothy 6:4-5 is offered as a proof text just the same.

7. "Our problem does not have to do with skin, it has to do with sin" makes no sense.

Sin is indeed at the heart of all immorality, this is basic Christian theology.  But, that sin manifests itself in a variety of ways.  What is the purpose behind trying to separate sin from its particular manifestation if not to minimize that particular type of sin?  Would you also say, "Our problem does not have to do with pornography, it has to do with sin" and then go on to say that pornography isn't a real problem??  Racism is a manifestation of sin.  It is the way in which sin is made real in the lives of human beings with darkened hearts.  This is logic similar to that of Pastor Robert Jeffress, which was equally invalid {Mitigating racism can't wait: Why Pastor Robert Jeffress is wrong}.  We, human beings, have a problem with every kind of sin, and wherever that sin shows itself in our lives, and in our society, we must combat it.

8. Acknowledging that the System has faults does NOT eliminate personal responsibility.

I've heard this argument before, and it holds no water.  The classic example is the Nazi Final Solution and individual German SS soldiers.  Were they not responsible for murder because the system gave them orders to kill?  Acknowledging that individual responsibility, would anyone then say, 'Don't blame the Nazi system, its the individuals who are the real culprits'?  And yet, the WWUTT video puts forth the argument that if we acknowledge that the System (whether that be Educational, Criminal Justice, Housing, etc) has immoral structures or policies we are somehow removing personal responsibility.  This is utter nonsense, and yet another Red Herring.  Systems, created by sinful people, will contain within them immorality.  It is inevitable because they're created by flawed human beings.  Are we to never correct these errors, never to try to mitigate the effect of human sinfulness in society, or should we just ignore them when the system's flaws are related to racism?

I don't understand what Pastor Hughes is hoping to accomplish with this video, but it is flawed from beginning to end, will be used by those who wish to minimize racism, and will send a message to our Black brothers and sisters in Christ that White Christians in America really don't care about the racism they've experienced.  Therefore, I categorically reject the message of this video, from beginning to end.

Sermon Video: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:13-17

After preaching yet again to large crowds, Jesus decides to add to his group of disciples by making an unorthodox addition: the tax collector Levi (Matthew).  After this stunner, for the tax collectors were viewed as traitors and thus outcasts in Jewish society, Jesus goes a step further and has dinner with Levi and his friends.  The Pharisees, shocked by this co-mingling with 'sinners' ask for an explanation.  Jesus famously replies, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, bu the sick.  I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."  Jesus reaches out to society's outcasts, 'lost causes', and villains, hoping to find there those who recognize their lost state who might be willing to repent.  Jesus calls us to do likewise, finding ways to connect with those who aren't like us, remembering the grace we have received, that we too might help the 'sick' find the Great Physician.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Mitigating racism can't wait: Why Pastor Robert Jeffress is wrong

1. The Gospel isn't only about saving souls.

One of the things that has been misconstrued, particularly by some Protestants, and often by Evangelicals in particular, is the notion that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is only really about saving souls.  This tends to manifest itself in an abnormal focus on getting people to say a 'Sinner's Prayer' together with a lack of follow-up discipleship.  In other words, it is a focus on the beginning of the Christian experience to the detriment of what follows after, on becoming a Christian but not on being a Christian.  This imbalance isn't healthy, and it isn't what the Scriptures have taught us about how the Church should function. 

Ephesians 2:8-10  New International Version
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Too often, Ephesians 2:8-10 is quoted as Ephesians 2:8-9, but Paul didn't end his thought there, our salvation by grace through faith is the first step toward the 'good works' that we are called to do once we are saved.  These 'good works' are not an optional part of being a Christian, for God himself has 'prepared in advance' what we are to accomplish because of our redemption has made us capable of so doing.

James 2:14-18  New International Version
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

Here we see faith in action, knee deep in issues of poverty, those same issues that are often derided as 'social justice' by those who claim the Gospel has no room for them.  Can we afford to address social issues ONLY and neglect the spiritual need of the Lost?  Of course not, but we are equally unbalanced when we, as a Church, put all our emphasis on spiritual needs and neglect physical/emotional/social needs.  Every Christian, and every church, needs to be able to 'show me your faith' through acts of righteousness.

2. The Bible is full of examples of systematic actions taken in response to sinful behavior.

If the only progress we could make in society against evil was to convert the Lost, why in the Bible is God always taking larger, more systematic actions?  The examples are plentiful, from the flood of Noah, to Joseph's program to feed the people during the famine, to Moses leading the people out of slavery (when Pharaoh was in no mood to change his mind), to the punishment of the people of Israel wandering for 40 years in the desert, to the command to Joseph to eliminate the Canaanites as God's wrath against multiple generations of wickedness, to the the Law of Moses' provisions to help the widows and orphans (which benefited Ruth because Boaz obeyed them), not to mention the Year of Jubilee's commands to free all slaves and forgive all debts.  The ideal society, envisioned by the Law of Moses, contained example after example of rules, from God, designed to ensure justice and to eliminate generational poverty.  When the prophets cried out against the mistreatment of the oppressed, they were addressing the spiritual need of the people, because that injustice was one of the ways in which spiritual illness manifested itself.  Pastor Jeffress rightly understands that racism is connected to darkened human hearts, but has decided that only one tool can be used to combat it, thus abandoning the example of how the prophets sent by God addressed the spiritual need of Israel: holistically.  The cancer analogy he uses is a false one.  When fighting against cancer, doctors use everything that will help the patient survive, just because chemotherapy (for example) is what is needed to kill the cancer cells and other efforts would be futile without it, doesn't mean the patient won't also receive IV fluids or steroids; a holistic approach is needed in medicine, and in society as well.
Jesus himself continues this trend, challenging the Pharisees by healing on the Sabbath, overturning the tables in the Temple, and even rejecting the half-measure of establishing a Messianic Kingdom in favor of a far deeper and more systematic upheaval in the form of his own vicarious death and resurrection.  When Jesus saw injustice at work, he confronted it directly on an individual level, challenged those who upheld the system that created it, and ultimately gave his very life to destroy the root of the problem.  Had Jesus followed Pastor Jeffress' racism approach, he would have told those seeking healing that their suffering was a symptom, and thus not his problem, would have ignored the Pharisees (rather than going out of his way to confront them), and would have simply waited until his Passion to address the 'real problem'.  Jesus, of course, did not such thing.  Even though he fully intended to conquer sin and death to set the spiritual captives free, he still did everything he could to help both the individuals who were suffering and to challenge society's injustices.
The Bible doesn't advocate a principle of minimalism regarding societal evil.  It doesn't consider these evils to be inevitable or beyond change.  The reality of human nature, fallen and in rebellion against God, guarantees that we cannot create an utopia on earth, but the impossibility of eliminating an evil entirely in no way diminishes our responsibility to mitigate it in our time and place.  While the Word of God calls for individuals, families, communities, and even whole nations to repent and turn to the Lord (i.e. to have changed hearts), it doesn't hit pause on the need for structural change until that day comes. 

Zechariah 7:8-14  New International Version
8 And the word of the Lord came again to Zechariah: 9 “This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’
11 “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and covered their ears. 12 They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry.
13 “‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty. 14 ‘I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations, where they were strangers. The land they left behind them was so desolate that no one traveled through it. This is how they made the pleasant land desolate.’”

Does God care about societal justice?  God was willing to send his people, those with whom he had a Covenant, into exile because they weren't willing to change their hearts and minds, as evidenced by how they treated the widow, orphans, foreigners, and the poor.  Are we to understand that God would have told the Jews living prior to the exile to not bother fighting against injustices because their efforts were only 'a Band-Aid'?  Note also, the entire nation was sent into exile, including the righteous, because of the collective injustice (sin) of the people.  Surely God takes injustice seriously.  Here's the thing, America isn't in the place of privilege of Israel (Judah), we don't have a Covenant with God, which should make us less complacent about injustice in our society, for there is no promise from God to America that would ensure a return from exile should God, by way of administering his justice, choose to punish our nation.  God was willing to chastise his own children, can we expect to escape unscathed?

3. When will there be 'enough' Christians to confront racism in America? 

If America didn't have enough hearts trusting in Christ during the height of the Jim Crow era (when the vast majority of Americans were self-professed Christians), when exactly in the future is Pastor Jeffress suggesting it will be time to confront racism?  If America couldn't mitigate racism through the hearts and minds of individuals, alone, when 75%+ of those individuals claimed to follow Jesus, what percentage is required?  Clearly, the Church is not capable of eradicating racism, even within its own members, through solely spiritual means.  The shameful evidence of our past and present confirms this.  There needs to be an effort, in combination with, ongoing efforts to win souls to Christ  to address the legal and societal frameworks of systematic racism.  That some Christians are unwilling to consider this option, or even actively oppose it, calls into question how serious an evil they believe racism to be.
A parallel might help with understanding the situation.  Abortion has been legal in America since Roe vs. Wade.  Over the past few generations, Christians (and others) have worked continuously to shape hearts and minds on this issue, AND at the same time have opened hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers (We have one here in Franklin, ABC Life Center), have supported adoption agencies, fought battles over school sex education curriculum, put together lists of judges who are Pro Life, and have again and again advocated for and supported political candidates who promise to work to overturn Roe vs. Wade.  In the case of abortion, we are not told to wait until the day when Christ has changed enough hearts, but to fight on every front, to continue the fight year after year until the goal is achieved.  Why can't we wait until the demand for abortion ceases because Christ has changed hearts?  Because unborn lives matter. 
Perhaps you may have heard, Black Lives Matter too.  But with racism the answer is different.  Some say that racism isn't real, and even complain about reverse racism.  Others deny that racism is systemic, claiming that only 'bad apples' exist, and that every law and policy is already as it should be, that race isn't a factor in justice (again, some even going further, claiming society favors minorities above Whites).  Evidence to the contrary is belittled, treated as anecdotal only, or simply smeared with political epitaphs like 'socialism' or 'liberal'.  There is absolutely a different tone and attitude among millions of (mostly White) Christians (going by self-profession) when it comes to racism. 

4. You don't have to wait for the cure to fight against evil.

The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly taught us the need to take steps against it while we wait for a vaccine.  By the same logic employed by Pastor Jeffress, the only cure for COVID-19 is a vaccine, any efforts at social distancing, mask wearing, or therapeutic treatments being researched to keep those infected alive, are only a Band-Aid.  We have already lost 180,000 Americans, and rising, to COVID-19, imagine the death toll if we had taken no measures against it.

The Gospel's efforts to rescue hearts and minds from darkness have not made murder disappear, but it is still illegal, those who commit it are prosecuted, and a myriad of measures are in place to mitigate the risk that those willing to commit murder would be able to do so.  Likewise, after 9/11 we didn't wait to convince the Jihadists of the error of their ways, we took extraordinary safety measures, and took military action against terrorists and their supporters.

The ultimate, final, solution against any evil is the victory of Jesus Christ over sin and death.  What Christ has accomplished for us, and what Christ can do for anyone wiling to repent and believe, does not eliminate our responsibility to do our part to fight against evil.

I refuse to believe that we have to wait to fight against racism. 

Open Letter to White Christians: When it Comes to Racism, Changing Hearts Isn’t Biblical Enough - by Pastor Geoff Holsclaw

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

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

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: The Messiah Needed - Ecclesiastes 7:20

Are good people in heaven?  The problem with this question is that it assumes a definition of the term "good" that is not connected to the holiness and righteousness of God.  If we ask the question according to that standard of purity and perfection, the answer would be "yes", but with the important caveat that there are no such people.  A theme in the Bible, expressed here by Solomon in Ecclesiastes, is that humanity is fallen, in open rebellion against God, and without hope on our own of rectifying the situation.  It is not enough to claim to do 99 morally upright deeds for every 1 immoral act, nor even 999 to 1, for even such lofty aspirations fall short of the standard of righteousness that God set forth for the Messiah: sinless perfection.  Thus our need for a savior, a Messiah, comes into focus, if God had not come to save us, humanity would have remained in hopelessness.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Standing Firm Against Temptation - 1 Corinthians 10:12-13

"God will never give us more than we can handle"  Really?  Whether or not this popular phrase is valid depends upon how one defines the terms, but it certainly isn't true, as some contend, that God's people are immune to being broken down by life's turmoils.  Rather than a promise of victory over life's circumstances, what the Apostle Paul offers instead in 1 Corinthians is practical wisdom regarding the nature of temptation.  The goal of our lives, as followers of Jesus Christ, is not happiness or success, but rather righteous living in service to the Kingdom of God.  With that in mind, Paul assures us that we can stand firm against temptation for two crucial reasons: (1) The temptations we face are the same as those faced by everyone else.  We are not unique as individuals, nor are our situations unique with respect to temptation.  Others have faced these same temptations to sin, with the same strengths and weaknesses that we have, and others have been able to resist. (2) When faced with temptation, we are assured that there is always a morally upright way out of our dilemma.  Choosing sin is never required, and while we may not like the moral path, and it may cost us (financially, social standing, etc.), but it is always available because God has promised this to us.  These two truths give us a far deeper truth than, "God will never give us more than we can handle", for it assures us that, "God is faithful, he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear."

To watch the video, click on the link below:

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

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

(CNN)You think you know what Easter means?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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