Sermon Video, The Genealogy of Jesus Part1 - Matthew 1:1-5

I know what you're thinking, there can't be anything worth learning about a list of names.  The Genealogy of Jesus is just a list of names isn't it?  For Matthew, the inclusion of a genealogy at the start of his biography isn't unusual for the world he lived in, but a simple list of names this isn't.  Matthew tells a story through his list of names by including five women in the list.  It was unusual in such list to include any mothers, let alone five, but what strikes us as we look at the list is which mothers Matthew chose to highlight.  It wasn't the most respectable of the ancestors of the Messiah, but rather a trio (in the first half of this 2 part message) of women with foreign roots, two of whom had a checkered past.
The first woman listed in Matthew's account is Tamar.  Tamar isn't very familiar to us because her story is left out of every Sunday School material packet on Genesis.  Tamar was married to a dishonorable man, taken advantage of sexually by a greedy brother-in-law, and backed into a corner where she resorted to prostitution at the hands of a lustful father-in-law.  The twins boys who resulted from this union were included in the line of David, and hence the Messiah, rather than any of the other sons of Judah.
The second woman in the list is the prostitute and Canaanite, Rahab.  Now, Rahab is included in our telling of the story of Joshua and the battle of Jericho, although her profession prior to the arrival of the spies is often left out.  How did this woman, renowned for her faith in a God she didn't know about (see Hebrews chapter 11) end up marrying into the line of Judah after the Israelites entered into the Promised Land?
The last woman in the list is actually one that we have no problems with but that would have been considered suspect in her day because of being a Moabite.  Ruth is remembered for her loyalty and faith, and for finding a good and faithful man in Boaz, but she would have been an unlikely grandmother for Israel's greatest king had not God provided for her in response to her faith.
In the end, Matthew didn't have to include any of these women, but he chose to, that means something.  Is he trying to tell us that the Messiah came from an imperfect line as we all did, but was perfect himself?  Is he trying to tell us to judge these women with fresh eyes and see their true value by including these three in particular?  Regardless of what conclusion we come to about Matthew purpose, it seems clear that this isn't just a list of names.

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

Pope Francis' views on capitalism and Rush Limbaugh

I turned 18 on the day of the 1992 Presidential election between George Bush and Bill Clinton.  It was my first opportunity to vote, and my first experience with being disappointed by an election.  I grew up in a solidly Republican rural county, was a member of a Bible preaching church that was also clearly Republican in its attitude.  I remember speaking out against the Pope (John Paul II at the time) without knowing much about him because it was a given within evangelical circles that when the Anti-Christ came he would be the Pope (as reflected in the Left Behind series).  I listened to Rush Limbaugh on my commute home from work and agreed with much of what he had to say.
Over the years my eyes were opened to ecumenical issues, I became aware of the work of God within churches of other denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church.  My opinion of Pope John Paul II, now informed, was raised greatly by his brave stance against Soviet Communism.  At the same time, I began to listen to Rush Limbaugh less with each passing year; much of the reason was simply that I was tired of hearing the same old complaints and no longer accepted that Democrats were inherently evil and Republicans more/less good.  My understanding of human nature informed my understanding of politics because I could see that Lord Acton was right when he spoke about the tendency of absolute power to corrupt absolutely.  The solution to America's problems was never going to begin in Washington, on that level I still agreed with Rush, but we diverged when he saw an economic solution through the American businessman and I saw a spiritual solution through the Church.  Eventually, I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh because I still have hope for America's future and the constant government is evil pronouncements he continues to offer isn't helpful to me as I work on a daily basis with the poor alongside government officials who I know truly want to help them.
Is Pope Francis a Marxist?  Hardly, Pope Francis decided not to join the Liberation Theology movement in Argentina, nor did he side with the government as they tried to suppress communist movements.  What the future Pope did instead was to continue to minister to the people that God had called him to serve.  Rugged Individualism may sound like a great idea, but it isn't a Biblical one.  Yes, each person should work if able, but washing your hands of those who are struggling, or have failed, to succeed in a given economic system is an unacceptable anti-Christian attitude.  We may disagree on how to truly help the poor, but we cannot afford to write-off the poor lest we destroy the integrity our very message of love in Christ.
Who will I listen to about justice for the world's poor?  The man who spent his life living with, and helping the poor as a representative of God's Church, or a man who sits behind a radio microphone and calls that man a Marxist?  The choice really isn't that hard, I'm done with Rush Limbaugh.
I know that this line of thought may cause some of the people who knew me growing up to shake their heads and wonder what took me down a road away from their idea of what a Conservative Evangelical Christian should be; they may even stop reading my blog out of some sort of allegiance to Rush.  If they do, that's their choice, I'm living my life in service to the call of Christ to help the widows and orphans, to hold out hope to the hopeless, to love them in the name of Christ.  Politics isn't the solution, it never was.  Pope Francis may not have all the answers, but at least he's on the right track, and I have no reason to doubt his willingness to carry his cross for the sake of the Gospel; I'll keep listening to him.

Sermon Video: Simply say thanks - Psalm 117

There are a lot of ways to say thanks, there are a lot of things to be thankful for.  The Psalms contains a variety of thanksgiving psalms that express gratitude to God primarily for his Covenant faithfulness to either individuals or to the nation of Israel.  Psalm 117 is different, rather than the Covenant people being called to praise God, it is "all you nations" and "all you peoples" who must raise their voices.  The question then becomes, what have the Gentiles received from God that would require their thanks in an era prior to the Gospel's call?  Rather than being an anomaly, the inclusion of the Gentiles in Psalm 117 continues the pattern that began with God's initial conversation with Abraham during which God clearly indicated that his concern went beyond this man and his descendants to all the nations and peoples of the earth. 
As we consider this psalm today, we have much to be thankful for; we can agree with the writer that, "great is his love toward us", and we can also affirm that, "the faithfulness of the LORD endures forever."  Psalm 117 is the shortest psalm, but it still says all that needs to be said.  When you have put your trust in the love and faithfulness of the LORD, you will not be disappointed.  We, as a Church, have much to be thankful for; we, as a nation, have much to be thankful for, what praise do you have to offer to God in addition to these great things?

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

Sermon Video: Peter and the Gentiles Part 3 - Acts 11:1-18

After Peter finishes his unexpected but extraordinarily successful outreach to the Gentiles in Caesarea, he returns to Jerusalem only to be confronted by Jewish Christians whose primary objection to his recent efforts is that Peter ate in the home of a Gentile.  There is a huge looming question for the Early Church as to whether or not Gentiles believers need to become Jews, by converting, before they can become Christians, but Peter first has to deal with the teaching of the rabbis that forbid all sorts of interaction with Gentiles.
Peter defends himself by focusing on the choices and directions of God throughout his journey to and stay in Caesarea.  It was God who gave him the vision, the Holy Spirit that told him to go with the messengers, and an angel that told Cornelius that Peter would have a message for him, "through which you and all your household will be saved."  In addition to God's directives throughout this process, there is also the seal of approval from God of the gift of the Holy Spirit.  It was not withheld until the Gentiles had been circumcised or in any other way brought under the Law, instead it came upon them before Peter had even finished speaking.  Peter concludes after relating these events, "Who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
Peter's defense convinces his earlier critics who in the end praise God that "even" the Gentiles will now be saved.  This episode provides an interesting glimpse into the sometimes tumultuous struggle to not only obey the will of God for believers, but also understand it and agree upon it as well.  Only those whose hearts are truly set against God would dare oppose his power or authority, but what of those who, like Saul in the beginning, oppose God out of ignorance?  In the end, we have tools given by God to help us understand his will, chief of which is his written Word, but also the wisdom of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, both now and throughout history.  God's will for you or I is never given in a vacuum, but instead forms part of the great redemption story of God's self-revelation throughout history.  Lastly, what do we do when Christians can't agree upon God's will, even with the evidence of Scripture as a guide?  The choice between peace and conflict is clear, Christ commanded his Church to be one, therefore we must always strive to keep our focus upon the mission of the Gospel and not let our human failings get in the way.

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

Lost in the translation

Nicole and I attended an information/fundraising banquet for Wycliffe Associates, the Bible translation missions agency whose goal is to have started translating the Bible in the remaining 2,000 languages that don't have any portion of Scripture translated into them by the year 2025.  First Baptist Church supports a Wycliffe Missions team, Dave and Joyce Briley, who have been working for almost 30 years in Papau to first learn, and then translate the Bible into, the language of the local people.  The extraordinary men and women who do this work are a rare breed, deserving of honor, that now thankfully are being assisted by technology to do the work faster than ever.  What once took a team a whole lifetime to accomplish, can now be done much faster.  The goal of having the Bible available in every language on Earth is indeed viable.
At the banquet, Jack Popjes, a translator who along with his wife spent about 30 years in the Amazon bringing God's Word to an isolated Indian tribe, spoke about the biggest hurdle he faced in the actual translation process (apart from other factors like health, governmental interference, isolation, etc.).  The people of the Amazon have no sheep.  The Bible contains a lot of sheep related metaphors that need to somehow be rendered understandable to the people.  When it came to translating in Matthew 9:36 Jesus' comment that the people of Israel were "like sheep without a shepherd", Jack was able to use a concept that they did understand, "like chicks without their mother hen".  The purpose of the metaphor remains the same, the Indians who knew about chickens but not sheep understood; problem solved.  However, when it came to John the Baptist's exclamation in John 1:29, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" Jack was stumped.  There didn't seem to be any local example that could explain the metaphor of God taking our punishment for us.  This problem persisted for ten years, other parts of the Bible were translated, the work continued, but this key concept of understanding WHY Jesus died remained beyond the grasp of the translation process.  Eventually, in God's providence, Jack returned to the tribe after a long absence (due to the government of Brazil) only to arrive in the middle of a cultural ceremony in which trouble making youths were being punished by a tribal elder.  In this ceremony, Jack witnessed for the first time, teen girls stepping forward to take the punishment for a boy with whom they had a special friend relationship.  Jack, his wife, his kids, all had these "friend" relationships in the tribal society, it was a something he was well aware of, but for the first time the connection between the Lamb of God and the tribal friend who can take your place struck Jack like thunder.  When he substituted this word for "Lamb of God" and told them the proclamation of John the Baptist, the whole tribe suddenly understood the Gospel in a whole new light.  God is good, he looks after his servants.

So, why do I tell this story that I heard from Jack?  One reason would be to encourage you to support the work of Bible translators, another would be to remind Christians here in America that even if we are all speaking English to each other, that there are people we interact with for whom our Bible-speak might as well be a foreign language.  If you've never been to Church before, the lingo we use on Sunday morning will be as incomprehensible as the techno-babble about computers, cars, or finances that so often befuddle those who don't understand it.  How is someone who doesn't even know who Jesus is, or what he did, supposed to know what we mean we we talk about justification?  The list of theological words that are difficult to grasp is long: propitiation, consubstantiation, transubstantiation, sanctification, providence, etc.  Not to mention the terms we use in ways that seem odd to those who don't understand them, like born-again and saved.  What can we do about it?  An easy enough answer is for pastors to teach and preach in a way that is mindful of those who may not understand the deep theological point you might want to make.  We need to be willing to return to the basics on a regular basis and we need to be unafraid to slow down and explain things.  What we really need is humility.  We know all we know about God because he reveled it to us.  We didn't climb a mountain to discover God, he came down from Heaven to pull us up out of the depths.  Jesus spoke about sheep, fishing, and farming to his audience because it was what they understood; we need to do the same.  "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world", what an amazing and wonderful truth, let's make sure we share it in a way that everyone can understand.