Sermon Video: Jesus Fortifies himself with prayer - Matthew 28:36-46

With his own final trial less than twenty-four hours away, Jesus purposefully leads his disciples from the room where they had just finished celebrating the Passover, outside of Jerusalem to a garden where he intends to spend time in fervent prayer.  Before the humiliation, physical pain, and spiritual turmoil began, Jesus chose to spend time with both his friends and his Heavenly Father.  Prayer would fortify Jesus each step of the way from the Gethsemane to Calvary, a path he would walk alone, but one he prepared himself for with those he loved.

We all pray when in a crisis, and we should, but what we ought to be doing as well is praying before we're faced with trouble.  We will, as Christians, face things in our lives that will test us to our limits, our faith will be put to the test, the question for us is: What will we do to strengthen that faith beforehand?  For Jesus, the answer was clear: Prayer with the Father.  Even though Jesus came into the world for the very day that was beginning, the prospect of bearing the world's sin upon his should must have been excruciating, not to mention the torture of a crucifixion itself.  It was necessary, then, for Jesus to use prayer to strengthen his resolve to conform to his Father's will.  If Jesus himself considered prayer to be a necessity, should not we as well?

To watch the video, click on the link below:

If I say anything about guns...

As a minister of the Gospel, if I say anything about guns, whichever side I take, half of you will no longer listen to my proclamation of the Word of God.  You will dismiss me as either a socialist or a fascist, and allow your opinion about guns to taint what I say about anything else.  The same danger exists if I say anything about abortion, taxes, immigration, gay marriage, or whichever hot button issue next consumes our political consciousness.  As a minister of the Gospel, I take my oath to proclaim the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ seriously, very seriously, it is the most important idea that I could share with anyone, anywhere.  That being said, I've made no secret of my own decision to self-limit my public comments upon the political/culture war issues, precisely because I don't want to allow anything else to affect the ability of others to hear the Gospel.  There are limited exceptions, when a public issue impinges upon the Church itself, or the discussion at hand is what the Bible itself teaches about an issue, I have no issue with weighing in; hopefully in a constructive and God-honoring way.

Last March I saw firsthand the danger of treading close to this political read line when I wrote a post entitled, "God loves you too much to ignore your sexuality".  In that post, I wrote about God's perspective on human sexuality, not about American laws or politics, focusing upon sexual sin as defined in God's Word in both its heterosexual and homosexual forms, but one comment that I saw in response to my post was, "I used to respect this pastor until I read this..."  Although I was able through conversation to repair that impression, and I think keep that individual from ignoring my words in the future, it pointed to the grave danger facing pastors and Christian apologists all over America today, when we involve ourselves in anything remotely political, half of the audience are hearing our words with their own political rose colored glasses, and the other half are plugging up their ears in disgust.

What does it say of Christians, and those purporting to be Christians, that so many of them are willing to place their devotion to political issues above the Gospel, the Word of God, and the men and women called by God to proclaim it?  It says we're in grave danger as a Church.  There is no such thing as a Republican Church and a Democrat Church, but we've fooled ourselves into thinking that God's Church is really so limited, that God is on our side, whichever one that is, and against their side, that the issues advocated by our politicians are 100% Christian, and those advocated by their politicians are inspired by the devil.  We've cheapened the Church, cheapened the Gospel, and fooled ourselves into thinking Christ died only for people like us.  I say we have done this because it is so widespread in the Church today, I hope that I and my church are free of this disease; I've striven to keep my own mind free of it, and to keep such partisanship out of our congregation, but I'm not proud enough or naive enough to think that it could not infect my own mind or my church in the future.

When Pope Francis spoke out against the danger of the love of money and the need for God's people to have compassion upon the poor, he was branded a communist by loud-mouthed political pundits, and that antipathy toward the Pope was cheered by many Christians.  The problem here is, the Bible absolutely says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil and demands of God's people that they show compassion to those in need.  The only way to justify condemning such concerns from Pope Francis is through either anti-Catholic bias (i.e. condemn the message because we hate the messenger) or a rejection of what the Church, and Israel before it, have preached (if not always followed) for the past 3,500 years.  

We should not be overly surprised by such things, however, when Jesus declined to choose sides in the contentious issue of his day regarding the paying of taxes to Rome, it only angered further those who wanted to use him for their own narrow purposes, or condemn him based upon his politics.  Throughout the Gospels, Jesus remained focused upon his mission, the one thing that he needed to do that nobody else could, not allowing himself to be distracted by today's issues when eternity was at stake.

If I tell you what I think should be done about school shootings and other gun violence, half of you will no longer listen when I proclaim the Gospel.

If I tell you what I think America's immigration policy should be, half of you will no longer hear me when I proclaim the Word of God.

And so I hold back, not because I don't have the right to my opinions, not because I can't ground my opinions in Christian theology and a Christian worldview, but for your sake because you NEED to hear the Gospel from God's Word far more than you need to hear my political opinions, whether you agree with them or not.

The Church in America has lost Billy Graham, but doesn't seem to have a replacement

The man who preached in person to 100 million people the straightforward message of the Gospel during his 99 years has passed on to his reward, Billy Graham is no longer here, and it seems like the Church has nobody to replace him.  The combination of bedrock Gospel presentation with an apolitical attitude has gone out of favor among most of the preachers that you've heard of today.  Some have abandoned the Gospel of the Apostles, favoring either a version that demotes Jesus from being the Son of God and thus robs the message of its transforming power, or a version that distracts from Jesus with a focus upon wealth and prosperity, once again robbing the message of its trans-formative power.  Other preachers have retained their preaching of the Gospel, but have wedded that presentation so closely with the culture wars and their own support for (even unabashed support for, and excusing of, non-repentant sinners as "Christian leaders") politicians and political causes that they're only preaching to the choir, no longer able to be heard by the half or more of America that disagrees with the political party they've anointed as God's own.  Sadly, even Billy Graham's own son, Franklin, has fallen victim to this trend, having become a political cheerleader whose presentation of the Gospel is now weighed alongside his political pronouncements by those who need to hear the undiluted message of the Cross.

Can you imagine a popular preacher today who has the courage to maintain and defend the Gospel AND the kindness of heart and humility to minister to both Republican and Democratic presidents, or even just Republican and Democratic members of a congregation?  It may be a while before we see another preacher like Billy Graham, but our nation sure could use that voice sooner rather than later.

The Slippery Slope argument is paralyzing our republic

** This is not a political comment, I purposefully avoid those, if you choose to take these thoughts that way that's up to you, but you'll be ignoring my intended purpose.**

In an era when a significant number (if not an outright majority) of politicians at both the state and federal level face more election drama at the primary than the general election level, it has become commonplace for politicians, pundits, and the general public to repeatedly apply the Slippery Slope argument to topic after topic.  To the Left and Planned Parenthood, any reasonable restrictions upon abortion are tantamount to outlawing the procedure, and thus must be met with the fiercest resistance with no compromise even remotely possible.  To the Right and the National Rifle Association, any reasonable restrictions upon guns of any type being owned by anyone are tantamount to the government, "coming for our guns", and thus must be met with the fiercest resistance with no compromise even remotely possible.  This same entrenchment is repeated issue after issue, year after year, resulting in near total paralysis where only a super-majority of one party can advance even basic measures, and sometimes not even that.  The end result is paralysis, an enshrinement of the status quo that can only be shaken, and even then only temporarily, by a disaster on the level of 9/11.

Prior to World War II, isolationists shouted their opposition to the Slippery Slope of F.D.R's willingness to help the British and the Soviets hold off the German onslaught.  F.D.R. demonstrated leadership in that he largely ignored the isolationist voices by pushing Lend-Lease among other efforts to slow down the Nazis, but America as a whole remained woefully unprepared for the war that came on December 7th, 1941.  Had the isolationists possessed the wisdom to accept reality and compromise, the United States military would have been better prepared for war, had F.D.R. given in to their doom and gloom and failed to support our future Allies, the war in Europe would have ended with the Nazis triumphant.

The Slippery Slope argument is of course used by those within the Church as well, particularly against those who are willing to work ecumenically with other Christians, or those willing to admit that our own understanding of theology cannot hope to be perfect.  In too many cases, much needed reform or potential cooperation for the Kingdom is squashed by shrill cries of disaster should the status quo be challenged.

Why is the Slippery Slope such a problem?  Perhaps you like the status quo, at least on a particular issue, and have no qualms with using whatever means are necessary to defend it.  The problem should be obvious, but our inability to recognize it is a symptom of our collective illness: The Slippery Slope is a FEAR based argumentation.  It does not require facts or evidence, it asks no proof, it need only posit a future disaster and simply assumes that one's political or theological enemies are nefarious, up to no good, and perhaps evil incarnate.  Their devious schemes, if successful, would destroy us all, and thus any hint of working with "the other side", any hint of compromise, is the work of the devil.  To govern a people, or run a church, by fear is to make a Faustian bargain; in the short-run there might be "victory" for your side, whatever that is, but in the end, we all lose.

With the advent of media tailored to both the Left and Right, and with social media providing an echo chamber to confirm what each side already believes and shout down any opposition, is there any hope for the future?  There's always hope, but if history is any guide, it will take a moment like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to spur real change, until then fear in daily unrelenting doses will continue to be served up to all those willing to be swayed by it.

** Note, there is also a related dangerous tactic being used regularly when discussing solving problems, I'll call it the All or Nothing.  Those who use it dismiss any proposed reform or change because it won't fix all of the problem, as if fixing part of a problem is a bad thing and only a perfect solution that will fix every conceivable aspect of the problem can be acceptable.  This tactic is simply a way to defend the status quo, whatever it may be, and is used regularly by all sides. **

Sermon Video: Why do people get married? - 1 Corinthians 7:36-40

Why do people get married?  While the reasons abound, the Apostle Paul, in finishing the section of his letter to the Church in Corinth that focuses upon sex and marriage, touches upon four of the more common ones: honor, passion, compulsion, and happiness.  The text itself focuses upon issues relating to the decision to marry or not to marry from a 1st century cultural perspective, but the idea of why people choose to get married (and widows/widowers to remarry or not) is certainly relevant for any cultural setting.

In the end, the will of God allows freedom for Christians to decide if they want to be married, and when, within the framework of the Law of God as outlined in his Word.  Within that framework: one man, one wife, for life, it is not a moral issue for a disciple of Jesus Christ to marry or not.  Some will prefer to continue living in celibate singleness, some will decide that after losing one spouse to death that they do not want to remarry, but some will choose to enter into the holy bond of marriage, emphasizing some combination of honor, passion, or the pursuit of happiness in their minds (but hopefully not compulsion).  God wants his people to be happy, as our heavenly Father, God knows that true and lasting happiness is only found in union with him, not rebellion against him.  The Christian worldview thus emphasizes the primacy of obedience to the Law of God, placing issues of love, happiness, rights, or freedoms behind conformity to the dictates of God's righteousness, holiness, and justice (and not just relating to marriage, in all parts of our lives).  Within the framework of marriage (and sexual purity) ordained by God, there is room for us to consider what our honor, passion, and happiness is asking of us.  {FYI, the point in question: to marry or not, is illustrated in the sermon by my retelling of my own proposal of marriage to my beautiful wife Nicole, in October of the year 2000.}

To watch the video, click on the link below: