Sermon Video: Put to death your earthly nature - Colossians 3:5-10

Having told the people of the church at Colossae that following Jesus Christ necessitates setting their hearts and minds on "things above", Paul then proceeds in strong terms to emphasize the need to "put to death" the earthly nature that Christians retain (despite their salvation and the receiving of the Holy Spirit).  After listing some manifestations of our "earthly nature" (sexual immorality, lust, evil desires, greed, anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language); all of which must be eradicated, not simply controlled, Paul then adds one further warning to those who follow Christ, we must not lie to each other.  In the end, in Christ we have put on the new self, we have been transformed by the Holy Spirit, and we therefore must abandon the attitudes and actions of our former fallen nature.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Set your hearts on things above - Colossians 3:1-4

Having refuted legalism and asceticism as being illegitimate paths to piety for disciples of Jesus Christ, Paul turns his focus upon the appropriate direction for God's people, that is, their need to set their hearts and minds on "things above".  Instead of spelling individual things out, Paul focuses upon the direction and focus of the passions and thought processes of those who know that they will one day appear, with Christ, when he returns in glory.

What does it mean to have your heart or mind set upon things above? For the Christian, this means living here and now as a citizen of heaven.  Having the perspective of someone who knows the future and lives today in light of it.  It means having a spiritual perspective as well, one that sees beyond the material and one that invests in eternity (though self-sacrifice today).

To watch the video, click on the link below:

One way to redefine Biblical morality: theorize the original text meant the opposite

In an article recently published in the New York Times, The Secret History of Leviticus by Idan Dershowitz, the author claims that the text of Leviticus that is known to history (the earliest manuscripts, the LXX and DSS, as well as the rabbinical commentaries) is not the original text of Leviticus and that this hypothetical original text in two very culturally significant instances, that of Leviticus 18:22 ("Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable") and 20:13 ("If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.") the original text's intention was in fact the opposite.  In other words, Dershowitz is theorizing that Leviticus was changed (sometime before our earliest extant evidence of the text) from his theoretical text which permitted sex between men to the text that is known which prohibits it.

Two paragraphs from the essay by Dershowitz will uncover his viewpoint:

Like many ancient texts, Leviticus was created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer. Many scholars believe that the section in which Leviticus 18 appears was added by a comparatively late editor, perhaps one who worked more than a century after the oldest material in the book was composed. An earlier edition of Leviticus, then, may have been silent on the matter of sex between men.

But I think a stronger claim is warranted. As I argue in an article published in the latest issue of the journal Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel, there is good evidence that an earlier version of the laws in Leviticus 18 permitted sex between men. In addition to having the prohibition against same-sex relations added to it, the earlier text, I believe, was revised in an attempt to obscure any implication that same-sex relations had once been permissible.

In the first paragraph, Dershowitz makes it clear that he does not hold to any version of the inspiration of Scripture, but rather like many modern critics views it as a collection of the ideas of various men that changed (in this case dramatically) over time.  That this theory is anti-supernatural goes without saying, but his utilization of redaction criticism (theorizing various stages of edits in the text, in this case without any manuscript evidence to support the claims) is built wholly upon what he believes an earlier text might have said.  In his essay (and the journal article it is based upon), Dershowitz does offer up some grammatical "evidence" to support his theory, but this falls far short of being convincing evidence that the text of the Bible used to mean the opposite of that which our earliest extant copies claim.  {For a more detailed refutation of the thesis of Dershowitz read the following article by Dr. Albert Mohler, the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary: Leviticus in the New York Times: What's the real story here? }

In the end, the reason why I comment upon this opinion piece from the NYT is not to start a new round of debate about human sexuality, homosexuality, or any other related topic (so please don't respond by arguing about it), nor is it to bash the NYT for publishing the article (so don't waste your time venting at the messenger), instead my sole purpose is to bring attention to the ongoing  and far too prevalent practice of twisting the Word of God into a pretzel by both scholars and laymen in order to get it to say what the person doing the twisting wants it to say.  Such twisting happens with good intentions and bad intentions, by those trying to defend God and those looking to jettison belief in him.  Motives and intentions do matter, but it is unethical and dangerous when the Scriptures are treated as a means to an end, just another tool to advance a viewpoint.

We can, and should, have discussions (informed by scholarship and research) about the history of the text of Scripture, that is indeed a topic that interests me greatly.  We can, and will, disagree upon how to interpret and apply the text of Scripture once we've reached a consensus about what it said in its original Hebrew and Greek and thus how it ought to be translated into English, those discussions interest me a great deal as well.  But we cannot, in any meaningful way, utilize the Word of God as anything beyond a historical curiosity if those who disagree with the text that has been historically established, decide that they will simply rewrite the text to their liking out of whole cloth.

Let those who do not view the Bible as the Word of God say what they will about it, let them twist it and warp it into anything they like, for to them it has no authority, no power.  It is unrealistic of those who belief in the Scriptures, to expect those who do not, to treat it with the respect that it deserves.  The Church, however, must reject this path of tailoring the text to suit our own opinions, in all its forms, the Church must affirm and reaffirm its commitment to the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God, as the foundation for both our salvation from our own sins, and our moral guide in this world.  A method used to redefine the text of Scripture today pertaining to one topic, will be used to redefine it another day for a different topic.  If you build your house upon the sand, don't expect it to stay standing when the rains comes.

Sermon Video: The False Hope of Legalistic Asceticism, Colossians 2:16-23

{Due to a technical glitch, this week's original sermon video was not recorded, this video is the audio from Sunday combined with the PowerPoint slides from the sermon; sorry for any inconvenience}...

What is the path to greater piety and devotion to God?  One attempted answer to this question that has been active throughout Church history has been the related methods of legalism and asceticism.  Legalism seeks to impose rules, as if becoming closer to God were a simple matter of following them, while asceticism seeks to deny biological impulses and needs (such as food, drink, sex), as if being biological they are somehow inherently unholy and opposed to the things of the spirit.  Church history has featured hermits and monks attempting to be holy along these paths, as much as their efforts were self-centered, and self-powered, they were doomed to failure.

Paul addresses this issue at the church at Colossae, where a mixture of Mosaic legalism and Greek philosophical asceticism had combined to tempt the believers there away from their trust in the all-sufficiency of Christ, a danger that Paul warns strongly against, reassuring them that the path of legalistic asceticism is doomed to failure because it has lost its connection with Christ, and thus the power of God, the only true source of spiritual growth.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A Vatican approved journal denounces the Prosperity Gospel, and rightly so.

The portions below in italics are from the article by Antonio Spadaro, SJ - Marcelo Figueroa, published on July 18th, 2018 in the Vatican approved journal: La Civilta Cattolica  To read the full article, click on the following link: The Prosperity Gospel: Dangerous and Different   

To view my previous blog post related to the Prosperity Gospel, or both of the sermons from Malachi that relate to this topic, click on the following link: What I've written/said previously about the Prosperity Gospel.

As the Prosperity Gospel grows in its influence and numbers, it become more and more necessary for those who preach the Gospel as given to us by the Word of God to refute this man-centered perversion that replaces our call to be servants with a promise of material blessings.

The “prosperity gospel” is a well-known theological current emerging from the neo-Pentecostal evangelical movements. At its heart is the belief that God wants his followers to have a prosperous life, that is, to be rich, healthy and happy. This type of Christianity places the well-being of the believer at the center of prayer, and turns God the Creator into someone who makes the thoughts and desires of believers come true.

The lifeblood of everything positive and valid that has come out of Martin Luther's call for Reformation has been the reliance upon the "five solas" {Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"), Sola fide ("by faith alone"), Sola gratia ("by grace alone"), Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone"), Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")}  The rise of the Prosperity Gospel challenges, if not outright rejects, four of them when it takes scripture out of its original context and historic meaning in order to give it a individualistic/materialistic spin, devalues faith and grace by making people responsible for their own well being, and downplays the glory that belongs to God by moving the focus of the Gospel from God's amazing love and grace to our own wants.

What is absolutely clear is that the economic, media and political power of these groups – which we generically call “evangelicals of the American Dream” – makes them more visible than the other evangelical churches, even those of the classical Pentecostal variety. In addition, their growth is exponential and directly proportional to the economic, physical and spiritual benefits they promise their followers: all these blessings are far removed from the life of conversion usually taught by the traditional evangelical movements.

The Scripture passages that have been warped by advocates of the Prosperity Gospel are too numerous to briefly interact with, but common threads involve viewing the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant as belonging to the Church, downplaying the cost of discipleship and emphasizing the blessings for those who follow Christ, particularly the material ones here and now.

The pillars of the prosperity gospel, as we have mentioned, are essentially two: economic well-being and health. This accentuation is the fruit of a literalist exegesis of some biblical texts that are taken within a reductionist hermeneutic. The Holy Spirit is limited to a power placed at the service of individual well-being. Jesus Christ has abandoned his role as Lord and transformed into being a debtor to each one of his words. The Father is reduced to being “a sort of cosmic bellhop that responds to the needs and desires of his creatures.”

"Name it and claim it", what a warped reality.  Where is it written in the Scriptures that God is intent upon fulfilling our will?  Are we not called to serve the kingdom of God?  Are we not called to sacrifice of ourselves for others?

A refrain that many of these pastors use is “There is a miracle in your mouth.” The miraculous process is the following: visualize in detail what you want, declare it expressly with your mouth, claim it with the faith and authority of God and consider it already received. Effectively, “claiming” the promises of God, which have been extracted from the biblical texts or the prophetic word of the pastor, places the believer in a dominant position with respect to a God who is imprisoned by his own word, as perceived and believed by the faithful.

When you turn prosperity into a test of faith, you automatically devalue morality (who cares what sins you commit, if you're rich God must be blessing you) and mortally wound compassion.  What will the affect upon the Church be of such a movement?  Disaster, pure and simple.  Without a servant's heart, the Church is doomed, without compassion for others, the Church is doomed.  The Gospel cannot survive without them.

There can be no compassion for those who are not prosperous, for clearly they have not followed the rules and thus live in failure and are not loved by God.

Generally, the fact that there are riches and material benefits fall once again on the exclusive responsibility of the believer, and consequently so too their poverty or lack of goods. Material victory places the believer in a position of pride due to the power of their “faith.” On the contrary, poverty hits them with a blow that is unbearable for two reasons: first, the person thinks their faith is unable to move the providential hands of God; second, their miserable situation is a divine imposition, a relentless punishment to be accepted in submission.

The quote in the final paragraph from the article is from Pope Francis.  Whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not, whether you consider the Catholic Church to be a partner or a rival regarding the Gospel, those who adhere to the tenants of the Reformation ought to be encouraged to have an ally denouncing "justification by their own efforts" on the part of those who preach and follow the Prosperity Gospel.  The Gospel is not about me, its about God.  The Church doesn't exist to serve me, it exists to guide people to God (by grace through faith) and increase the worship of God by those he created.  When man is at the center, the Gospel fails.

As he wrote in his apostolic exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate, there are Christians who are committed to following the path of “justification by their own efforts, the worship of the human will and their own abilities. The result is a self-centered and elitist complacency, bereft of true love. This finds expression in a variety of apparently unconnected ways of thinking and acting,” among them “an excessive concern with programs of self-help and personal fulfillment” (No. 57).