Sermon Video: A Chosen People once more - Joshua 5:1-12

Having successfully crossed the Jordan River, and having memorialized God's display of power, the people of Israel are now commanded by God, through Joshua, to re-institute the rite of circumcision before proceeding on toward Jericho.  As the text unfolds, we then discover that circumcision was not the only thing neglected by the generation that wandered in the wilderness, the people had also not celebrated Passover since Mt. Sinai.  The people obey, observing both the rite of initiation into the covenant, and the feast of commemoration of God's power in keeping the covenant by leading his people from bondage in Egypt. 
Why did God command these things, here and now?  The timing in the book of Joshua is repeatedly emphasized, as God's command to Joshua came on the west side of the Jordan, already in the Promised Land, and vulnerable to their enemies.  Because the battles ahead belong to the Lord, not to Joshua's strategic thinking, the need to be spiritually prepared for the task ahead is emphasized by God when he chooses this moment to insist that the people keep their covenant obligations.
The passage in Joshua reminds us of the need we have as a Church to emphasize both baptism and communion, for they are our rites of initiation and remembrance, and of the need we have as a Church to begin with obedience to the commands that we have already been given.  If we hope to do great things for the Kingdom of God, step one is to obey what we've already been commanded in the Word of God.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

A 16th Century Attempt at Toleration within Christendom

While the 17th century is rightly remembered for the epic bloodshed of the 30 Years War which saw atrocities committed by, and against, Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Christians in the name of God (partly, but also propelled by rivalries for power), it is worth noting a little-known attempt at religious toleration, within Christendom, that occurred about 50 years earlier in Transylvania.  In 1568, the Transylvanian Diet (legislature) issued the Edict of Torda, under the direction of their king John Sigismund.  And although their fledgling kingdom was menaced by potential invasion by both the Ottoman Empire and the Hapsburg Empire, they decreed that within the kingdom, the right of Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, and Unitarian (Anti-Trinitarian, and thus heretical acc. to the earliest Church ecumenical councils, and the overwhelmingly accepted interpretation of the Scriptures; thus a non-orthdox viewpoint) preachers to be free from governmental harassment or threats.  And while the vast majority within Christian history would consider non-trinitarian views to be heretical, and thus worthy of opposition (a judgment with which I concur), it is remarkable that the Transylvanian Diet refused to allow violence to be used to further theological debates.  This stance of toleration contrasts profoundly with the war that loomed over the divided European landscape, and I know that those who fear heresy consider it to be a menace (rightly) to the Church, but we have also learned that coercion and force are not effective means of spreading the Gospel.  Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred.  The Gospel will prevail, not by force of arms, but by the power of the Holy Spirit working in the Church of Jesus Christ.  Should we oppose heresy and threats to the Church?  Absolutely, but we must do so with Truth, not lies, with Love, not hatred, and with Peace, not violence.  How the Church defends itself is of crucial importance, let us look to the example of those who would make peace, even with their enemies, even with those they profoundly disagree with, rather than those who shout for violence, especially in the name of Christ.

The text of the edict is below, for a decision made in the 16th century, it is indeed remarkable, and with little precedence.

 "His majesty, our Lord, in what manner he – together with his realm – legislated in the matter of religion at the previous Diets, in the same matter now, in this Diet, reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well. If not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching. For faith is the gift of God and this comes from hearing, which hearing is by the word of God." - The Edict of Torda, 1568

Sermon Video: That all the earth might know the LORD - Joshua 4

Having provided a supernatural way across the Jordan River, the LORD instructs Joshua to have the people of Israel construct a memorial using twelve stones carried from the midst of the river.  The memorial is to serve as a object lesson to facilitate the teaching of future generations regarding the wonders performed by God on behalf of his people.  In addition to the construction of the memorial itself, Joshua instructs the people that it will be the responsibility of future parents to teach their children about the LORD.
Both of the ideas in Joshua chapter 4 are easily applicable to the Church today.  We too need to celebrate what God has done for us, finding appropriate ways to memorialize them, and we too need to emphasize the need for parental responsibility regarding the instruction of the next generation regarding the LORD.  As a Church, it is our responsibility to reinforce and encourage the instruction that ought to begin in the home, which of course necessitates that those who are parents within the Church have themselves been instructed in order to make them capable of teaching their children.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

This blog was "blacklisted" by Facebook, here is my response.

As some of you may have heard, my blog (a link to which I cannot provide here for reasons that will become clear shortly) was "blacklisted" by Facebook's automated system on Wednesday of this week " because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive." Well, at least that's the error message I'm getting, since there are no actual human beings at FB to help with such issues, I'll never know who objected to my blog posts (shared on FB), how many people objected, which post(s) they objected to, nor what about my posts bothered them so much...

So let me muse about what it might be. Some things are relatively easy to ascertain...

1. It isn't about politics, at least it shouldn't be. The only comments I've made in the past 7 years about politics are responses when politicians, pundits, etc. have invoked the Bible, have claimed to be representing Christian morals/principles. As a pastor, I have both the education and the obligation to defend the Christian worldview against those who would bend and twist it to satisfy their own lust for power. If taking the stand that Christians should not trade their souls for temporal power has offended some Christians, I refer such feelings to the one who commanded them to devote themselves to Him alone.

2. It isn't because I've insulted people, which I haven't. It isn't because I've bullied anyone, haven't done that either. The only times I've named individuals in my blog posts have been when I'm quoting them. Many of those being quoted are long dead (like Machiavelli, I was hard on his this week, but since he died in 1527, I don't think it was him), or else are public figures who have made their opinions known (Bart Ehrman, James White, Andy Stanley, Pope Francis, etc.) in topics directly related to Christianity. Even when I've disagreed, strongly, with these individuals (Bart Ehrman for example), I've done by best to quote them in context, to represent their views fairly, and to explain why I disagree (when I do) with their statement/idea/belief without resorting to name calling, mocking, or hysterics.

3. It isn't because I revel in hot-button topics. Go ahead, visit my blog, look at the topic list on the right...I'll pause, since there is not direct link, it might take a second...In about 8 years, I've written about homosexuality 8 times (Gay marriage and gay rights brings the total to 14), I've written about Islam 16 times, sex/sexuality a total of 28 times...compare that to: The Gospel, 95 times, the Church, 121 times, poverty 38 times, prayer 35, Jesus 138 times, The will of God 84 times, forgiveness 42, faith 83, I think you get the point. I write about what my congregation needs to be thinking about, what I encounter in my pastoral work, the issues that face our community of Franklin, and the wider issues affecting the Church as a whole. I don't choose things to be "click bait", I don't say things I don't truly believe just to rile people up, and I don't make statement that aren't backed up by Scripture (to the best of my understanding and ability).

So, in light of this little introspection, what am I going to keep doing?

Will I continue to call upon Christians to live like Christ, and point out the hypocrisies and failures of the people of God when we do not? Yep.

Will I continue to reject the siren's call of power, wealth, and fame which have so infected so many claiming the name of Christ in America? Yep.

Will I continue to advocate for the poor, the downtrodden, the refugees, homeless, despised and rejected of society? Yep.

Will I continue to call for ecumenism within the Church and for adherence to the Gospel's call of universal Truth and application to people of every tribe, nation, and language? Yep.

The truth of the matter is that I have no idea who objects to views or why. I doesn't really matter, I've been called by God, ordained by his Church, chosen to shepherd this particular local church here in Franklin, and dedicated my life to the cause of Kingdom of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the living out of the Fruit of the Spirit. My course is set, my life is not my own, I was bought with a price, the precious blood of the lamb.

Facebook has been a help to getting people to see my blog posts, and working around the blocking of my site will be annoying for as long as it lasts, but I'm not changing a bit. Not because of pride, nor stubbornness, but because I've always approached the words I speak and the words I type with gravity, and so I will quote the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms (without any pretense to my situation being at all of the gravity of his)..."Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."

Why "winning" as the goal ought to be anathema to Christians

To 'win', at all cost, and by all means, whether in business, politics, or personal relationships, is an idea embedded in the human heart.  Unfortunately, the disregard for morality, and the value of other people, in the pursuit of 'victory', is a symptom of the darkened heart of mankind apart from God.  As such, the people of God, those who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and are therefore no longer under the power of what the Apostle Paul terms, the "flesh" (our sinful nature), must forcefully and consistently reject the false claim that "the end justifies the means".

The modern era is not the first time that attempts have been made to remove morality as a check on human behavior, the Italian Renaissance political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli advocated the divorce of morality from politics in his seminal work, The Prince.  In it he wrote, "He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation."  Thus, immorality is to be excused when it is deemed necessary, hence the association with the immoral claim that "the end justifies the means."  Machiavelli, while influential, was certainly not the first to treat morality as a hindrance to be disregarded when necessary.  The first king of Israel, Saul, convinced himself that he needed to offer a sacrifice to God prior to an upcoming battle, despite knowing that he was not to usurp the role of the prophet Samuel, because necessity demanded it.  Saul's disregard for the expressed will of God was instrumental in his downfall and the choice of David to replace him.  By contrast, in Scripture there are examples of the rejection of this abdication of morality: Joseph remained true to the moral code of the God of Abraham despite the opportunities he had to abandon it when faced with the advances of Potiphar's wife.  Even as a wrongly enslaved man, Joseph refused to set aside his devotion to doing what was right.  In addition, the Apostle Paul and Silas refused to run from jail in Philippi, despite being unlawfully imprisoned, when an earthquake damaged the facility.

Throughout the Scriptures, those who abandon morality when convenient come to bad ends and those who hold true to the Law of God (whether specifically or in principle) are commended.  That is not to say that those who choose to do what is right are always vindicated in this life, nor are they promised such by God, neither do all those who choose to set aside right/wrong receive punishment for their immorality in this life.  Therein lies the rub.  When righteousness is not immediately rewarded, and wickedness is not immediately punished, the selfish and rebellious heart of man begins to seek ways to avoid the absolute demand of God that we live holy and righteous lives, it seeks loopholes, shortcuts, compromises, and makes Faustian bargains.  Such is the darkness of the heart of man in rebellion against God.  For the people of God, however, this cannot be tolerated or excused.  When we go along with immoral means with the hopes of achieving an end we deem to be worthy, we sully the name of Christ and grieve the Holy Spirit.  When we choose power, wealth, fame, or any other moniker of 'success', pursued by immoral actions, we abdicate our responsibility to be salt and light in this world, endanger our witness to the Lost, and call into question the genuineness of our conversion and discipleship.  

For all those who prioritize 'winning' or 'victory' above the call of God to live always, and in all things, according to his Holy Word, a series of warnings from God are a reminder of the futility of that path.

Psalm 1

1 Blessed is the one

    who does not walk in step with the wicked

or stand in the way that sinners take

    or sit in the company of mockers,

2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord,

    and who meditates on his law day and night.

3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,

    which yields its fruit in season

and whose leaf does not wither—

    whatever they do prospers.

4 Not so the wicked!

    They are like chaff

    that the wind blows away.

5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,

    nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,

    but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.

Ephesians 5:5-7 New International Version (NIV)

5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.

Romans 3:8 New International Version (NIV)

8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

It may seem possible to play in the mud without getting dirty, it may seem possible to make bargains with or support others who act immorally without ourselves becoming tainted, but these are lies, lies from the Father of Lies, and lies of a mind not in submission to the will of God.  The choice is clear: Either we, as God's people called from darkness into light, walk in the light, win or lose, success or failure, or we don't.  

Mark 8:36-37 New International Version (NIV)

36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?