Sermon Video: Participating in the body and blood of Christ - 1 Corinthians 10:14-17

In his encouragement to the people of the church of Corinth that they should "flee from idolatry", the Apostle Paul appeals to the unity of the Church caused by the participation of its people in the body and blood of Christ.  But what does this "participation" mean, and what does it accomplish?  Through the past two thousand years of Church history, the interpretation of Jesus' words, "this is my blood", "this is my body", has broadened from the literal belief of the Catholic Church (transubstantiation) requiring a ordained priesthood to bring it about (sacredotalism), to the tweaking of this concept by the Lutherans (consubstantiation without sacredotalism), to the spiritual emphasis and rejection of the physical transformation of the Reformed, and finally the symbolic commemoration of the Baptists.  With such a continuum of belief/practice regarding communion (and baptism), is there hope for unity in a world where portions of the Church have been willing to kill and/or die regarding these differences?  Paul ends his mention of communion (in its anti-idolatry context) with a reminder that "there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf."  There can be only one Body of Christ, the divisions of Church History (and current reality) cannot alter that reality.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Why Authorial Intent still matters: Utilizing Jesus' command, "Lazarus, come out!" as an LGBTQ metaphor

Examples of the misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture are legion.  They abound in both the ancient and and modern Church, and are committed by both those from conservative (traditionalist) and liberal (progressive) perspectives.  Some of these errors are fairly benign and others are highly injurious to the health of the Church.

In news stories relating to the Vatican's recent publication of, "Male And Female He Created Them", the most commonly cited critic of the Catholic Church's defense of traditional/biblical definitions of human anthropology (gender, marriage, sexuality, etc.) is New Ways Ministry, a group that advocates for LGBTQ Catholics.  While examining their website (something I often do when pondering stories in the news, i.e. go to the source), I discovered a section entitled, Journeys: A Scriptural Reflection series for LGBT People and Allies.  Curious, I read through the reflection questions written for the respective Scriptural passages.  One such in particular caught my eye: The story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead in John 11.  This passage is a well known episode in John's Gospel, one that for centuries has highlighted both Jesus's humanity, in weeping at the grief of death affecting himself and his friends, and Jesus' divinity, as he overcomes the power of death with a word.  This passage is an amazing precursor to Jesus' own impending victory over sin and death, as well as a further affirmation of the legitimacy of his claim to be the Son of God.  The potential applications of such a passage highlighting both Jesus' compassion and his unique authority/power are many and reasonably diverse, but is there not a limit to how far afield from the original context and purpose a passage of Scripture ought to be taken?

I am well aware than in many modern literary circles that authorial intent is no longer considered to hold much, if any, value {See: Reader-Response Theory}.  The intentions of the author have been replaced with the experiences of the audience.  "What is the author trying to say?" has been swapped out for, "What does it mean to me?"  Setting that issue aside as it relates to literature in general, we cannot treat Scripture in the same way, as if we are the most important factor in its interpretation/application, for an extremely simple and important reason: It is God's Word.  Behind the examination of human authorial intent, and real and important questions surrounding the Biblical authors, lies the fundamental doctrine of inspiration.  It has been an accepted and celebrated doctrine of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, that the sacred texts upon which our religions are founded are more than the writings of mere men.  And while it is true that Islam views the Qur'an as eternal and not the product of Muhammad, and that both Judaism and Christianity affirm the role of real human beings whose viewpoints, experiences, and syntax were utilized by God who spoke through them, all three religions depend upon the article of faith that the Word of God was the end result.  {Recognizing, of course, that while all three can be correct about the divine origin of the Hebrew Scriptures, only one can be correct about the New Testament or the Qur'an}.

Given this emphasis on the human/divine nature of the Scriptures, it is neither respectful to its author, nor helpful to those who would use it as a guide of faith, to treat the Bible as something which can be bent and twisted to fit whichever notion the reader would like it to say.  I know full well that this happens all the time, and am under no illusion that conservatives/traditionalists do this any less than liberals/progressives, but since the criticism of the message from the Vatican concerning the original intent of Scripture regarding human anthropology has been both loud and vehement, the illustration from New Ways Ministry's utilization of the story of Lazarus is a fitting point of comparison.

When Jesus spoke to Lazarus {whether in Aramaic or Greek we cannot be certain, John records it in Koine Greek}, telling him to "come out" (deuro exo), it is a certainty far beyond a reasonable doubt that neither the Apostle John nor his original audience had any inkling that Lazarus "coming out" of the tomb had anything to do, whatsoever, even metaphorically, with anyone revealing a hidden secret to their friends and family; let alone that this phrase would have a meaning in English (a language more than 1,000 years from existing at that point) to generations 2,000 years later about non-traditional sexuality.  Jesus was not speaking about what we hide from other people, John was not writing in any way about sexuality, and making this passage a metaphor for that issue is a massive disservice to the intent of both Jesus, who spoke the words, and John who recorded them.

As New Ways Ministry writes,
In the raising of Lazarus, the Gospel of John exemplifies the decisive power of Jesus over humanity’s last and most dictating enemy – death.

For the LGBTQ community, this resurrection story may well come to symbolize God’s promise of life to those excluded, marginalized or emotionally imprisoned. “Lazarus, come out!” commands Jesus in a loud voice, and to the people around, Jesus further directs, “Unbind him, and let him go!”

People can, and will, utilize Scripture for their own purposes, but to say that the story of Lazarus, "may well come to symbolize" a vindication of "coming out of the closet", is stretching the Gospel of John far beyond the breaking point.  If the story of Lazarus can "come to symbolize" this, it can symbolize anything.  If Scripture can stand for anything, it stands for nothing.

If the LGBTQ community wants to debate the proper translation into English of the Greek phrase, malakoi oute arsenokoitai used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (and the similar wording in 1 Timothy 1:10), that's a debate that (at least in theory) respects the Word of God.  If they want to make the argument from silence that Jesus didn't specifically call out non-traditional sexual expressions when he very much emphasized the permanent nature of marriage while he rejected divorce (Matthew 19:3-12, Mark 10:2-12), that's another approach that at least treats what is written as key to the conversation.  And if they want to argue that the Mosaic Law's prohibitions against unions other than marital male-female are akin to the Mosaic Law's Sabbath and Kosher rules and thus no longer valid in the Church Age, while I will disagree and offer a New Testament based counter-argument, I can at least respect the effort to work within the framework of the Scriptures. 

If the Bible can mean anything, even opposite things, based upon its audience, then it loses its value as a bedrock upon which to build individual relationships with God, church communities, and society as a whole.  We cannot afford to jettison the guardrails of authorial intent (along with original audience understanding when that can be determined), no matter which individual or group would like to do so, no matter what motive lies behind the effort, and no matter whether we agree with the causes attempting to make the Scriptures their own, or oppose them.

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:

Sermon Video: A warning about immorality - 1 Corinthians 10:1-11

Those who don't learn from history...The Apostle Paul reminds the church at Corinth about the failure of the people of Israel during the journey from Egypt to the Promised Land for a very specific reason: that they might learn from the mistakes of others and not repeat them.  The lesson is clear, the people of Israel, members of the Covenant and blessed richly with God's presence, failed to enter the Promised Land due to repeated episodes of immorality and unbelief.  If the Church does the same thing, why would we expect different results?  God will not tolerate immorality among his people, if it persists, a local church, or a whole denomination, can cease to function as a true church.  In other words, churches can commit suicide.  May we, by the grace of God, continue to walk in holiness and righteousness.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Why the American Baptist Churches won't split apart over homosexuality or abortion

As the Culture War rages on in America with no end in sight, resulting in animosity and deep divisions in the political sphere, as well as schism within various Christian denominations, the question on many minds within the Christian community is: Who is next?  The Presbyterian Church in America splintered in the 1970's and 1980's over homosexuality and abortion, forming the PCA and PCUSA {How to tell the difference between PCA and PCUSA}, and many observers both inside and outside of the United Methodist Church either fear or hope that they will soon follow suit after years of contentious votes and behavior in that is in rebellion against their Book of Discipline.  Given this volatile climate, and the real differences of theological interpretation that exist geographically in the United States {primarily urban vs. rural and East/West vs. Middle}, can we expect the 5,000 congregations and 1.1 million members of the American Baptist Churches to follow the Presbyterians and Methodists (evidently) along the path of schism?

While the future is not ours to know, the short answer to this question is: no.  The reasons are not based upon greater unity withing ABCUSA over the issues at hand or upon a greater desire for unity despite disagreements, both of which would be transitory even if they were apparent, but instead are rooted in the denomination's structure.  In other words, it is not a quality of the people involved {i.e. we're not better than our brothers and sisters in the UMC, for example} that carries the most weight here, but a lack of top-down authority that prevents any one "faction" {if such a term were applicable, it really isn't} within the ABCUSA from imposing its will upon the rest of the denomination, whether that "faction" be conservative or liberal, traditional or progressive.

For those who are not familiar with it, what then is this structure which precludes our own version of the UMC's raucous 2019 General Conference?

The 1.3-million members and over about 5,000 congregations of American Baptist Churches USA share with more than 42 million Baptists around the world a common tradition begun in the early 17th century. That tradition has emphasized the Lordship and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, believers’ baptism, the competency of all believers to be in direct relationship with God and to interpret Scripture, the importance of the local church, the assurance of freedom in worship and opinion, and the need to be Christ’s witnesses within society. 

For American Baptists the local church is the fundamental unit of mission in denominational life. 

Baptist roots date back four centuries to a people seeking the opportunity to worship God as individual members of freely organized and freely functioning local churches. Baptists always have maintained the need for autonomous congregations, responsible for articulating their own doctrine, style of worship and mission.  {From: ABCUSA's website: 10 Facts You Should Know About American Baptists}

This may seem like a foreign concept to those from a Christian (or even non-Christian) denomination with a top-down structure, where uniformity and obedience to directives exist at least in theory, but for Baptists and other like-minded congregational churches, the sanctity of the autonomy of the local church is foundational.  There are no denomination-wide committees, boards, or assemblies with the power to make decisions that member churches or clergy must obey, there is also no fiscal means of compelling financial contributions from local congregations, nor is the local property of the church owned by anyone other than the congregation itself.

Perhaps you're thinking that this is all a smoke screen, that in reality power must reside at some regional or national level capable of determining what is required of a American Baptist churches, clergy, and congregations.  Not so, consider the self-limiting nature of the Policy Statements and Resolutions from ABCUSA:

American Baptists over the years developed Policy Statements and Resolutions on a range of issues. Those documents were authorized by votes of what at one time was called the ABC General Board. In January 2012, the governance structure of the denomination was changed. Presently the work of the ABCUSA Office of the General Secretary is administered by the Board of General Ministries.In the current structure, it is understood that while the work of the Board of General Ministries continues to be guided by established and future Policy Statements, Resolutions and other declarations, they “in no way obligate American Baptist congregations or regions to any position or course of action.” Under the present structure only the Office of the General Secretary is specifically guided by those documents. {From: ABCUSA's website: policy statements and resolutions}

ABCUSA: Resolution on Abortion

ABCUSA: Responses/Actions pertaining to homosexuality

Can local congregations defy without real repercussions these and any other decisions from the Office of the General Secretary?  Yep.  Can local congregations vote to leave the denomination if they are upset about any particular issue, or simply because they want to go their own way?  Yep.  The largest example of such a "walking away" came in 2006 when the 300 churches of the Pacific Southwest region voted under their region's leadership to leave as a group.  The issue at hand?  They were upset that ABCUSA wasn't taking a more active role in disciplining local churches, primarily in the NW and New York, that were accepting unrepentant homosexuals as members.  Might other groups of churches, or even a whole region, follow suit and leave because they're upset about this issue or some future issue?  They might, but that's about as far as it can go.  Our denomination might crumble, losing bits and pieces here and there, but it won't splinter down the middle into large chunks.

Whether the leadership of ABCUSA wanted to act, or not to act, and in which direction, regarding the acceptance or rejection of practicing homosexuals by local congregations {or regarding any other issue} within ABC is irrelevant.  By its nature {and by design, this is on purpose}, ABCUSA is not a denomination which can make a local congregation "toe the line" on any issue, and would have trouble doing so even if it tried on issues even more fundamental than human sexuality to the orthodoxy of our faith.  Why is that again?

1. The local church owns its property.
2. The local church can give, or not give, to regional or national ministries at its own discretion.
    {Together these two facts eliminate the $ leverage angle that so complicates divisive issues}
3. The local church calls its own pastor, is entirely responsible for how long he/she retains the role.  While the region may assist in the search process by providing a list of potential names, local churches are free to find their own candidates and need no approval from any denominational staff or board when choosing their next minister.  If a regional or national executive wanted to remove a local pastor from his/her congregation (for example: for obvious heresy like denying the Resurrection) there is no way to make this outcome a reality beyond putting non-financial pressure on the local congregation to vote to remove him/her.  {ABCOPAD does have "An Ecclesiastical Process For Review Of Ministerial Standing" which could remove the recognition of the ordination of a minister for financial or moral misconduct.}
4. While the denomination recognizes ordinations {that meet its parameters}, it does not act as a gate-keeper to prevent those  who are not ordained, nor those ordained by an outside source, from being called to serve a local ABC congregation.  Thus ABC's recognition of one's ordination, while helpful in the job search process {where pastors are essentially free agents, finding their own work}, is not mandatory, nor does the withdrawal of that recognition bear anything like the stigma of being defrocked as a Catholic priest or a UMC minister.
5. Any resolutions or policies adopted by ABCUSA are by their very nature non-binding on local congregations.  {Even if they were, contrary to tradition and our belief system, designated as somehow "binding", there are no enforcement mechanisms, and precious few carrots/sticks available to compel those unwilling to obey.}

Does this "loose" denominational structure have its own pitfalls and dangers?  Absolutely, there is no way to organize human beings, even groups of them primarily composed of those transformed by God's grace, into structures that do not have flaws that will then be exploited by fallen human nature.

What lies in the future for the American Baptist Churches?  Only the Lord knows, but it won't be angry dramatic votes followed by legal wrangling over property, and for that at least we can be thankful.