How a Christian must respond to adversaries

It has become readily apparent that a significant number of Christians have decided that those who oppose them, in a variety of settings that include church controversies, business, and politics, ought to be treated as an "other" and defeated by nearly any means necessary.  For too many of us, the ends justify the means because we have pridefully defined our chosen end as God's will.  And while history has shown how dangerous this attitude can be even when a nation is facing an existential threat {see for example: the firebombing of Dresden, and the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII}, it can in no way be argued, according to the Scriptures {which is what ought to matter to a Christian}, that this is the morally appropriate choice for an individual, or group, of Christians. 

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!

Romans 12:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Matthew 5:43-48 New International Version (NIV)
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

We, as Christians, have been called to a higher standard.  We have been charged with living as disciples of Jesus Christ and thus imitating our Savior in this world.  To "win" a battle utilizing immoral means is to lose the war. 

Hear this, and hear it well: God is the judge of the world.  It is better for us to lose morally than to try to win immorally.  We have not been given a command to be winners, we have been given a command to be righteous.  In this world, they're not typically the same thing.  Each time Christians choose to try to be winners rather than righteous, they demonstrate that they don't have sufficient faith in God's final victory and they taint the message of the Gospel {as hypocrites}.

Zechariah 4:6 New International Version (NIV)
6 So he said to me, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty.

Sermon Video: Propriety in Worship - 1 Corinthians 11:1-16

Having dealt with issues relating to how Christians ought to function within the outside culture, Paul now turns to the proper function of the Church itself, beginning with propriety of worship.  In doing so, Paul relates the 1st Century viewpoints regarding what is fitting and proper for both men and women to show respect for God while at worship to the Genesis account of Creation, a connection aimed at ensuring that the way in which the Christians were conducting themselves would bring glory to God, not man.  In doing so, Paul appeals to traditions that he taught to the church when he founded it, reminding us that our worship (and the way our local church or denomination functions in general) is by necessity both a reflection of theological choices and the culture from which we are drawn.  As such, it is not incumbent upon 21st Century Christians to imitate the style of worship of our ancestors in the faith, but rather to ensure that our worship is also fitting and proper, that it glorifies God and serves as a witness to those outside of the Church of our submission to the Lordship of Christ.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video: Putting others above yourself - 1 Corinthians 10:23-33

Following his appeal for unity within the Church and his caution about participating in other religions, Paul then tackles the complicated questions of interacting with unbelievers.  The balancing act in question is between purity of devotion to God and at the same time kindness and courtesy toward non-Christians in order to bear a good witness to them about the Gospel. 
Paul emphasizes the need to seek the good of others above that of ourselves, and in so doing reminds the people of the church at Corinth to see the big picture (vs. 25, everything belongs to God), value courtesy (vs. 27, social interactions with unbelievers are a positive thing), and exercise discretion when necessary (vs. 28, as a representative of Christ, not wanting to damage the conscience of others nor place a stumbling block in their way).
In the end, the need to help others see the value in the Gospel looms large in weighing the various choices faces the Christians in Corinth, that need remains as critical for us today as it was for them.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The fault in an argument about the Catholic Church firing a gay teacher

 Below is the text of an article written by Ellen Kobe, a professed Catholic.  I will intersperse my response to her argumentation (not the question of whether or not a Christian school should hire/fire any particular staff member per se) throughout using brackets and bold: {Like this}  This is not a question of what ought to be legal in America regarding employment, but rather what moral principles ought to guide any institution/organization which claims to be following the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Ellen Kobe has charged the Church with "repulsive" "bigotry", but on what  basis?

Ellen Kobe is an associate producer on CNN's social publishing team. She is a 2009 graduate of Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School. The views expressed here are solely those of the author.

Why a Jesuit School was right in refusing to fire a gay teacher

(CNN)Catholics in my hometown of Indianapolis are in the midst of a culture war -- a battle between church leadership and some of its parishioners that could be played out in other communities if it hasn't already.
Last month, news broke that the Archdiocese of Indianapolis would no longer recognize my alma mater, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School, as a Catholic school. Why? The Archdiocese insisted the school dismiss a longtime teacher who is in a civilly-recognized, same-sex marriage, a statement from the school said.
The archdiocese also released a statement saying: "This issue is not about sexual orientation; rather, it is about our expectation that all personnel inside a Catholic school -- who are ministers of the faith -- abide by all Church teachings, including the nature of marriage."  {An important question: What moral standard ought a Christian school/charity/church require of its non-ordained personnel?  We ought to expect those who have taken ordination vows to uphold a higher moral standard (sadly we are too often disappointed) but what about people for whom their work is more akin to a job than a calling?  The expectation of the Catholic Church, at least regarding school teachers, is that they support Church teaching with the way they live their lives.  If this is unreasonable, are there any standards at all that the Church could enforce without being accused of imposing morality upon its employees?}
Brebeuf firmly pushed back, saying this "highly capable and qualified teacher" will continue to teach here.
Brebeuf's actions protected this employee and other LGBTQ members of its community by sending the message: You are welcome here; you are safe here. On my social media feeds, it was a day of celebration among the Brebeuf community and local Catholics. I saw only positive messages about the decision.  {This is not a moral argument, of any kind, let alone one pertaining to what Christianity ought to be.  Social media opinion is the last place we should turn to gauge a question of theology...Secondly, in order to be "welcome" and "safe" within the Church, the Church must accept/celebrate the choices made by people?  All choices, regardless of what they are, or just the choices being celebrated here?  What happened to the idea of the Church as a place for sinners seeking repentance and depending upon grace?}
But the mood took a turn just days later when nearby Cathedral High School was faced with the same command by the Archdiocese regarding a teacher in a same-sex marriage. Cathedral decided to dismiss, not support, its teacher.
There was resounding anger, heartbreak and disappointment from members of the Cathedral community on social media. It's not lost on me that my social media feeds could be reinforcing my own beliefs or that those who believe these employees should've been fired aren't voicing their opinions. {At least she sees the danger of living in a self-reinforcing bubble.  Again, social media feeds have ZERO to do with what is morally acceptable for a church that claims allegiance to Jesus Christ.  Christianity is NOT a democracy, nor even a representative republic.  It is a benevolent dictatorship; one founded by, directed by, ruled by, and in service to, Jesus Christ.  What we think, how we feel, what we want, is immaterial compared to this question: What promotes holiness and righteousness?  What brings glory to God and empowers the Gospel to save the Lost?}  Nonetheless, there is a distinct fissure in the way many practicing Catholics feel about the LGBTQ community versus how the Church's leaders believe we should treat them.  {Has the Church in the past, and in the present, treated some sins as "acceptable" while harshly condemning others?  Absolutely.  This is human failure, our sinful nature and weakness in action.  At the same time, "the way many practicing Catholics feel" is once again NOT a theological/moral argument but an appeal to numerical support.  Might the majority, or even a vocal minority, be theologically/morally correct on an issue and the Church's leadership wrong?  Certainly, but not on the basis of, "this is how we feel", instead the question must hinge upon a proper understanding of the Word of God, an appeal never made in this opinion piece, nor even hinted at.}
The stark contrast in these schools' decisions is just one of reasons I strongly identify with the Jesuit philosophy. When I think of my Catholic identity, nearly all of it stems from the values instilled in me at Brebeuf.
The Jesuit tradition focuses on the education of the person as a whole, emphasizing these five virtues: being open to growth, intellectually competent, loving, religious and committed to promoting justice. These "grad at grad" values, as the Jesuits call them, might sound like a hokey mission statement, but they were taken seriously at Brebeuf. They weren't just written on hallway walls, T-shirts and in the school handbook, they were preached and exemplified by each of our teachers on a daily basis. Living out these qualities wasn't simply a goal, it was a duty.
It is the last of these principles -- committed to promoting justice -- that launched me into a career in journalism. When my teachers saw I was interested in writing, they didn't just teach me how to write better. They encouraged me to write for the greater good.  {The Greater Good!  Absolutely, but on what basis is the Greater Good to be determined?  Hopefully not social media support, nor the whims of the culture at large.  Surely Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier had some objective standard in mind built upon the Word of God, Apostolic teaching, and Church tradition.  The Greater Good cannot blow where the wind takes it, it must be anchored or it will twist about endlessly and be capable of justifying anything.}
When Brebeuf defied the Archdiocese's demand, I thought of the "grad at grad" moral standards that Brebeuf is living out and which the Archdiocese sorely lacks.  {This is a high-handed claim, the Archdiocese lacks a moral standard, but the portion of the Jesuits in question have one?}
The Archdiocese is unfairly targeting members of the LGBT community, bigotry {Christianity (as Judaism before it) is inherently bigoted.  Let that sink in.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ claims to be the sole path to God, the only means of salvation, and the necessary answer for every man, woman, and child who has ever lived.  It condemns as false all other paths, whether self-help or organized religion.  It condemns as immoral a host of human behavior that affects everyone, and declares that none are righteous apart from a righteousness gifted to us by Jesus Christ.  It declares a moral standard that must be present in its followers and condemns those who speak but don't act as Christ-followers.  There can be no Truth without condemnation of falsehood.  There can be no Morality without condemnation of immorality.  If this essence is removed from Christianity, it ceases to be, becoming devoid of all power and less than meaningless...To make the case that to single out one particular type of sin is unfair, while ignoring others, is one thing (a sense of balance Pope Francis has repeatedly called for), but to label that bigotry is to reject Christianity for what it is and must be.} that is beyond repulsive in 2019 {What does 2019 have to do with a question of morality?  Is the standard by which we are to judge matters of morality based upon the year in which we live?  We all know that our ancestors had blind spots concerning certain immoral behavior (slavery comes to mind, as well as antisemitism) but they were still wrong to behave that way, even if they couldn't see it for themselves...Evidently, by 2019 the author thinks the Church ought to have capitulated and abandoned its teaching regarding sexual ethics and marriage, the past 3,500 years of Judea/Christian ethics be damned.  The "failure" to do so, is evidently repulsive.} but all too real in religious communities across the globe. {The anger here is directed inward toward Christianity, but other religions will be targeted next.}  Gay or otherwise, Brebeuf employees provided me with a rigorous education and a caring environment. Brebeuf's tolerance -- no, outward support -- for its LGBTQ faculty and students has fostered thousands of accepting and loving alumni.  {Results based morality.  A person can accomplish good and positive things without being morally upright, the Church always works with flawed people.  However, "accepting and loving" is an odd standard for gauging success the way it is being used here.  We, as Christians, certainly are called to be loving, and to love both friends and enemies, both family and strangers, but the relatively recent choice to connect "acceptance of behavior" with "loving people" as a take it or leave it, all or nothing, proposition is not associated historically with Christianity.  Jesus called people, all sorts of people, to follow him, but he did so on the basis that all of them needed to repent, to leave their lives of sin, and be like him.}
Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit priest, tweeted about the contradictions of what the Archdiocese is asking Catholic schools to do. If employees must be "supportive of Catholic teaching," as Martin points out, a wide swath of Catholic school employees would be subject to termination, including straight people living with a significant other outside of marriage, married couples using birth control and Catholics who don't go to Mass, {Because Justice is not applied to all, evenly and thoroughly, it must be abandoned?  Fr. Martin is correct that the Church has often focused more energy upon certain sins than upon others, and he is correct that the sins of people who are unlike ourselves are more readily condemned than sins that hit closer to home.  This is a failure of God's people that is neither new nor acceptable.  However, this is NOT an argument against having a moral standard at all, but only one against having a poorly articulated/applied moral standard.} as well as those who practice another religion or none at all. {Do Fr. Martin and Ellen Kobe believe that Catholic schools should be forced to hire teachers who are Muslims, Hindus, and Atheists?  This is a new frontier facing Christian Education, the demand that they abandon the reason why they exist in the first place and replace a Christ-centered education, and a Christ-following staff with something more broad and less restrictive.} I think that's pretty much every person I know.  {I know this is meant to be sarcasm, but really?  Everyone you know is either defying the Church's teaching on marriage, birth control, and/or not going to Mass at all?  You don't know anyone who lives according to the traditional teachings of the Church?  Is this not a cause for concern?  How can one claim ownership over the direction of the Church, call it "repulsive" and "bigoted" when one's viewpoint is surrounded by those who reject the teachings of, and participation in, that same Church?}
Brebeuf didn't have much to lose in its relationship with the Archdiocese, which doesn't provide the school with any funds or ministers, according to the Indianapolis Star. Cathedral's defense of their decision notes everything they would've lost, including permission to refer to itself as a Catholic school, the ability to celebrate the Sacraments and its status as an independent nonprofit organization.
These would be tough challenges to face. But when leaders of Catholic institutions focus solely on doctrine, status or other rules of the Church, {Agreed.  To focus solely upon doctrine is to lose touch with its application among human beings.  Is this really what Catholic institutions are doing?  Have all the hospitals, orphanages, schools, and charities ceased to exist?  Have the thousands of parishes living in community together while seeking Christ disappeared?  When you disagree with a particular doctrine, make a rational case for that disagreement, one that seeks some grounding in Scripture.  To claim those who disagree with you are heartless is not the same as making a case for your position...On the flip side, when doctrine/theology is no longer central, when Truth is relegated to secondary status, Christianity's days are numbered, its churches are adrift, and its people will latch on to all manner of ideas and beliefs that would have found no home among the Apostles.} they lose sight of what this religion is all about -- {What is the purpose of religion?  An important question, but far more relevant here ought to be: What is the purpose of the Church created by Jesus Christ after his resurrection and empowered by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?  What religion, in general, is all about is not a relevant discussion for what Christianity should be.}  God's unconditional love for all people. {Not the right answer by a long shot for one very important reason: God's love is not unconditional.  Period.  God's love is in complete harmony with his holiness and justice.  If God's love for all people was unconditional, why do we worship a crucified and risen Savior?  Why did God institute the Mosaic sacrificial system, why did he call Abraham and replace his polytheism with monotheism?  Even a cursory reading of the Scriptures reveals God's anger at sin, his judgment upon those who defy him, and his absolute insistence upon obedience.}
Brebeuf unified around faith. Cathedral allowed doubt to take over. What good is the designation of being a "Catholic" school if you lose your values in the process? {A very important question: What is the point of wanting to be Catholic, or any subset of Christianity, if that designation is no longer anchored to the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, and Holy Scripture?...Is it truly "doubt" to remain committed to what the Church has taught for 2,000 years?  Is standing firm in the midst of change somehow a lack of faith?} As Martin says, Brebeuf protecting its LGBTQ employee "is the most Catholic thing that the school, and the Jesuits, could do."  {Wow, "the most Catholic thing"?  Again, what is the basis for this claim?  Upon what Biblical principle does this rest?  What teaching of Jesus, and how is that being applied?}
By the way, wasn't June Pride Month?  {And this has what to do with a moral question within the Church of Jesus Christ?}

{In the end, this article is an opinion piece, what it is not is any reason to justify its author's very strong moral condemnation of the Catholic Church with anything beyond how the author feels, a reference to the "greater good" that is not defined, and the consensus of a particular social media bubble.  While reasoning such as this may be standard within the culture as a whole, or in the political realm, it is not how the Church of Jesus Christ discusses, debates, or even changes theological positions.} 

Our warped definition of Christianity is disastrous

What, and how, we think is important; very important.  What we believe in, and what we believe about important topics and issues profoundly shapes who we are.  But there is more to it than what and how we think.  It is absolutely true that an individual cannot be a Christian if they do not believe in Jesus Christ, in other words, they believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that he lived, died, and was raised to new life in order to set us free from sin (enslavement to, and debt because of).  {See John 3:16 as an example of this explained in one sentence}  Belief is not the end of the road.  Belief has to be accompanied by repentance {a turning away from sinful behavior} and has to lead to righteous living {by the power of the Holy Spirit} in order for belief to be effective.  In order for it to be real.  A belief in Jesus which does not change the trajectory of a person's life, in ways both small and great, is meaningless.  Herein lies the problem.  Consider the two passages of Scripture below which together illustrate the absolute necessity of "fruit" (ethical behavior) and give nine prime examples of what it looks like:

Matthew 7:16-20 New International Version (NIV)
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Galatians 5:22-24 New International Version (NIV)

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

To say, "I am a Christian" is not enough.  To have a particular political viewpoint is not enough (and often misleading).  To know the key words one should say in order to "sound like a Christian" is not enough.  To attend a church at Christmas and Easter, or even more often, is not enough.  To own a Bible, or even read it, is not enough.  To give money to Christian charities, or the Church itself, is not enough.  A person could have all of those things, and outwardly look the part, but without love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control; they would have nothing. {See 1 Corinthians 11}  Don't get me wrong, someone who goes to church, reads a Bible, and gives money to Christian charities is better off than someone who doesn't; but only if those factors eventually lead to the radical change of mind and heart that gives evidence to the presence of the Holy Spirit and results in the outflow from that person's life of the fruit of the Spirit.  If a person remains "associated with" Christianity, but never moves forward, they will actually be worse off on the Day of Judgment for having known better without acting.  {See Hebrews 6:7-8}

The Church in America, in particular, has a self-identification problem.  We've allowed cultural distinctions and political viewpoints to more strongly define our view of what Christianity is than righteous living.  We've minimized the immorality that doesn't bother us, pride, lust, and greed in particular, and allowed ourselves to accept the delusion that anyone who looks the part and is on "our side" in the Culture War is Christian enough.  The Word of God says otherwise.  We will be known by God by our fruit, judged as genuine believers in Jesus, or not, by it. 

Those who mimic the look of being a Christian, without the heart-motivated acts of righteousness to go with it, are either self-deluded or charlatans, either a danger to themselves or to the church as a whole.  As long as we accept those who are "like us" as being good enough because we view Christianity as cultural/political feud to be won, rather than a call to self-sacrificially serve the Kingdom of God that must be obeyed, we will continue to warp Christianity into something which is was never intended to be, with disastrous consequences.