Sermon Video: God will preserve his people, increasing his glory - Jude 24-25

Having just instructed the Church to show mercy to those who doubt, Jude now encourages all believers by assuring us that God is capable of keeping us from stumbling (whether through our own failures or any outside attack), and thus present us before his throne, WITHOUT FAULT! This is the culmination of the Christian hope: To stand in the presence of God, not only free from accusation, but clothed in the righteousness of Christ. This promise that God will finish what he has begun in each of us offers to us great comfort when things are difficult, and motivation to be self-sacrificial toward the mission of the Kingdom of God. Lastly, Jude ends by speaking of the timeless nature of God's glory, majesty, power, and authority, all of which existed before God became the Creator, and all of which will only increase and more and more people are brought into the family of God by faith in Him.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

What if we don't need a new church plant?

In 2016, Pastor Charlie Cotherman led the planting of Oil City Vineyard Church just upriver from us in Oil City.  I know Charlie, and God has blessed his vision for Oil City with a church that is thriving.  That same year, Pastor Joseph Gibson led the planting of Cranberry Community Church (Assemblies of God) a few miles 'uphill' from us in Cranberry.  I know Joseph as well, and God has also blessed his vision for Cranberry with a church that is thriving.  Planting a new church is often seen as a way of waking up a community, of bringing something new and potentially exciting to the mix, and ultimately (hopefully) of tapping into the work of the Spirit and reaping a harvest for the Kingdom.
But what if a village, town, or other relatively small community already has more churches than average?  What if that town has quite a bit more than one would expect to find for a town its size? {More than it needs?  Is that a real thing?}  The town of Franklin has just over 6,000 people (it was 6,500 in 2010, this year's census will provide new numbers), and with that population, contains 1 Catholic, 3 Church of God, 1 American Baptist (that's us), 1 Nazarene, 2 United Methodist, 1 Free Methodist, 1 Wesleyan Methodist, 1 Christian Missionary Alliance, 1 Presbyterian, 1 United Brethren, 1 Episcopal, 1 Lutheran, 1 Pentecostal, and 1 Foursquare.  In addition, across the river in Rocky Grove we have another United Methodist church, another Church of God, another Presbyterian church, and a Pilgrim Holiness church; I can think of another 7 churches within three miles of town (4 UMC, 2 Independent Baptists, 1 Community).  If we add in Rocky Grove, that's 20 (27 in a 4 mile radius) churches for a population of about 7,000.  If everyone in town went to church each Sunday, we'd each have about 350 people.  There are 3 churches with that number or more, but most have between 50-125.  In theory we could fit all 7,000 people in our church pews, maybe needing a few 2nd services.  {That's with 100% attendance, those who are home-bound take several hundred off of that potential group, but at a very healthy 50% attendance rate, we'd still have more than enough church pew space}.  With a population that has been in steady decline since the 1970's, and a number of churches that still reflects the glory days of the Oil Boom (when my church regularly had over 1,000 people on Sundays, and others were packed too), it would seem illogical to consider adding another church to Franklin's already massive and diverse repertoire.
Oil City didn't suffer from a lack of churches when Charlie and his family arrived, although it seems that he filled a niche that may have been underutilized.  The same seems true with Joseph and Cranberry, given its smaller population than either Franklin or Oil City, but also the lack of any church in our area associated with the Assemblies of God (the one in Franklin closed several years ago).  How do we know if God's purpose would be better served by focusing our energy and vitality on reviving that which is already here, or trying to build something from scratch?  The Book of Acts in the New Testament doesn't offer us any direction as to how many churches should exist in any particular community, so we're not going to find easy answers.
There are a lot of under-served communities in America, and tens of thousands of them worldwide.  These are places with one church per 10,000 people, and even far worse ratios.  Compared to them, Franklin is overly, abundantly, blessed, as is our county as a whole {with about 50k people and well over 100 churches}.  If God has plans to send us someone like Charlie or Joseph (and their wives and kids), I'll welcome them with open arms, but if God's plan is instead to work with what we already have here, I've no doubt that we can get the job done with the churches (both the communities and the buildings) we already have serving this community.

Sermon Video: Building up God's people, including the doubters - Jude 17-23

Given the need that the Church has to be on its guard against false teachers and divisive people, what ought we to do about those who have doubts?  Doubt (and with it: fear, anxiety, etc.) is NOT a cause for excluding people from the fellowship of God's people.  Rather than judge those who doubt, Jude tells us to show them mercy.  In addition, those who are in danger of judgment should be "snatched from the fire", and even those who are in mired in darkness likewise should receive mercy from the people of God.  The reasons and the cure for doubt/anxiety/fear are a larger topic, the attitude of reaching out a helping hand to others is a simple principle to build upon.  {Also, this topic is yet another reason why 'church' is not a solo operation, why we need to be a part of God's people, both giving and receiving help in times of need}.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

The SBC dis-fellowships a church which continues to employ a child-sex offender as their pastor: a step in the right direction, but not enough.

Christianity Today reported on the outcome of a recent SBC Executive Committee meeting: Southern Baptists Disfellowship Church Over Abuse for the First Time But victim advocates say the denomination hasn’t gone far enough. by DAVID ROACH

A small step in the right direction; a convicted child offender has no business serving in a pastoral role. God offers 2nd chances to those who truly repent, but the parameters for pastoral leadership as outlined by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1-12 and Titus 1:5-9 leave no room for church leaders with such sinful behavior in their past (the pastor in question sexually assaulted two pre-teen girls). In addition, a "we don't leave the child predator alone with children" policy is NOT sufficient. Churches must take sexual abuse seriously, of both children and adults. If this minister has turned his life around, has repented, let him serve in other ways, let him warn others to avoid his mistakes, minister to other sexual offenders, not assume authority over God's people; he is not qualified to do so.
Let us pray for our brothers and sisters in the SBC who are struggling mightily with the issue of sexual abuse in their churches (it is in every denomination, just as it infects nationwide schools, scout troops, sports teams, etc. none are immune to this scourge of human depravity). That the leadership of the SBC was willing to take this step is a positive sign, that many seem more afraid of 'liberalism' within the SBC (as the article and two sexual abuse survivors associated with the SBC are claiming) than sexual predators within the SBC is a disturbing sign that all is not well in the health of this denomination. In addition, the move to connect the effort to root out sexual abuse with 'liberalism' as a way of deflecting that effort (as evidenced by the video created by Founders Ministries which is led by an SBC pastor: By What Standard? God's world...God's rules whose video promo took a swipe at Rachael Denhollander {The first victim to publicly abuse Larry Nassar, who now advocates for abuse victims and the need to protect against new abuse}) is an extremely troubling development. To those within the SBC who are fearful of 'liberal' movements, is it compatible with Christian morality to use that fear (whether it is justified or not) as an excuse to avoid dealing with the full scope of the sexual abuse that has occurred with in the SBC? Defending the innocent and holding church leadership accountable is not a liberal or conservative issue, it is a moral imperative.

NOTE: As a minister within the American Baptist Churches denomination, and a representative on our regional board of directors, I fully recognize that our loose affiliation {regional executives can refuse to acknowledge an ordination, or remove an ordination recognition from a minister who has engaged in immoral (or heretical) behavior, but cannot remove that minister, for only the local church can hire or fire its own pastoral staff} makes the ABC vulnerable to issues like the one that the SBC is dealing with. Should it become known that an ABC church within ABCOPAD (my region) is employing a sex offender, and refusing to terminate that relationship, I would advocate for the removal of that church from our fellowship (which is the most we could legally do). Our loose affiliation and lack of regional record keeping regarding our churches means that sexual abuse within the ABC, and ABCOPAD in particular, is below the radar, but in no way is it non-existent.

For my previous commentary on the trailer for By What Standard?: "By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics

The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: Hatred of the authority of God

Years ago, I slogged through Atlas Shrugged out of the same sense of obligation to have read influential books that caused me to attempt, but choose to abandon, reading War and Peace.  Atlas Shrugged is not a well written novel, its plot is nonsensical, its protagonist is loathsome, and it contains extremely lengthy speeches given by various characters as a way of sharing Ayn Rand's philosophy.  The list of famous novels that don't deserve their accolades is not all that short, but Atlas Shrugged remains notable despite its fundamental flaws because of the impact of Rand's philosophy.  The 'rugged individualism' put forth by Rand is both a reaction to the authoritarianism of the 20th century, and a quintessential American idea, for few cultures have elevated the individual above the group as thoroughly and consistently.   As a teen the philosophy of Laissez-faire governance appealed to me, as it does to many a young person, but that appeal has soured over the years, in part because of a recognition that government has a crucial role to play in restraining human immorality, and also given my years of cooperation with our local government in anti-poverty and anti-homelessness efforts, in particular the county of Venango and the city of Franklin.  Whereas it is certainly possible for a Christian to take a libertarian view because of a mistrust of human governments (as they must be populated and run by sinful human beings and have a track record of misdeeds), there is no way for the hyper-libertarian views of Ayn Rand to be compatible with any sort of Christian worldview.  In fact, the moral philosophy advocated by Ayn Rand, ethical egoism, is a rejection of everything associated with Christian ethics, Rand's Jewish heritage, and religion in general.  To embrace ethical egoism is to reject, wholeheartedly, any obligation to God.



1.  Ethical egoism makes each individual the arbiter of right and wrong.
Historically speaking, it isn't a good idea to share philosophical/ethical space with Friedrich Nietzsche, but uncomfortable compatriots aside, ethical egoism's foundation is the belief that each individual should act in his/her own self-interest.  When ethical egoism is combined with Rand's libertarian political viewpoint, the result is a hoped-for false utopia in which no individual is required to do anything that isn't in their self interest.  It is a world free of compulsion.  In other words, I could help my neighbor, but only if I wanted to, to force me to pay a tax to support (or virtually any tax in Rand's view, for any purpose) a homeless shelter would be immoral.  It is only natural that human beings place themselves at the center of their own universe.  The word natural in that last sentence is used in the sense of 'expected', not in the sense of 'proper'.  As human beings who have a flawed human nature, one fully capable of doing evil, placing our own judgment and self-interest at the center of any ethical or governmental system cannot possibly produce a positive result.  It will merely make our own self-interested choices reality writ-large, enshrining in law and cultural practice the wants and desires of the selfish human heart.  Far from being an utopia, a fully realized Rand inspired society would be hell on earth, a danger eloquently expressed in William Golding's The Lord of the Flies.  Rand rightly abhorred the evil of the authoritarian systems of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, but replacing one egotistical maniac in the cases of Hitler or Stalin with millions of individual dictators running their own lives as they see fit will only disperse the moral evil, not eliminate it.  Whatever ethical, philosophical, or governmental system is created, if it is built upon human self-interest, it will fail, and fail spectacularly.  In the end, Ayn Rand's philosophy is simply the other side of the authoritarian coin, replacing one unaccountable dictator over society, with many unaccountable dictators over their own lives.

2.  If the individual is at the center, God must be displaced.
Atlas Shrugged, and Rand's philosophy in general, is extremely hostile toward religion.  Why?  Virtually all religion has this in common: it displaces the individual from the center and puts God(s) there instead.  In other words, the very concept of religion is based upon the premise that you and I are not the culmination of life in this universe, nor its final purpose.  To understand how we came to be, why we are here, and where we are going, human beings must look up, the answer does not lie within ourselves.  These are of course generalizations about religion, how Buddhism fits within this is of course a bit complicated, but the premise holds: religion is hostile to ethical egoism because religion recognizes that individual human beings do not belong at the center.
It is, of course, the Christian understanding that the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob who came in the flesh as Jesus Christ deserves to be at the center, due to both power and holiness that God alone possesses.  What happens when Christianity is led astray by a belief that warps the Gospel and moves individuals back toward the center?  The Prosperity Gospel.  The Prosperity Gospel is a heresy precisely because it elevates the individual, making our health and wealth God's priority, rather than maintaining the age-old understanding of both our Jewish and Christian ancestors in the faith that they were servants in the house of the LORD.  Another more radical example of a Christian-based system that has been warped, in this case beyond recognition, by the removal of God as the center is Mormonism.  The goal of Mormonism is to become god-like, to advance to the point of possessing the power of a god able to create worlds of our own to rule. 

3.  Christianity requires that individuals bow the knee to the authority of God.
Neither an authoritarian dictator, nor a 'rugged individualist' like Rand would be willing to bend their will to obey God.  Both are in rebellion against that higher authority, that one of them seeks to dominate others and the other to 'liberate' them is a difference of degree, not of kind; both extremes place the individual at the center, both reject any obedience to God or any other external moral authority, and both are a dead end.
One cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ without acknowledging, and welcoming, the authority of God over one's life.  This attitude of obedience is infused throughout the teachings of Jesus, summed up in his endorsement of the greatest commandment:
Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Notice also that the 2nd commandment is our moral obligation to other people, one that will often come at significant expense to ourselves.)

Jesus also embraced the authority of the Father, even though he too was God, as an example for us all (see Philippians 2:5-11):
John 6:38 (NIV)  For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

For those of us who live in a free society, and Americans in the 21st century have freedoms our ancestors could scarcely comprehend, it is tempting to elevate ourselves to the position of being the arbiter of right and wrong, the determiner of purpose and meaning.  It is tempting, but it is a fool's errand, for that power and wisdom is beyond us, and pretending to possess it is the path of self-destruction.  The Church can ill afford to be infected with these notions, we have seen the results when it has been compromised in this way, from the support of millions of German Christians for the Nazi regime, to the hucksters on TV promising God's blessings to those who will send them money.  Ayn Rand believed that a truly 'free' society of individuals serving their own self-interests would be a paradise, she was wrong.