Written in 1934, the Theological Declaration of Barmen was the response of the Confessional Church, those Christians who had left the official Church in Germany because of Nazi influence. While they represented Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches, they held in common a revulsion at Nazi ideology, and an unwillingness to ignore its corrupting influence upon both the German Church and German people. The primary author of the declaration was the Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), mentor to German leaders of the Confessing Church like Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
While it is typically folly to compare any situation to that of Nazi Germany, for the German Church certainly faced challenges with few parallels in the rise of Hitler's political party, there remains within the Barmen Declaration a number of truths which transcend the historical moment which inspired its writing. (The words of the Declaration appear below in bold, my commentary in normal font.)
8.04 Try the spirits whether they are of God! Prove also the words of the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church to see whether they agree with Holy Scripture and with the Confessions of the Fathers. If you find that we are speaking contrary to Scripture, then do not listen to us! But if you find that we are taking our stand upon Scripture, then let no fear or temptation keep you from treading with us the path of faith and obedience to the Word of God, in order that God's people be of one mind upon earth and that we in faith experience what he himself has said: "I will never leave you, nor forsake you." Therefore, "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."
No matter what circumstances an individual Christian, a local church, denomination, or the Church as a whole, may find itself in; whether that circumstance be one of abundance or scarcity, of peace or persecution, the response of God's people to that circumstance can only be validated or denounced based upon the teachings of Holy Scripture. Let the people of God clamor for leaders who will build their ministry upon God's Word, and may they ignore those who would teach anything contrary to it. I have told my own congregation, on a number of occasions, that as an American Baptist Church with a congregational polity, that they are the ones responsible for testing my sermons, bible studies, classes, blog posts, etc. by the standard of God's Word; and that should I fail to adhere to that Word, that I would expect them to call me on it, to challenge me, and if necessary to remove me from this position of authority in Christ's Church should I refuse to bend my will to that of God's Word. This should be the standard for those who serve the Church in every denomination, whether it be on the authority of a bishop from above, or a local congregation's members, we must demand that God's Word remain the standard. As Barth urged, if we are convinced that the path we tread is the path of faithful obedience to God's Word, let no fear or temptation keep us from following, for we can be assured that God goes with us.
8.08 As members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches we may and must speak with one voice in this matter today. Precisely because we want to be and to remain faithful to our various Confessions, we may not keep silent, since we believe that we have been given a common message to utter in a time of common need and temptation. We commend to God what this may mean for the interrelations of the Confessional Churches.
How does the Church speak with one voice when there are so many competing opinions being offered by its leaders? For Karl Barth and the Confessing Church, it was necessary to set aside their denominational distinctions, to come together and hammer out a statement of common belief, and share that message with the world. What will it mean for the barriers that exist between churches when they can find common ground in God's Word in the midst of extraordinary challenges? The answer can hardly be detrimental, and holds promise of great benefit for the Kingdom of God. What are the challenges today that the Church can come together and speak about from God's Word with one voice? Sadly, the growing trend is for 'liberal' churches of various denominations, and 'conservative' churches of various denominations to find common ground with each other against the positions of their liberal or conservative brethren, thus resulting in a Church that speaks with two voices, one corresponding to each of the major political parties in the United States. The long-term effects of this alignment are far from clear. {In other words, it is not so much Catholic vs. Protestant or Baptist vs. Methodist anymore, but rather conservative Catholic and conservative Baptist vs. liberal Catholic and liberal Baptist}.
8.15 We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.
The Nazis demanded total allegiance, and would not share it with Jesus Christ. Like the Early Church's refusal to worship the Roman Emperor, this led to persecution and martyrdom. Barth was absolutely right in declaring that no segment of our lives, as Christian disciples, are outside of the control of the lordship of Jesus Christ, and that no other authority can supersede our allegiance to God, for any purpose. This idea was front and center at the start of the 20th century, as Nationalism grew steadily throughout Europe, resulting in millions of people viewing themselves as British Christians or German Christians rather than as Christian Brits or Germans. Whatever other allegiances we may have in life, they cannot come first, they cannot be allowed to demand of us things contrary to the Word of God. {And if they attempt to do so, we must resist, as Barth and Confessing Church were doing}.
8.17 The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.
This is simply an eloquent answer to the question: What is the Church? Notice the radical commitment, a bold departure from what Dietrich Bonhoeffer diagnosed as the ill of the practice of faith exercised by German Christians: Cheap Grace. A discipleship which costs nothing, which asks little of us, is no discipleship at all.
8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.
The Church has a divinely appointed purpose and mission. This is not open for negotiation. It cannot allow itself to abandon this calling, nor can it allow itself to be bullied into silence. We are in the business of making disciples. We do this by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Good News that Jesus died for our sins and was raised to new life for our justification. This message is for everyone, period. This message is to be accompanied by acts of love and charity, by grace and truth. Whatever self-interest, whether power, money, or fame, whatever ideology or political cause would seek to turn the Church from its God-given task, must be rejected. {I may have written a few times about the Church's need to protect the Gospel from politics.}
8.21 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, apart from this ministry, could and were permitted to give itself, or allow to be given to it, special leaders vested with ruling powers.
The Nazis claimed the authority to appoint the leaders of the German Church, as if the Church were subservient to the state {An arrangement that existed for centuries in the Byzantine Empire with the Eastern Orthodox Church, and one that caused the Investiture Controversy in the 11th century as Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV squared off against Pope Gregory VII. This episode is one of the portions of Church History highlighted in my class: What Every Christian Should Know About: Church History}. This same dilemma exists for Christians in China, with the Communist Party insisting upon the right to appoint its leaders, thus driving into unofficial 'underground' churches, those who would not be subject to that illegitimate authority.
8.23 We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church's vocation as well.
8.24 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State.
Why do Baptists traditionally espouse the Separation of Church and State? For the very reasons cited here: The temptation for the State to try to do the Church's job, and for the Church to try to function as an arm of the State (or control it outright). The State does not function well as an arbiter of our relationship with God {examples of which are plentiful, from the Salem Witch Trials to John Calvin's Geneva burning a non-Trinitarian heretic at the stake: The dark side of the Reformation: John Calvin and the burning of heretics - by Joseph Hartropp }, nor can the Church function properly as a witness to the Kingdom of God when it becomes enmeshed in the business of temporal kingdoms. How the line is to be drawn between Civil and Church responsibility is a tough one, as is the question of cooperation in areas of mutual interest {For example: the mutually beneficial work of Mustard Seed Missions of Venango County in cooperation with the Human Services Department of Venango County}.
8.27 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans.
This is the Truth at the core of Barth's statement: The Church serves the will of God, it honors and obeys the Word of God, and it seeks to build up the Kingdom of God. How could any diversion of that effort, and compromise of that cause be tolerated, and how could the Church allow itself to become the tool of any other vision? It seems obvious that the Nazis were not the right ones to hand over control of the Church to, they had the mark of villains from the very beginning. Nor would people within the Church be rushing to be under the authority of the Chinese Communist government, for their stated purpose is hostile to religion. But temptation typically comes in subtler guise. What about using the Church to help 'our side' win an election? What about utilizing the worship service of our Lord to promote a politician or political party? To think that Barth's warnings only apply when dealing with fascists or communists is naive. The Church has a singular mission, the Church has a singular authority, and the Church bows its knee to only one Lord; those truths are timeless.
Thursday, March 5, 2020
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
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:
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Thursday, February 27, 2020
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
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:
To watch the video, click on the link below:
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)