Sermon Video: Fasting: Jesus' disciples and the New Covenant - Mark 2:18-22

 In response to a question about why his disciples were not observing the Jewish custom of fasting, Jesus explains that his time with them is akin to a wedding celebration, a festive occasion for which fasting would be inappropriate.  What is fasting?  Abstaining from food, and sometimes also drink, for a period of time.  The Law of Moses required it for the Day of Atonement, other uses in the Hebrew Scriptures include as part of a person's repentance, in response to a calamity, or in preparation to communing with God (think Moses at Sinai).  These uses remain valid for Christians today, although some denominations emphasis fasting much more than others.  In addition, Jesus explains that what he is doing is both connected to the Covenant of Abraham, AND new enough that it won't fit into that definition without 'tearing' or 'bursting'.  The New Covenant will include Gentiles, have a new revelation of scripture, and the advent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

"What does the Bible say about systemic racism?" by WWUTT.com - an error filled and shameful tragedy that only makes things worse

 

Every once in a while, you see something that reminds you of how far from the Truth Bible-believing, people of good intentions (giving them the benefit of the doubt on both counts) can be.  An example of which is the recent video by When We Understand the Text, a popular Youtube ministry of Pastor Gabriel Hughes, whose website states that the scripts of all videos are approved by the elders of the First Southern Baptist Church of Junction City, Kansas.  In addition to being incredibly dismissive and tone deaf about racism, the WWUTT team decided to make a video mocking the idea of systemic racism during the fall of 2020, after months of protests around the country (and even around the world) concerning this very subject.  They, evidently, wanted to push back against the ongoing American reckoning with racism; hard.  It isn't difficult to discern how Pastor Hughes and his church leadership feel about any attempts to rectify the racism that exists in America today after watching this video.

I've been aware of the WWUTT series for several years, and have often been bothered by the lack of actual biblical exegesis in these super short videos, especially since the very premise of the series is to consult the Bible for Truth, this latest one is probably the most egregious example to date.

1. To ask the question, "What does the Bible say about..." any modern topic, is both a waste of time, and a not-very-subtle attempt at dismissal.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the Bible doesn't use the words rocket or scientist.  Words for things which did not yet exist when a text was written (any text, not just the Bible) will not appear in that text!  The Bible also doesn't mention the internet, does that mean the the moral principles contained in the Bible have no bearing on how people use the internet?  Of course not, so why bring up this obvious lack of  biblical anachronism as your first point if you're not trying to set the tone that the Bible is against whoever is using this 'new fangled' notion called systemic racism?

2. After defining systemic racism, the narrator stunningly concludes that the definition of systemic racism means that everything is racist!

This after the definition that is quoted specifically says that systemic racism is about benefits and disadvantages (thus eliminating anything that doesn't produce one or both of those) designed to help Whites and harm minorities.  If you're going to 'win' a one-sided argument, one of the easiest things to do is to create a Straw Man, a fake version of what your opponent believes that you can then tear down, even though your opponent doesn't say or believe what you've pretended (by way of the Straw Man) that they do.  This is what WWUTT is doing here, citing a definition of systemic racism and then with no proof simply stating that systemic racism means everything is racist, which of course it does not.  This isn't argumentation worthy of a Christian apologist.

3. Follow up the Straw Man with Culture War red meat examples

Rushing past the "systemic racism = everything is racist" false assertion, the video next lists in quick succession four things that are designed to reassure White people that systemic racism isn't real but rather just a silly notion.  These include two decisions by private companies to alter their products (Aunt Jemima syrup and Land 'O Lakes butter), the decision of some realtors to stop calling the main bedroom in a house the 'master bedroom' (a reference to Southern slave masters, or aristocratic masters and servants), and finally the mix-up involving Bubba Wallace and the noose found at the NASCAR track.  None of these items has anything to do with real systemic racism, with real benefits to white and real harms to minorities, but by lumping these Culture War items in with the discussion, a Red Herring is created.  This is, sadly, another form of argumentation not worthy of a Christian apologist.  The next screen then shows a woman outraged at the seemingly never ending things that systematic racism will go after next, an appeal to hysteria, not actual real life.  At no point in the video, are the actual issues of systemic racism (criminal justice, education, voting, housing, healthcare, etc) even mentioned.

4. "That's what happens when you give up the Gospel"

Wow.  So anyone who believes that systemic racism is real has given up the Gospel?  Has walked away from the true Church?  Once again, no proof of this massive assertion is offered, simply another giant leap from talking about syrup bottles to the abandonment of the Gospel.  My apologies to the millions of Black followers of Jesus Christ in this country who know all too painfully that systemic racism is real, you do NOT have to pretend otherwise for the sake of the Gospel; this is a shameful assertion.

5. The claim that the debate over systemic racism doesn't offer any solutions

This is simply laziness.  Many different organizations and individuals have called for reform in the education system, the criminal justice system, and for the protection of voting rights, to name three massive issues that are plagued with ongoing racism, and regarding which, a variety of mitigating efforts are available.  That there is not an immediate and total solution to a problem doesn't make it any less real.  Was the Opioid Crisis in America only real once there were concrete plans offered to curb the devastation it was causing?  Is that crisis any less real because those solutions haven't been 100% effective?  Of course not, but WWUTT wants to dismiss systemic racism as a 'needless argument' on this basis. {Remember, they chose not to mention the real issues of real systemic racism}

6. The use of 1 Timothy's 6:4-5's warning against needless 'quarrels' is both selective and not exegetically sound.

On what basis is this text applied to this case?  Paul was writing to Timothy about internal Church arguments, are we to believe that Paul wanted Timothy to avoid dealing with issues of immorality and evil that infected the Church?  Is it not the function of Church leadership to be concerned with Justice and Peace in society?  Are these really the things that Paul wanted Timothy to clamp down on?  How does the discussion of racism in America in any way fit a definition of a waste of time??  None of these questions are addressed, but 1 Timothy 6:4-5 is offered as a proof text just the same.

7. "Our problem does not have to do with skin, it has to do with sin" makes no sense.

Sin is indeed at the heart of all immorality, this is basic Christian theology.  But, that sin manifests itself in a variety of ways.  What is the purpose behind trying to separate sin from its particular manifestation if not to minimize that particular type of sin?  Would you also say, "Our problem does not have to do with pornography, it has to do with sin" and then go on to say that pornography isn't a real problem??  Racism is a manifestation of sin.  It is the way in which sin is made real in the lives of human beings with darkened hearts.  This is logic similar to that of Pastor Robert Jeffress, which was equally invalid {Mitigating racism can't wait: Why Pastor Robert Jeffress is wrong}.  We, human beings, have a problem with every kind of sin, and wherever that sin shows itself in our lives, and in our society, we must combat it.

8. Acknowledging that the System has faults does NOT eliminate personal responsibility.

I've heard this argument before, and it holds no water.  The classic example is the Nazi Final Solution and individual German SS soldiers.  Were they not responsible for murder because the system gave them orders to kill?  Acknowledging that individual responsibility, would anyone then say, 'Don't blame the Nazi system, its the individuals who are the real culprits'?  And yet, the WWUTT video puts forth the argument that if we acknowledge that the System (whether that be Educational, Criminal Justice, Housing, etc) has immoral structures or policies we are somehow removing personal responsibility.  This is utter nonsense, and yet another Red Herring.  Systems, created by sinful people, will contain within them immorality.  It is inevitable because they're created by flawed human beings.  Are we to never correct these errors, never to try to mitigate the effect of human sinfulness in society, or should we just ignore them when the system's flaws are related to racism?

I don't understand what Pastor Hughes is hoping to accomplish with this video, but it is flawed from beginning to end, will be used by those who wish to minimize racism, and will send a message to our Black brothers and sisters in Christ that White Christians in America really don't care about the racism they've experienced.  Therefore, I categorically reject the message of this video, from beginning to end.

Sermon Video: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:13-17

After preaching yet again to large crowds, Jesus decides to add to his group of disciples by making an unorthodox addition: the tax collector Levi (Matthew).  After this stunner, for the tax collectors were viewed as traitors and thus outcasts in Jewish society, Jesus goes a step further and has dinner with Levi and his friends.  The Pharisees, shocked by this co-mingling with 'sinners' ask for an explanation.  Jesus famously replies, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, bu the sick.  I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."  Jesus reaches out to society's outcasts, 'lost causes', and villains, hoping to find there those who recognize their lost state who might be willing to repent.  Jesus calls us to do likewise, finding ways to connect with those who aren't like us, remembering the grace we have received, that we too might help the 'sick' find the Great Physician.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Beware of the Political Church: John MacArthur declares, "any real true believer" can only vote one way.

This trend has been a long time coming within American Evangelicalism, and we have seen similar claims before, but Pastor John MacArthur, one of Evangelicalism's most noteworthy leaders, has declared that in 2020, in order to be a "real true believer" you can only vote for one political party. {John MacArthur interview, quote at 5:44 mark} {John MacArthur says 'true believers' will vote for Trump, can't affirm abortion and trans activism - by Michael Gryboski, the Christian Post}

The question, as John MacArthur is framing it is not, "Which candidate/party more closely adheres to Biblical principles and Christian ethics?"  But rather, "Are you a real Christian or not?"  These are monumentally different questions revealing a significant difference in Christian Worldview.  The first is a position of Grace that realizes that in this world we have no perfect choices, that every vote taken by a committed Christian is an act of compromise, for no candidate, and no party, can truly represent the leadership ideal embodied by Jesus, nor the fullness of his command to us, John 15:12 (NIV) "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."  In other words, a position influence by Grace and Christian Liberty will recognize the anguish felt by many Christians, both now and in generations past, when choosing between two imperfect choices, and would even recognize the possibility that a Christian might, in obedience to his/her own conscience and with principled understanding, choose to vote on the basis of other moral issues than the three or four MacArthur considers to be primary, might vote for a third party candidate, or even to NOT vote at all.  The second position reflects a binary (only two choices) position of Law: "either you're with us or against us."  There is no room here for discussion, debate, or nuance.  The choices are light and dark, good and evil, only a fake Christian (still then, presumably NOT redeemed and still headed toward Hell) could think otherwise.
This is not the first such binary choice that John MacArthur has embraced recently.  Following the controversial reopening of Grace Community Church for in-person worship {links to my two responses below}, Pastor MacArthur declared that churches that obeyed government mandates were not real churches, their leaders not real shepherds. {Excerpt from 1st sermon after reopening: “There has never been a time when the world didn’t need the message of the true church,” he said. “I have to say, ‘true church.’ I hate to think of that, but there’s so many false forms of the church. Let them shut down.” Evangelical pastor John MacArthur suggests churches that remain closed during COVID-19 are not “true” churches}.  A pattern of adding to the list of things that differentiate, in John MacArthur's opinion, true Christians/churches/pastors from false one is growing.
1. How any Christian votes is NOT a test of faith.
I know that John MacArthur takes Martin Luther's Five Solae seriously, in this case Sola Fide and Sola Gratia, so why is he (inadvertently?) adding to the Reformation's declaration the need for 'real true' Christians to vote the way he believes they must?  Instead of judging John MacArthur's intentions, let me simply observe that it has becoming increasing evident that he believes that the Church is on the precipice of a cliff, that America is lurching toward oblivion, and that these increased stakes have seemingly resulted in increasingly politically partisan stances. 
Here's the thing, even if everything John MacArthur believes about the Democrat Party is true, even if the Republican Party are the saviors of America, even if there is only one morally acceptable way for Christians who respect the authority of the Bible to vote, that would still fall far, far, far short of being a way to determine who is a genuine Christian and who isn't.  One of John MacArthur's regular emphases is (rightly) the sufficiency of Scripture {Sola Scriptura}, but where in Holy Scripture does it tell us that we can judge the sheep and the goats by how they vote?  Matthew 25:31-16 contains a dire warning from Jesus that God will separate the true believers from the frauds on the basis of acts of charity toward those in need, for these actions (or lack thereof) will be sufficient to demonstrate who is living by faith and who is not.  What Jesus doesn't mention, nor does any other NT writer, is a civic test of faith.  The reason for this is pretty straightforward:
2. Our citizenship is in Heaven.
One of the inconsistencies of John MacArthur's very public, and very partisan insistence upon opening up his church's 3,000 seat sanctuary without any social distancing and without masks {John MacArthur fails to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary risk, plus End Times anti-government speculation} {John MacArthur jumps the shark with COVID-19 response} is his very clear repudiation of the idea that Church and State have overlapping jurisdictions.  He even went so far as to write, "the church does not in any sense rule the state."  And yet, at the exact same time that he is fighting the state of California in court, and doing interview after interview in support of that fight, John MacArthur is also declaring that every "real true believer" in America is required to vote for one particular political party.  You can't have it both ways, either there is separation of Church and State or there isn't.  You cannot posit simultaneously time that Christians must be allowed by the government to do their own thing, without any restrictions, and that Christians should be intimately involved in the way in which government is run.  How can we be on the outside, and in charge, too?
In the end, whoever wins in November will have ZERO impact upon whether or not you, me, or John MacArthur is welcomed into heaven with the phrase, "Well done, good and faithful servant!" (Matthew 25:23). 
Why can't our civic responsibilities be the basis of judging our faith?  Philippians 3:20 (NIV) But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.  That I was born an American has nothing to do with my standing before Almighty God.  It doesn't help me or hurt me in any way.  That 95% of the world's population was not given this blessing at birth, has nothing to do with their standing before Almighty God.  Each and every genuine follower of Jesus Christ has a superseding citizenship, has been adopted into a heavenly family.  The Word of God has chosen to define its own tests of faith, to tell us how we can judge ourselves, and how we can evaluate others.  We have no right to add to that list.

Mitigating racism can't wait: Why Pastor Robert Jeffress is wrong

1. The Gospel isn't only about saving souls.

One of the things that has been misconstrued, particularly by some Protestants, and often by Evangelicals in particular, is the notion that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is only really about saving souls.  This tends to manifest itself in an abnormal focus on getting people to say a 'Sinner's Prayer' together with a lack of follow-up discipleship.  In other words, it is a focus on the beginning of the Christian experience to the detriment of what follows after, on becoming a Christian but not on being a Christian.  This imbalance isn't healthy, and it isn't what the Scriptures have taught us about how the Church should function. 

Ephesians 2:8-10  New International Version
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Too often, Ephesians 2:8-10 is quoted as Ephesians 2:8-9, but Paul didn't end his thought there, our salvation by grace through faith is the first step toward the 'good works' that we are called to do once we are saved.  These 'good works' are not an optional part of being a Christian, for God himself has 'prepared in advance' what we are to accomplish because of our redemption has made us capable of so doing.

James 2:14-18  New International Version
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

Here we see faith in action, knee deep in issues of poverty, those same issues that are often derided as 'social justice' by those who claim the Gospel has no room for them.  Can we afford to address social issues ONLY and neglect the spiritual need of the Lost?  Of course not, but we are equally unbalanced when we, as a Church, put all our emphasis on spiritual needs and neglect physical/emotional/social needs.  Every Christian, and every church, needs to be able to 'show me your faith' through acts of righteousness.

2. The Bible is full of examples of systematic actions taken in response to sinful behavior.

If the only progress we could make in society against evil was to convert the Lost, why in the Bible is God always taking larger, more systematic actions?  The examples are plentiful, from the flood of Noah, to Joseph's program to feed the people during the famine, to Moses leading the people out of slavery (when Pharaoh was in no mood to change his mind), to the punishment of the people of Israel wandering for 40 years in the desert, to the command to Joseph to eliminate the Canaanites as God's wrath against multiple generations of wickedness, to the the Law of Moses' provisions to help the widows and orphans (which benefited Ruth because Boaz obeyed them), not to mention the Year of Jubilee's commands to free all slaves and forgive all debts.  The ideal society, envisioned by the Law of Moses, contained example after example of rules, from God, designed to ensure justice and to eliminate generational poverty.  When the prophets cried out against the mistreatment of the oppressed, they were addressing the spiritual need of the people, because that injustice was one of the ways in which spiritual illness manifested itself.  Pastor Jeffress rightly understands that racism is connected to darkened human hearts, but has decided that only one tool can be used to combat it, thus abandoning the example of how the prophets sent by God addressed the spiritual need of Israel: holistically.  The cancer analogy he uses is a false one.  When fighting against cancer, doctors use everything that will help the patient survive, just because chemotherapy (for example) is what is needed to kill the cancer cells and other efforts would be futile without it, doesn't mean the patient won't also receive IV fluids or steroids; a holistic approach is needed in medicine, and in society as well.
Jesus himself continues this trend, challenging the Pharisees by healing on the Sabbath, overturning the tables in the Temple, and even rejecting the half-measure of establishing a Messianic Kingdom in favor of a far deeper and more systematic upheaval in the form of his own vicarious death and resurrection.  When Jesus saw injustice at work, he confronted it directly on an individual level, challenged those who upheld the system that created it, and ultimately gave his very life to destroy the root of the problem.  Had Jesus followed Pastor Jeffress' racism approach, he would have told those seeking healing that their suffering was a symptom, and thus not his problem, would have ignored the Pharisees (rather than going out of his way to confront them), and would have simply waited until his Passion to address the 'real problem'.  Jesus, of course, did not such thing.  Even though he fully intended to conquer sin and death to set the spiritual captives free, he still did everything he could to help both the individuals who were suffering and to challenge society's injustices.
The Bible doesn't advocate a principle of minimalism regarding societal evil.  It doesn't consider these evils to be inevitable or beyond change.  The reality of human nature, fallen and in rebellion against God, guarantees that we cannot create an utopia on earth, but the impossibility of eliminating an evil entirely in no way diminishes our responsibility to mitigate it in our time and place.  While the Word of God calls for individuals, families, communities, and even whole nations to repent and turn to the Lord (i.e. to have changed hearts), it doesn't hit pause on the need for structural change until that day comes. 

Zechariah 7:8-14  New International Version
8 And the word of the Lord came again to Zechariah: 9 “This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’
11 “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and covered their ears. 12 They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry.
13 “‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty. 14 ‘I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations, where they were strangers. The land they left behind them was so desolate that no one traveled through it. This is how they made the pleasant land desolate.’”

Does God care about societal justice?  God was willing to send his people, those with whom he had a Covenant, into exile because they weren't willing to change their hearts and minds, as evidenced by how they treated the widow, orphans, foreigners, and the poor.  Are we to understand that God would have told the Jews living prior to the exile to not bother fighting against injustices because their efforts were only 'a Band-Aid'?  Note also, the entire nation was sent into exile, including the righteous, because of the collective injustice (sin) of the people.  Surely God takes injustice seriously.  Here's the thing, America isn't in the place of privilege of Israel (Judah), we don't have a Covenant with God, which should make us less complacent about injustice in our society, for there is no promise from God to America that would ensure a return from exile should God, by way of administering his justice, choose to punish our nation.  God was willing to chastise his own children, can we expect to escape unscathed?

3. When will there be 'enough' Christians to confront racism in America? 

If America didn't have enough hearts trusting in Christ during the height of the Jim Crow era (when the vast majority of Americans were self-professed Christians), when exactly in the future is Pastor Jeffress suggesting it will be time to confront racism?  If America couldn't mitigate racism through the hearts and minds of individuals, alone, when 75%+ of those individuals claimed to follow Jesus, what percentage is required?  Clearly, the Church is not capable of eradicating racism, even within its own members, through solely spiritual means.  The shameful evidence of our past and present confirms this.  There needs to be an effort, in combination with, ongoing efforts to win souls to Christ  to address the legal and societal frameworks of systematic racism.  That some Christians are unwilling to consider this option, or even actively oppose it, calls into question how serious an evil they believe racism to be.
A parallel might help with understanding the situation.  Abortion has been legal in America since Roe vs. Wade.  Over the past few generations, Christians (and others) have worked continuously to shape hearts and minds on this issue, AND at the same time have opened hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers (We have one here in Franklin, ABC Life Center), have supported adoption agencies, fought battles over school sex education curriculum, put together lists of judges who are Pro Life, and have again and again advocated for and supported political candidates who promise to work to overturn Roe vs. Wade.  In the case of abortion, we are not told to wait until the day when Christ has changed enough hearts, but to fight on every front, to continue the fight year after year until the goal is achieved.  Why can't we wait until the demand for abortion ceases because Christ has changed hearts?  Because unborn lives matter. 
Perhaps you may have heard, Black Lives Matter too.  But with racism the answer is different.  Some say that racism isn't real, and even complain about reverse racism.  Others deny that racism is systemic, claiming that only 'bad apples' exist, and that every law and policy is already as it should be, that race isn't a factor in justice (again, some even going further, claiming society favors minorities above Whites).  Evidence to the contrary is belittled, treated as anecdotal only, or simply smeared with political epitaphs like 'socialism' or 'liberal'.  There is absolutely a different tone and attitude among millions of (mostly White) Christians (going by self-profession) when it comes to racism. 

4. You don't have to wait for the cure to fight against evil.

The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly taught us the need to take steps against it while we wait for a vaccine.  By the same logic employed by Pastor Jeffress, the only cure for COVID-19 is a vaccine, any efforts at social distancing, mask wearing, or therapeutic treatments being researched to keep those infected alive, are only a Band-Aid.  We have already lost 180,000 Americans, and rising, to COVID-19, imagine the death toll if we had taken no measures against it.

The Gospel's efforts to rescue hearts and minds from darkness have not made murder disappear, but it is still illegal, those who commit it are prosecuted, and a myriad of measures are in place to mitigate the risk that those willing to commit murder would be able to do so.  Likewise, after 9/11 we didn't wait to convince the Jihadists of the error of their ways, we took extraordinary safety measures, and took military action against terrorists and their supporters.

The ultimate, final, solution against any evil is the victory of Jesus Christ over sin and death.  What Christ has accomplished for us, and what Christ can do for anyone wiling to repent and believe, does not eliminate our responsibility to do our part to fight against evil.

I refuse to believe that we have to wait to fight against racism. 

Open Letter to White Christians: When it Comes to Racism, Changing Hearts Isn’t Biblical Enough - by Pastor Geoff Holsclaw