Sermon Video: The Gospel in a nutshell - Romans 6:23

The Gospel in one sentence.  Think about that for a moment.  God's plan to redeem humanity from sin and death, to turn humanity history from a tragedy into a triumph, can be summed up in one sentence.  Romans 6:23 does this beautifully, and in it virtually word is worth our pondering.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #25: Luke 16:13

 

Luke 16:13  New International Version

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

One of the most divisive changes made to the plot and characters of the Lord of the Rings by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson in the movie trilogy that premiered between 2001-2003 was the interaction between Frodo & Sam and Boromir's younger brother Faramir.  In the movie version, Faramir is tormented by his father's disapproval, and while not jealous of his older brother's successes, he knows that he can never measure up in their father's eyes.  This tracks closely with the novel thus far, but the screenwriters decided to change how Faramir reacts to this pressure when his men capture Frodo and Sam and Faramir learns that they are trying to take the One Ring to Mount Doom.  In the movie, Faramir starts off down the path of taking the Hobbits to his father Denethor at Minas Tirith, getting so far as the ruins of Osgiliath before Sam dramatically explains to him that desire for the Ring drove Boromir mad.  At this point Faramir comes to his senses, realizes that his true loyalty is to the larger effort to defeat Evil, not his father or even his kingdom, and lets Frodo and Sam go with his blessing.  The movie's version is dramatic, and full of tension, but not what Tolkien envisioned.

In the novel, the scene where Faramir learns about the ring unfolds much as it does in the movie (which contains much direct quotation), but turns away sharply from the movie's hesitation when the truth about the Ring is revealed:

Faramir confesses to Frodo that he has no desire to win glory through the methods of the Dark Lord.

'But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.'

'Neither did the Council,' said Frodo. 'Nor do I. I would have nothing to do with such matters.'

And moments later when Faramir learns that the Ring is indeed in his grasp if he should so choose:

'So that is the answer to all the riddles! The One Ring that was thought to have perished from the world. And Boromir tried to take it by force? And you escaped? And ran all the way — to me! And here in the wild I have you: two halflings, and a host of men at my call, and the Ring of Rings. A pretty stroke of fortune! A chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality!'.... He stood up, very tall and stern, his grey eyes glinting.

Frodo and Sam sprang from their stools and set themselves side by side with their backs to the wall, fumbling for their sword-hilts.... But Faramir sat down again in his chair and began to laugh quietly, and then suddenly became grave again.

'Alas for Boromir! It was too sore a trial!' he said. 'How you have increased my sorrow, you two strange wanderers from a far country, bearing the peril of Men! But you are less judges of Men than I of Halflings. We are truth-speakers, we men of Gondor. We boast seldom, and then perform, or die in the attempt. Not if I found it on the highway would I take it I said. Even if I were such a man as to desire this thing, and even though I knew not clearly what this thing was when I spoke, still I should take those words as a vow, and be held by them.

'But I am not such a man. Or I am wise enough to know that there are some perils from which a man must flee. Sit at peace! And be comforted, Samwise.... Your heart is shrewd as well as faithful.... For strange though it may seem, it was safe to declare this to me. It may even help the master that you love. It shall turn to his good, if it is in my power. So be comforted. But do not even name this thing again aloud. Once is enough.'

Faramir has no desire to claim the Ring as his own, unlike his more proud and headstrong older brother, and he considers his previous declaration ("Not if I found it on the highway would I take it") to be a binding oath as a matter of honor.  Faramir, in Tolkien's imagining of his character, has no internal conflict when it comes to right and wrong, no desire to serve two masters, the higher purpose always holds him fast against temptation.

In case you're wonder, both Faramir's brother Boromir and his father Denethor fall to the temptation to put their own nation above morality.  Both have a worldview that puts the continuation of Gondor above what is right for the rest of Middle Earth and are willing to commit dishonorable and immoral acts to maintain it {And, to be frank, their own positions of dominance in that kingdom, and added push from temptation}.

And here is where our ongoing discussion of 'Christian' Nationalism comes in.  The movement asks us to divide our loyalties, to take our focus off of the Kingdom of God and place our energies and efforts first and foremost into securing the advancement of a kingdom-of-the-world.  For Americans this is a strong emotional appeal, after all we have much to love for our country, much to be proud of, and much that we might believe it can accomplish in this world.  Citizens of a less powerful, less good, nation would be tempted less to make its success their idol.  Non-citizens and those neglected and abused by their society rarely feel this temptation as well.  The appeal of 'Christian' Nationalism is uniquely tailored, then, toward those of us with the potential to put political power to use, those of us who can imagine what we might do if people like us were in charge.  But, in the end, to the extent that participation in the power structures of this world causes in us any measure of divided loyalties, any distraction from Kingdom of God work, and any excuse to try to utilize evil in the name of good, that divided loyalty is sin.  Our allegiance is bought and paid for by the Blood of the Lamb, to divide it is an affront to the God who saved us. 

Our allegiance, therefore, can never be to any version of the kingdom-of-the-world, however much better we may think it is than any other versions of the kingdom-of-the world...preserving this 'alien status' is not an addendum to our calling as kingdom-of-God citizens; it belongs to the essence of what it means to be a kingdom-of-God citizen...We utterly trivialize this profound biblical teaching if we associate our peculiar holiness with a pet list of religious taboos (such as smoking, drinking, dancing, gambling, and so on).  No, the holiness the New Testament is concerned with is centered on being Christlike, living in outrageous, self-sacrificial love." (The Myth of the Christian Nation, Pastor Gregory Boyd, p. 70-71, emphasis mine)

Sermon Video: Slaves to God? Romans 6:15-22

Contrary to post-modernism, American culture, and the tendency of Baptist theology, we are NOT autonomous individuals.  Here's the thing, there's only two choices: (1) Continue to be a slave to sin, or (2) become a slave to God (and righteousness).  That's it.  "Free agency" is not a thing when it comes to your immortal soul.

In case you're wondering, slavery to God is the path to hope, purpose, fulfillment, and joy.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #24: Luke 14:23

 

Luke 14:23  NIV

“Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full.

This example is a bit unusual in that the text in question does not refute 'Christian' Nationalism, rather it is a text once used to support the suppression of dissenting voices within the Church through military force.  In other words, Luke 14:23 was used historically on behalf of a Church Militant.

Saint Augustine is the third most influential person in Church history after two people whose names you will undoubtedly recognize: Jesus and the Apostle Paul.  Most of Augustine's contributions were massively helpful to the Church, but there were exceptions {for instance: his negative view of sex even within marriage still ripples harming Christian marriages to this day}.  The most dangerous idea that Augustine embraced was that it was fitting and proper for the Roman Empire, newly on the side of Christianity thanks to Constantine, to force the Donatists in North Africa with whom he contended on an issue of polity to rejoin the Church.  His example of a militant Church authority would be used more than 1,000 years later to force Martin Luther to choose between rebellion and his understanding of God's Word.

The Donatist Controversy predated Augustine's time as the Bishop of Hippo, having arisen after the great persecution of Emperor Diocletian {303-305, 1/2 of all Early Church martyrs killed during those three years} when those who had refused to worship the Emperor (risking their lives) would not allow those who had recanted their faith under pain of death to return to the Church.  Augustine sided with those in favor of forgiveness, hoping to heal the rift.  After a pair of councils in N. Africa failed to reach a resolution, Augustine threw his weight behind the Emperor's willingness to use the army to enforce reconciliation.

This is one of the first examples of Christian on Christian violence in the name of unity, it happened in the very first generation in which Christian had civil/military power to wield against each other.

Was Jesus talking about Church unity in Luke 14:23?  Hardly, that's not even on the radar when considering the interpretation of this parable.  And yet, Christians (whether or not they deserve the 'Christian' caveat) have been willing through the centuries to wield scripture as a cudgel, backing it up with force, against those with whom they disagree.  The Inquisition, the burning at the stake of Jan Hus, the slaughter of the people of Magdeburg, the City Council of Zurich drowning Anabaptists, the Puritans at Plymouth hanging Quakers, and so on, all following in the footsteps of the anti-Christian notion that faith can be compelled by threats and violence, that it can be protected or saved at the point of a sword.

In case you're wondering, the use of violence against the Donatists didn't work (it never does).  Four centuries later when Islamic armies rolled across N. Africa the resistance to this invasion was weakened by a Church still divided against itself.  Would kindness and patience have worked to heal the rift?  That's the road not taken, we'll never know, but the use of force by Christians against Christians most certainly did not.

Sermon Video: "do not let sin reign" - Romans 6:8-14

Having described the condition of the redeemed Christian as being 'dead to sin' and 'alive with Christ' and 'alive to God', the Apostle Paul focuses on one key implication of this changed status: Sin can no longer reign in our lives.

Given that we have the power, via the Holy Spirit, to have victory over sin, we must do so.  Instead of simply being a 'just say no' campaign, Paul tells us what must take sin's vacated place: the offering of our lives to righteousness.

Lastly, Paul ends with an additional reason for that we can achieve this transition from sin to righteousness, one he will develop fully in the book of Galatians: We are not under Law, but Grace.