The small margin of error for the shepherd of the flock

Headlines such as this are a far too frequent occurrence: “Pastor resigns after sex scandal”, “Pastor resigns amid financial scandal”.  There was another high-profile mega-church pastor who resigned this week after admitting to at least two affairs.  This was obviously a newsworthy story, especially with the 20,000 members attending this church and the satellite campuses far and wide, not to mention the book and TV efforts this church was engaged in with this pastor as its public face.  That failures such as this are sad is evident, but something about the comments that are inevitable bothers me.  Those who belong to the church rocked by such failures of leadership often say something like, “he’s a sinner, just like all of us, we all need to be forgiven.”  On the surface of it, that statement is entirely true.  Any and every church pastor is a sinner saved by grace.  There isn’t anyone who avoided needed God’s forgiveness and grace, and there isn’t anyone entering the kingdom of Heaven on their own merit.  There is a big piece of this puzzle missing, however.  That the pastor was a sinner saved by grace, when he became a follower of Jesus Christ, is entirely true, but he cannot continue to be someone who walks in darkness if he is to shepherd the church of Jesus Christ.

Like it or not, the standard by which a pastor is judged is not the same as that for his congregation.  Not everyone is capable of being a church pastor; not everyone has the gifts or talents necessary, and not everyone has the temperament needed to do the job.  Lastly, but just as importantly, not everyone is capable of the high moral standard that must be followed by someone willing to take on both the privilege and the burden of leading a church.  A church pastor is not allowed to continue in his position if he cannot keep his marriage vows (or his celibacy if he is single).  A church pastor is not allowed to continue in his position if he uses drugs, abuses alcohol, is violent, greedy, power hungry, or unforgiving.  The list is a long one, and could go on, but the point is clear.  To be called to the ministry as a shepherd is no small thing.  It has higher entrance requirements, and a high standard to continue.

Is a pastor who breaks his promise to God capable of being forgiven?  Of course he is; we all are capable of being forgiven.  Should he be allowed to continue in his ministry if he confesses his sins and shows contrition?  No, that ship has sailed.  As I said, it’s no small thing to serve the Church of God.  This is, according to the Word of God, a business where no major mistakes, and let’s call them what they are, sins, are allowed.  It is one thing for your senator to cheat on his wife, its far worse for your pastor to do so.

Does it worry me to write such things, knowing that my wife and I are dependent upon this job to provide for our needs?  No, it doesn’t, because I wouldn’t have sought ordination if I didn’t know my own heart.  I wouldn’t have accepted a call to shepherd this church if I was tempted to cheat on my wife, use drugs, or steal from the collection plate.  The Marines call themselves, “the few, the proud”; the Church needs to have similar high standards about those we allow to lead us.  That may not sound like an attitude devoid of second chances, but in the case of betraying the sacred trust of administering the Word of God, there really isn’t one.

Sermon Video: "my righteous servant will justify many" - Isaiah 53:7-12

In this second message on Isaiah 53, the suffering and death of the servant of God is given further detail and explanation.  Isaiah reveals that the servant of God will be “assigned a grave with the wicked” but be “with the rich in his death”.  This odd combination will be fulfilled by Jesus when he is wrongly convicted of being a blasphemer and a revolutionary and yet still placed in the tomb of a rich man, Joseph of Arimathea.  Such fulfillment of O.T. prophecies occurs throughout the Gospel account of the death of Jesus because the entire life of Jesus is part of the grand plan of redemption set forth by the Father before the creation of the world. 

            In the end, it was the will of God and love for mankind that held Jesus to the cross, it was our sins upon his shoulders that caused his Father to look away until it was finished, and it was his blameless life that kept death from being able to hold him.  Isaiah also speaks of the “descendants” of this servant, cut off from the living, yet prospering and rewarded.  This seeming contradiction is fulfilled when Jesus rises from the dead, no longer scorned, he now is due honor and glory from the Father.  No longer bereft of those to carry on his name, he now his spiritual descendants who have joined the family of God in his name.

            As the journey to the cross through Isaiah comes to a close the question of why has been clearly seen.  Why the cross?  The ultimate answer is this: there was no other way.  Sin had to be paid for, rebellion had a cost, and only the Son of God, sinless in life, was capable of dying in our place.  

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Sermon Video 

 

Things I've written you might enjoy.

Well, if you already read at least some of my blog it stands to reason that you might be interested in some of the longer pieces I've had occassion to write.  They're all already contained in individual blogs posts, but I figured it was time to make things easier and put all the links here on one post for any new readers.  Enjoy, use, cite if you're writing a paper for a high school or college class (which would be real cool, let me know if you do), think about what I've written, and then feel free to comment so I get some feedback.  Thanks.

A brief Theology derived from the Nicene Creed

This is just a short version of what a systematic Christian theology might look like when the Nicene Creed, the Church's oldest, most generally accepted creed, was used as the format.

 Christianity's Big Tent: The Ecumenism of I John

Christianity's Big Tent: Bibliography

This is an unpublished book that I wrote, 150 pages, about how we can define the Church through an analysis of I John.  The question of who is, and who is not, a Christian is answered on the basis of the teaching of I John.  The second link is the works cited page.

The Historicity of Asimov's Foundation Series

Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series is one of the best selling and most influential Science Fiction stories of all time.  It also has an interesting viewpoint on human nature and history.  That topic is explored in this paper that examines those aspects of the series from a Christian perspective.

The U.S.S. Platonic

The Platonic is a play that my wife Nicole and I wrote, directed, and starred in while she was working as a teacher at Saranac High School.  We began writing the play as friends and ended it as much more, it actually mirros the problems of the two primary characters whose friendship grows into something more.  A bit of art imitating life.  Feel free to enjoy its wacky humor, if you're thinking of directing a play, feel free to us it and let us know.

Relational Intimacy: Creation, the Fall, and Redemption

This is a paper I wrote about how intimacy between people was intended to be in God's original creation, how it was changed by the Fall, and how our redemption begins the process remedying it.

Young Goodman Brown: Analysis

Nathaniel Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown is a fascinating short story that is an allegory of the destruction of one man's faith.  This paper is an analysis of that story from a Christian viewpoint.  I recieved an "A" for it in college, and its the most viewed page on this blog, so I know that some of you may be tempted to cut/paste portions of it, or simply change the name, and pass it off as your own.  Rather than do that, simply use what I've written if it works for you and cite me as the source.  I was afterall, an English teacher for ten years.  

I'm building a bridge while they're digging a moat.

I often get the feeling these days that as I labor in the trenches, working on a regular basis with governmental workers who are trying to help the poor and with un-churched people that know next to nothing about God that far too many of the people on our own side would rather dig a deeper moat around the Church than help me work on this bridge.  Why do they feel the need to be defensive all the time, fighting a rear-guard action instead of attacking the enemy on his own turf?  There are many reasons why a Christian living in America in the 21^st Century might become a pessimist, but in the end they all boil down to this: they think we’re losing. 

It hurts down deep, to the core of who I am as an American, when I hear the “woe is us” doom and gloom of my fellow Americans who believe that the best days of our nation are behind us.  This isn’t a rational conclusion based upon evidence, it is simply a gut feeling based upon far too many frightening anecdotal reports spread by politicians and preachers with an agenda who are profiting financially off of the fear of those who listen to them.

It hurts me even more when I hear Christian parroting this line of pessimism.  The Church founded by Jesus Christ has triumphed over, through, and in spite of circumstances far more challenging and desperate than anything faced by the Church in America today.  Why are we filled with such despair?  Men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who faced down the Nazis and refused to compromise the integrity of the Church to serve political masters would be ashamed of our lack of resolve and courage.  The Word of God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  The victory of the Son of God has already been accomplished; his final victory of sin, death, Satan, and hell is likewise assured.  So why do those who profess faith in this all-conquering Son of God believe so little in the next generation of their own Church?  Are they so eager for the Second Coming of Christ that they’re willing to accept, even welcome, a downward slide of humanity to make it happen?  Forget for a moment that this is one particular interpretation of Scripture’s teachings on the End Times, and also that Jesus repeatedly said that the End will come as a thief, when nobody expects it.  If you’re wrong, if Jesus tarries for another two thousand years, or more, don’t we need to persevere; don’t we need to build the Church by engaging with our world both now and in the future?

I, for one, will keep working on the bridge.  I’m trying to get as many people as possible to see the Light of Christ, come over the bridge of faith in him, and enter in his kingdom.  I just wish more people in his Church were willing to stop working on the moat long enough to help.

The previous “rant” is not an indictment of the wonderful people I’ve come to know and love here in Franklin, especially those I shepherd at First Baptist, my fellow ministers in the Joint Ministerium, and my fellow workers with Mustard Seed Missions.  They understand the need to work together to reach the Lost; they haven’t given up on the future.  Who will join us?

Is Noah all wet? Thoughts on the new movie.

The new Noah movie will undoubtedly upset a variety of Christian because it takes liberty with the text of Genesis by adding some things to fill out the story, and because it changes some things in order to further the plot.  The questions surrounding this movie are similar in many ways to those faced by devoted fans of J.R.R. Tolkien who had to decide if they still liked Peter Jackson’s movies despite the changes he made to the story from the books.  I can understand those who cannot see past the changes to evaluate the movie on its own merit, in both cases, but it would be a mistake not to evaluate this version of the story by its own merits.

            What is the purpose of a movie?  Is it to be a copy of the original source material, be it a book or historical event, or is it to be an interpretation of that source material in its own right?  Movie makers, like novelists, poets, and historians, pick and choose what they wish to emphasize and how they present the material they work with.  When the source material is a beloved novel, historically significant event, or in this case, Sacred Scripture, most viewers are willing to give the writer/director/producer a lot less slack than they would if the material that the movie was derived from is unknown.

            The story of Noah in Genesis, word for word, would not make a good movie.  There isn’t enough material there to fill out a whole movie, and there certainly isn’t enough dialogue.  If you look closely at the account of Noah, the only one talking is God; Noah doesn’t say a word until he wakes up from his drunken stupor to curse his youngest son.  How is a movie, or play, or novel, based upon the life of Noah supposed to portray him if we have no idea what he was thinking or what he said.  In Genesis we’re told that Noah did what the LORD commanded him, but virtually nothing else beyond the background information that he was “a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.”  We have absolutely nothing from Genesis about Noah’s wife, his sons, or his daughters-in-law.  In order to turn this story into other medium, things are going to have to be added to the account that we have.  There will be some who disagree with the choices that this particular film makes in that process, but the process is inevitable.  If the most reputable evangelical icon were to make a Noah movie he would have to do the same thing.

            There are also three types of “Christian” movies: those that preach to the choir and tell us the things we already think, feel, and believe; those aimed at Church goers, but designed to challenge us and make us think; and those aimed at the un-churched with the hopes of inspiring them to consider God.  The recent movie, God’s Not Dead is primarily one of the first types; its focus is almost entirely on the choir, with some hopes of speaking to the un-churched, although as I said in my earlier blog post, I think they misfired on that goal.  Noah is a combination of the second two types.  It is designed to make those who already know the story from Sunday school think, and it is likely to cause those who have no idea who Noah was to wonder about God.  If Christians who were hoping that Noah was going to be a message to the choir can let go of that hope and see it on the other two levels, much of their disappointment or anger should be dissipated.

            The “Watchers” in Noah will certainly raise some eyebrows, they reminded me of the Ents in LOTRO, but are actually supposed to be the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4, a term that our English Bibles either translates as “giants” or simply leaves as Nephilim because we have no real idea who/what they were.  That Noah turns them into partially-fallen angels, an idea picked up from the Apocryphal book of Enoch, shouldn’t be viewed harshly when and minister is going to skip this verse when talking about Noah because he has no idea what it means either.

            There will be some people bothered by the environmentalism they see in the movie.  To that I respond that it is sad that evangelicals have allowed politics to turn them against their Biblical mandate to be stewards of the Earth, and have allowed American consumerism to blind them to the living conditions of the poorest on our world that often resemble the Mad Max like conditions portrayed in the movie.  There is a reason why the end of Revelation contains a new heaven and a new earth.

            There will be some who are bothered that the Creation account in the movie, which I found to be visually very beautiful, looked like theistic evolution because there was a clear passage of much time while Noah was talking about each “day”.  Rather than rehash that issue here, let me just point out that it was clear in the movie that God made humanity separate and different, in his own image, and that God was clearly portrayed as the sole maker of all things in the universe, life included.

            The subplot of Noah thinking that God wants him to end the human race raises important theological questions: How does God communicate with man?  How do we know is God is talking to us?  We tend to assume that the heroes of the Bible knew exactly what God wanted of them, all the time, without any doubt, but that is of course not in keeping with our own experience and not a genuine reading of the Bible anyway.

The second question it raises is on that the Bible itself will answer, but only over time.  That question is this: Is there value in each human life?  Is humanity worth saving?  God makes it clear over time, through Abraham’s experience with being asked to sacrifice Isaac, with Moses’ mother protecting him from death, etc. that God cares about human life, and it answers that ultimate value of humanity to God through the promises that God will send a Messiah to redeem humanity, something the New Testament expresses fully.  Was Noah worried that humanity was too far gone to be saved?  I have no idea, the text of Genesis doesn’t tell us anything about what Noah thought, but having lived amongst such violence and wickedness, wouldn’t it be normal to at least think that thought?  If Noah in the movie goes further than you think he should have down that line of reasoning, chalk it up to cinematic suspense building, but don’t dismiss the whole question.  We live in a world where human life is cheap; abortion and euthanasia are but the surface of the problem of devalued human life.  We live after a century in which more than 100 million people were murdered by three separate societies at the hands of three separate dictators during the same generation.  If God could be grieved enough at the behavior of the people of Israel while Moses was on Mt. Sinai that he wanted to wipe them out, then surely Noah could be worried that the humanity of his day was no better and deserved no less.

            There is also a conversation between Noah and his wife in the movie that contains a truth that both Judaism and Christianity would agree with.  She contends that her sons and future grandchildren deserve to live because they aren’t like the people God decided to destroy with the flood.  Noah responds to this by telling her that we aren’t any better.  The people of Israel were holy because God called them out, not because they were better than the Gentiles.  Christians are better because God has saved and cleansed us, not because we were less sinful than the non-repentant. 

            Overall, for those looking to watch a version of the Noah story that is word for word from the Bible, you’ll be disappointed.  For those looking to see a story that contains a God who created the world, including mankind in his image, that cares about that world and is upset enough by the sin committed by humanity to do something about it; you’ll at least by provoked to thinking by Noah even if you don’t enjoy it.  When is the last time someone who doesn’t go to church asked you, “Does God really care that much about sin?”  Or, “Does God care about what’s going on down here?”  If Noah prompts them to do that, isn’t that the perfect opening to share the Good News that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world?

P.S.  I can tell by many of the online reviews of the movie that many Christians will be veiwing this film through their own political lense, they'll probably chalk this up as an attempt to ruin "our Bible".  The Church isn't a political party, where we get the choice to throw out those we don't like, where we can lose elections (i.e. turn people off to God) on principle and celebrate it.  In case you're wondering, lots of non-believers hated "God's Not Dead" while Christians swooned over it.  Is that the only kind of movie we want to see, one that we like, but that ticks off non-Christians?  Or is there room for a message, even a misguided one, that might open the eyes of those living in darkness?

To read a helpful article about this movie byRev. Robert Barron, click on the link below:
Noah film review