If God "chose" Donald Trump to be President

Beliefs not firmly connected to a Christian foundation, or the implications of which have not been fully examined, can be extremely dangerous.  Recently White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders said during an interview on CBN, "I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president, and that's why he's there and I think he has done a tremendous job in supporting a lot of the things that people of faith really care about."  There are several significant objections to the theology of such a statement.  (1)  God does indeed call those who serve him, i.e. disciples of Jesus Christ, to serve his Church as apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists (Ephesians 4:11).  The call of God to such people is a call to service, not self-advancement, to sacrifice for the sake of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not fame, power, and wealth in service of a political agenda.  What is the Biblical basis for the belief that God chooses, and then puts in power, secular political leaders?  If the answer to that question is Nebuchadnezzar, or Cyrus of Persia, both of whom God used with respect to Israel (the first to punish and the second to bless), the objection would be simple: (2) America is not Israel.  We are not a nation being directed by God according to a Covenant of blessings and curses awaiting a promised Messiah.  In the New Covenant, God works primarily through his Church, not through national politics.  When God works "all things" (Romans 8:28-29) he is working for the people he has called to accept the Gospel, to transform them into Christ-like disciples, not for the benefit of particular ethnic groups, kingdoms, or nations.  The Church transcends any grouping of humanity, and the goal of God's will in the New Covenant is clearly stated: to increase the number of redeemed saints worshiping the Lamb at the end of time.  (3)  If God wanted Donald Trump to be president, on what basis was that decision made?  His politics or his character?  On what basis are the politics of Donald Trump, or any politician, judged to be aligned with those of God?  Are there some issues God cares about more than others, and how would we know?  Is God choosing the most Christ-like candidate to support, or the least, or somewhere in between?  (4)  If God chose Donald Trump, did he also choose Barrack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr., etc...?  If God chose one, then why not all?  If your answer to that is, "because I like this President's politics, but I didn't like the last one."  Let me simply say that assuming that the will of God, maker of the universe, whose loving-kindness extends to all generations of all of humanity, is aligned with your exact political preferences is an expression of ego worthy of fear.  (5)  If God chose Donald Trump, was it to bless America or punish it?  This one bears thought.  Those who cheer Donald Trump, like Sarah Sanders, assume that the "choosing" they believe in was a blessing, not a curse, but on what basis is that judgment being made?  Is it God's intention, at this point in history, to bless America for its righteousness or to curse America for its wickedness?  There is plenty of righteousness and wickedness to be found in America if you want to support your conclusion, but concluding that this moment is a time of blessing, or a time of punishment, is an arbitrary decision that says more about your perspective than anything else.  (6)  The assumption that the things that "people of faith really care about", are in alignment with the things that God cares about.  Church history, and that of Israel before us, is replete with examples of the people of God focusing upon the wrong things, ignoring things of tremendous importance, and generally being foolish in all manner of areas.  Perhaps "people of faith" know exactly what God would desire for a republic in the 21st century, or maybe they don't, either way, their priorities are not necessarily God's priorities, to assume so is arrogant.  It is the Word of God which declares the will of God, NOT the priorities of "people of faith".  {There is an unspoken word in the sentence from Sanders, one that goes without saying during an interview on CBN, that is "what Republican people of faith really care about."  God, and his Church, are not now, nor have they ever been, limited to one political party.  What of the priorities of Christians who support Democrats, Independents, or none of the above?  God is not a Republican, nor a Democrat, both parties support policies consistent with, and both parties support policies contrary to, the Word of God, neither represent God, it is impossible for a political party to do so.}

Lest you think this is personal, the same objection would have been raised about such a claim regarding any American president, member of Congress, governor, mayor, etc. {Evidently, President is the only office important enough for God to choose who inhabits it, or else objection #4 is much larger}.  I don't pretend to know what God's will is for the United States of America.  I have no idea if God is pleased with our charity and attempts at justice, or infuriated at our greed, immorality, and pride.  To claim to know the mind of God regarding a nation, any nation not named Ancient Israel about whom his Word is specific, is presumptuous and dangerous.  I do, however, know the will of God concerning his Church.  Why?  Because the Word of God has made the mission of the Church, the quality required of its people, and its status as an organization, "in the world but not of the world" clear.  We know because God has spoken through the inspired Scriptures.  We, the Church, have been called of God, to repent and turn to righteousness, and to serve the Gospel.  To speculate what God is, or is not, doing beyond the Church, is just that, speculation, foolish at the least, dangerous at worst.  In the end, the Word of God is our standard for Truth, not what "people of faith really care about."

Sermon Video: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" - Acts 26:1-16

Imagine spending your life, all of your passion and effort, on behalf of God, only to learn at the end that your entire attempt was not simply ineffective, but actually entirely counter-productive and detrimental to the very cause you thought you were serving.  Such was the mind-blowing revelation that occurred to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus when he discovered that the voice from Heaven was that of Jesus.  Up until that moment, Saul had been firmly convinced that he was doing the right thing, that his violent response to the followers of Jesus was justified by zeal for the Law of God.  Saul was, catastrophically wrong, and but for the amazing grace of God he would have gone to face his Maker with their blood upon his hands.
Certainty without wisdom is folly.  As Christians, there are a limited number of core Truths regarding the Scriptures, the nature of God, and the person and work of Jesus about which we must be certain, and for which we ought to be willing to lay down our lives (although not be willing, ever, to kill for them).  Upon these central Truths we must stand and not be moved, but beyond them we claim absolute certainty at our own peril, and would better be served by confident belief that allows for others to disagree.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Strong Church support shown for local homeless shelter

Last night's zoning board meeting in Oil City highlighted the significant support being given to Emmaus Haven by the local Church, as evidenced by the more than a dozen ministers and other church workers in attendance.  After nearly three hours, the issue was tabled until next month after the discussion by the board revealed several issues needing legal clarity prior to a ruling.  As you can tell by my comments that were quoted in the newspaper article (The Derrick/New-Herald once again doing a stellar job of covering local news), the primary assertion that those who were there to support the shelter took issue with was the idea that Venango County doesn't have a problem with homelessness (not an assertion made by the board itself, the article explains who made that claim).  Having served this community over seven years, and having been involved for over six years with Mustard Seed Missions, I can categorically state that the problem is indeed real, it is local, and it isn't going to be mitigated without a significant effort.  In 2016, Emmaus Haven, with Mustard Seed Mission's help, opened a 6 bed facility in Franklin.  That transitional housing unit has been full since its inception, helping 47 individuals, 31 of which now have permanent housing.  While this has been a tremendous asset to those seeking to help with housing needs in our community, the problem is clearly bigger than can be resolved with only space for six people.  If the Oil City zoning board ultimately denies Emmaus Haven the ability to operate a larger shelter at this location in Siverly, the need to help the homeless won't go away, nor will the Church's commitment to being instrumental in its solution.  No matter what happens next month, churches here in Venango County are moving forward, thankfully with great partners like the Human Services Department of Venango County.

Sermon Video: Paul appeals to Caesar - Acts 25

Having newly been appointed governor of Judea, Festus visits Jerusalem to acquaint himself with the leadership there, and while doing so, is made aware of the ongoing desire on the part of the leading priests to rid themselves of Paul.  Festus wastes no time in beginning the trial, but is dumbfounded by the bizarre (to him) Jewish theology which is at issue between the two sides.  Unable to decipher what is going on, Festus suggests moving the trial to Jerusalem, prompting Paul to appeal to Caesar to avoid the corrupt influence of the Sanhedrin in the trial.  Having little choice but to send Paul on to Rome, Festus asks Herod Agrippa II, whom the Romans considered to be an authority on Judaism, to hear Paul's case and offer a suggestion as to what to write to the emperor about Paul.

Throughout the proceedings, Paul maintains his position as a reformer and not a rebel, and is willing to utilize his rights as a citizen in his own defense.  Throughout Church history the line between reformer and rebel has been a difficult one to walk, with Paul being the first of many to attempt it.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

How we interpret and apply the Bible matters a great deal - an objection to WWUT.

"What Does the Bible Say About Paying Your Fair Share of Taxes?" is a video posted on January 9th, under the channel named: When We Understand the Text, which is a ministry of Pastor Gabriel Hughes of the First Southern Baptist Church of Junction City, Kansas.  I Understand that Pastor Hughes is trying to simplify issues into short responses of only a few minutes, and that complicated issues are not always conveyed the way the author/speaker intends when brevity is attempted.  My objection to this particular video, regarding taxation, is not based upon its conclusion per se, but its methodology.  The conclusion reached by Pastor Hughes is that a progressive system of taxation (i.e. that the rate increases as the taxable amount increases) is "not fair".  And while the merits of various tax systems for both effectiveness and morality can and should be part of the political discussion of any free society, in this particular case the WWUT video rejects any non-flat tax (i.e. any tax system in which different rates are applied to the poor and rich) as being un-Biblical, and hence immoral and therefore a violation of the will of God.

The key question here is this: How is that conclusion reached in the one minute and thirty-two seconds of the video?  The primary point is made by making a reference to the taxation system instituted by the Law of Moses for ancient Israel, that is the Old Covenant.  The video makes the case that Israel's system treated the poor and the wealthy the same, briefly mentioning that it had provisions to help the poor (while not mentioning the most significant aspect of the Law of Moses against the accumulation of wealth, the Year of Jubilee), quickly mentions quotations about the need to pay taxes, in principle, attested by Jesus and Paul, and then simply concludes that this model from Israel should be applied, or at least the principle of a flat-tax taken from it, to America in the 21st century.

The use of the Bible to defend or bash Republicans or Democrats is extremely distasteful to me, and something I find to be detrimental to the Church's call to preach the Gospel and make disciples.  If that was all this video contained it wouldn't stand out all that much from so many other attempts to use the Word of God to bolster political viewpoints.  In addition to being politically tinged (the video shows an interview by Anderson Cooper of Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, thus not overly subtly hinting that Republican taxation policy must be closer to what God wants than that of Democrats), the video also makes a classic mistake of Biblical interpretation by conflating/equating Israel and the Old Covenant with either the United States/Church and the New Covenant.  Thus whatever God told Israel to do, we too must do (again, forgetting that Israel was also told to cancel all debts every 50 years and return all property to its original owners to prevent both extreme poverty and extreme wealth, I'm not expecting a video advocating that practice).  Does the New Testament address taxation rates?  Nope.  Does Paul write about what he believes a "fair" tax rate to be?  No again.  The Church is not Israel, it did not inherit the promises (or curses) of the Old Covenant, it did not take the place of Israel, but has only temporarily been "grafted in" until the "full number of the Gentiles has come in" (see Romans 11).  Any question, then, of applying the Old Covenant's stipulations is not a simple matter of cutting and pasting what God commanded Israel to do onto the modern world, as if in this case God's grander intention when he gave Moses the Law concerning the taxes the Israelites were to pay was to eliminate the possibility that any other system of taxation could be possible, and every other way of collecting taxes must be immoral.  The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are exceedingly valuable, and are as sacred and authoritative as those of the New Testament, but that does not mean that they should be read as if they are written directly to anyone other than Abraham's descendants.  To mentally replace Israel with either America (or England, Germany, or any other nation) or the Church (as a whole, or any one in particular) is to do a disservice to the original intent and original interpretation/application of the Word of God given to the people of the covenants of Abraham/Moses/David.  God gave Israel a flat-taxation system with a reset button every fifty years.  What then should be the ideal taxation system for a society consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, Christians and non-Christians, in an era when most incomes are not directly tied to land ownership?  To simply say, "the same as Israel, end of story", is not good enough.

This is not the first time that I've blanched at a video from WWUT, I refrained from posting about earlier ones because they didn't feel egregious enough to warrant a response, and I hesitate to question what another pastor/church is advocating without good cause (this objection is not an accusation that assumes motives, nor a reprimand that claims authority, but a word of caution concerning the handing of God's Holy Word).  It isn't the issue of taxation that prompted this response, nor the issue of playing politics with Scripture, but rather the utilization of an Old Covenant provision to American taxation policy as if it was a case-closed obvious conclusion.  Well meaning and God-honoring Christians can, and do, have a variety of beliefs regarding the application of Biblical examples and principles in our society and individual lives today, that is to be expected and not a negative thing.  The important question here is more basic: How do we interpret the Bible and apply it to our lives today?  Treating America or the Church as Israel is not the solution.