Palm Sunday

Tags

Christ, Christianity, Compassion, Easter, Grace, Humility, Jesus Christ, Palm Sunday

The story of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem begins holy week with such joy; yet the message of Christ’s love and compassion is only magnified by our understanding of what He entered Jerusalem to do for our salvation.

The King of Kings came into Jerusalem not on a warhorse, but on a donkey’s colt.  This was a deliberate gesture by Jesus, symbolic of His gentleness and compassion.  Matthew the evangelist recognized that Christ’s coming in this way to the city fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah, “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey'” (Matt. 21:5, NIV).

Here is the compassion of the Lord of all things.  He comes to us not with a flaming sword of wrath, but humbly and gently, bearing His message of grace.  He comes to bear Himself our sins upon the cross.  And there He will triumph, conquering Satan, sin, and death.

The crowds acted better than they knew to greet Him with the cry “Hosanna!”  ‘God, save!’ is what it means; and here came God their Savior, our God and Savior, to save us from our sins.

Hosanna!  Blessed is our Lord and King!

Advertisements

Reverent Fear

Tags

1 Peter, Atonement, Christ, Christianity, Fear of the Lord, Gratitude, holiness, Jesus Christ, Judgment

The pursuit of holiness fits within a certain view of life–a serious view of life.  If we treat life trivially and think that our decisions don’t matter, if we think there is no accountability, then we will not be inclined to a diligent pursuit of righteousness.

But life is serious.  We are accountable.  The world may deny this, but Christians know it: “Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear” (1 Pet. 1:17, NIV).  This world is not our home, and this life is not ours to use as we see fit.  God is drawing us back to Himself, and we are to follow our Father in loving obedience.

Reverent fear isn’t a popular topic in a lot of churches these days; but it’s something we need.  Our heavenly Father is the God of the universe, the judge of all.  Sonship does not preclude reverence.  But it is not only knowledge of judgment that urges us to live seriously.  There is also gratitude, because our redemption wasn’t cheap.

“For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (vv.18-19).

Silver and gold.  These are the sorts of things the world thinks precious and imperishable.  But from the spiritual perspective these are just perishable things, the things of this world.  And blood–a perishable thing in this world, which represents human life (not regarded as particularly precious, if all our violence is any indicator)–well, the blood of Christ is precious.  His sacrifice will never lose its power.

We were bought with the blood of the Son of God.  We should live gratefully, in reverent fear.

Be Holy

Tags

1 Peter, Christianity, God, holiness, Kingdom of God, Paganism, worldliness

One of the basic features of the Christian life is separation from the world.  Not isolation from the world–refusal to engage with people outside the bubble of church and family life–but separation from the world–refusal to be worldly.  We are called to be holy; holy means set apart by God, for God, and thus reflective of God’s character.

When the apostle Peter wants to express this to the churches, the ‘elect exiles’ living as strangers in this world, he first draws attention to the future, where their hope lies: “Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming” (1 Pet. 1:13).  This fallen world, with its perilous pleasures, is not where our hope lies.  Our hope is wrapped up in the blessed return of our Lord, and the promise of a new world where His kingship will be fully realized.  We live as citizens of that new world, even while we live in this one.

Then the apostle turns attention to the past, to emphasize the contrast in life before and after conversion: “As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance” (v.14).  The Christian life is supposed to be different from life apart from Christ.  Now that we know our heavenly Father, we ought to live differently than we did before.  Holiness is implied by adoption into the family of God.

What defines this difference?  The character of God our Father.  “But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy'” (vv.15-16).  Those who have been set apart by the Holy One are called to be holy.

This is not a regrettable consequence of Christianity.  The pursuit of holiness is one of the blessings of salvation.  Those who are united with Christ have been made holy in Him, and are called to be holy by the Holy One who has called them His own.  The challenge for the church in our time is to embrace this sacred blessing for what it is, and walk in the blessed holiness we have been given.

A Curious Notion!

Tags

America, Christianity, Church, Ecclesiology, Megachurch, Multi-site, Pastoring, Shepherding

The recent retirement of the lead pastor of a multi-site church, David Chadwick was featured in a little article at the Christian Post.  At the end, the article notes:

He said prior to his decision to resign he had started having doubts about the multicampus church model where lead pastors mainly connect with the congregation through video.

“Churches all over the country are doing it, with videos shown on the screen in other places,” Chadwick said, “Elevation (Church) is probably the primary example here in Charlotte.  You know, I just began to wonder more and more–how effective is that?

“I know I’m a good communicator…I can have people come and listen.  But doesn’t a pastor need to speak to his people?  So I began to struggle with that too,” he said.

What a curious notion!  A pastor needing to speak to his people?  Like, physically present with them?  How charmingly old-fashioned!

I speak with tongue in cheek, because Pastor Chadwick had “began to struggle” with something that should be patently obvious (though obviously it is not obvious to a large section of the American church)–that pastors are supposed to speak to their people.  Not only does that mean being physically present, but, even more, that means a pastor should actually know the people to whom he is preaching.

A pastor is supposed to shepherd the flock of God.  He preaches the Word not to strangers, but to people with whom he has a relationship.  He should know them by name, and have some knowledge of what’s going on in their lives.  The same pastor who preaches the Word of God to them should be the one they can talk to about their struggles, the one who visits them in the hospital, the one who baptizes them, dedicates their children, marries them, and buries them.  That’s a shepherd; that’s a pastor.

This suggests not only that multi-site churches are highly problematic but that megachurches are problematic too.  You can preach to 10,000 people; but you can’t pastor them.  A church need not be tiny, but it oughtn’t be huge.

I know that such a radical claim is contrary to the accepted wisdom of much of the American church.  But I think the church would be stronger if we had more moderate sized churches instead of megachurches and multi-site churches.  As a side bonus, it might help us avoid this sort of thing.  In any case, it would encourage pastors to be pastors, and churches to be real communities, sojourning together through the storms of this life.

Africa to the Rescue!

Tags

Africa, Christianity, Homosexuality, Humanity, Salvation, Same-Sex Marriage, Truth, United Methodists

Earlier this week, the United Methodists voted to accept the Traditional Plan, maintaining and strengthening their stance against the sexual revolution.  This decision likely came as a surprise to many, considering that it goes against the direction America’s mainline Protestant denominations have been taking for some time now.  There’s talk about a schism, some liberals fear an SBC-like conservative shift (“fundamentalist takeover” is their preferred terminology).  Time will tell.

But, for the moment, it would seem that God has been gracious to the UMC.  His instrument in turning them from the brink, or at least slowing their course, would appear to be the sizeable part of their denomination that resides outside the U.S., notably in Africa.  I have seen no statistics on the breakdown in the vote itself, but commentators on both sides of the debate appear agreed that the African vote was decisive to the conservative victory.

But, of course, the difference between the conservatives and the liberals was not essentially ethnic, but ethical.  The divide was theological, and this became evident in some of the arguments before and responses after the decision.

The conservative position is theocentric–centered on God.  They are concerned with obedience to what God says in His Word, with holiness and truth.  They care about people, but recognize that celebrating sin doesn’t actually help people, even if it’s what people want you to do.  God must be honored and trusted, and the gospel must be proclaimed untarnished.

The liberal position is anthropocentric–centered on humanity.  They were concerned about hurting people, which is good, but they let harm be defined by the pagan culture around them.  They bought the world’s narrative about human flourishing, informed by the idea that aberrant sexual desires are identity categories analogous to race.  They seek to remain relevant in a changing world, but they haven’t learned the lesson of the other mainline denominations: seeking relevance, they traded timeless truth for momentary error, and became almost immediately irrelevant.

The key is that a human-centered theology will not actually lead to human flourishing.  Only a God-centered theology will do that.  The Creator knows what is best for His creatures.  We should trust Him.  The African Methodists are helping the American Methodists remember that.

 

 

The Choice

Tags

Bible, Christianity, Homosexuality, LGBTQ+, Scripture, Truth, United Methodists

Pray for the United Methodists this weekend.  At a special session, held in St. Louis, they will be making a decision that is likely to be critical for the future of their denomination, and for their witness in a lost world.

The issue, of course, is whether to embrace or reject the sexual revolution.  Unless they put the issue off again, they will be choosing either to hold their present biblical position regarding human sexuality, or to revise it some way or another, affirming (in varying degrees) LGBTQ+ identity.  Either result will probably mean the fracturing of their denomination, whether immediately or more slowly.

Religion News, a propaganda machine for liberal “Christianity”, has published a showcase of opinions regarding what some Methodists hope will result from the session.  It is a very slanted piece of reporting (granted, it is labeled an Opinion piece), a collection of voices that are mostly liberal to very liberal, with a couple of very gentle conservative voices included to soften the one-sidedness.  But, as a piece of liberal advocacy, the article does highlight what is at stake for the Methodists in this session.

It begins with a reminder that the denomination has already effectively caved to the sexual revolution, and only by repentance and submission to God will they be able to turn back from the precipice of paganism that looms before them.  They already have an openly lesbian bishop.  Having biblical standards regarding human sexuality on paper isn’t worth much if you ignore them in practice.

The voices that follow show the inroads of secularism and paganism in their denomination’s leadership.

Rev. Adam Hamilton says:

It requires patience, humility and grace to look at people with whom you disagree on an issue or theological point and say, “You are still my brother or sister.” It requires a willingness to say, “I don’t agree with you here, but I value what you bring to the table, and I need you.”

As though gross sexual immorality were a matter of adiaphora or theological minutia!  Hamilton regards willingness to tolerate this sort of thing as a sign of patience, humility, and grace.  The Scriptures regard that sort of tolerance as a spiritual failing, not a virtue (see 1 Cor. 5).

Rev. Alex da Silva Souto speaks in worldly terms of discrimination, framing this (as the culture has so effectively done) in terms stolen from the civil rights movement.  He says:

Which is why I and thousands of other United Methodists support the Simple Plan, which would strike from our Book of Discipline all discriminatory language against LGBTQIA+ people. After decades of systemic harm, the only solution is returning to the first rule of United Methodism: “Do no harm.” The Simple Plan proposes exactly that. We must first stop the spiritual/physical harm against LGBTQIA+ people, and only then can we have a real conversation about “human sexuality.”

Very good.  First, let the pagan culture set the agenda, then engage in theological reflection.  Step 1, surrender, step 2, sit down at the diplomatic table.  What could go wrong?

Rev. Beth Ann Cook begins insightfully.  She recognizes that there is an underlying issue:

Our theological division is not limited to the issue of human sexuality. Sexual ethics are the presenting problem for a deeper theological division in our church.

But her following comment makes clear that she does not grasp what the underlying issue is:

The Commission on a Way Forward spent countless hours looking at every possibility. There is no perfect plan. Passing any of the plans will violate someone’s deeply held convictions in such a way that they will feel unable to remain part of our denomination.

Deeply held convictions are not worth defending simply because they are deeply held convictions.  Atheists have deeply held convictions, but you shouldn’t let them guide your denominational policy.

The underlying issue is whether or not God should be believed and obeyed.  A perfect plan, in this case, is one that says God should be believed and obeyed, and that those whose deeply held convictions disagree with this are welcome the to leave.  The Traditional Plan probably approximates this closely enough.

The Scriptures are not unclear about the issues being debated here.  This is not a matter of difficult biblical interpretation.  Besides the clear condemnations of homosexuality in various biblical passages (e.g., Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Tim. 1:10), the opening chapters of Genesis lay the groundwork for a sound theological anthropology, and attendant doctrine of human sexuality.  God created mankind in His image, male and female (Gen. 1:27).  He made us man and woman, equal in dignity and glory as His image-bearers, immutably different from each other, and sexually complementary (Gen. 2:18-24).

That is, God created humanity in two genders, male and female; both men and women are fully human and equal; men and women are different, not changeable and not interchangeable; sexual intimacy is designed to be enjoyed by a man and woman within the covenant of marriage.

We could go on through the article, but it isn’t necessary.  This is the issue, often buried beneath worldly rhetoric or the laudable goal of unity.  Is God to be believed, trusted, and obeyed?

God’s Word is clear.  The issue for the United Methodists is a question of whether to believe God’s Word and accept its authority; that is a question of whether to believe God and accept His authority.  The alternative is the anthropology and sexual mores of an increasingly pagan culture.  Ultimately, then, the United Methodists are deciding between God and idols, between Christianity and paganism.

I pray they make the right choice.

I Believe We Have Located the Problem…

Tags

Atheism, Canada, Christianity, God, Inclusivity, Liberalism, Scripture, Theism, Truth

While all of us who minister do so only by the grace of God, and I am keenly aware of my unworthiness for this high and holy calling, I think some of the minimal qualifications of pastoral ministry are rather intuitive–such as believing in God.

The United Church of Canada has decided, apparently, that theism is not strictly necessary for pastors.  No doubt it is still desirable in the eyes of that denomination’s discerning leadership that their pastors believe in God; but it is not a deal-breaker.  That is the inescapable message of the news that the denomination has decided Rev. Gretta Vosper, an avowed atheist, will continue to pastor West Hill United Church, in Toronto.

The article linked above, from the liberal Religion News Service, is enlightening.  It begins, “Gretta Vosper is surprised to still be a minister.”  I’d imagine quite a lot of people share her surprise.  It’s a rather puzzling thing, until you follow the (il)logic.

How does the United Church of Canada justify this decision?  Why would a Christian denomination allow an atheist to shepherd a church?  The key is inclusivity.  The denominational leaders found themselves wrestling with the tension between two of their “core values”: “our faith in God” and “our commitment to being an open and inclusive church.”

So, by “inclusive” they mean not simply that they welcome different groups of people, but that they welcome people with a variety of doctrines (or lack thereof) into the clergy.  Aha.  That would create a conflict with your cherished belief in the existence of God.  The leaders of the United Church of Canada have found themselves in the embarrassing situation of wanting to affirm x and not-x at the same time.  I suppose the implication of their solution is that they will accept either x or not-x (please choose one); which is to say that the United Church of Canada believes nothing at all, or at least not with any real conviction.

How does a denomination get to such a pitiful place?  Quite obviously they have let themselves be swept along by the winds of western cultural trends and ideologies; the zeitgeist, rather than the Holy Ghost, has been filling their sails.  But it’s more specific than that.

The atheist pastor herself offers what may be the key.  In this she does a valuable service to orthodox Christianity, if we will heed it.  From the article:

Vosper was willing to go through with the hearing even if the ruling went against her.  She said she is fit for ministry in the church.

She said she believes what she was taught in seminary.

“Everything I teach is consistent with the theological training I received,” the 60-year-old said.  “I was taught the Bible was a human construction, and there is much wisdom in many texts, both ancient and contemporary.”

During her studies, Vosper said she learned that the Bible isn’t the only source of spiritual or moral authority.

“If the Bible is not the authoritative word of God for all time,” she says, “why does it take such a central position in the United Church?”

Well, I think she has put her finger right on the problem.  The rot took hold of their seminaries, particularly a rotten doctrine of Scripture, a loss of the orthodox doctrine that the Bible is uniquely inspired, completely true, and utterly authoritative.  Her seminary professors passed down to her a faith uprooted and blighted, and at whatever point in her journey it followed the logical course and became no faith at all.

But Vosper can perhaps take some comfort that the Bible does not enjoy nearly so central a place in the United Church as she feared.  If that were the case, they might have put more weight on the fact that the Bible starts with the words, “In the beginning, God…” (Gen. 1:1).

We have here a wake-up call for faithful Christians in the United Church of Canada–it might be time for an exit plan; a cautionary tale for the orthodox–guard your institutions, because what’s taught in seminary doesn’t stay in seminary; a warning for theological moderates who want to see more doctrinal inclusivity in your denominations–you might find yourselves inclusive’d all the way to atheism.

The good news is that this disease is easily preventable.  There’s a ready antidote to this poison.  There’s an extremely popular book that could be studied in seminaries to promote deep and widespread theism among the ministerial students.  “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, NASB).