Racism and Abortion

I have a question I am pondering. Would you like to consider this question with me? I write this post to share an observation that has led to this question that plagues me. Did racism give rise to abortion? Have you ever considered that the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade in 1973 came immediately after some of the most historic Civil Rights legislation that too many Christians failed to support?

America has a sanctity of life problem. And this sanctity of life problem is the root cause of racism, abortion, violence, and so many other social ills that plague us today. I would like to suggest to you that Christians are supposed to be the loudest voice for the sanctity of life in the world. In talking with Pastor David about this post, he eloquently stated, “The Church should always hold the moral high ground with the belief in the sanctity of life.” I agree.

When we neglect that sacred duty, when we ourselves as Christians begin to negotiate the sanctity of life, there are two immediate consequences. One, we actually become the wrong kind of example to the world. Instead of being an example of righteousness, we become an example of compromise. Second, we leave the front lines of spiritual warfare woefully vulnerable. Let’s look at each of these further.

According to professor and author Kenneth R. Janken, the Civil Rights movement spans from 1919 into the 1960’s. And when we look at this period of history, too many Christians and too many churches were on the wrong side of history…some through silence but others shamefully actively resisted the struggle for equal rights for minorities in America. Christians during the Civil Rights movement were unknowingly teaching the rest of America that negotiating the sanctity of life is permissible. Meaning, that by resisting the Civil Rights movement, they were exposing their belief that the lives of minorities were not equal to their own. And if another life is not equal, is less valuable, is marginalized…then the sacredness of that life is now being negotiated. What began for me as a question is now quickly becoming a conclusion: this kind of negotiating and compromising by Christians during the Civil Rights movement paved the way for the landmark abortion decision Roe v. Wade. Secular society’s inclination to negotiate the sanctity life was being affirmed by Christians, unwittingly but nevertheless culpably.

Let’s explore the correlation between racism, abortion, and spiritual warfare. Let’s start with this question. Why didn’t the progress of the Civil Rights movement that championed the sanctity of life forestall any efforts to legalize abortion? My answer is, as discussed above, The Church had already laid the groundwork on how to negotiate the sanctity of life. Meaning, secular society (much of whom had grown up in churches) were completely comfortable with championing the sacredness of minorities while simultaneously minimizing and negotiating the sacredness of the unborn. Why? Because they had grown up watching their Christian professing parents and grandparents champion the sacredness of white lives while minimizing and negotiating the sacredness of minorities. And because The Church is ordained by God to stand against evil spiritually (Matthew 16:17-19 and Ephesians 6:12), by failing to raise up a standard of righteousness against racism, they opened the spiritual door in America to abortion. Their sin of negotiating the sanctity of life through racism rendered them inept on the front lines of prayer in the battle against evil’s agenda to wage war on the unborn. (Psalm 66:18 and James 5:16)

Even though secular society was making progress elevating the rights of minorities during the Civil Rights movement, too many churches and too many Christians stood in the way of that progress. In Christian’s efforts to forestall the Civil Rights movement, they became the instrument of the evil they had sworn to battle. As we stated above, they became the wrong kind of teacher to the world. They showed the world how to negotiate the sanctity of life with attitudes of racial superiority, refusing to acknowledge race based privilege and protecting systemic racism that oppressed minorities in every sector of society, especially the courts and industry. And in doing so, Christians in America left a gaping hole in the frontlines of the spiritual battle against evil. And evil came rushing in like a flood.

If you still aren't convinced, read this article on America’s crime rates by Lauren-Brooke Eisen. The purpose of this article is to show the difference between the perception of crime rates in America vs. the actual crime rates in America. The article was published in 2015, and the reason I show this article is because of what it reveals regarding the historic spike in violent crime here in the U.S. I don’t believe this meteoric climb beginning in the 1960’s is a coincidence as it correlates to both the Civil Rights movement and Roe v. Wade. I believe this is factual evidence that American Christian’s longstanding and shameful practice of negotiating the sanctity of life created a spiritual climate in America from which we are still suffering today.

Racism, abortion, and violence are all fruit from the same root…negotiating the sanctity of life. Too many Christians I know who believe that abortion is the most important moral issue of our day are also the same Christians who continue to be on the wrong side of history when it comes to social justice and racial equality. Do they realize that their callousness toward the harm of racism is still teaching secular society how to negotiate the sanctity of life, the very same attitude that leads to abortion? And do they realize that the sin of racism and the sin of indifference toward and denial of racism all render us ineffective on the frontlines of battling principalities and powers on high? Paul’s command in Ephesians 6 is clear: without our armor being in tact, we won’t be able to stand. James’ instruction in chapter 5 is equally clear: if the effectual, fervent prayer of the righteous availeth much, is it not also true that the prayer of the unconfessed sinner no matter how fervent is seldom effectual?

Have Christians been historically and presently blaming the wrong people for the rise of abortion in our land…has it actually been us all along who laid the groundwork for this abomination? Did we embolden secular society’s proclivity for negotiating the sanctity of life? Did we render ourselves inept on the front lines of prayer in spiritual warfare through the sin of racism we have hidden in our hearts?

Pastor Fred

Black Lives Matter, part seven

Lessons I’m learning as a white man…

I thought today in commemoration of June 19th I would offer my final installment of this series.

Ultimately, the kind of change we want to see in the world will never come if it does not begin in The Church. I have to admit I grow a little weary of all the people who like to talk about this nation being founded on Christian principles. That argument has NEVER changed someone’s mind, ever. These are the things conservative evangelicals (I know because I am one) like to say in an effort to sure up our arguments about morality and values. Can we just dispense with asking ourselves what Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington believed? The questions is, “What do we believe?” And, “Are our beliefs consistent with Scripture?”

I would also suggest to you that “what we believe” is actually the easier question. The more difficult question is, “Are our beliefs instructing our actions?” Let me explain.

My observation is that the greatest source of conflict that exists today between churches in America that are predominantly and historically white AND churches in America that are predominantly and historically black/brown is more about politics than it is about race. The historically white church is offended by the historically black/brown church because the historically white church is also predominantly politically conservative. (I’m using we since I have been guilty of this mindset.) We are offended that the historically black church continues to support political candidates who are pro abortion, pro gay, do not unequivocally support Israel, are permissive of illegal immigration, and are threatening our second amendment rights. We believe they are responsible for the moral decline in America.

The historically black/brown church is offended by the historically white church because the historically black/brown church is predominantly politically liberal. (I’m using they as a distinction.) They are offended that the historically white church continues to support political candidates who refuse to dismantle systems that disadvantage people of color, have been slow to reform prisons, neglect people in poverty, have failed to properly address police brutality, are misogynistic, insensitive to immigrants, and reject reasonable gun control measures. They believe we are responsible for the moral decline in America.

If you are white and have historically voted republican and you claim to believe in Jesus and the Scriptures and don’t feel a moral dilemma at the polls when you vote, you have a problem. You have a gap between what you believe and how you act.

If you are black/brown and have historically voted democrat and you claim to believe in Jesus and the Scriptures and don’t feel a moral dilemma at the polls when you vote, you have a problem. You have a gap between what you believe and how you act.

You realize that if we could come together, no candidate in America would ever be elected without our combined support. I’ll tell you what both dominant political parties fear, that the historically white church and the historically black/brown church come together. Remember, both of those lists above matter to God and if you think “your” list more important than “their” list you might want to actually start reading the Bible you claim to believe. I’m praying for a political movement that brings together both platforms.

I watched a video recently that is being posted by several friends where Mr. Voddie Baucham talks about racial reconciliation and asks the question is Scripture enough for us, shouldn’t it be? Yes, if we are talking about racial reconciliation among white, black, and brown Christians. The Bible is all we need to come together. I was quite surprised though a man of his education did not understand that racial conciliation and social justice are however very different. Social justice is about dismantling secular systems that oppress people of color and privilege those of us who are white. For this, Scripture is not enough. I don’t say to my friend who is a Christian and a lawyer, "Hey, you don’t need to study, just read the Bible.” I don’t say to a Christian social worker, “Hey you don’t need an education, just read the Bible.” Mr. Voddie Bauchman does this cause of present day reform a great disservice suggesting that Scripture is all we need to effect change in secular systems that govern both religious and non-religious people.

So I say again, ultimately, the kind of change we want to see in the world will never come if it does not begin in The Church. And the reconciling that needs to happen between the white church and the black/brown church needs nothing more that Scripture to guide us forward and the Holy Spirit to motivate us forward. But if together we are then going to reform secular systems, we will need to be well informed, well educated, and well prepared to dismantle and rebuild secular systems that must govern both religious and non-religious people.

Lessons I’m learning as a white man…

Black Lives Matter, part six

Lessons I’m learning as a white man…

When you think of the worst things you have done in your life, the things that cause you to feel shame or SHOULD cause you to feel shame, would you want to be defined by your worst moments?

When I look back to my past, I am ashamed of so many choices, so many thoughts, so many words, so many… But even during those years when my lifestyle centered on selfishness and pleasure, I believe most people who knew me then thought of me as a good friend, a hard worker, and a thoughtful person. Why? Because all of us as friends, as imperfect as we were, refused to define one another by our worst moments, the moments that were outweighed by many more aspects of our character that were honest and true.

This is an important question we should be willing to ask when we are making decisions about other people and their character, “Does ______________ characterize them?” Meaning, does that choice, that idea, that opinion, that statement, or that attitude represent who they are? We do not want our worst moments to define us and neither should we define others by their worst moments…unless those worst moments are who they are the majority of time.

Part of racism is defining an entire ethnic group of people based on the actions and behaviors of a few. Oftentimes those actions and behaviors are personal. A friend shared with me recently about when growing up in a large city in the US during his youth, two black kids threatened to beat him up and stole his bike as he was riding home from school. A pastor friend here in Newport News shared a story of how some black kids beat him up one day when he was a teenager as he was walking home from school. Both of these men know they must not define a race of people by the actions of a few, but experiences are hard to shake. These men are God loving, Jesus following, people embracing, salt of the earth kinds of people. And even still, they will tell you, healing from harm is difficult and refusing to see black people with suspicion has been a journey for them.

Now imagine an entire race of people who have been enslaved, brutalized, demeaned, mocked, imprisoned, raped, and murdered for centuries…by predominantly all white people. You tell me how hard it should be to trust. The courage I see in people of color inspires me. When we look back on the story in America of racism, if anyone had the right to never trust again, it would be our black brothers and sisters. But most, not all, but most are saying, “Help us trust again.” What will you do? Will you stay silent? Or will you become a voice that turns back the tide of racism in America and chooses to be an example of people of different colors and different stories finding a way to trust?

And if I can be so bold, color isn’t just about race. Blue is suffering too. If we refuse to let people define us my our worst moments, if we refuse to allow ourselves to define races by a few wrong acts and attitudes, then let’s agree to stop defining all law enforcement by the bad acts, as atrocious as they are, of the few. Are those bad acts too often repeated, yes. Are those bad acts too often overlooked, yes. Are those bad acts too often unpunished, yes. But we must be willing to afford the color blue that same benefit we all seek. We must not define ALL based on the actions of the FEW.

As a society we cannot move forward unless part of this movement is to always respect the right of every person, every race, and every profession to have a reputation based on the whole and not the part. Let’s be relentless in our efforts to rid ourselves of the parts that are evil and bad but not at the expense of the parts that a noble, good, and right.

Lessons I’m learning as a white man…

Black Lives Matter, part five

Lessons I’m learning as a white man…

If black people are not speaking out against “black on black” crime as much as they are speaking out against systemic racism, social injustice, and police brutality then are they being hypocritical?

Did you know that the number one cause of death for all teenagers in America is accidents? But did you know that for male black teenagers 12 to 19 years old, homicide surpasses accidents according to a study by the CDC in 2010. Little has changed in 10 years sadly.

I want to challenge the point of view that many of my white friends have that I myself once shared. “Black people should start talking more about how they are killing themselves if they want to be taken seriously when they cry out against racism and the many ways racism manifests in society.”

But do we as white people hold ourselves to that same standard? Do I say to my friends who are outspoken against abortion that they need to be equally outspoken about sex trafficking if they want to earn the right to speak out against abortion? Do I say to the person who invites me to go volunteer at a local homeless feeding program that their work to end homelessness will never really be taken seriously until they do more to stop the opioid epidemic. Are we as a church guilty of hypocrisy because we sponsor children in the DR but not in Haiti? I’ll ask again, if we don’t hold ourselves to this standard, why do we hold black people to this standard?

Could someone clarify for me at what point did society agree on a rule that black people are not allowed to have the same privileges, the same standards afforded to white people…oh wait…

If you have an opinion about what is happening in the inner cities of America and you are white or black or brown and you haven’t read The Color of Law, then let me say to you as politely as I can, shut up. If you haven’t lived in an urban neighborhood then let me suggest to you that you should spend more time listening than talking.

I’m 53 years old. For a third of my adult life, I lived on Home Street in Barton Heights in the inner city of Richmond. For ten years I was a regular visitor in many of the housing projects on the east side of Richmond. I was not a pastor then. I worked in banks and call centers but my heart broke for people whose lives were breaking.

I joined a missions trip to NYSUM (New York School of Urban Ministry) and it changed my life. Late one night I drove into Richmond as a young adult after returning from my missions trip and sat on a bench overlooking my city, a bench just outside what was then the WRVA tower in Church Hill. And God spoke to me as clearly as I speak to you, not in an audible voice but one I felt deep inside. He said, “A well lit room doesn’t need another candle.” The next day I started shopping for apartments in the city. And while I lived in the Fan district for a year, I soon began looking for HUD homes in the inner city and eventually settled on Home Street.

A few years after living there I was walking down the street with some kids I had been taking to church with me on the weekends and they started making fun of white people by doing impressions of white people they knew. And when they ran out of people they knew, they just did random impressions. They were hilarious! Finally I looked at them and said, “Hey, you know I’m white, right?” They said, “Mista Fred, you ain’t white!” And I learned something that day, to them white wasn’t a color, it was mindset and one I knew I’d spend the rest of life resisting.

At some point you have to be willing to posture yourself as a student of others. At some point you have to stop feeling threatened by the progress other races deserve. At some point you have stop negating the viewpoints of others because they conflict with your own experiences. At some point you have acknowledge our race, the white race, created the communities that are now some of the most violent in America.

The Color of Law does not excuse the choices people in urban communities make, the crimes they choose to commit, the violence they choose to enjoin. But just as people will be held to account for the sins they commit against one another, so too will those who created the environments that provoked those sins. The book of Proverbs in Scripture is both inspiring and sobering. Proverbs is a book of wisdom every chapter and verse and a book of caution every chapter and verse. Both the common citizen and the privileged by power will give an account one day as we stand before Jesus for all we did, especially how our actions touched not just those we knew but those who came generations after us.

I’ve got an idea. The next time you expect to enjoy some Constitutional right, think to yourself, “I’m going to deny myself this right until I figure out a way to stop white criminals from committing crimes against other white people.” Because that makes perfect sense.

Lessons I’m learning as a white man…

Black Lives Matter, part four

Lessons I’m learning as a white man…

Should a person’s actions at the time of their encounter with a police officer affect my response when they become the victim of police brutality in that same encounter?

Yes.

I say yes because police officers as well as citizens have the right to use lethal force if they are under the threat of lethal force. That is pertinent to me because if an officer is at risk of death or seriously bodily harm then what would be police brutality in once instance is now justifiable self defense.

I also want to know how either the officer or the citizen was provoked. Not everyone will share this sentiment but I feel it would be intellectually dishonest to not explore this point. Provocation is always a factor in conflict. However, whether the officer is the provocateur or the citizen is the provocateur, it does not justify police brutality or violent aggression towards an officer. Each person must be held accountable for their own actions including how they contributed to the conflict through acts of provocation. And each person must also be held accountable for their own actions in response to acts of provocation.

That being said, I believe law enforcement officers should be held to a higher standard. Because of their training, because of their role in society, because of the their rights to arrest and detain people they should be held to a higher standard when facing acts of provocation. I believe as a pastor, I should be held to higher standard when it comes to my conduct and behavior. Any public servant should be held to a higher standard. Once we accept the responsibility of caring for others, leading others, protecting others, serving others…we should understand that a higher standard in all manners of conduct, morals, and ethics are now our normative benchmark.

Should a person’s reputation and criminal record affect my response when they become the victim of police brutality?

No.

Regrettably, I have been guilty of this sentiment. Our Constitutional rights, basic human rights must not be abridged because we have done bad things. “They got what they deserved” is a dangerous sentiment. None of us want to live in a society where one person gets to arbitrarily decide what another person deserves. That’s not America. When we permit the civil rights of one person to be violated, we are opening the door to everyone’s civil rights being violated. This is why even the most abhorrent criminals are still afforded the rights of a trial, the presumption of innocence, and a competent defense.

Deuteronomy 32:35 and Romans 12:17-19 both caution us to not take vengeance into our own hands. Please consider this: vengeance is not just action, it is a mindset. As actions, this means that we are not free as Christians to pursue the punishment of others beyond or outside the legal constructs of the society in which we live. To do so infringes on the sovereignty of God. If a person who has suffered police brutality has done bad things, then that person will give an account for those bad things one day when they stand before Jesus. Vengeance is also a mindset. My job today is to guard my heart from trying to be “Jesus” toward that person. I am not saying we aren’t free to acknowledge the wrong acts of others. I am saying we are not free to determine what they deserve outside the bounds of the law because of those acts. That is a mindset of vengeance and is equally an infringement on the sovereignty of God.

I want you to consider something sobering. I believe as I trust you do as well that all people are going to be judged. Heaven is promised to everyone who has made a vow of devotion to Jesus but that does not mean we won’t be judged once we get to Heaven. Scripture clearly states that we will all give an account for the lives we lived, the words we spoke, and the thoughts we pondered.

Before you begin judging someone because or their criminal record, I want to ask you to reflect on something. That criminal might have accomplished far more in their life than you or me. Remember the parable of the talents? We are accountable for what we have been given; to whom much is given, much is required. If you have been given much…loving parents, material resources, a safe neighborhood, a healthy Christian witness, an authentic local church, positive role models, etc. then it might just be we are the ones whose judgment will be even more severe because were given so much and did so little relative to our potential.

Lessons I’m learning as a white man…

Black Lives Matter, part three

Lessons I’m learning as a white man…

BLM is both an organization and a declaration. I can endorse one without supporting the other. When I say “black lives matter” I am not endorsing or supporting BLM as an organization. Don’t be trapped by the false choice of endorsing both the organization and the declaration OR rejecting both the organization and the declaration. You can choose what to support and endorse in this movement toward racial equality.

I do believe we should all endorse Black Lives Matter as a declaration. I am inviting you to join me in risking being misunderstood. I am thankful for friends who reached out privately after my first facebook post (which is now part one in this series) who asked if I support BLM as an organization.

This is an example of why I am using the phrase “lessons I’m learning as a white man” because this movement against racism and social injustice is comprised of a diverse group of people all of whom have varying and at times diverging viewpoints. I have learned that I can be a part of the movement without endorsing every narrative.

I understand the risk. You are saying, “If I am seen standing in that crowd, I risk being perceived as believing the same thing as everyone else in that crowd.” Yes. But welcome to Christianity! Isn’t that Jesus’ example? Have you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Jesus didn’t allow the risk of being misunderstood (which was daily for Him) stop Him from His divine mission. And I think you will be hard pressed to read those first four books of the New Testament and the 23 that follow and not come to the conclusion that we have a divine mandate to fight against injustice in our world. Is this our only mandate, certainly not. But it is however certainly central!

Some of the other questions I want to explore in this series are: should a person’s criminal history affect my response to their death at the hands of a police officer, is this movement for racial equality distracting The Church from its fight against abortion, are people of color doing enough to stop “black on black crime” while also speaking out against the excessive use of force by law enforcement, and are police officers allowed to use lethal force differently than citizens? These are examples of questions I have worked through personally and have also recently received from friends in response to my recent posts on facebook.

Lessons I’m learning as a white man…

Black Lives Matter, part two

Lessons I’m learning as a white man...

Too many Christians have a truth problem. I’m a recovering truth problem Christian. Hi, my name is Fred.

It’s not that Christians aren’t telling the truth. They are only using truth as a measure or filter.

There is a reason Philippians 4:8 commands us to think in THESE things: whatsoever things are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy.

If you are a burn victim and I walk up to you and say, “Hey, you are scarred.” I’m telling the truth...but is that noble, is it lovely, is it admirable?

If you are checking your child into the Buddy System at our church and I walk up to you and say “Hey, your child is autistic.” I’m telling the truth but is it excellent, praisworthy, and pure?

When I am weighing what I should and shouldn’t say to my friends who are choosing to be vulnerable with their raw emotions as they suffer and see others suffer...let’s ask ourselves a Philippians 4:8 question and do MORE than just tell the truth.

Lessons I’m learning as a white man.

Black Lives Matter, part one

What I’m learning...from my own mistakes, from asking the wrong questions and having the wrong responses...BUT having patient people around me letting me process, grow, and learn.

Stop using All Lives Matter as a response to Black Lives Matter.

If my house is on fire and no one comes to help and I stand in the street crying “My house matters!” and you come to console me or

God forbid correct me by saying “Hey Fred, all houses matter.” you are forgetting the fact that your house isn’t on fire. What you are saying IS true, the problem is that it’s not helpful and is uncaring.

Black Lives Matter ALREADY inherently contains and relies on the sentiment that All Lives Matter. If all lives don’t matter then it is possible that black lives don’t matter.

Black Lives Matter is saying that certain lives are suffering disproportionately more than others and everyone should want to see that change.

Black Lives Matter is not a threat, it is an invitation to those of us whose race and ethnicity has not suffered to the same degree.

If you believe that All Lives Matter then show that by standing up for those whose lives have not mattered as much as yours.

Let’s look at this way. A person in a wheel chair is at the pool and their child is drowning...and no one is helping and they begin to cry out, “My child matters!” Are going to say to them “All children matter!” Or are you going to get up off your donkey and get in the water?

Lessons I’m learning as a white man.

Is Trump God's Man?

This seems to be a recurring retort of many Christians. And I’d like to share my answer to this question and why I believe so many people use this as a reason to support The President without challenging his character.

Let’s talk about moral high ground. Moral high ground is a feeling that one has when debating issues, situations, morals, ethics, and politics. This simply means to have a moral advantage over others. For example, when Jesus teaches in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), He is talking about finding the moral high ground. He is reminding us that moral high ground is not easily ascended which is why so few actually stand there.

A false summit. When I was in Haiti on a missions trip, we hiked a trail hoping to reach what looked like a mountain peak. But when we got to what we thought was the top we were disappointed to realize what we thought was a summit had been obscuring, from the angle of our starting point of view, yet a higher peak. Sometimes the moral high ground we think we hold is a false summit. How do you know when you are on a false summit in regards to a moral high ground?

A false summit moral high ground always involves justifying behavior that we would otherwise decry. People often lie when they are standing on a false summit moral high ground. Why? Because if a person is being accused of some behavior, action, or statement and the accused believes the accuser has motives that are not honorable, the accused feels they hold the moral high ground. They therefore feel justified to lie in response to the accusation because they believe the motives of the accuser are unfair.

We see this playing out in politics all the time. As a pastor for 20 years I have also seen this in marriages and all manner of relationships. The real moral high ground would be to admit the fault if it is true and then challenge the person’s motives. But alas that path is often far too steep and far too costly. Donald Trump and many other high political leaders continue to stand on a false summit. And when they invite us there, remember Matthew 5-7 and don’t stand there with them.

I explain that because I believe this is why so many kind hearted, God fearing, Jesus loving, church going, Holy Spirit tongues praying Christian friends of mine shout, “Our President is God’s man!” When they look at the liberal political agenda in comparison to the conservative political agenda, they believe they hold the moral high ground. There is no room on true moral high ground for ignoring character that is the antithesis of Jesus. Jesus never made personality, geographic cultural norms, past hurts, or any other aspect of the human experience a justifiable excuse to fall short of the character He exemplified through incarnation. If you intend to find the true moral high ground, then defend the societal morals you fight to uphold WHILE challenging the moral deficits of the leaders who claim to be working on your behalf.

Do I believe Donald Trump is God’s man? Certainly. Every president is God’s man and eventually His woman one day. Every president is subject to providence and the sovereignty of God. But only Donald Trump and his own personal moral choices can decide if he will be Moses or Pharaoh, Daniel or Nebuchadnezzar, Nehemiah or Artaxerxes. To date he has unfortunately been the latter more than the former. Let’s expect our leaders to be more than just an instrument of God’s plan and become an example of God’s heart.

Impeachment and Homogeneity, part three

There is no winner from this impeachment process. Society if further polarized. Congress is encumbered by selfish motives. The Church is tainted by its failure to be transcendent. The Presidency loses even more credibility. America’s voice of leadership is diminished on the world stage.

And here are some of my own personal opinions and observations from the impeachment. First, The House should have never proceeded with a partisan impeachment. Democrats have complained incessantly about Republicans in the Senate violating historical protocols and precedents when they themselves failed to hold a vote in the House before moving forward with the impeachment. Regardless of how incensed Democrats were in regards to their accusations against the President, purely partisan impeachments will never be effectual. They should have censured the President. That move would have drawn bi-partisan support.

Secondly, Republicans in the Senate should be ashamed of themselves. And if you think they voted against calling John Bolton as a witness because they believed his testimony would not affect the outcome, you are either naive, in denial, or dishonest. They did not want John Bolton to testify because they did not want his statements, which would have directly contradicted President Trump’s claims, to be under oath. As long as his statements are not under oath, they have political cover. They will be able to say, even when the book releases, “It’s one person’s words against another’s person’s words.” Several Republicans Senators directly contradicted the President’s legal team and President Trump when they stated his call was not perfect, and in fact some of them stated they felt his actions were troubling. I think it is clear that the majority of Republican Senators believe President Trump is guilty of everything of which the House Democrats are accusing him. However, they do not feel his actions rise to the level of impeachment. These facts differ greatly from how our President and his supporters are depicting the outcome. Senate Republicans must find the courage to hold this President accountable for any behavior they deem as being unbecoming of the office of The Presidency.

The Church is failing once again to be transcendent. If someone wants to take a side, I have no complaint with people having a political alignment. However, that alignment should not be at the expense of the importance of also taking a stand for Christian virtue. When the President in his post acquittal speech uses vulgarity and profanity, why aren’t Christians calling for his apology? When the President mocks Mitt Romney for citing his faith and conscience for a decision, why aren’t Christians calling for his apology? When the President continues to call people degrading names and ridicule people for their personal appearance, why aren't Christians calling for his apology? I too align with most of President Trump’s policies and his political and social agenda. But supporting his agenda does not mean I have to ignore his behavior. Christianity, according to Jesus the last time I checked, has always ultimately been about virtue….being reconciled to God through Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit being born into God’s family and begin the journey of becoming like Christ in virtue. The fruit of the Holy Spirt is virtue. Spiritual maturity is defined by virtue. The character of Christ is based on virtue. This is part of what it means for the church to be transcendent. Be involved politically, yes. But don’t stop advocating and holding people accountable for their responsibility to be Christlike if they claim to be a Christ follower.

Homogeneity is at work in The Church and Christians suffer under its spell. You can learn about this term from in part one. One of the consequences of homogeneity is that we tend to overlook the faults of people who we deem to be on our side. Why? Because the goal of homogeneity is to build a tribe. The goal of homogeneity is to protect the feeling of being comfortable by being around others who are similar. But true Biblical unity necessitates diversity. And when our goal is unity, we are not afraid of holding one another accountable when people in our group are guilty of actions and attitudes that violate virtue because comfort is not our prize. Righteousness is our prize! When Jesus commanded us in Matthew 6:33 to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness…He wasn’t just talking about priorities. He was teaching us about motivation. When God’s Kingdom and His righteousness are more important to me than most everything else in life, I’m not afraid to speak the truth in love, even when that truth accuses our President of forsaking virtue.

People need to find a sense of permission to support whichever candidate aligns with their own personal beliefs about political and social agendas. But at the same time, we are responsible to acknowledge when those candidates violate virtue and if necessary, call for an apology. God doesn’t stop loving me because I sin. But He does expect me to acknowledge my sin through confession and to work to effect change in my life through repentance.

I am politically conservative. I support politically conservative candidates. I have dear friends who are not politically conservative and who do not support politically conservative candidates. Loving Jesus, His righteousness, and His Kingdom does not presuppose support of a particular political party. Anyone who tells you it does, is a carrier of something far worse then any biological virus. They are infecting The Church with homogeneity. And as a pastor and teacher, I intend to boldly, in love, continue working to root out this terrible spiritual disease from The Church.

Pastor Fred

Impeachment and Homogeneity, part two

As America awaits for the articles of impeachment to be delivered to the Senate, Christians should be using this time for continued prayer for our political leaders as enjoined by Scripture. And as we pray, my hope is that we will be listening for the wisdom of the Holy Spirit with the same conviction that inspires us to petition God with our point of view.

In part one, I shared my belief that combating homogeneity should not come at the expense of moral compromise. In a recent message I preached that there are four questions one should ask when you feel that something may be a sin according to Scripture. We’ll use the fill in the blank method so you can practice this approach for questions you might have regarding possible sins. Is ________ a sin of commission or omission? This acknowledges that some sin is a wrong act committed while other sin is good act withheld. Cheating is a sin of commission. Not serving in the church you call home is a sin of omission. Second question, is __________ a sin of morality, conscience, or liberty? This is a little more complicated and Paul takes on the complexity of this question in Romans 13:8-14 and Romans 14. I like to use alcohol consumption as an example. There is no Biblical prohibition against alcohol use. But Scripture does make it clear that drunkenness and excess are both sins. So alcohol consumption is not what I would call a universal morality, wrong for all people for all time. But if it violates your conscience, you should abstain. And you should abstain in the presence of others who could be negatively affected by your liberty.

Our third question, is __________ a sin that is time bound? This makes people nervous but I like to remind people that if you ignore the complexity of something in order to simplify truth you inevitably create the confusion you were trying to avoid. Not every prohibition in Scripture was intended to be for all people for all time. How many of you require women to wear head coverings in your church? Why doesn’t Scripture take a more aggressive stance against human slavery, the trafficking of women, and misogyny? You will be hard pressed to not acknowledge that Scripture has both a cultural and historical context. Both of these help us to discern prohibitions that are not timeless and a lack of objection to behavior that is clearly reprehensible. Granted, these distinctions should be guided by trained theologians who have a proven record of utilizing a sound hermeneutical process. Otherwise Scripture that is supposed to be a source of wisdom becomes either an instrument of unintended permission or a weapon of abusive legalism.

This fourth question is equally vital. Is _____________ a sin that leads to death. 1 John 5:17 clearly indicates that the early church had an understanding that some sin is more egregious than others specifically because of its impact on the spiritual well being of the sinner. Protestant denominations have long avoided this teaching that has been central to Catholicism for centuries. My suspicion is that Protestants fear this teaching gives people a false sense of liberty to commit sins that may not be as detestable as others. My experience is that truth is always the best deterrent against sin so let us give people the full counsel of Scripture and trust the work of the Holy Spirit to convict people’s hearts. This last question is critical because it protects us from allowing sin that should be a universal morality from inappropriately becoming a matter of conscience or something time bound.

Let me share three very powerful lists found in Scripture: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Ephesians 5:3-5. Any sin that is ever listed in Scripture with a stated consequence of spiritual death, eternal damnation, or the loss of Heaven as an inheritance can never be considered as a matter conscience or time bound. I am firm in my belief that every sin listed in the Scriptures above are sins that lead to death in the spirit of 1 John 5:17. I have read extensively and listened to points of view that differ from my own in regards to these verses and have never heard a convincing argument that would lead me to believe these sins are in any way permissible or ever should be.

St. Augustine reminds us that “any utterance, deed, or desire that is contrary to eternal law is a sin.” I suggest to you that utterances, deeds, and desires that lead to homogeneity are sins. If my behavior and attitude forces others to conform to my way of thinking when their point of view is equally valid and permissible, I sin. If my inaction permits this sort of intellectual abuse and spiritual control to occur, I sin. Homogeneity is the fruit found in a community of people who are neglecting the eternal law of Scripture that commands us to seek harmony. Harmony does not make room for immorality. And when there is a question of Biblical immorality, let us apply the four questions above and heed the timeless wisdom of Galatians 6:1-4 as we minister correction with grace to one another.

You can be a fully devoted follower of Jesus and want President Trump to be removed from office when the Senate votes. You can be a fully devoted follower of Jesus and want President Trump to remain in office when the Senate votes. Too many spiritual and political leaders are betraying our trust by inciting fear and promoting narratives that are often untrue and at best exaggerations. If the people you are listening to do not make room for differing points of view regarding this President’s impeachment, they are guilty of amplifying the sort of rhetoric that drives us apart and are working against the Holy Spirit’s effort in The Church to bring unity through harmony.

If you are looking for a great read that explores how even good, well intended people can become corrupted, check out Cal Thomas’ hard hitting book Blinded by Might. Let’s be the Christians Jesus intended, ones that are mighty and relentless in our pursuit of Biblical harmony who have an unapologetic distaste for disunity!

Pastor Fred

Impeachment and Homogeneity, part one

I am deeply troubled. I am troubled by Congress. I am troubled by the President. I am troubled by the American Church. I am troubled by our society. I am deeply troubled.

A democracy does not need agreement to thrive. A democracy does however need mutual respect, deference, and cooperation in order to flourish. I am troubled by the American Church because in my opinion, it suffers from a demand for homogeneity. If you google homogeneity you find this definition: the quality or state of being all the same or all of the same kind. It seems Christians in America have been deceived into believing that there is no room for opposing viewpoints when it comes to political parties, candidates, and values. For some of you, you are convinced that any professing Christian who voted for Barack Obama violated Scripture, shamed Christ, and filled Heaven with sorrow. For others of you, you are convinced that any professing Christian who voted for Donald Trump violated Scripture, shamed Christ, and filled Heaven with sorrow. And neither of you are open to the possibility that both of you were equally true to Christ in your decision. Why? Because the American Church suffers from an unhealthy desire for homogeneity.

We have been convinced that unless everyone agrees with everything we believe, those in disagreement are wrong. We have lost sight of Paul’s expectation in Colossians 3:14 where he says that we should clothe ourselves with love which binds us all together in perfect harmony. The NASB uses instead of “perfect harmony” says “the perfect bond of unity.” This greek phrase is actually teleiotes (perfect) sundesmos (bond of unity). This word for perfect is the same word found in Hebrews 6:1 that translates to maturity. And the word for bond of unity is the same Paul uses in Ephesians 4 to speak of a bond of peace. In every instance, sameness is never implied or stated! On the contrary, the context for Biblical instruction regarding unity always necesitates differences. That is why the NLT employs the word harmony.

Harmony is only possible when there is acceptance of one another in spite of our differences. Paul so frequently writes about harmony because he understood that a Christ centered community carried a message called The Gospel that would have a universal appeal, drawing together people from all cultures and ethnicities who’s cultural norms and prioritized values would continually be at odds with one another. Sameness will always fracture diversity. Harmony perseveres diversity and creates true Biblical unity…teleiotes sundesmos.

Uniformity and conformity have always been the tools to tyrants, especially theological tyrants who prey on the weak character of people who prefer the idea of being right over the Biblical mandate of being righteous. You cannot be righteous and not make room for someone who is equally invested in life as a devoted follower Jesus and who has an opinion and viewpoint that is the polar opposite of yours. Homogeneity deceives us into believing that those in disagreement must conform in order to preserve uniformity, a desire of humanity. Scripture however says bind yourselves together through mutual respect walking in harmony even when you cannot be in agreement, a desire of spiritual maturity.

Are there times when Christians should expect conformity? Certainly! Universal morality is certainly central in the teachings of Jesus. In fact, if we abandon all morality, we create a permissive environment. However, if we inappropriately make all things we prefer universal, we create a legalistic, exclusive environment. The harmony of which Scripture speaks necessitates a proper balance between that which is universal that that which is relative. The first century church had this same struggle! They had disagreements regarding dietary restrictions practiced by Christian Jews and whether they should be mandated for Gentile Christians. Paul’s counsel: stop taking those things that are uniquely sacred to you and teaching them inappropriately as universal moralities for all.

If when you look around the church you attend and the relational circles you enjoy and everyone looks like you, believes like you, votes like you, aligns politically like you, lives like you, and thinks like you…well, you suffer from homogeneity. Do you prefer sameness? Are you forsaking harmony? In this season of Christmas, are you making room for Jesus in someone who disagrees with you, especially politically? Or are you relegating Him back to the manger again? And just so you know, He still prefers the humble company of a few barnyard animals over the false comfort of Hotel Homogeneity.

Pastor Fred

School Shootings

Today is a day of celebration for our family.  Our oldest son graduates from high school.  Later tonight Vannessa and I will be standing on a stage with Derick handing him a high school diploma.  We could not be more proud of him!  He has a bright future, endless possibilities, tremendous potential, and a promised destiny from his Heavenly Father.

But sadly, the day of the pinnacle of our joy for our son is now the depth of despair for some parents because sons and daughters in Texas have been tragically and senselessly killed.  Am I perplexed at how a person becomes so deranged that they prey on the most innocent of society?  Yes.  I write this blog today though because what perplexes me more than anything related to mass school shootings is our society's apparent lack of resolve to sufficiently secure schools.

When I ride my motorcycle, people see me fully regaled in gear.  In my class for a motorcycle license we learned the phrase, "All the gear all the time."  When people see me in my gear, they may have lots of thoughts, but no reasonable thinks, "Look at how fearful that guy is."  When I see a fireman running into a burning building with all the gear, I don't think, "That person must be afraid based on what they are wearing."  Who shows up to an airport and objects to going through the security check because you are so courageous?  Who refuses to let people wear seat belts in your car because your vehicle is a special no fear zone?

When I hear journalists and "expert" commentators say that overhauling schools with appropriate security is succumbing to fear and will instill fear in our children, I am sickened.  When I hear them declare that proper safety and security will create a negative mindset and criminalized identity in our children, I am appalled that their absurd point of view is so easily embraced.  Hey, stop putting that child in a properly secured car seat; you are damaging their psyche!

Our schools and our educational philosophies were developed and designed during an era when the sanctity of life, especially the sanctity of children's lives, existed at a level that created a collective moral conscience that protected our children.

As many of you know, we home school our children.  I am not judging anyone for choosing a different approach.  I am going to tell you though that one of the primary reasons we committed to home schooling was because we could not find, for our family, how it was reasonable to send our children into an environment that was designed decades ago and has failed to adapt to the very real and present threats facing us as a society today.

Are our children in public places without us?  Most certainly.  But they were not in public without our supervision and protection until they reached an age and maturity where they had the judgment, discernment, and physical presence to make sound decisions about their physical safety.  No person is impervious to violence.  But every person can make reasonable decisions that reduces their exposure to violence.  And when they are 21, they like their father, will be properly trained ccw permit holders.  As stated before, this too is not about fear.  My personal belief is that citizenship is first and foremost about preparation.  I want my family to be as prepared as reasonably possible to protect ourselves and others.  

You want to see real change, stop going to school.  Put your child's education on hold.  What would happen in Newport News if every child stopped going to school until real, substantive changes were made.  You tell me what is more ridiculous.  Continuing to send our children into environments where they are completely vulnerable to very real threats or demanding they be protected?

Have you ever asked yourself the question why the airline industry didn't wait for gun law reform before enacting drastic security protocol changes?  Because of money.  Because the profitability of their industry demanded a sense of safety for people to continue to spend their money to travel.  So what does that tells us about the value we place on our children?

Oh, you are waiting for reform to our gun laws?  You will never see that in our lifetime or the lifetime of every child alive today.  You might call that statement resignation.  It's not resignation.  It is reality.  Every country who has enacted dramatic changes in their gun laws had constitutions that were uniquely different from America's constitution.  Do some research.  The only way our gun laws will be able to be changed like England's or Australia's for example is if the 2nd amendment is itself altered.  That isn't going to happen.  Even if you want to devote your life to seeing the 2nd amendment altered, are you really willing to risk the lives our children until that is accomplished?  What if you believe that in the next 50 years, vehicular deaths will be reduced by 99.9% because of spectacular technological advancements in computer navigation and safety equipment?  Are you going to stop wearing a seat belt and stop putting children in car restraints now?

I'm frustrated today because of the simplicity of this problem.  Change is not simple, but the circumstance that should be motivating change is most certainly simple.  Shootings happen at schools because they are vulnerable.  Schools have been historically safe places, not because they had robust security but because they relied on a collective social moral consciousness that valued life, especially the lives of the innocent and vulnerable.  That collective consciousness no longer exists.

We are the wealthiest nation in the world.  Are you telling me we aren't willing to commit the resources necessary to drastically increase the safety of our children?  We don't lack the money.  We don't lack the creative minds needed to produce real change.  We lack resolve and that is shameful.

Pastor Fred

Stranger Things Season 2 Fail

I was listening to a sports radio show recently and the host was bemoaning the new cultural norm of binge tv programming.  Historically, the producers of tv shows relished the creation of anticipation from one episode to the next and the media attention they enjoyed as people speculated for an entire week about what would happen next!  And then, there is the beloved season finale.  Answers are given to satiate a loyal, demanding viewership, and there is also the guarantee of a tantalizing hook to carry us through the offseason while waiting expectantly for the next season to unfold.  The radio host complained about how he missed the fun of the build up from week to week and the bantering of conversation among steadfast fans.

He's old.  The world is changing.  I can hear someone having a similar conversation when television programming was displacing radio programming, when motorized vehicles were displacing motorized transportation...change.  Keep up!  I actually believe that the cultural norm of binge tv programming is not new.  It is bookish.  Being on vacation and having no daily demands with a captivating book...one can read to the end, oh summer where art thou!  I am a huge fan of this kind of programming.  My prediction is that it will not displace more traditional series based programming.  People like variety.  We want choices.  The success of programs like Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead are evidence for the continued strength of weekly airings versus a series drop.

So why is Stranger Things 2 a fail?  It failed because they, like so many writers and producers in their industry, succumbed to the greed of influence.  Season 2 became more engrossed in pushing a flawed moral platform then they did in advancing the genius of the story created in Season 1.  The ABC show Lost spanned 6 seasons and discovered historic television success because the story was always central.  Admittedly, the series ultimately failed because the anticipation they created leading up to the finale became bigger than any possible outcome.  It was the epitome of anticlimacticsim (just created that word).  But to their credit, they never let the popularity of the show entice them to neglect the story and its fascinating plot in exchange for pushing flawed moral precepts.

Stranger Things 2 used its platform in an attempt to normalize sex among teens.  Chapter 6 blatantly pushed the idea that every teen should be so lucky to find an adult who will give them copious amounts of alcohol and allow them to spend the night and have a sexual encounter with their teenaged lover.  At least in Season 1 when Steve and Nancy have a sexual encounter, it is presented to us as a mistake.  Steve's character at this point is characterized as a teenaged boy who is taking advantage of naive girl.  The vibe is "this is bad"  The sexual encounter occurs at party where teenaged drinking is characterized as dangerous.  Again, the vibe is "this is bad."  Afterward, Nancy's character wrestles with regret.  At least the writers and the producers presented these choices in Season 1 as morally serious.

I can hear you.  Your response to me is the same as my response to the radio host who lamented over binge tv programming.  You are saying to me, "You're old...the world is changing."  My point is not that shows shouldn't reflect cultural norms.  Stranger Things 2 went far beyond reflecting a cultural norm of sex among teens.  They glorified sexual activity among teens.  If being repulsed by sexual moral depravity makes me old and prudish, I welcome the moniker.  And if Chapter 6 isn't despicable enough, there is Chapter 9.

Nancy's mom is in the tub reading a trashy romance novel and her husband is asleep in his chair.  Imagery here?  Women want it and obtuse men like Nancy's Dad are sexually inept.  Billy, a teenaged boy, is at the door, shirt open and Nancy's mom opens the door in a suggestive bath robe.  They flirt with each other.  The scene is intended to create sexual tension between a mom and someone else's child.  As Billy walks away, she looks longingly at his butt.  There is a word for this.  It is called pedophilia.  Wait, I have another word for you...adulterous.  

And yet another...well two words.  Gender bias.  Imagine if the scene had played differently.  What if this scene had been with Nancy's father as he was driving home a neighborhood babysitter?  We would see Nancy's father as pervert but because the scene is with a middle aged, sexually deprived housewife...sex with a teenaged boy is presented to us not just as an acceptable fantasy but as one that all women surely share.

I can't seem to figure out why everyone in Hollywood is so shocked to learn that sexual harassment and sexual predators are so prevalent in their community.  Sexual harassment and sexual predators suffer from the mythology that people are primarily sexual beings, meaning that our sexual identity is our dominant identity.  With heterosexual attraction, the deception begins with all women desperately want sex and that sexually aggressive men are needed to help satisfy all the sexually forlorn women in the world.  Hollywood makes millions by propagating these sexual mythologies.  All these stories of sexual harassment and sexually predatory behaviors are tragic.  Hollywood is a victim of its own moral abjection.

Dustin lacks a father figure.  Steve is so noble walking down that wooded path helping Dustin understand how to attract women.  Ignore them...drives them crazy!  Sound familiar?  They talk about electricity which is sexual tension.  The more we ignore them the more desirous they become.  Emotional neglect always leads to sexual desire in women!  Wow, Dustin is so lucky to have someone like Steve in his life to perpetuate deceptions about women and sexuality.  Dustin has now been initiated into the prestigious fraternal order of potential sexual predator.

The question is not whether Stranger Things Season 2 failed.  The question is are you failing to talk about these mythologies with your teenagers?  The question is are you failing the hard journey of self-reflection to see if any of these mythologies are in you?  The question is are you recognizing the power modern media wields in shaping moral values?  I'm not suggesting you isolate yourself.  I am suggesting that if you are a parent, have age appropriate restrictions on media.  And watch what they are watching then use that programming as an opportunity to talk abut Biblical values and how that movie or tv episode supported or conflicted with those values.

If there is any hope for Stranger Things Season 3, they will focus more on the upside down world and less on upside down morals.

Pastor Fred

Oh say, can you see...

The Star-Spangled Banner - this song is our nation's anthem.  The cultural norm for our nation is to stand, hats off, and hand over heart as the anthem is sung and the American flag is presented.  My belief is that this moment is to celebrate the freedoms promised to us by our Constitution, honor those who served and fought to create and protect those freedoms, acknowledge the anthem and flag as national symbols of these freedoms along with the sacrifices required for them, and to celebrate a moment of solidarity with fellow citizens in our shared allegiance to America.

And as we stand, may we not be blind to the present tragedy in America.  As we stand to share in this patriotic moment, the citizens of our nation do not equally share in these sacrosanct freedoms.  The documents and symbols that promise equality are too often betrayed by people and systems who in turn deny access to and conspire to withhold rights that should be inalienable for every citizen.  At every moment in the history of our nation when there was a dire need for an impetus to change, there have been courageous people who at their own peril challenged injustices, oppression, indifference, and deception.  Without disruption, there can be no change.

I am white.  I will never be racially profiled.  I will never fear for my teenaged children to be misunderstood because of the color of their skin.  I will never experience the inescapable reality of minority bias.  I will never fear opportunity not being accessible to me because of my ethnicity.  My "I will never..." list is profoundly longer than the list belonging to a person of color.  My first drafts of this blog failed to understand that as a white person, I don't understand.  Dear friends whom I frequently look to for advice and insight on social issues, especially those involving race, challenged me to not instruct minorities on what they should do.  I should be posturing myself to learn and listen rather than correcting and criticizing.  So here are my questions as I myself strive and seek to better understand specifically what is happening now in the NFL as a microcosm of America.  If I don't stop to learn and listen then I will forever be a victim of my own biases that come with my own ethnicity which is true for me and people of color.

Are those as devoted followers of Christ who are upset and angry over people choosing to not stand for the anthem wrong?  Are those as devoted followers of Christ who are upset and angry over people insisting that the anthem and flag be honored by standing wrong?  Am I wrong in believing that a person who identifies as a Christian is being hypocritical if they are dismissive of the undeniable crisis of social injustice in America?  Am I wrong in believing that a person who identifies as a Christian is being hypocritical if they are dismissive of the undeniable importance for a unifying national identity accompanied by honoring and respecting related cultural norms?  Am I wrong in believing that a choice between patriotism and social justice is a false choice?  What should be the focus of my disruption in an effort to bring about the changes for curing the social ills of injustice?

When Mr. Kaepernick began sitting and eventually kneeling during the National Anthem, did he unintentionally place at odds two sacrosanct ideals?  The Preamble of the Constitution calls for patriotism and social justice.  "We the people...a more perfect union..." are at their very essence statements demanding patriotism.  "...establish justice...insure domestic tranquility...promote the general welfare..." are at their very essence statements demanding social justice.  Why aren't all of us equally disturbed by the well documented injustices against people of color as we are by the disruption of standing in honor of the Anthem and flag?  Are people using the manner of Mr. Kaepernick's protest as a distraction because they refuse to deal with the shame they should be feeling for being complicit in the social injustices that withhold from citizens the promises of the Preamble?  

The very nature of protests are based upon the principle that there are times when a divide is necessary before there can be a more perfect union.  For example, I loved our worship leader's t-shirt recently that simply said "Nah." with the name Rosa Parks below and the date 1955.  The Civil Rights Movement necessitated protest.  And these protests eventually created a shift in our society toward equality and the "all" of liberty and justice grew!  Every protest by heroes of the Civil Rights movement focused on directly disrupting laws and practices that were racist, brutal, deplorable, and shameful.  In my belief, this is why the protests of the Civil Rights movement were so effective.  Through peaceful resistance and disruption, they created an environment where our entire nation could no longer ignore the systemic dehumanization of people of color and overt practices of oppression.  America was forced to see its glaring hypocrisy.

If you aren't watching movies like Selma, The Birth of a Nation, 42, The Express, and the documentary 13th, you aren't trying.  If you aren't following the story of Nate Boyer, Mr. Kaepernick's former teammate, you aren't trying.  If you aren't reading articles by journalists who look different than you, come from a different life experience than you, and have different political affiliations that you...you aren't trying.  If you only get your news from one media outlet, you aren't trying.  If you aren't reaching out to people who have different perspectives on what is presently happening in the NFL, you aren't trying.  You are just polluting the world with lazy opinions like a dripping faucet of toxic waste.  The measure of progress isn't agreement.  A nation can never completely agree.  What we seek is harmony.  Harmony is when diversity is cooperating!  And we will never cooperate until we seek to understand one another...so let's try harder!

What I am learning in my conversations with people, in my watching, in my reading, in my listening...is that disruption and protest is more difficult today than during the Civil Rights movement.  Why?  Because the racism and oppression that predominantly plagues us today is more subtle.  Oppression is evolving.  There was nothing subtle about the segregation of schools.  There was nothing subtle about restrictions on public transportation.  There was nothing subtle about restrooms, water fountains, restaurants, and employment.  What all the despicable hate groups experienced in Charlottesville this year is that prominence fails.  Hate, racism, and bigotry is still rampant in American today because it learned through the Civil Rights movement that prominence is no longer an effective strategy.  Oppression is evolving.  Oppression has become subtle but is still lethal.  And for us to do nothing, to not try to seek it out and utterly destroy it is sin.

Passivity is never the right response to oppression.  Jesus' command to turn the other cheek had nothing to do oppression.  Jesus in His sermon was dealing with the issue of provocation and how to deescalate conflict.  Everything about His life and ministry was a 3 year protest against the exclusivity of the Judaism of His day.  In Isaiah 53 we read in verse seven that Jesus was oppressed and treated harshly but never said a word.  But this is not passivity!  Passivity is doing nothing.  These verses in Isaiah are prophesying about the coming Messiah who we know is Jesus.  When He was led away to the cross, oppressed and treated harshly, He did not resist...but His protest was deafening!  He was not being passive.  This was the most aggressive act in all of history, fighting for us against sin and death and ultimately winning!  The truest form of Christian aggression is fighting relentlessly for the need of another, especially when the person or people for whom we are fighting are powerless themselves.  In August of 2016, this is what I believe Mr. Kaepernick was doing.  He was fighting for people who were powerless themselves.  Before we judge his actions we must first endeavor to understand both his motive and intent.

I will never kneel or sit during the Anthem.  But I am not threatened or offended by Mr. Kaepernick or any other athlete who is kneeling or sitting during the Anthem for the specific purpose of protesting the injustices that plague America.  I do firmly believe that kneeling is a better form of protest.  By kneeling, a person is extending an invitation.  Kneeling for us culturally is the posture of petitioning.  Their kneeling is our fellow citizens extending to us, patriots, an invitation to work harder to root out all forms of injustice in society, both prominent and subtle.  We are being invited to see the Preamble come to full fruition.

Paul in Galatians 6 demands of us that we submit ourselves to the Law of Christ, which expects us to bear each other's burdens.  This command is given because we don't have a natural inclination to take up a burden that does not directly affect us, especially when that burden might be at our own peril.  Is there an application of Galatians 6 in regards to this current societal conflict taking place in the NFL?  If my felt need is to see fewer people harmed by social injustice, then find a way to carry the burden of seeing the anthem and flag honored and respected.  If my felt need is to see the anthem and the flag honored and respected, then find a way to carry the burden of seeing fewer people harmed by social injustice.  The Law of Christ is true, regardless of how counter-intuitive it may feel.  Whatever else needs to be a part of finding harmony in our communities, bearing one another's burdens is undeniably part of that solution.

As many people are already predicting, the momentum these NFL protests garnered will soon sadly be lost.  The NFL will patiently wait before enacting any new policies regarding standing for the Anthem.  Individual teams will be allowed to create their own policies that will reflect the political climate of their respective cities and states.  Teams are businesses and players are ultimately restricted by contracts they signed and the players union they have joined.  The collective bargaining agreement in place clearly defines the scope of authority for the owners, the league, and the players union.  Regardless what some sports journalist seem to believe, freedom of speech has limitations when it comes to employee and employer relationships.  The NFL is a business, the players are employees under contract, the owners are the controlling agents of their company, the league is a contractual affiliation among all the owners, and the players union exists to represent the rights of the employees.  Let's not be naive.  The factor that will continue to direct the final outcome of this conflict will be economics.  At the point either players, owners, and media outlets stand to lose substantial revenue, they will compromise.  And regarding some sports journalists who try to compare prayer in schools with players being required to stand for the Anthem, the Constitution does not deal with religion and patriotism in the same way.  Strong feelings do not equate to a legal precedent.  But even if the momentum is lost there, may it never be lost in us!  The "all" in liberty and justice must become so inclusive that there is no room for exclusivity.

If you are a Christian, you may be asking yourself the wrong question.  The question should not be "Should I stand or kneel for the Anthem?"  The question should be as a devoted follower of Christ, "How can I bear the burden of another, especially if that burden is not my own immediate felt need?"

Pastor Fred 

Monuments

The process by which we effect change is as important as the change itself.  The men and women who founded America understood this.  They knew that a revolution poorly constructed would only lead to replacing one tyrannical government with another, replacing one agent of subjugation an ocean away with a new one next door.

There is now a groundswell of momentum to remove monuments in America that both memorialize and glorify people from history who held abhorrent views on slavery and made substantial effort to sustain the trafficking of human beings for economic gain.  I believe the decisions regarding these monuments should be made by the people whose taxes are being used to maintain them.  Many of these monuments are being maintained by local cities, towns, and communities.  I want local governments to be empowered through the process of elected officials.  And these elected officials should be bound to a legal decision making process.

For example, this quote comes from the City of Newport News' website.  "The City of Newport News is administered by a Council-Manager form of government in which six citizens are elected from three districts...The City Council establishes the City's public policy through resolutions and ordinances, approves proposed programs, and controls the funding of these programs.  City Council is guided by the City Charter; as adopted and approved by the Virginia General Assembly, and by its own rules of procedure, resolutions, and ordinances."  Even if I disagree with an outcome, I am comforted by the process.  To forsake the process so I can gain a more favorable outcome is dangerous.  Eventually the erosion of a legal, democratic process will more consistently victimize every citizen.

Every community should have a process for changing the names of schools, government buildings, streets, parks, etc.  Every community should have a process for deciding how tax dollars should be spent on public property like monuments.  The inherent nature of such a process in and of itself is deeply beneficial for a community because it always involves dialogue with people in a community who have competing views.  When communities are talking, exchanging and debating ideas...civility and restraint tend to displace violence and anger.

The statue at the center of the protests in Charlottesville is of Robert E. Lee.  In 1917, Paul McIntire purchased a city block and donated the property to Charlottesville for the purpose of erecting a statue of Robert E. Lee.  This was the first of four parks Mr. McIntire donated to the city.  This particular park was named Lee Park.  The park's name was changed to Emancipation Park in June of this year, 2017.  The process by which the community decided to change this name and the name of Jackson Park to Justice Park was in accordance with Charlottesville's legal, citizen voiced through elected officials mechanism.  These parks should now have new monuments that reflect their new meanings:  Emancipation and Justice.

My complaint is that Charlottesville will probably not continue this "march" to the University of Virginia.  I call this the bias of economic benefit.  How much of Charlottesville's economy is dependent upon UVA?  Much.  I think it would be fair to say that Thomas Jefferson is both celebrated and gloried there.  How biased is Charlottesville because of the economic benefit they enjoy through UVA?  You might argue that Thomas Jefferson started UVA.  Paul McIntire donated a park for the purpose of erecting a statue.  A park is less controversial because it is less economically important.  Don't misunderstand me.  I'm not saying the statue of Lee should have remained.  I'm saying that every community needs to decide what is best for themselves.  I just find it difficult to applaud a city for removing a statue from a park that now bares the name Emancipation but the park so named is adjacent to a University that bares the name of one of America's most prominent slave owners.

If I lived in Charlottesville, I would have supported changing the park's name and I would have supported removing the Confederate statue to be replaced with a statue that better reflects the vision and values of our future.  But I would also be saying, let's keep going.  Let's not stop here.  You might argue that UVA is a state school.  Fair enough.  But I guarantee you that no change will come to the associated heritage of that University without Charlottesville being the epicenter of and the impetus for that change.

A friend whose critical thinking always challenges me to be more disciplined in my process of reason asked why then do we esteem people from Scripture who owned slaves?  Does that make us hypocritical?  Let's try this by comparison.  If you picked up your child from Sunday School, Kid's Church, Bible Study, etc...and realized they were challenged to emulate Robert E. Lee as a church going, God fearing man, you might take issue with that.  But if their lesson was on Abraham, I dare say no parent would have a moment of hesitation.  Are we hypocritical to esteem men and women in the Bible who owned slaves?  My initial answer to my friend was a lazy response.  I said we should be inspired to mirror their virtues and learn to avoid their vices.  Would that be enough of a defense if my sermon this weekend was extolling the virtues of Jefferson Davis?  Clearly no.  But why then is it acceptable for Abraham and other Biblical historical figures to be honored?

I believe the canonization of Scripture was directed by the hand of God.  The New Testament as we know it today was ratified at the Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD.  The books we find in the Old Testament were already widely accepted by then.  These were not the arbitrary decisions of men in my belief but men acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to validate the sacredness of certain books/letters and hold them esteemed above all other writings.  This was already the widely held view of Christian churches in the world at that time.  The Council of Carthage was affirming what the Holy Spirit had already revealed to Christian leaders in local churches.

This is at the center of why we esteem people like Abraham and others in spite of their human failings, some of the most egregious of which was human trafficking for economic gain and sexual pleasure.  God has the sovereign right to choose the people He wants to put forward for humanity to esteem.  He made those choices through the canonization of Scripture.  While they are historical figures, they hold a place in history unlike in any other.  They are not only in world history, they were chosen by God to be part of the Biblical narrative.  So yes, we do strive to mirror their virtues and avoid their vices.  However, the reason celebrating these historical figures is not hypocritical for Christians is because they are the people the Creator of the Universe chose to be our examples in spite of their human failings.  As a pastor, I must be cautious and discerning of the people in history I encourage my congregation to emulate.  But the people in history who are also part of the Biblical narrative, God has already approved of their use for teaching and instruction.

But for the record, if I had to choose one person/human in Scripture for a statue, I'm choosing the little boy who gave his lunch to feed the masses.  There are few moments in Scripture as innocent and faith filled as that moment.  If his heart were more frequently found in ours, there would be no hate in our cities.

Pastor Fred

I Hate Catholics

Some should be executed, others imprisoned, most punished in some fashion and Catholicism as a religious practice should be abolished.  And if you do not share this sentiment then through your ignorance or indifference, you are propagating hate and injustice!

The Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day on August 24/25 of 1572 inspired the murder of thousands of French Huguenots not just in France but throughout all of Europe.  For the next two hundred years, my family suffered at the hands of hatred...torture, rape, imprisonment, murder...a conspiracy to dehumanize all Protestants perpetrated by Catholics with the aid and support of the French government and The Vatican.  The situation was in such despair that Abraham Michaux, born in 1672 of Sedan France, fled to Amsterdam Holland in 1690 with his father Jacob Michaux.  King Louis XIV of France continued the godless destruction of the Protestant church, causing thousands of refugees to seek asylum elsewhere in Europe.  Abraham Michaux appears on a the Dutch Reformed Church roster of January 28, 1691.  A the age of 20, Abraham married Susanna Rochet at this same church.  They met while working at a gauze and lace factory.  Susanna had her own harrowing tale of fleeing France years earlier.  Her family hid her in a barrel aboard a ship in order to smuggle her out of France and into Holland.  (facts taken from an historical genealogy blog)

My family, by the grace of God, was able to flee such horrific persecution and through a land grant from England, arrive in the New World to help settle the frontier.  Our family received 574 acres in what is today Powhatan County.  (I'm still a littler bitter all that James River water front property didn't make its way to me!)  We lived in Stafford County for a period of time after arriving here until 1705 when we settled in what was then known as Manakin Towne where our 574 acre land grant was located.  (facts taken from same blog referenced above)

There are still the remains of an Episcopal chapel there in what eventually became known as Michaux, Virginia.  A family cemetery plot is just down the road from the chapel overlooking the James River.  I have visited there many times, even taken my family to stand on this ground that is sacred to me still today because that is the beginning of my heritage in America.  My children are the tenth generation of Michauxs to live in this beloved Country.  There is a family Bible beautifully preserved in the archival collection at Union Theological Seminary.  I was allowed to spend time with this family Bible several years ago.  The feeling of gently turning its pages created in me a profound appreciation for the legacy that has come to me through centuries to cherish God's Word and worship Him fully.  Many names were written in its margins as this Bible not only served as a source of spiritual nourishment but also a proud family genealogy.

Here is another wonderful piece of Michaux history in Virginia...taken from a plaque placed at that little Episcopal Church.  The plaque was erected in 1937 and states, "This tablet is dedicated to the memory of Abraham Michaux and Susanne Rochet Michaux...their heroic spirit, their loyalty to truth, their fidelity to Christ we treasure as our richest heritage."  France was robbed of the contribution these citizens could have made because of hate and prejudice.  But thank God for Romans 8:28 and His promise of ultimate goodness in every circumstance!

By now I trust you have realized that I don't hate Catholics, that I have no ill will toward Catholics individually or Catholicism as a Christian religion.  Those opening sentiments were what could have been my emotional heritage.  I wonder if Jacob Michaux could have said that?  I wonder if Abraham Michaux or his wife Susanna could have said that?  Possibly their Christian character was strong enough to withstand such sentiments I shared in the opening of this blog?  But my suspicion is their humanity would have prevailed given the atrocities they most certainly witnessed first hand of the brutality of Catholics in France in the 16th, 17th, and early 18th centuries.  But which generation was the first generation to choose to forgive?  Which generation was the first generation to not make this hatred part of the emotional heritage given to their children?  If I were able to step back in time and observe the attitude of my ancestors, who would be the turning point?

So here comes the irony.  My family left France because of barbarous acts.  I wonder how may of my ancestors became guilty of such acts against Native Americans...against Blacks.  I find it terribly sobering and highly probable that persons in my family became the "Catholics" they abhorred.  Meaning, there are families here in Virginia and elsewhere whose heritage of hatred doesn't trace itself back to a religion or a political entity...but to my family name.  They suffered at the hands of Michauxs.

I'm inspired to share this blog today because few people in this life don't have a heritage of hate working through their family.  The question becomes whether or not I am willing to be the person in history who decides that a different heritage is going to be gifted to the next generation.  For some, this challenge is much more difficult because their persecution, their suffered injustice is not historical, on the contrary, it is devastatingly present.  I know for me, not only am I committed to teaching my children the sacred virtue of being forgiving, I am also praying, talking, asking, studying, reading, and striving to determine how God is asking me to help route out injustices that are taking place today, here in my city and beyond.

Who were the people in France who sat idly by while thousand of Huguenots were killed?  Citizenship means that I not only fight to preserve equality that serves me but equality that serves all.

Pastor Fred
 

Fear

Fear.  This is one of the most prevalent words in conversations leading up to and following Tuesday’s Presidential election.  My hope is that people who do not share the same fears will not belittle or disparage the fears of others.  Fear is one of God’s great gifts to humanity.  And that idea may be foreign to too many Christians.

Some of you are already quoting 2 Timothy1:7.  That’s not prophetic…just predictable!  Let’s talk about this wonderful verse.  I like to start with the last word in the verse, a wonderful Greek word, “sophronismos.”  I like this word because there is only one appearance in all of Scripture and this is the solo performance in 2 Timothy!  Some translations choose sound mind, others use discipline, while another is sound judgment.  The best would be to combine them all.  My spirit when renewed by the Holy Spirit should transform my mind in a way that is Biblically sound leading to self-discipline and good judgment.  I should be characterized by this description as a devoted follower of Jesus.  Now, let’s read the verse.  Paul says to Timothy “spirit” not “emotion.”  Too many people misuse this verse to demean an emotion that should be present in us all.  While I should not be characterized as a fearful person, fear as an emotion must be present in an emotionally healthy Christian at proper times.  When “sophronismos” is a word that best describes me, I am able to experience the emotion of fear without emotions taking control of my life and becoming the shaping force and influence on my spirit.

So if someone talks about their fears related to this election, spend time listening before you bludgeon them with a verse that was given to us to inspire…not wound.  Especially if you are the one needing some correction, in regards to how we should cherish fear.

Might I share some examples?  We readily acknowledge the importance of the fear of the Lord (Psalm 111:10, Proverbs 15:33, Revelation 15:4).  My capacity for fear was created by God and is vital; take for example Jesus admonition in Luke 12:4-5.  People like to restate “fear” in these texts as “respect” but that is not what the Holy Spirit chose.  Don’t edit the Holy Spirit!  Is respect a component of healthy fear?  Most certainly, but that does not change the essence of fear…it is to be afraid!  And as long as that feeling of being afraid remains a healthy emotion, it will not displace the virtues of courage and faith.  My capacity for diverse emotions is evidence of emotional health.  And my strength of character (that “sophronismos life”) becomes the boundary that keeps those emotions from becoming spiritual traits.

So if fear is necessary in my relationship with God, are there other applications where fear should be embraced?  Yes!  Fear saves lives.  When I am unsafe, the emotion of fear is an alarm that prompts protective action.  I would like to suggest to you that fear is also an indispensable facet of choosing political leaders.  If you suppress healthy fear in others, you are a dealer in shame.  And if you are devoted follower of Christ, you should be ashamed of your shaming!

This is a time for people to talk about their fears.  Last night I met with a new friend to talk about our fears.  His fears are different than my fears.  And my fears are not more important than his fears, neither his relative to mine.  I must seek to understand the fears of others if I expect others to value mine.  If you can’t accept that Christians were legitimately divided at the polls on Tuesday, then you are part of the problem that divides this nation.  You are a person that is belittling the fears of others.  You are a person that is a shame dealer.  My fears are always going to be more present in my life than your fears.  That is the nature of fear.  We are not able to manufacture emotion.  But, as you have heard me say many times, right feelings follow right actions (Matthew 6:21).  If you don’t understand the fears of others, put in the time to talk with them, hear their story, ask questions, reflect, ponder, contemplate their feelings!

The progress we need in this nation should start with The Church.  And that progress will begin when people who have divergent fears begin to feel the fears of others because their right actions led to shared feelings.  So do me a favor, don’t reach for 2 Timothy 1:7 prematurely.  Let Romans12:15 reach you.  I believe this verse in not just limited to the emotions of joy and sorrow.  I believe this is a fill in the blank text.  I believe this verse is about emotions.  In fact, when I look back to the beginning of this chapter, I find a command that my mind should be renewed!  That sounds like a “sophronismos life” to me!  Paul, in one of the most celebrated doctrinal books of the New Testament, is making a demand of all Christians that emotional empathy is the minimum!  Emotional empathy expects me to have an appropriate, gracious, understanding response to the feelings of others.  Romans 12 tells us we should actually share in their emotion, regardless of whether or not we share in their circumstance.

So this is my question to you…if you voted for Donald Trump, have you found some people who did not that you can sit with and ask them about the fears that helped to motivate their decision?  If you voted for Hillary Clinton, have you found some people who did not that you can sit with and ask them about the fears that helped to motivate their decision?  If you don’t know anyone who voted differently than yourself, you are intellectually and emotionally isolated!  Next, here comes your prayer.  Ask God to help you experience Romans 12:15.  We need to feel one another’s fears.

Be all about that “sophronismos life!”

Pastor Fred

Divergent - Politics of 2016

Frustrated, disappointed, angry, sad, and embarrassed are all words that best describe my reaction to the 2016 Presidential race.  I am not speaking of any candidate in particular nor any one political party.  These feelings are the result of what I believe to be the root of the dissension and frustration in the entire elective process.

In 2014, the first in a book series by Veronica Roth became a successful film at the box office -- Divergent.  Her blog describes Divergent this way:  "In Beatrice Prior's dystopian Chicago, society is divided into five factions, each dedicated to the cultivation of a particular virtue—Candor (the honest), Abnegation (the selfless), Dauntless (the brave), Amity (the peaceful), and Erudite (the intelligent). On an appointed day of every year, all sixteen-year-olds must select the faction to which they will devote the rest of their lives..."  If you have read the books or seen the movies you know that once an adolescent chooses a certain faction, they must serve that virtue for the remainder of their lives.  For example, if I am Amity, I will never be allowed to work or serve in any role that is assigned to the faction or class of Erudite.  What makes these fictional stories so compelling is the contrast to our society where we celebrate and cherish our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as so courageously penned in our Declaration of Independence.  America is a great nation because we champion the right of self-determination...unless we are talking about politics.

One of the distinctive differences between the Republican and Democratic primary process is the presence of super-delegates in the Democratic Party.  Both parties are well into their respective primaries whereby citizens in each state have the opportunity to vote for their candidate of choice.  In an effort to simplify this process, think of it this way.  The number of votes a candidate receives correlates into points.  The Republican candidate must amass a total of 1237 and the Democratic candidate 2383.  These points are called delegates because they are actual people.

At each party's convention this summer, every state will send delegates/representatives to select a candidate that will run for the office of President.  And while both party's rules vary, the expectation is that these delegates will vote at the convention based on how their state voted in the primary.  For example, in Virginia's primary, Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders by approximately 65% to 35%.  So she was assigned 62 delegates and Sanders was assigned 33 delegates from Virginia.  If both candidates are still in the race by the Democratic convention, those delegates will vote for their assigned candidate.  The Republican party operates in a similar fashion.  However, if there were two candidates still in the Republican race at the time of the convention, the only delegates who are allowed to vote are those sent by the states.  And those delegates sent by the states vote according to results determined solely by the voters.  However, if there is more than one ballot, then the rules begin to change so that a candidate can ultimately be selected.  But the first ballot is clear, delegates sent by states represent the will of the people as expressed through their vote in the individual state primaries.

So back to super-delegates.  If you are interested in a more complete history of super-delegates you can see this article by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.  There are 712 super-delegates.  These individuals are major elected officials, notable party figures, and select leaders of organizations affiliated with the Democratic National Convention (definitions by Becca Stanek).  Their support is not dictated by the voters.  They are allowed to choose which Democratic candidate to support.  Now you have to decide which process you prefer.  For me, I always want a process that has the opportunity to be determined solely by the outcome of voters.

The former Democratic Governor of North Carolina Jim Hunt said the following in November of 1981, "We must also give our convention more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and, in cases where the voters’ mandate is less than clear, to make a reasoned choice."  I'm not sure how the voters' mandate can be anything but clear.  People vote and margins are based on math and a winner is declared.  Really what Governor Hunt was saying is that sometimes the voter is not savvy enough to pick the right candidate and we the political elite must step in to protect the general public from themselves.  Is it possible for no single candidate to gain enough delegates to be selected?  It is certainly possible in the Republican Party.  In that case, there are rules that guide the process forward so a candidate can be selected.  But what the Democratic Party has done through the creation of super-delegates is to never give the voters of their party an opportunity to express a clear mandate.  

We have factions.  They are not formalized factions like Veronica Roth's novels but they exist and they are powerful influences in our society.  And I believe one of those factions is the faction of the political elite.  The presence of super-delegates is a clear example.  712 of the 2383 delegates that choose the Democratic candidate for the President of the United States are not bound by the vote of citizens.  This concerns me.  The will of the people can be thwarted.  As of this morning, Hillary Clinton has earned 1,716 delegates through the voting of citizens.  Bernie Sanders has earned 1,433 delegates through the voting of citizens.  So when you hear news outlets continue to report that it is mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination for his party, doesn't that surprise you?  The will of the people has yet to be determined.  In an article by Huffington Post yesterday, Bernie Sanders has won 19 of 25 State primaries/caucuses and is only a few hundred thousand votes behind in the popular vote which is a small margin given how many votes have been cast.  Both he and Hillary Clinton are tied in National polls for their party.  But super-delegates swing heavily in her favor, people who are not bound by the will of voters.

I am equally concerned for the Republican Party.  There are no super-delegates in the Republican Party.  But there is a faction of political elites that should be equally disturbing to us.  When former Presidents and their families publicly state they will not support the candidate chosen by the people at the polls, they are the political elite.  When candidates who ran but lost publicly state they will not support the candidate chosen by the people at the polls, they are the political elite.  When elected officials publicly state they will not support the candidate chosen by the people at the polls, they are the political elite.  Oh they are going to say it violates their conscience or their position is because of their personal integrity...they lie.  They are the political elite.  They are a part of the class of people in our society who have been controlling the political process for decades.  And now someone who is not part of their "faction" is trespassing.  They should be ashamed of themselves.  Their withholding of support has nothing to do with character.  They are spoiled elites who are pouting about their loss of control or they are political candidates posturing in a way they believe better positions them for future elections...or both!

Regardless of how you may feel about any of the candidates in this year's Presidential race, champion and protect the foundation of our political system...a free elective process whereby the will of the people is expressed at the polls.  Do not support the political elites who seek to control outcomes and derail the will of voters.  Be wise and recognize when media outlets who are supposed to be journalists stop reporting the narrative and begin creating their own narrative.  Don't be naive.  Both conservative and liberal media outlets are pushing an agenda and that agenda is the profitability of their respective brands.  In addition, many of them are just as much a part of this "faction" of the political elites as the candidates themselves.

I'm for a faction free world.  I don't want to live in Veronica Roth's dystopian society.  May we never stop being these people, which people?  "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Pastor Fred

Jesus' Costume

I read a post to FB this morning that has inspired me to share an apologetic on why I believe Halloween for Christians is something to consider.  I think that if Jesus were here in bodily form, He would be out there with us.  Besides, He likes the whole idea of costumes...remember that one time He came into the world dressed like a person?  How great was that!  And then when He was on the Mount of Transfiguration and Peter, James, and John saw Him without His costume...what a day!  I'm convinced too His teaching about what goes into our mouths doesn't defile us.  I wish I had better Bible knowledge as a child...I would have shared that text with my parents on Halloween and Easter when they said I couldn't have any more candy!

The post I read had a great point.  Let's stop comparing Christians celebrating Halloween with Christmas and Easter.  Those aren't fair comparisons.  I agree.  Although many Christian holidays have pagan influences, Christmas and Easter are now fully Christian.  There are no other two holidays more sacred to Christians than Jesus' birth and His resurrection.  Even if their origins have to own some fault for pagan assimilation, today those holidays have one focus for us as devoted followers of Jesus...Him!  We cannot let the history that is behind us rob us of the opportunity we have to make the history that is before us!  And the history that is before us is desperate for devoted followers of Jesus to glorify His name!  From someone who has been in pastoral ministry since 1999, people turn their attention to God on those two holidays!  I know the Holy Spirit is always working in every life to bring them to Jesus and those two holidays create moments for His seeds to find good soil!

I believe people's reluctance to celebrate whatever you want to call 10/31 is born out of two streams of thought.  The first is that it violates someone's conscience.  I understand that.  We all need to understand that.  Scripture is clear in it's division of sin.  There are moral issues.  Those things that are wrong for all people for all time, without exception.  There are matters of conscience which are things that are wrong for one person but not for someone else.  The Apostle Paul used certain dietary restrictions as an example of this.  Then there are forgoing liberties.  This is where the Apostle Paul, on more than one occasion, talks about our need as Christians to forgo liberties if in exercising that liberty we may cause another to stumble in temptation.  For example, if you are having dinner with a recovering alcoholic, you should not have that favorite glass of wine with your meal.  This is the first reason there is conflict with Halloween, in two ways.  The first way is found in the name used.  We don't avoid the use of "Halloween" because we are ashamed of our activities.  We don't use that name because we don't want to unnecessarily offend.  This isn't being politically correct or white washing our sin...it's being sensitive to others which quite frankly needs to be more abundant in the Christian community!  The second way is that people who don't celebrate Halloween because it violates their conscience need to be respected, honored, and celebrated.  But those same people need to stop trying to justify their abstaining by making this a moral issue.  I have a definition of unity I like to teach.  Unity is when absolute commonalities transcend relative dissimilarities.  We need to agree on absolutes and hold them in common.  We also need to agree on what is relative and embrace how we are dissimilar.  When we force those things that are relative (matters of conscience and forgoing liberties) into the category of morality, we create legalism.  When we force those things that are absolute into the category of relative, we create permissiveness.  If you have come out of a background of the occult, some sort of satan worship, or used to get falling down drunk and stupid on Halloween and celebrating that day now in any way, even if your celebration now is wholesome, creates a feeling of conviction in your heart then most certainly, respect your conscience!

This post I read today also used comparison like orgies or naked group dancing around a fire...all pagan practices.  That we would not do those things and defend them as Christians.  No we wouldn't. I prefer to do my naked fire dancing in private...just kidding!  I can't even dance clothed!  But just in the same way you don't like unfair comparisons like with Christmas and Easter, neither do we.  All those examples in and of themselves are immoral.  Sex outside of marriage, sexual immodesty...all of those are wrong regardless of the reason.  Halloween for Christians who are celebrating community, having fun as a family, reaching out to their neighbors, using it to tell people about Jesus like we do at City Life...those are all virtuous, noble Christian actions.  Just because other people are using this night to celebrate evil does not undermine why we are celebrating.  Just because it is historically evil also does not taint the virtuous reasons we celebrate today.  If anything, because other people are using this night to celebrate evil is all the more reason we should be out there celebrating righteousness and life fully devoted to Jesus!  Those comparisons are born out of a need for people who have a legitimate matter of conscience objection but want to press it inappropriately into the category of morality.

Okay, here is the second stream of thought among Christians about Halloween.  As I was reading the Bible this morning, I found myself in Luke 14.  The chapter begins with Jesus healing on the Sabbath much to the anger of the religious leaders there.  These conflicts with Jesus and the religious establishment were related to what is referred to as traditions of the elders.  These were restrictions that were not specifically called for in the Mosaic Law but were born out of rabbinical interpretation. For example, because working was prohibited in the Sabbath, a person with a tooth ache could not rinse their mouth with vinegar and spit it out because that would be practicing medicine and is working.  You could however rinse and swallow because that fell under the category of eating.  There were limits on how far you could walk...which is why you find in Scripture the phrase "a Sabbath days journey" to communicate distance...people of Jesus' day knew how far that would be, based on these traditional restrictions.  Jesus' frustration with the religious establishment was that they viewed God as a God who took pleasure in denial.  This same view point gave birth to the failed experiment of Monasticism.  Does God have boundaries...yes!  But His boundaries are only for the purpose of releasing us into more liberty!  Wasn't it Jesus who said in John 10 that He came so we could have life to the fullest possible measure?  Many Christians today find an unhealthy fulfillment in denial.  I'm all for denial that is virtuous.  But I would humbly suggest that many of the people who feel the need to take hard stance against Christian families having fun tonight in an effort to honor God would have complained about Jesus violating the traditional Sabbath, not following washing rituals, parties He attended, and disciples He chose.  Liberty is a celebrated virtue of Christianity and one that we must not lose.

I hope this helps bring some clarity to why people can't seem to agree on this issue.  We don't need to agree...that is a beautiful aspect of the Christian faith that makes Jesus so very different from the rest!

Pastor Fred