Category: Church Life Page 1 of 2

Organized Religion

On October 26, 2021

Organized Religion

“I just don’t believe in organized religion.” I have heard that statement dozens of times. My wife quipped, “So you believe in unorganized religion?”

It is no wonder that people would be disillusioned with various expressions of the church, especially with the scandals of so many high-profile Christian leaders of late.

However, many people who decry organized religion want organization in every other area of their lives. They expect organization from their employers, their banks, and even their sports teams. As a matter of fact, all human beings crave organization.

In scripture, it seems that Jesus anticipated the church’s organization. After all, he chose twelve disciples, which symbolized a renewed faithful remnant of Israel.[1] As God designated the twelve tribes, so Jesus reconstituted them. After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, the Apostles sought to continue the tradition of Jesus to select someone to take Judas’ place after his betrayal and suicide (Acts 1.15ff).

One scene early in Acts points to the benefit of organized religion – effective ministry. In Acts 6, a dispute developed between the Palestinian Jews and the Greek-speaking Jews concerning the daily distribution of food for the widows. The dispute was settled by organizing a group of people to oversee the matter so the apostles could continue their teaching ministry. Without this organization, many widows would not have received the food they needed.

This kind of organization has enabled many benefits throughout church history. For example, organized religion gave us various charities, Bibles in many languages, trained leaders, and universities. In addition, organized religion has enabled recovery ministries like Alcoholics Anonymous, Sunday School materials, hospitality, hospitals, the abolition of slavery in Europe and the United States, and literacy training.

So, what is the real problem with organized religion? The first is sin. Where there are people, there is the possibility that people will misbehave. But that is true of any organization. In the church, people can give into the lure of power and prestige and use their positions for personal gain or glory. Even a cursory glance at the gospels will reveal that is not the kind of organization Jesus had in mind. For example, Jesus said:

“You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. ⁴³ But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, ⁴⁴ and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. ⁴⁵ For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42b–45, ESV)

Second is the western ideal of individuality – we don’t want to be accountable to anyone. Since the beginning of time, we have wanted to make our own choices and rail against anyone suggesting that there might be a standard of proper behavior. Organized religion poses a threat to those who want complete autonomy in their lives. Some bristle against any message that calls any of their behaviors or attitudes into question.

Thirdly, is our desire to make God in our image. Organized religion, by which I mean the tradition of the church, reminds us that there are proper ways to think about God and relate to God. To some, organized religion is seen to dictate what a person should believe.

However, if we accept the Bible as the authoritative source from which we learn who God is and what God expects of us, then there is a standard by which all ideas, behaviors, and relationships are judged.

I have known of people who defined God in such a way as to excuse or allow any of their behaviors and attitudes. They have constructed a god who agrees with them in every way. In that way, they have followed the example of the Israelites in the wilderness:

⁴ And [Aaron] received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” ⁵ When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.”(Exodus 32:4–5, ESV)

Now, the Lord was reduced to an idol under their control and was made to look some a familiar Egyptian god. All of this happened while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments from the real Lord of the Exodus.

In sum, the reason many detest organized religion is self-centeredness; we want to be the center of the universe and not submit to any outside authority outside. The problem with that notion is that we are all wrong about many things in the world. I may be wrong about a great deal when it comes to God and the life God expects of me. Thankfully, I have the Scriptures, the Church community, and 2,000 years of Church history to correct my wrong notions. If I am humble enough to submit to God and God’s means of grace and instruction, I can learn and live a better life.

Organized religion has often allowed sinful people to do hurtful things, but so have many other organizations. Given the fallenness of humanity and our own participation in that fallenness, we can be grateful for the gifts of the organized church while at the same time pushing toward reform.

[1] E. J. Schnabel, “Apostle,” ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013), 43.

A Pastor’s Honest Reexamination of Homosexuality

By admin

On November 25, 2018

In Bible, Church Life, FUMC Eufaula, Interpretation, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts, United Methodist Church

In my conversations with people about homosexuality and the Scripture, I have come across several people who challenged me, claiming I always preach against homosexuality and no other sins. They have also claimed I had taken verses out of context to support the view I endorsed beforehand. The most strident of these came from two friends who objected to a blog post I wrote a few years back. I took these challenges seriously and went on a quest to discover if there were things I was not considering. I approached this question with the attitude that my views could be wrong.

First, in thirty-one years of ministry I have only preached one sermon on the issue, it was a series I taught dealing with complicated and messy problems in the church. However, I have preached numerous sermons against greed, unforgiveness, bitterness, sexual immorally, and other sins.

The first thing I did regarding the charge of taking things out of context was to read the entire book of Leviticus, paying particular attention to the overall themes and settings of the various laws. I discovered two overarching themes: 1) God told the people you shall be holy because I am holy, and 2) Do not be like the nations around you.

In the immediate context of the primary passages on homosexuality in Leviticus, God tells the people:

Leviticus 18:1–5 (NRSV) — ¹ The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: ² Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am the Lord your God. ³ You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes. ⁴ My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am the Lord your God. ⁵ You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord.

In other words, the laws which follow are given so that God’s people would not be like the people with which they have had close cultural contact: the Egyptians and the Canaanites. Immediately after the list of prohibited sexual relationships, we find a restatement of the primary reasons:

Leviticus 18:24–30 (NRSV) — ²⁴ Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these practices the nations I am casting out before you have defiled themselves. ²⁵ Thus the land became defiled; and I punished it for its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. ²⁶ But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit none of these abominations, either the citizen or the alien who resides among you ²⁷ (for the inhabitants of the land, who were before you, committed all of these abominations, and the land became defiled); ²⁸ otherwise the land will vomit you out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. ²⁹ For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people. ³⁰ So keep my charge not to commit any of these abominations that were done before you, and not to defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God.

The clear warning here is for God’s people to not be like the nations around them. Apparently, homosexual behavior was known and practiced openly among the Egyptians and Canaanites, and God did not want the people of Israel drawn into those behaviors. In other words, because the people were in close cultural contact with people who practiced such things, they were explicitly told not to emulate them.

Skipping over the Gospels and Jesus for the moment, I looked at the passages in Paul’s letters.

1 Corinthians 6:9–11 (NRSV) — ⁹ Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, ¹⁰ thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

In this passage, the word translated sodomite (ἀρσενοκοίτης), in some contexts refers to the active person in the sexual relationship in contrast to the word translated male prostitute (μαλακός) the passive participant. As with the passages in Leviticus, Paul most likely mentions this in his letters because the gospel is being proclaimed to Jews and Gentiles in close cultural contact with nations who practice such things.

Why did Jesus not mention homosexuality? It is a fair question and one that deserves an answer. There are of course indirect prohibitions where Jesus lifts up the ideal of heterosexual marriage as God’s ideal (cf. Matt 19:3-9). Recently, Scot McKnight wrote that when Jesus permitted divorce for unchastity (πορνεία) his hearers would have had in mind the sexual prohibitions of Leviticus 18 (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/04/04/what-is-porneia-to-a-1st-century-jew/)

I think Jesus did not mention homosexuality specifically because he was a Jew speaking to Jews. In their cultural context, the prohibition against this kind of sexual immorality was a given, just like idolatry. Jesus never gives an explicit prohibition against idolatry, except where he plainly states there is only one God. Of the seven occurrences of the word translated idolatry they all appear in Paul’s letters and never in the Gospels. Jesus also never mentions another strictly Jewish practice such as circumcision. However, he does mention the food laws, but only to cancel them out and declare all foods clean (Mk 7:18-23).

It is instructive to look at the so-called Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 when navigating the cross-cultural requirements for Gentiles coming to the faith. As the elders listened to voices from both sides of the argument of how much of the Law of Moses should be compulsory for Gentile converts, James remarked,

Acts 15:19–20 (NRSV) — ¹⁹ Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, ²⁰ but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.

All the laws of the Old Testament were boiled down to two: refrain from association with idolatry and sexual immorality (πορνεία).

Some people claim I reject homosexual behavior because I have had no friends who were homosexual. That too is wrong. A young man who was in the youth group I attended when I was younger, came out as a homosexual after his marriage failed. He was one of the people who challenged me on my views, and we exchanged a few emails. He spoke of his desire to fight against the urges he had, but a few days later posted an inappropriate message to another friend hoping for a sexual hook-up. He apparently didn’t know his message was public. Eventually, because of his severe depression and anxiety, he committed suicide.

Also, in a previous church, there was an elderly gay couple that I regularly interacted with on Sunday mornings and even visited in the hospital when they were sick. Eventually, I preached both of their funerals.

Recently, a former staff member at another church graduated from seminary and later wrote me to say he had identified as gay. This young man was a stellar staff member, and in conversation with him, I assured him of my love for him and reminded him that although he identified as gay, his true identity was in Christ.

Some years ago, I heard about a professor from Duke Divinity School, Richard Hays, who had written a book on Christian ethics entitled The Moral Vision of the New Testament. After laying out what he sees at the ethical gird of the New Testament – community, cross, and new creation, he then applies that framework to various modern issues in the appendices. He tackles the issue of homosexuality in one appendix and concludes that homosexual behavior is inconsistent with the moral vision of the New Testament and further goes on the say those who practice such behavior should not be ordained. He came to these conclusions even while having a lifelong friendship with a gay man. They regularly discussed the issue, and his friend remarked how he felt the pro-gay Christian movement were misleading many in the church.

My search over the past few years has been earnest and humble. I realize I could be wrong, however, what I found was a consistent witness across the church and throughout time. The interpretive ideas set forth by pro-homosexual scholars and other advocates are just wrong and misleading.

In the past year, I have discovered that many, if not most of the people I know who are in support of the ordination of homosexuals and advocating for the church to allow same-sex weddings in their facilities do so for two main reasons. First, socio-political reasons. They see this issue in the same vein as racial issues or women’s issues; this is just the next social issue we need to address. As a colleague remarked in a recent meeting, “We got it wrong with slavery and women, we need to get this one right.” Second, personal reasons. They support removing restrictive language in the Book of Discipline because they have a close friend or family member who is gay. They want things changed because it will somehow be more affirming of their friend.

What I have yet to see is a sound scriptural argument for changing our church’s stance. In groups whenever I bring this up, people say well the scriptures can be interpreted many different ways – and this from seminary-trained individuals. I agree that while different interpretations of scripture can be put forward, the accepted principles of biblical hermeneutics rules some of them out as implausible.

I personally believe that the current debate in the United Methodist Church is more about biblical authority than homosexuality. I pray that Scripture would once again be put in its rightful place and that we would learn to love as Jesus loved.

A Covenant and a Hope

By admin

On October 9, 2016

In Church Life, Leadership, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts

I have just finished a full day at the inaugural meeting of the Wesley Covenant Association (WCA). Before the meeting, there were all kinds of rumors and speculation about the purpose of the meeting. I knew that this was going to be a pivotal moment in the life of the denomination, so I decided to attend and hear it for myself.

What I heard in the various talks was a celebration of our covenant as United Methodists and especially clergy in the church and a message of hope. This hope is not based on organizational effort, but the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit.

Covenant

As an Elder in the United Methodist Church, I agreed to participate in a covenant with the rest of the Elders of the church and the church itself. I declared that I knew the general rules of the church and would keep them. I affirmed that I had studied the churches doctrines and found them in harmony with the Scriptures. I professed that I had studied the discipline and polity of the church, approved them and would support and maintain them (cf. The United Methodist Book of Discipline, ¶330.5.d).

This is the covenant I accepted and affirmed. If I come to the place where I can no longer abide by this covenant, then it behooves me to surrender my credentials and step out of the covenant. I expected that other clergy members would hold the covenant with the sincerity I have, but it does not seem to be the case. I fully expect to be held accountable to this covenant, such that if I violate it those appointed over me should confront me and, if possible correct me. As a matter of fact, not holding to this covenant is a chargeable offence in the Church (¶ 2702).

The WCA upholds this understanding of our covenant as clergy and as members of the Church. Upholding this covenant creates a bond of trust between the various members of the clergy and between the clergy and the church. This is what I long for. This is what I signed up for. For some, however, they expect to violate this covenant with impunity and a covenant that can be violated without consequences is no covenant at all. As the apostle Paul reminds us, “And in the case of an athlete, no one is crowned without competing according to the rules” (2 Timothy 2:5).

It seems that in many cases, national and international sports authorities care more about the rules of a game than many pastors and bishops care about the pledges of our covenant.

Hope

Hope is a central aspect of the Christian faith. It is our hope of salvation (1Th 5:8) that sustains us in difficult times (Heb 10:23). But we need to remember that hope is not in a political process, even one in the church. Our hope is set on God, God’s work through Jesus Christ and the ever dwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (1 Pe 1:13, 21).

We do not place our hope in bureaucratic policies or institutional pronouncements but in God. Because of this, I don’t pull out all the stops to protect the institution or imbue the ecclesiastical structure or the Book of Discipline with god-like status. It is simply a tool used by God for a season. It is a wonderful tool filled with the seeds of promise. I love this tool and appreciate all of the opportunities and privileges I have received because of it, but it is not the end all and be all of the kingdom of God.

In Luke 21 people commented to Jesus about the beauty and adornment of the temple, but he told them, “the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will be thrown down” (Luke 21:6). Jesus didn’t completely denigrate the temple; he called it his “Father’s house,” and “a house of prayer for all nations.” Jesus emphasized the purpose of the temple, not the structure itself.

Likewise, John Wesley, an Anglican priest, knew that God was much bigger than the institution he knew and loved. He went about trying to renew the Church of England but trusted God’s work even when it took him outside the bounds of the institution. Eventually, the institution barred him from preaching in many of its churches, but the poor and working class people listen and came in droves.

For those of us who follow Jesus Christ in a Wesleyan way, we understand that about the institutional church. My hope and prayer is that the denomination called the United Methodist Church will renew its primitive devotion to God and the dedication of its founder. I long to see that day. But if it doesn’t happen, God is not handcuffed. God will raise up another tribe who will pray, proclaim and work for the kingdom of God.

Far Right

By admin

On June 9, 2016

In Church Life, Navarre UMC, Observations, Theoloical Thoughts

The other day I was reading one of the hundreds of articles posted during the United Methodist General Conference. As I read the article, I frequently ran across the term “far right.” The more I read and tried to understand the writer’s perspective, I discovered he was referring to me; not by name but generally.

Why did the author use the term “far right?” It was clear that it was employed in a pejorative sense to label certain people who had not just a differing opinion, but an opinion which, in that writer’s view, was out of touch and extreme.

So what does it mean to say that I and many others are “far right” in our views?

I believe the in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. I think that they contain everything the is necessary for faith and godliness. I would not say that I believe everything in the Bible is true, but that what it contains is the truth when interpreted in the way the author(s) intended it to be understood.

I believe a person who has submitted themselves to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, has an obligation to read and understand the Scriptures and to receive those words as binding. That implies that I do my best to interpret the passage in light of the historical and cultural context of the time and translating that to our own time.

In that way, we can appropriate the Scriptures of our faith in a way that is consistent and brings glory to God. If that makes me “far right,” then I guess that is where I will stand.

I also believe that when I became an elder in The United Methodist Church took vows to uphold the doctrine and teachings of the church; that pledge meant something. The bishop asked if I had read and studied the doctrines of the church and agreed that they were in line with the teachings of Scripture. I promised to keep those rules, not because I feared punishment, but for the sake of my conscience.

If that understanding of my vows and commitments to the church makes me “far right,” again here I stand.

In reality, I don’t see those positions as far right, except as people try to distinguish people from one another in a political way. I see them as standing in the center of faith and practice.

In that sense, to be “far right” means I make Scripture speak to things it never intended to address and expect people to adhere to rules or laws that go beyond the plain sense of Scripture (among other things). It also means I expect people to believe more doctrine than our Articles of Religion say, and that violators should be held accountable for any infringement, intentional or not.

In the same way, I believe far left means that I put little stock in what ancient writings say. They are mere suggestions about how to order our lives. Our polity and promises, likewise are simple ideas on how to get along in big tent of Methodism. My vows just state my intentions up to that point, and I am free to break them if I deem them unjust (or inconvenient).

Maybe I am naive, but I think we should limit labels like far right and far left and faithfully live and teach the Scriptures we have received and the vows we took.

Grace

By admin

On March 24, 2016

In Church Life, Navarre UMC, Newsletter Articles, Theoloical Thoughts, Uncategorized

Later this month, I will have the privilege of teaching at our Conference Licensing School. This is a multi-day school which prepares people to receive their first appointments as pastors in our Conference. In fact, Navarre will host one day of the school.

I will be teaching the class on Wesleyan Theology. In preparing for that class, I was reminded of one of the significant contributions of John Wesley to Evangelical theology; the doctrine of grace.

To be sure every denomination and system of theology has an understanding of grace, but Wesley’s unique contribution has stood the test of time and continues to inspire people.

Grace has been popularly defined as “God’s unmerited favor toward us.” That definition deserves to be pondered over and over. By unmerited we mean that this grace is given without regard to any action or achievement on our part. To merit something is to deserve or be worthy of something. God’s favor is bestowed with complete disregard to the recipient’s worth; you might even say, in spite of the recipient’s worth.

To have favor is to show kindness toward someone. When we stand in someone’s favor we stand in a
privileged position. We could be in that position because we have supported the person or because we have benefited the person in some way.

The idea of grace is that through no worth in ourselves God has bestowed his favor on us. There was (is) nothing in us or about us that would cause God to owe us anything. I like to tell people grace means God likes us and there is nothing we can do about it. John Wesley put it this way:

All the blessings which God hath bestowed upon man, are of his mere grace, bounty, or favour; his
free, undeserved favour; favour altogether undeserved; man having no claim to the least of his mercies.[1]

The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church, which is the one official guide of United Methodist doctrine says,

“By grace we mean the undeserved, unmerited, and loving action of God in human existence through
the ever-present Holy Spirit.”[2]

That, however, is only the first aspect of grace from a Wesleyan perspective. Wesley said that grace give us the ability to respond to God as well. In other words, God’s favor gives us the ability to do what God requires. Randy Maddox, of Duke Divinity School, calls this “responsible grace.” God gives us the ability to respond and that in turn makes us responsible before God.

Some of the more popular aspects of Wesley’s understanding of grace are found in the ways we experience that grace.

Wesley said that God’s grace works in our lives even before we are conscious of him. We experience this as God’s prevenient grace, the grace that comes before salvation. This grace restores a measure of our free will and a measure of conscience as well. It gives us our first desire to please God. As Randy Maddox would say, it gives us the ability to respond to God.

When we respond to this grace in repentance, God’s grace continues to work in our lives as forgiveness and moves us to accept his pardoning love. Responding to this justifying grace produces a real change in our hearts, we are born again and begin a new relationship with God. We are also given an assurance that we are, in fact, God’s children.

Immediately after the reception of this grace, the Holy Spirit begins to work in our lives leading us to grow in maturity through sanctifying grace. Our experience of grace from this point on leads us to do good works and serve God’s mission in the world with the aim of becoming mature or prefect in
love.

Grace comes to us through many different channels, but some of them Wesley deemed “ordinary means of grace.” These were the normal ways God uses to convey his grace. They included prayer, reading scripture, Holy Communion, Christian fellowship, worship, and fasting. God uses these ordinary means to convey his grace to us. To be sure God is limited in the ways his grace can come to us, but these are the ordinary ways.

We shortly celebrate the resurrection of our Lord and Savior, so what do afterwards? I would urge to settle into the ordinary pattern of life by drawing on God’s grace to be come a fully developing follower of Jesus Christ. Seek God out, for if we do he his promise,“You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord…” (Jeremiah 29:13–14a [ESV]).

Pastor Alan

[1] John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, Third Edition., vol. 5 (London: Wesleyan Methodist
Book Room, 1872), 7.

[2] United Methodist Publishing House (2013-01-01). The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2012 (Kindle Locations 1806-1807). United Methodist Publishing House. Kindle Edition.

Promises, Promises

By admin

On October 3, 2015

In Church Life, Navarre UMC, Newsletter Articles, Sermons

We are all know about promises. Promises we made or that were made to us. Promises that were broken or that we broke. If our kids or grandkids want to make sure we will do something they will often ask, “Do you promise?” But what is a promise?

Webster’s Dictionary says a promise is, “a declaration that one will do or refrain from doing something specified’” or a “reason to expect something”. When someone promises us to do something or to refrain for doing something we have an expectation that it will happen just as promised.
Often a promise is all that is needed to settle a conflict.

To make a vow is similar to a promise, except it is a much more formal and public way of doing so. We
are all familiar with wedding vows. Those vows are public promises to act in certain ways toward the person we marry. Such promises should not be taken lightly; vows are like that. In our marriage vows we promise to love, honor and cherish our mate as part of our obedience to God.

God and Promises

We really love God’s promises us. He has promised to care for us as he does the birds of the air. He has
promised to welcome us into heaven. He has promised to never leave us.

But what about our promises to God? When we accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior we made many
implied promises. We promised singular allegiance to God. We promised to be faithful and obedient. We promised to give Jesus full reign and veto power in our lives. Wait, what?

In the scriptures, vows made to God are taken very serious indeed:

When a man makes a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. — Numbers 30:2

If you make a vow to the Lord your God, do not postpone fulfilling it; for the Lord your
God will surely require it of you, and you would incur guilt. But if you refrain from vowing, you will not incur guilt. Whatever your lips utter you must diligently perform, just as you have freely vowed to the Lord your God with your own mouth. — Deuteronomy 23:21–23

When you make a vow toGod, do not delay fulfilling it; for he has no pleasure in fools. Fulfill whatyou vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and notfulfill it. — Ecclesiastes 5:4–5

God takes vows seriously. But as humans, we often do not. We make promises, give our word, and then back out of those vows if they become difficult or inconvenient. We often break promises and
commitments without a regret in the world. In Psalm 15, one of the marks of a righteous person is that they, “who stand by their oath even to their hurt” (Psalm 15:4c). righteous people keep their promises even when doing so causes them difficulty.

In Disciple Bible Study, Bishop Wilkie gives us the definition of a covenant, a formal vow; it is choosing to be bound in a time of strength, so that in a time of weakness we can not be unbound. That is the way it is with marriage. In front of our friends and relatives, on the happiest day of our lives, we make
promises which many people give witness to. Truth be told, anyone who has attended our wedding has the right to call us on the carpet if we violate our vows, because they witnessed the covenant.

When we baptize our children or become members of the church we make vows to God and the rest of
the congregation reaffirms the vows they made. This is not a light thing; we are making promises to God. In these promises, God has every right to expect us to fulfill our vows, and so do our brothers and sister.

So it is with our vows of membership in the church. First, we declare that we have renounced evil
and sin in our lives. We confess Jesus as Lord and Savior and promise to serve him all our days. We also promise to faithful the the universal church, the body of Christ in every place and represent Jesus everywhere we go. We promise that our loyalty to Christ will be lived out in the context of the United
Methodist Church, as specifically the congregation we are formally joining.

Finally, comes the five vows we take to live out our membership covenant in specific ways; by our
prayers, presence, gifts, service, and witness. In other words, we are not free to define what church member is, our vows have done that for us. We have promised God and the other members of the church that we will uphold this local expression of the Body of Christ through our heartfelt prayers, our faithful and frequent attendance, our financial gifts, our service, and by bearing witness to the world about the good of God.

So how do we find the strength to fulfill the vows we made? We find that strength in the vows themselves and in our brothers and sisters around us. Every time we think about our church and our vows; every time we hear others take those vows we are reminded of our promises and that gives us strength. Our sisters and brothers in Christ are there to help to, because they also made vows. They can be our source of strength when our is waning.

We also draw strength from God’s grace. In fact it is only by God’s grace that we can keep any of these vows and, as the membership vows state it is all, “according to grace given” us.

In the month of October, we will take a look at these vows in particular and discover the strength and grace they offer to us as we live out our connection to Christ.

Grace and Peace,
Pastor Alan

You Shouldn’t Judge!

By admin

On August 27, 2015

In Church Life, Leadership, Navarre UMC, Observations

In recent months I have encountered an idea that gives credence to the age-old adage that as Christians we should never judge other individuals; NEVER. The problem with this sentiment is that it uses the word “judge” to condemn any kind of differentiation or attempt to hold someone accountable for their behavior. It has even been used to discourage any kind of standard to which people might be held. It is simply unscriptural.

To begin with, Jesus did not mean that we should never draw distinctions or make evaluations of people’s behavior. Jesus’ command comes in a context where he assumes that we will make judgments. This discourse, known as The Sermon on the Mount, is a seminal piece of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus says:

“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” (Matthew 7:1–2)

Four verses later, he says we should not “give what is holy to dogs or throw our pearls before swine,” It sounds to me that we are to make judgments about who are dogs or pigs; not very flattering.

In the same chapter, Jesus tells people “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15–16).

Here, Jesus tells us to evaluate the character of people by observing their behavior and then take appropriate action. To be sure, we are to keep in mind the warnings of the rest of the sermon and make these evaluations with humility and care, but we are to make them nevertheless.

Paul also tells people to make judgments about people. Notice the advice he gives the people of Corinth:

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”

(1 Corinthians 5:9–13; emphasis added)

Paul is very clear that if there are people in the church who are committing open sin, they are to be confronted. By the way, Paul was not contradicting Jesus!

Later, Paul gives specific guidelines about who can be considered acceptable as leaders in a congregation (1 Tim 3:1-7). He says that those who violate the guidelines should not be considered for leadership in the local church. The next verses show that these guidelines extend even to lay leaders of the church.

Paul says nothing about the person’s standing before God or their salvation. He simply says that people who have been haphazard about their lives and business should not be considered for leadership in the church. I assume that people who had shown repentance and demonstrated a change of heart could be considered.

In our present context it is necessary and even judicious to make evaluations of people who are placed in leadership in the church. We already do this with our church’s Safe Sanctuary policy when we run background checks and reference checks. In deed, every candidate for ministry on our conference submits to an in depth background check and a battery of psychological evaluations, in addition to the rigorous theological and biblical examinations they go through. If candidates can not demonstrate readiness for ministry, they are not allowed to continue.

The examinations have nothing to do with a person’s standing before God, they are simply the standards a person must meet to work with our vulnerable populations or to be ordained ministers in our denomination.

Likewise, when it comes to leaders in our congregation there should be certain standards as well. A person in a leadership position should be a member of the church and striving to keep their vows of membership. They should be on board with the mission and vision of the church and involved in worship and discipleship. They should also demonstrate their commitment to the church through regular giving.

Why? A sports team would never allow a person to play who did not show up at practice, work on their individual conditioning and lived in a manner that casts dispersion on the team. If those things can be expected of athletes who do little to promote the well-being of the planet, why would the church of the living God expect less?

When we establish standards it does not mean that we are judging anyone, it means we care about the results we want. If we want teams and committees in our church that help us carry on the mission of the church, why would we put people on those who show no interest in contributing to that mission?

We serve a God who is infinite in mercy and love, but God also cares deeply about justice and righteousness. God does not care about one set of ideals or the other, but both of them. And God seems to indicate that we should care about those things too; with ample doses of humility and love.

Reflections on the Supreme Court’s Decision on Same-Sex Marriage

By admin

On June 30, 2015

In Church Life, Navarre UMC, Observations, Uncategorized

This past week the Supreme Court announced that gay couples deserved equal treatment with respect to marriage. The reactions to this decision have been varied and filled with emotion. A friend and colleague, Brian Miller tweeted, “We find joy in State rulings. We find despair in State rulings. It has never been & will never be the Kingdom of primary citizenship.”

That is a very important notion to remember. Dr. Tim Tennent, President of Asbury Theological Seminary echoed a similar sentiment in a June 29th Tweet and a June 28th blog post, when he said, “We may no longer expect the state to uphold Christian morality. But we have every right to expect the church to do so.”

As Christians we must understand that we take our lead from Scripture first and foremost. We do not look to the culture to define any moral position for us.
By the same token, we should not be surprised when a civil authority does not uphold our morals for us. Why would we expect such a thing? Throughout history, the Church has been grateful when the civil authorities created laws which coincide with biblical positions, but it has never expected it. The Church through the ages has always looked to Scripture for its moral mandates.

The early church understood they lived in a world that often was hostile to Christian virtues and morals. In Roman society, it was acceptable to expose infants to the elements as a way of discarding unwanted or disabled children. The church, in many instances took these children in and cared for them.

I am reminded of a portion of The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (A.D. 130) in which an anonymous disciple tries to explain (in Chapter 5) the manner of life of Christians. He describes the Christian manner of life like this:

As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified.

In the current situation it is important to understand a few important things:

1. The state does not speak for the church
People in non-western countries know this intuitively. They don’t expect the state to prop up their Christian convictions with legislation. In the west there are still many vestiges of civil religion and for the most part that is what Christians depend on. When those vestiges are threatened, angry rhetoric fills social media and the public square. This happens because we expect the state to do what the church should do in its witness. In many nations, the witness of the church is not supported by the state, the church bears witness by itself. When the Church takes its responsibility seriously to bear witness to the truth of Scripture it is fulfilling its mission in the world.

In the U. S. we have tended to let the state bear witness so we would not have to. Then when the state refuses to prop up our notions of morality, we rant and rave about decline of values in America. I wonder what would happen if instead of unleashing angry rhetoric we simply and effectively lived out our values.

2. Nothing changes about the mission of the church.
Ed Stetzer, president of Life Way Research said it this way, “Gay marriage is now legal. The sky has not fallen, churches have not been padlocked, and we must live on mission.” In reality, the decision changes nothing about the mission of the church. We are still to make disciples of Jesus Christ. That is important to remember.
I remember seeing an interview with a Chinese online entrepreneur. He was asked, don’t you worry about that the government’s internet restrictions will hurt your business? He said he chose to focus on the things he could do and not on the things he couldn’t do.

The same sentiment exists in churches all over the world who are persecuted for their faith. In the face of persecution, the church is still the church and the church bears witness to Jesus Christ who is the Lord of the world. The Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent us from doing what God has called us to do, bearing witness to Jesus Christ.

3. The Law of the land is not necessarily the moral vision of the NT
The Early church understood this better than we do. In the Roman empire there were many acceptable practices that the early church found unethical. Whether it was same sex relationships, the exposure of infants, slavery, prostitution, or gladiatorial games. The church found itself in a society that accepted practices which flew in the face of their moral understandings. Yet, as the church lived out its commitment to the moral vision of Scripture, they bore witness to a different way of life and had a profound impact on society. And the same thing can happen today. What if we expended the same amount energy on making our marriages and relationship better as we expended decrying the fact that the state doesn’t support our moral vision?

As Christians we cannot expect the state to uphold our moral values, so we should not be surprised when the state creates laws that are in conflict with the moral principles we hold. In a fallen, world it is vitally important that we as Christians live out a New Testament morality. We don’t do it, not to transform society, we do it because we have made Jesus Christ the Lord of our lives. And just maybe, by doing that we will make a difference even in a fallen world.

Pastor Alan

God Questions: Do all roads lead to Heaven?

By admin

On May 10, 2015

In Church Life, Missions, Navarre UMC, Sermons

Here are some additional resources for understanding the material presented this morning.

Getting to Know Islam

Understanding Ramadan

A general website on world religions adherents.com

Grace and Peace,
Pastor Alan

Is the Bible True?

By admin

On May 2, 2015

In Bible, Bible Translation, Church Life, Interpretation, Navarre UMC, Sermons

This Weeks sermon in the God questions series relates to the reliability of the Bible. Below I have listed some links to videos which provide some more background on the subject. These videos come from Seedbed.com, an electronic publishing ministry of Asbury Theological Seminary. They are part of seedbed’s series entitled, The Seven Minute Seminary. Check out other videos on this site.

Dr. Bill Mounce discusses the reliability of modern translations.

Dr. Bill Mounce answers the question, “Can we Trust the Bible?”

Dr. Bill Mounce discusses the “lost” gospels.

Dr. Ben Witherington discusses the authors of the Gospels.

Grace and Peace,
Pastor Alan