This Stuff Ought To Be Old By Now

Christmas is getting “old hat” don’t you think?  I mean every year the same old stuff; the children’s programs, caroling, the same texts from Scripture. Haven’t we heard this story enough, don’t we know it by now?

    There is (unfortunately) one thing that always make the story fresh, immediately relevant, astonishingly “on time.”  It is the moment of getting caught in my sin, that moment of conviction from the Holy Ghost, that moment my conscience is crushed with how evil my heart most recently has been.  I cannot speak for what seems to me to be the satisfied smugness of the spiritually unaware, those who feel as if their “saint-ness” was all they want to know about themselves, those that can't identify with indwelling sin.  I confess to suspecting “denial” somewhere in the psychology, even if covered over with theological rationalization.

    I am very (and not yet fully) aware and grateful for the status of being one of God’s Holy Ones.  I revel in the righteousness of Christ.  I hide emotionally, spiritually, psychologically in the advocacy of the One who died for me, who justifies, who is for me.  But this is no historic memory for me, not an old accomplishment, not something I look back to simply as a word of testimony now growing faded as time has traveled on.

    However you may want to explain the presence of continuing sin, the potential for falling, the reality of falling, the sudden lustful thoughts, the sudden ability to attempt to shut God up, to pretend he isn’t around or watching, the rationalization of pride and ego, self-pity, anger, revenge, resentment, hatred, or materialistic self-centeredness;  it is here inside of me.

    As I said, unfortunately, it is partly this which makes Christmas so imminently relevant for me.  Yes, it is too the favor of God that rests upon me, but part of that favor is his consistent and tenacious choice to forgive me, to constantly forgive me of my sins.  This is why he was named Jesus, this is what he came to do, and this is what he does.  This is indeed what I need, and why I am so brokenly grateful for the surprised and struggling pregnant young woman on her way to Bethlehem, for having her baby in a barn and wrapping him up in cloths and laying him in a feeding trough for animals. I am grateful for the One who was rich yet became poor for my sake, so that through his abandoned humiliation in emptying himself and not holding on to that which was rightly his he gave me something which is not rightfully mine at all.  I have a foreign righteousness, I wear another’s clothes, and they are bling but not cheap. 

    This year again I need them so very desperately but thank God (and let whatever moving and powerfully expressive music fill your soul at this point) they have been given to me and maybe to you as well.  I intend to wear this present not only to church but everywhere I go and maybe, even in front of the mirror of my conscience to tell myself, “I sure do look good in the clothes Jesus gave me.”

For These Many Blessings I Have Received, Lord, Make Me Truly Grateful!

As I reflect on my years as a Pastor, during this Thanksgiving season, I thought it might be good to push myself to think of the blessings I have received in this ministry, and hopefully pass along some of the lessons I have learned.

    I certainly have regrets, and there I things I wish I had learned earlier in my years of ministry.  I wish I had learned them not simply intellectually, since I might have told you “I know that” if someone had tried to teach me those things when I was younger.  I mean I wish I had really learned them so as to have put them into practice.  Nevertheless, I have much for which to praise God!

    I am thankful that Jesus loves me.  I am thankful that God in his mercy gave me a faith and a personality that has never had a problem being angry with God.  I have seen it in others but it has not been very much of a problem with me.  I am thankful for the very simple faith he gave me to believe the Bible, even when I haven’t been able to figure it all out.  I am thankful for that wonderful book, and how God speaks to me over and over again through it, and that there always seems to be something new to learn from it.

    I am thankful to see myself as a child, and as one of the Lord’s little lambs, and be reassured that he loves me and is with me day and night, wherever I am.

    I am thankful for my mother, who has always been such an encouragement to me, and if she was ever critical of me it almost always came out as if she were puzzled by my actions, like a question and never a condemnation.

    I am thankful for my wife Joan, and so grateful that she has never left me, though I have certainly made her life hard at times.  I am thankful that I was able to find her very early in my life and that we were married so young, though we were both too young and too immature.  I am thankful that though we both had many spiritual, emotional and psychological issues we were not even aware that we had, God has kept us together.  Being with her so young protected me from many of my tendencies to foolishness and I know I would have been in trouble.  I have been married to a woman of great common sense, amazing loyalty and dedication, and real faith in the Lord and in the calling that He gave to us.

    I am grateful for the respect of my children, for their love, their adventures, their lives, and their faith.  They and their children are unfolding stories and I am blessed in them.

    I am thankful for the mentors I have had, and I wish all men who go into the ministry could have had such.  I had a great pastor in my  youth who discipled me, rebuked me, gave me opportunity to do and practice ministry, gave me feedback on my efforts, challenged me to greater heights, and modeled so many pastoral and leadership skills.  I was extremely blessed with so much personal attention, sometimes extremely irritated by it, but very much blessed.

    I am thankful that when called to establish a church I was given two Elders who knew the Scriptures, knew theology, knew how a church should run and how a pastor should be supported.  They loved me, respected me, made sure others respected me, and made me believe they were following me.  Somehow the Lord gave them grace to put up with my shortcomings and gave them patience so they would give me time to grow.  These men were the iconic image of what Elders were to be; they loved God, loved His church, loved the people, and loved me. 

    I am thankful that I finally learned it was important to train Elders and leaders.  Having begun with men already mature and trained I did not begin a standard of training at first, and this did hurt the church when we had a few men whose personalities and minds were not set for unity and to accomplishing the vision.  I am thankful that we now train leaders systematically and continuously.

    I am thankful for the lessons I learned from those who were jealous or envious of my position, and who began to oppose me, sometimes in ways unknown to me.  I am thankful for those other men of God who told me what was happening and helped me not be so naïve.  I am thankful for the tenacity and stubbornness the Lord has given me to stay on mission and to stay true to what we have felt God called us to do.  I am thankful to learn the lesson that sometimes subtraction of those in opposition is a quicker way to growth.

    I am thankful for the Reformed Faith, for the deep and rich theology that it provides.  I am thankful for a great heritage in Church history and I am thankful for a system of government in the Church that helps to hold people accountable.  I am thankful for the great hymns of the Church. I am thankful to have been in a Presbytery that has had years of unity and has not allowed itself to be caught up in quarrels and conflicts over small matters.

    I am also grateful not to be stuck in a time warp of theological or ecclesiological preference, but to have been blessed to study culture and ethnicity, and to sometimes see the difference between what is Biblical and what is cultural prejudice. I am grateful for the immensity, the diversity, the complexity, and the richness of culture and how Jesus can take hold of it and be Lord of all of it.  I am grateful that the Lord is above all of it and can rebuke any of it that is not subservient to him.

    I am so thankful to be in a culturally relevant congregation, that is a leader in issues of justice, and a practitioner of meaningful mercy and development.  I am grateful that I never feel ashamed or inadequate in the face of other pastors or other congregations when I represent New City Fellowship.  I am grateful that we are always learning from others, but almost to the point of smugness (for this I apologize) I am satisfied to be in a church that by its lights is trying to live out the Gospel as faithfully as it can.

    I am grateful to the wealthy who have been generous, and have supported me through my education and ministry.  I am thankful for how their kindness supported me when I would have gone hungry or been evicted or had nothing with which to do ministry.  I am thankful for friends, who have loved me more than I have realized over the years.  I am rich in my friends, and sometimes when I thought they had moved on they have come back to surprise me with their visits, their presence, and their love.

    I am thankful for the poor, those the Lord has brought into my life, that through them I could show love to Jesus.  I am grateful for their faith, and I am moved by the times I have seen them turn around and be generous to others.  I am grateful for their ability to look right through rich people and see things as they are.  I am thankful for those who are survivors and who do not complain.

    I am grateful for black people, and black history and black culture.  African Americans have taught me as much as anyone what loyalty means and accepted me beyond my deserving.  Through them I think I have learned what it means to worship, what it means to celebrate; even in and maybe especially in times of great suffering and sorrow.  I am thankful for music, and singing, and songs that stir up passion for God and renew my joy in the Lord Jesus Christ.  I am especially grateful for constant, continuing, and renewed forgiveness poured out on me again and again by the One I fail so often, but whose love never fails.  Thank you Lord!

Latest Planning on Developing the New City Network

Toward the Development of a New City Network

Recently a planning group met to plan the next Justice and Reconciliation Conference.  The first conference met last January (2011) hosted by New City-St. Louis and from that event a group was invited by Pastor Barry Henning to plan the next one, which conference is planned once again in St. Louis, for the 24th-25^th   of January in 2012.

During our discussions we examined to some degree the various connections that intersect between those of us who are involved in these issues of justice, mercy-development, cross cultural church planting, urban ministries and from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds and commitments.

Here are some of the ones identified:

·        MNA multiple ethnic movements

·        PCA Mercy Conference

·        Cross Cultural Music and Worship Conference

·        Justice & Reconciliation Conference

·        Christian Community Development Association

·        Christian Health Centers & Clinics for the poor

·        Economic development and mercy ministries

·        Christian schools in inner cities

·        Inner City church planting

·        International church planting among the poor

            Mosaix and other reconciliation type movements

We recognize that many of us from the PCA are also members of a Presbytery, or may be connected with another church planting organization or network, or in coalition with some other urban and justice ministry.  For those of us in the PCA our Presbytery holds our credentials and holds us accountable in our spirituality and orthodoxy.  We do not see nor want networks to take the place of Presbytery. 

There is some disagreement about what overall network holds us together, and some may not see themselves in the New City Network, but only joined by a couple of these organizations or activities.  That is fine; it doesn't cut us off from each other in fellowship or willingness to work together.  Not everyone is involved in everything, and that is also to be expected.

    I do think for the New City Network to function well it will need to be a defined affiliation.  Obviously many of us will have other affiliations of varying natures, but the New City Network will need a constituency.  Those who make up the group will need to financially support it, be involved in it, hold it accountable, and receive benefits from it. 

    What does the network offer to those who are part of it?  I envision these things:

·        An identity; for your church and ministry that helps define what you are about.  For better or worse once it is known you are part of this network you are tarred with our brush (I'm sorry).  May the Lord make it an honorable identity.

·        Conferences; that are built by New City churches for New City type issues, such as theological reflection on issues such as Justice and Reconciliation, Cross Cultural Worship and Music, and mercy ministries,  [and the Leadership Conference (by invitation), planned for 12-16 NOV, 2012.]

·        Training; for member churches in cross cultural ministry, inner city evangelism, Deacon and mercy ministry, economic development ministry, ministry to widows and orphans, medical ministry, inner city Christian schools, immigration and refugee ministry, etc.

·        Church plants; research, recruitment, training, and placement of church planters for inner city church plants.

·        Funding; assistance for New City type church plants.

·        Visitation; consultation, and encouragement for inner city churches and church plants. [To include modeling and mentoring].

·        Coordination; and cooperation for international church planting efforts.

·        Advocacy; and information sharing for issues of mutual concern.

·        Referral; and referencing various training and resourcing events, agencies, and people.

What do we expect from you if you are part of this network?  I think affiliation will mean some very tangible things.

1.      We should all pay something toward helping other inner city churches be planted.  I challenge you not to think you can’t do that because you are raising all we can for our own work.  Of course you are, but even if it is just a token amount, you should give to the next church plant.  From day one you need to teach and model missions and Kingdom expansion to your people.

2.     We should work to stay connected.  This means that you need to show up to at least one of the network conferences each year and try hard to get to the Leadership Conference.

3.     You should share ideas, methods, names of potential staff and church planters, and inform your own congregation of the network so they know they have friends and spiritual brothers and sisters.

4.     Be an advocate for cross cultural ministry, racial reconciliation, and justice for the poor wherever you are; especially in your own presbytery and in our denomination.

5.     That you would stay true to the Scriptures and the Gospel of Grace and that this work would never be an end in itself, but only the living out of a life of faithfulness to the glory of God and His kingdom.  This means we are all still controlled by everything the Word of God says, so as we pursue justice we must still remain loving, humble, and forgiving.

It is my expectation (Lord willing) that I will begin fund raising for my position at MNA in January, which will allow me to serve the New City Network and promote urban and mercy ministries in the larger denomination.  I expect to be free to do this on a full time basis sometime in the later part of 2012.  This fundraising will also go toward building a church planting fund and it is my hope that the network will appoint a committee to decide how that money will be distributed.  My goal for the church planting fund is Ten Million Dollars; so that we can give away a million dollars a year.  (I figured it might as well be big as small, since it will all be by God’s providential blessing anyway.)

    If you know of others who you feel should be or might want to be part of this network please send this document to them, or have them get in touch with us.  There are folks in large “bridge” type churches that are involved in reconciliation efforts and ministries of mercy.  There are those who feel all alone in some very poor neighborhoods, barrios, reservations, and ghettos.  If they want to join with us in the spreading of the Kingdom of God through the message and ministry of reconciliation please let them know we want to help them.

New City Chattanooga is planning to call me as Pastor Emeritus after they have chosen the next Senior Pastor.  They plan to continue to give me some financial support over the next several years as I raise full support and go with Mission to North America to develop Urban & Mercy Ministries.  A large part of that will be helping to coordinate the New City Network.  I am very grateful to my church and for the willingness of MNA to support me in this effort.  I hope that I can relieve New City of obligation as soon as I can.  Joan and I hope to take some sabbatical after the transition, and we ask your prayers for us, New City Fellowship, and the new pastor (?) and his family as we all go through these changes.

If you know of anyone who would like to contribute toward my support, or toward the ten million dollar church planting fund, please have them direct their gifts to Mission to North America, designated for those items.

I am honored to be in your company, thanks for your commitment.

Randy Nabors

Is There a Bulls Eye On My Back?

   Lately I have either been reading essays or hearing reports of opinions that seem to be attacking either directly or indirectly things which I believe or have said.  Since no one has quoted me by name I am grateful to be out of the line of fire, nevertheless some of the comments have come fairly close to at least a caricature of some of the things I have said or believe.  I am not a polemicist, and I do not write a blog out of desire to be controversial and certainly not to gain notoriety.  I do however become a bit agitated when things are taken out of context, or misrepresented, or a straw man erected so someone can blather on about how bad this straw man is or can become.  Actually I would probably agree with their criticism if the straw man was not straw.  My concern is for those who might read or hear such diatribes without knowing the difference between someone making hay out of their own imagined fears, as opposed to substantial issues.
    Lately some issues of concern are the Sonship movement, social Justice and the social application of Gospel truth, and being "missional." All of these topics are relevant to me and to my congregation and, as a pastor and a Teaching Elder of my denomination, I attempt to hold to my vows to guard the peace and purity of the Church.  I hope I have done this sincerely and conscientiously.
    I will speak to these issues in reverse order, since they are relevant to us at New City in that chronology.  We began as a mission Sunday School, then we were a mission church, and then we became a particular church with an urban mission.  We seek to remain true to that sense of mission thirty-five years later.  In the days when we began as a work we didn't use the term "missional."  The church I grew up in had an annual  theme but was then extended through the following years in the life of the church and that was, "Missionaries to Newark."  When you are in a city, or an inner city, and the forces of darkness seem so strong and the people seem so lost it is not hard to think in missionary terms.  In fact if you don't think in those terms you probably won't survive or reap the harvest that is there to be reaped.
    When a new church is planted being "missional" is all about reaching out to the lost, winning people to Jesus, bringing new  people into the body.  If that doesn't happen then the church doesn't grow.  If a new church plant is simply a new location for already reached people the dynamics of simply tending to the needs of these older Christians can become the central point of gravity.  Relocation and transfer growth can sometimes give the illusion of movement and speed in a new church, but ultimately the demands of the families for pastoral care, child and youth ministry, and stability can outweigh the passion for growth.  The passion for growth in unreached territory is a necessity for scratch church plants.
    As the founding pastor of my church (and evidently the statistics in the PCA show that churches who still have their founding pastor maintain a higher rate of new professions of faith) I want to keep the passion for reaching the lost before my people.  I have made the statement "this church is not all about you."  Some have picked up on this statement (out of context in my opinion) to make the point that we don't see the church as made up of Saints or for the Saints.  We certainly believe the church is made up of the professing saved, and that they must be discipled and taught everything Jesus has taught us.  What we don't want is for any Christian to become self-indulgent and self-absorbed, and we see this as happening to many established and settled congregations.  
    Our use of the phrase, "this church is not all about you" is derived from our understanding of the saying of Jesus, "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it." (Matthew 16:25, NIV)  My personal discipleship strategy for the members of my church is to challenge them to die to themselves, to give themselves away for the cause of the Gospel, the glory of God, each other, the lost, and the poor.  As a shepherd of the flock I must concern myself with their protection, their feeding, and their care.  But as with any shepherd I am also looking toward the day when the wool is cut and the mutton is cooked.  That is so crude; and yet are we not the Lord's sheep, and are we not to be used to accomplish his will?  Good shepherding produces willing sheep; not simply cloistered, fat, lazy, self-protective and always bleating sheep.  We don't pasture sheep just because we like to tour the hills and valleys.
    Some folks have begun speaking against the challenge and call to mercy ministry as a revisiting of the "Social Gospel."  This seems to be both a complete misunderstanding and slander of the teaching of Jesus advocated within conservative circles and the raising of a false alarm by citing the spiritual vacuousness of the liberal theological movement of the early Twentieth Century known as the Social Gospel.  That movement was no Gospel at all but a false millennial perspective on "Christian" social progress. There was no cross in that message, no conversion of the lost through repentance and faith, no spiritual vitality but only an attempt at  civilizing the savage.
    The ministry of mercy being advocated in the PCA is being done by men and women committed to the inerrancy of Scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith.  It is being advocated as a result of obedience to the Scripture, not a deviation from it.  How can one be a Christian and not love mercy?  We are all Christians because we have received mercy, and now we are to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8).  What motives anyone could have to speak against the teaching, training, and advocacy of more effective mercy ministry in and through our congregations is beyond me, and I can see no part of Jesus in such opposition.  The challenge to participate in such ministry may be intimidating, it may strike the conscience of those not yet involved in it, (and indeed there may be local problems in how mercy is taught, applied and delivered), but to compare real Holy Ghost empowered and Jesus demanded mercy with a dead liberal movement is simply a lie and slander.
   Our church has benefited greatly from the training of Sonship, first produced by Dr. Jack Miller and World Harvest Mission.  Lately I hear caricatures of the movement that set it up as a teaching that does not call believers to obedience and lulls them into some kind of moral passivity.  I am sure, as with any emphasis of certain doctrines and renewal movements there have been errors and aberrations.  My concern is that people often hear gossip, hearsay, and criticism and give little serious thought to the reality of the case, they then go on to publicly attack a caricature of the real thing.
    It seems strange to me that any thinking Reformed teacher would oppose the Westminster Confession's view of Justification, Sanctification, and Adoption.  These, and the Scripture that underlies their statement, is what Sonship is built upon.  What is different about Sonship is that it uses these great truths not as intellectual formulations or theological weather vanes but as truth to liberate and empower believers.  Sonship was designed to prepare people for the work of evangelism and mission, not spiritual self-indulgence.
    Whenever there is revival people around the revival but not part of it can become wary, defensive, and suspicious.  Some may think that,  "if this was a real movement of God why am I not as pumped up about things as these people seem to be?  Since some seem enthusiastic but others don't, then this movement must be divisive.  So if the happiness of others makes me feel bad, well then their must be something bad going on."  If anyone is jealous of Christians who have been renewed and enlivened because they are finally getting a grip on God's wonderful love, his accomplishment of our righteousness through the cross, the resurrection and our faith, and the joy of living in God's freedom from legalism then the answer is to embrace the teaching of the Gospel for yourself, not to begrudge the growth of others.
    If the criticism of Sonship is that it tells people they don't have to obey the commandments or any of the mandates of Jesus or the Apostles then that is either a total misunderstanding of what is taught or a deliberate fabrication.  The whole point of Sonship is holiness; real, lived out, and impactful holy living.  Colossians chapter two already teaches us that "touch not, taste not" etc. will never get us to holiness.  Grace is in no way an enemy of commands, mandates, or instruction but rather the power to accomplish them.  Without the mercy of God's power in your life your efforts, ambitions, and moral tenacity will not make you a more godly person.  We do not obey because we are filled with gratitude for God's grace, we obey because we are filled with grace.  Sanctification is not a matter of will, not a matter of work, but a working of God's grace that affects and changes the will.
   So, if I am identified with these things, with being missional, advocating mercy ministry, teaching a course called Sonship and thought of as being "aberrant" I could not be happier.  Sadly, it seems to me that this is all part of our heritage, where throughout the history of the Reformed faith there are always those picking up the negatives on the fringes of movements, building a "theological" case against it, and then using the issues as a litmus test for orthodoxy.  When I compare the preaching of the Gospel in missions and evangelism, the living out a life of mercy and justice, and the freedom of living in the power of the Gospel with the critics of such, well I am content to stand with Jesus.  You choose your place; as I have chosen mine.

Onward Christian Soldiers

This is the second post on planting a new kind of church that will glorify God by displaying the power of the gospel to bring unity out of hostile and indifferent separation. The first article outlined four characteristics of these churches:

1) They incorporate two of the more prevalent current worship expressions of the American church which are the black and white contemporary style.

2) They begin with joint multi-ethnic leadership.

3) They target the suburban areas of our large and medium sized cities.

4) They make full use of existing churches to form active mission teams.

These next series of articles will flesh out each of these characteristics. Please keep in mind that in my view it's crucial to have all four of these in place when considering starting this kind of church. The first one we'll takcle is the possibility of making full use of existing churches to form active mission teams.

I remember the conversation like it was yesterday. Sharon and I had dinner with some good friends (btw much more about them in later posts so stay tuned) and since they too were planting a church the after dinner talk took up the subject exclusively. The reason I recall that evening so vividly was because of how much they reminded me of myself and Sharon during our initial stages of church planting. We talked of the challenges of starting a worship service from scratch that would glorify God, nourish the souls of His people, connect with non-believers and provide the kinds of things that many visitors look for in a more established church. All of this with scarcely any real help and while trying to do all the other things one must do to manage a family through the week! It is a most daunting task which is why it’s little wonder that many church planting families deal with a host of struggles as they attempt to get a new work off the ground. Add to that the church planter’s mandate to establish relationships with non-believers, deal with administrative duties, preach each and every Sunday, shepherd those he serves and be a husband and father and it’s easy to see why we approach the task of witnessing of the gospel through church planting with such apprehension and frustration.

This was the substance of the conversation when I openly speculated about something I’d been thinking about for a long time. I wondered why our presbytery (or for that matter any presbytery) couldn’t have a group of people equipped and ready to assist a new church planter and his wife with the many duties necessary to get a church up and running. The group (call them a core group, launch team, mission team, band of brothers and sisters or whatever) need not be committed to the church for the long haul, but could serve some of the vital roles needed to assist its birth into a new community. They would consist of members of the existing churches in the presbytery, be willing to commit at least two years and would provide the necessary people power that would free up the church planter to attend to needed ministry such as outreach, preaching, prayer and discipleship.

Let me give you an example. There are about 40 PCA churches located in the greater Philadelphia area. My guess (and this is only a guess) is that they serve around 5000 or so communicant members. Now what if we had about 5% (around 250) of these members invest themselves in this kind of short term mission which would entail them actively participating in a church plant that would be no more than 30 minutes from their home?

This team could provide a host of advantages to a presbytery looking to plant the kind of multi-ethnic churches needed to display the unifying power of the gospel to a society in the grips of ethnic division. A few (and just a few) are listed below:

- Team members need not make a long-term commitment to the church plant. They’d serve for a defined period of two years with the expectation of returning to their home church once they’ve completed their service.

- This could give so many more folks an opportunity to use their gifts and talents in significant service to the Lord who might otherwise consider serving in a church plant.

- The new church would immediately present that sense of movement that’s so important to those who first visit a new congregation. Many church planters know that there’s a definite difference between a worship service with 30 people than one with 70 people.

Team members would essentially do many of the same things that active church members already do.

But what happens when they leave? Couldn’t the church planters be in an even worse situation since their support is running out and they have no mature help with this new work? Possibly, but here’s where a strong, short term launch team can be so valuable during that initial two year period.

Firstly, since this isn’t a standard launch team but one that’s come for the specific task of catapulting the church into the community the members of the team can use their time and talents to connect with many more members of the community than could the church planters just working by themselves. The new church could almost immediately begin ministries of good works which Lord willing would put them in consistent contact with members of the target community. In my view this is a much, much wiser way to make use of a launch team than beginning a bible study with them.

Look at it this way: Imagine a new church had 70 to 100 people each connecting with 3 to 4 members of the community during the first year of the church? That means that the new work would have the opportunity to consistently engage and pray for at least 200 hundreds souls in its first year alone! To me this is far superior method of having a new church engage a community than just relying on one man who in addition to this task is usually saddled with a host of other duties.

Here’s an example from Scripture. Matthew’s gospel records how our Lord began His ministry by engaging in preaching and good works which drew thousands of people to Him (Matt 4:18-25). After the Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5-7) Matthew returns to our Lord’s preaching and good works (chs. 8-9) which again draw large numbers of people (Matt. 9:35-38). Matthew 10 opens with Jesus empowering and authorizing the disciples to go throughout many other towns and villages replicating His ministry. Viewing it from another angle Jesus multiplied His work by getting others involved so that together they could have a much greater impact than He (confining Himself to the creative laws of time and space) could alone. Enlisting a motivated launch team with a clear and defined mission is simply an application of this method.

By God’s grace, power and providence it’s possible that the launch team could enable the new church to contact and connect with a few hundred people over a two year period. And this contact would be more in depth than merely hosting one time events separated by several months. Over that time the community members would get to know these people, what they’re about and by God’s grace come (or return) to faith.

A second crucial advantage this kind of specialized launch team could give is in the area of finances. Most church planters know that it’s unlikely they’ll be able to make use of the new church’s resources especially if you’re starting from scratch and have to take the time to build a core group. However, in this scenario the church planters could do the work of raising their own support for at least three years with the knowledge that they could rely upon the giving of the launch team to invest in getting the word out about the new church to the entire region. But won’t existing churches resist this potential departure in people and financial resources? Not necessarily. Remember our example of the churches in the Philadelphia area. If most of the churches participated it would mean that a given church would at most lend 5% of its membership in this gospel venture.

Thirdly, it’s probably wise to take into demographic patterns into account with respect to this whole process. For instance, according to the US Census Bureau Montgomery County PA gained about 50,000 residents from 2000 to 2010. It’s likely that some of these folks were mature believers who immediately looked for a new church in which to worship and serve while others were believers who took a bit more time to find a church home. At any rate it’s my conviction that a church plant with a presbytery mission team would be in a much better position to contact, connect with and in graft these believers than one that simply relied upon a single church planter. Once more, think about the possibility of 70 to a hundred mature believers connecting with several dozen to a couple of hundred believers who are new to the area and looking for a good church?

Now for 'true confessions'. Having spent ten years leading a church planting effort and about six years before that assisting in new churches I'm more than convinced that this approach would have greatly helped and blessed my friends who by God's calling parachuted into an area in which they did not know a soul except for me and my wife. And yet, I'm grateful it wasn't available for them, but more on that later.

To Him Who Loves Us...

Pastor Lance

Sunday morning is the most....

Sunday morning is the most segregated hour of the week. Now I’m almost positive you’ve heard that one before. In fact it’s been said so often and so long that it’s almost reached the mythical position reserved for ‘death and taxes’. Who knows pretty soon folks might say something like ‘you know there are only three things for certain in life, death, taxes and segregated churches. I’ve written before that in my view Sunday morning is not the most segregated hour of the week. Instead it’s only a reflection of the kind of society in which we’ve chosen to construct and live. America for all its diversity is not an integrated society. Though we live amongst each other we don’t actually live with one another (in the sense that we believe that those who are different from us are actually an asset and that we’ll accomplish more together than apart). True we are a diverse people but that doesn’t mean we’re in any way unified in within that diversity. Thus for most of us church attendance on Sunday morning isn’t exactly an aberration from the norm, but merely a clearer picture of what our lives are really like.

Despite that most all of us would agree that in one way or another this country and the church called to witness to it (and that’s a much bigger deal than I think most of us realize) has problems, challenges, struggles and opportunities with respect to race/ethnicity. We keep hearing of the need to have a 'national conversation' on race, the problem is that so few of us really know and trust another soul of a different ethnicity that such a conversation is almost impossible to begin. And should the world look to the church for answers what will they see? You guessed it, a people who claim to worship and serve one Lord and one faith and yet have persisted in doing so along the same convenient ethnic lines established and maintained by the world. In fact it seems that whenever issues of race/ethnicity hit the national scene (as it does with increasing frequency) we just shrug our shoulders and along with the world weakly recite the ‘Sunday is the most segregated day of the week’ mantra as if that’s the only real and tangible answer we can offer.

But does that have to remain true? Can the bible believing church in America actually begin steps to literally change the complexion of the church? I believe we can and for the sake of the gospel we must. Over the past year I’ve written and helped to coordinate a series of articles on the issue of race/ethnicity as it impacts the PCA which appeared in the byfaith online webzine. For the most part each article (five were published) generated a number of comments many of which offered the view quoted below.

“Why not embrace that a) there are different subcultures within the US, and b) as much as we love each other, those subcultures involve worship styles that other subcultures may not be comfortable with, and that is okay? Is it necessary to make white people more exuberant, or make black people tone it down, to accommodate each other in worship together?”

Quotes like this raised the issue of worship style as the main (and perhaps only) barrier toward the pursuit of genuine ethnic unity within God’s church. Before moving forward let me say that style of worship is a valid point when considering integrated churches. It’s a valid point because the spectrum of expression within biblical Christian worship is quite wide. I experienced this first hand over twenty years ago upon leaving my rather conservative Pentecostal church for Tenth Presbyterian Church. I can tell you that even apart from the obvious theological differences it would have been nearly impossible for these two faithful, bible believing congregations to worship together on a regular basis. Even though they sang some of the same hymns there was a noticeable and pronounced difference in the way they sang and responded to them. But let’s remember the spectrum of expression within biblical worship is just that, a spectrum. Within their tradition and heritage both West Oak Lane Church of God and Tenth Presbyterian Church lie along that spectrum. WOLCOG’s worship was not as expressive of many other Pentecostal churches and Tenth’s worship was not as restrained as other Presbyterian churches. Let me add to this point that I certainly do not believe that every existing church should change their worship style so as to remove cultural barriers that might hinder its outreach towards other people groups (that’s not to say they should never consider it). Moreover, there are probably a great many churches located in areas where the population is over 90% of one ethnicity or another so as to make effective integration virtually impossible. Consequently, I do not suggest that we aim for wholesale church conversions. The fact is that most of our churches are so far entrenched in their cultural style whatever it is that change is just not going to happen.

How then can we hope to set upon a path to change the complexion of God’s church in America? We can do so by pursuing a church planting strategy that will feature at least the following characteristics:

1) They incorporate two of the more prevalent current worship expressions of the American church which are the black and white contemporary style.

2) They begin with joint multi-ethnic leadership.

3) They target the suburban areas of our large and medium sized cities.

4) They make full use of existing churches to form active mission teams.

Look, more than likely the evangelical church and black bible-believing church will start a number of congregations during the next twenty years or so. And if we can make just a few adjustments the majority of these congregations can actually grow to become multi-ethnic churches that feature more than just token minority membership. How can all this work you ask? That’s for the next post.

To Him Who Loves Us…

Pastor Lance

Does Anybody Here Fear God?

   I am not sure if I my impressions are correct, but it seems to me that Christians have over the last couple of years not been so outspoken about the war of culture, or the war between cultures, that rages in our society.  At least I don't seem to hear that buzz word very often these days.  On the other hand it seems to me that a vigorous offensive is taking place culturally from the side of the anti-Christians.  They might not call themselves that as a group, but it seems to me that they fit that description, or at least fit the description of being anti Bible believers or against those who think the Bible is true and is to be obeyed.
    I see evidence of this in at least three areas.  For the sake of alliteration I will call these areas Science, Sex, and Speech.  While the right wing seems to be caught up in an almost hysterical attack against the left in regards to big government, Obama care, the deficit, and taxes, Christian folks are being attacked and undermined by an insidious attempt to demean their intellect, marginalize their morality, and silence their witness.
    Making the assumption that there are Christians on both sides of the political spectrum, I see this cultural challenge not simply aligned with political parties.  Although it seems obvious the political left may find it helpful to applaud these attacks in the hope that the caricature of their opponents as Luddites, Victorian prudes, and unprincipled proselytizers will pigeon hole right wing politicians and their followers as idiots and neuter them politically.  This is not so innocent as to simply mock or ridicule opponents; the vitriolic rhetoric is  a call for ostracism, isolation, and to classify us (Bible believing Christians) as dangerous.  I see it as a threat to our freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and an attempt to disenfranchise a large section of the electorate from a meaningful role in the body politic.
    Satirical humor and condescending mockery are a large part of our modern entertainment culture, and one can see its effect on teens and young adults who are especially vulnerable to not want to be identified with any group that can be so easily set up as a joke.  The things many, if not most of us, admire are held up by the anti-Christian forces as that which they claim they are defending against us; namely the progress of science, medicine, and intellectual achievement, as well as justice, and the right to ones own private religious or non-religious convictions.  This fits right in with those pundits who have tried to put sincere believers of Christianity in the same boat with Islamic Fundamentalists and classify us both as potentially violent and culturally backward.
    This onslaught has a chilling effect on believers, it fills them with self doubt, and all it takes of course is for some current example of extreme religious behavior to make us want to shy away from any possible association with the nut cases.  The mass murderer in Norway, who claimed he was doing what he did to protect Christianity, was by his own confession no Christian at all.  Yet that careful discernment was not so readily made by the popular press.  Most of the history of this nation is one in which a large group of Christians stood against totalitarian tendencies, advocated religious freedom, advocated freedom from slavery, and advocated compassion for individuals and support of civil rights for all.  At the same time the Nazis claimed to be Christian, and the KKK claimed to be Christian. Neither of which had anything to do with the teachings of Jesus.  Thankfully Christians did not renounce their faith because of that horrendous misuse of our name or heritage.  Amateur dabblers in history often try to discredit Christianity with all the excesses of Roman Emperors, Popes, and rulers of the Holy Roman Empire, which I learned was never really  holy, roman, or an empire.
    While rejecting their cartooning of us I freely admit that the present agenda of the anti-Christians is abhorrent to me, and I hope to any who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and claim to hold the Bible as God's Word. What they claim to be science is questionable because they have made evolution absolutive, but they are not the bit embarrassed by that. Yet science to be science is always up for question.  How can you explain the vigorous quest for scientific discovery and medical breakthroughs pursued by Christians and by Christian doctors, even missionary medicine if Christians are so opposed to science?  At least since the time of the Reformation there just isn't a record of Christians holding back progress when it comes to technology, industry, medicine, or justice for that matter.  It is science without morality that has been the great terror of the previous century as evidenced by the atheism of the communists and the racism of the Nazis.
    The issue of sex is now a great battlefield because it has been removed from the forum of morality and placed in the forum of justice.  Abortion and homosexuality are the two pertinent issues here.  The vehemence and animosity shown by the adherents of sex without morality is amazing to behold and seeks to demonize, marginalize and even criminalize those who not only speak out against it but to resist its normalization.  We are a great nation for freedom and justice, but once the definitions of those words are changed so they become tied only to personal preference without regard to community, morality, truth, and life the world is turned on its head.  Our  young people have become ideological suckers for this kind of thinking.  When political forces  are put in power, bankrolled by aberrant sex groups, they foist a moral agenda of a minority that seeks to crush their opposition and to keep it silent through legal and economic coercion.  This is a threat to the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech.
    The emotional turmoil of homosexuals doesn't come from the disapproval of Christians but from their own internal conflict with that which they instinctively know is wrong and perverted.  Their self-hatred explodes into a angst that seeks relief in reordering society, law, and cultural acceptance.  Whatever laws are changed that internal conflict will not be dissipated but will erupt from time to time and person to person when the reality of a broken identity and illegitimate sexuality bursts forth from the numbing shell of a sycophantic but morally bankrupt popular culture.
    In the area of free speech I see a threat from the voices of people like Michael Weinstein who has a foundation to essentially stop Evangelical Christians from sharing their faith with anyone who is offended by some one or group who seeks to tell them, or even invite them, to something they might not wish to hear.  Christians must defend their right to proselytize in a free society.  I have every sympathy with Mr. Weinstein about (or against) anyone who uses subterfuge or coercion, but he creates demons and boogie men where none exist, and what is distressing is how government, military officials, and politicians have no integrity or backbone to resist his threats.  It will take some strong court suits to protect our freedoms.
    You might not think things are desperate.  You might not think there is much of a threat.  Whatever you think about climate change it is foolish to think that the social, moral, and political climate hasn't changed.  The frog in the pot when the water starts to boil, the man who refuses to admit the water is rising as flood threatens his home, the miner who pays no attention to the dead canary are all pictures of so many of us.  My call is not to go back to some pre-revolutionary racist slavery America, as if that were the picture of the "good old days."  My call is to realize the culture that gave us a foundation to change from that evil past is being eroded to the point where we will not know what truth is, not know that which is true justice.  Where we now call evil good, and good evil.  Does anybody here fear God?

While the Music Is Playing

  As I write this a Cross Cultural Music and Worship Conference is being held in St. Louis, Mo at New City Fellowship.  I don't yet know what wonderful music, sermons, discussions and connections were made at the conference.  I am jealous I can tell you that.  I wish I were there, and one reason is that I have come to love the musicians the Lord has sent us in this network.  I love to hear Gospel music, and I love to sing it.
    I am not there by choice and necessity, but my wife Joan is there, and I expect to hear some good stories once she returns.  Being married to Joan has given me the great opportunity to have a Gospel instrument right next to me (she can sing), a storehouse of Gospel tunes and lyrics, and an incisive critic and analyst as to songs, singers, musicians, and performances.  It is nice to have all of that in one very pretty package so convenient for enjoyment, education, and edification.
    The occasion of the conference prompts me to make some comments about worship, especially in a cross cultural context such as New City.  I write from the perspective of a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.  There is little doubt that Reformed folks take the thinking about worship very seriously.  We like to be right about most things, or at least it seems we want to be right about most (every)things.  In our circles being Biblical, and by that I mean being accurate as to what the Bible teaches and then wanting to be in conformity to what the Bible teaches, is one of our highest values.  We are those kind of folk that believe we can accurately discern what the Bible is saying and know how to correctly apply it to most situations.
    One of our great problems of course is our inability to discern ourselves as creatures of culture.  We are probably better at exigeting Scripture than we are at exigeting life or ourselves.   We are also great lovers of history, especially the history of the Reformation and of Reformers, and take the Reformers and theologians (of the past) comments about Scripture and their own cultural and generational encounters and practices as normative for ourselves.  Our ecclesiastical history is one in which theological definition takes place in conflict and in the choices that were made in those conflicts.  Some of us still live as if those conflicts were current and we even divide people into camps based on our assessment on where they stand as to those previous conflicts.  Unfortunately sometimes our division is divisive, and we choose to judge or condemn others on our perception of where they stand on a previous debate.
  I am sorry if that was confusing, but much of our estimation of orthodoxy is based on whether someone or not thinks, and acts, in conformity with our heroes of the past.  Such is the case with worship.  Some among us have felt there was such a thing as "Reformed" worship.  We look back to Calvin's Geneva, or to the Puritans, and yearn for Psalm singing, simple worship forms, and pronounce certain things acceptable as to the Regulative Principal of worship.
    That principal is absolutely an important one.  This is of course where I stand with my Reformed brethren, that all worship needs to be in conformity with the Word of God.  We dare not bring strange fire or incense to the altar of God.  We dare not create our own images of God so that we would worship him according to our own creativity and not treat him as if he is holy and therefore alone has authority to declare what worship he accepts.
    Were the early Reformed Europeans correct in their understanding of Biblical worship?  Is the Bible the real foundation of their view of worship, or is being European the real foundation, or is it mixed?  Are we really concerned for Biblical worship, or for what we are used to, what we have grown up with, what has been our tradition of heart music, and what is our sense of order?  It is difficult for a fish to be taken out of the water and asked to analyze the water, which is in a sense what we must ask of ourselves to examine how culture affects us.  Fish swim in water that gets dirty, but they keep swimming.  Fish swim in water that produces less and less of what they need to live, but they keep swimming.  We don't usually know the water is that stifling until the fish die.  We don't know how stifled we are until we swim in fresh water.  So too with experiencing new wine skins, new ethnic cultural forms of worship, that are yet Biblical.
    Our present PCA denomination has chosen to follow in the tradition that celebrates some of the kinds of worship described in the Psalms, and not just by the singing of Psalms.  In other words we use musical instruments.  Whether or not we use exclusive Psalmody,  we still have someone leading us in singing. To sing is to perform, and in fact to do anything in public worship that has one or more persons reading the Scripture, praying, singing, playing an instrument  or preaching means we have a performer.
      It is interesting how many cultural rules creep into our public understanding of worship usually through some pastor or preacher's view of what is distracting or conversely what maintains a sense of order in the worship service.  When Paul instructs Timothy to give himself to the public reading of Scripture we realize it is important that God's people hear the Scripture read, continually.  It is not hard to see the implication that if it is read it should be done in an understandable way, that it should be done well.  We are rightly concerned about the performance of the reader of Scripture.  We want good performance, but we are not interested in a show off, we are not interested in someone entertaining us so that they would get the applause.  Reformed worship has historically been concerned with and critical of anyone drawing attention to themselves so that we might lose our concentration on God.  We take our preachers moderate, without too many sudden or violent physical movements, and we want them to make us think.
    So what do we do with David dancing in front of the ark of God, despised by his wife for making a fool of himself at least in what she thought were the eyes of others?  If someone raises their hands in worship, especially during a song that says, "lift up your hands," do we feel they are distracting us?  Or do they feel we are hardhearted and disobedient to a direct exhortation of Scripture when we refuse to lift up our hands?
How many Reformed folk have bowed down, clapped, lifted their hands, and shouted with the voice of triumph "in their hearts?"  I have heard of symbolic language in the book of Revelation, even in the poetry of the Psalms, but not thought that the descriptions of physical involvement of worship in that book were meant to be symbolic.  We should all agree that God is the audience of worship, and neither the people out in the congregation who watch us on the platform, nor the worshipers who stand next to us in the pew, are the ones we should be most concerned about.
    It is my contention that the European quest for order, silence, control, contemplation, and intellectual "piling on" were much more cultural than Biblical.  Making rules that people should not clap in worship might be more a violation of the Regulative Principal than conformity to it.  We resist applause of people but have never taught our people how to express joyful adoration of God with clapping.  Where do we get the idea that a pipe organ is more Biblical than a stringed instrument?  How do we excuse a talented organist from running up and down the scales at an offertory and justify that he (or she) is not showing off?
    I love organ music, I love old hymns with six, eight or more verses.  But as my wife points out, sometimes it is exhausting to try and catch all that theology passing by so quickly in a hymn.   They might be good for memorization and contemplation when you have time, but it is difficult to believe that all of us singing are digesting at that moment every thought that those great hymn writers are throwing at us. Contrasted with Gospel music which seems to settle on one or a few themes, and sings them a lot.  I wonder if anybody back in old Israel complained when they first heard Psalm 136 sung and performed?  Maybe they said, "that 'His Love Endures Forever' part was so repetitive!"  Maybe we need to hear one idea sung over and over again so we might "get it" while we are still at church?
    So much of our preaching is unmoving, unemotional, calling for no heart response.  We desire intellectual stimulation, we are enamored of erudition.  Please give us a great quote, one from an early church father, one from Calvin, or a real treat is a Westminster divine or early Princeton, get a contrast quote from a noted Atheist or current news magazine, and then something pithy from C.S.Lewis.  The preacher knows if you are with him if you hold your chin in your hand, frown in deep concentration, and when he makes a salient point you grunt.  Wouldn't it be great one Sunday for people to start tearing their clothes and grabbing onto the pews, bursting into tears, crying out to God, shouting "amen?" If you are horrified by such a prospect I might suggest that you have never had "church."
    Classical music, European music forms, are all wonderful and all that is used to help us worship God and that is in conformity with Scripture and points us to Christ is part of our heritage of worship.  But Africa sometimes seems closer to Israel than Europe especially in the use of emotion and body when it comes to worship.  We are deprived of joy not to have learned worship in other cultural forms, not to have experienced a fuller and richer encounter with God.  Even my language at this point can cause someone a problem who is used to worship not as an experience but as thinking.  He seeks worshipers, the Father does, in Spirit and in Truth.
    So much of our Presbyterian worship seems to be constructed that we make no mistakes, have no enthusiasm, no crowd participation.  It seems so different from that described in Corinth, where it seems Paul assumed there might be error but trusted the saints to deal with it on the spot and did not seek to set up a system where such error could never take place.  I must confess that I enjoy being the pastor of a church that has so many theologically astute people, along with so many various ethnic and cultural representatives, that though we might have great participation, enthusiasm, and joy we have no fear that error will go by unnoticed or failed to be confronted.
    I confess to being a praise and worship junky.  I love to worship the living and true God, who is thrice holy, bathed in his love and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.  I enjoy God, and even the bittersweet pain of confessing my sin and crying out for mercy is resolved in the absolute pleasure of the reassurance of the Cross, the Resurrection, and the rule of Jesus.  I love being in the company of the saints when they are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, yet seek to express it with shouts of joy, amens, and hallelujahs.  I wish all of us could expand to a full life worship (mind, soul, and body) while grounded on the Word.  What a pleasure church would be to us, what an attraction to those in soulful need.  Won't heaven be something?
    

My name is Lance Lewis

My name is Lance Lewis and I am not an adulterer. I’ve been blessed to be married to my dear, godly wife for just over 26 years and in all that time I have never touched another woman in an inappropriate manner. In fact, I have never sent a letter, email, facebook, or text message to another woman that in any way suggested any kind of inappropriate relationship. Moreover, I have never spoken on the phone or in person with another woman and either suggested, asked for or in any way encouraged any kind of adulterous relationship whether physical or emotional. In over 26 years of marriage I have never, no not once had sex or any kind of sexual contact with another woman. My name is Lance Lewis and I am not an adulterer.

My name is Lance Lewis and I am not a murderer. I’ve lived for over 47 years and in all that time I have never so physically harmed another individual that he or she physically expired. In fact, I have never even threatened or put myself in the position in which I could have actually murdered someone. Moreover, I’ve never physically harmed someone to the extent that they were even remotely near dying. My name is Lance Lewis and I am not a murderer.

At this point you may have all kinds of thoughts about me. But let me take the conversation in a different direction. To begin with please take my above statements at face value and accept them as true, since in fact they are. In 26 years of marriage I have never engaged in physical intimacy with any woman except my wife. In my 47 years on this earth I have never murdered a single, solitary human being. Now let’s extend these statements just a bit. As far as I know no one in my circle of friends, associates, acquaintances, church members etc. is presently engaged in, condones, practices or promotes adultery. My guess is that most if not all would repudiate such a practice and if I were to ask them if it was a good idea for me to indulge just once would give the ‘brother are you crazy look’.

Since I’ve never committed adultery and no one in my circle of contacts is actively engaged in nor promotes adultery as a lifestyle or even an occasional practice then why in the world should I be in any way concerned with those who do? Does their determination to practice adultery truly threaten my marriage and if so how? Let’s face it, Scripture teaches that people are totally depraved. And while that doesn’t mean they’re as bad off as they could be, it does mean that a certain part of the general unregenerate populace will view occasional adultery as an acceptable way to live. So once more I ask: of what concern of mine is that?

But Lance isn’t the church a witness to our society of the gospel and its implications? And shouldn’t that witness include not only your personal fidelity within marriage but a proactive witness that publicly promotes marital fidelity and the joys of physical intimacy within the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman? Yes it does. Not only that but I’m sure that many believers would have little or no problem hearing their pastor talk openly about the joys of marriage, the seriousness of the marital covenant and the destructive evils of adultery from the pulpit. Why is that true? It’s true because marital fidelity (or for that matter the preservation of life) is one of those foundational biblical truths which not only tell us something significant about the living God but provides a key and pathway to our witness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Viewed from this vantage point adultery is not just an isolated sin that some other people commit out there, but a relevant issue on which the living God speaks and therefore an opportunity for me to be a proactive witness concerning His character and His gospel.

Consequently then, it’s simply not enough to declare that I’ve never committed adultery. The mission mandate of the gospel compels me to declare the biblical commands and joys of marital fidelity from the pulpit, during bible study, in the men’s group, to our youth and wherever else it’s needed. In fact I declare God’s standards of marriage to His people not because I really believe they are chomping at the bit to dash from church and fling themselves into adultery but because among other things it’s likely that they might know someone who neither holds to nor has any desire to hold to God’s command concerning sexuality. In this way I hope to equip them to handle the co-worker who is eager to share the latest salacious joke on Monday morning, the poison of pornography that’s a mouse click away and Lord forbid that sensitive situation that could easily get out of hand and lead to disaster. So in short that’s why I and my denomination must acknowledge the societal sin of adultery, preach against and equip those we serve to be a proactive witness for the joys and blessings of physical intimacy within the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman.

Now where were we?

My name is Lance Lewis and I am not a racist. I do not hate white people and as far as I know wish them no harm or ill will.

To Him Who Loves Us...

Pastor Lance

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE NEW TOTALITARIANISM

 SOME THOUGHTS ON WHERE THINGS ARE GOING…

As if someone thought that marriage needed a legal defense; as if thousands of years ago someone should have said, “hey, if we don’t codify this in law, this being the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, well then the title married can be given to anybody living in a relationship.”

    The framers of the constitution didn’t think that was necessary, therefore it must be that homosexuals have a right to marriage; because the framers did think to make people equal under the law. 

   That is almost as silly as to think that the framers should have thought to mention that unborn children should be protected human beings.  Since they didn’t think of it, and didn’t mention that pregnancy does not involve only one person, but three, and didn’t mention that if technology allows a choice it is not solely about her own body but actually involves the life and body of another, well then it is obvious, “legally” the baby is not protected, and the mother’s “right to privacy” is protected.  It is ironic that they didn’t really mention the right to privacy either.

   If Law is King while being obtuse (lacking sensibility) Law thus becomes nonsense.  To detach law from all the cultural and historical understandings on which it is built does not make it progressive, it makes it incendiary.  It in fact releases us from the moral, social consensus, and constraint we had hoped Law would give us and brings us back to violence, self-interest, tribalism, and sectarian opinion.  We face this problem in criminal law when murders and perpetrators of horrendous crimes are let go or not arrested for “technical” reasons or sophistries.  What was meant to protect us from vigilantism and taking the “law into our own hands” does in fact push us to just that reality.  The very phrase “law into our own hands” implies there is another Law other than the ones used by the system.  This is the Law by which human beings have operated since we have had some moral sense, that there is justice and that there is injustice.  That blood cries out for blood, that innocents raped and mutilated must have some kind of vengeance to show that their life was worthwhile, otherwise the dead die in silence and all we are allowed to hear is the whining of the criminal and our hearts are deceived into bleeding for him.

    We are in the midst of political game playing, and the game is played with law, but it is not the Law by which our civilization and culture were framed.  This is a run-a-way freight train, and the people in the engine care not for the ways the tracks have been laid. 

    In California was it necessary for a judge simply to ignore thousands of years of human and moral history and tell us that is not a legal argument?  We ask with incredulity and sarcasm, “No kidding?” Legal arguments should not be needed for some things.  This was the very basis of the moral suasion pressed upon us in the fight against slavery and the fight against racial segregation.  It was not an argument based on laws, but upon a greater Law, and thus upon the very basis of morality.  Without that moral suasion America could not have been changed as to its racial laws and culture.

     Religious arguments are dismissed as having no force of Law.  They will come back in force and no matter what Jurists say the advocacy of their Truth will remain.  We have had too much of a small powerful and well financed group of hedonistic individuals pressing for the redefinition of their lifestyle as normative.  Though it seems to have always existed, it has always existed as perverse, unnatural, immoral, and biologically unproductive.  Ironically it suffers from the damnation of both evolutionary and religious dogma; that is the historical case.

    Gay Right activists undermine moral judgment in our body politic by appealing to something very dear to Americans, and that is our concept of justice.  Freedom and justice (in the minds of many people) is directly equated with morality.  However, a behavior that is intrinsically immoral cannot by its legalization produce justice but will in the end deprive all of us of it. They have a moral case that no one should dehumanize them and no one should physically attack and harm them.  Human Rights should always be maintained, even for those we might despise, but immorality is not a right.  My argument has nothing to do with hating people, and it is no doubt difficult for some to hate certain behaviors while still loving the people involved.  I am sure it is equally difficult for others to hear that their behavior is hated and still feel loved. If their behavior is indeed immoral then their behavior should not be tolerated, nor protected, and certainly not celebrated.

     If our country is forced to codify everything upon which our morality and culture has been built we are in for one tedious ride.  To correct this it may mean a clean sweep of all legislators who would dare to allow evil in the name of civil rights so that it makes a mockery of our decency and humanity. 

    I realize how those in opposition to my views can seek to make this the cry of a hypocrite. The press and popular media always seems to make a moral voice a target by assuming that such a voice sets itself up as self-righteous and without sin.  I am enough of an experienced sinner, living in the midst of sinners to know that immoral people can still have moral voices.  We all have clay feet, we all have sexual struggles and temptations.  The debate on homosexuality has made it so that homosexuals can have no hypocrisy, their behavior has become sacrosanct.  What a farce.  Adultery is wrong, and always will be wrong.  Yet sexual promiscuity among homosexuals is well, just being homosexual.  We will demand resignations of Senators caught in adultery, especially Republicans, and get it.  But yet it seems the other party is cut quite a bit of slack in their personal morality.  We in fact recalibrate morality so as not to sound self-righteous.

   We have spent a good amount of time in the military trying to protect women from the natural and normal amorous advances of men by seeking to professionalize them, and by making the boundary lines clear between normal socialization and that of fraternization and stalking.  What will do about homosexuals who are free to pursue their love targets?  Will it be against the law to deprive them of their “natural” right to hit on other men or other women?

    Moral voices need to come out of the closet, or the sound proof room at any rate.  We have a great amount of our population forming moral opinions while lost in moral ambiguity, and this is where the game is played out.  Our younger generation is deceived by the pseudo intellectualized power of mockery, satire, and ridicule riding the horse of supposed oppression. The media is not an open forum, and seeks to create the drumbeat of inevitable progress against ‘homophobia.”  To have a discordant opinion is to be slandered, shamed, and silenced. 

    There is no New World to which we can run away and start over again, we are not going to colonize Mars so that we won’t have to put up with this nastiness.  If we allow this 1.5 percent of the population to overwhelm us maybe we have no right to a country where we really will have freedom of religion.  The enforcement, and it is a totalitarian enforcement, of the acceptance of homosexuality deprives the rest of us of our right to freedom of religion and our freedom of speech.  We are taught at a very early age in this country that our forefathers fought and died to preserve those rights. Homosexual marriage is part of the construction of an edifice of normality for that which is immoral, and should always be considered abnormal, and that construction must not only be hindered it must be destroyed.

Randy Nabors, August 2010/Posted 2011