"Sanctify them in the truth..."

This Sunday's reading from John 17:6-19 usually loses me as Jesus prays for his disciples. This time I tried to take a third and fourth read through, and while the form and structure bogs me dowm, verse 17 seemed to stand out.

6 ‘I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; 8 for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. 9 I am asking on their behalf; I am not asking on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those whom you gave me, because they are yours. 10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them. 11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and I speak these things in the world so that they may have my joy made complete in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. 15 I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. 16 They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.

In the course of the prayer, Jesus has three "asks",

1. "protect them in your name that you have given me"
2. "protect them from the evil one"
3. "Sanctify them in the truth"

The first ask, "protect them in your name that you have given me", is a prayer for general protection probably from the world that hates them. Note the name God has given Jesus is God's name so when we pray in the name of Jesus, we are praying in the name of God.

The second ask, "protect them from the evil one", appears to refer to Satan, the existence of whom many would deny. To the deniers I would have to say that if they don't believe Jesus, then there is nothing I can say to convince them.

The third ask, "Sanctify them in the truth", opens up the discussion over the meaning of "sanctify" and how one might be sanctified in truth.

Time for a trip to "Theopedia",

"Sanctification, or in its verbal form, sanctify, literally means 'to set apart' for special use or purpose, that is, to make holy or sacred. Therefore, sanctification refers to the state or process of being set apart, i.e. made holy. In systematic theology, the term often carries a technical meaning that differs from the biblical word group. Sanctification is regularly equated with the Christian life. In Wesleyan theology, it can refer to a moment of 'Entire Sanctification,' in which one reaches a state of Christian Perfection."

So I read "sanctify in truth" to mean "set aside" because they have been in the presence of truth and they will have the truth in them when Jesus' prayer is answered. I wonder if the upcoming descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was a moment of "entire sanctification".

"In Christianity, the term can be used to refer to objects which are set apart for special purposes, but the most common use within Christian theology is in reference to the change brought about by God in a believer, begun at the point of salvation or justification and continuing throughout the life of the believer. Many forms of Christianity believe that this process will only be completed in Heaven when believers are also glorified, but some believe that complete holiness is possible in this life."

Progressive sanctification means that rather than a moment of "Entire Sanctification" most of us have to settle for a lifelong process which is a good thing as well,

"Indeed, the more sanctified the person is, the more conformed he is to the image of his Savior, the more he must recoil against every lack of conformity to the holiness of God. The deeper his apprehension of the majesty of God, the greater the intensity of his love to God, the more persistent his yearning for the attainment of the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, the more conscious will he be of the gravity of the sin that remains and the more poignant will be his detestation of it....Was this not the effect in all the people of God as they came into closer proximity to the revelation of God’s holiness." -John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied

The process of being "set apart" begins the moment you begin to follow Jesus. I think it is a process because we are always straying from his path.  

Utopian Thinking, Social Justice, and Immigration

A recent mailing from the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina focused more on "Social Justice" than sharing the Gospel of Christ. How do I know? I searched and searched for Jesus' name and could not find it anywhere in the E-DUSC News.  Instead, there was a prominent photo of Bishop Waldo gazing Jesus-like out a window with the title, "Door of Return: Racial Truth and Reconciliation Pilgrimage to Ghana" set beneath his countenance.

I don't think the Bishop had to go all the way to Ghana to find "racial truth", whatever that means, or reconciliation for that matter. All he had to do is walk a few blocks from his office in Columbia, SC, and he could have found plenty of opportunities for both.

At least in Columbia, African Americans and Euro-Americans for the most part share a common belief in Jesus. That is an excellent starting point for reconciliation. I am not sure that the Episcopal sect's version of Christianity has a lot in common with African American Christianity however. Bishop Waldo might have a harder time reconciling his version of Christianity with his neighbors than he will with reconciling the racial truth that his diocese is largely made up of aging lily white, upper income liberals whose zeal for social justice is tepid at best and misguided at worst.

In Europe, social justice warriors welcomed waves of Muslim immigrants which has created all kinds of problems. In America, our social justice shills would also embrace such an incoming tide. Is it any wonder that American Muslims "constitute a strongly Democratic constituency. Three-quarters of Muslim voters say they cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election" according to a Pew survey.  The major problems with the American Left accepting Muslims into their party are that Islam is not a reconciling religion, and the Islamic vision of social justice as well as the Islamic vision of Utopia stand in stark contrast to the visions of the both the secular and religious Left and the visions of conservative Christian believers.
. 

From Crisis Magazine comes this, 

"Europe’s utopian experiment in immigration isn’t working out because Europe’s leaders never took sufficient account of the extreme differences among cultures. They never understood that many of the migrants were traveling not just from different lands but, in effect, from different centuries. Moreover they seemed to be ignorant of what the Catechism says about man’s “wounded nature inclined to evil.” Still living off the accumulated moral capital of Christendom, they couldn’t envision a London that would become the acid attack capital of the world, or an England where the term “Shropshire lad” would conjure up an image not of late nineteenth century rural youth, but of a Pakistani gang rapist (Telford is in Shropshire)." - Are the Vast Majority of People Moderate? by William Kilpatrick

Thankfully, our Latino immigrants share with us a Christian worldview and heaven-view, and while illegal immigration is still illegal, reconciliation is possible, unlike the situation in Europe. Our immigrants must however learn that America, while an improvement from their lawless countries, is not Utopia.

It is natural for us to long to fix the world through social justice crusades. It is also natural for us to desire Utopia.

The problem is that due to our fallen nature, everybody has their own unique idea of how to go about creating Utopia. We have forgotten that God is the only one who can and who will will make the world right again for us just as He has promised.

C.S. Lewis pointed this out very well in "Mere Christianity" when he wrote,

“The Christian says, 'Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or to be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that country and to help others to do the same.”― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

We all desire the same thing, that heavenly country to which Lewis refers, but we have to realize that we are not going to be able to create God's kingdom on Earth no matter how many social justice movements we support.  And if anyone tries to create Utopia, they will probably be merely less than Christian, following their own vision, and they will probably have to impose their ideal through the use of force in order to get the rest of us to go along.

And of course, all man made attempts to create Utopia fail.

"When misguided longings for heaven or Eden enter the public square, there is a utopian overreach that results in deleterious consequences in the political, economic, and social spheres of life. Utopian overreach results in dystopian outcomes." (Crisis Magazine, Why The Left is So Seductive by Jonathan B. Coe.)

How Do We Go About Loving One Another?

Today, most churches using the Revised Common Lectionary will hear John 15:9-17,

9 As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.
12 ‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 I do not call you servants* any longer, because the servant* does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. 16 You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. 17 I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.

In this Sunday's Gospel reading, Jesus gives one important command to his disciples, to love one another as He loved them (v. 12), but he also mentions that there are other commandments to keep as well (v. 10).

The problem that modern listeners have is that when they hear the word "love", they associate it more with "acceptance", and "tolerance" than having to lay down their lives for another person. Sure, there are some who appear to be ready to die wrapped in a rainbow colored flag in support of the LGBTQetc., but I would bet that many more would not go that far.

The question I pose is this, how tolerant, and how accepting is Jesus's love for us?

Let us be reminded that Jesus had some harsh words for his opponents and even his disciples. He could not tolerate or accept the money changers in the Temple. Peter was scolded by Jesus when he told Peter, "Get thee behind me Satan". 

The loving Father corrects us when we are wrong, and we don't like to be corrected.

But that also is love.

So, when we try to love one another, should we be silent when we see our friend straying from God's commandments? If we do nothing, is it out of fear of losing a friendship or damaging our reputation? Remembering that we should be willing to lay down our life for that person, all fear should be cast aside.

This Freedom March Will Not Appear on the Nightly News

There will be an important event this week, and it is not Cinco de Mayo. In fact, this important celebration will likely go un-reported by the main stream media. I am talking about the "Freedom March" on May 5, 2018 in Washington D.C.. 

The Freedom March is a celebration of formerly homosexual or transgender people who have found a new life in Christ. They describe the event as,

"Speakers and a march celebrating freedom from homosexual/transgender lifestyles by the grace and power of Jesus Christ!"

What a fabulous idea.

If you visit their Facebook page (which will probably be banned in California under a newly proposed law) , you will find several encouraging testimonials from ex-homosexual and ex-transgender persons. For example,

"From the Freedom March worship leader, Edward Byrd:
It has been 6 years since I went from confused, broken, afraid, lost, full of pain and disappointment. I was running around searching for fulfillment in an any man that would pay me attention.
(Giving Myself Away) I transitioned to Remi. I was stripping, doing drugs, overdosing, living recklessly, and searching for something to make me whole. Nothing could fill the emptiness no matter how many times I drowned myself in bottles of alcohol trying to escape the pain!!
It wasn’t until I RAN INTO JESUS that the chains broke and blinders fell off and I was able to see him, his love and who he created me to be! 🚨Hear 👂🏾the story here! —> http://smarturl.it/EBMRanIntoYou
So Excited to be doing Worship for the 🌈 FREEDOM MARCH! 🌈"

Of course this goes completely against the narrative that our revisionist friends in "progressive" sects have been pushing for decades, that people are born homosexual or trans.

Thank God for giving us examples of people like the Freedom March. 

Don't Get Burned

It will be more difficult for preachers to avoid the warning contained in this Sunday's Gospel reading than it was last Sunday.

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine-grower. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit. You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples." John 15:1-8

Revisionist preachers will talk about being fruitful, which to them means going out and marching in gay pride parades or some such foolishness. They will scrupulously avoid talk about being burned in fire unless they can somehow twist that to mean all who oppose their radical sexual agenda will be tossed into the flames.

I will be the first to admit that I have been unfruitful, and that I am fit to be tied up and tossed into the fire, but I know that in spite of my sins, Jesus will still be there as my advocate with the Father, and who could ask for a more perfect advocate.

Consent Based Morality: When What is Always Wrong is Sometimes Okay

Several recent flaps brought the issue of "consent based morality" to my attention. What I mean by "consent based morality" is that any given action can be deemed morally correct or morally wrong based on whether or not consent is given. For example, if both spouses agree to permit one or more extramarital affairs, then society has permitted this and has even given it a name, "open marriage". If one partner in the marriage has not consented to such an arrangement, the extramarital affair is not okay and is called "adultery" or "grounds for divorce".

Looking around, we see that Facebook has been selling data which, although people knowingly have put it out there for the world to see, has angered people who believe that they have not consented to sharing. In other words, it was okay for me to stupidly share pictures of my family, or to share my personality test results, or political views, but under consent based morality it was not okay for Facebook to do so.

My friend Tim Fountain posted a couple of thoughts which led me to point out that consent based morality is at play in how the media treats issues of human sexuality,

"Serious question. We are urged to work against human trafficking, a term which obviously connotes something negative. Yet I keep seeing news articles using what appear to be value neutral terms like pornstar, sex workers, stripper, etc.
It seems to me that the commentariat can't make up its mind. On the one hand, commercialized sex is seen (rightly, in my opinion) as systemic exploitation and degradation.
But every so often (maybe because the commentariat are part of the system?) terms are used that seem to support 'alternative narratives' familiar to those of us who grew up in the porn addled 70s: 'Victimless crime,' 'liberation,' and, most ironic IMO, 'female empowerment.'
Or maybe incoherence is just part of the fallen world in which we all live."

The media is unknowingly using consent based morality in the reporting of most cases of sexual immorality these days. The elevation of Stormy Daniels to major celebrity status for what the media would like to consider an alleged illicit affair with private citizen Trump who gets condemned because he did not have the consent of his spouse, while no condemnation of Ms. Daniels' day to day occupation, is to be seen anywhere. In addition, her paid occupation is considered consensual sex, but her payment to keep quiet is considered non-consensual because it was not "properly" signed.

Tim Fountain also posted a follow up further illustrating my point,

"While the NY Post offers this article, HBO's series 'The Deuce,' produced by and starring Maggie Gyllenhall, takes a nostalgic stroll through the mainstreaming of porn in 70s NYC. The Gyllenhall character really seems to be pushing a 'porn is female empowerment' riff - at least in the couple of episodes I watched. Likewise pimps are cool, soulful guys just hoping for a better life. Maybe the series goes on to show the emptiness of all this... maybe not. But it's weird how the media will one minute howl about human trafficking and porn, and the next minute use terms like pornstar and sex worker as value neutral or even worthy of social norming."

Crisis Magazine provided the next example,

"A few years ago, personal nude photos of the actress Jennifer Lawrence, intended for her boyfriend, were hacked and published publicly. Naturally, she was devastated and attempted to remove the photos. However, within a month, she posed nude for a series of magazine covers to 'educate people about the importance of consent.' The reason why it was wrong to have the first set of photos on the web was because she had never consented. The second set–although equally private in nature–were perfectly fine because she had consented.
Is posing in the nude for a magazine cover any more virtuous when it is done with knowledge and consent? The action is wrong because it does real harm: to oneself and to others. It objectifies the body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit. It hurts relationships with loved ones: no loving parent or partner is open-minded enough to support such behavior as “her choice” (though some may claim to be). And of course, it degrades the morals of society, setting a bad example for teen girls and an even worse temptation for teen boys."

The article from Crisis Magazine scores a couple of good points here,

"...Consent is a flimsy basis for a morality system. When the same action is right or wrong based simply upon the answer 'yes' or 'no,' people are able to rationalize bad behavior much more easily..."

and,

"...a morality system based on right and wrong rather than consent results in a society where many a man, finding himself alone in a room or an elevator with a woman he is not married to, would not make sexual advances toward her, wanted or unwanted, because he knows the action itself to be wrong. In this sort of moral system, what a person should or should not do is much easier to understand because there can be an objective, logical explanation for why an action is good or bad, and thus in-the-moment rationalizations of bad behavior are harder to justify. A consent-based morality system removes all of the logic in favor of purely subjective individual preference, and social chaos ensues."

While much of consent based morality involves human sexual behavior, I can see this going on in other spheres as well. Take the recording and then the publishing of contents of private conversations for example. The leaking of political or classified documents is a similar sin/not sin depending on one's political point of view.

While people ridicule a morality system based on Christianity as old fashioned and not keeping up with the times, it is the system which God has deemed best for us.

If we hope to avoid the pitfalls of consent based morality, we just have to consent to follow Jesus. 

So many hired hands

This Sunday's reading, John 10:11-18, is usually preached focusing on  the good shepherd,

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away—and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. The hired hand runs away because a hired hand does not care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father."

Most sermons will totally ignore the story of the hired hands, for good reason.

I have seen so many hired hands occupying leadership roles in various churches that it no longer surprises me when I hear of a priest, bishop, or archbishop abandoning Jesus' teaching on marriage or his teaching on the relationship between men and women. These leaders have either bought into the arguments supporting same-sex marriage or they have no backbone to stand up for what the Bible has to say about it.

Clergy with no backbones, like so many hired hands.