Communion: A bit of a rant

As pastor of a church, I get all kinds of advertising targeted my way. Apparently, we have made such consumers of our churches that there is plenty of money to be made from us, but that’s for another day.

Specifically today I want to fume a bit about the subject line of an email that came through the SPAM filter. While I know, overall, what they were actually selling, the subject line was irritating. What was it?

“There is still time to save on Communion!”

Yep. After earlier emails about “Saving on Communion” and “Discount on Communion,” this one has pushed me to the rant level. Addressing the practical idea, first, though: there are no pre-packaged wafer/juice combos that are more financially beneficial than a large bottle of 100% juice (for us Baptists) and some homemade bread. Given that I haven’t seen any pre-packs that include wine (I haven’t looked, though), I don’t think the Presbyterians are looking to save a buck anyway.

This has me concerned about something else, though. I commented above about the spending ourselves into a consumer church culture, and the idea that the Lord’s Supper, or Communion, or the Eucharist, is something we have allowed to get wrapped into this.

Seriously? I can understand price-checking on the microphones and the batteries for them. For bulletin blanks or for paper towels, sure we should shop cheap.

But even down here in the Symbolic/Memorial Camp, never mind the folks in the Real Presence or Consubstantiation Camps, we should be coming to the Table of the Lord with “financial savings” so far from our minds that it does not even darken the door.

First of all, this is Communion we are talking about. Based on my reading of history, part of the first generation of Christians’ problem with society was cannibalism for participating in Communion. Since the bread and the cup were referred to as the Body and Blood of the Lord, those looking to take offense saw this as a great offense. Christians were eating people!

From that point forward, there have been people who have risked their lives to take the bread and the cup. LIVES. Are we actually worried about how well this fits into our budgets?

Second of all, this is Communion we are talking about. It is the reminder of our Lord and Savior and part of the heritage of Christians all the way back to before the Cross. BEFORE THE CROSS, PEOPLE! We do not know for certain that we would have kept baptizing had Jesus not commanded it after the resurrection, but we know He commanded the Supper that night!

What price is too high for the church to take part in this observance? Even for those of us who see it as ordinance and not sacrament? (Leaving that discussion aside, for now.)

Are we really sure that sitting in business session and saying, “Well, church that is all the redeemed of all the age, if we can get 10% more off, we’ll join you at the Lord’s Table.”? I doubt it. I know of no church, anywhere, that willfully ignores Christ’s command to take, eat, in remembrance of Him. None.

Third, and most importantly, this is Communion we are talking about. Jesus paid for this. With His body, broken for us, and His blood, poured out for us. The general fact that we can bring our sinful selves to His table should humble us to the point of not thinking of saving a buck.

It is the cost He paid for the Table that saved us!

That’s just my rant on this subject. We will be celebrating the Lord’s Supper this Sunday at Almyra Baptist. We will invite all those who have publicly professed “Jesus is Lord” and been baptized to join us at the Lord’s Table. Not because we got a good deal on juice and crackers.

Because it is the opportunity for us to remember and participate not only with the body that is present, but the with body for all the ages, and with Him whose body was given for us.

Headed for Columbus Day

This weekend is Columbus Day weekend. Also known as “No, you can’t have any mail, or go to the bank because, well, something” weekend. It’s an interesting day.

First, you have various municipalities (Seattle made the news on it this year) declaring it “Indigenous People’s Day” because they feel Columbus was bad for the Indigenous People of the North American Continent. No word yet on when they plan on returning their municipalities completely to the aforementioned Indigenous People groups. Or why, given that anything in the US north of Florida was explored and occupied by the English and French who followed different routes than Columbus, they hold Columbus responsible.

For that matter, second, Columbus was not the first European in North America. In fact, he hit Caribbean islands. There were Norse in America 400 years before Columbus, and possibly Celts before them! Nobody seems to hate on Leif Erickson. Or think about the fact that history is, generally, the story of various tribes conquering other tribes and taking their land. All the dadgum time. Anybody still mad at William the Conqueror? Calling for the Roman Empire to get Gaul back? Nope.

Third, Columbus was not the only one to think the Earth was round. That’s a myth that needs killed dead. Most of those who refused to back his voyage did so because they knew the Earth was round. They also knew the Earth was big. Why? They had read Eratosthenes, the Greek who measured the circumference of the sphere of the Earth.

Around 240 BC.

1700 years before Columbus (240+1492=1732) set sail. Eratosthenes made some errors, like assuming the Earth a perfect sphere, but he established then that the Earth was round.
Columbus assumed that Eratosthenes was wrong on the size, and figured he could get to Asia. Those who wouldn’t front him the ships and cash? They knew it was really, really far…and figured he could not survive that long at sea.

So, Columbus Day is a holiday to celebrate a man who didn’t believe historical geography, who didn’t discover America, and who didn’t actually know where he was.

Which explains perfectly why it’s an American Federal Holiday. It describes our government to perfection. They don’t know where they are, how they got there, or what they’re doing.

It does not explain why it’s the same day as Canadian Thanksgiving.

Signs and Wonders: Deuteronomy 13

In Summary: Signs and wonders, wonders and signs. What shall we do with them all? This question raises its head in the modern day, but it goes all the way back into Deuteronomy 13.

Actually, it goes back further, but there’s an important context to grasp here. God has shown His approval of Moses through signs and wonders. Further, these accompanied Aaron as High Priest and Joshua as successor to Moses.

But we also saw in the Exodus narrative that the magicians of Egypt were able to do some miraculous acts as well. What is the difference? After all, if God is all-powerful, then are not any signs and wonders an attestation to His approval?

In Focus: The people of Israel at this point in the story have seen a lot, but they are about to cross over into the Promised Land. The Word of God that Moses will give them holds the guidance for their society.

But what if someone comes along and pushes them to consider other gods? It is one thing, of course, for someone to spout obvious nonsense and have no power to back it up. That person will readily be ignored, and perhaps given a great deal of opportunity to change his ways.

The real threat is from the one who pops up and does a miracle or two, who nails a prophecy just right, and then says “See! God said we should pitch this Torah and party like it’s 1999!” (BC, in Mesopotamia). This threat will not be so easy to counter.

The test of this prophet, or dreamer, is to be whether or not his instructions pass the test of fidelity to the existing words of YHWH, the One True God. That is the pass/fail, even if this prophet calls the next eclipse, flood, or football result. He is a false prophet, not false in foretelling but false in truth telling, a far weightier matter. His power is being allowed by God, but he himself is not honoring God in his actions (See Balaam in Numbers or Caiaphas in John!)

The remainder of the chapter wraps up the results for both the false prophet and those who fall to his ideas. Execution. It is that simple, for a land with unified religion and state sees apostasy as treason.

In Practice: For certain, this is not our appropriate response. We rightly and joyously live in a land with a separation between church and state, though there is much debate about how that fleshes out. Fortunately we do not see apostasy and treason lined up together in America. (I would add a “yet,” pending our complete shift to secularism as the official religion, but that would make me a ‘nutter’ in some views.)

Why do we not execute the false prophet merely on religious grounds? Because Jesus died for the false prophet as well as for you and I, and so we do not pursue death for spiritual sin. I would argue, but will not develop, that the Christian response to any sin is not execution, though the State may construct and command that response. That’s for another day.

Just because there is no execution for false prophecy does not mean there should be no consequences. Let us take the false prophets of today and consider their lives.

We enable their lives. We buy their books, watch their shows, attend their conferences. We even legitimize their falsehoods by inviting the false prophet to debate rather than rebuke.

What signs and wonders do we fall for?

Many of my Baptist brethren would argue that we do not fall for false healings or future-telling, as we are far smarter than our charismatic brethren who do fall for these. Yet we have our own signs and wonders that we fall for in the “practical” department.

After all, how long has it taken us to realize that the wonder of filling a church in an unchurched area does not mean a person is a qualified preacher? Much less qualified to inspire and draw followers across Baptist-land?

Or we fall for the sign of “he won the election,” be it the business meeting or the Annual Meeting, and say that we must follow. Even if the guidance is away from a trust in the Word of God, a commitment in following the Lord Jesus Christ.

This was the apostasy that Moses warned about in Deuteronomy 13. That the people who should serve the Lord are convinced to follow their feelings of inspiration instead of the inspired Word of God.

While we ought not execute the false prophet, we must stop enabling him as well. Just because he looks good and sounds good does not mean his preaching is not death. Stop buying the books. Stop going to the conferences, realizing that the “bathwater” is so toxic that no “baby” can survive it.

Whether a coalition or a network or even a convention endorses someone is not the test of their fidelity. Whether or not they sound good, or fill a room, or even if they prophesy accurately, it does not matter. The Word of God is the Word of God, and there is but one Mark, John, Luke, Paul, or Matthew who has written inspired Scripture.

Cut them off. Do it now, before it is too late.

In Nerdiness: Heavy enough without nerdiness, but here goes:

I have read a few times that the likely birth of many “religious” power groups has been the accurate foretelling of weather events. For example, nailing the rising of the Nile to flood stage or “blacking out the Sun” because a priest-wannabe knew the eclipse was coming.

In short, science. Being a step ahead in science but masking the process led to power over others. What do we do about that?

Learn science. Learn it well. And push for as much transparency as possible about not just the results, but the methods and models to get there.

Book: Songs of a Suffering King

<---It’s a book. Well, a picture of a book.

Songs of a Suffering King: The Grand Christ Hymn of Psalms 1-8 by J.V. Fesko takes those Psalms and examines their Christological concepts and unity. This is a small book, 124 pages in a 5x7 paperback. There are the expected intro/conclusion chapters and then one chapter for each Psalm.

Fesko first makes the case for the Psalms as an intentionally organized unit. His view is that the arrangement, including the order, of the Psalms is meant to tell a holistic story. This story foresees the Messiah, starting with Psalm 1.

From that point, Fesko examines the first 8 Psalms. He points out how they speak of Jesus, and each chapter is followed with discussion questions. These serve the reader well, reviewing material and driving application ideas.

It is important to note that Fesko’s work here is intended as devotional and not academic. To that end, some of his conclusions are not fully developed in the text. For example, his conclusion that the term “righteous” must only apply to Jesus is questionable in the Old Testament context. Given his scholarly work, I expect that Fesko has developed why this is the case, even with the references to Abraham or Job as “righteous.” A longer work with this information would be beneficial, though I understand that this is not the point.

An additional feature of each chapter is that the Psalm in view is presented at the end in metrical format. I am not musically versed enough to fully utilize the metrical information, but I can match it up with songs in the hymnal that I am familiar with. This is a great start toward utilizing the Psalms in worship.

Overall, I do not think that Fesko has presented the only possible way to understand these Psalms, but the idea he gives is excellent. Further, this work sparked my thinking. I find his take on Psalm 1 especially helpful, given that this Psalm presents a consistency of blessing that none of us see this side of the realized Kingdom.

In clarification, I’d like to have seen Fesko give a little more information on whether or not the “pick a collection” method of sorting Psalms is valuable or not. In the opening chapters, he specifically points out problems with not reading the Psalter as a straightforward collection, but in later chapters he points out which sub-collection some of the Psalms belong with. Again, this is likely a feature of the shorter length of the devotional treatment.

I have no qualms about suggesting this for a short-term Bible study if you need one. It allows a look at Jesus and the Psalms without ignoring the context of the latter.

I did request and receive this book for review without cost to me.

In a Hole in a Roof: Luke 5

In Summary: Luke 5 gives us a few quick hits:

1. We see the calling of the first disciples. This shows us Jesus as master of the fish of the sea…and Peter as cognizant of his own sinfulness.

2. We see the compassion of Jesus on the leper. 5:12 shows the leper express “if you are willing,” recognizing that Jesus has power. The leper simply wants to know His character.

3. We see the calling of a tax collector named Levi. Matthew gives us his other name as “Matthew,” and we see the connection. Why is it relevant? Tax collectors are societal outcasts, just as they were then. This shows us that Jesus accepted those who were outcast by convention as much as He did those outcast by their sin. He drew in those alienated from humanity and those alienated from God.

4. We see the disciples and Jesus feasting, rather than fasting. There is a time for both. Weep that Christ had to die for you, but celebrate that He is risen! He is risen indeed!

5. We see Jesus pointing out that times change, and once one gets over the shock, the new is seen as much better than the old.

In Focus: The center of the chapter is our focus for the day. Jesus is teaching. For once, it appears that the Pharisees and the teachers of the law are listening to Him. Yet during this teaching time, some friends bring a paralyzed man to Jesus to be healed.

We do not see a clear reason why they could not bring the man through the crowd. Perhaps the crowd was being rude. Perhaps the crowd was just so focused on Jesus that they did not notice the men carrying the stretcher. Whatever the case may be, the men are blocked. They then neither hesitate nor evacuate, but go to the roof and get the paralyzed man in front of Jesus. Their compassion takes the shape of a hole in a roof.

From Jesus’ reaction, we see that He has no argument with their actions. In fact, Luke records that it is “their” faith that Jesus saw before healing the man. That ties together the belief of the paralytic and his friends. Jesus goes on to make a significant point about His authority to forgive sin, one of His claims to Godhood, and His ability to heal.


In Practice: Let us take a moment in practice, though, to think about compassion that takes the shape of a hole in a roof. Consider all those you know who have need, and then stretch it out further. Consider those who you have heard of, and those you see mentioned in passing in the wide, wide world.

The reality is that the way is blocked for many of the good things we would do to help those around us. We know, as Christians, that one thing everyone needs is their sins forgiven, and only Jesus can do that. Beyond that, whether their need is healing or resurrection or hope, it all comes from the same One who can forgive.

What are we willing to do to get folks into the presence of Jesus? How many times do we stop because there’s a crowd in the way? Maybe it’s the crowds at our churches that keep us happy, slowing our effort to reach a lost world. Maybe it is the crowd of the wider world that pretends an interest in Christ, all the while blocking the one or two who would truly respond.

Maybe it is our own lack of faith. We do not trust that He can. Maybe it is our lack of creativity.

Maybe it’s just an unwillingness to cut holes in roofs, for fear that someone will get upset that we kicked up dust. But I will tell you this: the need has never been greater that others hear the Word, have their sins forgiven, and their lives healed.

Get out the saws and chisels, folks, because the doors are blocked. It’s time to cut our way in.


In Nerdiness: First, of course, is a bit of architecture. Houses had flat roofs, so it was an easy access.

Second, consider what this meant for the friends who cut the hole. They had to fix it.

Third, consider that the access-blocking crowd probably had their sermon time interrupted. Are we okay with that?

Sermon Recap for October 5

Good morning! Here are the sermons from Sunday, October 5, at Almyra Baptist Church. Next week, I should return to the more expanded outlines.

Morning Sermon: Temptation

Luke 4:1-13

Luke4:1-13 -Temptation

I. The First Temptation: Self-pity

II. The Second Temptation: Self-determination

III. The Third Temptation: Self-centering Scripture

Temptation: Luke 4:1-13 from Doug Hibbard on Vimeo.

Evening Sermon: The Sabbath

Mark 2:23-28

Mark 2:23-28 -RestAND worship, the purpose of the Sabbath

1. Acknowledge shift from Sabbath to Lord's Day

2. Purposes--serving the Lord, worship, renewal

October 5 PM from Doug Hibbard on Vimeo.

Concluding Notes:

1. I do have the rough audio of Sunday Night’s Q&A session, but I’m not sure yet that it’s useful for posting.

2. I am not sure how to improve video quality with the current equipment.

3. If you want to subscribe, here’s a list:

A. iTunes for audio subscription link is here.
B. General Audio RSS feed for other programs is here.
C. If you’re a Stitcher User, the link is here
D. For Vimeo Video, subscribe to this channel: https://vimeo.com/channels/almyrafbc
E. For Youtube Video, subscribe here: https://www.youtube.com/user/dheagle93/

4. Yes, I think I’m not getting a lot of plays on each service or hits on each blog, but in total it’s a decent reach. A social media expert might suggest changes, but this is free-to-cheap, where I have to live right now.

5. Each blog has a “Follow” button and a “Subscribe via Email” option

6. Follow on Facebook: Doug’s Page or the First Baptist Almyra Page

Pulpit Freedom Sunday 2014

In the last five years, a trend has risen of pastors deliberately poking the IRS bear. This trend began with Alliance Defending Freedom offering free legal aid to any church threatened by the IRS over their action, so more and more are taking ADF up on the offer. First, perhaps some background.

Going back to the 1950s, the law in the United States establishing income tax regulations and exemptions for non-profits has had a section, called the Johnson Amendment, that requires non-profits to avoid direct political participation. This was intended to prevent religious groups from using their tax-exempt status to politically fundraise without having to deal with election law. It was also authored by a Senator who had just barely won re-election and had been consistently called out for sinful and unethical behavior by churches and pastors in his home state. Lyndon Johnson, upon his return to the Senate, then made sure the tax laws prohibited churches and pastors from directly attacking him again.

Now it’s the established law. Oddly enough, the IRS has had more trouble from the atheist activist groups over non-enforcement of this on churches (and other religious groups) than the IRS has spent effort in enforcing it. That I am aware of, there has only been one application of the Johnson Amendment in recent years, and that was a one-year denial of tax-exemption for a church. It has been a paper tiger—atheist activists want it de-papered. They want churches investigated. Oddly enough, the ADF folks want the same thing.

Both groups want the IRS to come down on churches for political campaign involvement. Atheist groups want to make sure it stops, and the ADF wants a case they can take to the Supreme Court, believing that the IRS, and the Federal Government in general, has no grounds to muzzle the speech of churches and religious organizations. Their position is that a church (or religious group) is tax-exempt by nature and that the First Amendment protects our right to say whatever we want, so the Johnson Amendment needs to go.

The ADF just wants to find pastors who are willing to preach directly on politics and dare the IRS to sanction them. The IRS has not played ball for the past several years, simply letting it slip (apparently, they’ve been busy losing emails and audit-targeting conservatives) and hoping the issue goes away. Atheist activists have noticed, though, and have sued the IRS to force them to enforce the Johnson Amendment.

The IRS has promised to do more about enforcement, even allowing a few activist groups to give them information about where it needs enforced. I triple-dog-dare a few of them to make sure their list includes as many liberal non-churches and Muslim mosques as it does Christian churches and Jewish synagogues. I digress.

Enter the publicity for Pulpit Freedom Sunday 2014, slated for October 5. And enter the question: “Doug, are you going to preach on politics this Sunday?” (Yes, real question from several real people.)

The answer?

I preach on politics every Sunday.

Because I preach the Word of Almighty God. The Word of God transforms us, as Jesus works through His Word in the Bible to conform us. And that should have a major impact on our politics.

Now, am I dodging the question? Will I endorse a candidate from the pulpit?

I will not endorse a candidate while preaching a sermon. Not at all this year, and not likely ever.

Why?

I am vehemently pro-life. In fact, if you are reading this blog and considering an abortion, I urge you to reconsider. And to use the contact info to send me an email. We will rearrange this house and you can live with us until you have your child, and if you still don’t want that baby, we’ll take her/him and raise her/him as one of our own. And I preach that—and our church does what we can through groups like the Hope Women’s Center to help out.

I am strongly pro-freedom, including the right to be prepared to defend freedom from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have preached before on the need for righteous treatment of the stranger and alien (one comes from other countries..the other comes from ? ) I have preached and will preach on dozens of other issues.

But to pick a candidate? Let’s examine that:

For Governor of Arkansas, we have the choice between Mike Ross, career politician (by now, honestly) and Asa Hutchinson, career politician. Both have records that include good votes and bad votes, party-line behavior and independent-minded behavior. Because Governor Mike Beebe has behaved in this campaign as if he has the right to anoint Mike Ross his successor, I find Hutchinson less onerous than Ross. As much as a stick in the eye to the sitting politician who thinks dynastically as any other reason.

For Senator from Arkansas, we have the choice between Mark Pryor and Tom Cotton. One has a long record, filled with cronyism and party adherence. The other has a short record that he hasn’t had time to fill with cronyism. Cotton I find less onerous because he’s not the incumbent—and Pryor’s votes to confirm certain people have been pretty awful.

Should I take the message time of a worship gathering of God’s people and proclaim that “Thus sayeth the Lord: vote for this guy who is less onerous than the other one.” ?

I think not. I am not afraid to tell you here who I will vote for, and may develop other reasons to explain them. (Who isn’t my point here.) I am not afraid to say in discussions around church my political leanings.

But the pulpit?

You see, I do not believe I have freedom from the pulpit to proclaim that God has commanded certain candidates. It is not the IRS that I fear when I step up there—I’ll gladly point out that taxation through confusion and compulsion is wicked—it is the Lord God Almighty.

Should I take the opportunity, rare that it is, to speak to the flock about the Word of God and give them something that is not there? True, the fact that many Christians give 1/336 of their week to learning the Word of God is a major discipleship problem, but will I solve that by endorsing Leslie Rutledge for Attorney General of Arkansas?

Not likely.

Will I address someone’s greedy by endorsing a candidate or proclaiming what the Word of the Lord says about wealth? Should I preach for a legal minimum wage hike or for the employers in my hearing to do righteously for their workers because it is right in the eyes of the Lord?

Will I fix broken homes by endorsing candidates? Stop drug problems by recommending legislation?

I believe that the Word of God is the right solution—not the platforms of either major party in this country.

My freedom to preach is limited, but not by the IRS. It is limited to preaching those plain truths of the Word of God, to working to make disciples. Do I think that being a disciple informs how we vote?

Absolutely. But woe be unto me if I tell someone that voting for a candidate makes them a disciple.

For I am constrained to proclaim the Word of God from the pulpit.

I have that freedom in this nation by the grace of God and the sacrifices of millions, and I will not disgrace either by using it for anything less than proclaiming God’s glorious truth.