His Will Blog

September 27, 2019September 23, 2019

I’m Going To Jail

Recently one of my racquetball buddies and I were talking after a match. “Will you be here tomorrow?” he asked. I told him no because I would be in jail. This piqued his curiosity and he wanted to know what I meant.

I told him about my ministry as a volunteer chaplain with Oklahoma Jail and Prison Ministry. He kept asking questions. He seemed to really want to know what it was like. I described the sixth floor chaplain’s office at the Oklahoma County Jail. I shared how the inmates come there because they want prayer, they want hope, and they want to hear from God’s Word.

This led to a frank conversation about the gospel, the Lord’s offer of forgiveness and new life in Christ. He listened respectfully as I told him that this is what we all need, whether we are prisoners in a jail or “respectable” people on the outside. We are all sinners. I told him about the Lord’s gracious offer of eternal life through faith in Jesus the Savior. He’s thinking about all this and I am praying for him.

One of the questions he asked had to do with why I would want to do this. I told him I do this because I have been blessed with a great spiritual heritage and excellent training. Most of the people I meet in the jail have not had these advantages. I feel a responsibility to share the blessings I have been given.

Another thing I told my friend is that prisoners are human beings created in the image of God. As such they have value in his sight. I told him what George Rennix said some time ago: “When I go into the jail I want to consider those inmates more valuable than myself,” commenting on Philippians 2:3. I want the same thing. I think one reason prisoners want to see a chaplain is that they are treated with respect as they are told about God’s love for them.

As a retired pastor I have the Bible knowledge, the desire to share the gospel, and the discretionary time which allows me to serve. The inmates are spiritually hungry, and most of them are receptive to the message. There is a great need for chaplains, and it is a privilege to serve the Lord in this way.

I also told my friend about the joy I feel when a person, broken by sin and repentant, opens his heart to Jesus Christ to receive the gift of eternal life through faith alone. There is joy in the presence of the angels (Luke 15:10), and there is joy in the Oklahoma County Jail.

I appreciate the prayers in the little book Valley of Vision. Here is one that sums up my motivation for ministry in the jail.

Thou hast knowledge of my soul’s secret principles and art aware of my desire to spread the gospel.

Make me an almoner (one who gives generously) to give thy bounties to the indigent,

comfort to the mentally ill,

restoration to the sin-diseased,

hope to the despairing,

joy to the sorrowing,

love to the prodigals.

Blow away the ashes of unbelief by Thy Spirit’s breath and give me light, fire and warmth of love. Amen

For more information about Oklahoma Jail and Prison Ministry, go to www.ojpm.org, or call 405-917-2242.

Pastor Randy Faulkner

September 20, 2019September 17, 2019

Why Didn’t Paul Condemn Slavery?

Critics of the apostle Paul point to the fact that he refers repeatedly to slaves and masters but makes no attempt to call for an end to the institution of slavery. It is also embarrassingly true that American slave owners and their preachers used Paul’s texts to justify their beliefs and practices.

To compare the shame of the North American and British slave trade with first-century Roman slavery is a case of false equivalency. Brian J. Dodd has pointed out that slavery in the Mediterranean world of Paul was vastly different. (1) Slaves could and did earn their freedom. (2) They were not distinguished on the basis of race or color. In fact, it would have been difficult to tell, on the basis of appearance, the difference between a slave and a free person.

(3) Unlike the slaves in the American South, those in the Roman world had legal rights, including the right to appeal in the case of unfair treatment. (4) In some cases slavery was an opportunity for social and economic advancement. Some people sold themselves into slavery in search of a better life. (Paul discouraged this practice in 1 Corinthians 7:22-23.)

(5) Slaves in Roman society were often well educated and highly skilled. They occupied such trades as tutors, scribes, clerks, bookkeepers, civil servants, physicians, and household managers. (Slaves who worked in the mines, as gladiators and as galley-slaves on Roman ships were mostly prisoners of war or criminals.) (6) Slaves could own property and save money. This allowed many to purchase their own freedom and eventual Roman citizenship.

(7) Sometimes slaves in prominent households preferred to remain in this position rather than to seek emancipation because it was advantageous to them to be treated well under a kindly master.

Ben Witherington has added that as we try to understand Paul, it is useful to remember that no ancient government considered abolishing slavery. No former slaves or philosophers wrote attacking the institution. The slave revolts we read about in ancient history were not attempts to overthrow the institution but to improve working conditions or to protest abuses. Manumission (buying freedom) was so common in the first century that Caesar Augustus set up laws to restrict it. There is evidence in early Christian writings that some Christians gave sacrificially to purchase the freedom of fellow church members who were slaves. (The Paul Quest, InterVarsity press, 1998)

So what are we to make of Paul’s instructions to Christian slaves to obey their masters and do their work for the Lord (Colossians 3:22-25)? How are we to understand his words in 1 Corinthians 7:21-24, 1 Timothy 6:1-4, and Titus 2:9-10? We must begin by setting aside any thought that Paul would have condoned the kidnapping, violence, brutality, and inhumanity of the British and North American slave trade. We must, rather, interpret his writings within the context of his own world, the Greek and Roman world of the first century.

To that world, Paul brought the radical teaching that Christian slaves and masters are brothers in Christ, freed from sin, and liberated to serve Jesus. In the church, they are equals. They are to see themselves as an alternative society, part of a new humanity in which ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

Paul went out of his way to identify with slaves. He called himself a “slave of Christ” (Philippians 1:1). He most likely worked alongside slaves when he plied his trade as a tentmaker. He dignified them by regarding them as persons of value, teaching them the virtue of work done for God. His short letter to Philemon was an appeal for the restoration, and possible liberation, of a runaway slave who had become a Christian, and whose service to Paul had been invaluable.

Brian J. Dodd has written: “It would be naive to fault Paul for not making an all-out, frontal assault on the institution of slavery. What would a meaningful protest have meant in a stratified society where there were no referenda, no public opinion surveys, no democratic process for the masses? Furthermore, a protest against slavery as such would have been interpreted as treason and sedition. It probably never occurred to Paul to lodge such a protest, and it is anachronistic for us to fault him from our social-legal position that cherishes the right of free speech. On Paul’s side of the interpretive bridge, such rights did not exist… .” (The Problem of Paul, InterVarsity Press, 1996; cf. S. Scott Bartchey, “Slavery in the NT,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed.)

Paul knew that slavery was an economic institution upon which Roman society depended. Any attempt to overthrow slavery would have been met with instant retaliation and the most severe punishment. Instead, his strategy was to undermine injustice with Christian love and mutuality. Even as Paul taught respect for the institutions of government (Romans 13:1-7), he knew that the good news of Jesus would penetrate Greek and Roman social structures with the influence of unselfish love. Paul’s calling was to proclaim the powerful gospel of Christ. He knew that it would change people’s hearts and create a new society.

– Pastor Randy Faulkner Randy 2019-spring

September 13, 2019September 12, 2019

Did Justification Originate with Paul or Jesus?

There are skeptics who believe the apostle Paul invented Christianity. They claim that Paul shaped the early Christian message so that he, “not Jesus, was the primary innovator of many things we think of as ‘Christian'” (“Did Paul Invent Christianity?” Kindle Afresh, The Blog and Website of Kenneth Berding).

Rudolf Bultmann has been quoted as saying that “the teaching of the historical Jesus plays no role or practically none in Paul.” This contradicts what Paul said when he claimed to “have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16). That he was a messenger of Jesus is plain from his “according to the Lord’s own word, we tell you…”( 1 Thessalonians 4:15). I believe Paul, not Rudolf. Here’s why.

Let’s take the doctrine of justification by faith as an example. Paul’s detractors say he came up with it on his own. One scholar wrote, “Jesus did not preach justification; Paul did.” But if we read the acts and words of Jesus in the gospels, we can tell they are infused with grace, the favor of God toward the undeserving. It is not hard to see how these truths form the basis for Paul’s elaboration on the theme of justification.

Look at Jesus healing a leper in Mark 1:40-45. In the gracious act of touching the diseased man, Jesus pictured the essence of the gospel message of forgiveness and full acceptance. In our Lord’s parables, we may see grace applied in the same way, to those who are willing to receive it.

The parable of the vineyard workers in Matthew 20:1-16 illustrates this beautifully. The ones hired at the end of the workday received the same pay as those hired to work early in the day. Jesus illustrates the generous love of God who is free to be gracious to whom he will.

In the parable of the two debtors in Luke 7:41-42, one owed a lot and the other less. Neither had the money to pay back what he owed. So the gracious creditor, (Jesus is teaching us about God!) canceled both men’s debts.

In the familiar parable of the lost son in Luke 15:11-32, the boy slunk home in disgrace after squandering his father’s money in wild living. The father in the story interrupts his sorrowful boy as he tries to bargain his way back as a hired worker. The father will have none of it! He embraces him, kisses him, dresses him as a family member, and throws a big barbecue to celebrate his return. This is pure grace. Jesus is teaching us about ourselves and about God.

The first mention in the New Testament of justification is from the lips of Jesus, not Paul. In Luke 18:9-14 we see the familiar contrast between the self-righteous, religious person who tries to impress God with his respectability and the repentant sinner who has nothing to offer to God but faith. In this parable, Jesus made clear the terms of approach to God. Only the one who humbly prayed for mercy “went home justified,” Jesus said.

Jesus, not Paul, was the first to designate a sinner who believes as justified in the sight of God. Paul received this doctrine from Jesus and built upon it. His letter to the Romans is an exposition on this theme. It is an invitation to all people to be “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24).

This is for you, too, if you will receive it. It is offered “freely” (without cost). To be justified is to be declared right with God. This gift of grace was purchased through the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus when he died on the cross. After his resurrection, Jesus authorized his apostles, including Paul, to make this message plain to all people, including you.

Kenneth Berding (cited above) wrote, “The things Paul sought, the thoughts he thought and the words he taught were in agreement with and sometimes directly dependent upon the teaching of Jesus.” Paul taught and wrote what Jesus told him to say.

– Pastor Randy Faulkner

September 6, 2019September 6, 2019

Paul Wrote about Sex

Paul wrote about sex. Much of what he wrote cut across the grain of first-century pagan society. For the same reason, many people reject his teachings today. His 2000-year-old views are considered out-of-date and unworkable in today’s world.

Why should the opinions of a first-century Jewish rabbi influence how we conduct ourselves in the privacy of our own bedrooms? Because he speaks for Jesus. The Lord Jesus said, “Very truly I tell you, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me” (John 13:20).

In this space, I have been writing about apostolic authority in the ministry of Paul. He taught and wrote like an inspired delegate of the Lord himself. His writings carried the authority of the Lord Jesus (Galatians 1:11-12). When he wrote about sex it was because sexual immorality was a problem that needed to be addressed in the churches he founded in the world of the Roman Empire.

What did Paul mean when he told Christians to avoid sexual immorality? The word he used, porneia, is an inclusive word denoting all sex outside of heterosexual marriage. This is a term which included prostitution (1 Corinthians 6:13-20), incest (1 Corinthians 5:1), and homosexual practice (1 Corinthians 6:9). It is easy to see why people today want to try to explain away, reinterpret, or discredit Paul’s teaching.

His influence is unpopular because American society is moving in the opposite direction of God’s moral law. Many people are embracing the practices and beliefs of those who do not know God. They are taking their cues from movies, TV, social media, and from a morally vacuous intellectual elite.

On the other hand, Paul writes about faithfulness in marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 because God upholds the sanctity of marriage. He writes about moral purity in 1 Thessalonians 4 because God wants his people to reflect his holy character. He writes about homosexual practice in Romans 1 because it is a violation of the natural order of God’s creation. Immoral practices are offensive to a holy God “who will punish all who commit such sins” (1 Thessalonians 4:6).

Paul instructs us “how to live in order to please God … It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans who do not know God” (1 Thessalonians 4:1, 3-5). Paul writes the way he does because he knows that God still has a say in this matter.

He added that “anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 1:8). That statement reflects his authority as a spokesman for Jesus Christ.

Now for some questions.

Was Paul a prude? Was he against pleasure? Not at all. He always agreed with the Hebrew scriptures. The Old Testament said that marital intimacy was for pleasure as well as procreation (Genesis 18:12). The scriptures celebrate this in Proverbs 5:18-19 and Song of Solomon. Nothing Paul says contradicts this. In fact, he took a firm stand against asceticism and legalism in his writings (Colossians 2:16, 20-23, 1 Timothy 4:1-4). He consistently affirmed the beauty and mystery of human sexuality in marriage (1 Corinthians 7:36, Ephesians 5:31-33).

Did Paul hate homosexuals? To be sure, he condemned homosexual behavior (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10). It was the act or the practice of homosexuality against which he wrote so clearly. But the apostle who told us to speak the truth in love, did that very thing when he cared for the souls of all men and women saying, “God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy2:4). God does not hate homosexuals and neither did Paul.

He taught that sexual expression is for marriage, and, like Jesus (Mark 10:6-9), he taught that a true marriage is a union of a male and a female. This was established by the Creator when he instituted marriage (Genesis 1:27, 2:24). Gay marriage is not wrong because straight people feel that it is wrong. It is wrong because God’s Word says so. To agree with God’s Word is not bigotry or hatred. It is “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).

What did he mean by the term “flesh”? The physical flesh of the human body is not sinful. The word “flesh” is often used metaphorically to refer to the sinful nature in human beings. Paul is not saying that the body is evil or pleasure is wrong when he listed the sinful “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21. Sexual sins are included in the list but there are other offenses that are just as damaging, such as hatred, discord, jealousy, rage, selfishness, drunkenness, etc. Paul was not obsessed with sex. He was addressing specific problems in the Christian communities of the Greek and Roman world of the first century.

Shouldn’t these teachings on sex be interpreted in a culturally limited way? Admittedly, some of Paul’s instructions in the New Testament have a limited application to specific places and circumstances. Examples include eating foods sacrificed to idols, head coverings in worship services, certain spiritual gifts, and what Paul says, and doesn’t say, about slavery.

Paul’s teachings on sexual conduct for Christians are not limited to one place or time. The same teachings were written to churches in different locations all over the world. They were consistent with the teachings of the Old Testament and those of Jesus. They are rooted in God’s created order and as such are to be applied universally. His picture of monogamous, heterosexual marriage is a sublime illustration of Christ and his bride, the church.

When Paul wrote about sex, he did so to steer us away from the damage and penalties that follow a lifestyle of immorality. His teaching guides us into a life that aligns with God’s “good, pleasing and perfect will” (Romans 12: 1-2).

– Pastor Randy Faulkner

August 30, 2019August 30, 2019

Paul’s Instructions on Marriage

One reason some people do not accept Paul’s teachings is that they object to his teachings on marriage. In today’s world, there are many who disparage the institution of marriage altogether, “Who needs a piece of paper?”

According to studies by the U.S. Census Bureau, “co-habitation is up; marriage is down” among American young adults. Living together as couples without marriage is now considered “normative,” and is broadly accepted.

This is not to say that that living together without the commitment of marriage is happier or more fulfilling. The Institute for Family Studies at the University of Virginia reports that married couples in America are 12% more likely to report satisfaction in their relationship than those who live together without marriage. The same goes for levels of commitment (15%) and stability in the relationship (26%).

Co-habiting couples report lower levels of commitment, higher rates of infidelity and conflict, and they are more likely to end the relationship than married couples according to studies done by IfStudies.org

People are not behaving in their own self-interest. Rejecting marriage is not a formula for greater happiness. People behave this way because they disregard the ancient wisdom of the Word of God. I risk stating the obvious as I say that the trend to disregard marriage reveals a nation moving away from the moral standards of the Bible.

Paul spoke and wrote in Jesus’ name and by his delegated authority when he laid out guidelines for successful marriages. Paul knew he was bucking the culture of his day. Marriage was threatened in the first century, as it is in the twenty-first. Paul’s teaching was as counter-cultural then as it is today.

The Greeks and the Romans encouraged sexual promiscuity. Wives were expected to be child-bearers and housekeepers, while their men were permitted to consort with prostitutes and concubines. Many of the great cities of the Roman empire were moral sewers. Even Jewish law, as interpreted by some, allowed husbands to divorce their wives for frivolous reasons while wives had no right to divorce at all. It was against this backdrop that Paul wrote about Christian marriage.

Husbands

Paul’s teaching on the role of husbands, guides Christian men away from selfishness to service, away from coarse and sometimes abusive dictatorship in the home to servant-leadership, away from the example of culture to the example of Christ.

Many men have misunderstood and misapplied Paul’s teaching on headship in authoritarian and abusive ways. There is nothing in Paul’s writings on marriage to justify this distortion. Rather, he writes to husbands, “love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25).

Wives

Paul’s teaching on the role of wives is given in the context of Christian submission to God. All believers are to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” and to “be filled with the Holy Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18, 21). In this attitude, a Christian wife may find fulfillment in voluntary adaptation to her husband’s servant-leadership.

To be sure, there are those who accuse Paul of misogyny. They dismiss his teaching as endorsing the patriarchy so prevalent in Roman culture. But Paul is not teaching the slavish abasement of wives. Rather, a wife’s appropriate submission is an act of service to the Lord. It is voluntary cooperation with the husband’s God-given role as a leader in the home.

The mystery of marriage

In Paul’s classic treatise on Christian marriage (Ephesians 5:18-33), he begins by mentioning the Holy Spirit (v.18). This is because he knows that we are sinful and selfish. He knows that apart from the Spirit-given power to obey, we humans would not be able to live up to these high standards. But God provides the ability through his Spirit.

Another reason is that his teaching on marriage presents a picture to the world. It pictures a profound spiritual reality: the relationship Jesus Christ has with his bride, the church, which he purchased by his blood (Ephesians 1:7, 5:25-32).

Every Christian marriage is called to illustrate to a watching world an example of mutual submission and reciprocal love. Just as Jesus loves the church, the husband is to sacrificially love his wife. Just as the church is submissive to Jesus, the wife is to submit to her husband’s position as a leader in the home.

Paul’s teaching is universally binding because he spoke and wrote with the authority of Christ himself. Christians should accept his teaching and obey it, no matter how far our culture has drifted from these standards. To disobey the teaching of Paul is to disobey the revealed will of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). This is not only true of his gospel message but also true of his ethical instructions (1 Thessalonians 4:8).

This formula for marriage is validated further because it is consistent with Old Testament beliefs and practices, consistent with the express teaching of Christ, and consistent with the experience of those millions who have enjoyed the great benefit by following Paul’s instructions on marriage.

Those who reject Paul’s teachings are not acting in their own self-interest.

– Pastor Randy Faulkner

August 23, 2019August 22, 2019

Reject Paul and You Reject Jesus

My friend the Rev. Michael Philliber recently stated that to be dismissive of an apostle of Jesus is to be dismissive of Jesus himself. That’s a bold assertion. He based it on the words of Jesus in John 13:20, “Very truly I tell you, whoever accepts anyone I send, accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me.”

In this text, Jesus was preparing his disciples for their ministry after his departure. He was connecting their mission to his. His mission would become their mission. They would carry it forward. “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21).

This means that Jesus imparted to these disciples a special authority to speak and write in his name and to be His ambassadors. They would become “apostles,” those sent out with Christ’s message, the Word of God. That is why the New Testament refers to Paul’s writings as “scriptures,” equal in authority to the Old Testament scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Paul repeatedly said that he was an apostle “by the will of God.” He began most of his letters with some form of this claim because he knew there were those who denied his authority as an apostle of Jesus and as a spokesman for God. There are those who deny it today.

The call of Jesus

Is my friend Mike correct? is it true that to be dismissive of Paul is the same as being dismissive of Jesus himself? Let’s look at the evidence. The early church leaders in Jerusalem could not deny that a powerful intervention had changed Paul from a violent persecutor of Christians to a preacher of the gospel of Christ. That intervention was an appearance to Paul of the resurrected Jesus himself (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). Many times he spoke of his Damascus road conversion and the personal call of Jesus (Acts 22:1-21; 26: 9-23). The change in his character was undeniable.

Signs and wonders

Another set of facts, witnessed by many, were the miracles he did in the name and by the power of Jesus. “I ought to have been commended by you,” he wrote to some who doubted his authority, “for I am not in the least inferior to the ‘super-apostles,’ even though I am nothing. I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders, and miracles” (2 Corinthians 12:11-12).

The reports of Paul’s ministry in the Book of the Acts indicate these were the same kinds of miracles performed by Jesus himself. These miracles validated his claim to be an apostle of the Lord. “I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done — by the power of signs and wonders through the power of the Spirit of God” (Romans 15:18-19).

Changed lives

Perhaps the most convincing evidence for Paul’s apostleship is found in his ministry in the lives of people. He claimed to speak with the authority of Christ. “With the help of God, we dared to tell you this gospel. … We speak as those approved by God. … When you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:2,4, 13).

His close relationship with the believers in Thessalonica testifies to the transformation of life they experienced when they believed Paul’s gospel proclamation. “You became imitators of us and of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 1:6).

He was satisfied that his ministry among them “was not without results.” (1 Thessalonians 2:1). The changed lives of these people proved the validity of his apostleship: “You turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thessalonians 1:9).

Is it reasonable to say, then, that to be dismissive of Paul, is to be dismissive of Jesus? Paul would say so. “Anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 4:8).

The man who received his apostleship from Jesus, worked miracles in the name of Jesus and preached the gospel so that others could know Jesus, actually spoke and wrote with the authority of Jesus. We would do well to believe and obey what he says. He speaks for Jesus.

– Pastor Randy Faulkner Randy 2019-spring

August 16, 2019August 22, 2019

Think Again About Paul

I have met folks who gave the impression that Paul the apostle made them uncomfortable. They disagreed with some or all of his writings. They felt free to reject them as anachronistic and irrelevant to modern (or postmodern) values. Opinions ranged from mildly critical to openly hostile.

Critics of Paul have referred to his unwillingness to oppose slavery, his teachings on the role of women, his teachings on sexual ethics, and what some observers consider to be an abrasive tone and authoritarian style. Some have even accused Paul, the Jewish rabbi, of being anti-Semitic.

No doubt he was controversial. He incurred opposition, sometimes violent opposition, everywhere he went. The apostle Peter wrote what many have thought: some of Paul’s writings are “hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). If he is out of step with our culture, we must recognize that he was also out of step with his own culture. Paul was always, and he remains, counter-cultural.

Yet the church for almost two thousand years has recognized Paul’s authority as an apostle of (one sent by) Jesus Christ. He took Jesus seriously. His message was always Christ-centered. His writings exalted Jesus as “equal with God” (Philippians 2:6) and the very “fullness of deity in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

He took the gospel seriously, the message of Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). He said that those who believe this gospel are “saved” (1 Corinthians 15:2). They are “rescued from the dominion of darkness” and transferred into the kingdom of light (Colossians 1:12-14).

He took his mission seriously. Paul said that his apostleship was “by the will of God” (Colossians 1:1). He had no hesitation in making this claim because Jesus himself had appeared to him and instructed him as to his calling. He affirmed that his message was not something he learned from other people, but was revealed to him directly by Jesus (Galatians 1:11-12).

He wrote thirteen of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. This shows that the early believers accepted his writings as “scripture” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Many of these first-generation Christians had known Paul and had been close enough to him to have observed his life and character (1 Thessalonians 1:5, 2:5-8). They could see for themselves whether or not Christ was speaking through him (2 Corinthians 13:3).

Those who have qualms about accepting the teachings of Paul should think again. Jesus said that his apostles would speak for him and that any who received their message, received him (John 13:20; Matthew 10:40). It is a serious matter to reject the official representative of Jesus!

If Paul spoke and wrote with the authority of Jesus, it would be wise to (1) understand what he meant; (2) believe the good news of redemption that he preached; (3) put into practice his ethical and moral teachings; and (4) follow where he leads, into a new life “in Christ” (Ephesians 2:4-10).

There are indeed hard questions about Paul that deserve careful exploration. I plan to devote the next few entries on this site to an examination of some of the issues I raised in the opening paragraphs above. I appreciate your engagement with this discussion. If these writings are helpful, I invite you to forward them to others and to communicate with me.

– Pastor Randy Faulkner

August 9, 2019August 10, 2019

A Well-Regulated Morality

The moral sense shapes behavior. The recent tragic acts of domestic terrorism in Texas and Ohio remind us that among us there are young men without a moral sense, who possess weapons of murder, and who are willing to use them.

In El Paso, a young man obsessed by racist, anti-immigrant ideology murdered twenty shoppers in a Walmart store, wounding two dozen others. Not long after that, in Dayton, nine people were murdered and another sixteen were wounded, by a mass shooter who mowed down his victims in 60 seconds.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that the number of mass shootings so far this year in the U.S. now totals 23, with 131 lives lost. This is almost as many incidents after seven months in 2019, as occurred throughout all of last year (25, with 140 lives lost). These acts of mass murder are carried out by young men without conscience or moral restraint.

The moral sense shapes behavior. What shapes the moral sense? Developmental psychology teaches that there are social and biological influences. Humans, we are told, are social creatures and the moral sense grows out of the social nature. Aristotle said, “It is the peculiarity of man, in comparison with the rest of the animal world, that he alone possesses a perception of good and evil.” It is the duty of society to exalt the good and restrain the evil.

Going deeper, it is the family, of all social structures, that has the most important role in shaping a moral sense in the young. “They are not born knowing the difference between right and wrong. … The transmission of virtues is one important reason for a home,” wrote William J. Bennett.

Finally, there are spiritual sources of morality. Russell Kirk said that “political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems.” There is in fact a transcendent moral law which should rule society and personal conscience. It is this natural law, with its absolute standards of right and wrong which makes justice a possibility.

When this law, God’s law, is ignored, denied or disobeyed, it becomes impossible to speak in any meaningful way of fairness, empathy or truth. If there is no rational foundation for morality, then kindness, bravery, generosity and love are no more virtuous than murder, torture, racism, or genocide. “If God does not exist, everything is permitted,” wrote Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

What does this have to do with mass murder and domestic terrorism? When young men’s habits of thought are formed by hours spent reading hate-filled nationalist propaganda, or playing violent video games, or watching TV shows and movies promoting dystopian anarchy, their brains are hard-wired to devalue human life.

More importantly, when they are deprived of the knowledge of God through holy scripture and through the church, it is as though, to them, he does not exist. If he does not exist, for them, morality does not exist.

Wikipedia has comprehensive lists of all incidents of mass shootings and their perpetrators, going back many years. Most were young males. Almost all school shooters were children of divorce. Most mass murderers lacked strong social bonds and were isolated loners. Many had stored up years of anger and alienation. They collected grievances. Some were bullied. It is clear that someone failed these young men.

Young men’s moral development does not happen without purposeful guidance. Biologically, the moral sense of boys develops differently than that of girls. I have read that the part of the brain that governs self-control is actually smaller in boys and develops later. This is not to excuse bad behavior, but to emphasize the need for strong moral guidance from adults, especially parents, until boys become men.

This accentuates the role of the church in teaching biblical morality as the highest and best life, a life that is pleasing to God. 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2 says, “Brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.”

Notice the emphasis on “instruction,” “pleasing God,” and growth (“more and more”). This is not a picture of hyper-vigilant thought control. This is a model of the loving guidance of the Christian community, the church, regulated by the authoritative word of Christ.

It is only a step, then, from believing in God, and accepting his moral law, to recognizing one’s need of him and accountability to him. It is through faith in Jesus that young people may be given the knowledge of God and his will for their lives. These lives in Jesus Christ, regulated by holy scripture and God’s Holy Spirit, are offered the purpose in life for which they were created.

We are seeing what might happen when young men are deprived of the knowledge of God and a well-regulated morality.

– Pastor Randy Faulkner Randy 2019-spring

August 2, 2019August 1, 2019

Enjoying God

“Man’s chief end (purpose) is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” That is the famous answer to the question posed by the catechism, “What is the chief end of man?” Here’s a question for you today: what does it mean to “enjoy” God?

“Delight yourself in the Lord,” is the way King David put it in Psalm 37:4. It means to be delighted in God. That requires a re-thinking of our relationship to him. David is telling us that praise flows out of a sense of pleasure in who God is and pleasure in knowing him.

C.S. Lewis illustrated this in Reflections on the Psalms. “I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation. It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling each other how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete until it is expressed. It is frustrating to discover a new author and not be able to tell anybody how good he is; to come suddenly to a turn of the road, upon some mountain valley of unexpected grandeur and there have to keep silent because the people with you care no more for it than for a tin can in a ditch; to hear a good joke and find no one to share it with.”

He points out that people praise spontaneously what they value, and urge other people to join them in praising it. “The worthier the object, the more intense the delight would be.”

Both the psalmist and the professor are pointing us to an underlying truth, that to enjoy God, and thus to praise him, we must know him. The better we know him as he really is, the more our pleasure in him will grow.

Our delight in God can grow as we learn to enjoy his gifts as coming from him: a good meal, a golden sunrise, the pleasure of physical exercise, marital love, meaningful work, the laughter of friends, joining God in acts of creation through the arts, and of course the communion of prayer and worship.

Our delight in God grows as we appreciate more and more the riches of his grace in Jesus Christ.

– Pastor Randy Faulkner

July 26, 2019July 24, 2019

Musings on the Moon Landing — July 20,1969

In July of 1969 Americans everywhere had the sense that what was happening was of historic importance. Our astronauts had landed their spacecraft on the moon! Connie and I, in our first year of marriage, were working that summer in upstate New York. I purchased a copy of the New York Times to commemorate the event. I have kept that newspaper all these years. (I have learned that millions of other collectors saved that issue of the Times as well.)

There have always been those who questioned the value of sending men and women to outer space. They have said that the billions of dollars spent on space exploration could have been put to better use combating social ills like poverty, hunger, war, and racism.

Advocates of space research respond by pointing to beneficial results to society. The space program has increased the sum of human scientific knowledge. This has pushed the boundaries of understanding of our planet, our solar system, and the universe.

They speak of technological advancements such as the rapid development of computer technology, miniaturization, satellite communication, robotics, materials science, weather science, and countless industrial innovations and consumer products. Every scientific advance multiplied applications in many directions.

At the time of the moon landing, our nation was engaged in a “space race” with the Soviet Union. This was intense competition for the hearts and minds of the peoples of the world. Which system of government was superior? Totalitarian communism or a free and open society based on democratic values? The moon landing enhanced America’s prestige and international standing.

It is also important to remember the national security implications. The space program spurred the rapid development of advanced missile technology, delivery systems for nuclear warheads, tactical and strategic. Many believe that winning the race to the moon contributed to America’s winning the Cold War.

There is a wonder and an intense curiosity about outer space. The impulse to explore ever deeper into the universe can lead one to admire the majesty and wisdom of the Creator. It is a way of looking at his creation from a different perspective than that of earth. Contemplation of the heavens inspires worship.

Perhaps that is why the astronauts who first flew around the moon on the Apollo 8 mission, on Christmas Eve, 1968, read from the Bible, Genesis chapter one: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” They said later that they were aware as they did that, they were speaking to more people all over the world at one time, than ever before in history. And they read the Bible.

Some complained that this was an unwarranted intrusion of religion into a government enterprise. Others said that this was not a religious expression at all, but merely an attempt to find words of poetic grandeur to match the occasion.

Astronaut Frank Borman, commander of the mission, when asked about it, said, “I had an enormous feeling that there had to be a power greater than any of us — that there was a God, that there was indeed a beginning.”

John Glenn, the first American to circumnavigate the globe in outer space, later said, “To look out at this kind of creation and not believe in God is to me, impossible.” James Irwin, who walked on the moon in 1971, often described the lunar mission as a revelation. “I felt the power of God as I’d never felt it before. I heard astronaut Charles Duke say something similar in a speech he gave here in Oklahoma City a few years ago.

The late Charles Colson wrote that the exploration of space sparks an innate religious sense. He quoted philosopher Immanuel Kant who famously said there are two things that “fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”

Colson commented: “Reflections about these things…lead our minds to contemplate God himself — the moral law, revealing his goodness, the heavens revealing his power.”

As we commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the first moon landing, let’s agree that “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1).

– Pastor Randy Faulkner