“If you vote Democrat as a Christian,

I think you can no longer call yourself a Christian. You have to call yourself something else. I do not think you can be a Christian and vote Democrat.”

Those are the words of the late American political commentator Charlie Kirk. He said those words while speaking at Calvary South OC church in San Clemente, California.

Click here to watch a video recording of Charlie making that statement.

Charlie Kirk

I was astonished when I first heard the recording of Charlie saying such a thing. I replayed the recording two more times to be certain that I had heard correctly. Sadly, I did.

So say that Charlie was wrong is to make an understatement.

The applause from Charlie's audience indicates that other people agree with what Charlie said.

Charlie's statement and the following applause tell me that not everyone claiming to promote the Gospel are promoting the same gospel.

Here is the Gospel summarized in what is perhaps the most-famous statement in the New Testament:

John 3:16 (NIV)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Here is the alternate "gospel" that I heard promoted by Charlie and by those who agree with him:

John 3:16 (FAKE)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him and ____________________  shall not perish but have eternal life."

1 John 4:15 (NIV) states, "If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God."

That word anyone means just that - anyone, including believers in Messiah Jesus who vote Democrat.

One reason why I joined the United Methodist denomination is because I reject Charlie's false claim. The United Methodist Church strives to be inclusive. The UMC is supposed to be safe for people no matter what their political beliefs are.

Faith in Messiah Jesus as recorded in the New Testament is a faith that is outside of American politics.

I realize that some United Methodists are passionate about certain issues to the point that they become political. 

Granted, becoming political is not necessarily a bad thing. 

Yet, it is all too easy for anyone - including United Methodists - to succumb "to the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth*" when dealing with issues that cross into the political arena.

As a United Methodist, I strive to be gracious to believers in Messiah Jesus who have political beliefs that conflict with my own beliefs. 

In his book Living Our Beliefs: The United Methodist Way, United Methodist bishop Kenneth L. Carder explains why believers in Messiah Jesus need to be gracious when it comes to politics:

"The affirmation that God's grace is universal and that human beings have their basic origin in God makes political, geographic, ideological, and even religious distinctions subordinate to our common identity as creatures made in the divine image. John Wesley cautioned Methodists against bigotry, which he defined as '. . . too strong an attachment to, or fondness for, our own party, opinion, Church, and religion.' Bigotry originates in the elevation of any distinction - political, ethnic, religious - above God's universal grace which creates humanity in the divine image."**

Charlie Kirk was mistaken when he made that claim about a person who votes Democrat as a Christian. Sure, Charlie tried to present faith in Messiah Jesus as he understood it, but his understanding was flawed.

To be fair to Charlie, nobody on this earthly side of Eternity has flawless theology. Our task, then, is to avoid doing as Charlie did, which was to divide people spiritually according to their politics.

What Charlie Kirk did was sinful because he bore false witness against believers in Jesus, and he didn't repent of his sin before he died.

*From page 597 of the United Methodist Hymnal.

**Carder, K. L. (2009). Living our beliefs: The United Methodist Way, Revised Edition. Discipleship Resources. 

"I am a Christian, but

I am going to openly deny an essential doctrine of the Christian faith because I do not want to offend anyone."

Image that you have encountered someone who makes the statement that I have started this blog post with. How would you respond?

I have actually encountered such a person on social media.

This particular person claimed to be a Christian, but the person refused to say that Jesus is the Messiah because, as I understood it, the person did not want to offend that person's Jewish friends.

No, this person wasn't a new believer in Jesus, and the person had ample opportunity to read what Jesus says about himself in John 4:25-26. 

In that passage, Jesus makes the explicit claim that he is the Messiah.

Yes, "Jesus is the Messiah" is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith as it is described in the New Testament.

We do ourself no good by denying an essential doctrine of the global Christian faith in order to "not offend" someone.

Another essential doctrine of the global Christian faith is monotheism.

Here is an excerpt from Paragraph 104 of The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church:

"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 

The monotheism of the Christian faith is presented in Isaiah 44:6 and in Isaiah 45:5.

A person would have to cut those verses out of the Bible in order to deny the monotheism that is a part of the Christian faith as presented in the New Testament.

Yet, that is just what Mormon theologian Dan McClellan did in a post of his on X.com.

Of course McClellan said what he said about monotheism. Monotheism conflicts with the Mormon faith. McClellan might feign being unbiased when he studies the Bible, but he is still biased.

Sure, the authorship of Isaiah chapters 44 and 45 is disputed, but the inclusion and reading of Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 45:5 are not disputed. 

Even an atheist can see that Isaiah 44:6 and in Isaiah 45:5 teach monotheism.

Not only do Mormons insist that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate gods in substance, they also believe that they themselves will become gods and goddesses.

Yes, Mormons teach a doctrine that contradicts United Methodist doctrine in particular and global Christian doctrine in general.

Yet, I have encountered "Christians" who ignore what the Mormon Church teaches because they like certain things about the public behavior of Mormons.

For example:

John Hawkins is woefully mistaken about Mormons. Their Jesus is not the Jesus of the New Testament. Yet, Hawkins favors them because he likes how they appear outwardly.

I would hope that no United Methodist makes the mistake that Hawkins has made. Mormon doctrines are simply not compatible with the doctrines of the United Methodist Church.

Yet, it is absolutely possible that a United Methodist could make that mistake. 

I suspect that it wouldn't take much to get some UMC members to believe that the God of Israel started out as one god in a pantheon of gods, something that I have heard Mormon theologian Dan McClellan teach.

As I see it, United Methodists need to be reminded that monotheism is United Methodist doctrine, a part of United Methodist law as expressed in the UMC Book of Discipline. I say that because United Methodists are fallible people, and as such, they could be led astray.

Fear-Bound

should be only the title of a 1925 silent film, not also the mode of operation of anyone who preaches.

Yet, it appears to me that "fear-bound" has been the mode operation for plenty of preachers throughout the last two millennia.

I say this because all preachers are creatures of flesh, and when something threatens the survival of their flesh, they can fool themselves into believing that a particular idea comes from the Bible when, in reality, the idea comes from the subconscious desire to protect their flesh.

Can I support my claim with historical evidence? I believe so.

Paragraph 105 of the UMC Book of Discipline states, "But the history of Christianity includes a mixture of ignorance, misguided zeal and sin."

How much of that misguided zeal and sin was produced by fear dwelling within the people who were in positions of church leadership?

In his book Remains of the Jews: The Holy Land and Christian Empire in Late Antiquity*, Page 158, historian Dr. Andrew S. Jacobs writes, "In the Christian capital of Jerusalem [mid 5th-Century], however, there would always additionally be something foreign about the past as it was imperially transformed; there would always (so the Christian feared) be Jews lurking in the shadows, waiting to sneak in and reassert their treacherous hold on the city, if the imperial presence does not prevent them."

One thing that can produce fear in people is a lack of separation of Religion and State.

If one has never lived where there is no separation of Religion and State, then one might not be aware of how much a lack of such separation can influence what religious leaders teach in public.

For example, when Adolph Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany, he worked to put Nazi ideas into the public teachings of Germany's churches. Hitler demanded that all German churches be loyal to him, and plenty of Germany's clergy sided with Hitler. 

However, German clergyman Dietrich Bonhoeffer did the opposite.

States Bill Hull, co-founder of The Bonhoeffer Project, "What was the cost of Bonhoeffer’s choice? He ended up in a small prison yard in a now Polish town, Flossenburg, at the end of rope with his body burned in a pile of fellow-conspirators."

Are we to believe that preachers in Germany didn't fear what the Nazis would do to them if they openly opposed Nazi teachings?

What about the way that preachers in the USA responded to the slavery issue during the mid-1800s? Why is it that preachers in the northern USA and in the southern USA read the same Bible but preached opposing claims about the enslavement of Black Americans?

Which of those preachers had something to lose if they had preached against slavery?

It certainly wasn't the preachers in the northern states.

The ones in the southern states could easily have lost their jobs and incomes if they had sided with the northern preachers.

One might say, "That was then. This is now." Yet, can we rule out the possibility that a fear of something might be influencing the teachings of modern-day preachers?

In 1 Corinthians 3:7, the Apostle Paul writes, "So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth." Yet, it is not unheard of for preachers to believe that they must lead churches because God allegedly needs them in particular.

Well, if God doesn't need those particular preachers, then certainly churches need things that must be purchased in order for non-Christians to become Christians, right? It isn't as if Jesus meant what he says in John 6:44 and John 6:65, right?

Fear of a lack of things can set in when one forgets that God the Father is the one who draws people to Jesus, not sermons or programs or church bells and whistles.

Even James T. Kirk understands that God doesn't need anything of human origin in order for his sovereign will to be done.

As I see it, preachers and non-preachers alike can have an unbiblical fear of what might happen if their works don't take place.

Sure, God the Father uses us as instruments of his grace, but we err when we act as if we are the source of anyone's spiritual salvation.

So, go out there and fill the role that God has for you to fill, but keep in mind that you are not the one who is making the fields ripe for harvesting. God is the one who does that, and he was doing so long before the advent of modern-day church system.

We should keep in mind what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:6-7:

"I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow." 

* Quote Source: Jacobs, Andrew S. (2004). Remains of the Jews: The Holy Land and Christian Empire in Late Antiquity. Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804747059 . The bracketed part in purple font was added by me in order to provide historical clarification.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral

 is comprised of Scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

Well, what if tradition contradicts Scripture?

What if reason dictates that the tradition contradicts Scripture?

Before I proceed any further, I want to quote from Paragraph 102 of The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church (2020/2024):

"We share with many Christian communions a recognition of the authority of Scripture in matters of faith, the confession that our justification as sinners is by grace through faith, and the sober realization that the church is in need of continual reformation and renewal."

Why would the church be in need of continual reformation?

Answer: Because the church isn't flawless.

The church isn't flawless because its leadership isn't flawless.

Paragraph 105 of the Book of Discipline states, "But the history of Christianity includes a mixture of ignorance, misguided zeal and sin. Scripture remains the norm by which all traditions are judged."

As I understand it, that last sentence means that the validity of a tradition is determined by Scripture, not the other way around.

Well, what if a tradition is a particular way of interpreting a Bible passage? What if the actual Bible passage does not support the tradition?

I will give an example of a "traditional" Bible interpretation that conflicts with Scripture and reason.

During my study of Scripture, I encountered this written statement by a preacher:

"Paul was a leader in a delegation to a conference in Jerusalem to protest the requirement that all new converts obey the ceremonial laws of Judaism (Acts 15:1-35)."

The instant that I saw the word ceremonial in the preacher's statement, I knew that the preacher was reading into Acts 15:1-35 something that is not there.

Here is Acts 15:5 as given by the NRSV translation:

"Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.' "

Here is the same verse as given by the Complete Jewish Bible:

"But some of those who had come to trust were from the party of the P’rushim; and they stood up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Torah of Moshe.' "

The Complete Jewish Bible restores the Jewish elements in the verse that Gentile-translated versions tend to obscure.

When the Pharisees said that Gentile believers should be required to keep the Torah (Law) of Moses, the former meant the entire Torah, not just some portion of the Torah that Gentiles have labeled ceremonial.

As I see it, it is antisemitic, either intentional or unintentional, for Gentiles to change what those Pharisees meant by Torah.

So, why did the preacher I quoted change what the Pharisees meant? Why did the preacher add the word ceremonial when that word is not in Acts chapter 15?

To be blunt, the preacher was repeating a tradition, probably one taught to him by other preachers. To make matters worse, members of laity will often accept the tradition without questioning it.

Yet, what do the Apostles say in Acts 15:28-29?

From the NRSV:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

As I see it, the "ceremonial" tradition repeated by that preacher was created in order to coerce Gentile believers in Jesus to following at least one "requirement" that the Apostles declared not to be a requirement.

What that "requirement" might be is a topic for another post. 

However, the continued existence of the "ceremonial" tradition demonstrates that the Book of Discipline is correct in saying "the history of Christianity includes a mixture of ignorance, misguided zeal and sin."

Thankfully, Paragraph 217 of the Book of Discipline contains an antidote to the "ceremonial" tradition. That paragraph lists the vows that one makes when one initially joins a United Methodist congregation.

The 6th vow is "To faithfully participate in its ministries by their prayers, their presence, their gifts, their service and their witness."

The 6th vow does not require a church member to conform to any alleged non-ceremonial law that an ordained person might incorrectly try to impose on church members.

By the way, I have a question related to the so-called "ceremonial law" that the aforementioned preacher referred to.

Is the Sabbath Commandment in Exodus 20:10 ceremonial law?

That verse reads, "But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work." (NIV)

The seventh day is Saturday. If Exodus 20:10 is not ceremonial law, then why are Gentiles allowed to disobey it?* No, the New Testament does not say that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday.

[*Seventh-Day Adventists insist that Gentiles are not allowed to disobey Exodus 20:10.]

Angry Birds

 are which of the following:

A) Characters in a video game

B) Characters in an animated movie

C) Characters in the United Methodist denomination

I would like to say that "C" is not a correct answer, but I have seen that it is.

When I joined the United Methodist denomination in 2024, I knew that United Methodists were not any more righteous than believers in Jesus outside the UMC. 

However, I had hoped I wouldn't encounter people who wanted to sling-shot their way into a fight.

Yet, I have.

To explain what I mean, consider this famous photograph that was taken at Little Rock’s Central High School on Sept. 4, 1957.

In this photo, 15-year-old white student Hazel Bryan is yelling at 15-year-old black student Elizabeth Eckford as the latter tries to enter Little Rock, Arkansas' Central High School.

The UK's The Telegraph newspaper describes the circumstances of this photo:

"One girl, Hazel Bryan, looked livid, her face poisoned with hate. As Benjamin Fine of The New York Times later described her, she was “screaming, just hysterical, just like one of these Elvis Presley hysterical deals, where these kids are fainting with hysteria”. Her eyes narrowed, her brow furrowed, her teeth clenched, Hazel shouted: “Go home, nigger! Go back to A-”. Click. “-frica!” Will Counts, a photographer for the Arkansas Democrat, had his picture."

Now, imagine this same scene being played out today, except that Elizabeth Eckford has been replaced with a politician or a political appointee.

Does harassing a person in public become Christ-like behavior if the person being harassed isn't a minority?

Does harassing a person in public become Christ-like behavior if the person being harassed is supporting a government action that one disapproves of?

I see nothing ungodly in peaceful political protests. However, I cannot support protests that are nothing but acts of harassment.

Should believers in Messiah Jesus disrupt the peace in a restaurant where a politician or a political appointee is having a meal with the latter's family?

Should believers in Messiah Jesus stand outside the home of a politician or a political appointee and shout and make other noises so as to disturb the peace of that person and that person's spouse and children?

Such harassment of politicians and political appointees has taken place in the USA. Is that something that United Methodists should condone or participate in?

If preachers only knew

 when they should stop preaching, then the world would be better off.

After all, not all preachers are of the same caliber as John Wesley.

Sure, the UMC has a mandatory retirement age for Elders, but what if an Elder loses effectiveness before reaching retirement age?

Also, what about denominations and independent congregations that don't have a mandatory retirement age?

As a public service, here are 10 signs that is time for a preacher to leave the pulpit.

01. On Pastor Appreciation Day, the congregation gives you a trip to the Orient, but it’s for one way only.

02. Your church's leaders forget to include your salary in next year’s church budget.

03. The last time you preached a funeral, people mistook you for the deceased.

04. The ushers hand out NoDoz tablets before you begin your sermons.

05. The church bulletins have crossword puzzles where sermon notes are supposed to go.

06. The local ministers association notifies you that your lifetime membership has expired.

07. Doctors prescribe recordings of your sermons as a cure for insomnia.

08. Your relatives tell their friends that you work for the Mafia because they are too embarrassed to say what you really do.

09. The other members of your household attends another church because nobody there knows who you are.

10. Rodney Dangerfield gets more respect than you do.

It's just emotion

 that's taken me over, or so sang the Bee Gees.

The Bee Gees

It's just emotion that takes over group conversations whenever a hot topic is being discussed.

That is why I would rather write about stuff than verbally present my thoughts to an audience. I don't like it when people respond to me by being loud, aggressive and highly emotional.

I have to watch myself or I will become loud and emotional, too. By writing my thoughts down, I am able to review them and revise them after I calm down.

Sometimes, when I am in a group, I prefer not to say anything at all, especially when I already know that I am outnumbered when comes to the majority opinion about a subject. 

The last time that I dared to speak up, others were using their eyes to throw daggers at me, and that happened during a meeting of United Methodists.

No, I had not expressed a nefarious belief. Instead, I mentioned the proverbial "elephant in the living room" that, in my opinion, was being danced around by the group.

Granted, I should have worded my initial statement in a different way. Yet, I suspect that the outcome would have been the same.

Now that I have become a UMC Certified (at present time) Lay Servant, I strive to be much more cautious with what I say and how I say it.

To me, keeping the peace is more important than quibbling about things that I cannot change.