Faith Challenges: It Ain't All Comfort

We commonly talk about Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as a summary statement of what he taught over the course of his three years of ministry. There is no reason to take this as a sermon he taught in one and only venue. There is no reason to believe this is the only manner in which he related these words and teachings. There is ample reason to see between Matthew’ and Luke’s accounts that variations are as much the product of Jesus having offered this discourse on multiple occasions and in different ways. Over the last three and a half years, you have heard me repeat myself various times on various issues. I have not always used the same words. I have retold some stories with different meanings and applications. I have highlighted certain aspects at times, and emphasized other things on other occasions. Sometimes, my extemporaneous prayers have sounded a lot like how I led public prayer on other occasions. What we are reading here in Matthew chapters 5-7 is a summary of Je

I’ve never really had trouble with the concept of Jesus’ virgin birth from a standpoint of it being an impossibility for God. I’ve long had issues with the way we often make it a huge issue, as though if Jesus were not born of a virgin, then he could not be God incarnate. Augustine’s doctrine of original sin as passed on biologically through male semen has never made any sense, and does not even take into account that a literal read of Genesis 3 would force an understanding that sin originated with Eve’s disobedience, not Adam’s. Sure, Luke’s story of the nativity begins with a narration underscoring a claim to Mary’s virginity through the time of Jesus’ birth. Mark does not mention Jesus’ birth. John does so only in a roundabout manner, saying only that the “Word became flesh and lived among us.” Matthew offers the only other account of Jesus’ birth in the Scriptures. Despite his quotation from the Septuagint of Isaiah 7:12, Matthew in no way attempts to portray Mary as bein

#DoNoHarm It's a simple enough tenet. It's an easy expression of a major aspect of what it means to love one another. It's a basic understanding that we have some responsibility for how our actions have an impact beyond ourselves. Do no harm. No harm. None. That means I have to calculate things like collateral damage. It means I must take into consideration secondary complications, aftereffects, consequences I may not have yet considered. No, #DoNoHarm can end up getting a bit more complicated as we take a longer term look at the ripples extending from our actions or inaction. Love makes doing no harm a principle not to be violated. It means there are no justifications for harm. Harm is not loving. Harm violates love. Maybe it’s just looking for a short-cut. It’s still harm. It’s still not love. Love seeks a better way. There has to be a better way. There is a better way. It’s not that difficult. It just means making the needs and welfare of others a