This is my sermon for tomorrow.  I hadn't posted in a while, and this just seems worth it.  All Scripture is NIV

"Where Will You Be?" -PastorSZ

After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it.' "

 Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, "Why are you untying the colt?"

 They replied, "The Lord needs it."

 They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it. As he went along, people spread their cloaks on the road.

 When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen:
 "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!"
      "Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!"

 Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"

 "I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."
Luke 19:28-40

It was the party of the year, and everybody was invited.  The week before Passover in Jerusalem had just become like the first Mardi Gras, with people shouting and cheering as the King and his Court rode by.  Before anybody knew what was happening, the crowd started to act like they were on Broadway, with everybody bursting in to song.  They loved this King so much that many even began to remove their coats and lay them down on the road so that neither he nor his noble mount, a donkey, would get dirty.  If there was ever a party you didn’t want to miss, this was it.  Of course, as the saying goes, “every party has a pooper,” and this party was no exception.  Some of the more self-righteous people didn’t like what was going on, and they approached the King, insisting that he make it stop- it was too loud!  The people were too happy!  They didn’t remember reading anything like this in the Bible, so it must be wrong!  The King just smiled and told them that there was going to be a party one way or the other- if the people didn’t keep celebrating, the very forces of nature would.

But unfortunately, the King knew that this party would not last long.  And as the parade died down, a different mood came over him.

 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."
Luke 19:40-44

The King knew what was coming.  At the moment, he was celebrated, but in just a few days’ time, he would be hated.  The same people who had shouted “Hosanna in the highest!” would replace their cheers with cries of “Crucify!  Crucify!” and even the King’s closest friends would desert him one by one.  The King looked at his Court one by one, and he knew exactly what was in their hearts.

There was Peter, his second in command.  Just a few weeks ago, Peter had been the first to recognize him as the King.  Even as other people were dismissing him as a country peasant, Peter saw the true glory of the man he was following.  He had been with the King longer than anybody else, and had kept with him through thick and thin- and let’s face it, there had been a lot of thin and not very much thick over these past few years.  Yes, Peter was stubborn, and he was loyal, but he just didn’t get it yet.  He followed this King hoping for a revolt, just waiting for the day that the King would start a revolt and take his rightful place on the throne.  The King had tried to tell him before that his Kingdom was not one that was governed from a throne in Jerusalem, but Peter did not understand.  So the King knew that when the time came for the rest of his plan to unravel, Peter would hate it.  Without the King by his side, Peter would be a sheep without a shepherd, a child without a father, sad and confused and frightened.  No doubt, just as soon as the King was taken away from him, no longer there to protect him, would the boldness and stubbornness of Peter melt away, and he would do anything to save his own life, even denouncing his allegiance to the King.

And then there was Thomas.  He was a strange one, that Thomas.  He had seen the King do many great things- things that normal men should not be able to do.  He had even received power from the King to do great things himself.  And yet, with every new miracle, every sign and wonder, Thomas’ awe was brand new.  He was such a skeptic when it came to these things that no amount of power was great enough, no miracle big enough, to convince him that this King really could do what he said he would do.  The King knew that as soon as he was taken away, Thomas would act as though he knew all along that this King was not the real deal.  Just like every time before, Thomas would not believe it until he saw it. 

And of course, there was the treasurer, Judas.  For quite some time now, Judas had lost interest in the agenda of the King.  When there was money to be had, Judas was happy, and often would skim a little off the top for his own purposes.  But the life they lived was not one that made a person rich, and Judas was tired of living like a pauper.  He had seen the power that this King had, and had truly believed in him, but as time went on and the King kept using his abilities to help other people instead of helping his closest companions, Judas got more and more frustrated.  The King knew that Judas would be the worst of the bunch, and would gladly renounce his allegiance for even the tiniest bit of money.

As he surveyed his followers, the King began to cry, as he knew that one by one, they would all desert him, leaving him to face his biggest test alone.

Well… not all of them.  The King looked at one of his followers with fresh eyes.  Here was John, the youngest of the group.  He had followed the King from town to town, watching in awe as the one he followed did great things that no ordinary man should be able to do.  For this young man, there was no middle ground- either you were with the King all the time, or not at all.  There were only dark and light for John, with not a hint of twilight; Black and White without any Grey.  He alone would remain by the King’s side, to the bitter end.

And so the time came for the King’s reign to end.  Some men approached Judas and offered him as much money as most men made in four months of work if he would betray the King, and he agreed.  When they came and arrested the King, Peter was stubborn and wanted to fight back, but when the King told him they would be giving in to these people’s demands, Peter’s attitude quickly changed, and in just a few hours he declared that he had never known the King.  The rest of the followers, except for John, all ran away, and the King was executed in front of the very same crowd that had been cheering for him and worshiping him just a few days earlier.

Peter, after denying his allegiance to the King, finally came to his senses, and wept before God at what he had done.  Thomas would take a little longer to come around, but he too would repent.  John, for his loyalty, was told by the King that from now on, they were brothers, and the King’s mother would now be John’s mother.  The rest of the disciples, save one, all ran and hid for the sake of their own lives. 

When the King was taken away, Judas who had betrayed him finally realized what was really important.  He went to church to repent of his sins, and sadly, the priests turned him away, telling him he would have to find absolution somewhere else.  And so, in an act of repentance and of despair, Judas decided that the only way for there to be justice for the death of the King is if his betrayer also died, and he went and killed himself.  What a wretched day it is when the people of the church tell a man he cannot be saved!  What great lengths he will go to to be rid of his sins!  We can only hope that God in Heaven saw Judas’ repentance and accepted it.

What a marked change there was in just a few days.  On Sunday, everyone was celebrating the majesty of the King.  By Thursday, most of the crowd hated Him, his closest friends denied and betrayed Him, and most of those who had been his followers abandoned Him.  In four days, this King, Jesus of Nazareth, went from being the most loved person in all the land, to being despised, deemed worthy of death, with only one friend in the whole world.

As we enter into this Holy Week, the question burns within the pages of Scripture, and I pray that it burns within your own hearts as well.  You see, it’s easy for anybody to party on Sunday morning.  But the real question, the one that we all must ask of ourselves, is where will you be on Thursday night?

I once had the privilege of being told why another person had not been ordained.  I was not told this person's name, so there were no confidentiality rules being breached.  It was simply a "word to the wise," as my professors were so fond of saying, as though the members of their classes were generally wise individuals, but that's another story.  I was told that there was an individual who went before the ordination board of a certain Wesleyan-Arminian denomination after completing his studies at a more charismatic-leaning university.  He had satisfied all of the questions that the board had for him when one older gentleman on the committee gave a straightforward query: "Do you believe that speaking in tongues is evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit?"  Having seen this man's college transcript, I'm sure this question was a litmus test, and the man's answer single handedly decided his ordination- he said "yes" when the "right" (denominationally acceptable) answer was no.  He was denied his minister's license (a precursor to ordination), and asked to step down from his position of leadership in the church.

I would like to establish that this man's answer was not inherently wrong.  First and foremost, let us discard the phrase "speaking in tongues."  When individuals spoke in tongues in Acts, they were speaking other human languages that they had never learned, or at the very least they were being heard in those languages.  The specific type of tongues that is being referred to is "Glossolalia," which is from the Greek/latin for "speak in tongues" but is the official moniker for the tongues of angels referred to in the book of 1st Corinthians. 

Second, let's toss out the phrase "baptism with the Holy Spirit," as it is very ambiguous, and replace it with the Wesleyan-Arminian term "Entire Sanctification."  In Wesleyan circles, the two are interchangeable, but the latter has a narrow definition which more easily carries over into other traditions.  We'll keep the definition simple- the process of Entire Sanctification is the process of total surrender to God, and the movement toward love of God and others as the motivation for all actions.  In effect, Sanctification is what sets the "nominal Christian" (Christian in name only) apart from the practicing believe, and Entire Sanctification is essentially the finished product (though I take a process view, that's another story).

Let's re-examine the question:  Is Glossolalia evidence of Entire Sanctification?  Well, Glossolalia is speaking in the Heavenly tongue, so one can logically assume that the speaker would have some connection to Heaven.  And what better connection than Entire Sanctification?  The Church of the Nazarene Manual states quite clearly that there is a difference between Entire Sanctification (perfection of the heart) and a mature character.  So a Christian needn't be mature to be Entirely Sanctified, they need only be entirely devoted to Christ.  Let us keep in mind that one can be entirely devoted to Christ in one moment, and not so much the next.  In fact, most Wesleyan traditions affirm that Entire Sanctification can be lost, and I would not be surprised if it is attained and lost quite frequently.  So, I have no difficulty inferring that at the point where individuals had the gift of Glossolalia, they were entirely devoted to Christ, and I think the Scriptures would affirm it.  Therefore, I think it is resonable to conclude that the answer to the question is yes.

The problem comes in that certain Charismatic and Pentecostal movements have taken to affirming the Consequent (Glossolalia is evidence of Entire Sanctification, therefore everyone who is Entirely Sanctified must have the gift of Glossolalia).  In response, many individuals and denominations have taken to rejecting it as a sign whatsoever.  In all actuality, those individuals and denominations have simply taken to affirming a logical fallacy.

There are many evidences of Entire Santification.  Glossolalia might certainly be one of them.  Jesus, as well as several of the biblical authors, affirmed that we would know trees by their fruits, and that followers of Christ would bear good fruit.  Glossolalia might appear to be bananas, but bananas are good fruit.  I think the better question to ask is "what evidence do you have?"

Before you read this entry, go here and take the quiz.

For the record, I got "Small government Centrist," which is the upper portion of the circle around the Centrist circle.

Now, ignore how far you deviate to the left or the right, just focus on whether or little dot is above, below, or even with the center of the graph.  In other words, are you Authoritarian, Libertarian (not the party, the philosophy.  The party is strangely authoritarian about being libertarian), or moderate?  I'm going to go Bud Light right now and invent a characteristic- Conversability; the ability to engage in healthy and respectful conversation.  Furthermore, I'm going to propose that where you fall on the Authoritarian-Libertarian scale is far more indicative of conversability than your position on the liberal-conservative scale, and this extends to arenas beyond politics.

In general, a person who falls on the libertarian side of the scale believes that his or her convictions should not be applied to others without their consent.  The philosophy does have some basic rights/responsibilities which it applies to all of humanity which separate it from all-out hedonism.  For example, a Libertarian would say that any action by an individual in which someone does not give their consent is a wrongful act- this would include murder, rape, theft, assault, et cetera.  Having established those ground rules, the Libertarian view says that what my neighbor does, says, or believes is entirely up to my neighbor, and although I may disagree, it is not my place to force my views on my neighbor.

The authoritarian view is that there are things worth forcing on people.  Depending how authoritarian you are, that may be as severe as forcing everyone else to be exactly like you, or simply enforcing some moral guidelines that may not be universally held.  The Authoritarian would generally agree with the Libertarian about non-consent being a valid limit, but along with that comes a set of moral views which the Authoritarian believes should be enforced upon society.  This could include things such as censorship, marriage regulations, substance control, and education standards, among others. 

There are certainly some borderline things when it comes to a matter of consent versus a matter of preference.  For example, public indecency could be a matter of preference (I like to walk around naked) or a matter of consent (I don't like it when my children see you walking around naked).  Abortion is particularly sticky, as views on whether an unborn child is a person dictate whether that child has a right to consent or not.

Now that we've gotten through the definitions, here's my thesis:  Libertarian views are more conducive to Conversability.  As you can see in the above image, I am not a mega-libertarian, nor am I particularly right wing or left wing.  It might surprise some to see a Christian Pastor's dot in the upper left quadrant of the map, but I really didn't need this quiz to tell me this is where I fall.  I've been a moderate most of my life, and so I've been able to watch both the left wing and the right wing tear one another down and try to avoid getting caught in the crossfire.  For a long time, I thought it was my moderation that made these people look crazy, but recently I've realized that the hard core advocates on both sides of the left vs. right debate have something in common- they're very authoritarian.  Whether you're a Liberal whacko who wants to make it illegal for a minister to deny a gay couple a marriage or a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion, or a Conservative headcase who would like to see sodomy laws made stricter and more enforced, you are still trying to use government power to push your beliefs on the rest of the nation.  Anybody who's spent time on the internet knows what happens when you put an authoritarian Liberal and an authoritarian Conservative in the same room- even if it's a virtual room.  Insults, embellished statistics, and furniture are tossed around the room until the combatant's mouths are too full of blood to continue speaking intelligibly, and yet they continue the brawl.

Do you know what happens when you put a libertarian ultra-conservative and a libertarian mega-liberal in a room together?  I have had the pleasure of experiencing this multiple times, and each time the conversation turned to politics, religion, or morality, something miraculous occured- there was intelligent dialogue about the subject matter, and the two individuals managed to identify their common ground while respecting one another's differing views.  Tossing yours truly in the mix did nothing to change that dynamic.

After examining this phenomenon multiple times, I've concluded that those who are not willing to force their views upon others tend to be far more willing to listen to the opposing view point.  Being the Jesus freak that I am, I truly believe that this relates to Jesus' command to "love one another as I have loved you."  There is no doubt that Jesus had some strong moral convictions- in fact, for those of us who believe he was God, there is the implicit view that Jesus was the source of all morality.  And yet, when he had the ability to punish individuals for breaking the law he established (Woman at the well, Woman caught in adultery, disciples working on the Sabbath, etc.), he instead spoke with them, encouraged them to stop what they were doing, showed them love, and let them go on their way.  Was he forceful in his beliefs?  Yes, but to a specific group of people- people who claimed to hold to the same morals as himself.  I am fully comfortable speaking harshly, but lovingly, to another who claims to be Christian yet does not live by that claim.  If somebody tries to turn my house into a place of debauchery and theft, you'd better believe I'm going to ask them to leave and then drive them out if they will not listen.  But when it comes to individuals whose views, beliefs, or lifestyles are contrary to mine, I feel that the most Christlike thing to do is respectfully and lovingly disagree with that person, present my opposing view, and then wish them well.

Conversability- try it out.