Thank you so much for preaching on this challenging topic and standing for truth no matter what! It's so sad where our culture is going, but I was encouraged to see a pastor and church who are standing up to this! I have especially not seen many city churches speak against culture so boldly, and it is refreshing.
Thank you Pastor Rob for speaking on this! Reminding us that we still have a voice for our Lord! I pray the church will continue to fight the good fight for the next generation❤
Right on Pastor Rob! Fight for us, we all stand behind you and we all fight for the same thing that you want! Welcome them to attend the church to be redeemed, but not to change what we stand for.
Thank you and Thanks God Goodness Pastor Rob. We have to keep the faith and keep our prayers and acts together in what Gods Principals are. There is love in teaching the right things. ⭐️❤️🙏🕊✝️💟🤲
Bridgeview Church Big Lake Mn. had a state legislator come speak on March 24th about this topic. you can find it on youtube. Thanks pastor Rob for speaking to this issue. I pray more pastors speak out bout this issue!
Do perspective candidates have to align with the same statement of faith as the church though? Could someone potentially not receive a position based on lack of that agreement?
There's a fine line that I think was missed in this sermon. You cite Daniel and M/R/A in the book of Daniel, Paul and Jesus--but they didn't try to change laws. What I see in these stories is not a desire to change the culture around them (as you say from a negative to a neutral state), but a desire to transform lives around them to follow Jesus no matter what the culture says. And, while they did that, they would encounter suffering, but that in their suffering, they found God and continued to follow Him and His ways. You led the congregation to an idea that their right to freedom of religion was being attacked, but that is an American right and not a Christian right. And now, in this sermon, led your congregation to feel that if their American right to religious freedom is attacked, we have to contend for it because it's a part of our faith. That's dangerous theology because it is joining government rights with faith. I don't think our faith should be used to contend for government power. Jesus, Paul, Daniel, and M/R/A didn't pursue Babylonian/Roman rights or the power of the State--they pursued spreading their faith, enduring suffering that happened because of that, and used the power of the Spirit to endure it all and keep going. They were bold for their faith, but they were careful to depend only on God's power. I would have loved to have seen an application point somewhere along the lines of "watch out for dangerous power" in the desire to seek a more neutral state from the negative state you painted. That the Church isn't seeking political power to protect American rights (in which case, registering as a lobbyist might be correct). The Church contends to spread the gospel and endures the suffering the world puts upon it for doing so. Did you prepare your flock to focus on the gospel, endure suffering, and lean on God's power in the midst of that? Or did you galvanize them to act to protect against an unconstitutional attack on an American right? Were you calling them to defend the faith or to defend the constitutional freedom of religious freedom? There's a fine line in there that should be intentionally distinguished when you want to hit on a cultural clash involving use of power in this world. You called them to more power of the Spirit (great!) but didn't warn about the danger of political power and faith being melded together. Don't back down on spreading the gospel, but what does don't back down mean when an American right is threatened?
All the former context were kingdoms/dictatorships. One of the hardest things to grasp as an American Christians is the socialized voice we have in the leadership of our nation in our Democratic Republic. The message is - We will not follow laws that conflict with God's law, we will advocate (as someone with a say and power) for laws that align with God's word and human flourishing (according to His Word). When Joseph led in Egypt, he didn’t say “I’m going to let the Egyptians make the decisions and I’m going to just handle my business” it was after the new Pharaoh didn’t know Joseph that God’s people suffered. It’s not a theology of America, it’s a theology of stewardship and responsibility that God has placed power in our hands and we must contend for His law in our life, and in the things He has asked us to steward.
@@loganmketterling Hey Logan, thanks for the response! I had a chance to sit in on a few of your breakouts at RVC in 2022 and really enjoyed them. Agree, totally a different setting than biblical governments--and yes, we have a social voice. I say it this way--if Caesar wants your opinion, give it. So, we should engage when governments engage us as Christians, and we should boldly proclaim truth when we do that. And absolutely a theology of stewardship and responsibility to what God has placed in our hands is important. I think the question is--did God give us religious freedom that we should be contending for? Or did America do that? And while we believe Jesus is Lord and abide in his teachings as the Church, should we use our socialized voice to shape Government to resemble Jesus' Lordship? Because I think that is a dangerous, slippery slope. We're using a power of the world to push Jesus as Lord--and I think people who don't think Jesus is Lord will react negatively to that. If Christians vote for and pass legislation that has Christian principles, would that be oppressive to people who are not Christians and drive them away from accepting the gospel and joining the Church? Does the power we wield to turn the world into something more in line with God's principles actually create a situation that weakens our main mission of transforming lives through the gospel and having them join Jesus' church? It seems that in history, whenever the Church aligns itself with Government power, the Church always ends up getting a black eye. I think we need to ask ourselves, as we use the power of our socialized voice, if the use of that power would deter people from believing in the gospel. I think we just need to be careful, when speaking about the power we wield, that we speak of the power of the Church and the power of God. That we should be in the world, but not of it; to give to Caesar what is due Caesar, and God to God. It's such a subtle thing to see ourselves as American Christians instead of Christians who happen to live in America. And if we're Christians who happen to live in America--give the truth when Caesar asks, but if Caesar becomes hostile to us, we continue to live as if Jesus is Lord within the Church and hope that others see that beauty and join the Church. And not try to transform Caesar's Kingdom into God's Kingdom.
When God led the Israelites out of Egypt through Moses, it was specifically because He wanted them to be able to worship Him the way He asked to be worshipped - He demanded Pharoah take His oppressive hand off of Israel and let her worship Him the way He asked, and brought plagues upon Pharoah for his oppression of freedom to worship. God contends for freedom to worship - He demands those in authority grant His people that right. The government is simply either in obedience to God or in disobedience to God in this area… but ultimately freedom to worship is a God-given right, and aligned with the heart & will of God. It is not American-born, but a God-born right. It is sin to oppress the free worship of God.
@@mskrau Thanks for the reply! You are correct in that story--God did force Pharoah's hand, and God led the Hebrew people out of Egypt to form a nation where they could follow the laws and commands of God and worship Him freely in the temple. And yes, totally agree that it is sin to oppress free worship of God. But, the freedom of religion exemption to hiring trans people and not being sued if you don't, is strictly an American freedom, not a God-born right. I think we need to be careful about applying the same logic of Old Testament to the New Testament Church that Jesus started, because Jesus rejected the idea of starting a nation of Christians--and, we don't see God forcing Caesar and Rome to allow the Church to freely worship God. Instead, Jesus told His followers to expect to suffer and be persecuted if they choose to follow Him. For me, at the heart of this whole discussion, is the idea of our power and how we use it. Governmental power is a power of control--it sets laws, enforces them, and gives consequences when those are broken to all who live within its borders. In a democracy, people are given the power to elect representatives who exert that control. And if America wants Christians' opinions on how things are run, we can give that, but we should be extremely careful on how we use it. Because, in the Church, I don't see a power of control. Instead, I see a power of invitation. Jesus asks people to step out of their old lives and choose a new life following Him. He asks them to join His church as their community. He, and we, don't and shouldn't control others to force them to obey Jesus or God's will. God and Jesus don't exert control to get people to choose Jesus as their Lord. I think, in this case, I'm trying to make a point that we need to be extremely careful (and possibly consider rejecting) using the governmental power to, as Logan said, advocate for laws that follow God's will and human flourishing. Because what we're really doing is asking for control over people to make them follow God's will, when they may or may not want Jesus as their Lord. And, historically, when the Church starts using the power of Government, it always ends badly for the Church as people reject Jesus due to the government controlling them in the name of Jesus. There's such a fine line between offering our opinion and exerting control, and that's why I wanted to see a point or discussion on "watching out for dangerous power". Instead, I think the Church should focus on the invitational power, where we ask people to leave their old life where national identity is so important, and to start a new life in the Church where their identity is child of God and brothers and sisters. The Gospel message being lived out in a new type of community that transcends national borders. And within the Church, we freely worship God no matter the consequences around us. And if the government turns negative towards Christians (as it was in the New Testament), then as Paul says "We join in Christ's sufferings". This is what I see Jesus, Paul, and the early Church doing in the New Testament, instead of advocating for government protection from Rome.
@@AndrewLangbehn well put. A fine line indeed! I think you will find many bible believing Christians on different places on the spectrum of when the time “stand up” is. I would say most of those thinking deeply about it revolves around the world for our children. Unless we shelter them (I also don’t see Paul advocating for this) one has to admit it becomes increasingly difficult for them the more “pagan” a nation becomes, because so much of their worldview is built off their upbringing. To me, that argument would be a strong counterpoint to the one you’re making, however, I totally agree there is a biblical case for what you’re saying as well. The continued rift comes in the difficult of applying the text to the United States. In my view, America needs the church to work more than the church needs America, another tension point for a longer convo :)
Thank you so much for preaching on this challenging topic and standing for truth no matter what! It's so sad where our culture is going, but I was encouraged to see a pastor and church who are standing up to this! I have especially not seen many city churches speak against culture so boldly, and it is refreshing.
Thank you for speaking so boldly and for not backing down! We stand with you and are thankful for your integrity!
Thank you Pastor Rob for speaking on this! Reminding us that we still have a voice for our Lord! I pray the church will continue to fight the good fight for the next generation❤
Every MN pastor should be preaching on the Biblical view on these topics this Sunday.
This is one of the best sermons I have heard yet! You really know how to connect the word of God to real life situations.
Thank you Pastor Rob. We will stand and contend! Bless you!
Right on Pastor Rob! Fight for us, we all stand behind you and we all fight for the same thing that you want! Welcome them to attend the church to be redeemed, but not to change what we stand for.
Thank you and Thanks God Goodness Pastor Rob. We have to keep the faith and keep our prayers and acts together in what Gods Principals are. There is love in teaching the right things. ⭐️❤️🙏🕊✝️💟🤲
Thank you for speaking out on things like this!
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR ADDRESSING THIS TOPIC, IT IS SO APPRECIATED!
Thank you Pastor Rob for addressing this important culture clash!!
Bridgeview Church Big Lake Mn. had a state legislator come speak on March 24th about this topic. you can find it on youtube. Thanks pastor Rob for speaking to this issue. I pray more pastors speak out bout this issue!
Amen and thank you Pastor Rob! Praying Gods protection over you and your family. 🙏🏻
AMEN!
Thank you
Amen
Does anyone know, where Pastor Rob does his live sermon from? I would like to see him in person
i think chanhassen? Im not sure though
He usually gives his live sermons on Saturday nights in Apple Valley.
Apple Valley :)
Do perspective candidates have to align with the same statement of faith as the church though? Could someone potentially not receive a position based on lack of that agreement?
There's a fine line that I think was missed in this sermon. You cite Daniel and M/R/A in the book of Daniel, Paul and Jesus--but they didn't try to change laws. What I see in these stories is not a desire to change the culture around them (as you say from a negative to a neutral state), but a desire to transform lives around them to follow Jesus no matter what the culture says. And, while they did that, they would encounter suffering, but that in their suffering, they found God and continued to follow Him and His ways.
You led the congregation to an idea that their right to freedom of religion was being attacked, but that is an American right and not a Christian right. And now, in this sermon, led your congregation to feel that if their American right to religious freedom is attacked, we have to contend for it because it's a part of our faith. That's dangerous theology because it is joining government rights with faith. I don't think our faith should be used to contend for government power. Jesus, Paul, Daniel, and M/R/A didn't pursue Babylonian/Roman rights or the power of the State--they pursued spreading their faith, enduring suffering that happened because of that, and used the power of the Spirit to endure it all and keep going. They were bold for their faith, but they were careful to depend only on God's power.
I would have loved to have seen an application point somewhere along the lines of "watch out for dangerous power" in the desire to seek a more neutral state from the negative state you painted. That the Church isn't seeking political power to protect American rights (in which case, registering as a lobbyist might be correct). The Church contends to spread the gospel and endures the suffering the world puts upon it for doing so.
Did you prepare your flock to focus on the gospel, endure suffering, and lean on God's power in the midst of that? Or did you galvanize them to act to protect against an unconstitutional attack on an American right? Were you calling them to defend the faith or to defend the constitutional freedom of religious freedom? There's a fine line in there that should be intentionally distinguished when you want to hit on a cultural clash involving use of power in this world. You called them to more power of the Spirit (great!) but didn't warn about the danger of political power and faith being melded together. Don't back down on spreading the gospel, but what does don't back down mean when an American right is threatened?
All the former context were kingdoms/dictatorships. One of the hardest things to grasp as an American Christians is the socialized voice we have in the leadership of our nation in our Democratic Republic. The message is - We will not follow laws that conflict with God's law, we will advocate (as someone with a say and power) for laws that align with God's word and human flourishing (according to His Word). When Joseph led in Egypt, he didn’t say “I’m going to let the Egyptians make the decisions and I’m going to just handle my business” it was after the new Pharaoh didn’t know Joseph that God’s people suffered. It’s not a theology of America, it’s a theology of stewardship and responsibility that God has placed power in our hands and we must contend for His law in our life, and in the things He has asked us to steward.
@@loganmketterling Hey Logan, thanks for the response! I had a chance to sit in on a few of your breakouts at RVC in 2022 and really enjoyed them.
Agree, totally a different setting than biblical governments--and yes, we have a social voice. I say it this way--if Caesar wants your opinion, give it. So, we should engage when governments engage us as Christians, and we should boldly proclaim truth when we do that. And absolutely a theology of stewardship and responsibility to what God has placed in our hands is important. I think the question is--did God give us religious freedom that we should be contending for? Or did America do that?
And while we believe Jesus is Lord and abide in his teachings as the Church, should we use our socialized voice to shape Government to resemble Jesus' Lordship? Because I think that is a dangerous, slippery slope. We're using a power of the world to push Jesus as Lord--and I think people who don't think Jesus is Lord will react negatively to that. If Christians vote for and pass legislation that has Christian principles, would that be oppressive to people who are not Christians and drive them away from accepting the gospel and joining the Church? Does the power we wield to turn the world into something more in line with God's principles actually create a situation that weakens our main mission of transforming lives through the gospel and having them join Jesus' church? It seems that in history, whenever the Church aligns itself with Government power, the Church always ends up getting a black eye.
I think we need to ask ourselves, as we use the power of our socialized voice, if the use of that power would deter people from believing in the gospel. I think we just need to be careful, when speaking about the power we wield, that we speak of the power of the Church and the power of God. That we should be in the world, but not of it; to give to Caesar what is due Caesar, and God to God. It's such a subtle thing to see ourselves as American Christians instead of Christians who happen to live in America. And if we're Christians who happen to live in America--give the truth when Caesar asks, but if Caesar becomes hostile to us, we continue to live as if Jesus is Lord within the Church and hope that others see that beauty and join the Church. And not try to transform Caesar's Kingdom into God's Kingdom.
When God led the Israelites out of Egypt through Moses, it was specifically because He wanted them to be able to worship Him the way He asked to be worshipped - He demanded Pharoah take His oppressive hand off of Israel and let her worship Him the way He asked, and brought plagues upon Pharoah for his oppression of freedom to worship. God contends for freedom to worship - He demands those in authority grant His people that right. The government is simply either in obedience to God or in disobedience to God in this area… but ultimately freedom to worship is a God-given right, and aligned with the heart & will of God. It is not American-born, but a God-born right. It is sin to oppress the free worship of God.
@@mskrau Thanks for the reply!
You are correct in that story--God did force Pharoah's hand, and God led the Hebrew people out of Egypt to form a nation where they could follow the laws and commands of God and worship Him freely in the temple. And yes, totally agree that it is sin to oppress free worship of God. But, the freedom of religion exemption to hiring trans people and not being sued if you don't, is strictly an American freedom, not a God-born right. I think we need to be careful about applying the same logic of Old Testament to the New Testament Church that Jesus started, because Jesus rejected the idea of starting a nation of Christians--and, we don't see God forcing Caesar and Rome to allow the Church to freely worship God. Instead, Jesus told His followers to expect to suffer and be persecuted if they choose to follow Him.
For me, at the heart of this whole discussion, is the idea of our power and how we use it. Governmental power is a power of control--it sets laws, enforces them, and gives consequences when those are broken to all who live within its borders. In a democracy, people are given the power to elect representatives who exert that control. And if America wants Christians' opinions on how things are run, we can give that, but we should be extremely careful on how we use it. Because, in the Church, I don't see a power of control. Instead, I see a power of invitation. Jesus asks people to step out of their old lives and choose a new life following Him. He asks them to join His church as their community. He, and we, don't and shouldn't control others to force them to obey Jesus or God's will. God and Jesus don't exert control to get people to choose Jesus as their Lord.
I think, in this case, I'm trying to make a point that we need to be extremely careful (and possibly consider rejecting) using the governmental power to, as Logan said, advocate for laws that follow God's will and human flourishing. Because what we're really doing is asking for control over people to make them follow God's will, when they may or may not want Jesus as their Lord. And, historically, when the Church starts using the power of Government, it always ends badly for the Church as people reject Jesus due to the government controlling them in the name of Jesus. There's such a fine line between offering our opinion and exerting control, and that's why I wanted to see a point or discussion on "watching out for dangerous power".
Instead, I think the Church should focus on the invitational power, where we ask people to leave their old life where national identity is so important, and to start a new life in the Church where their identity is child of God and brothers and sisters. The Gospel message being lived out in a new type of community that transcends national borders. And within the Church, we freely worship God no matter the consequences around us. And if the government turns negative towards Christians (as it was in the New Testament), then as Paul says "We join in Christ's sufferings". This is what I see Jesus, Paul, and the early Church doing in the New Testament, instead of advocating for government protection from Rome.
@@AndrewLangbehn well put. A fine line indeed! I think you will find many bible believing Christians on different places on the spectrum of when the time “stand up” is. I would say most of those thinking deeply about it revolves around the world for our children. Unless we shelter them (I also don’t see Paul advocating for this) one has to admit it becomes increasingly difficult for them the more “pagan” a nation becomes, because so much of their worldview is built off their upbringing. To me, that argument would be a strong counterpoint to the one you’re making, however, I totally agree there is a biblical case for what you’re saying as well. The continued rift comes in the difficult of applying the text to the United States. In my view, America needs the church to work more than the church needs America, another tension point for a longer convo :)
Algorithm comment