From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano: Resurrection Sunday Edition

Sacrifice and a reason to rejoice

Churches will be full Sunday as congregants share the Good News of the Bible.
By Paul Viggiano

It was a haunting event in Egypt those many years ago when the angel of destruction brought death to all the firstborn, both of man and beast. Of course, it was not all the firstborn. There was a way of escape; the application of the blood of the Passover lamb upon the door posts and lintel of the house. When the Lord saw the blood, he would pass over them. The Passover would ever be celebrated by God's people.

The blood of the Passover was not the first blood ever shed in a sacrificial manner. Sacrifices go back to the beginning. Directly following the fall of man, Adam became aware of his own nakedness and was, for the first time, ashamed. He sought to hide his own shame by tying together garments of fig leaves. It was a feeble attempt. Men have been making feeble attempts ever since. There simply aren't enough fig leaves on Earth to hide our guilt before the searching eyes of a holy God.

But God is gracious as well as holy. He did not leave Adam in his shame but covered him with tunics of skin. Animals had to be sacrificed in order for these tunics to be made. They were God's animals and they were sacrificed by God. From that point until the time of Christ, animals would be sacrificed (mainly by priests) as a sign of God's promise (covenant) to cover man's shame; this would include the Passover.

Fifteen hundred years would come and go from the time the Hebrews were delivered from the slavery of Egypt. In the wilderness of Judea, a Hebrew prophet named John was baptizing those who had remained faithful to that covenant promise made by God. Seeing Jesus coming toward him, John proclaimed, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."

The faithful Israelite recognized that the Passover lamb served merely to foreshadow the true Lamb of God. It would be the height of missing the point to think that the shedding of an animal's blood could somehow deliver men from judgment and death. The slaughtering of every animal on the Serengeti in springtime would provide no appeasement -- not a wink of approval from the Creator/Judge. Shedding the blood of the lamb during the Passover was an act of faith in what the lamb represented.

It was faith that God had made a promise to wipe clean the slate of sin and shame in which men found themselves. We might seek to convince others we have no sin; we may seek to redefine sin and call it a disorder; we may seek to rationalize our sin and justify it because of our unfortunate past or dysfunctional household -- mere fig leaves.

The Passover lamb did not represent men's efforts to justify, or even overcome, their own sin; the Passover lamb pointed to Christ. It was his blood that would be shed. The cross of Christ would satisfy the justice of a holy God and bring everlasting life to those who trust, not in themselves but in Christ alone. This is why the Apostle Paul called Christ our Passover.

It was during the Passover that Jesus would be betrayed, handed over to sinful men, go through a kangaroo court and then be sacrificed. Today we call it Easter, but the Greek word is Pascha, which means Passover.

The shame, the guilt and the condemnation that men deserved would fall upon the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, the true Passover. But Jesus, unlike all the priests and lambs who preceded him, would rise again in a display of power and success over men's greatest enemies, death and judgment.

Churches will be at maximum capacity this Sunday. What is the message? That Jesus, the Lamb of God was sacrificed on the cross of Calvary. That the wrath and condemnation that men deserved was poured out upon the Lamb. That the Lamb of God rose victorious and grants his victory to all who call upon his name in sincere faith. This is what the Bible calls the Good News.

Could there be a happier Easter?

From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano

Here's a vote for a Christian voice

We shouldn't shy away from trying to press others to adopt our beliefs. We do it every time we vote or speak our minds.
By Paul Viggiano

After six months of regular church attendance, the atheist/attorney finally called for an appointment. I was thrilled! Was there a transformation? Had the Lord touched his heart? People come to church for all sorts of reasons. Why had he been coming so consistently? I was more than happy to meet with him; a bit curious, too.

He sat across from me in my study. He had listened to me for hours. Now I would listen to him. A thinker, he had pondered Christianity, but there were roadblocks. He voiced them.

"Why do Christians insist," he asked, "on forcing their political and ethical beliefs upon others?" I hadn't anticipated this question. He just didn't understand why something as personal and intimate as one's faith, had to spill over into politics. After all, faith is so holy and politics is so ... political.

I'd heard this before.

As a Christian, I am often bombarded by some undefined segment of our culture chastising me for seeking to "force" my beliefs on others and, as a March 15 letter to the editor asserts, "insist that they live by morality."

There seems to be legitimate confusion and even frustration. Here's my explanation:

I asked my lawyer/friend if he thought I should vote. He said I should. To him, voting was serious business. People ought to vote! Good Americans vote! But isn't it logically necessary that, in the very act of voting, one is seeking to force his beliefs upon everyone who is voting against whatever he is voting for? (You may wish to read that sentence again ... I'll wait.)

It doesn't seem consistent to tell me I should vote and then tell me that I shouldn't seek to force my beliefs upon others. That is exactly what voting does.

Walk with me into the booth:

The propositions and candidates stare at me from the confusing little punch-card booklet. Vote "Yes" vote "No" vote for "ME!" It seems I have some decisions to make. Should marriage be only between a man and a woman? Should it be illegal to terminate babies prior to birth? Should murderers be put to death? Should creation be taught in schools? Should the Pledge of Allegiance include some reference to God?

These decisions lie before us. Can you hear the question begging? When we vote, whose beliefs should we be seeking to force upon others? I believe the reasonable and conscientious vote to all of the above should be "Yes." It's someone else's belief that the vote be "No." Either way, somebody is seeking to force his beliefs on somebody else. In a society where people vote, this is simply unavoidable.

Since voters necessarily seek to force their beliefs upon others, it would appear that the actual objection is against those who have a religious genesis for their system of ethics and beliefs. People don't want religion forced upon them. If by saying this people mean they don't want to be forced to attend church against their will, I say "Amen."

But people fail to understand that Christianity is a world view. My faith is not like my health club or butcher who I visit and then forget about when I move on to a different category in my life. My faith informs every aspect of my life, including politics.

Why is it appropriate for certain people to vote in a manner consistent with what they learned from their parents or tabloids or sit-coms, but it is inappropriate for me to vote in a manner consistent with what I've learned from reading sacred scripture? After all, I think the scriptures are the zenith of truth and wisdom.

Why does the origin of my ideals somehow disqualify them (or me) from playing a part in the public arena? Why are the teachings of Moses and the Apostle Paul considered unacceptable influences in the venue of civic conscience, while the sentiments of Reiner, Moore and Penn are deemed admissible? It seems hardly fair to disqualify my opinion because you don't like its origin.

My attorney/friend's confusion was assuaged. I'm not sure if he was convinced. But if he wasn't, it's not because there was no reasonable answer to his question.

People should vote in a manner consistent with their highest beliefs. The Christian source for the highest ideals is the Bible. It trumps all human wisdom. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart," the Proverbs teach, "and lean not on your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight." That includes politics.

Stop Democracy Planting; Start Church Planting

It's already been a couple of weeks since Ehud posted the quote from Francis A. Schaeffer, and I have not stopped pondering over the awful blunder we are doing over there in Iraq. Then again, I've never been in agreement with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, mainly because the larger context of history would cast so much doubt over who started what and why.

Personal opinion sidenote: From the libertarian (political, not theological) standpoint, our government is far from being within the bounds of the Constitution. Its hands are dirty enough to leave the fingerprints of its horrible execution of political power, yet most Americans are stymied into thinking that this is OK. Its arm is long enough to stretch overseas and play with a hornets nest, then have the audacity to blame the hornets for stinging back, then declare war against the hornets in order to defend the rest of us from the stings, all the while obtaining powers far beyond what the Constitution would allow and using such powers to enter into the private lives of those being "defended". Frankly, I'm offended by such intrusion, and I'm additionally offended by the masses who are OK with this. What an awful mess! And to think that I'm getting poorer and poorer by the incredible amount of dross being printed up in order to pay for such an ill-conceived and badly executed bug extermination. But hey! That's just my opinion. Feel the sting, baby.

Anyway, however one justifies this war, for us to try and establish a democracy without establishing Christianity first is only going to lead to disaster. Woops! Too late.

Lee Duigon, in an article at the Chalcedon website, wrote about Polybius, a Roman pagan general and historian, and how he describes the downfall of Rome's republic:

When the state “achieves supremacy and uncontested sovereignty,” Polybius wrote, and order and prosperity, and life becomes more luxurious, then “rivalry for office … will become fiercer than it should.”

With no foreign power able to threaten Rome, and domestic political problems solved insofar as was humanly possible, the quest for public office and preeminence would become an end in itself. This “craving for office,” plus the intense humiliation felt by the losers — the Roman equivalent of each party trying to impeach the other party’s winners — plus the ostentation and extravagance seen everywhere, “will usher in a period of general deterioration,” said Polybius.

The “principal authors of this change will be the masses, who … will believe that they have a grievance against the greed of other members of society” — fueled by the “class warfare rhetoric” of competing political candidates — and “are made conceited by the flattery of those who aspire to office,” Polybius said.

To win elections, candidates would have to vie with one another in offering bigger and better favors to the electorate: new entitlements, to use today’s term. And the masses, “roused to fury … constantly swayed by passion,” will no longer obey their leaders, but will demand more favors.

At that point, Polybius said, “the constitution will change its name to the one which sounds the most imposing of all, that of freedom and democracy, but its nature to that which is the worst of all, that is the rule of the mob.”

Sounds awfully a lot like America today.

But, we're not talking about us. We're talking about Iraq. Rome did not follow after God, but after multiple gods. Having read some of the mythological stories of the Greek and Roman gods, they didn't follow anyone worth following. The "gods" were just as human as the Romans were: full of sin. In the unregenerate state while following unregenerate models, is it a wonder that the Roman republic deteriorated into the mess that we are now seeing on the birthpang scale, and the mess that it is now in the Middle East?

(I'm not downplaying the role Christianity during the first century here. The challenge of the King of Kings versus the Roman civil magistrates would only serve to compound the destruction of Rome.)

"Regeneration, not revolution" is a phrase that is attributed to R.J. Rushdoony. Simple, yet so true. What is needed in Iraq, and in every other country devoid of Christ, is regeneration, not the forced imposition of a democracy. Without regeneration, no form of government will give the kind of freedom we are so blessed here in America, as fading as it is. With regeneration, a dictatorship, oligarchy or democracy would hold to a standard higher than their own. Which government would you prefer to live under? A dictatorship where God's Law is enforced or a democracy where the mob rules under Allah?

And so, rather than continue in the war in Iraq, we ought to send church planters, not carpet bombers. Can this be done? I doubt it in the short term. Already, because of the invasion, Iraqi Christians have had to flee their homes. How ironic that the Christian country, USA, would force (passively) Christian Iraqis out of home.

However, in the long run, as a postmil kind of guy, I do believe that Christians will be able to go there eventually without feeling the great emotional stress of being killed by your neighbor. Let us pray that this much sooner than later.

In Christ,

Victor