Revolution 4 Jesus Christ

Pelosi's lack of shame - tax dollars to eliminate future births

2009-01-27T10:21:00.000-08:00

Well, we continue to learn more about the $850 billion, soon to be $1 trillion spending proposals working their way through Congress. And the details are frightening.

House Leader Nancy Pelosi even suggested that in order to stimulate the US economy, the federal government should invest $200 million in family planning (abortion and birth control) services.

On "This Week..." Pelosi said the following to George Stephanopoulos:

"The family planning services reduce cost," Pelosi said, "One of the elements of this package is assistance to the states. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Even Stephanopoulos seemed startled by her brazenness. So he sought clarification. "So no apologies for that?" Pelosi's reply: "No apologies. No."

Never mind the Federal government has not made an argument as to how spending on contraception, sod for the Washington mall, $600 million to help people convert to digital television (I suppose we need to be more sedentary, so let's make for a better television picture!), or money for water parks stimulates the economy, but the arrogance of this woman is incredible. She has now vocalized a proposal akin to the genocidal policies of China. Recall that China for years held to a 2-child per household policy that led to many hundreds/thousands/millions of abortions. Their thinking was that the economy of China could not keep up with the population growth of their country. Well, many Chinese families wanted boys, so if an early birth was a girl, well, it was better to eliminate the child and keep a slot open for the birth of a boy in the future.

Now, Pelosi is stating the same thing. She said that with state and local economies facing budget deficits, the federal government will help them by eliminating unplanned pregnancies.

Not only is this thinking sad, morbid, disgraceful, and disgusting, it is short sided even if you buy into her arguments (let me be clear, I don't). After all, as our government spends future generations savings with the type of cavalier spending that is presently taking place, the result is an increase in long-term debt. And like personal debt, there will come a call for repayment, and that repayment will fall on those presently in their 20s, 30s... actually those in their teens and future generations. So by proposing to eliminate hundreds/thousands/millions of children from being born, she is eliminating the future government revenues (taxes) that will be required to pay off this debt.

Pelosi is a self-professed Catholic, and it's disgraceful she behaves in such a cold manner. And yet Scripture contains numerous expressions that we are to look after the children, the innocent.

But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant, and said to them. "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them for to such belongs the kingdom of God." Mark 10:14 (ESV)

"See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 18:10 (ESV)

"Speak up for the people who have no voice, for the rights of all down and outers. Speak out for justice! Stand up for the poor and destitute." Proverbs 31:8

Providing government dollars in the form of birth control or to enable abortions despises the little ones, dismisses the most destitute, and prevents the little ones from coming to Jesus as he demanded.

Jim Wallis - yeast of a Pharissee

2009-01-24T08:03:00.000-08:00

In my opinion, Christians have spent far too much time on the abortion debate over the last 30+ years, ignoring other global issues like hunger, AIDS, human trafficking, etc. And in terms of helping increase the visibility on those issues, few have done more than Jim Wallis and his organization, Sojourners.

But Wallis recently erred when he said that Obama's decision to rescind the policy of President Bush which tied international financial aid to a pro-life stance, the so-called Mexico City policy. Wallis said Obama "showed respect to both sides in the historically polarized abortion debate..." Why does Wallis state this? He says it was because Obama did not sign the order on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Sadly, the timing of the decision was politically motivated, but does nothing to "show respect to both sides" as Wallis suggests.

Wallis and Obama are naive to believe the timing of the signature lessens the impact of the signature.

Wallis and others are often quick to point to the irresponsible comments of people like Pat Robertson, suggesting they do not speak for God. I agree on that point. But as Wallis' fame has grown I think he is precariously close to becoming the left-leaning version of Robertson. When "leaders" like Wallis express their opinions on politics, I reflect on Jesus' instruction to his followers to not allow the yeast of Pharisees to infect them. (Matthew 16:5-12) Jesus recognized that the disciples may be swayed by the religious leaders of their day, and warned them to be careful. His message was clear - you need to follow my teaching, my instruction. And Jesus' instructions are clear - we are to care for the children, the poor and the weak. Wallis often works to ensure that the poor and weak are not overlooked, and I commend him for doing so. But there is none "weaker" than an unborn child. Obama's order to rescind this policy does nothing to protect the unborn, and in fact makes it more likely more of the unborn will die. And Wallis seems to ignore this fact.

I think too many - people on both the right and left - are letting politics sway their allegiance to Jesus. Robertson and others like him will typically support Republicans, and Wallis, McLaren and others will usually support Democrats. Yet our God called us to be set apart. We are not to follow Pharaoh, or Caesar, or the President, or a political party, but instead the one true Christ.

And on this, Jesus will hold us accountable. Matthew 25:45-46 - Paraphrasing Jesus, "As you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me. And these will go away to eternal punishment."

President Obama, Rick Warren and the invocation

2009-01-21T05:52:00.000-08:00

It seems the hysteria is beginning in reference to Pastor Warren's invocation yesterday. Not only did he invoke the name of his (and the President's, and my) savior Jesus, but he also shared what is often referred to as The Lord's Prayer. Many are expressing surprise, if not contempt.

However, if one looks closely at this prayer, incited by Jesus as how one should pray and not as what one should pray (Mt 6:9, "Pray then like this..."), we see universal truths for all, regardless of what one's faith is.

Mt. 6:11 - "Give us this day our daily bread... Throughout the world, millions face hunger. It is estimated that 16,000 children die each day from hunger related causes. Praying for God to provide the basic sustenance for living is not offensive; ignoring the plight of so many on the other hand is.

Mt. 6:12 - "...and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." In America, personal and governmental debt is having a terrible impact on so many. Homes are being foreclosed, businesses are shutting down. Debt in third-world countries is even more crippling. When impoverished countries struggle to pay debts incurred decades earlier, their people suffer. While organizations like DATA continue to make strides to communicate the burden of debt, much more progress is needed. Forgiving the debt of others can make a tremendous impact on their lives, both here and abroad.

Mt. 6:13 - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." Giving in to the evils of temptation lead to many destructive behaviors. Drug and alcohol addiction, infidelity and addition to pornography, obesity, theft - the list is too long to continue. Praying to God to enable us to resist all destructive temptations allows us to live upright lives.

Pastor Warren did a good thing invoking this prayer. And I pray that people look beyond the politics of religion and closely at the words of Jesus. There is nothing offensive in these words, and if we acted as Jesus instructed our entire world would be in better shape. And I pray that President Obama follows Jesus' instruction as he leads this country over the next four years.

An open letter to Grace Community Church

2008-12-19T06:20:00.000-08:00

To Reverend Christmas and the congregation of Grace Community Church -

I read with interest your plans to reveal the sins of one of your former members to the congregation you lead. While I do not condone the sins of Ms. Hancock, I find it absolutely hypocritical of you and your leadership to resort to such humiliation.

Let me ask a number of questions of you.

1. When Ms. Hancock met with a mentor to share the details of her relationship, did the mentor tell Ms. Hancock that she would share those details with others? In one news account, Ms. Hancock expressed surprise that other people were aware of her indiscretion, so I expect the answer to be no. And yet the mentor shared the details with a number of other women, without the consent of Ms. Hancock. I do believe the Bible takes to task those who gossip (See Paul's words in Romans 1, 2 Corinthians 12, and these words in 1 Timothy 5:13 - "And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to."). Are those women going to be publicly humiliated for their sins?

2. Are other sinners being brought before the congregation? How many of your congregants live as Paul describes in Galatians 5:19-21? "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." I would imagine many have feelings of hate, jealousy, selfish ambition. Is it because Ms. Hancock trusted someone and shared her struggle that she is to be humiliated, while those that keep their sins secret get a pass? Who is more honorable - Ms. Hancock for her honest disclosure of her sins, or the hundreds of secret sinners that sit in your pews? Who is casting stones - because Jesus said only those without sin could do so?

3. Where is your grace? You are focusing on the law, on the sin Ms. Hancock committed, and yet, we are called to forgive, and to live like Christ. Yet Paul says that while sin increases, grace is to grow disproportionately. "The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Sadly, I see no grace in your actions.

4. Your context of Matthew 18:17 is erroneous. Read carefully the words of Jesus. He states if a brother sins against you. How did Ms. Hancock sin against you? Her sin is immoral yes, but in no way was she sinning against you, or your congregation. And yet you have decided that the best way to deal with this is through humiliation? That is disgraceful. In fact, continuing on in that chapter, Jesus tells Peter he should forgive seventy-seven times. My guess is that you have not forgiven once, let alone seventy-seven times.

How sad that a sinful, broken people of God, as you profess to be, acts as Pharisees. Please read your Holy Scriptures. Some words of wisdom, from Jesus our Lord: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

The wisdom of C.S. Lewis

2008-11-12T13:36:00.000-08:00

Lately I've had a lot of extra time to read, as I've taken a break from the rigors of seminary. So I've picked up some new books, and taken some time to re-read older titles. One book I'm reading right now is The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis. It's a perspective of heaven and hell that only Lewis could present.

There is a particular passage that struck me today. If you're familiar with the story, one of the Ghosts was an artist, a painter before dying. In taking in the splendor of Heaven, he asks if he'd be able to paint what he sees. He's told no, that he wouldn't be able to, as the skill of the artist is no longer needed in Heaven. After some back and forth, the Ghost is told that he forgot why he painted in the first place. "Light itself was your first love: you loved paint only as a means of telling about light." Since everyone can see the indescribable beauty before them, art isn't needed; Heaven is the art.

That passage really struck me, as it seems to address a fundamental concern I have for American Christianity. Lately, there is so much angry discourse about what Christian leader is right, which leader is heretical, what the Bible means, etc. The arguments are filled with so much pride, so much indignation.

In light of this, I thought a paraphrase of Lewis' words made so much sense:

"God Himself was your first love:

you loved the Bible only as a means of telling about God."

Isn't that why we were gifted with the Bible, with God's word - to learn about God? Isn't the singular story from Genesis to Revelation a story of God, and about His pursuit of us? Of His rescuing us? Why is it that so many people want to be right about what the Bible means, and then forget about God, about Jesus, and about their gracious, never-ending love for us?

In another of Lewis' books, The Screwtape Letters, Lewis shares a fictional account of Screwtape, an assistant to Satan, and Wormwood, his nephew. Wormwood's objective is to win people to Hell, away from God and Heaven. In one scene Screwtape shares that if Wormwood can get people to focus on anything other than God, he'll win. He said that if Wormwood gets a person to focus on and pray to an object, not to God Himself, then the person will think less and less of God, eventually falling away from Him completely.

The current trend to argue incessantly about the ancient meaning of Biblical texts serves the same purpose. In my mind, the more we argue about what Paul meant, what Revelation means, how OT prophesy is fulfilled through Jesus, the less we'll focus on God and praising Him. Our attention is focused on winning the argument and not on God.

I truly appreciate the creative brilliance of Lewis. I think modern Christians would learn a great deal by reading some of these classic stories.

Obama - a victory for those in need?

2008-11-06T09:26:00.000-08:00

There are many things about Obama's victory over McCain that I have concern about. For example, I am extremely concerned about the out of control growth of government spending. Federal expenditures grew during Clinton, grew during Bush, and will continue to grow as a percent of GDP under Obama. I am concerned about what this means in terms of abortion rights and the impact on the unborn. And I have other concerns as well - frankly, I still do not believe he has the experience and qualifications.

But all that said, I celebrate his election in terms of the overall meaning of a minority winning election to the highest office in our country. In 40 years, to move from the voter rights movement of the mid-60s to electing a black man to the Presidency is monumental. It is evidence that maybe our country is beginning to believe that all men are created equal, and all are created in God's image.

But there remain inequities, and racism and inequality still exist in the United States and the world. If you don't believe that, read the story of the failed assassination attempt on Obama.

And yet, Obama's victory offers a unique opportunity. Don't misunderstand - the opportunity isn't to create equality by redistributing wealth or promoting the "Fairness Doctrine." The opportunity is an authentic pursuit of justice and reconciliation between blacks and whites, between the wealthy and poor, and yes even between Democrats and Republicans. But the reconciliation will only occur if all sides make a decision to engage in civil discourse...voluntarily.

In this time of economic uncertainty, we have a very important opportunity as well. We can reach out to those in need, to those struggling to pay their bills or buy food, and take action. It doesn't matter what color, religion, or political party, we have the chance, right now, to prove Obama's election isn't just window dressing.

Obama stated in a speech, "Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well." Jesus conveyed these thoughts throughout his public ministry. He called us to care for the "least of these" - those hungry, thirsty and imprisoned. Sadly in our country, in this country of great wealth and prosperity, we fail to do so.

The Obama presidency can become everything his supporter's hope for. It can be an administration of "change." But it can only be so if partisan, vitriolic comments on both sides of the aisle cease and the country pursues a path reflective of the life of Jesus. The government will solve nothing, but people can. If you are an Obama supporter, don't wait for him and the federal government to do anything - take action on your own. And if you are a McCain supporter, then prove to others you care about more than just taxes. Get involved, take action, and solve problems, whether big or small.

Peace.

The high cost of college - a new perspective

2008-09-12T06:27:00.000-07:00

There is no doubt that the cost of a post-secondary education has gotten out of line. Because colleges and universities really do not operate in a free-market, with the federal government subsidizing tuition rates that are artificially high, the cost has increased much faster than the rate of inflation. Over time, the high costs will result in fewer enrollments and/or more debt burden upon graduation.

So, many students are looking for creative ways to help them pay for college, to help them reduce their debt. Sadly, one person is selling her body - and dignity - to help her reduce her college debt. She is selling her virginity. This is so sad. She says, "I don't think auctioning my virginity will solve all my problems, but it will create some financial stability." I'm not sure how much debt she has, nor how much she really thinks this stunt will earn her, but she can't think this will earn a lot of money. What will someone pay - $500? $1000? (And what freak would pay this money?!) But within her quote is the tragedy. Selling her virginity will not solve all her problems, as she suggests, and in fact may cause future problems she hasn't contemplated.

Setting aside any potential risk to her physical health, what might this do to her psychological health? How does she explain to a potential future husband that she was a prostitute? Sorry for being crude, but that's what this is. How does she wrap her mind around this? She doesn't think she'll have regrets in the future?

What is her sense of urgency to reduce her debt? What is motivating her? Where are her friends and family? Isn't there a job out there she could get to begin a methodical, disciplined paydown of the debt?

It's interesting as our society pays more attention to caring for the environment, to caring for animals, that we care less about how special we are in God's eyes. We were created in the image of God - how do we take that gift and throw it away? While celebrity virginity is in the news (Jonas Brothers, Jordin Sparks), it seems as though more and more people are engaging in pre-marital sex, not only with long-time boyfriends and girlfriends, but casual hookups and "friends with benefits."

This is really sad. I feel bad that she doesn't have people around her that can provide her with some guidance, and let her know she doesn't have to go this direction.

Donald Miller at DNC

2008-09-02T19:22:00.000-07:00

As you're probably aware, Donald Miller was asked to offer a prayer at the DNC in Denver last week. You can find the speech on YouTube.

I don't have a big problem with what he said (although I wonder how fair teacher's salaries are social justice related, as poverty, AIDS, hunger are?), but in an interview that was given in conjunction with the prayer, Miller exposes himself. (No, not that way!) He has gone from being a thoughtful Christian speaker and writer to a person espousing Democrat talking points. Listen to this interview with CT writer Sarah Pullman.

On another site, I responded with the following:
=====
Miller has moved from being a thought provoking Christian to a liberal-leaning politico. He seems to blame the "Republican Evangelical Conservative mindset" for the number of abortions, saying that since the "pipedream" of making abortion illegal hasn't worked it's time to move on to other solutions.

Why not find solutions that go hand-in-hand with making abortion illegal? He said Republican Christians search the bible for passages that support policies, for example war. For the most part, I am anti-war. (I say for the most part, as I can't quite get my heart around watching genocide occur when a military action might in fact save lives. But I digress.) How can one be anti-war but support abortion rights? Life is sacred, and one doesn't need to search the Bible to know that truth. It's a disconnect Christians such as Miller seem to want to avoid.

Social justice is a huge concern of mine, and I think that both Democrats and Republicans have failed so many, both here in the US and abroad. We failed to act in Africa when Clinton was President, and we have failed to act with Bush as President. Our failures have nothing to do with political affiliation, they have to do with our failure to live as Christ would.

Sadly Miller seems to want to blame Republicans and Republican policies, failing to hold Democrats equally accountable in this failure. As I said, he has become just another politician.
=====

While Miller doesn't publicly profess his party affiliation, he doesn't hide it well. And I don't have a problem with his Democrat-lean. It's okay. But he condemns Evangelical leaders even though they too are Christian.

The issues in our culture are not caused by Democrats or Republicans (or I should say they are cause by BOTH Democrats and Republicans). Isn't it time for all Christians to move beyond political affiliation and move toward Christian affiliation? I think Miller is attempting to do so, but his slips and slides into rhetoric betrayed any intention he may have had. I think, as many Evangelical leaders have done before, he is drinking the celebrity Kool-Aid and he likes it. He likes being a star, and the Democrats have embraced him.

I really, truly like Donald Miller's words, his thoughts, and his heart. But I'm disappointed that his words in this instance are not well thought out, and not consistent with Christian doctrine.

Answered prayers

2008-05-27T17:58:00.000-07:00

It's pretty amazing how cynical we are today. If an athlete becomes a star, he must have gotten there by using steroids, for example. Or an actress - she must have slept her way to the top. And politicians are only interested in their ego...well maybe some of our predispositions are valid.

Anyway, when it comes to prayer, many express doubt that it works. Too often people are quick to point to events just being lucky, good fortune, or the 'stars being aligned,' etc. If a person says the event 'was an answer to a prayer' often the cynic will express skepticism that any prayers were indeed answered.

Why is it so hard to believe in the power of prayer? If something happens that defies explanation, at least based on science as we know it, couldn't the answer be prayer? Isn't it possible that God intervened in events enabling an outcome that could be described as miraculous?

I ponder this after reading a story of a probable plane crash which turned...on a prayer. Two guys were flying a plane when the plane ran out of fuel. Being Christians, the men prayed for a safe landing. After making it over a peak, the saw a landing strip below them, and made a safe landing.

Here's the kicker: As the plane came to rest, they stopped beside a sign that said, "Jesus is Lord."

As I read the story, I reflected on a passage from Scripture, found in the Book of Matthew. In chapter 18 it reads, "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." I don't know if the two gentlemen knew of this particular verse, but I reckon they truly believe what it says.

Paul wrote in Ephesians, chapter 6, that we should never stop praying, but should pray "on all occasions." Maybe if we did, we'd read more stories like the one referenced here. And then maybe we'd be a little less cynical that prayer does work - after all, we'd see the results all around us.

California Gay Marriage Ruling

2008-05-16T08:45:00.000-07:00

While much anticipated, the ruling by the California Supreme Court that overturned the ban on gay marriage has certainly gotten a lot of people in a tizzy. As expected, there is a hue and cry from Christians nationally, decrying the decision. There is the reaction by proponents saying the decision "Is about human dignity. It's about human rights." That's SF Mayor Gavin Newsome's response anyway.

I find it amazing how much money and time and effort is being put into this fight, on both sides of the issue. It will surely be on the California ballot again this fall in an attempt to make gay marriage unconstitutional. Of the 38 million people in the state, there are 108,000 same-sex households. That works out to about one-half of one-percent of the population being impacted. A lot of time and money for a very small population.

How many millions have been spent? One group raised $1.5 million; when it comes to a state-wide constitutional fight, the dollars will make that look like chump change.

And that's where I get so upset about this stuff. Gay couples will continue to live with one another; that's their choice to do so. I don't have to embrace the notion, but it is their right. Moving to a more formal relationship of marriage grants them rights they didn't have previously, for example on the issue of estates and tax laws.

But my concern is with the millions of dollars being spent by both sides in this fight. I try to be consistent with what I write about, and I just wish the dollars were spent on more important issues. When the final numbers are known, well over 100,000 will have perished in Myanmar. Likewise, between 50-75,000 will have died in the China earthquakes. Human trafficking and slavery still exist. The crisis in Darfur continues with no end in sight. And in our country, we still have homeless children looking for foster care and adoptive parents.

Think of it this way. There are hundreds of parents that would like to adopt a child. Many do not do so, since the cost is about $20,000. Imagine if $1 million were allocated to fund the adoption process for those that couldn't afford the fees. That's 50 kids with a new home. Now take the number and multiply it by the $10-20 million that will be spent on this issue in the fall, and you can see the incredible impact that could be made.

On a final note. My savior Jesus Christ has called me to love my neighbors as I love myself. (Mark 12:31) He said this as a command, not a suggestion. We are to love God, and love our neighbors. Simple, straightforward, humble, from the heart. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, keep in mind the broader issue of love - whether it is gay couples, or those suffering as a result of natural disasters and human failure.

Subtle bigotry

2008-05-10T05:52:00.001-07:00

I find it interesting how subtle hate and bigotry can be. It's in the mocking, the little jabs and digs, the smirk when someone says something with a "You know what I mean" kind of wink. It's seeing an overweight person at a buffet grabbing a dessert, and you leaning to your friend saying, "Well, no wonder she's overweight." Or it's the arrest shown on television of a black man, with you telling your friend, "If they'd just get a job." The word "they" meaning black men. In the first example, you wouldn't hold up a sign that says, "You're fat." And in the second example, you wouldn't shout out, "Black men are lazy, good for nothing bums." But the attitude is harmful and destructive nonetheless.

I bring this up because of something I read this morning in the StarTribune, Minneapolis' lone newspaper. I only get the paper on weekends, because it's not very timely in this day of instant news on the Net, and I get offended by the left-leaning nature of the paper. I don't mind a Liberal perspective, but a.) balance it with a Conservative perspective, or b.) at least acknowledge the slant. And if the slant were just in the editorial pages, even that would be fine. But what has happened is that the general nature of the editorial slant has infected so many other aspects of the paper.

Here's an example. In today's paper, there is a brief interview with Arianna Huffington. She has gone from being the wife of a Conservative politician in California to a Liberal media machine. Her Huffington Post is an extremely successful blog, often referred to by mainstream news shows for their commentary. She doesn't hide behind the left-leaning slant, and at least you know what you're going to get. But what bugged me about the article was the comment from the person who interviewed her, Bill Ward. Huffington is speaking on the topic of impartiality, and she begins with her own misguided statement. She says, "I think impartial coverage is coverage that is accurate, fact-based and fair. It does not mean you give equal weight to both sides of each story or issues when one of the two sides is wrong..." If she had stopped with "fact-based" that would have been accurate. But saying that one side is wrong becomes opinion. Who decides what is wrong? She confuses opinion with news coverage. She falls into the same trap that Fox News, CNN and others do, letting their opinions determine what should be covered. But that's not my issue.

After she finished this point, this is what followed.

Q So, it's like with evolution, giving a creationist equal weight?

A Yes, exactly, that's a very good argument. I'm going to steal that from you [laughs].

The interviewer has now imposed his bias into the interview. He is suggesting, and Huffington agrees (with the smirky smile and laugh) that creationism is wrong, and shouldn't be given equal time with evolution. Never mind that macro-evolution has still not been proven, the attitude demonstrated by Ward is condescending, arrogant, and smug. It's no longer an interview, it's a political statement, and Ward is providing his subtle bigotry toward anyone who believes in a creationist perspective.

Subtle bigotry is cruel and evil. In many ways it's more destructive than an overt bigot or racist. It's the drops of water that slowly erode the rocks, carving canyons where mountains previously existed.

People like me that believe in a creationist beginning to humanity are often ridiculed, mocked, and made fun of. Sometimes it's in your face, but other times it's silent. It's sad a news organization has to fall into the same trap.

"Well, you know those Christians...the just use religion as a crutch. They believe God actually created the universe."

Consumerism - for a cause

2008-05-06T18:08:00.000-07:00

Rosa Loves

Of all sins in our society, consumerism and greed and prosperity drive me insane. And I don't believe I will ever slay those dragons.

So, for those of you that like cool new things, check out the links on the right. Two cool sites selling t-shirts. The difference? Profits go to support various social causes, not only here in the (prosperous) USA, but throughout the world.

Where do you place your hope?

2008-05-06T17:19:00.000-07:00

Yeah, it's been 4 months since I posted. Isn't it amazing how quickly bad habits form, yet good habits take so very long to take hold? Well the writing habit left in the blink of an eye, so now the effort begins to renew something I enjoy, something that is cathartic to a degree.

When I write or teach, I desire to create some tension. It's not a desire to be controversial, although that sometimes occurs. Really, it's to enable me to get out of my comfort zone, and in turn maybe move someone else out of their proverbial easy chair at the same time. So, if you read something that inspires a reaction - positive or negative - write back. I think the discourse that society engages in is beneficial, so long as people are polite, considerate, and empathetic to the other person's perspective.

What is motivating me to write today is the seemingly never ending Democratic primary season. What began many months ago as a foregone conclusion to coronate Hillary has become a brutal, negative, harsh, expensive quest for power among two battle-scarred combatants. While voters in Indiana and North Carolina have cast their votes today, it is certainly not the end of this fight.

And there is much to write about. Whether it is Clinton's ongoing negative campaign, or Obama's ties to a rhetorically combative pastor, I could write to the point of causing my fingers to bleed; yes, there is so much to discuss. But the key thing I want to touch on is something that came to my attention about a month ago.

I was speaking with a friend of mine that is a Obama supporter. In fact, I would say he is passionately so. I asked him why he felt such a strong affinity for this candidate that was only recently an unknown freshman Senator from Illinois. And like so many that have been asked this same question on a national basis, he responded simply. "I just think that he offers more hope than the other candidates."

This friend of mine is well educated and fairly progressive, so his support of Obama didn't surprise me. But it startled me that the first thing he mentioned was this "hope" that had been inspired in him. It wasn't healthcare, the war in Iraq, the economy - it was hope. And that's really fascinating.

I am struck by the fact that so many are placing their hope in a flawed human being. That is not an attack on Obama - I am saying in any flawed human being. We place some mythic value on people that is not deserved, in fact is misplaced, and is often even betrayed. It's irrational. We look to one human being as the message of hope, that by following this person people believe all ills will be remedied.

But Obama is not worthy. Nor are talented athletes, actors and actresses, rock stars, or pastors. There is only one source of hope. We hope in Jesus Christ. We trust our God above all else, above all people. For people are flawed, and people will fail to live up to the "hope" we have placed in them.

You might think I'm being a bit pessimistic. Maybe a tad, but if we simply look back over thousands of years, we have ample proof. People screw up - all the time. Yet we keep turning to people and placing our "hope" in them.

Instead, it's time to turn back to God's book. The lessons in Scripture are infinite and eternal. There is a message for all situations, and direction for our lives.

The Book of Job is an entire story of hope. The following passage comes from the 8th chapter:

Can papyrus grow tall where there is no marsh? Can reeds thrive without water?
While still growing and uncut, they wither more quickly than grass.
Such is the destiny of all who forget God; so perishes the hope of the godless.
What he trusts in is fragile; what he relies on is a spider's web.
He leans on his web, but it gives way; he clings to it, but it does not hold.
He is like a well-watered plant in the sunshine, spreading its shoots over the garden;
it entwines its roots around a pile of rocks and looks for a place among the stones.
But when it is torn from its spot, that place disowns it and says, 'I never saw you.'
Surely its life withers away, and from the soil other plants grow.

How can you be unmoved by such beautiful poetry? It's a story of misplaced hope. It's sad, heartbreaking. And so many that place their hope in a politician will suffer the same fate.

Is it wrong to hope? Not if the hope is placed in proper perspective. It was certainly not wrong to have hope in the message delivered by Martin Luther King, Jr. Or Nelson Mandela. Or Winston Churchill. But the hope we have in this world, in broken people, must always be compared to the eternal hope that never fails, never falters, never fades.

I know, I'm being overly dramatic to a degree. But true change does not come from a government official; it comes from within, it comes from one's heart, and is formed by God, in whom our true hope should reside.

We suffer...in hope

2008-01-18T12:29:00.000-08:00

This past week in our high school ministry group, we explored the concept of suffering. We asked questions within our small group of students: Why does God allow suffering? Does God cause suffering? Is there a purpose in suffering? These are big questions, and they're questions I'm not at all qualified to answer. But questions like this enable our faith to grow, so I wanted to explore it a bit, stumbling through some additional study on this concept of suffering.

In our small group, one passage that I referred to was in Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 8, verses 18-26:

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness.

God subjected the creation to suffering. Creation isn't suffering because of sin; sin resulted in God making the decision to subject creation to suffering. "...by the will of the one who subjected it..." And as the creation groans "as in pains of childbirth" so too we are subjected to God's decisions. Suffering included.

A couple of weeks back, I touched on New Year's resolutions, and that people make resolutions because they want something better, want to improve their lives in some way. They do so, believing in the desired outcome. Or, another way of stating that, in the "hoped for" outcome. I think what Paul is referring to when he writes in this passage is that we suffer in hope of a future glory. We suffer knowing that our sin resulted in a broken creation, and that as Jesus suffered, and as Paul suffered (read 2 Corinthians 11:24-29) so we too will surely suffer. But the suffering we endure is in anticipation, is in hope of our adoption as a child of God.

That is our hope, and that is where our focus needs to be in times of suffering. Too often we focus on our own loss, on our own heartbreak. That is not to say we shouldn't mourn, I think if we didn't, we wouldn't be humans. Even Jesus wept when he heard his friend Lazarus had died. But Paul says our present sufferings "are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." (Side note - that is a very interesting passage - not a glory revealed to us, but in us. More meditation is required on that!)

Earlier in Romans, Paul also writes on suffering. In Romans 5:1-5, Paul writes the following:

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

"Not only so, but we rejoice in our sufferings..." Suffering should not bring us down, it should turn our hearts toward God. And there is a reason - to develop perseverance, character...and hope.

"And hope does not disappoint us..." - at least not hope in God, because He truly loves us. "For God so loved the world..." He loves us.

Suffering sucks, no doubt. We've all experienced loss, heartache and heartbreak, and will again as we live in this broken world. But hope in God can never disappoint. So we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

And that's what gets us through.

Bring your shot glass to church

2008-01-13T19:52:00.000-08:00

Well, the fact this article appeared on a national news web site sure can't hurt their outreach: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322443,00.html

Next Level Church in Charlotte, North Carolina (www.nextlevelchurch.org) has come up with an interesting idea as they move to open their second location. They have imprinted shot glasses with an invitation to "give their church a shot." Catchy slogan.

I really like the creativity of this church. I'm not sure about the direct link, putting the church logo on the shot glass, but I admire that they are in community trying to reach those not presently within the walls of the church.

Too many churches preach to those inside, and don't make the effort to reach those outside, those not in the "church country club" who know the secret hand shake. They forget Jesus himself said that the call was to reach the sick. When eating with Levi and other tax collectors, Jesus rebuffed the Pharisees who made a big deal about him dining with these folks. Jesus was not moved by their criticism. He not only took a not-so-subtle swipe at their arrogance, he stated clearly what his mission was.

"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Jesus was - Jesus IS - calling all of us sinners to repentance. Not only those inside the church walls, but those inside the walls of coffee shops, bars, clubs, sports arenas, schools, etc.

So, raise a toast to Next Level. I love that they are taking risks to reach the lost. I admire the courage, knowing they will take a great deal of flak. But so did Jesus...

It's Time to Make Murder Illegal

2008-01-07T21:24:00.000-08:00

Quick quiz, with a simply yes or no answer. It will take 3 seconds.

I think murder should be against the law. All in favor, say "aye." I know a lot of you just did, so read on.

After all, it's certainly against God's law. Exodus 20:13 states it quite clearly - "You shall not murder."

That's it. There's nothing vague about that statement. Don't do it. Don't intentionally take the life of another human being. Don't shoot them. Don't stab them. Don't suffocate them. Don't drug them.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Except we still do. The United States still supports the legal murder of criminals. It could be for murder. It could be for rape or kidnapping. Whatever the crime, the government makes it legal to kill the person that committed the specific crime.

Why do I bring this up again? The death penalty is once again going before the US Supreme Court. The case relates to whether the procedure used to kill prisoners causes an undue amount of pain. http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/07/lethal.injection.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Of course, some reading this post will say that pain for a person that is on death row is just fine. After all, they inflicted pain on another person, so go for it. In fact, some will say the more pain the better. If you go to some of the links and related responses, you'll read the typical "what about the victims" reply.

Except if it were their son or daughter on death row...

Often people that argue for the abolition of the death penalty are confronted with the question: "If it was your daughter that was raped and murdered, would you still be against the death penalty?" I am finally to a state of mind that I can say, unequivocally, that I would still oppose the use of death to penalize another human being.

Valuing the sanctity of life for me has become a "non-negotiable." It could be in the form of unnecessary and cruel abortions, or killing in the name of justice. Either way, it is still murder, and I am opposed. It shouldn't happen, whether to alleviate embarrassment or economic impact in the case of abortions, or to punish or "save tax payer money" in the case of the death penalty. It's murder.

"You shall not murder."

Christians are supposed to reach all people for Christ. We are to endeavor to introduce the Gospel message to all people, to all nations, in anticipation of Christ's return. (read Matthew 24:14, Matthew 28:19-20) How can this be our calling if we are intentionally killing another individual? Isn't it quite possible that the person that committed the crime might repent, and live the rest of their years as a follower of Jesus Christ? Didn't Paul change his ways - and do historically extraordinary things? What about David? Shouldn't we allow for the possibility that the Holy Spirit could work to transform some lives? Isn't it equally possible that by allowing the Holy Spirit to work, that this person, this murderer or rapist, could in turn reach others?

Why do we insist on this barbaric practice?

"You shall not murder."

Convicted Again

2008-01-07T08:23:00.000-08:00

Like you, I subscribe to a variety of daily devotions, email posts, etc. I often simply send them to the trash bin, having little time to read and contemplate the message.

Today, I opened a message from Dr. Charles Stanley. I don't think I've read one of his messages in a couple of months. Obviously, there was a reason for me to do so today, a need for me to read his message.

As I stated in my previous post, I want my life this year to be exemplified by James 2:17 - having a faith is reflected in my actions. But I do not want to "act" in order to show my faith. That inverted logic is addressed by Dr. Stanley. He writes:

"..we meet many people who appear to be walking the narrow path though they have never actually made a decision for Christ. These folks may be busy with church work, but they have placed performance before commitment. Their activities may be commendable--such as volunteering in ministries and supporting missions--and they may even hold some right beliefs. But actions and thoughts aren't always an accurate reflection of the spirit and heart.
Many churchgoers assume their works are so pleasing to God that heaven is a certainty; sadly, they will be stunned by the ultimate rejection. At the judgment, Jesus will tell them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23). Jesus will not accept anyone who has refused to be forgiven for his or her sins.

Oh how right Dr. Stanley is! Just this morning I prayed that I might better know Jesus - not better know about him. My education and service has been too often focused on learning who Jesus was, versus learning who he is and what his life means to me today. I pray that I am led by my heart and soul, not by earthly motives that have influenced my actions in the past.

Don't skip your daily devotions. Spend time in God's word, but also, read and listen to the words of others around you. It is quite possible (probable) that God is trying to reach you through His many saints here on earth.

New Year's Resolution

2008-01-01T09:44:00.001-08:00

As I've re-read many of the posts from this past year, I've noticed a common theme. I've often called out people for not acting out their faith, or for a fake or superficial faith. In my previous post, I refer to the passage in Luke where Jesus tells people the importance of proper planning in order to finish the work in front of them. That's a pretty convicting passage for me, as I often start so many projects, and have so many ideas bouncing around in this near-empty skull, that I struggle to complete many of them. I have nearly completed projects around the house, and still contemplate the next one. I'm excited by the idea and the start, but often lack the perseverance to complete the work.

So why on earth would I ever contemplate making a New Year's Resolution? I've read the statistics: roughly 90% of those making resolutions fail to keep them. It's roughly 50% that fail within the first 2 months! For a person that doesn't finish strongly, one might say I am destined for failure as well.

But I've got a theory about these resolutions. The vast majority are for the benefit of the person making them. Whether it's losing weight or becoming more fiscally responsible or prudent, the beneficiary is the person making the resolution. And that's where I'm going to take a divergent path.

My resolution is to live a life modeled on James 2:17:

"...faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

Too much of my faith has been about words. It has been about learning more, studying more, teaching more. And that's all fine and well, but it's not about living a life transformed by the Holy Spirit. I can continue to post to this blog, but if I'm not living out my faith...James would say my faith is dead...and I'm not sure I could disagree.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not about to argue against salvation by faith. I'm not about to lean Catholic, and focus on "works" salvation. And God knows I get involved in too many "works" things already. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about living a life transformed (I know I'm being repetitive, but that word works.) Deep down in my heart, not faith in my mind. Full obedience to Christ, not doing something simply because I might feel good about it or look good doing it. But asking myself, "Is this action - or inaction - representative of how Christ would desire I act?"

In fact, the entire letter written by James could be a guidebook with which I should live my life. There is an abundance of guidance. Even my lack of perseverance is addressed right away - "Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete..." (Jas. 1:4) Dealing with temptation, watching my spoken (and written) words, being humble, being in prayer.

Make your own resolution. Make it for Christ, to serve him and to love others as he loved us. Make the resolution "other-centric" so that your faith is exhibited in how you live your life.

(Now, I'll still make some "me-centric" resolutions - the old stand byes like losing weight, running a marathon, etc. And odds are I'll fail. But who knows...?)

Complete the Work We Are Called To

2007-12-21T12:33:00.000-08:00

Based on a recommendation from a professor of mine at Bethel Seminary, I recently began reading a book written by N.T. Wright called The Challenge of Jesus.

The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is

Wright has a fascinating perspective on how Jesus' teachings in the first century would have been received by the people of his day, and how that impacts our perspective today.

In chapter 3, Wright takes on the topic of symbols in first century Judaism. He proposes that in calling out the Pharisaical focus on the law, and upholding the symbolic importance of the law, the Pharisees were less interested in upholding the law, and more interested in how upholding the law separated the Jews from everybody else. Wright contends this is why Jesus was so vocal and demonstrative in attacking the Pharisees - not that he wanted the laws ignored, but that he wanted the boundary that separated the Jewish adherents to the law destroyed. It's a wonderful book.

As I was reading chapter 3, I turned to the Gospel of Luke to re-read a passage Wright refers to. These are Jesus' words, as recorded in Luke, chapter 14, verses 28-30:
"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'"

In reading this passage with the fresh perspective Wright provided, it really made me uncomfortable, and here's why. How often do we hear the call to make disciples? It's the Great Commission after all - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..." (Mt. 28:19) We are told to evangelize, go introduce and bring people to Christ. My discomfort is not with this call - it's with our application. It seems we are so focused on bringing new believers to Christ, that I fear we're doing a disservice by not fully articulating what it means to be a follower of Jesus.

If we articulate to a non-Christian that their lives will be fully changed if they make a decision to become a Christian, and share with them all the benefits (a transformed life, an eternal life that begins today, etc.), but don't convey that this decision and all the associated ramifications should be fully considered, are we not setting someone up for failure? Using the metaphor from above, are we not prompting someone to build a tower, without providing them with the instruction, the resources, the tools, and the knowledge to complete the work?

I see so many Christians that have made a decision to follow Jesus Christ. What I am not seeing - and I am pointing a finger directly at myself here as well - are Christians that are committed to follow Jesus Christ. Have we fully examined what it will take to finish the work? Are we guilty of laying a shaking foundation which cannot possibly hold us up as we endeavor to serve, to disciple, to evangelize, and to love? I would argue that describes many (the majority?) Christians.

I guess my point is this. If we are committed to bring people to Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, then we need to ensure these people fully understand the call. It is a shame that so many have to make multiple decisions to follow Christ, because they weren't discipled, and weren't given the support they needed to build upon the foundation.

At great risk I'll say, it's not about the number of decisions made to follow Jesus Christ. It's about the depth of understanding this call means to the person making the commitment.

It's ensuring that the foundation is strong, and the cost fully understood.

MLB Steroid Story...And The First Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection

2007-12-21T04:34:00.000-08:00

During this past week, we've been reading and listening to the story of Major League Baseball's (MLB) steroid and HGH (human growth hormone) scandal. Former Senator George Mitchell outlined in a report the depth of the issue, and included names of current and former players who supposedly "juiced." Most prominent was Roger Clemens, but there were a few dozen others that were listed.

As I've listened to the talking heads analyze and hypothesize, one thing struck me: What would be gained by the accusers in sharing names of baseball players if they knew those players didn't use drugs? While being interviewed, some of the "witnesses" were promised immunity - but only if they told the truth. So, if they lied, if they falsely accused a player or trainer or someone else, they'd go to jail. In other words, if the government says to me, "Listen, anything and everything you say will never be used against you in any future case. But the one caveat is - you must tell the truth. If you lie, we will come after you, and prosecute you for your role in the illegal distribution of these drugs." Why would the person lie? What would be gained?

(Sidebar - Greg Anderson, the former trainer for Barry Bonds received this same offer, and refused to share any details. Could it be he is more afraid of Barry Bonds than a federal prosecutor? After spending over a year in jail for not testifying, there seems to be a lot he's willing to hide. After all, in his case, if there was no wrong doing, if Mr. Anderson didn't supply the steroids or HGH to Mr. Bonds, why on earth would he spend a day in jail? But I digress.)

Why would the person lie? What would be gained?

There is an interesting parallel to the death of Jesus and the many witnesses who came forward. Would the early disciples willingly die for a lie? Would they willingly endure persecution, torture, and death knowing full well that the resurrection never happened? This defies logic. People will indeed die for something they believe in. In this country, we've had 3000+ soldiers die in Afghanistan and Iraq, willingly volunteering to serve to free those held in bondage by dictators and war lords. There have been hundreds of suicide bombers in the Middle East that have taken their own lives because they believed their death would place them in heaven.

But the difference is that the disciples would know full well if they were telling the truth. Would someone hold on to a lie, if they knew it would mean their own torture and death? Before Peter spoke at Pentecost, he knew the truth. He knew that either Jesus was resurrected, or he knew that the body was lost or stolen, and he was going to preach a lie. But regardless...he knew. And when the persecution began, when Stephen was killed, the y all had to know. Yet Peter and others continued to speak, continued to share the Good News. Why? Because they knew the truth...and the truth was - and is - that Jesus lives!

The only reason they would do so is that they truly believed in their hearts that Jesus Christ was risen, that Jesus Christ did indeed fulfill Old Testament prophesy, and that Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of God as he had stated so many times before his death.

With regard to the steroid scandal, I'm pretty much sick of hearing about it. It's about a bunch of selfish millionaires trying to get an edge to perform better, to get an even more lucrative contract. In the grand scheme of things, it's truly insignificant.

But reflecting on the resurrection of Jesus Christ during this Christmas season is anything but insignificant. And the fact that many people died to share this truth is incredible.

(BTW, if you want to hear a short bit on this, go to Lee Strobel's website. Follow the link below: http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1065 )

Put down your stones...

2007-12-18T17:32:00.000-08:00

Are you, like me, sick of presidential politics - a full 11 months before the national election? I am so turned off that in this great country of ours, all we get for candidates are a bunch of whiny, snippy, negative children running for the highest office in this land. Clinton (one of them) says this, Obama says that. Romney says one thing, and Huckabee criticizes Romney's "Christianity." This is the true theater of the absurd. There is no substance, and there are no real candidates. When our country, when our world, needs a real leader, we have none to choose from.

Everything is about yelling louder than the other, and throwing as many stones as necessary toward one's opponent to break them down. Lately it's been the insinuations by the Clinton campaign that Obama snorted cocaine when he was younger. Guess what? Millions of people did. Does that make them evil???

We also have the aforementioned allusions by the Huckabee campaign that Romney's LDS beliefs are at odds with Christian beliefs. As I pondered this I thought: how is that different from Joe Lieberman's beliefs being different from a Christian's beliefs? And why is it right to be so pointed and so negative toward Romney, but it would be political suicide to be so negative toward a Jewish leader's beliefs? Why is it OK for a Christian to be a bigot, but when someone in Hollywood takes a Christian to task, why, we Christians organize boycotts, get on national television, and yell, scream and cry about how unfair the world is being toward us?

Because, no matter how you slice it, not voting for Romney simply because he is a member of the LDS church - if that is your only reason (and I personally know people who have shared this with me) - you are acting as a bigot. That is harsh, that is cold, that is honest. In 1960, there were tens of thousands that would not vote for John Kennedy because he was a Roman Catholic. Was that right? Nope. It was bigoted. And what now is the difference?

Is it that we shouldn't be neighbors with Mormons? Or, should we not be co-workers with them? Should we take our kids out of a classroom if another student is a Mormon? Where is the line drawn? Are some jobs OK for Mormons but other jobs not? Isn't that precariously close to the racism that previously existed in our country? (Some would argue that racism such as that still exists in this country.) Should Mormons drink from another fountain, and sit in the back of the bus???

This issue is really making me mad. We're supposed to love our neighbors...are Mormons not our neighbors? What are we afraid of??? Is our faith, is our Christian belief so fragile that electing a Mormon to the Office of the President of the United States will destroy all that we believe??? That is certainly how many are acting. If that's what we believe, then our faith is non-existent. If true faith can move mountains (Matthew 17:20), then surely true faith can withstand a Mormon in the White House.

Mormons have different beliefs than many Christians. There is no argument with that. But Protestant Christians have many different beliefs than Roman Catholics. And Missouri Synod Lutherans have many different beliefs than Episcopals. And so on... are we really afraid that if someone has a different religious belief system than we do, that they are unfit for office?

How is that different from Iran???

The other side of the Sean Taylor story

2007-12-01T11:10:00.000-08:00

As you are aware, professional football player Sean Taylor of the Washington Redskins was murdered this past Monday evening. This evening, four arrests were made in the case, with the expectation that all four will be charged with some combination of robbery and murder. To say this is a tragedy is a gross understatement.

Sadly, there is a bigger story here, and it was written about on ESPN.com. Writer Jemele Hall, a black woman who often takes on issues that may include race-related crimes (she wrote on multiple occasions on the Michael Vick case), addressed an issue that does not get a lot of attention. A key statistic she pointed to: the leading cause of death for black men aged 15 to 24 is homicide.
(Click here to read the entire story: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/071127)

Let that sink in - if you are an 18 year old black man, the most likely cause of death for you is your murder.

We can look to the many "causes" - poverty, disenfranchisement, fatherless homes, racism, etc. - but the tragedy that underlies that statistic is truly sobering. We have boys made to become men because there is no father at home, and if they make it to their late-teens, their greatest risk is being gunned down.

One of the four arrested is 20 years old...the rest are teenagers.

17- and 18-year olds boys carrying guns into a home to rob it.

Pulling the trigger.

Killing a man.

One action, five lives destroyed.

"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full."

These are Jesus' words from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 10. I know Jesus is speaking about Satan, and Satan's minions. But the thief in this case is the despair that motivated four youths to seek instant wealth by robbing a home. The thief in this case is the temptation and lure of money. The thief in this case has eliminated in these four young men any sort of system of right and wrong, the valuing of human life, or self-evaluation asking, "why am I here right now, holding this gun?" The thief has come to steal, but in the process killed and destroyed so much.

The thief is winning so very often in minority lives. It's heartbreaking that a celebrity murder is necessary to draw attention to the statistic Hall points to in her article.

As Taylor is buried next week, pray for healing in this world. Pray that God reaches more helpless, hopeless young men and shows them there is a better way, that there is a way to glory beyond their comprehension, that doesn't include money, sex, violence.

Pray that the life Jesus promises is made clear so the thief is vanquished.

Saudi Arabia Marks 136th Beheading of 2007

2007-11-25T19:46:00.000-08:00

It's been nearly 2 months since I've written. A lot has been going on - job changes, family health issues, and the general busy-ness of life. I'll try to be more faithful in my writing...
=====

I read this headline a moment ago, on the FoxNews website:

Saudi Arabia Marks 136th Beheading of 2007

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312768,00.html

Truly incredible. Truly heartbreaking. There will be an incredible outrage expressed by most in the world, including Amnesty International, Christian groups in America and beyond, etc. And rightly so.

How about this information:
> In the last 30 years, there have been over 1000 executions in the United States
> In 2006, there were 53 executions in the United States - Saudi Arabia executed "just" 38 last year

Where is the outrage? We cry over the brutal method of execution in Saudi Arabia, and yet we are mostly silent when it occurs in our own back yard. We mourn the millions of abortions that have occurred over the last 30 years, but the 1000+ "legal murders" are largely ignored.

Is there a difference?

Genesis 9:6 says the following:

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man."

Romans 13:4

"For he is God's servant to do you good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.
He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

1 Peter 2:13-14

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men:
whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors,
who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."

What are we to make of all this? Is murder OK if it is punishment for a crime? The Scriptural passages above seem to support that perspective. But aren't there other passages that suggest this isn't a proper or right attitude?

Matthew 5:38-39

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.
If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Romans 12:19

Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written:
"It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

Matthew 7:1-2

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged,
and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Jesus taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves. We are indeed God's creation. Do you think we have the right to take a life created by God? Who granted us that right? Other sinful human beings?

Before expressing to another person your outrage at the brutality of the Saudi government, take a look at your heart. Do you celebrate when a criminal is put to death?

Shouldn't you instead celebrate when a criminal, one found guilty of a crime, repents to his Savior?

James Dobson Is NOT My Spokesman!

2007-10-05T12:12:00.000-07:00

Shill - a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty

I truly dislike people who position themselves as spokespeople for a specific group of people. I am suspicious of them, quite frankly. How can one person claim to speak for thousands, or millions of people? I have long been suspicious of people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and hear more and more black people express that these two individuals are not spokesmen for all black people in this country.

I now lump Dr. James Dobson with those two individuals.

Evidently, Dobson believes he is the spokesperson for "Conservative Christians" or "right-wing Christians" or "breathing Christians." And he has spoken about the 2008 presidential election, in particular about Fred Thompson. Recently, Dobson made news with the following:

"James Dobson, one of the nation's most politically influential evangelical Christians, made it clear in a message to friends this week he will not support Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson. In a private e-mail obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, Dobson accuses the former Tennessee senator and actor of being weak on the campaign trail and wrong on issues dear to social conservatives. "Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote. "He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

Hmmm. I am struck by a couple of things here. First, Dobson says Thompson supports "50 different definitions of marriage." I am assuming this refers to Thompson's belief (my interpretation of Dobson's note) that marriage is a state's-rights issue. On that point, if this is indeed Thompson's take, then I agree with Thompson. This is not a federal or constitutional issue. Dobson, long an advocate for reduced federal government, evidently wants the federal government involved if it serves his purpose. I strongly disagree with him.

What bothers me even more is Dobson's petty, un-Christian attitude in this note. Stating Thompson "can't speak his way out of a paper bag" Dobson has demonstrated nothing of a Christ-like attitude. Saying Thompson has "no passion, no zeal..." - according to whom, Dobson? This trite, simple, judgmental attitude is exactly the type of attitude that pushes people away from Christian churches, pushes them away from pursuing a life-changing relationship with Jesus Christ.

I truly wish Dobson would realize he does not speak for me, and does not speak for what I would guess is the majority of Christians. I'm not talking about Thompson - we're months away from having to decide on him or the others in both parties. What I am talking about is his abuse of position. Because he runs a media empire, he believes that status has somehow endowed him with the platform to speak on behalf of millions of Christians across this country. He doesn't, and I know many people that agree with me.

Too often this man acts so small. There are aspects of Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell in his behavior, and that absolutely drives me crazy. These people have become caricatures - so, so easy to mock and ridicule.

Dr. Dobson, has evidently made his choice of who not to choose...as I will. I will choose not to support your organization. I will devote time and resources to other Christian organizations, those that reach out to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and house those who are homeless. Those are the issues Jesus would stand up for. I have no desire to support an organization that become a political shill for single-issue individuals across the country.

Sorry Dr. Dobson, but gay marriage isn't at the top of my list when it comes to the big issues facing the people of this world. Along with Christ-following Christians globally, I endeavor to serve a higher purpose and a higher calling.

Driscoll Takes on Emerging Church, Blind Guides

2007-10-02T18:07:00.000-07:00

"Woe to you, blind guides..." Matthew 23

I just listened to a 90 minute speech Mark Driscoll delivered to the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary conference just over a week ago. If you want to listen to a direct attack on Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and Rob Bell, take a listen:
http://www.sebts.edu/Convergent/GeneralInfo/

As a rule, I don't like it when Christians attack Christians, and I don't think Driscoll was attacking them personally... well, maybe he was. He criticized their theology, their teaching, their view of Jesus, their embrace of new-age thinkers (in particular was their fawning over Ken Wilber, a Buddhist who wrote "A Brief History of Everything").

But in a way, he was criticizing those that listen to and follow these folks. Which gets to my point. Are Christians happy simply having the Bible mediated for them, digesting what others are teaching them? Do Christians want to be spoon-fed seemingly thoughtful words so that when they leave the church building they feel better about themselves, and the world they live in? To me, this often appears to be the case. And it leads to the Joel Osteen's of the world preaching a easy, prosperity gospel, or a Pagitt teaching what Driscoll calls a paganism faith.

Why do most Christians decide not to engage in the thoughtful study of Scripture?

Is it too time consuming in our 24/7 lives? Maybe people simply don't know where to begin, or how to read it? I'm sure there are a variety of reasons. It used to be that churches offered a Sunday Bible study that was done in conjunction with the sermon and worship service. Unfortunately, many churches no longer offer Sunday Bible study. At times this is due to logistical challenges - my church simply doesn't have room in our facility to offer this. So they resort to the next best thing, which is small groups. These work fine, so long as those leading the study have been trained, and are capable of leading a serious study. But many of the small groups focus on "purpose driven" and other trendy classes.

And yet there is a call, a demand for better understanding this book we rely on to guide our lives. In my high school ministry, we were asking the students what they were looking for this year. There were a variety of comments, including the obvious like having good food to eat. But one of the young ladies simply said, "It would be great to have a Bible basics class so I better understand what the Bible says and how to read it."

If we are not teaching the Word of God, if we are not teaching others how to read and study His Word, we are failing as disciples of Christ. And if we do fail, many of those we wish to reach will be spoon fed questionable theology, drinking from the sippy cup of easy faith.

I have no desire to bash Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, etc. I have links to them here on this site. I've quoted McLaren in previous blogs, and I'm reading a book he recently wrote. It includes some interesting perspectives on our world, on poverty, on the environment. But I'm not looking to McLaren to teach me doctrine. I can learn from him more about the world I live in, but it is God's word I turn to for guidance and truth.

A professor of mine said the following: "Western Christians are at great risk of losing their Biblical literacy. And worse, they may be completely unaware of that illiteracy." If this professor is correct, and unfortunately I believe he is, then it's likely "blind guides" will end up leading and persuading people with questionable doctrine. I think this is what has gotten Mark Driscoll so upset with these "friends" of his. I think he is not only calling them out, but also calling out those of us who teach and aspire to lead others in a walk with Christ.

I strongly recommend you listen to what he had to say. It's not that I agree with everything - again, Driscoll and I disagree on some issues - but it is thought provoking.

Wild Belief - Everything Must Change

2007-09-27T06:14:00.000-07:00

"Everything Must Change" is a new book written by Brian McLaren, to be released next week. There is a quote from the book that I found to be "revolutionary" in nature.

"...[To unleash the needed change requires] doubting, rejecting, and defecting from our old framing stories, and instead, discovering and adopting - in a word, believing - a new framing story. That, once again, is exactly where I believe Jesus steps into human affairs, challenging us simply to believe his good news (Mark 1:15), and to believe him as the bearer of that good news (John 6:29, 35; 7:38; 10:37; 14:1).

If the word believing seems too soft a strategy for confronting global crises, I would reply that believing seems like a soft or weak thing only when it is domesticated belief. Tame believing for and within the dominant system may be easy, but wild believing against and beyond it turns normal people into heroes and history changers. Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr, Galileo, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Saint Francis... they all showed this heroic courage to believe against and beyond the dominant systems of their day."

Everything Must Change

I really love this thought. As I've written, I think too many Christians are playing it safe with their faith. We have tragedy everywhere, and often Christians seem paralyzed from engaging in the battle. But McLaren points to those that have "wildly believed" - MLK, Mandela - as examples of what is possible if belief is ignited, if belief is passionate, if belief is wild.

How many of us are looking to Christ for what he can provide us? Look at one of the Scriptural references from above.

When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?"
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
John 6:25-29

Jesus is calling them out. He said 'all you really care about is that I gave you something to eat.' They were looking for him because of their own selfish, earthly needs. As many of us do.

But following Christ is so much bigger than that. Yes he can provide sustenance - he promises to do so. Jesus says, "Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?" (Mt 6:26) But he also promises that if you focus solely on your own needs, you do so at great risk. Jesus says, "Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry." (Lk 6:25)

We worry so much about ourselves that we don't take chances, don't take risks. Martin Luther King, Jr. could have simply remained a preacher, but for him, there were more important issues at stake. He left his comfort zone, and changed the course of American history as a result. Paul could have continued to persecute Christians, but he was called by Christ, took many risks, and in turn he himself was persecuted, tortured, imprisoned. But he changed the course of Christian history.

We have to engage in the global struggles that surround us. We need to find a way to end racism. We need to engage in the fight to eradicate AIDS, hunger, thirst, slavery, bondage, hate. No one said this is easy. It takes a radical belief system - "wild believing against and beyond" the dominant system we live within.

The wild belief is in Jesus Christ, in whom all things are possible. (Mt. 19:26)

Embracing Culture, part 2

2007-09-24T18:58:00.000-07:00

My buddy Chris told me that John MacArthur was ranting the other day. I'm not sure if it was on the radio, or on television. I did a search and found this link (when you go to the link, you can then link to a YouTube video of the actual CNN interview):

http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/09/13/john-macarthur-doug-pagitt-and-yoga/

So, what has John MacArthur gotten all riled up about now??? Yoga. I want to dive into this, as it really fits nicely with part 2 of my series, Embracing Culture.

First, there was a definition of yoga mentioned on the interview. The definition read: a school of Hindu philosophy advocating and prescribing a course of physical and mental disciplines for attaining liberation from the material world and union of the self with the Supreme Being or ultimate principle. There is another definition found on the web as well: any of the methods or disciplines prescribed, esp. a series of postures and breathing exercises practiced to achieve control of the body and mind, tranquillity, etc. (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/yoga)

Let's parse words a bit. If you take the words "Hindu philosophy" out of the definition, what do you have? You have exercise that helps liberate a person from the material world, allowing more control of the body and mind. Being liberated from the material world - at least from the sins of the world, from the materialism of the world - doesn't sound like a bad thing.

It continues with the phrase "union of the self with the Supreme Being." This sounds like they mean to be united with God. Some might argue that the definition is somewhat pantheistic, that God is in everything and everyone. I can see that. Or is something else meant? I can also see examples in Scripture where we are taught that the Holy Spirit lives in us, that we are united with Christ through the Holy Spirit. Union, as in being united with Christ in life and death: Romans 6:5. Or being with the Holy Spirit: 1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 1:22; Eph. 2:22 - "And in him you are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit." Let's move away from the definition to what seems to have gotten MacArthur's goat.

So at first MacArthur grants that in certain situations, yoga may be okay. He says it "would depend on how the yoga is conducted. If it’s just purely exercise, and you’re a strong Christian, it probably wouldn’t have any impact on your faith." But then he says, "But in the big picture, why would Christians want to borrow an expression from a false religion..." Hmmm. Like Christmas? Most agree that Jesus was not born on December 25th. But that date was chosen in part to compete with pagan religions, and just happened to coincide with the celebrated birthdays of Ishtar and Mithra. The name Christmas is certainly Christian, derived from Christ's mass. But the date...seems borrowed.

Later in the dialogue, MacArthur says the following: "If you want a whole life, if you want your life to be what it should be, you don’t put yourself in some weird physical position, empty your mind, center on yourself and try to relieve your stress." The thing is, I don't think that's what most Christians performing these exercises are doing. MacArthur has made a large assumption. I think Christians that engage in "yoga" do so for the physical benefits of the exercise. They find it no more heretical to Christianity than stretching, lifting weights, running, etc. To a degree, all of those exercises do the same thing as yoga, allowing a person to use physical exercise to improve their body, relieve stress, etc. I've never performed yoga, but I used to run distances, 1-2 hours in length. While running, my mind would sometimes focus on the stresses of life, but at other times, my mind would be freed to a degree. At those moments, I found that I could engage in heartfelt dialogue with God. It was meditative in a sense.

A final MacArthur quote: "The idea of yoga is to fill your mind with nothing except to focus on yourself and try to find the god that is inside of you. From a Christian viewpoint, that’s a false religion. Exercise is a different issue." Again, if he uses the dictionary version of yoga, maybe. But his last sentence finally gets it. The point here is, most aren;t engaging in "yoga" because of some sort of secret desire to convert to or embrace Hinduism. They are doing it for the exercise. Nothing more. No big deal.

I think MacArthur's comments provide another example of why people like Jesus, but don't like the church (paraphrasing from Dan Kimball's book). MacArthur is attacking all who engage in this exercise as somehow being un-Christian. He implies that the only way to be a good Christian is to follow his rules, his guidelines, his understanding. As I've said in previous posts, I think John is a brilliant theologian. But he is a man, fallible just as I am. And I think he is wrong on this point. I think he is being overly judgmental, supporting the perception so many outside the church have of Christians in this country. I'm quite sure MacArthur would condemn me for having tattoos as well. And for listening to rock and roll music.

I think when I start my church, I'll have a yoga class. But I won't call it yoga.

I'll call it moga-moga. (Maybe it's just the name that bigs him?)

Hate detroying a civil society

2007-09-23T16:57:00.000-07:00

It seems that when I start to believe I will not be surprised by human behavior, something strikes me right between the eyes and shocks me. Remember, I wasn't terribly shocked by Kathy Griffin's comments. But this seems to cross the line of proper decorum, proper respect, proper decency.

The student newspaper at Colorado State University recently wrote a 4-word editorial. Simply, it said: "Taser This, F*&K Bush"

That was the end of the editorial. But it wasn't "bleeped" out like I did. Here is the article in full:
http://media.myfoxcolorado.com/special-projects/collegian.html

I really don't get it. Is it intended simply to shock? Is the point to make some sort of political statement? Is it simply because the fine students at CSU didn't have anything else to do after attending a massive beer-bong party, causing them to narrowly miss deadline?

As a general rule, I don't like to use this blog to comment on politics. I'd rather the focus remain on life events, Christianity, and the interplay and friction between the two. But I'm simply struck by the ongoing lack of manners in our society.

What happened? A sociologist could help me understand I'm sure. But with politics in particular, people have simply become mean. There is no civility - from editorial boards like this, to television shows and talk radio, the general mode of communication is yelling, name-calling and downright rude and intolerant language. As I reflect back, it seems the first show that did this on television was Crossfire, with a Liberal and Conservative arguing over the finer points of politics. Now the yelling and name calling are everywhere. MoveOn places an ad in the NY Times calling a well-respected general "General Betrayus." Conservatives mock Hillary Clinton for her thick legs, calling her a carpetbagger and worse. And it goes on and on...

After a while I'm sure, the public discourse will begin to turn around, becoming more civil and proper. I'm not sure how much longer I have to wait. At the end of the day, this lack of decency will ultimately doom this country.

A case in point: the Jena 6 issue in New Orleans. I'm not going to comment on the initial issue of the 6 black teens being tried for the attack on a white teen. But subsequent to that, there are many issues of hatred being spewed on both sides of the aisle. Yesterday, a white man drove through a group of protesters, with nooses hanging from the side of his pickup truck. This is an act intended to stir a reaction, to instigate a fight. It is blatant racism and hatred. It is yet another example where hate has become commonplace in our society. Hate for the sake of hate.

I think this man simply has no personal self-worth. I think the only way this person has any self-worth is in comparison to another, and by putting down others, placing them symbolically below him, he somehow feels better.

To a degree, I think the CSU editorial board is doing the same thing. I think their decision to print such an offensive editorial was done to make them somehow feel better. And yet doing what they did makes them look small, stupid, and ignorant, just like the man with the nooses on his truck.

The CSU students that made the decision to write this editorial should be ashamed and embarrassed.

Kathy Griffin, part 2

2007-09-20T17:51:00.001-07:00

Just over a week ago, I wrote in response to something Kathy Griffin said in an acceptance speech at the Emmy's. Basically, she badmouthed Jesus, and to a certain degree thumbed her nose at Christians.

I expressed I wasn't really offended. I think we Christians have done much to earn the disdain held by some toward us.

I also mentioned I'd try to reach Kathy. I did find a web site run in all likelihood by her publicists. I sent a note to Kathy inviting her to have some dialogue on this issue, and maybe apologize for the many stupid things Christians have done - historically and more recently - that have offended her and others. I haven't yet heard back from her.

But, I did read this today:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297468,00.html

The net of this is that a Christian theatre group spent $90,000 to run an advertisement in USA Today expressing their disapproval of Griffin. This is what the ad said, according to the report on FoxNews:
"We at The Miracle Theater consider it an honor to stand for Jesus today. We may never win a national award. We may never be household names. We may never be seen in Hollywood. Although others may choose to use their national platform to slander our God, we are honored as professional entertainers to stand for Christ."

I believe them when they say they are honored to stand for Christ.

But I am wondering why they WASTED $90,000 to say so.

Yes, wasted. This is a Christian theatre group. Couldn't they have done something more productive with the money? Aren't there people in Tennessee, the state they are from, that could use a hot meal, a warm blanket, some shoes that fit? If not at home, what about in Louisiana or Mississippi - still attempting to recover from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina 2 years ago? Or in Malawi, a country ravished by AIDS and starvation.

$90,000 to run an ad against Griffin? I am more offended by this action than by anything Griffin said.

Embracing Culture...Without Losing Scriptural Integrity

2007-09-18T19:28:00.000-07:00

Mark Driscoll is the pastor of a church in the Seattle area called Mars Hill. He's pretty well known. Within the last 10 years, the congregation of Mars Hills has grown to over 6,000 members. Pretty impressive. But even more impressive is Mark's heart with regard to planting new churches.

Acts 29 ( http://www.acts29network.org/ ) is an organization Mark is involved with that has a goal to plant 1000 churches in the next 20 years - 50 churches every year, one every week. Sounds impressive, even daunting. Revolutionary. And yet, I have every confidence that God will enable this organization to do that, and more.

Here's the deal. Over the last year or so, maybe longer, I've begun to question the role of the church. If you've read some of my previous posts, I've expressed skepticism with regard to "mega-churches" and their focus on budgets, mortgages, keeping the building looking great, etc. All of that, in my opinion, comes as a result of trading in a more authentic relationship with Jesus Christ. Christians in big, new churches play it safe, not wanting to lose what they've built. They don't take risks, refuse to bet everything they've built - everything God has blessed them with - on something more grand, a vision that is hard to comprehend. A vision like planting a church a week for 20 years...

I read an article today in Christianity Today that profiles Mark. There was one passage that particularly resonated with me.

"Fundamentalism is really losing the war, and I think it is in part responsible for the rise of what we know as the more liberal end of the emerging church. Because a lot of what is fueling the left end of the emerging church is fatigue with hardcore fundamentalism that throws rocks at culture. But culture is the house that people live in, and it just seems really mean to keep throwing rocks at somebody's house."

I think Mark really summarizes for me the internal struggle I've had. My church is not overly fundamental, but there are people that attend there that are. I used to attend a Saturday morning Bible study, and invariably discussions would turn into disagreements on topics such as homosexuality, politics, female church leadership (I know Mark holds that women should not be in a leadership position in a church - not sure if I agree with him on that point, or at least to the degree he does), etc. But in the many disagreements, what was often forgotten was that Jesus asked us to love everyone, regardless of the sins they've committed. Anyway, in reaction to the judgmental attitudes of fundamentalist Christians, people have flocked to emerging churches, looking for Christ.

I think if my church took more risks, planting a church in neighborhoods that are not lilly-white and suburban - a church that welcomed the pierced, pregnant, and poor and didn't throw rocks at them - then people wouldn't flock to the emerging churches, but they'd engage and become missional right here.

Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to the emerging church movement. In fact, I think what emerging churches are doing so very well is getting into authentic relationship with people that have a desire for Christ. I think most emerging churches have sound doctrine - take a look at some of their web sites and determine for yourself, versus simply believing the critics. For example, here is the doctrinal statement for Dan Kimball's church in California - http://vintagechurch.org/VFCDoctrinal%20Statement.pdf . Trinity. Virgin birth. Heaven and hell. Salvation through faith in Christ. It's not Calvinistic in nature, but it's solid. (One thing I noticed was the following quote on the Vintage Church statement: "We believe that the church does not exist for itself, but exists as a community of worshipers who are here to serve others, as we bring the love and hope of Jesus to the world around us." SPOT ON!

So, how does one marry sound orthodoxy with a heart for people - people of all stripes, colors, shapes, and adornments? More on that in my next post.

If You've Run Out of People to Blame...

2007-09-18T19:17:00.000-07:00

Blame God.

That's what a State Senator in Nebraska is doing. Senator Ernie Chambers is suing God, seeking a "permanent injunction ordering Defendant to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297121,00.html

He goes on to say the, "defendant directly and proximately has caused, inter alia, fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues..."

In a way, this is kind of refreshing. Usually it's the Clintons that are responsible, or Republicans, or butterfly ballots, or carbon emissions. Actually the good folks from Southpark say "blame Canada" for all the problems - or Tom Cruise and Scientology.

At least Chambers believes in the sovereignty of God.

Why Does Hollywood Hate Christians?

2007-09-11T08:47:00.001-07:00

There is a comedian named Kathy Griffin that has a show called "My Life on the D-List." I suppose it is her attempt to use self-deprecating humor to poke fun at her lack of success, whether in sitcoms or on film. But the show is on the air, so she is enjoying some success, right? Evidently, the show is viewed by critics as being pretty good, as she was just awarded an Emmy. (Although it was in the pre-Emmy presentation, which must be something like Triple-A baseball...)

Anyway, Griffin gave an acceptance speech yesterday, and caused some angst within the Christian community. In her speech, Griffin said that "a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus." She went on to hold up her Emmy, make an off-color remark about Christ and proclaim, "This award is my god now!" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296382,00.html

What most news organizations are omitting in their report is the full text of what she said. Her actual words were, "Suck it Jesus...this award is my god now."

What is the deal? She obviously doesn't know a thing about Jesus. I mean would she say, "Suck it Mother Teresa..."? I doubt it. People would be rightfully offended. But in the land of the bizarre, saying such a thing about Jesus Christ is viewed by many as hip, cool, cutting edge, even comedy...

Here is my take. I think these comments are directed not at Jesus Christ, my savior, but at me, one of his followers. I think Griffin and others like her have an absolute disdain for Christians. These people have a palpable hatred toward Christians, and in particular American Christians.

Was it something we said? Was it something we did? Maybe. I think often we offend people by our behavior, by our self-righteousness. We're judgmental. We're condescending. (If you want evidence, reflect on the bumper sticker that reads, "I am not perfect...just forgiven")

I'm not offended by what she said. Really. It's simply her words, said in a venue that isn't relevant to me. And Jesus said we should expect to be hated. This is what Jesus said: "Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man." (Luke 6:22 - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=6&version=31) Or here: "All men will hate you because of me." (Luke 21:17) And here: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." (John 15:18) It's no big deal to be hated because you are a Christian. Jesus was hated first, and in ways we can't imagine. This is simply an outrageous speech, meant to elicit a response. And the response by church leaders is exactly what was hoped for by Griffin.

In Donald Miller's great book, Blue Like Jazz, he shares a story about a confession booth he and some friends set up on a liberal college campus. A person walked up and expressed a bit of outrage. They asked, 'How dare you ask me to confess my sins?' But the catch was, the "confession booth" was set up so that Donald and his fellow Christians could confess the sins of Christianity to others. To apologize for the offenses they've committed, that Christians have committed. From the Crusades in the Middle ages to German Christians cozying up to the Nazi Party in the 1930s, Christians have sinned greatly.

I think what I'm going to do is reach out to Kathy Griffin and apologize...for whatever it is Christians have done to offend her so. I don't even know how to do that. How do you call or email a famous person? But it may do some good for all of us. I'll better understand, and maybe she will as well. That's my prayer anyway.

I'll let you know how it goes...

Why do we want stuff?

2007-09-09T19:17:00.000-07:00

A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"

"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Luke 18:18-25

This passage makes me wonder - why do we like stuff? Why are we comforted by the "things" we have? Why is it so difficult to give up luxuries and serve God fully?

Lately, I've been struggling with this. Over the last few years, coinciding with my new found faith in Christ, I've become less and less interested in things. Notice I didn't say not interested - simply "less and less." I still like stuff. I have an iPod, a couple of cool phones/PDAs, neat laptop, decent clothes, good camera... Yep, I still like my stuff.

But that desire for things is becoming weaker. (Except for books...!) I look at cool vehicles, like the Toyota FJ, and think, yeah, I'd like that.

But I still drive my 1999 Tahoe and think, "I can drive this for another few years if I take care of it. It only has 125,000 miles. It's good for at least 200,000!"

I wouldn't say I'm tight or cheap, but certainly a bargain shopper. My wife bought a shirt for me the other day, and the first thing I asked her - "Was it on sale?"

I was talking with some friends last night, and we were talking about the price of blue jeans. My daughter was showing me some new jeans her grandma bought her. I (of course) asked her how much they were. She said they were $40, but marked down from $160. $160 for blue jeans?! I was at a mall recently with some friends, and saw jeans marked down from $190. What in the name of Levi Straus is going on? They're blue jeans?

I think this is so indicative of our desire for things. What motivates someone to buy jeans that cost that much money? What motivates someone to buy a purse because it has a certain logo? This Coach wallet - a modest $208!

Jesus is approached by a young man that truly seems like he has a desire to follow Jesus. He said, 'Jesus, I'm a good guy, what will it take for me to be one of your followers?" And Jesus asked him to do the one thing he couldn't - to get rid of his stuff.

What is it about stuff? It's beyond the security of a home, blankets, a bed, warm clothes, even a car. It's so much more. I'm moving soon, downsizing to save some money, waste less on heat and electricity. As part of this process, we had to go through our house to get rid of stuff. We gave away a whole bunch, filled a dumpster with other stuff, and yet, our house is still full. Years and years of stuff. Things. Junk.

"Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Why is that so difficult? Once we have stuff, it's so hard to remove the bondage of the stuff. Why have things become our god, our idols? What are we afraid of?

Don't you ever wish, sometimes anyway, that you could start all over and start small? Start with few possessions?

(I say this, and a commercial is on for the new iPod Nano Video - cool!)

Death of an Old Friend

2007-09-05T19:55:00.001-07:00

It's been quite a week. It started with news of a potential / pending divorce. Today it took a turn for the worse.

Years ago, I lived in Oklahoma. I moved there to get my life straightened out - or to get away from home and stuff. I look back with fondness on the 18 or so months I lived there. I still follow the Sooners football program as a result, all these years later.

This afternoon while at work, something in my mind motivated me to look up some old friends. There were two brothers, twins named Jim and Tim, that I really became close to. They introduced me to a different kind of Christianity, different from my Catholic upbringing anyway. It didn't take hold then, but it was another attempt by God to reach me. They were loyal to each other, and truly took me into their homes and lives. Realize, I knew not a soul in that entire state. But every day we would work together, and after a few months spent many hours outside of work together as well.

I hadn't talked with either of them in about a dozen years, but with this "inspiration" I decided to try to connect with them. I started looking for Tim and his wife through a Google search. I first found his wife Erica. Evidently, she is now a teacher. Very cool. I then found their small business which sells balloons and party supplies. They've had that business for 15-20 years now. But when I went to link to the web site, the URL didn't work.

I decided to see if I could find Jim instead. I typed in some phrase in Google, and returned to me were a few dozen results. But one in particular stood out. It was a blog entry that spoke of a friend's death. The writer said, "The second funeral was for a friend with whom we used to attend church. Jim Fain was a tremendous man, husband, father, brother, Christian, friend. He died at age 43 of a sudden heart attack. He left behind a wife, 3 children, a twin brother, parents, numerous family members and a thriving business. He called his wife when his chest pain started and by the time she arrived he was unconscious."

It sounded like ... maybe... but you never know. So I refined my search, and found an obituary. It contained the picture of my old friend. I was - am - stunned. Jim, Tim and I were the same age, separated by just a couple of months. We had common interests, families, and a long life ahead of us. And now, Jim is gone.

The blog writer referenced above wrote that she was comforted by the pastor's words. The pastor said, "This was not God's will. This man was taken in the prime of his life and it was not because it was meant to be..." I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment unfortunately. In Matthew chapter 10, Jesus says, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. " (Matthew 10:29) God is sovereign. He knows all. He has a plan, and He is enacting that plan. Being sovereign, I believe he does act in situations like this. I don't know why. As I've written lately, this world is messed up and broken. Things happen to people that we cannot understand or explain. Friends die. Children lose their father and wives lose their husbands. It stinks, but we have to remain faithful that God is in control.

Explain a seemingly random thought in the middle of the work day to look up some old friends...with one of them having just died. I don't believe Jim's death simply happened, nor do I believe the thought of him in my mind - after a dozen years - was some sort of random occurrence.

http://www.mercer-adams.com/home2.asp?ObituaryID=69642482&fhid=6662&topic=10&level=2

Jim Fain died on July 9, 2007 - two short months ago. On the obituary page, it said "Jim`s motto was a quote from his grandmother, `just live for Jesus.'"

I know he did.

Connecting with God...to Connect with People

2007-09-03T19:51:00.000-07:00

I don't have time to read books for pleasure, and yet I still do. Books are a great weakness of mine. I love buying books, love reading books, love hanging out in bookstores perusing the new volumes that have arrived. A cup of coffee, 2-3 new books in front of me...it's a slice of heaven.

Recently, I bought Rob Bell's new book, Sex God. Lately, Rob has been getting ripped by "conservative Christians" due to his exploration of an authentic faith. Personally, I loved Rob's first book, Velvet Elvis, and love his various Nooma videos (www.nooma.com ), especially as tools to teach high school students. I wasn't sure what to think of the title, but my weakness for books pretty much dictated my course of action.

In light of my previous post on divorce, the following passage truly resonated with me. It's from the chapter called , Sexy on the Inside.

"You can't be connected with God until you're at peace with who you are. If you're still upset that God gave you this body or this life or this family or these circumstances, you will never be able to connect with God in a healthy, thriving, sustainable sort of way. You'll be at odds with your maker. And if you can't come to terms with who you are and the life you've been given, you'll never be able to accept others and how they were made and the lives they've been given. And until you're at peace with God and those around you, you will continue to struggle with your role on the planet, your part to play in the ongoing creation of the universe. You will continue to struggle and resist and fail to connect."

Over the last couple of years, divorce has become a more regular part of my life. My wife's cousin, after about a year of marriage, suddenly split. It's a secret as to the cause or reason, but it was sudden and final. A couple of years ago, a long time friend and I had lunch. During the lunch, he shared that he and his wife were splitting. My wife and I had always viewed them as the "perfect couple." Cute together, both successful, fun to be around, stylish, adorable kids, all that. Then poof. Done. Married no more.

I think a common theme in these break ups is people being upset with the "body...life...circumstances..." they were given. People aren't at peace with who they are. And as Rob says, if you are not at peace with who you are, how can you accept others for who they are, for who God created them to be?

Divorce after 1 year, divorce after 20 years. It doesn't seem as though there is a correlation, but I think Rob touches on what may be a common theme in many breakups.

It's a good book so far. Maybe my weakness and God's intervention placed in on my desk at just the right time to figure all this stuff out.

Whom do you trust?

2007-09-02T17:41:00.000-07:00

I just found out that someone close to me may be getting a divorce. The couple has been married for a long time, have children together, and seemed to have a happy and content life. Just like that, a bombshell.

I immediately had an upset stomach. I really didn't know what to say. You think that things are a certain way, think things are going just so, and then the floor drops out and life as you know it changes.

It makes me think about trust. What or who can you trust anymore? Recently, Mattel, the venerable manufacturer of Barbie dolls, announced a recall of thousands of toys. Turns out they were manufactured in China and contained potentially toxic materials. Back in 1982, many people got sick and died when they took Tylenol. A person (who was never caught) had messed with the packaging and injected cyanide into the bottles. In the 1970s, Ford made a car called the Pinto which was designed in such a way that a slight rear-end collision would cause the car to explode.

Products let us down, and so do people. We are constantly disappointed by the actions of people. More often than not, it's because people think first of themselves, others be damned. I am constantly letting people down, disappointing people. Just ask my kids. Or my wife. Or my extended family. Or my friends.

At the end of the day, there is not one person who has never disappointed another person, except Jesus Christ. The reason Jesus never let anyone down, is that he never lived for himself. His entire life was lived for other people - for every "people." He taught us how to live, and provided a living example in everything he did or said. And it is in Jesus alone we are to place our trust. Proverbs 3:5-6 says, "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight." Trust in God, trust in His son. This word trust is used over 160 times in Scripture. We're called to trust God, and to place our trust in Him. Not in other people, not in things - just in God.

I'm glad I read this passage. It's a common one, familiar to most of us. But every time you read from Scripture, you pick up something new. The Bible is alive with God's words. This passage says "lean not on your own understanding." That is such good advice for me right now, because I don't understand. It may have been building for some time, unknown to me, or it may be a sudden fissure in a long-term relationship. I'd go nuts trying to figure it out. But I'm told to trust God, and not try to understand. God understands because God has foreseen this, and He has plans - for me, for the couple, for the children, for extended family and friends.

I don't know what to do about this particular situation. I'm not necessarily supposed to even know about it. But I do, and it's a burden that is weighing on me. I will pray to my savior to intervene, to mend the relationship, as it's truly in His hands. And if the relationship is beyond repair...I'll do what I can to provide support and comfort.

This world is so broken...and yet, God is always good, and I am comforted knowing that.

Mention Jesus Christ, Lose Your Diploma

2007-08-29T17:13:00.000-07:00

I know this is an old story, but it never dies.

Last year, a Colorado high school student suggested during her valedictorian speech that other students get to know Jesus. As a result, the school punished Erica Corder by refusing to give her a deserved diploma. She was allowed to graduate however.

After being pressured to do so, Corder issued a statement that included the following mandatory sentence: "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295432,00.html ) Corder received her diploma after complying.

Well, it turns out the student's family is now suing the school district saying Cordera's right to free speech was violated.

Here's my take on this. First, I think the school district was wrong - way wrong. They simply cannot mandate what a student can or cannot say. If they are fearful a student will say something inappropriate - and I'm not sure how mentioning Jesus Christ is inappropriate, but that's another story - then they should simply do away with valedictorian speeches altogether. If they want to write a speech all can deliver without offending anyone, then they should do so. I mean - can't every speech offend someone?

But I think that with this new lawsuit, the student's family is also wrong. They made their point. Erica shared her faith in a public forum, and after capitulating to unnecessary pressure from a bully school administrator, she issued the required apology and received her diploma.

Here is my confusion: if the student and her parents were so offended, I'm wondering why they gave in? Why didn't they simply say, "No, we're not apologizing for what Erica said, because she said nothing offensive." After all, she was allowed to graduate, just without a symbolic piece of paper. If mentioning Jesus Christ was so very important, then it should be about more than symbolism. Did she just want to rock the boat - or did she truly want her classmates to know Jesus Christ? If the latter, then she should not have apologized.

It may not be on the same level as Peter denying he knew Jesus Christ, but in a way, it is. When push came to shove, the student gave in. The paper - the diploma - was more important than what she said, more important than encouraging her friend and classmates to get to know Jesus Christ.

Revolutionaries do not apologize for being bold. It's too bad Corder did.

2007-08-27T22:10:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Dan Kimball. This is posted on one of his sites - http://www.vintagefaith.com/whatis.html

The rethinking of church…
"There is a rising feeling among emerging church leaders and followers of Jesus, that in many modern contemporary churches, something has subtly gone astray in what we call “church” and what we call “Christianity”. Through time, church has become a place that you go to have your needs met, instead of being a called local community of God on a mission together. Through time, much of contemporary Christianity subtly has become more about inviting others into the subcultures of Christian music, language and church programs than about passionately inviting others into a radically alternative community and way of life as disciples of Jesus and Kingdom living.
Sadly, we are now seeing the results of this. While many of us have been inside our church offices busy preparing our sermons and keeping on a fast-paced schedule in the ministries and internal affairs of our churches, something alarming is happening on the outside. A great transformation is happening in our own neighborhoods, schools, and colleges. What once was a Christian nation with a Judeo-Christian worldview, is fast becoming an unchurched post-Christian nation. "

I think I need to meet this guy. Sounds like something I might write - if I had the same skill as Dan does. Check it out.

Michael Vick...Where the Outrage Should Be

2007-08-27T21:32:00.001-07:00

Today, Michael Vick plead guilty to a variety of crimes relating to his involvement in a heinous crime. He paid for, watched, and bet on dog fighting, and then watched as certain dogs were executed. Harsh word, but that's what it was - the execution of dogs. What word would you use for electrocution, drowning, and beating these animals?

At his press conference today, Michael shared his thoughts. He apologized to many. He accepted responsibility. He said it is time for him to grow up.

He also said that he "found Jesus and asked him for forgiveness and turned (his) life over to God." I pray that is the case...and not a ploy to earn him some consideration from sympathetic Christians.

But the point of this post is not Michael Vick. My question is simply this: Where is all the outrage at the human tragedies that surround us?

Human trafficking - this is not only a global issue, but an issue right here in the US. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, between 45-50,000 women and children are brought into the US every single year to serve as prostitutes, abused laborers or servants. Worldwide, this number escalates to in excess of 800,000 people, mostly women and children. (http://www.worldrevolution.org/Projects/Webguide/GuideArticle.asp?ID=1413 )
NEARLY ONE MILLION PEOPLE EVERY SINGLE YEAR ARE SOLD INTO SLAVERY! WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?! (DO WE NOT CARE BECAUSE THESE SLAVES ARE TYPICALLY NOT WHITE?)

Darfur / Genocide - nearly 500,000 people have died during the conflict between the Sudanese army and the Janjaweed militants. Some estimate over two million people have been displaced, living in tents, surviving incredible heat, and lacking proper nourishment and medication.
A HALF MILLION PEOPLE MURDERED WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS...WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?! (DO WE NOT CARE BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE BLACK?)

In 2006, nearly 3 million people died as a result of AIDS. 40 million people are presently infected with this disease, and additional 4 million every single year become infected. (http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm )
IN THE LAST 25 YEARS, 25 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE DIED AS A RESULT OF AIDS. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?! (DO WE NOT CARE BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE BLACK?)

This is not to diminish the killing of dogs...but in a way it is. The radio and television airwaves are filled 24/7 with callers, analysts, talking heads spewing their "unique analysis" on the Vick story. And yet I wonder...WHERE IS THEIR OUTRAGE AT THE VARIOUS HUMAN TRAGEDIES ALL AROUND US?! If Paris Hilton drives drunk, it's news. Lohan, Spears, Pitt, Jolie, et.al.....headlines.

WHAT IS WITH US?! WHAT ON GOD'S CREATION HAS INFECTED US WITH SUCH APATHY OVER TRAGIC EVENTS LIKE HUMAN TRAFFICKING, DARFUR, AIDS...? WHERE DID HUMANS - CREATED IN GOD'S IMAGE - TURN AWAY FROM GOD'S CHILDREN?

When did we become a headline focused culture, caring more about celebrity than real tragedy? And let's be quite candid - the Vick case is simply news because of who he is, not what he did. If it was a poor white boy in Mississippi, no one would care. You wouldn't even know it. But it's celebrity. Remove Vick, fill in another famous name, and the story is the same.

In Matthew 25:45, Jesus says, "Whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me."

So, sit on the sidelines and watch ESPN or Entertainment Tonight to get caught up on all the celebrity news. Or, get in the game, and express true outrage by actually fighting for and working for change. Change that can save human lives.

The goal isn't salvation...

2007-08-26T19:05:00.000-07:00

We live in a goal-driven society. We have to increase sales, decrease costs, improve efficiencies, generate ever increasing returns for stock holders... We need to hold the opponent to fewer runs, give up fewer passing yards per play, decrease our time by 1/10th of a second.

I think this focus on goals has a negative impact on authentic Christian living. We've become so intent on achieving, we view our faith in much the same way as we do our careers, or education. But instead of a secular goal, we place before us a goal of attaining salvation. Which is really funny - in a not-funny way. Goals are something you strive for, typically within your own capabilities. Running a marathon is a good example. Many strive to run a marathon in their lives. And they break it down, practice, run their miles in preparation, change their diet...and go out for a 26.2 mile jaunt through some metropolitan street system.

Yet, salvation has nothing to do with us. Our salvation is only possible through the grace of God.

When approached by a woman about whether she was chosen by God - whether she was one of the elect - Martin Luther wrote the following:

"The highest of all God's commands is this - that we hold up before our eyes the image of His dear son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Every day he should be the excellent mirror wherein we behold how much God loves us and how well, in His infinite goodness, he cared for us in that He gave His dear son for us..."

Wow...

Luther didn't say that everyday we should wake up and look at how we are progressing toward the goal. He said, so very eloquently, that we are commanded to keep the image of Christ before us, every day, in all that we do, never forgetting how much God cared for us...how much He CARES for us.

Stop pursuing the goal of salvation. We don't get there by works and deeds anyway. We don't get there through any effort of our own. But if we keep the image of Jesus Christ in our thoughts, through the grace of God, salvation will be the result.

Credit Where Credit is Due

2007-08-10T06:05:00.000-07:00

How many of us take credit for things that we really shouldn't? Recently, Barry Bonds broke the MLB all-time home run record. Over the last couple of years, as he has been closing the gap on Henry Aaron, he was asked numerous times if he had used performance enhancing drugs. He's denied it. Yet it appears there is a good deal of evidence that he did partake of certain drugs - even looking at the fact his hat size grew over the last 10 years, an odd thing indeed.

It's too bad this has happened, because before Barry became a home run hitter, he was an exceptional baseball player. He had won multiple MVP awards even before growing in size as he has. Back when he was with Pittsburgh, he was the most dominant outfielder playing the game. He was blessed with God-given talent. Those of us that grew up playing baseball, fantasizing about playing in the big leagues, could only watch in awe.

=====

This morning as I was reading from Scripture, I read a passage in Acts 3, shortly after Peter healed a crippled beggar. If you recall the passage, Peter and John were walking toward the temple, when they spotted a beggar at a gate. Peter told the man to look at them. The man may have been expecting a handout, something I suppose he was accustomed to, but got something much more. Peter said to the man, "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." (Acts 3:6)

The crowds were astonished. Peter could have taken this opportunity to elevate his standing among the people. Throughout Scripture, Peter had demonstrated an impulsive attitude. He even cut off the ear of a man who came to arrest Jesus at Gethsemane. But Peter quickly told the crowd this miracle he performed had nothing to do with him. He said, "Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?" (Acts 3:12)

Impulsive Peter, the man who had denied Christ in an act of self-preservation, is now saying that Jesus is the one who allowed this man to be healed. The healing of this cripple was only possible as a result of Peter's faith. Peter's faith had been so weak, so unpredictable, but he truly wanted to believe. He had left everything to follow Jesus. (Mt. 3:20) When Jesus asked Peter to walk across the water toward him, Peter began, wanting to believe, yet his humanity and doubt got in the way, and he began to sink. Jesus even asked him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?" (Mt. 14:31)

But in this passage in Acts, Peter is proving his belief in Christ is real, and in the power of faith. In verse 3:16, Peter says, "By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong." It's not about anything Peter did, it is about the faith he had. How much different is Peter's faith from when Jesus criticized the disciples' lack of faith, telling them that having faith even as small as a mustard seed, they could move a mountain. (Mt. 17:14-23) Peter now has such a faith.

And Peter gives credit where credit is due, to Jesus Christ, his Lord and Savior.

=====
I wonder if things could have been different for Barry Bonds. I wonder if, instead of being such a surly man for so many years, he instead would have given God the glory, if he would have been treated and viewed differently?

It's a reminder to me to give God the glory for everything He has blessed me with. Skills, family, friends, health - it's not to my credit. God alone is worthy.

Church Obsolescence - part two

2007-08-05T18:00:00.000-07:00

In a previous post, I began to explore the idea that "doing church" the way we are presently may not be succeeding in developing transformed lives. I'm still not sure where this is all going, in part because this is a stream of consciousness stuff, not well thought out.

Let's start here. I'm not sure of the statistics, but the vast majority of those attending a urban or suburban church must live within a 5-mile radius of the church campus. Maybe it's 80%, maybe higher. Within a 10-mile radius, it's got to be above 95%. So that large majority of attendees on Sunday morning happen to be neighbors, friends, schoolmates, co-workers. And that makes sense. Just like the demographics for health clubs, people will simply not go if they have to drive an extended distance. It's too easy to come up with an excuse.

As mentioned in my previous post on the topic, the church has gone from start-up to a permanent home. Now, as a "homeowner" there is tremendous pride in making sure your home looks good. You want to make sure there is a fresh coat of paint, clean carpet, freshly planted flowers, etc. You'll go to Home Depot every week if necessary to make your home comfortable and appealing. This is done for your own benefit, but also because you want to "keep up with the Joneses." If your neighbor has a gorgeous deck, you want one too - only better. So there is some competition.

The permanent church home, the owned church is kind of like that. All of the people attending have a sense of pride in this "home" and want to make sure it looks sharp. So money is spent on cool furniture, new art, flowers, etc. Part of the reason is that, if you bring a "guest" to your home, you want that guest to be impressed. And part of that is that you want your church home to be as good or better than your neighbor church.

In some ways, hasn't the church become the object of focus? Hasn't the church become an idol of sorts?

That sounds pretty harsh I know. But think about it. If our focus is on the building, furniture, flowers, sound system, etc., our focus can not possibly be on God. But isn't God where our focus should be? Anything that distracts us from Him is a false god.

In Matthew, chapter 6, Jesus is teaching on treasures and masters. He talks of the danger of focusing on treasures on earth, "where moth and rust destroy." Later in the chapter, he says, "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%206&version=31)

I guess my question is - where is our focus - on God, or on the cool building? If I so love the cool church building, has that become my master of sorts?

So, what is the alternative? I think one alternative is to remain a tenant. Instead of buying or building, why not remain a renter, a temporary inhabitant? It sounds kind of transient, but in this context, that may be a good thing. Knowing that you will not be in the building permanently, there is less emotional attachment to the facility.

There is another parallel to rental housing. Most people, when they rent are doing so because they are only planning on living there temporarily. They plan to move on, up or out. Likewise, by "renting" a church home that will become obsolete - either due to growth, or being kicked out by the landlord - you are forced to look forward. Maybe "forced" is the wrong word. You can FREELY look forward. You aren't shackled to the building. Your pride isn't in how big, cool, trendy, recognizable, etc., the building is. You can now more freely ask: "What is God calling me to do? Where is God calling me to go? How can I serve Him?" You can think freely about those issues, and pray earnestly knowing you have no attachment to the place you are worshiping. When He calls you, you can go.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20a) We are called to go, not stay put. We are told to teach others to obey everything we were commanded to. We were commanded to go, to model Jesus Christ in our lives. Jesus didn't build a temple or other shrine his disciples could go every Sunday. He was out among the people. He was making disciples.

This may sound scary. It may simply sound like something you are not at all interested in. That's fine. You can remain comfortable on your soft cushions, attending the same worship service every single week. You can go through the motions.

Or you can take a risk. You can join a new Church, a Church made up of the body of Christ, not made of bricks and mortar. It's only risky because you have to leave your comfort zone. But here's the thing - you're not alone. "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matthew 28:20b) Jesus - our savior, the one we are to model, is with us. He will be with us, wherever we go to follow his commands.

The Revolution for Jesus Christ is approaching...

Senseless Tragedy

2007-08-02T11:48:00.001-07:00

Yesterday on my way to work, I was listening to a pastor on the radio. To tell you the truth, I cannot remember who was teaching. Normally, by the time this particular preacher is on the radio I am in my office, but yesterday I was delayed, having to deal with some small issues at home.

Anyway, the portion of the message I heard related to 9/11. The pastor said that often people refer to that event as a "senseless tragedy." He took issue with this description, saying it was oxymoronic. If something was a tragedy he argued, then it couldn't be senseless. Seeking to better understand his point, I went to www.dictionary.com. Here's how they define the word senseless, at least in this context:

> not marked by the use of reason; serving no useful purpose

For something to be senseless, according to the definition, it has to serve no purpose.

A tragedy is defined as follows:

> a lamentable, dreadful, or fatal event or affair; calamity; disaster

Having read these definitions, I think I can see the preacher's point of view. What he was saying (and if I had listened to the entire sermon it probably would have been abundantly clear) was that for something to be defined as tragic, there must be an implied meaning, value or purpose. You can't have a tragedy without meaning. So something senseless cannot be tragic, and vice versa.

This is all just rambling. It's backdrop to the tragedy that occurred in Minneapolis last night. A bridge collapsed dropping 50+ vehicles up to 65 feet, many of them into the Mississippi River. At this point there are a half-dozen confirmed dead, with another 20 or so people that are missing.

One driver can certainly attest to this not being senseless. I saw an interview a short while ago on FoxNews. Gary Babineau shared how he was driving his pickup truck across the bridge when it collapsed. Babineau narrowly avoided death. As his truck came to a rest, hanging on the edge of the bridge, other vehicles were crashing next to his. He stayed in his truck, afraid he'd be crushed by a falling car.

Babineau expresses how "lucky" he was, how fortunate he escaped serious injury. After realizing he was safe, he then went to aid a school bus that had 60 or so students inside. No longer fearing for his own safety, he became concerned for the safety of others.

As the interview was concluding, Babineau put it all into perspective. He shared that he is expecting a new child soon, one that will be born within the next 2 weeks.

Babineau didn't thank God - I don't know if he's a believer or not. But I sense he feels that his life is a bit more important today, and a bit more fragile as well.

I think when tragedies occur (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, etc.), many people tend to view life differently. Many will tend to think, "there, but for the grace of God, go I." That only through God's grace do they still have life, a precious and fragile life. A vapor in the wind. James 4:14 says, "Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes." And that is where tragedies aren't senseless. Maybe getting people to appreciate life more, to truly realize how fragile is this gift of life, is part of God's plan? And just maybe the only way people will stop...and ponder...and make that realization is as a result of another person's loss.

For many people that argument may not make much sense. But I don't believe the collapse of the bridge was "an accident" or the result of happenstance. I would suggest that the tragedy may actually provide meaning and purpose for others that still live, for the Gary Babineaus that narrowly escaped death, and for the families of those that perished.

Tragic? Yes, no question. Senseless? Only if we choose to allow it to be.

Church Obsolescence

2007-07-31T19:13:00.000-07:00

I was thinking about this concept today in relation to churches. I know, you're thinking where is this going? But follow me for a bit.

The concept of planned obsolescence has been around for quite some time. Basically, a manufacturer of a product will design a product in such a way that it has a specific shelf life, and then it must be replaced. After a period of time, it is no longer functional, or at least in terms of other products. Personal computers, while not intentionally designed for obsolescence, are more and more viewed as temporary, short-term pieces of equipment. Processors become faster, storage becomes cheaper, and content - on the Internet and elsewhere - explodes. A computer bought just 4 years ago simply cannot keep up with the demands of digital photography, iTunes, streaming video, Skype, etc., and as a result, become obsolete in shorter and shorter periods of time. (Living in the Twin Cities, a perfect example of planned obsolescence is the Metrodome. The designers had to know this thing was disposable, as every design and build decision was on the cheap. It is has lived far beyond it's practical life expectancy, and is the worst sports facility in the known universe...)

I think churches have a shelf-life as well, and I'm wondering if many of them have lived beyond their usefullness...

The way we "do church" in America is interesting. A church plant starts on a shoestring budget. Whether in a school, a warehouse, someone's home, or elsewhere, the initial operation is inexpensive. Part of that is the limited availability of funds, but part of that is to raise enough money from the early congregants to be able to build or buy their own property. And that's when the church begins to change in mission. It is no longer a renter or a tenant, it is now an owner.

I wonder how much of this change impacts how the church "does church?" Think about it. If the church is trying to pay the bills associated with the mortgage, utilities, new furniture, sound and lighting, etc., it really needs to increase attendance. There might even be pressure to do so, from the lender for example.

With this pressure to increase attendance, I'm wondering if the church is focused on it's mission, which is helping to transform lives for God. I mean, in a way, if lives aren't transformed, people may still come every single week, will still write a check for the weekly offering, and will help the church with it's financial obligations.

But if the congregation is transformed, they may instead leave the church. (You know dear, I think this writer is truly losing it...) That's right. If the congregation is transformed, they may no longer need the local church. They may find that their spiritual nourishment is coming from other sources. They may form a house church, and meet with 4-6 other couples at home to study, worship, pray and serve. They may decide to go into the mission field, at home or abroad, because that is what God has called them to do. They may now get their Scriptural education from the Internet or books versus what the pastor is teaching them. And all of these options are absolutely fine, biblical...and potentially more impactful than attending church in the local building.

In my last post, I expressed dismay and sadness reflecting on a Barna poll. It showed that only 3% of Christians would give money to fight HIV. The vast majority of Christians still attend a weekly service in a church building. The vast majority - 97%! - will not give money to fight HIV. To me, that poll is solid evidence that many Christian lives are not being transformed in how they are presently "doing church."

So maybe the answer is planned obsolescence of the local church. In my next post, I'll elaborate on what this might look like, and how we might get there.

Disturbing Poll

2007-07-27T16:14:00.000-07:00

I was on Rick Warren's Purpose Driven web site investigating the Global Summit on AIDS & the Church, taking place this November in California.

http://www.purposedriven.com/en-US/HIVAIDSCommunity/FastFacts/Answers.htm

A link on the site includes a quiz on AIDS awareness. Here's the question:

According to a George Barna survey, what percentage of Christians said they would give to help fight HIV:
3%
14%
30%
72%

Disturbingly, the answer is only 3%.

Why is that? Do Christians still view this epidemic as God's wrath on sinful homosexuals? With 15,000 new HIV infections EVERY SINGLE DAY, why are Christians hesitant to not only get involved, but to invest in finding a cure? This is one of the biggest issues of our time - right up there with genocide and starvation.

"Whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me." (Mt. 25:45)

If you do want to get involved, here are a couple of places to check out:

http://www.bloodwatermission.com

http://www.worldvision.org

http://www.one.org/partners/

And for more information on the AIDS epidemic in Africa:

http://www.data.org/

Who is Your God?

2007-07-26T20:49:00.000-07:00

I love reading, and I really enjoy reading and consuming the many opinions on Jesus and his mission. The Gospels are so rich, and yet very intelligent people can interpret different meanings in the words recorded on God's book.

There is a battle raging today between camps of Christians. On one side you have Brian McLaren and the Emergent movement. On the other, "Conservative" Christians. One side will say something, and the other will vent about the heresy of the comments.

I'm struck by how many experts there are in this world God created...

Here is an example I found while surfing this evening. Brian McLaren posted something on YouTube that was interesting. Here is the link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4NtgjNLNpao

At the beginning of the video, he offers an opinion on heaven, saying that he didn't think heaven was something one endeavored to at death, but that heaven was here on earth, available for us to attain today, while we're still living. He pointed to the Lord's Prayer, which says, "...thy kingdom come..." - that heaven was coming here, not in some other place, not "when we get to your kingdom" or something like that. Fair enough I thought.

On the opposing side is Todd Friel, who partners with Kirk Cameron on the "Way of the Master" project. I've listened to his radio show on occasion, and find him to be intelligent, but always very strongly opinionated. I linked to another Youtube clip where Todd is interviewing John MacArthur, another intelligent Christian, one who I learn from every time I listen to him. Todd played a portion of a clip from McLaren, and then interrupted it. In effect, they said that McLaren was heretical in saying that heaven wasn't the reason Jesus came.

Here's the problem - McLaren didn't say that. He said it wasn't the goal at death, but that heaven was here...now...that we could attain it and it would transform our lives right now. Not in the future. And he says that by changing your perspective - that the kingdom of God is here now - that our outlook and view on everything else changes too. How we view people. How we view war. How we view poverty. AIDS. Hunger.

Why does everyone want to be right? Why isn't it enough to live as Christ taught us? Loving our friends...and our enemies? Isn't that enough?

My God loved me enough to sacrifice His son on my behalf. He loves me enough to extend His grace to me. My love for Him needs to be demonstrated in how I live in this creation of His, this kingdom of God, and care for His people - the hungry, the poor, the weak, the brokenhearted.

God does care about right and wrong, and He will judge teachers differently than everyone else (James 3:1). But these arguments are filled with so much pride. It seems many are casting stones when maybe they shouldn't be... And then you read the replies and posts from anonymous "Christians" attacking one side or the other. I mean...who is your God? Todd Friel? Brian McLaren?

It's hard enough when Christians and Muslims and LDS members and Hindus disagree. But when intelligent Christians begin to argue among themselves...

A Revolutionary Cannot Be Half-Hearted

2007-07-23T19:02:00.000-07:00

If you think of words to describe Jesus Christ, there are many that describe him: honest, loving, caring, wise, obedient, bold. He was a teacher, mentor and healer. He was also a revolutionary. He fought against the government, against the religious leaders, and he pushed the status quo.

I was thinking about this recently: If we are to be followers of Christ, if we are to model his behavior today, then why don't we model his behavior? Why do we tend to take the easy way with our faith?

Jesus called upon his followers to fight against oppression, poverty, hunger, judgmental religious leaders, etc. And when people didn't do so, he took issue with them. This is what Jesus said to John in the Book of Revelation regarding the church in Laodicea. "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." (Rev 3:15-16)

This is interesting on many fronts. Think about drinking lukewarm water. It's not very appealing. It's just...blah. You want water hot for coffee or tea, or cold if it's water or a soda. Luke warm? Jesus compared the Laodicea church to lukewarm water. He implied they don't take a stand one way or another, just sway with the wind. Their faith was casual. They had no passion, no zeal. They took no risks.

What is also interesting about this particular church is their economic status at the time of Revelation. Laodicea was a wealthy town, some argue the wealthiest of the region. I think there is a parallel between the church of Laodicea and the church in America. We Americans are wealthy as well. In fact, we are probably the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.

And our faith is similar as well. We often go through the motions, neither committing fully to a life in Christ, nor walking away from him. We act like a Christian at church and with our church friends, but when we leave we go back to our hum-drum ways, neither taking a stand for Christ nor serving the many that need our assistance.

I don't know about you, but being called lukewarm is quite an insult to me. It means I am unwilling to commit, neither hot or cold in what I believe or how I act. It means I simply change based on who is asking or whom I am with.

When America fought the British to gain independence, people were forced to choose sides. You either supported the king, or sided with those fighting against the tyranny of the British government. You couldn't be on both sides. John Hancock chose to fight against the king, and did so boldly. When it was time to sign the Declaration of Independence, Hancock did so with a flourishing signature. He knew that there was great risk in fighting the king: if America lost, he would surely be put to death. But to make sure everyone knew what side he was on, he signed his name on the Declaration - largely, boldly, and on the center of the document. In a way he was flaunting his allegiance ... to the revolutionaries.

Are you committed to Christ? Are you committed fully to following the cause? Are you willing to act boldly like Hancock, in effect signing your name to ensure your fate?

It's your decision. Like my previous post, it's a choice you must make. Being in the middle, being lukewarm is not where you want to be.

Oh, and just to be clear, not making a decision - that itself is a decision...made by people that are lukewarm.

God is Pro-Choice

2007-07-22T17:08:00.000-07:00

Agree? Disagree? Either way - read on.

(Full disclosure - I'm not the originator of the title. I took it from a conversation I had this morning with a friend of mine, Mike. He shared this title and his thoughts on the matter. This dovetailed on a message I heard from another pastor today. Basically, with two folks telling me about choice, I knew I had to write about it.)

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life... Deuteronomy 30:19-20

God is indeed a pro-choice God. That is not to say he supports abortion. (That is the only time in this post I will even allude to that topic.) But God is pro-choice in that He has created with this thing called free-will. We are perfect, created in His image, but also with the freedom to make choices on a variety of issues and topics: Red Sox vs. Yankees; oceans vs. mountains; hot or cold; black or white; chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream; etc. We have choices to make all the time, if not hundreds of times every single day.

I was thinking, when people find any fault with God, it is knowing He made us and gave us this thing called free will. People will often say, "Well if God knows everything, if He knows past, present and future, and if knowing all this He knew man would screw everything up, then why did He give them the ability to make choices?" Since we screw up, and God created man in His image, then is God a screw up as well? They imply that God didn't create a perfect being. And being perfect Himself, and creating us in His image, well this just doesn't make sense.

Except from this perspective: God wanted a relationship with us, one that was up to our own, free choice. He could have made a world with robots, all doing exactly what He wanted, and all living things growing exactly as He wanted, but then what? What would have been the point? He would have been just as well creating nothing if that were the case.

But God wanted something more. God created man to have an intimate relationship with Him. God created man to worship Him. But God also gave man the ability to choose or not to choose to do this. By doing so, He would ensure it was an authentic relationship, that is was heart-felt worship. That man prayed only because man desired to do so. And from that perspective, He did create perfect beings.

God is pro-choice, at least if viewed from the perspective in how He made man. He made us and gave us this gift of free-will, gave us the ability to make choices. Not only mundane things like those listed above, but more serious things as well. And the most important choice we make every single day...? Whether we choose Him or not.

One of my favorite reads over the last couple of years was Chasing Daylight by Erwin McManus. It is about not letting life simply happen, but seizing the divine moments that present themselves throughout our days, weeks and months. Thinking on the topic of choice, I recalled the book, and re-read the first chapter. I like this line in particular: "If a moment is the gate through which your divine journey begins, then choice is the key that unlocks the adventure."

The choice McManus is alluding to is of course, a life with Jesus Christ as your savior. It is so liberating. Knowing that if you make the choice, if you use the key to open the gate, you will enter an incredible adventure, wouldn't you? If you would not fail on this journey (I didn't say you wouldn't have set backs), wouldn't you pursue your most wild and unfathomable dreams?

Then why don't you??

That is one reason my buddy and I are talking about a "new church," one that reaches those not presently being reached by our suburban churches. It's a risk. Some might find issue with it, or view it as competition with our regular church. But as I was saying to him this afternoon, if it is so successful we have to leave our existing church, then we'll know for sure that is where God wanted us to be.

On one side of the door is the life we're living...on the other side is the life He promises. Why do so many of us choose to not use the key that is in our possession?

Use the key that is in your possession, the key that is Jesus Christ.

The chicken or the egg?

2007-07-19T13:32:00.000-07:00

I was speaking with my friend Chris this morning and the topic of obedience came up. As mentioned in a previous post, this is something that has been front of mind to me - actually to both of us - a lot lately. In the conversation, it became apparent that our basis for understanding that term - obedience - is probably not dissimilar to many folks. It more than likely stems from childhood, where we were taught the importance of obeying our parents.

The inference of course was that if you didn't obey, there would be consequences. Whether it was punishment or some good thing being withheld, we were taught to obey...or else.

I was wondering - is that why Christians today choose to serve? Do Christians serve out of a mindset that not doing so would somehow elicit some sort of punitive response from God? And if that's the case, does that also explain why people choose not to serve, that they aren't afraid of any sort of punishment from God?

This bothered me...considerably. And I thought: Shouldn't our service be the result of our love for God - and nothing else?

There is an analogy to the passage in James where he is talking about faith and deeds, and the interrelation between the two. James does not say you must, out of obligation, serve the Lord. He is saying that if you have faith in God, you can't help it. Deeds will result. It is a natural offshoot of your love for him. In verse 2:22, James was speaking about Abraham, and said, "...his faith was made complete by what he did." Abraham didn't bring Isaac up to be sacrificed out of obligation, he did so because he loved God and God asked him to do so. He didn't pause, he simply did it. Likewise, you don't serve and then get faith; faith, true loving faith in God results in wonderful acts of service.

Here's another way of looking at this. Ask yourself this question: Do I live in order to breathe; or, do I breath so that I might live? When you are born, you do not naturally breathe. The doctors do what they do (I didn't pay real close attention when my three kids were born...), slap the baby on the back to stimulate the infant, and the baby begins to breathe and sob. The breathing wasn't natural, but was required in order to sustain life. Without the breath, their would be no life. Loving God is that breath of life. Loving God sustains and nourishes us. And loving God infects us with a desire to serve - it is a natural by-product of our relationship with Him.

If love for God is not first, an on-your-knees-in-worship kind of love, my fear is that your service would be done out of obligation. You would be a body without breath. You wouldn't live, at least not in a way described by Jesus: "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (Jn 10:10)

Love God first, give Him your heart. Worship Him. Once you do, you will serve with passion and zeal - you won't be able to help yourself!

Sorry Sinead, God Does Judge People

2007-07-16T19:55:00.000-07:00

Way back when, we were being entertained by a shaved-headed crooner from Ireland, Sinead O'Connor. I actually bought her debut album, "Nothing Compares 2 U" (although I was always thinking she was copying Prince, using numbers as words...oops, I guess that is the pot calling the kettle black). Anyway, I was poking around online for the past 60 minutes or so, and came across an interview in Christianity Today that was with the former pop-star. (See http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/interviews/2007/sineadoconnor-0707.html)

I was intrigued, because Sinead has a new CD, called Theology, which is based on the books of the Prophets and Psalms. I thought, hmmm, sounds like something I might be interested in. So I read the interview. While I am still intrigued and will listen to it, Sinead certainly has some interesting perspectives on faith and Christianity.

For example:

So it doesn't matter your lifestyle, we're all going to heaven.

O'Connor: Yeah, I don't think God judges anybody. He loves everybody equally. I think there's a slight difference when it comes to very evil people, but there are not too many of those in the world.

Huh? She says one thing here I agree with - God loves everybody equally. No question. When we sin - we all do - His heart is broken. It is broken because He loves us and cares for us. But she is sadly mistaken when she says God doesn't judge anybody.

The God I know judges us all. If He didn't He wouldn't be God. God is a God of judgment and justice. Since she sings from the Psalms, I looked to see if there was a passage that would clarify this issue. Psalm 94:1-2: "O LORD, the God who avenges, O God who avenges, shine forth. Rise up, O Judge of the earth; pay back to the proud what they deserve." Maybe she missed that one.

She seems to believe in the Trinity and Jesus Christ as the son of God. In her words, "I kinda really do believe in this Trinity thing, that God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all one thing." I'm not really sure what that means... Anyway, Jesus said this about judgment: "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." (Jn 12:48)

Be clear, God does indeed judge, but this is a critical point: that is why we need Jesus Christ. In the verse preceding the one above, Jesus says, "For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it." (Jn 12:47b) Jesus is about love. He commanded us to love God, and love our neighbors. Without Jesus as our savior, we too would be judged by God. In one incomparable demonstration of love, Jesus accepted the punishment (God's judgment) that was due us as sinners. What is our responsibility? We simply have to come to Christ to receive his sacrificial gift. Jesus said simply, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (Jn 14:6)

George Barna says that over 20% of people express and experience their faith through the media and pop culture. That trend is growing according to Barna. With people like Sinead O'Connor preaching a unique "doctrine," I pray that rational folks spend some time in God's word and let Him speak directly about judgment, justice, forgiveness, love and hope.

Stop acting like a Christian

2007-07-16T14:34:00.000-07:00

I just returned from a short-term mission trip to Honduras, my second trip to that beautiful, yet impoverished country. I led a team of three adults and 18 high school students. It was a wonderful trip - many students returned home holding a different perspective of our broken world than they had prior to the trip.

During our time in Santa Cruz, I spent a few evenings teaching, with one common theme being obedience to God. There was one thing I said (which I don't take credit for - I think someone smarter than me said this in some form or fashion previously) which truly resonated with the students:

We should not act like Christians; we should be Christians

You know, many people go through life wearing a mask. If they are at work, there is a specific persona that they put on. While with friends, another. And in family or church settings, yet another. People are so used to wearing masks that they forget to be real, forget to be the person God created them to be.

Why are we so inclined to be someone we aren't, simply to please other people? Why do we measure our value in how friends or others view us, versus the value that comes from being a child of God? Jesus suffered and died because God placed such a high value on us, he gave His son so we could have life (John 3:16).

I think the words I shared meant something to the students because, as teenagers, they are constantly trying to please everyone they come in contact with. There is constant pressure to make sure all of their friends are happy with them. And if you're a girl...intense pressure! But that's where we trip ourselves. We want to make everyone happy, so we bend over backwards, even if the self we are presenting isn't really us. We don't like it when people disagree with us, or worse, don't like us. But our Savior foresaw this. In speaking to his disciples, Jesus said, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." (Jn 15:18) In effect, Jesus is saying, 'if you are following me and my teachings, obeying all I have taught you, then being hated is okay.' In fact, in that light, being hated is a good thing. Because it is the world that hates you.

We're not supposed to act like a Christian - we are to be Christians. In Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, he said, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come." (2 Cor. 5:17) We no longer need to act like someone else - we are someone else! But it's an all-the-time thing, every waking moment of our life should be lived as a new creation, not giving in to the whims of the world.

So, put away your mask and stop acting - be the person that God created.

Sinners Welcome!

2007-07-14T19:38:00.000-07:00

I take that title from my buddy Chris, who used it in conversation this morning over a cup of coffee at Mocha Monkey. We were discussing the current state of "church" where sinners do not feel welcome. In fact, many leave or stay away from church because they are so fearful they will be judged, that it's just not worth it.

Chris and I have begun to discuss what church could look like if it weren't "church" as we know it. We began this dialogue a few weeks back when I mentioned an idea for "unchurch." It would be a church for those who didn't like "church." (Can I make this any more confusing???) It would welcome alcoholics, bikers, people that are tattooed and pierced (Galatians 6:17 - "Finally, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear upon my body the marks of Jesus."), homemakers with addictions, white-collar divorced dads - basically everyone who would have been loved by Jesus.

So Chris, being the patient guy he is, went to Network Solutions to get us a URL. Unchurch was taken in it's many iterations, so he found http://www.notchurch.org/ and registered it. And the journey begins.

This blog has been linked to as we want to develop a variety of forums to reach people that desire a true relationship with Christ - not one where they have to put on a mask and pretend to be perfect. At times I may push the envelop a bit - after all, this is about taking risks to spread God's word. If I ever publish something that makes you uncomfortable - that's okay. Jesus never said our faith or journey with him would be safe, boring, status quo. And that's the rub - too many are taking the safe route. Too many are not getting involved in social causes. Too many stand by while hunger and AIDS continue to kill millions. Too many ignore social injustice. These are not Liberal or Conservative issues, but they are CHRISTIAN issues. And while the church has done some good, the vast majority of believers are simply sitting in the pews for 60 minutes and going home to their comfortable lives.

Have I rubbed you the wrong way yet? This is just the beginning...