Holy Schmitz!

Augustine and Sex

2012-02-06T23:48:00.002-06:00

Like the fact or not, Augustine (yes, THE Augustine—St. Augustine the Blessed: Bishop of Hippo, Doctor of the Early Church, Patron of the Augustinian Order,) was a bit of a lady’s man. Meow. For a long time in his life he struggled with sexual ethics. Early in his life he was a hedonist and prayed the famous prayer, “Grant me chastity and continence… but not yet.” We know that much of the western world (by extension of morals granted us through our history which intertwines with that of the Roman Catholic church,) has been influenced by his far reaching writings and the impact he had on the early orthodoxy, and hence, the world (and it continues, still). He later in life drew away from the world and lived monastically in order to keep himself reigned in.

The conversion of Augustine is a stepped and multifaceted process that culminated in his full turning unto God. His story is interesting and maintains many parallels to modern Christians who have had similar experiences throughout the process of their own conversion unto Christ. For many nominal western believers, as well as many audiences that Augustine preached to, becoming a Christian is seen as a one-time event. The life of Augustine certainly suggests a process under which the Holy Spirit draws one unto belief, working through the lives, words, and circumstances of others.

The two primary influences in Augustine’s early life were his parents. Augustine’s Christian influence was found in his mother. His father was a pagan and a member of the local ruling class; while not a Christian, Patricius still gave his son many positive attributes through his relationship. Primarily, Augustine’s father instilled in his son a solid education and the desire for knowledge. It was through these resulting periods, quests for knowledge and truth as Augustine dabbled in philosophy, Manichaeanism, and Neoplatonism, that Augustine encountered a major influence in the person of Ambrose who provided a rational and well thought out response to Augustine’s questions. An educated and intelligent person with familiarity of the same philosophers and modern world-views was exactly what Augustine needed to spur him into a radical pursuit of a converted life. While Augustine had been raised with a basic knowledge of Christianity, he recognized that he was still bound in his flesh and lusts; while this is perhaps a similar motif to the dualism inherent in the philosophy systems Augustine leaned towards, it was the combination of divine revelation as Augustine read scripture, and the influence of Ambrose, that led Augustine to desire to be fully tuned unto God and forsake his sin nature. (He’d kept a concubine for many years up until his engagement to a wife of status, but took at least one more after that fact… but abandoned them after his true conversion.)

There were many other early believers who also influenced Augustine. Victorinus was one such prominent person who Augustine yearned to intimidate; Victorinus’ public conversion caused a stir in that Victorinus had so much to potentially lose, but chose the sacrifice necessary for genuine salvation. Victorinus was a prominent public figure in a time when it was incredibly scandalous (and dangerous) to be a Christian. It was a similar willingness to die to the lusts of the flesh, to make such a clean and permanent break from the past, which characterized the life of Augustine and the nature of his full and complete conversion. He turned and fled from those lusts that once entangled him—he even put away his concubines and pursued a monastic life so that he would not fall back into his habits and could concentrate only on the new, such was his sincerity.

I find it ironic that so many written works try to skirt the issue of Augustine’s sexual mishaps. While receiving a brief glossing over of the issue, little time is usually spent on what was such a primary issue to Augustine’s motivation and recognition of need for a saving grace. The discomfort caused by discussion of the topic is likely a direct outcropping of the sexual ethics influenced by Augustine’s post-conversion approach.

Augustine is commendable for his willingness to sacrifice that which is such an integral part of his humanity/flesh. Of course, for him, the right thing was to swing the pendulum as far away from lust as possible (2 Timothy 2:22 comes to mind). Over time, however, and because of the broad reaching impact of Augustine's writings, an overtly "puritanical" view of human sexuality became the prevalent mentality (an ideology which likely turned away many who may have chosen belief if they thought that walk possible.) In our culture we still deal with the Augustinian model whereby sex is evil, bad, wrong, or immoral and is a part of the lusting sin nature of man; this probably stems from the gnostic dualism inherent within the training and educations that molded Augustine. Of course, modern humanism’s relatively recent impact on the general western worldview has swung that pendulum far in the opposite direction. Holy Spirit illuminated scripture can be the only guide to sexual ethics for a God fearing married couple. Sex is awesome, kids. Get married! Yeah, my wife rocks.

With such an issue so central to his conversion, a reading of the forums posted by most of the class, a cursory reading reveals, sidesteps the issue. As Christians and as humans, we are usually willing and available to talk about sexuality, especially within a Christian context—but guided by Augustinian influence, we usually strive purposefully to avoid the issue unless it is forced by another party, and even then we usually try to use it as an opportunity to evangelize rather than discuss Christian ethics and morality. The suppression of the topic leads to a hidden festering of the problem, like gangrene, sometimes until a part of the body becomes irredeemable and necessitates amputation. Christians should not hide sex in the dark. As it says in Isaiah 29:15 (and elsewhere) those who do evil deeds try to do them in the dark—but God still knows them.

Modern believers would do well to be at least passingly familiar with Augustine. While one might not necessarily be in full accord with his theological beliefs, there is no doubt that we could all use a dose of his passion and zeal for living the Godly life. There is, in fact, much which I do not like about Augustine. He did, however, understand something key to being a strong believer. Matthew 24:12,13 says that the love of many will grow cold because the lawlessness increases. A good gauge of your walk with Christ is in asking yourself, “have you ever been more in love with Christ than right this second?” If you’ve ever been closer than right now, then your love is growing cold! Double down and call out to Him… let your love “endure until the end and be saved.”

To be a Flautist, or not a Flautist?

2012-01-13T22:42:00.001-06:00

I’ve been meditating specifically on Matthew 11: 16, 17 these last couple days. It’s a passage that is easy to read and simply gloss over. 16 “To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 17 “‘We played the pipe for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’”

Like children we can be so misguided at times. Children playing in the Middle Eastern marketplace would not have much an idea about what was actually happening in the broader realm of the market, the hustle and bustle, the deals and important affairs of the grownups. Like with modern children, narcissism is the norm; their world is the only one that exists and it is paramount. A child would play a flute and probably expect his peers to dance, perhaps imitating the traditions of the market: expecting to perform a show and gain a few coins for their efforts. There would be some wounded feelings when they refused to play along.

The marketplace is full of adults—as Christians, we must be adults. In this analogy (the Jews and Hellenistic God-Fearers being the children) we are called to grow up; only the mature can bring about world change—children cannot viably affect the market accept for passing amusement. As children we must realize the sway of the adults, the inevitable parents. If we be children with bad parents, (the powers of secularism and antagonistic philosophies) then our fathers give us snakes when we ask fish and stones for bread. We must grow up and lead others into correctness by example. We must bear in mind the context of Matt 11 and 12—we cannot force our peers to believe just as we do because they will only resent us like those Pharisees who condemned Christ and the disciples who failed to conform to their pattern. We cannot fall into the “Fast Lane trap…” we shouldn’t be like that guy in the traffic fast lane, you know, the guy who is driving two miles under the speed limit in the passing lane and tries to enforce the speed limit upon others—let the police regulate traffic, ours is only to obey, not cause in others a resentment for our own boundaries. The slow guy in the passing lane can actually cause auto collisions, possibly causing deaths.

In the context of these two chapters one realizes that the Pharisees are walking with Jesus. They are at his side and hearing his teachings (and bristling at them.) He makes it quite plain through overt speech and a parable of the cities that unrepentant religion, outward and right conduct with impenitent hearts, is abhorrent to God. The purpose of all the law and the prophets is to bring changed lives. After all the explanation and teaching to the Pharisees who shadowed him, they still were so thickheaded that he had to demonstrate it and even reveal a glimpse of the divine by healing a man’s withered hand before their eyes. Balking at the miracle, failing to see him as Lord, they decided to kill Jesus because he healed the body of a broken man and didn’t follow their rules.

Are we impatient children, demanding our own way? If a child is put to work by a good father in His marketplace booth do we ridicule and deride him for not playing our games? Jesus was discussing religious sentiments in this passage. We are so easily hung up on religion: ignorant of the world outside our own rules and ready to take our ball and go home if others won’t play by the rules we invent (which is historically accurate if one researches the post Babylonian formation of the rules which the Pharisees followed: various adopted sets of halakhoths, or extra rules or “laws of religious norms.”) Matthew 11 and 12 are dripping with this context. The immature failed to recognize John the Baptist because he neither ate nor drank and they failed to recognize Jesus because he built relationships with those he came to save; they called him a glutton and drunkard. In their eyes, he didn’t perform as men expected and thus could not be the messiah. “You can’t play with us anymore Jesus.”

How would I compare this generation? As always we must look at the individuals; so many are identical to those of Jesus’s era. If it weren’t prophesied already it’d be anachronistic. But so many are also full of the passion and fire of God: a resurgence of Jesus Followers dedicated to Him whose only potential flaw is their seeming disdain of the church which Jesus loves… although I sometimes wonder if this is the true Bride of Christ, molted from within the shell of the former.

Don’t be that child, but rather stand and change the market place—be at work. Call the children to maturity! But never lay down that flute; never stop dancing—reach the children and the adults and lead like Christ… just don’t purport to be Him. After all Jesus’s explanation and teaching, will His bride remain mired in religion and rules or will it simply love as He loved and walk as He walked and thus finally be worthy of Him?

I think we need this guy's passion:

Evil, meet my secret Nazi Time Machine

2011-12-03T16:58:00.003-06:00

…building a theodicy. From the World English Dictionary--"Theodicy: the branch of theology concerned with defending the attributes of God against objections resulting from physical and moral evil."

I talked a little about Gordon Haddon Clark in November and I wanted to come back to his extreme Calvinist (deterministic) theodicy. Clark just really gets me jacked up, I thought guys named Clark were supposed to be mild-mannered?

In his book, Systematic Theology, Millard Erickson uses three primary solutions to the problem of the existence of evil. He admits that this is perhaps “oversimplified,”[1] but is an excellent starting point. Each argument must be made within a well-tailored theodicy for it to have any significance; the entirety of the argument must not suffer from self-contradiction as a primary characteristic of the theodicy.[2]

The first solution Erickson introduces is Finitism, or the idea that God’s omnipotence is somehow limited. This idea often directly or indirectly models a dualistic system, such as Manichaeism (which is noticeable in Augustine’s earlier theology.[3]) Finitism stresses that this limit is not the result of God’s voluntarily imposed self-limitation. While this provides an answer to the problem of evil quandary, it does so at the expense of the omnipotence of God. While it may provide certain appeal to hard-lined free-will theists due to its mandated cooperation between God and man for His purposes,[4] the dissolution of God’s omnipotence leads directly into questioning the veracity of His goodness.

Secondly, Erickson discusses Modification of the Concept of God’s Goodness. From this viewpoint, we recognize that perhaps what we see as the boundaries of good and evil are not the same boundaries for God. Perhaps, because of His very nature, whatever God does is therefore good—even if it is an act we humans would label evil. He is the very standard of right.[5]

Finally Erickson brings up the Denial of Evil. Perhaps such a thing does not even exist. This is traditionally a pantheistic viewpoint and can easily lead into beliefs in theistic emanation. Typically, denying the existence of evil, whether of an actual nature or metaphysical nature, the effects of said evil (or whatever it becomes in its new definition) still remains. While this belief typically renders evil as illusory, the horizontal effects still remain, for example, a Jewish adherent of this belief might not give credence to the existence of evil as they labor in a Nazi slave camp, and yet the evil of others will still affect them adversely proving the problem of evil is based on more than belief or lack of belief in evil’s reality.

I find the most appealing answers somewhere between the lines of Erickson’s second argument. While I don’t believe God will directly cause such sin as Clark’s deterministic example of the drunkard shooting his family[6], God’s sovereignty demands that he be allowed to impede to a certain degree into the lives of men in the interest of preserving goodness. I might spark further debate and discussion by building a time machine and examining the history of Nazi Germany. It is not disputed that Hitler was an evil person who did unspeakable atrocities to God’s people. Given the option, would it be “good” to travel back and assassinate young Adolph before he rises to power? It would prevent a great evil and therefore be a just action. Perhaps God’s omniscient will causes the drunkard to murder his family to prevent a child from becoming our next Fuhrer. Of course, the fact that I propose a time machine in the first place, as if we could make the choice to undo what has happened, introduces my own Arminian leanings, but it is useful to inciting discussion on the subject. God’s goodness is somewhere in the midst, yet our inherent finitism is incapable of seeing it.

[1] (Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.) 439

[2] (Elwell, Walter, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.) 1184, 1185

[3] (Erickson 1998) 440

[4] (Erickson 1998) 441

[5] (Erickson 1998) 443

[6] (Erickson 1998) 442

Against the Divine Machine

2011-11-30T22:08:00.003-06:00

So yeah, you may noticed that it's been a little while since I blogged. I've written TONS... just not posted much cuz most of it's been for my post-grad work. Some of it's decent, some is pretty dry. I decided I should just start posting some of the stuff that really jacks me up, anyway. So here's my caveat, some of it may get a little heady... some may get REALLY long and some might be simple book reviews, etc. In any event, you may find it interesting. If you don't, then you don't have to read it... anyhow, following is one of my favorite pieces... just trying to open a can of hellacious worms and look at the Arminian/Calvinism debate!

Against the Divine Machine: The Nature of Determinism, Which is the Logical Conclusion at the Far Edge of the Calvinistic Pendulum

Introduction

Humorist and cartoonist Bill Watterson named half of the iconic duo Calvin and Hobbes after theologian John Calvin. Ironically, or perhaps with purpose, Calvin once asks his friend if he believed his destiny was already fixed by cosmic forces. Hobbes is a nonbeliever while Calvin is sure. “Really? How come?” Hobbes asks. “Life’s a lot more fun when you’re not responsible for your actions,” Calvin replies.[1] While meant in jest, it is this Deterministic creed which many live their lives by.

Determinism is the belief that human actions are the result of antecedent causes which have been formulated naturalistically or theistically. The natural viewpoint sees every action as resulting from, and causing another, action ad infinitum. This makes humans a part of “the machinery of the universe.”[2] Theistic Determinism sees all of these predetermined actions as a direct result of God’s control. While it may be a nice platitude meant to reassure the troubled soul, how much control over daily minutia do we mean to infer God actively has when we say, “Don’t worry; God is in total control.” How does that impact the nature of God, specifically His love and justice?

Many scholars, even those theologians normally opposed to each other, make the same point that God’s loving character or his loving nature (as revealed to us in scripture) would be inaccurate if there were no such thing as free will[3]; as typical to such a debate, such a war is won in the definition of the terms and thus “Free Will” becomes hotly debated. Even most hardcore determinists claim there is such a thing as free will and the exercise thereof, however they redefine freedom or will in order to fit their theology into an acceptable mold. The devil is in the details.

Problematic Deterministic Theodicy

The primary apologetic Calvinists are determined to reinforce is to find a way to reconcile this nature of God with predestination or election, especially when the concept of double-predestination is scrutinized (whereby the “nonelect” are condemned to Hell after judgment: a sentence which they had no control to avoid).[4] It seems that a God of such Deterministic machinations is neither just nor loving. A loving, omnipotent God cannot predetermine the damnation of certain souls while his love remains intact; does He truly love everybody if the option of Hell remains on the table and such Election or nonelection remains unconditional? A God of love is not omnipotent if he cannot simply save the souls of the ones he loves.

Justice cannot truly exist under the umbrella of Determinism. Sometimes God may seem to appear unjust, but only ever at the benefit of those He loves; God does not give what is undeserved except when he gives a reprieve, this is fundamental to Grace.

Debate over this specific issue has raged for generations, and for good reasons. Either point taken to the extreme results in an unbalanced theodicy and potentially discredits the rationality behind Theology. Taken to the far edge, Calvinism becomes staunchly predestination and stifles all free will—humans have no capacity to make their own decisions and God is a great machine, this results from the second point of Calvinists’ TULIP: Unconditional Election. We will examine this concept further.

On the other end of the spectrum Arminianism risks infringing upon the sovereignty and power of God. The same was mentioned in regards to Determinism, though more in the hyperbolic context of love and the nonelect. Arminianism, taken to the edge, elevates human authority above the rule and dominion of God; presented as a theodicy the extremity of this viewpoint is the Open Theism view[5].

This paper deals primarily with the side of Determinism. Admittedly, it leans towards an Arminian bent. Particularly this is because of my belief that I am a sinner and my acceptance and acknowledgement that I cannot do otherwise without the help of a savior. This may sound like the exact opposite argument Calvinists expect, perhaps even like a point in their favor. I expect Justice, however, and I know and understand that no penance can recompense God for violating His laws. But if God chose for me to commit my sins, and will then punish me for them, then He is not just. If God cannot stand sin and foreordains all mankind to sin, thus expelling us yet desiring us to come to Him, then He is not logical. Chiefly Justice, but also other of God’s traits are of primary concern to this study.

Any study of God’s Justice or Love must include a logical theodicy, or a whole theology that explains the existence of sin or moral evil. At Determinism’s worst, a skewed theodicy results whereby God willingly forces men to commit atrocities that violate the moral law the theodicy is meant to explain.

While many Calvinists might argue that such a belief is not the intent of TULIP theology, it is the natural outcropping of this theology. In fact, the position that God causes humans to sin was taught by Theodore Beza, John Calvin’s immediate successor.[6]

Calvinist theologian and philosopher Gordon Haddon Clark makes his thoughts expressly clear in his writings. “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it.”[7] It is this position of Clark, and similar positions, which this paper explores. Clark presses his point, “Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything. There is absolutely nothing independent of him. He alone is the eternal being. He alone is omnipotent.”[8] Clark’s position is hotly contended by many passages of scripture.

Natural Determinism

Clark’s type of theology is certainly dangerous to the health of the general public. While not endorsing the view that theology mesh with contemporary existential understanding, it would certainly make the topic less hotly debated.

John Calvin insisted that the doctrine of predestination does not lead to carelessness regarding morality, or the cavalier attitude that one can continue to sin care-free since his or her election is assured. Calvin insists that knowledge of our election leads us to pursue holy living.[9] One wonders how much time Calvin spent with other humans given that viewpoint; like utopian communism, such an idea looks good on paper but seems contrary to human nature. Psychologist Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler enacted experiments to examine whether participants who believed that human behavior is predetermined would be more encouraged to cheat. Exposure to a message implying a deterministic worldview increased cheating on a task in which participants could passively allow a flawed computer program to reveal answers to mathematical problems which they'd been instructed to solve themselves. Increased cheating was mediated by decreased belief in free will. In another experiment, participants who read statements endorsing free will did not cheat while their counterparts did. These findings suggest that the debate over free will has societal, as well as scientific and theoretical, implications.[10]

The worst of these implications is the total abandonment of any form of theology and the universality of atheism. The rejection of freewill emasculates any concept of moral obligation. Author-philosopher and Faraday Institute Associate Nicholas Beale asserts that denying freewill “is the closest thing I can imagine to a scientific refutation of Christianity.”[11]

Beale differs from modern scientific thought in that his philosophical presuppositions leave room in the framework for the possibility of a god. Beale’s quote is a common assertion among the atheistic community. Much of those, touting science as the ultimate answer, have worked the Deterministic angle as a proof against God. Beale claims a personal belief in evolution and even makes a philosophical argument for its logical necessity to increase the attribute of Love and goodness of God[12] although it seems to disagree with his position regarding causation of “natural evils” such as earthquakes. Thus, we see what science has to offer Determinists.

Stephen Hawking notes the impossibility of scientific Determinism explaining nonquantifiable, factual data. “Gödel’s theorem, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and the practical impossibility of following the evolution of even a deterministic system that becomes chaotic, form a core set of limitations to scientific knowledge that only came to be appreciated during the twentieth century.”[13] Hawking is admitting that any phenomena that cannot be measured or empirically observed and cannot therefore be reduced to quantitative analysis (things such as “meaning,” “beauty,” or “justice”) cannot be explained by science. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle alone wrecks any argument for Determinism.

Science, then, has left us bereft of answers. The scientific community can agree that they place their faith in the Darwinian model and the evolutionary process. They cannot agree, however, as to the best way to disprove God: to invalidate their agnosticism with proven cause for atheism. While determinism seems an option on face value, it alone cannot explain justice and other philosophical concepts outside the realm of science. Scientific based Determinism cannot touch God and so philosophy is appealed to. Beale notes, “The idea that [Determinism] is, philosophically, a defeater for religious belief is mistaken.”[14] And so, science appeals to philosophy to sound the death knell of God, and philosophy demands the same of science. Science cannot answer these questions because these concepts are immeasurable and unobservable.

Philosophy tries to grasp onto the theological precepts, however, philosophy does not operate with an accurate concept of evil. Beale, and other philosophers, often define “evil” from within an existential framework. Evil is something which causes feelings other than pleasure. “It is clear that, if you love someone, you do not knowingly allow them to suffer serious pain or evil without sufficiently good reasons. People do suffer serious pain and evil, and at least some (most Christians would say, all) of them are people whom God loves.”[15] Beale’s view of evil, that it would include natural disasters and such occurrences, seems to compromise God’s loving nature. How does one reconcile those positions? The answer is the opposite of Determinism, or Open Theism, whereby God surrenders his omniscience and sovereignty except to act in specific situations to ensure His will is enacted. Arguing for some form of Determinism we arrive at its antithesis and neither conclusion integrates well with the Biblical source data.

Theological Determinism

Since philosophy and science both fail to adequately come to terms with the God of the Bible, the only logical place to turn is to the pages of Scripture itself. The Determinism concept, in various forms and doctrines, is something that theologians have grapple with for ages; even in the 1800s it was pointedly asserted that the Determinism paradigm was unsolvable and yet is also a topic that we cannot just sweep under the rug. Francis Garden wrote about Gordon H. Clark’s God/murder situation a hundred years prior. “How can we say of the very same thing that it has been decreed by the will of God, and that it is contrary to that will? ...an absolute shutting up of the question is unsatisfactory, and in reducing ourselves to silence we may bring on an oblivion of much important truth.”[16] Either something is God’s will or it is not. Clark takes the notions set forth in Puritan Calvinist Jonathan Edwards’ Freedom of the Will, whereby God decrees what he foreknows and mankind acts on this (thus redefining “Free Will,”[17]) and eradicates the attempted separation of the individual’s freedom to act from God’s compulsory, decretive will.

In Garden’s version of the murder story, a man is murdered and he asks the hypothetical question of how we counsel his widow. If we believe in predestination, then surely the murder must be the will of God. “A large portion of the events which happen in this world is made up of men's crimes, sins, wrong-doings of every imaginable degree. Has God predestined them? And if not, where are we to draw the line?”[18]

Is there a theology that treads the middle path? Freewill Theism, a form of Self-Determinism, is any type of theological model that affirms that, contrary to Process Theism, (which is a facet of Open Theism,) “God can unilaterally intervene in earthly affairs and does so at times” while still denying a fundamental precept of Theological Determinism, “that God can both grant individuals freedom and control its use.”[19]

Scriptural Analysis

In decoding the theological impetus behind Determinism, one must look at the biblical concept of election. In the New Testament, Paul the Apostle joins love with the principle of election on at least four occasions.[20] As mentioned earlier, love is a fundamental aspect which must be reconcilable within one’s theodicy.

Very specifically, it is worth looking at Paul’s background as he penned the manuscripts surrounding election. Timo Eskola does an excellent job forming a solid exegesis of Paul’s writings. He begins with the Jewish context for Paul's theologizing. Eskola focuses especially on the demonstrably pre-New Tesatament material such as select apocalypses, wisdom books, and the Qumran documents.

Using Sirach as his key witness, Eskola argues that the sapiential tradition reflects a significant departure from the Deuteronomic approach to Israel's salvation. The varied responses to persecution among Jews compelled the wisdom teachers to adopt a new eschatological dualism, according to which personal salvation was not ultimately determined just on the basis of covenantal election, but also on the basis of fidelity to the law.[21] There exists, then, a significant departure in electoral belief structure from one Testament to the next, that departure can be traced back to the inter-testamental period.

A similar picture emerges from a study of key apocalyptic books (I Enoch, Jubilees, 4 Ezra) and of the Qumran material. In all these sources, the soteriology is also synergistic: one's covenantal status is not, in itself, sufficient for deliverance. One must validate that status through observance of the law. Proof was required of commitment to that elected status. Important to this soteriology within Eskola’s argument is that predestination in these writings is not deterministic. Even at Qumran, the destiny of human beings is not fixed by divine decree but left open to the choices people make either to follow or to reject the way of law-keeping.[22] Given the background material it is reasonable to suggest that the original audience of the Pauline writings would understand the concept of “election” under similar terms.

Eskola’s theodicy is complete, allowing fully for both God’s wrath and his salvation. Paul radicalizes the Jewish understanding in that all people are bound by sin and subject therefore to God's wrath. No longer is there a basis, at least at the outset, for positive human response to God. Paul's solution is not the predestination of individuals, such as in the Augustinian and Calvinist tradition, but a universal Christological predestination. “All human beings have first been predestined to damnation. All men have been ‘elected’ to find salvation in Christ”[23]

Eskola concludes that predestination involves universal election in Christ, but this universal election does not necessarily bring salvation to all. Election involves the provision in Christ of atonement for all, but “does not yet deliver salvation to individuals.”[24] This is perhaps the most frank and literal reading of the scripture one will find when they study the topic both systematically and exegetically.

Conclusion

The idea of God’s omniscience, free will, and predestination in most current thought and theology is linear. In Theistic Determinism, God created originally and set everything in motion, this makes all subsequent events contingent and thus predestined. The problem with this is that we are limiting an infinite God. “Determinism is the view that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future,”[25] according to Peter van Inwagen, the noted philosopher and metaphysicist. Limiting the dimension of God by our human perspective, we act just like the residents of Abbott’s Flatland, not able to see beyond our own dimension and understand that some objects transcend our own reality; who better fits that description but God.

Imagine a world map with a pin on a specific location; the map fails to take into account the fact that the earth is not a mere two dimensional layout (which anyone not believing the world is flat can agree with.) A point on a map is insufficient for a miner wishing to harvest minerals from a mountain marked by the map, there is also a depth or elevation necessary with the dimensional coordinates; any person who has installed a satellite receiver on the roof knows that they cannot receive the proper signal with just the number of circular degrees, but must also measure and pinpoint the dish’s azimuth in order to locate their signal source. An exponentially increasing number of possibilities might exist in a true free-will scenario, though only one reality exists, as far as our base assumptions on the nature of the universe (which some philosophers may argue is a weighty assumption) and therefore we base our theodicy and theology on destiny and election on this very notion.

Perhaps it would be more fitting with the character and nature of God, especially his infinite nature, to reenvision the base model of divine knowledge as a visual family tree where every branch is a point in time related to an individual and to their available options at that point in time (even taking into account contingency and natural leanings of that man). This would obviously create quite an immense, tangled and intertwined tree branching off with such a large and ever expanding number of variables that it boggles the mind… the human mind that is. This a limitation of the human mind, however, and must be reconciled with a limitless God who can easily encompass far more than our mind can ever achieve—we cannot compare our perception of reality versus the Infinite One. While this thinking might be less understandable, it is perhaps easier to reconcile with the concept of sovereignty, omniscience, and the Calvinist accusation of a limited God given an Arminian perspective. Perhaps that is what is called for in developing a new theodicy for a contemporary rational age: that we finite beings surrender the need to understand everything about an infinite God, or even begin to open ourselves to the possibility of things beyond our finite dimension. Perhaps then we can find some genuine common ground with each other.

Election must remain within the realm of soteriology and not venture beyond its doctrinal borders without doing much harm to the doctrine of free will. In any discussion of election, we must begin with Jesus and restrain taking liberties with any theology we have merely inferred from the text.

Bibliography

Basinger, David. The Case for Freewill Theism A Philosophical Assessment. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996.

Beale, Nicholas. "Free Will, Free Process, and Love." Think Autumn (2009): 115-124.

Calvin, John. "book 3, chapter 23, section 19." In Institutes. n.d.

Caner, Ed Hindson and Ergun, ed. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene: Harvest House, 2008.

Clark, Gordon H. Religion, Reason, and Revelation. P{hiladelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1961.

Edwards, Jonathan. Freedom of the Will: Which is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency, Virtue, and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame. London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co, 1860.

Elwell, Walter, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Eskola, Timo. Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Sotenology. Tübingen: Paul Mohr Verlag, 1998.

Garden, Francis. "Divine Predestination: An Attempt Approximatley to Solve the Main Difficulty Connected With It." Contemporary Review, June 1872: 423-429.

Hawking, Stephen. The Universe in a Nutshell. New York: Bantam, 2001.

Horton, Stanley, ed. Systematic Theology. Revised. Springfield: Logion Press, 1995.

John Walvoord, William Crocket, Zachary Hayes, Clark Pinnock. Four Views on Hell. Edited by William Crocket. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Kathleen Vohs, and Jonathan Schooler. "The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating." Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell) 19, no. 1 (Jan 2008): 49-54.

van Inwagen, Peter. "An Essay on Free Will." In The Incompatibility of Free Will and Determinism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

Watterson, Bill. The Authoritative Calvin and Hobbes. Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1990.

[1] (Watterson 1990) 152

[2] (Elwell 2001) 467

[3] (John Walvoord 1992) 140

[4] (Erickson 1998) 930

[5] (Caner 2008) 241

[6] (Erickson 1998) 926

[7] (Clark 1961) 221

[8] (Clark 1961) 237-238

[9] (Calvin n.d.)

[10] (Kathleen Vohs, and Jonathan Schooler 2008) 49

[11] (Beale 2009) 117

[12] (Beale 2009) 118

[13] (Hawking 2001) 139

[14] (Beale 2009) 124

[15] (Beale 2009) 115

[16] (Garden 1872) 425

[17] (Edwards 1860) 1-10

[18] (Garden 1872) 424

[19] (Basinger 1996) 12

[20] (Horton 1995) 356

[21] (Eskola 1998) 41-44

[22] (Eskola 1998) 273

[23] (Eskola 1998) 185

[24] (Eskola 1998) 185, 186

[25] (van Inwagen 1975) 10

Martin Luther and Four Letter Christianity

2011-08-04T14:31:00.003-05:00

I've been busy with work and also with my classes as I work towards my Masters in Religion, so I've been a little quiet on the blog frontier. While in an online class discussion I thought I'd take some of my thoughts on Martin Luther from this class and assemble a blog post.

The Table Talk of Martin Luther provides insight into the attitude and thoughts of the the greater Reformer. Translated from German to English by William Hazlitt, the book is a collection of candid statements made by Luther at his table during dinner at the large house he and his wife shared with numerous boarders. He comments on 45 different theological topics with great directness and honesty.

I think Table Talk is one of Luther's most candid works and really demonstrates the intensity of his beliefs, his ability and knowledge with which he articulates them, and the his personal tenacity. It is no wonder that he was known as the "bull dog." I find it ironic how in so many staunch Lutherans overlook their progenitor's personal nature/character but would be mortified in offense at similar statements by a contemporary believer. For instance, in a discussion over the reality and nature of Satan Luther is quoted as believing Satan had no real power except deceit and claimed he would bare his naked rear at him should the Devil appear. Elsewhere in Table Talk (Man between God and the Devil) Luther challenges, "But if that is not enough for you, you Devil, I have also shit and pissed; wipe your mouth on that and take a hearty bite." Luther can be crude at times, but his vernacular is easily understood by even the lowest of society; though his expertise and education prepared him for discourse within any level. While I don't advocate his scatological vocabulary, Luther does show us in this particular session of Table Talk that his frustration with the papacy (and their "fencing" techniques which manipulated the lower classes) led to his "low speech" reputation. He was willing to break down his beliefs so that an everyman could understand them. In modern "Christianity" few are willing to risk association with the everyman for fear of "getting dirty," and thus we see very few believers with an impact like Martin Luther had and so many more plastic pulpit televangelists wearing a thin skin of Jesusness which wears out at the same rate of US Dollar's inflation. To the lost and unsaved, being real is much more important than being proper, and that's why I love reading Martin Luther (though I'm quite far from the Lutheran belief set.)

You can read Table Talk for free on Google Books. Click Here

Best of April

2011-04-19T14:37:00.000-05:00

I read a good book this last month (well, a couple of em,) and I wanted to recommend Cross-Cultural Servanthood by Duane Elmer. It's a great look at how Christian's are overly ethnocentric (and egocentric) which are fancy words that basically say "We tell people act like us and you will be good Christians." The point of evangelism and missions (and yes, you can be a missionary to the United States--there are so many subcultures that cross-cultural missionaries are necessary and in dire need! I'm not talking just ethnic minorities, but we should cross age, clique, musical, political, financial boundaries--even bring Jesus from the great MN homeland to those Packer-backers!) Don't make someone look like YOU, make them look like Jesus would have in their culture. Elmer tells an interesting story in his book: in Revelation 3:20 Jesus stands at the door and knocks, but in one culture missionaries went to, only thieves knocked on doors as they listened for a reaction (no reaction meant the house was empty and could be plundered.) Those who knew the owner of the hut would call their name and the owner would come answer it. A strict transliteration makes Jesus a criminal, thus a more accurate interpretation in this culture is to replace "I stand at the door and knock" with "I stand outside and call your name." Culture has a bearing on the accuracy of the Scriptures and it is not the duty of the believer to make others understand the Bible based on OUR culture and context; our duty is only to bring the Word in such a way that it is accurately understood by the audience.

Hulu.com (what more do I need to say?) Lately, they've been rereleasing free, streaming episodes of all the good-old cartoons. I've been watching old He-man, Voltron, Smurfs, Thundercats, and Inspector Gadget shows with my kids recently.

Oh yeah, third best thing of last month: naps. These Master's program classes I'm in will melt your brain if you don't give it ample cool-down time.

Flashlights VS. Fireflies. What Are You?

2011-04-07T11:03:00.001-05:00

What are you?

So I was looking for my father the other day. I needed to ask him something. I don’t remember what it was, or why, but I found him… in the bathroom—the door was open, after all. He was sitting backwards on the toilet.

“You know, you’re a big enough boy that you can probably sit facing the other way,” I commented.

“Yeah, but this really improves my aim,” he replied.

At this point, I should probably mention that my father was fully clothed, just to save face. He was actually working on the plumbing inside the tank when I found him. My dad’s not always known for his deep, insightful and introspective comments. More than likely he’s better known for things like fireflies.

My father works with National Guardsmen, usually in some aspect of their training or preparedness for combat or post-combat. Often, they have interactions and events to boost morale, build relationships, etc. One night, they had a talent show.

One private was really nervous because he didn’t have any special talent. He was really bothered by this, to the point of letting it really affect his self-worth. My dad had an idea for him, though and all was not lost.

When it was time for his turn, they announced he’d be doing an impersonation and killed the lights so the private would be barely visible. Well as he could, he ran across the stage, bouncing side to side on stiff legs, completely naked and hiding his dignity in his hands; a flashlight was squeezed between his buttcheeks and he yelled, “I’m a firefly! I’m a firefly!”

The guy was a hit. The person with no talent seemed to pull of the win.

My father has been known to occasionally make deep observations. Sometimes they may be on accident, but most often, that’s how insight comes: in the moment.

One day, several years ago, I was on the phone and having huge issues with the person on the other end. They’d made some promises to me about a time frame of moving into the new home my wife and I had bought in the town where we were assuming a new pastorate. I was very frustrated because someone in the whole chain of command had dropped the ball and it left my family, a toddler, a pregnant woman, and me, homeless for a few weeks. I didn’t know who caused the problem, but she was my only point of contact in the company and so I took it out on her.

My dad heard the ebb and flow of the conversation from my end and walked by, interjecting, “remember who and what you are.” Self-control isn’t easy, but the Bible never claimed it would be. It is, however, necessary, as a part of broadcasting a genuine Christian witness. Are you a Christian? Are you genuine? Can others tell if you’re a believer by how you live your life?

Others can always tell who you really are; the things you do and say are a genuine assessment of your character. In the age of political correctness, with so many people “playing the game,” people let those masks slide, they pretend that phony Christians are real and don’t rip off those masks so the same won’t be done back to them. Political correctness, though, doesn’t help anyone find the true face of God.

I’ve known a lot of genuine fakes that claim to be Christians. Real Christians understand that those people are more like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. If you are a believer, be a real follower of Christ in heart and in deed. The world is watching; don’t try to play both sides of the fence. Whether we realize it or not, we are always genuine; the question is, “What are you?”

You can look like Jesus to some, wear a fake outfit, perhaps even fool a couple people, but you can’t cause anything real and lasting to happen if you are a mere impersonator. A naked person with a flashlight in their rear end might be popular, but isn’t really a firefly. Because it’s not a real firefly, it can’t make new fireflies: it can’t replicate itself. In a culture filled with flashlight wielding nudists, ask yourself, “What are you?”

Best of March

2011-03-18T13:28:00.000-05:00

So, good things about the last month? It’s been a pretty rough one, so my list might be a little thin.

Faster: this was a pretty decent movie. I’ll try to not include any spoilers, but it was definitely worth the price of admission (and then some). It kind of sells itself as an action-shoot em up guy flick. It stars Dwayne (The Rock) Johnson as a released convict and Billy Bob Thorton as a retiring detective trying to catch the convict. Immediately after his release, The Rock goes on a vengeance-filled killing spree. About half-way through, by way of the detective’s work, the outline of The Rock’s character starts coming into focus and we find him (as he travels between assassination targets) beginning to listen to a radio preacher. The movie sneakily finds a moral theme and still manages to be filled with car chases and gun play. It’s probably not one to watch with the kids, but it did have some nice points and it was fun to watch.

For another movie, and just because it was fun: Battlefield L.A. …everybody likes to watch aliens get blown up. It had some nice character development for a sci-fi war movie (kind of like Starship Troopers, which was based on a Heinlein novel).

St. Patricks day. It’s also my wife’s birthday. You gotta love having your spouse’s birthday fall on a memorable date that’s already marked on a calendar… it sure is convenient. Interestingly enough, it’s been less than two decades that March 17 has been a huge Irish pub/drinking holiday. In fact, for the longest time bars were forced to be closed on the date which has (until recently) been a religious holiday. It was changed in order to increase alcohol-related tourism (and quite successfully.) For those that are interested in history, the holiday can actually be a spiritual eye-opener rather than a Guinness filled binge.

Check Engine Light: ON

2011-03-02T13:13:00.001-06:00

My wife asked me recently why many pastors we’ve known have survived church transitions and retained their position on staff. That’s a fancy way to say that they kept their jobs after the head/senior pastor left. Even though she knew the answer, she wondered aloud at why that’s never been an option for me. The obvious answer is because I’m the kind of guy that fixes problems; I think everyone else should be that way too. I like things to be as advertised and to function properly.

Church is often like a car with the check engine light on. Many people ignore the dash light and loud engine noise; they turn up the radio so those problem queues won’t be a bother. They won’t acknowledge the black smoke and refuse to see a mechanic, hoping that “it’s not that bad.” As long as their vehicle keeps moving forward, surely everything is fine.

I can’t do that, not in church anyway. I can’t turn a blind eye knowing the cost of a vehicular meltdown. Many people just “let it ride,” hoping this machine will keep working without any sort of tune up or maintenance. But even the most efficient vehicle needs a periodic oil change.

A church is like a vehicle, a living engine composed of people. There is a joke about doctor and mechanic: A mechanic is working on a surgeon’s Mercedes; a little disgruntled, he brings the surgeon back to the car and opens up the engine to work on a blown piston while talking. “You know, Doc, we’re a lot alike. I take out and replace parts just like you do to keep this body up and running. I can’t afford a nice car like this, though, and I work on far more patients every day than you do. I don’t think it’s fair that you make so much more money than I do with all these similarities.” The doctor replied, “You have a good point. But let’s see you swap that part while the engine is still running.” A church body is much more intricate thing than any combustion engine—ecclesiastical engine failure is far more catastrophic than a broken timing belt.

My sister was talking to my wife the other day and she mentioned that her check engine light has been on for a while now. She actually just turns her car off and then back on hoping the noise and engine light will go away. Her car has around 200,000 miles on it; ignoring problem indicators and skipping scheduled maintenance is the last thing she should do. How often do we turn a blind eye, though, to the church gossip, unscriptural/inaccurate theologies and teachings, or deacons leading lives of “acceptable sins?” Can we really risk our primary “vehicle of ministry” to the world grinding to a halt?

Currently, I feel a little derailed in life and ministry; I’m waiting for my maintenance checkup to be completed. I stepped out of an official ministry role to pursue some further education so I can be better at it; it will be one to two years before I’m done and during that time I won’t have an official staff title, but the mission is bigger than my pride and personal identity as a “pastor.”

Many of the older generation ministers did not plan for retirement; the belief was solid that the Lord would return before they ever reached that age. Realistically and scripturally we know that the final destination is unknown; how far must the church endure before we arrive at the end? We must be willing to pull off the road for those times of scheduled maintenance in order to keep moving forward in the long run and endure until the end as Paul exhorts us.

Best of February 2011

2011-02-17T21:00:00.000-06:00

So I was following my GPS taking a shortcut through Fargo/Moorhead trying to get to the other side. I had to cross the river and I was in a residential section and came to a bridge. The bridge had a toll! in North Dakota, a toll bridge! Granted, it was only seventy five cents, but I didn't have ANY cash. The old lady operating it just smiled and said, now you know there's a toll here for next time, then she opened the arm and waved me through. Thanks toll-bridge lady. You made my list.

Seventh Day Slumber's worship album (Take Everything). This album is awesome. It's not that new and I've had it for a quite a while. But I was driving downt he road the other day on a long trip and was in a rather bad mood. I wasn't in the mood for angel and harp music; 7DS was in my cd player already so I left it in. Good stuff. I really felt centered again after listening it and putting my attitude in check--it turned out to be a great day, mostly because I had the proper outlook.

Fifi's note. This is just the best thing ever. My daughter wrote a note and left it out for me to find when I came home. You just have to read it!

Harry Potter is Safer than Church?

2011-02-02T15:55:00.002-06:00

Yeah, most church-going Americans would bristle at that statement. If you’ve followed my blog at all, you probably know to expect that kind of thing from me. You also expect that I’m going to explain to you exactly why I’ve stated in the title that Harry Potter just might be Safer than a “typical Western Church.”

Defense Against the Dark Arts

In college, ministry can be a bit of a pipedream. Your imagined parishioners love and shower you with grace and respect and walk with you as you reveal the things of God to them from His Word. Sometimes we pastors allow ourselves to buy into the dream of disillusionment; it’s more pleasant than the alternative. We can get so hung up on the “best-case” scenario that we have trouble finding the joys of ministry. It is easy, even for a pastor, to forget that following Christ means we will have trouble in our life (1 John 3:10-13)—the prosperity gospel has worked its way even into pastoral expectations in principle, despite our objections to the theology. It is easy to confuse our personal comfort with feelings of love and effectiveness as a minister. When things become hard, and scriptures promise that it will, a pastor tends to become disillusioned. YOU as a church member can help us by showing affection to your pastor, regardless of your viewpoint or feelings on his or her ministry.

Ministry is about the people. That carries its own set of problems: people, being inherently evil (Romans 3:23) are not really very nice, or even pleasant to be around. Many pastors often joke that they would love the ministry if it weren’t for the people. The truth of the matter is, ministry takes thick skin. While this is mentioned in passing during a minister’s training, our desire to focus on the positive aspects of ministry tends to preclude any possibility of hardship in how we envision our congregations. Younger pastors often tend to drop out early in their careers if they haven’t developed thick skin. I was watching the Harry Potter movie series, reviewing it from a Christian perspective for some others, and noticed something that Harry’s school did which Bible College’s should pick up on. To prepare the students for fierce opposition from their enemies, all students attend a mandatory class called “Defense Against the Dark Arts.” While it’s not quite correct to view our parishioners as enemies, we should better prepare our next generation of leaders for conflict and survival.

In Why Men Hate Going to Church, author David Murrow makes the keen insight that we have watered down the strength of the church by de-masculinizing it. For the most part, men don’t act like men, and if they show up at all are uninvolved or detached. Murrow says, “If men are to return to church, we must let them be men. Ferocious, aggressive, risk-taking men. We can no longer expect men to act like proper Victorian ladies. In Order of the Phoenix, Harry Potter must sit under the tutelage of one Professor Umbridge. She is a clear rip on the feminine ideals and control exerted by religious women (under which so many churches languish under a death-grip). One of the aspects of this femininity is the avoidance of conflict. But conflict is there, just brewing below the surface! Conflict must be addressed and resolved in order for sincerity and Truth to prosper.

Because the church is people, there tends to be drama. Drama can be a part of life, a natural result of personality and emotional clashes. Personal battles and the gossiping, backstabbing attacks within a pastor’s flock fatigue him or her. They don’t usually kill a pastor’s ministry, but they take an unnecessary toll on their psyche; eventually, other ministry-killing factors find weakened resistances and the disillusionment of ministry overwhelm a pastor. The Call of God becomes less real and more a product of imagination or some emotionally triggered response in years previous.

You can help your pastor by asking him or her about the specifics of their call to ministry. Validate their call. Partner with them by believing and holding them to that call; ask them to preach about it and share it. Forgetting the circumstances of their call is a byproduct and progressive part of disillusionment. The loss of call warps a pastor’s sense of self-value, identity in Christ, and sense of effectiveness. Forgetting or questioning his or her own calling is an indicator that disillusionment is on the horizon.

Immature believers populate every church. Oftentimes, these people believe themselves to be mature. When I think of the term “immature” I am reminded of when my son was a toddler and could barely walk or even stand under his own power. He needed help to stand and would grab my two hands to stabilize himself as he’d run around the house. As great as this short period of time was, he soon learned to do these things on his own. I was not only proud of his achievement, but soon taught him to do more advanced things. When I mean “Immature Believer,” I am talking about someone who needs a pastor’s constant hand-holding to do basic, simple tasks. You can probably think of someone in your own church that has their minister on speed dial and calls over the slightest disruption of life. An immature believer tends to focus more on getting their pastor’s help to guide them through a situation rather than seeking help from God’s Word and relying on His presence first and foremost.

God is the ultimate source—we should run to Him first. When a believer who supposes themself to be mature, but chiefly relies on either their own answers or the solutions of another person (be they a minister, deacon, or talk show host, etc.) they are actually immature. Their actions tend to nickel and dime a pastor’s time and resolve, wearing it away over time, remolding the pastor’s vision of his or her ideal church into something less than God’s intent by injecting an unneeded component of humanity.

One of my primary duties as a staff pastor in my last ministry was to “run interference” for the senior pastor. The congregation was several hundred people large and growing; it had a fair share of these “nickel ad dimers.” On Sunday mornings, I helped to guard my pastor’s attention from those who might distract or weigh him down in the time leading up to his sermon delivery. These people where not evil, but rather unaware of how their concerns (which seem so pressing to them at that moment) can distract and disrupt the corporate worship.

Ultimately, we need, like the students at Hogwarts (the school where Harry Potter attends,) better education. Being solid, thinking and reasoning believers is first and foremost on the list. If western Christians decided to become good students, if they equipped themselves with knowledge: how to resolve conflict, how to properly defend their faith, how to discern between their emotions and the movement of the Holy Spirit, then the church would begin to raise up strong ministries with every-day relevance. The church could take back ground.

Pick up your brain and get ready to defend yourselves! You can find God through reason and logic, the didactic approach. If the Bible really is Truth, then it can stand up to any amount of scrutiny—in fact, deep examination by an unbeliever threatens to even convert them, so bring it on! God was not joking when he told the prophet, “Come. Let us reason together.” (Isaiah 1:18)

Men are generally analytical. They like to solve problems, utilizing their strengths (physical or mental) to overcome and achieve. This translates to the masculine desire to conquer (as Gary Smalley labels it). I belong to a Pentecostal denomination and I see that the pendulum has shifted throughout modern Christianity to emotion-based responses. I think that has impacted the strength of the church. I’m all for emotion, where applicable. Unfortunately I’ve seen people judge (in both other believers as well as themselves) whether or not God moved based upon the emotions felt or visible. This is a turn-off for men, there’s something that offends the machismo about having another man blubbering on your shoulder in a public forum.

Murrow states, “Men’s ministry so often falters for this simple reason: it’s actually women’s ministry for men.” He describes the typical men’s ministry event as geared toward women (or “soft-men,” who are feminine.) “So the men’s retreat features singing, hugging, hand holding, and weeping. Men sit in circles and listen, read, or share. We keep our conversations clean, polite, and non-confrontational.”

When men leave the church (and this doesn’t just apply to physical absence) the church suffers. Bring back reason, be thinking Christians, and increase the appeal to real men and you will strengthen the home, the church, and our culture and country.

Best of January 2011

2011-01-16T22:50:00.004-06:00

So yup, I’m hoping that I can make two monthly installments to my blog this year. I’ve been toying with the notion of adding this for a year or so now: a brief review/recommendations section, or the “best of” the month. My wife has noted to me that, while I am typically an optimist, when I get all analytical (especially when I’m writing) I tend to hammer more frequently against the negative. I’m a middle child; I don’t give an excessive amount of attention to “birth order” type theories, but I do tend to be a problem solver (or mediator/negotiator as some birth-order books have labeled it). As such, I tend to focus on what’s wrong so I can isolate it and try to fix it. So there’s my resolution this year, to report every month on “what’s right.”

Best Book I read – Tea With Hezbollah by Ted Dekker. This book was amazing. The core concept: simply loving your neighbor and implementing the concept of the Good Samaritan in our culture (starting with our lives.) I highly recommend this book. I keep an all-time top 3 favorite nonfiction books and this book threatened to dethrone one of the others three.
Tea With Hezbollah

Best new song I learned – Bless the Lord by Jeff Deyo

Best Movie I saw – Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole. I took my kids to see this around Christmas time. It blew me away; solid all-around and inspirational even. It’s probably even on video now, we caught a late screening of it in a movie theater that puts on free matinees for kids, just before the theatrical movie goes to home video.

Best random thing – watching my kids and nephew decide to go sledding “home alone” style down the steep, icy stairway that leads to our loft-apartment. Before we figured it out, we just heard klunk-klunk-klunk-klunk-klunk-klunk-klunk-klunk and laughter.

Best recipe I tried - Chicken Enchiladas!
cook 2 chicken breasts chop
chop your chicken breasts up (so they get a shredded type texture)
season your chicken with taco seasoning (as if it were ground beef)
add 2 chopped green onions
add a cup of cooked rice
add 1/2 a can (14-15 oz) of enchilada sauce
add 1 cup shredded cheese (mexican mix or colby jack)
roll mixture in 6 soft shell tacos and place in glass baking dish
pour remaining enchilada sauce over tacos
sprinkle 1 cup cheese over top
bake the pan in an oven at 350 for about 15 minutes

Have Yourself a Grinchy Little Xmas

2011-01-02T00:18:00.002-06:00

The Grinchy Xmas Rant

So, I should try and keep this short. It is Christmas, after all. Ha ha. That would be unlike me, wouldn’t it? I’m posting this as my January blog post, but it is still several days prior to the twenty-fifth as I write this. There’s just enough time for me to ride down into Whoville and keep Christmas from coming.

My wife is annually upset with me because I am such a grinch. I suppose I can sympathize with her a little. I can be a bit of a grinch at times. I thought I would post a holiday rant here a little bit, at least explaining my case. I can’t really justify why I try and prolong erecting the tree until as close to twenty-fifth as possible, and I can’t justify explain why I’m not always as merry at this time of the year as many of my counterparts. But I can justify why I like the name Ebeneezer, and I can justify why I’m just about burned out on Christmas music. I don’t think my aversion to shopping centers from mid-November till February needs any explanation.

A state (District) representative from our denomination spoke just a few words in a recent Sunday morning church service. He admitted to liking even secular Christmas songs. I’ll keep his identity a secret. Personally, I don’t have a problem with “secular” music in general. Gasp! I know.

I don’t like songs full of violence and cussing and all that “secularism.” But many songs merely reflect the fallen human condition and the point of view that such a state reflects. That does not mean that they have some sort of redeeming value and I don’t recommend them to others, I merely wish to point out that sometimes “Christians” judge things based on a formula: Christian music=acceptable material, Secular=unacceptable. Is that really such a good formula? (What really defines it as “Christian music?” it can’t be the label because then unsigned artists don’t fit the mold and certain secular bands were signed by some “Christian” labels a few years ago and have since claimed to never be “Christian bands” but rather have moral themes—Evanescence and Chevelle to name a couple.)

Here is my formula: it violates scripture and/or endorses sin= offensive/unacceptable. Everything else=permissible. I know that’s a break with contemporary traditions, but I am nothing if not a nontraditionalist. That’s why I’m the Grinch, I put little stock in tradition. Look at our good, wholesome “Christian” Christmas songs. Using my formula, some of these hymns don’t measure up. “What!?!” You say! “Hymns are the highest, most deified form of praise/worship (and Choruses can never compare to the lyrical depth of the hymns!”)

Here’s a hymn, its called “God of Earth and Outer Space.” Here’s some sample lyrics, “God of earth and outer space God of love and God of grace. Bless the astronauts who fly as they soar beyond the sky...As man walks in outer space teach him how to walk in grace...God of man's exploring mind God of wisdom God of time Launch us from complacency to a world in need of thee.” Lyrically deep, really? Songs to bless the astronauts? Hymns don’t really have anything special on Choruses. I advocate neither above the other, and BOTH are referenced in Scripture (which never once mentions a pipe organ, but there are several references to loud drums and clanging cymbals.)

So yeah, Christmas hymns and tradition sometimes get me riled up. The combination drives me up the wall. Sometimes I think it’d be more theologically accurate if we sang the Chipmunk Song for our holiday season worship.

Here’s a short list of problematic Christmas Carols:
-I Saw Three Ships: Bethlehem is landlocked.
-The First Noel: Christ’s birth didn’t actually happen in December, so the shepherd’s weren’t out in a “Cold winter’s night that was so deep.” They also didn’t observe the star, only the magi did (because they were astrologers and magicians) and they didn’t all arrive at the manger scene together like in our nativities.
-We three kings: scripture doesn’t say they are kings and the “kings” were unnumbered—there were three mentioned gifts. It’s been presumed there were three because nobody would visit a king without a gift, but what if there were six magi and four brought gold? That’s still just three types of gifts.
-Away in a Manger: I recently performed this song with my kids at church. I wince every time I come to verse two. The baby never cried? That’s not scriptural, nor is it natural. Baby Jesus in the sky? That’s either bad theology or bad grammar.
-Go tell it on the mountain: Angels told the shepherds where to go; shepherds didn’t follow the star. In fact nobody but the magi even noticed the star, and the Magi didn’t come on the scene till Jesus a couple years old.
-It Came Upon the midnight clear: This song doesn’t even mention Christ; it was written by a social-gospel Unitarian. If you look at it as being a “Humanism Utopia Song,” you would see it fits perfectly.
-Mary Did You Know: this one drives me nuts! Yes, people, she obviously knew! Gabriel didn’t show up to bake her a cake!
-The little drummer boy: yeah right. I’ve got your pa-rum-pum-pum right here.

Here’s some things we forget about the story: The “wise men” were astrologers who gave gifts to the messiah when he was young (probably about two years old.) They found him inside a house/residence according to Matt 2:11. Only these pagan astrologers noticed this star in the east. The shepherds saw the angels. Ass and oxen? Maybe, but we only know Jesus and Mary stayed in a stable, we don’t know what was kept there. We also don’t know much about this mythical Inn and innkeeper. The text more reflects it was a guestroom, maybe a distant relative of the family whose home was overcrowded by the census? I wonder if, perhaps, the homeowner, assuming it was a pious relative, didn’t want to be associated with Joseph and his pregnant, unwed bride. (There are all kinds of implications to modern Christianity there.)

Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m not in favor of necessarily updating hymns. That would open up doors for more political correctness to invade the church. I’ve heard that one hymnal has changed the line “God rest ye merry, Gentlemen” to “God rest ye merry, gentle friends”. That’s absurd. I DO feel, though, that we let tradition remain within the realm of tradition and strive to always point out the difference.

The main problem with traditional Christmas Carols is this: Christians are all idiots. At least, that’s how the non-believing world views us. And who can blame them? They will only know what we are able to show them, and our two most visible holiday displays are 1) Easter, where we celebrate our God dying (I’m not going to talk about that here, because it sounds absurd and will always confound the nonbeliever) and 2) Christmas which Christians have allowed to BECOME absurd with our sentimentality and buffoonery. If you were to ask your typical church-raised “Christian” what happened on Christmas, you would receive a predictable litany rife with tradition and quaint stories that are the product of fairy tale details which actually distract from the messianic fact and theological awesomeness that Christ was Immanuel! God With US!

What the secular world sees is a nativity scene amid Frosty, Rudolph, Santa, Buddy the Elf, Heat Miser, Jack Frost, and a slew of others; they see no significant factual difference, because there apparently isn’t one. Most Christians couldn’t point out the factual differences either; they know the details regarding Rudolph better than they know the facts of the Messianic birth. John Camden Hotten wrote in his 1905 “Christmas Carols, Ancient and Modern” that Christmas, specifically the Christmas carol, "has always been a great favorite with the illiterate, and from its quaintness will be found not displeasing to the more refined." Yeah, even a hundred years ago and more people realized this problem.

Believers should be educated—“knowing” is an extremely important aspect to love. “You cannot love what you do not know.” That’s my paraphrase of Brother Lawrence, the seventeenth century monk whose letters were compiled into the book The Practice of the Presence of God. The monk surmises, “We must know before we can love. In order to know God, we must think of Him; and when we come to love Him, we shall also think of Him often, for our heart will be with our treasure.”

“Christians,” and I use the parenthesis purposefully, get so uppity over what they THINK that they know. Every year it seems that we are in a struggle for our very lives over the usage of Happy Holidays versus Merry Christmas. We seem entirely too much like a toothless abominable snowman, growling at everything, retaining intimidation as our only real power. AFR, AFA, and all those other AF-acronymed Christian watchdog groups are easily provoked by the slightest deviation in opinion of others. I’m thinking specifically of the backlash against Liam Neeson’s opinion about how Aslan might be interpreted by members of other faiths. Let an opinion be an opinion, and let true Christianity speak for itself. I saw the movie, all of them. Viewed in the proper context of CS Lewis’s history and the blatant allegory in the story, coupled with Aslan’s statement in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, it becomes pretty clear that the film is faith-based and drawn from Lewis’s understanding of Christianity. Neeson’s comments are correct, however. Aslan COULD represent the deity from a number of different religions to those adherents. Your faith is the lens that you view the world through; because your faith shapes your context, a Muslim might see Aslan as a representation of Allah. This concept can be applied to other faiths as well—that does not mean those other faiths are right in their characterization. We know that Lewis intended his stories to be Christian allegory.

I find it woeful that Western Christians are so bellicose and wary of the persecution that we were promised. If the film did in fact impart some basic “seeds” of Christian faith, then shouldn’t we let the film stand on its own and be viewed in whatever manner the secular, the Buddhist, the Muslim, Wiccan, Pagan, etc. choose to see it so long as they cooperate with viewing? Isn’t that the way to subvert a false religion, to supplant it with seeds of truth so they might grow? Who cares how they see it; just get them to the theater.

I agree with the AFA/AFR that we must keep Christ in Christmas. But at what cost does this come? If the Christ we represent is ignorant, demanding, and violent, then wouldn’t it be better to let Him fade away, and in the silence that follows bring in the true messiah? Why not concentrate more on seeing souls saved than crying foul over a box labeled “X-mas” instead of “Christmas.”

In fact, using the term Xmas doesn’t take Christ out of Christmas. We did that already with our American consumerism and commercialism. And the American church has bought into this just as hard as everyone else. In fact, we are partially to blame for the whole “Xmas is crossing/Xing out Christ from Christmas” misunderstanding. Whenever I hear believers comment how Xmas is a purposeful taunt against Christianity, it really ticks me off. It is the “Christians” who launched a preemptive strike against their “enemies” (that is, the world---the ones we are supposed to love into the faith.) We picked this fight, essentially building a strawman argument, but really building a weapon for our “enemies.” Franklin Graham, in fact, called this issue a “war on Christ.”

While the rise of this debate over the use of X is relatively recent (within the last half-century) its modern origin can’t be concisely pinpointed. One thing IS certain, though, the use of X as an abbreviation for Christ has been in use since the days of the early church. X was an officially recognized symbol for almost two thousand years. It is included in the labarum symbol, or chi-rho (pronounced hee-row). Yes, Virginia, Xmas is a Christian term. Should a secular atheist time-travel to ancient Rome under Nero’s rule and wish the mad emperor a “merry X-mas” he would probably be impaled on a spike, left on the side of the road, doused in oil, and set on fire under the premise he was a Christ follower. Literally, Xmas means this: X=Christos: Christ, in the original scripture manuscripts/original language + mas= mæsse or mass which means “to let go, send.” Xmas could translate as “releasing Christ/Messiah into the world,” but that’s just my paraphrase, and what do I know? I’m just some young punk from the backwoods of the northland.
For a brief overview, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas it’s got a brief summary of this background with some excellent sources cited for further study.

Even while writing this blog post I got an email from the One News Now faith-based news group. A new article on their site claimed those immoral atheists are trying to steal our holiday again, like some annual game of “red light, green light” played with the Grinch who stole Christianity. (It was really unfortunate, too, because the article was really quite excellent except for the reference to atheists using X-mas signs to secularize the holiday.)

The first step in overcoming anything is preparation. Education is a foundational step to becoming a revolutionary, to being changed. Knowledge is a mandate. That sounds shocking in an era of Judeo-Christian belief which has been dominated by Jesus-junky hyper-emotional puppeteers that look good, sound good, but ensnare people with a weak, marshmallow gospel that can’t stand in the quaking turmoil that is emotional distress. Both secular and Jesus-junky culture have led us to believe that there exists an incompatibility between head-knowledge and heart-knowledge; much like the Hellenistic dichotomies of flesh vs. spirit, one side is typically labeled as evil—such that ascetics attempt to destroy the lesser half. The great emphasis we’ve placed on emotion (because of our desire to “feel” our God) sometimes leads to an abandonment of knowledge (which makes it unable to “know” our God.)

Poll data reflects this loss of knowledge in American “Christians.” An article by John W. Kennedy in the Religious Beliefs column of the December 26, 2010 issue of Pentecostal Evangel magazine reads:
“Overall, Americans—and Protestants as a whole—correctly answered only half of the questions, 16 out of 32. Atheists and agnostics scored the highest, with an average of 20.9 right responses.”
*data taken from The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
It is disturbing to be outperformed in a basic knowledge test by agnostics, especially given the subject material. Agnostic literally means “someone who does not know.”

Suffice it to say, whenever I hear someone complaining about the secularists scheming to “take Christ out of Christmas” by subverting it with an X, I mentally label that person as ignorant and uneducated about their own cultural history (except in rare and specific cases where this is happens to be a factual detail in the larger war Atheism has launched on Christianity.) I don’t doubt that the secularists and humanists want to expel Him from the holiday, but I’ve yet to see this complaint come without wanton ignorance. Plus, there are much better ways for Atheists to expel the Christ from this season. Jesus is far to big a figure to be hidden under a simple “X.” Dictators, rulers, demons and the powers of the world have tried to silence His message since the dawn of sin, but have been unsuccessful. I don’t believe “Xmas” is the silver bullet that Satan has been looking for.

The far greater threat to the stability of this holy holiday, the greatest detractor to the message of Christmas, is Black Friday. I didn’t really want to, but I strolled a crowded superstore with my wife last Black Friday. We didn’t wait in any lines or make a mad dash. We grazed over the blasted detritus and sales-floor flotsam that remained after the mad rush. I felt like an animal in a crowded slaughterhouse, herded toward the butcher at the register lanes. Buyers descended upon the endcaps and labeled bins like locusts. Consume, devour, use up, and move on, that’s what the holiday has become about.

People spent enormous amounts of money on throwaway things. What about people; what about benevolence? Despite the severe economic recession, Black Friday sales figures were up. The NRF Black Friday Survey for 2010 reports increased sales for 2010 totaling over $45 billion. Shoppers competing for Black Friday deals increased from 195 million in 2009 to over 212 million in 2010. Money spent per customer also increased from an average of $345 to about $365 in 2010.

We blew money on creature comforts, charities that operate during the holidays have lagged behind their necessary numbers. The Salvation Army Red Kettles are behind as of the 14th of December. In the region covering the western third of the country, including Alaska and Hawaii, kettle donations are off about 3 percent from last year, says regional spokeswoman Deborah Knutson. Campaigns in Minnesota and North Dakota report declines averaging 10 percent to 20 percent, says spokeswoman Annette Bauer.

That one-day increase of $20 spending spread over 212 million people has means an ADDITIONAL four and a quarter trillion dollars ($4,240,000,000.00) went to retailers on just Black Friday. I can’t begin to assume that this didn’t impact the decline in charitable giving. Our base-human selfishness is a far greater threat to Christianity than “Happy Holidays” ever will be.

During our Black Friday stroll, I mostly people-watched and my impression of the American consumer mentality was only reinforced. We are living in times of consumer-based narcissism. If you’re not a stranger to my blog, then you have assuredly read many of my posts lamenting the “entitlement mentality” that plagues our country.

My father waited in a Black Friday checkout to purchase some big-ticket items, but he tried to keep a proper perspective. The lines were long and tedious. A few nearby people complained and criticized the over-stressed and underpaid cashiers who were taking too long for their comfort. He turned to one person and mentioned, “You know, there are parts of the world where people wait hours and hours just for the slim chance that they might be able to purchase food. We’re here buying disposable junk we don’t even need.” He saw the same locust cloud that I did, and offered a dose of perspective.

At a conference I attended this year, I heard a call to support missions work around the world. This year, I think I’ve spent less money on myself and given more to missions work than any other year. My teenage sister saved and raised several hundred dollars to support a ministry that rescues East Indian women from forced prostitution. She doesn’t have a job but sees the need; how many adults do you know that gave about $500 to missions in the last calendar year? There is a counter cultural movement happening right now that Christians must grab a hold of—we need to get our eyes off ourselves and give to support vital ministries. We must delve into the Word and let the Holy Spirit invest into us. We must be revolutionaries.

Remember, whatever your circumstances, be generous this year! Be a revolutionary and not a locust; bless your pastor and give to your church. Bless those who are unfortunate because God has blessed you. Keep a proper perspective. You are rich, whether you think it or not, and you are blessed because of Christ’s coming two millennia ago. Keep that in mind this holiday season, and have yourself a grinchy little Xmas.

Now, just for fun, check out the modern digital nativity:

Post Script:
Way at the start of this rant, I said that I had good justification for a couple opinions. I didn’t actually discuss them, so here’s the quick run-down.
I like the name Ebeneezer because it means “Stone of Help” and is kind of like a Hebrew version of Peter. It is sometimes used, historically, as a base stone for a battle standard/flag. See http://www.revneal.org/Writings/whatsan.htm
I wanted to name my second child Ebeneezer. My wife overruled me; she also ordered a psyche evaluation.
I am burned out on Christmas music because of Pandora music. I love Pandora’s service, but the “Christmas channel” plays the same songs over and over, with each version sung by a different artist so the system doesn’t realize it’s being repetitive. Without the slightest exaggeration, I heard “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” four times consecutively, with different artist for each song. It also played a number of other times that day. After all this hoopla, I’m almost willing to change the radio to a country station. Almost.

and now for something completely different… theYP!

Counter-Cultural Rebel:John the Baptist with a Laser-Gun

2010-12-01T10:03:00.006-06:00

(John the Baptist By Leonardo DaVinci)

Define appropriate. Was John the Baptist considered the typical, cookie-cutter minister in his era? Not at all. The typical religious iconoclast in that day was the Pharisee or maybe a Sadducee. If I were any character in the New Testament, I’d be John the Baptist… John the Baptist with a laser gun. Ok, maybe that’s a stretch, but I don’t want to be a Pharisee and I want to have an impact that has a revolutionary impact on lives, counteracting both secular and “church” culture and bringing about Kingdom Culture.

I was doing some research for a book I’m writing and found myself flipping through a pastoral reference book. The book was more of a manual on how to fit the part of a typical pastor. Regarding clergy burnout (a main point in my forthcoming book) I read about the problems inherent with new converts, including "inappropriate dress." The book actually endorsed a dress style for pastors that mandated all ministers own, “at the minimum, 1 navy blue suit, 1 grey suit, and 1 black suit.” I understand that “traditional ministry” is included in the “professional” field usually suited to business folk, but what about everyone else? There are so many places you cannot go while wearing a suit.

What is “Appropriate Dress” anyway? If we are out and about in the community (or anywhere other than in a business meeting with business professionals) then shouldn’t we dress down? The dictionary definition of Appropriate is "suitable or fitting for a particular purpose." If our purpose is to build relationships, then maybe we should cast off the upper-tiered white-collar dress code. Dressing with that upper standard in mind, in our current culture and attitudes, actually creates boundaries in many segments of the population.

Personally, I love a casual attitude when it comes to attire in church. For me, it communicates a genuine nature. I would rather the “venerable old saints” cast stones at me for not being stuffy enough to satisfy their need for formality than to make a new believer, visitor, or Spirit-drawn seeker feel the need to meet some arbitrary dress code before they can have an encounter with the Living God. I mean, come on, He DIED so we can have that relationship—after what He endured at the cross, I would think the last thing Christ is going to cast us away for is our style of dress!

The issue, I realize, is one of stumbling blocks (Romans 14) and the concern over causing lust, but that’s really just what we say it is. I’m all for modesty, but lets leave the dress code to the Holy Spirit who convicts and draws us into sanctification (molding us more into His image.) Stumbling Blocks are not a valid scriptural argument for judging another’s outfit. The issue of Stumbling Blocks is to protect a “weaker brother.” If someone comes into your church group dressed more like a stripper than a congressman (I find the disparity odd since they are often found in each other’s company) then trust me, YOU ARE NOT the weaker brother—a mandate that they suddenly clean up actually puts a stumbling block before THEM. (I’m not going to wear a Speedo to a worship service, just pointing out differences in dress preferences between cultural subgroups.)

Research shows the differences between cultural groups in America. The Church has created its own culture. Creating culture can be a good thing, but are excessively judgmental in our application of our rigid standards (that are based upon personal preferences and not scripture—something scripture chastises the Pharisees for). Our (often unspoken) Draconian requirements are one of the major roadblocks that turn away people from the institution of the Church.

The Love Jesus/Hate Church website reports:
During the past 10 years, approximately 50 million Christians left the church. In fact, the percentage of American adults who attend religious services has dropped from 49% to less than 32%. And more recent studies have shown that the problem of the decline in church attendance is actually getting much worse.

In addition, a recent USA Today/Gallop poll reported that almost half of all Americans appear to be alienated from any form of organized religion. If the current trend continues, most Americans will not call themselves religious in just a few years.

Of the roughly 140 million Americans who do make their way to church on any given weekend, an amazing 74% are not engaged in their church at all.

Moreover, a study from the Barna Institute concluded that by the end of the next decade, up to 40% of all church-attending Christians will be worshipping God, serving others, studying the Bible, etc., outside of a congregational church setting.

“We find these developments truly remarkable! Some factor appears to be actively driving church-goers away from organized religion. And yet, this is happening at a time when Americans have an unprecedented interest in spirituality.”

I think the issue is personal for me for two reasons. First, one of my two core values in ministry is “Be Genuine,” and it’s awfully hard for me to genuinely be me when I have to perform ministry in something other than camel-hair. Secondly, I’ve seen the fallout and effect of imposing our sub-cultures arbitrary standards on others. Is it any wonder that Brennan Manning’s famous quote remains so relevant: “The single greatest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and deny Him by their lifestyle.” I’ve actually been told by parishioners (lay leaders in a well-to do congregation) that visitors are expected to buy nicer clothes if they return for a second visit and find themselves welcome in their congregation.

“Remember men, the tie is the single most indicator of who you are. Buy the best tie you can.” That’s a quote from an article in a textbook for pastoral training; the article is focused on how a minister should dress. I’d always thought it should be God that is the main indicator of who I am: evidence of a changed/different life. Why should a fancy, silk necktie give me any more or less credibility than another when it is God Almighty who has given me the words to say through His spiritual gifts? That sounds vain to me, but it’s the truth. I can’t claim to be John the Baptist, but I can aspire to be like him. I do believe that God has actually called me to live in such a way that I shake things up—apathy and lethargy are killing His Body.

The whole idea is absurd to me. After all, what really is “appropriate” anyway? Since when must we meet certain outward criteria in order to be allowed to worship our God? If I can worship him while I sit on the toilet, or naked in the shower, then surely I can also do it wearing a t-shirt. Inappropriate dress only confounds people who wish to sit in judgment of others; since very few clothing styles would be unacceptable to Him, it’s only a human, cultural problem—something that God transcends. Seriously, if clothing could be “unfitting or unsuitable for that particular purpose (worship/prayer/repentance)” then a person's worship could be disqualified because of a low-cut blouse. Ask yourself if blue-jeans can void a man's prayers? If God had an absolute standard for these things, then he would have given specific guidelines in His Word.

Ask yourself, is there more culture in our church than Christ? Can people truly "Come Just As You Are?"

Would you like more Pharisism in your church? Yes please! I do own at least three suits.

and now for something completely different... theYP!

Pastors in Uncharted Water

2010-11-04T14:23:00.001-05:00

I come from a very small town. My graduating High School class had fewer than thirty-five people in it. When I went to college to study ministry, another student I graduated with went to study medicine and become a medical doctor. Deep down, there was a vain part of me that compared the importance of professions. If the soul was eternal and infinitely valuable, did that make my call more noble than his? While my motivation was likely selfish in that time of my life, it did inspire me to study harder; the importance of such a mission was overwhelming and I determined that ministers should not be held to lesser standards than medical practitioners.

The problem of sin has been compared to a disease in countless sermons. As already discussed, Jesus is the cure. Our “Christianized” culture needs to be made more aware of the application. A doctor will tell you its foolish and even dangerous to swallow a skin cream to combat a rash or burn. Medicine comes in different forms, and just as one drug might be taken available in a number of routes (injection, topical, ingestion, etc.) to combat different symptoms, we must know out patient and determine the best possible method of delivery to prevent harm.

Older generations used to just take whatever a doctor prescribed as the cure—they didn’t need to know about the medicine, they trusted their care provider. Current generations have an innate distrust of authority (part of our molding at the hands of our Boomer progenitors, and also because of legal matters that guarantee data privacy and full disclosure.) Think of all the small print at the bottom of televised drug ads—all the side effects and detailed information must be made available to a consumer. It is important to know that the drug works, but the consumers also want to know all the related side effects and possible interactions that might occur—sometimes people feel the cure is worse than the condition, and that is an accurate picture of the world in regard to their salvation. Clergy are no longer trusted by the world at large; the Church has consistently failed to produce results that the consumer group has confidence in.

Medical treatments change as technology and culture progresses; this holds true also for ministering to people. Allow me to confess here for a moment, I like to laugh and appreciate satire. I’ve never been a fan of “Hospital Dramas” such as Gray’s Anatomy. I am, however, a fan of the sitcom Scrubs.

Oftentimes the show can get quite deep and introspective. In one particular episode (season2, episode 14), the hard-nosed Chief of Medicine (Dr. Kelso) has to confront his best friend (Dr. Townsend) because his friend had not kept up on modern medical procedures. The older doctor at one point refuses to let the younger doctor, played by Zach Braff, do a standard procedure and directs him to do an “old school,” and risky IJ Cutdown during which the patient’s artery is exposed and accidentally nicked by the scalpel, jeopardizing his life when a newer method would have been more effective and much safer. Townsend was the most liked doctor on staff, but also the least versed in modern life-saving techniques, and by his own admission was “set in his ways.” Ministers of older generations that refuse to find missional, contextualized methods of relating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost also place their “patients” in jeopardy.

Being a doctor and being a minister are not professions of comfort. When we refuse to grow, advance, stretch, and meet the needs of others on their terms, people die… souls are damaged. Dr. Kelso tells his friend that, “This is not an age thing.” He recognized that in the changing culture practices become obsolete. “Why do you think I spend every other weekend at a seminar in some hotel ballroom that still stinks of last nights prom vomit? I do it because I have to keep up.” In a rare moment of compassion, Dr. Kelso reveals his passion for helping others. Townsend replies, “I just don’t have the energy for all that stuff.” In the interest of preserving life, Kelso has no other choice at that point but take his closest friend off the active roster.

A Christian’s heartbeat must be for the lost. The best way for a pastor to meet the needs of his staff and congregation, (as well as the lost,) is to develop that missional heart that yearns to be as effective as possible in his or her field. We must stay current on the needs of our community around us.

In her Ministry and Medical Ethics article, Interpreting Research Results Related to Ministry, Christina Powell, Ph.D., reports on the relevance of research in ministry and staying current on social and demographic trends. She writes:

“Just as a doctor keeps up with the latest research findings in medicine to hone his diagnostic skills, pastors interested in church revitalization and transformation can gain insight from research findings related to ministry, for example, geodemographic research, which applies census data to maps, can help a church understand the needs of its surrounding community. Church attendance and membership records can assist a church—or perhaps an entire district of churches—to discern the changes most likely to enhance church health and growth.”

“Surveys that reveal cultural trends can inspire new approaches to relating the unchanging truth to a changing world… We need to use the same steps that a doctor or research scientist must take to separate research gold from the dross and apply them to ministry research findings.”

“Sometimes, the best way to determine what church research is relevant to your situation is to first conduct a little research of your own. Knowing the history of your church… will often provide insight into the life of your congregation.”

Powell reminds us that “those dusty church scrapbooks and records” can hold many insights into powerful moments in the churches history. It might also pinpoint hurtful situations with effects lasting years. I’ve seen several churches that keep framed photos to honor their previous ministers and their dates of service. Some churches have a full wall of them, each chronicling painfully short lengths. In other, very small congregations I have known “landmark” preachers who have been a fixture in the pulpit for many decades, complacently leading their atrophied congregations—if you can call going nowhere, leading at all.

If you “just don’t have the energy for all that stuff,” then your passion for reaching the lost has been surpassed by your ability to effectively do so. It is perhaps time to switch gears in ministry. Fatigue and irrelevance may be accompanying a still, small voice that is redirecting a call to a niche of the Kingdom where the sheep still understand the language and methods you shepherd with. I believe that is why the Levites were required to retire from actively serving in the Old Testament worship in Numbers 8:25 at the age of fifty. They still had a part, but their active role was not leadership from that point on.

Good pastors who cannot or will not tread into unfamiliar territory still recognize that need. They take on staff that is talented where they are not and have skill sets that complement their own, covering the areas where they are weak or blind entirely. They don’t micromanage or dictate how their staff does their ministry, but they empower and release them to operate under divine guidance. They never write off a niche or people group; they might recognize a limited capacity and restricted ability to be effective so they may knowingly wait until they are better resourced or staffed to reach target markets. But they don’t expect that “The Church” is a “one-size-fits-all” entity and they act accordingly.

We need to show that Jesus it the real deal in our own lives. This isn’t revealed by the fact that we wear a suit and tie on Sundays or weekdays or have a WWJD bumper sticker—the evidence is a changed life, and a life that is still relevant in that person’s culture. We have been guilty of inoculating a generation against the cure by our claims that must only use it a certain way—people suffering from stomach pains intuitively know that a drop of ointment under a Band-Aid won’t resolve their issues. The sick have observed regular users and don’t see cured people, but rather addicts to something with side effects more undesired than the remedy.

Conversion to Christianity does not mandate a loss of identity. When a life changes and outsiders can no longer outwardly tell that it’s the same person, they appear to have been body snatched—brainwashed by a cult. God gave us dispositions, personalities, and natural bents for a reason. Jesus does not wipe our personality at the cross; he changes our life on the inside, who we are to Him, but He doesn’t make us Jesus clones and ask us to leave our self-image behind! Let’s not tread upon the craftsmanship of the Creator.

We absolutely must get better at relating to our nonbelieving peers. This applies to both the church in general, its members, and its pastors. We can’t put the responsibility for the knowledge of salvation in the hands of the ignorant: we can’t expect those who don’t know the Lord to recognize their need for Him. Too much is at stake: an entire generation of souls! Churches: send your ministers to conferences with YOUNG speakers and with those who hold alternate or even opposing points of view—if nothing else, it will sharpen your pastor. We must get better.

To help think about some of the generational factors I brought up, consider the following links on the factors and thought processing differences between Baby Boomers, Gen X, GenY/GenMe, and GenZ people:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100310083450.htm
http://www.suite101.com/content/veterans-baby-boomers-gen-x-gen-y-and-gen-z-a185353
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826083620.htm
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/186-survey-shows-how-christians-share-their-faith

and now for something completely different… theYP!

FaceBook Frustrations

2010-10-23T02:28:00.002-05:00

hey peeps. Just thought I would share my latest FB status post I just wrote. If you can sympathize, repost this on your own wall (and a link back is always appreciated.)

Dear FB users who cannot spell, I am revoking your posting privileges. I understand the occasional typo, but some of you need special classes (don't fret, txt spk is still ok.) Until such a time as you can write more than two posts without error(s)((ssss!!)) you will be placed on probationary status. Please, stop sucking so hard at life. Sincerely, Mark Zuckerberg

I Love Cussing in Church

2010-10-03T08:31:00.000-05:00

I Love Cussing in Church! …well, I don’t mean that I like to cuss, I just like hearing it. Before you pick up your stones, let me explain it. I’m not saying that I enjoy profanity. What I like is the fact that sometimes we get people who intermingle with our congregations who are real. They are the same on the inside as they are on the outside. Usually, this is when a new convert tries to merge himself within a church body. Rev Clarence St John, Superintendent of the Minnesota Assemblies of God Churches once said that he’s “Proud to have more cigarette butts in his church parking lot than in any other.” It is for the same reason: that he had many new believers being discipled in his congregation and people who weren’ trying to merely be status quo “Christians,” but rather genuine followers of Christ, inside and out.

See, my favorite kinds of people are those who don’t try to hide who they are. It amuses me when people suddenly find out that I am a pastor. They often backpedal in their speech and try to start changing how they talk and apologize for using profanity. Personally, I love hearing the occasional profanity in church. Not profanity for the sake of offending others, but the genuine speech and conduct of a new believer that hasn’t yet been trained how to act on the outside but is only chiefly concerned about how his inward man has been regenerated. (As discipleship/sanctification progress, those things fade away until BOTH the outside man and the inward one resemble Christ.)

Being genuine is one of the two primary things I have always stressed in my ministries. Unfortunately, we have been trained that we should all look and act a certain way on the outside, and so the outward and inner man do not match up. We try to look like Christ on the outside, but look like Judas in our inner man; while this is done with the best of intent, this is why hypocrisy reigns in our western churches. I would rather know who is struggling with certain problems so that I would know how to proceed in working with them, know how to encourage them and approach their problems without having to first delve through layers of onion-peel obfuscation. We hide those things from those who deeply love us for fear of those immature brothers who misuse our circumstances and inner demons for manipulation.

Proverbs 27:5 says, “Better is open rebuke than love that is concealed.” I would rather openly know who hates me than be loved in secret by people who never share that feeling. From the Midwest Bible Belt, I got off a train in downtown Seattle. Within one hour I had seen more flagrant and open homosexuals than in all my years previous. I fell in love… not with homosexuality, but with the idea of people not hiding who they were, whether sinner or saint. At least you know whom you are dealing with, for better or for worse, and can plan accordingly. Being real and genuine makes everything so much easier.

One night I was praying and I clearly felt God speak to me. During my prayer, I was crying out to God, frustrated with religious people in my church who had been turning away new converts or those who suffered hurts and turned to the church for help, only to be further hurt. “Don’t these people care that I want to show your glory to the sinners?” I’d vented. God gently responded, “Remember that these are just a different sort of sinner.”

Understand that we are not perfected yet. This step of sanctification will never be achieved until we are united with our savior on the other side of life.

Welcome the sinner into your midst and let your conduct, character, and speech be your witness. Build a relationship. You need not hammer home a Billy Graham “turn or burn” sermon right away; bring the evangelistic moment in God’s timing (it might take years!) God’s heart beats for the lost, both within and without the church.

We have made it a habit to safeguard ourselves from the world by preaching only a partial message from the Word. We preach that we are not to associate with any person who is a sinner (for instance, a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or abusive, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, etc.) We forget the surrounding context of those verses. In 1 Corinthians 5 we are clued in that these verses are all about fake Christians who are still grossly sinning and bringing a poor name among the unbelieving world. The context is all about publicly rebuking and excommunicating a member from our body (in order that he/she might realize their sin and eventually return). Dr. John MacArthur’s commentary on 1 Timothy notes that, “The church needs to decide whether to protect man’s reputation, or God’s.”

1 Cor 5 shows us that we are to expect sinners to sin and welcome them, show them the power, love, and grace of God. We are commanded to break ties with FALSE believers, those who abuse the grace of God (Rom 6:1 heresy) and feel their witness is secure. 1 Cor 5:10 basically says that if you disassociate with sinners, you would have no purpose and so God would pull you out of the world.

Yes, associating with fallen humanity and the secular world means we subject ourselves to temptation. We are more vulnerable to slander; we need more of Him, thusly. But this is what God called us to. It is a part of our very DNA if we are true Christians.

Christ never promised us that being a member of the Church would be safe. Quite the opposite! This is a roller coaster journey of danger and peril that promises the most rewarding experiences eternity can offer.

Brothers, do not shy away from danger. Plunge in head on and cling to the banner of Christ and operate in His Spirit, expect to be endued with power (Christ’s last words before the ascension.) We can win the world.

“We can do it if we will.” We must.

and now for something completley different... theYP!

“Don’tcha just love the smell of burning Koran’s in the Morning?”

2010-09-01T13:31:00.001-05:00

“Don’tcha just love the smell of burning Koran’s in the Morning?”

So it’s no wonder people hate “evangelicals.” After all, we invented hate, right? The secular world might think so. I’m born and raised (and quite possibly conceived) in the church, and I totally understand where that sentiment comes from.

“Why would we burn the Holy book of Islam?” asks the spokesperson in the linked video. I tried to discern his exact identity—it’s not the Sr. Pastor, Terry Jones. I believe it is a staff Pastor named Wayne Sapp.) Apparently, that’s what Christians do, according to the monologue: we intentionally harm people of other faiths.

These guys have touched off a culture war between Christians and Muslims, even between Christian sects. The bottom line is that the Dove International Outreach Center has launched an offensive with a political message; I find the church name ironic—the best way to reach out and help others is to villainize them. Whether their political reasoning is reasonable, right, or even legal are all moot issues. The issue is that this type of program will not win any souls to God’s kingdom, and THAT (or benevolence ministry) is the accepted meaning of “outreach”. The more ministry work I do and the more I debate and discuss matters of religion, faith, belief, etc. with people, the more I realize that a debate does not win souls. The only thing we can do to win souls to the Kingdom is to show the love of Christ. (We can preach and sing use whatever gifts we have, but without love, it’s meaningless—1 Cor13—and ultimately unfruitful.)

I was recently at a ministry conference. The subjects for most of the workshops were centered on missions and outreach. Perhaps the most interesting speaker was a former Muslim who had become a Christian after years of prayerful evangelism on the part of friends and family.

He had become an expert on scripture and doctrine, working in a city in Missouri that was home to several Bible Colleges of several denominations. He managed a Pizza Hut for many years and hired many students as his workers since these students were usually more trustworthy than typical secular college students—he’d had more believers try to evangelize him than anyone should reasonably be allowed. They’d come and gone, but he remained a staunch and faithful Muslim (his grandfather was an Imam in the middle east.)

One year, he met a kid from a Bible College that genuinely built a relationship with him. This kid was not overly pushy; they both knew where each other stood in regard to their mutual faiths. As a proud Muslim, he secretly believed that he was better than his friend/employee (and by extension, Islam was superior to Christianity.) We all feel that way about at least one of our friends, don’t pretend you can’t identify here. He put his theory to the test.

This Muslim’s favorite kind of pizza was mushroom and hamburger. Faithful Muslims will not eat pork—that is key to this story! The manager always made his own pizza and was very careful because the ground pork sausage and ground beef were right next to each other. The pork was one tray beyond the burger and often, pieces of the pork would crumble and fall out of the hand as you passed over the beef tray, so traces of pork would “contaminate” the hamburger supply.

He told this student, “Hey, make me my pie.” Everyone knew what his favorite was. The manager hid and watched him in secret. The student made the pizza and was applying the toppings. He took a handful of beef, then paused and put it back. The student went to the refrigerator and took a fresh batch of beef to draw the man’s toppings out of, making sure that there were no accidental pork drippings on the pizza. He never knew he was being spied on. The Muslim manager realized that this student genuinely cared for him, that the student valued the Muslim and the convictions of his conscience even when he thought those deeds were done in secret.

This is an actual testimony of a converted Muslim. This student did not want to accidentally violate the man’s conscience according to the Islamic dietary law. The care shown in making this pizza was a major turning point in the manager’s life. His point of view and the opinions he valued eventually changed, and after more interaction with genuine Christians, he gave his life to Christ.

The beef and pork story is an example of the careful, loving forethought we should treat our neighbors with! Love must PERMEATE our very Christian DNA, not just be a hat that we wear in public. That is the only thing will reach the lost. We should not love only when others watch us and expect us to demonstrate it—we should act with love even when nobody will ever know of our actions and emotions. When I was in college, there was a sign hanging above the trashcan that read, “Who are you when nobody is looking?” It was a campaign to get people to not leave trash on the floor after missing “free-throws” into the waste bin and missing, but the idea is universal. Genuine people are the same all the time.

Events such as a Koran Burning, and others sponsored by this church (and many others) tear down and proclaim hate to our nonbelieving communities; they do not reflect love, by any standard (either the secular concept or true Christian love). I watched several other videos from this particular guy (Wayne Sapp) and he further reveals a spiteful spirit, insulting and tearing down those who weigh in with their concerns and comments. He purposefully mispronounces their names and belittles others, judging people, telling them that they are not Christians because of the language and words that they use. Way to sit in the throne of judgment; it’s impossible to judge a person’s spiritual condition from the words, actions, or clothes a man. On his album Rebel, Christian recording artist Lecrae sings (in Identity)
“I'm not the shoes I wear, I'm not the clothes I buy
I'm am not the house I live in, I'm not the car I drive
I'm not the job I work, You can't define my worth
By nothing on God's green earth, my identity is found in Christ.”

Oddly enough, this church’s intent to evangelize seems intact, despite their grossly misplaced methods. Their theology is, however, askew. He states that, “The reason that the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” Here, I thought it was to redeem fallen mankind, that seems to be what the whole of scripture is about—not some epic showdown to settle an old score. Furthermore, destroying the works of Satan is Christ’s job, not the job of the church; our job is to spread a message to all the people of the world (that Christ loves us so much that he gave up His own life to save us—now that is a message that will change hearts and minds without first slapping the audience and demanding things from them.) When we forget that, we try to actually take over for Christ, making him obsolete and making the churches’ mission political and social rather than spiritual.

I want to note that I have no disagreement with the dark origins and inspirations behind the Koran. I DO NOT see it as another equally valid religion or path to eternity/heaven/enlightenment. I do see, however, that many believers do not show love to the Islamic people. The only way for Muslims to find the true God of all, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings is to show Him to them so that Allah pales in comparison. This very God says that, “I AM LOVE.” They will never find this God if we show them either hatred or apathy. Scripture mandates that they see Christ through us—we are their example of Christ-likeness. Are we doing a good job?

God is Love, and He commands us to likewise love others (friends AND enemies.) Only love will melt the hardened hearts of unbelief. Only love can open the eyes and the hearts of those needing redemption, and those thinking they don’t (and those in the church who are full of hate.)

Brothers and sisters, above all else, love.

and now for something completely different… theYP!

Stand Up In Church and Scream “Die!”

2010-08-02T19:57:00.000-05:00

An interim pastor I worked with for a period had a tendency to frequently break out into archaic hymns. He was in his late seventies and still full of enthusiasm. I hope to aspire to the same some day. He often would tease that some day he’d break out and sing “That Old Time Religion.” I told some of my friends long before that interim ever came on staff that I refused to ever sing that song for the reasons laid out in this blog (we need a new and fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit, revival--not a throwback to the “good old days!” – I want “Great New Days!”) One day, he called his elderly wife to the piano and burst out into that song, my lyrical nemesis. People in the know all watched me to see what I would do. I ground my teeth and sighed, but I did not sing. A college student behind me, who was in my ministry, started humming this Brian Welch song. I told him not to sing it too loud. I joked that I could get fired for that sort of thing (ironically enough, it was just days before I was told that the church expected my resignation within a short timetable to make way for the Interim’s replacement—see my previous blogs.)

I am had Brian “Head” Welch out to play in my community about a month before my job officially ended. Before I’d got any support from other donors, I put several thousand dollars of my own funds on the line to get this guy out here (his testimony is worth it, even if it reaches just one kid). If you’re not familiar with his testimony, I strongly encourage you to look him up on various Christian websites such as I Am Second (or lookup his interviews on YouTube.) I’m very excited about doing things like this, knowing that the demographic in my community sits in need of a testimony like Welch’s. A common factor (music/lifestyle) means that they will actually listen to someone such as Brian Welch. Our community has seen many musician/evangelists in the same vein as the Gaither group. I was expecting a large amount of resistance to my efforts to reach a rebellious generation because of the musical styling of Welch. I imagined the staunchest resistance would come in regards to the song referenced above: Die Religion Die. We had about 500 people show up to the concert, roughly ten percent of them responded to an alter call. Our event was a success, despite harsh criticism from deep within the church. I had this thought, thinking about some of these converts earlier today. They so often say that they can’t stand church people; we must tell them to get their eyes off church people and only look at me as I follow Christ. (The difficult thing, then, is for me to walk in His footsteps.)

The funny thing about the church is we have labeled whole genres as evil and other genres, then, as perfect. Basically, if it’s old and painful for the younger ones to listen to, then it’s Godly. I think the song “Old Time Religion” is an ungodly song that has led millions into the perpetual bondage of making status quo. It has alienated far more people who would be fine with the “church thing” if it wasn’t for the mandate that they enjoy that type of music.

See, we do not need “Old Time Religion!” It is not good enough for me and I revolt against the thought of squelching my manmade freedom in an effort to please other men (be they Godly or otherwise!) God has called us to so much more than that! The old time religion has had its day and has now appointed its own time to die. We need a new, fresh outpouring of the spirit of God. Only a new revival will have any affect on a hurt and dying generation. You don’t believe me? I’ve seen many a “old tyme gospel revivaltime campground meeting country bluegrass hour time/banjos for Jesus” bands come and pass through. Who attends them? That’s right, Christians. They aren’t saving anybody—just entertaining the masses of believers yearning for a return to that “old time religion.” People don’t seem to understand that old things die; new things must be born. I’ve seen childbirth. There is pain in labor and the process is messy.

Listen to Welch’s plea at the six-minute mark in this live performance video. This is what his statements all hinge upon. We do not want “manmade religion, God! [We] want you!” Isn’t this the same message that Jesus taught in public, a message that was also unpopular with the religious officials of the day?

It’s a good thing that the old time religion was good enough for Jesus. (Read with dripping cynicsm!) Apparently religion saves us, according to the words of the song. By the way, make sure that you are only reading the King James Version of the Bible, after all, King James English was good enough for Jesus, so it’s good enough for you! Don’t change the order of Sunday morning services: Jesus set up this system and we mustn’t alter it! That would go against the Bible!

Now that I got that out of my system…

See, we tend to read an awful lot of ourselves into how we perceive scripture and what we translate out of it into our services (or maybe I just mean the awful part of ourselves). Jesus spoke Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. He fought against religion and restrictive structure (I don’t endorse chaos.) Jesus was Jewish and they worshiped on Saturdays, not Sundays. The Bible never gives us a hard and fast method, or even a suggestion for the way we are to do our church services. Jesus said “Come to ME!” not “go to my church.” I believe in the necessity of the church and that it is (as an overall term) the bride of Christ. As I joked with a friend in ministry, sometimes you walk into “one of those” churches and you feel like a groomsman at the eleventh hour before a wedding; you desperately want to tell Christ “Don’t do it, man! Can’t you see that you’re marrying an ugly lady! Look at her! She’s walking down the aisle in dirty sweatpants and gnawing on a fried chicken bone. You can do so much better!” I’ve been in amazing churches as well, so I know better than to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Jesus loves the church, but by limiting things within our style/preferences/structure to only the things we like, we refuse to grow and we actively turn away other people who desperately want to come belong. It’s like a group of friends who refuses to let anyone else into their social circle unless they wear a certain brand of clothes—it can degenerate into a juvenile, bully mentality.

I spoke with a friend recently who is a district official in my denomination and had a good chat about my situation (a forced resignation to obey some arbitrary protocol.) My stories from the last couple of years with my current church sure kept the laughter going. Of course, sometimes I exaggerate my situation to make a point (or get a laugh). But when it comes to leaving a ministry, there will always be broken hearts; there will always be sorrow and unrealized dreams. Those things can’t be covered over by a thin layer of humor. Sometimes we have to show people the mirror and let them see themselves as they are. The church needs this. I watched an amazing video about being a “part time Christian”. Accurately enough, it takes a jab at western Christianity and our tendency to simply operate by feeling and go forth under the premise that we are never wrong about anything (after all, we have Jesus.) in fact, here’s that video:

We think that we know everything. We think that we have it figured out. How’s the old adage go? “The more I learn, the more I discover what I don’t know.” We need to start living by the spirit of God and less by tradition and shalts/shalt nots of other fallible men. And yes, like it or not, you ARE fallible. So are the Pope, Barack Obama, (both) George Bushs, and Papa Smurf.

While talking with my friend, I was advised to not play the bad guy in the interest of preserving the face of the church. There are enough people in the church already who are suffering from pastoral-abandonment feelings. This person once counseled a teen from my congregation at a youth camp (a few years before I got there) who had said, “I’ve had four pastors in the last five years. I’m not talking to you; I’ll never trust another one.” If the bride is going to clean herself up, she’s first got to realize her “old time sweat pants” and that “cleanliness that are as dirty rags” simply won’t do for a wedding.

I confessed to my friend that I honestly believe we are going to experience a shaking in our churches. A new move of God is coming, unlike any other. As all genuine, world-impacting revivals before it, this will start with our younger generations. They are going to rise up and take ownership of their faith and advance the kingdom of God. The unfortunate part, I lamented, is that it just might have to come as a forcible overthrow of what has come before. It might take a veritable coup for the prior generation in leadership to hand over the reigns. That sounds so harsh and divisive, but hear us: We do not want division—we don’t want an overthrow of a regime! We want an equal partnership and a mentoring process so that we can work alongside in a joint plan to redeem our fallen culture!

When the previous generation refuses to turn over the reigns of leadership, the younger ones are turned away, sent to wander off into blatant worldliness and rebellion because our elders have set so many extra standards of conduct into this “religion” and only a certain type of man can measure up. Ironically, these standards are set at the comfort level of those who have obtained authority already, authority granted to them by other men.

Eventually, they will all die of old age. Short of that, they will find themselves spiritually dead as they lock into a battle that damages both them and the zealous reformers that will overtake them and eventually reciprocate this whole system.

I respect my elders. I respect wisdom and Godly council. But too often today, our “spiritual elders” have deigned to remain as “gatekeepers” of the truth. Legislating morals and religicising and regulating everything so they can exert their personal authority over their surroundings (perhaps a skewed aspect of humanities’ role as subduers of the land that was damaged in Eden?)

Scripture is looked at in a backwards manner to justify our religiosity. 1 Corinthians 10 tells us that we should not let our freedom (granted in Christ) be limited or judged by the conscience of another. This reference, found in verse 29, is preceded by advice for the believer to act in such a way to avoid making your brother stumble. Don’t eat the food tainted by idols for the sake of your brother (even though you are free to do that when you understand freedom in Christ Jesus.) The implication then is that your brother does not understand and is still in bondage, so act in such a way to build him up—your brother should then be learning and advancing in his knowledge and relationship with Christ.

It is the reverse in our churches. The legalists squelch freedom and tell their brothers what they must and must not do, all in the name of “avoiding the appearance of evil.” Men who are not free are often placed in leadership by other men who may or may not understand freedom. Eventually, we are entangled in religious traps, restricted to only do ministry as “our betters” understand it to exist. I think revolution might be necessary. Our leaders must get better, we must strive for freedom, lest we become just as lost as the nonbelieving world.

One thing I know in for sure, that whether it be through a waning old age of religion or a hostile take-over as a new system of faith comes on the scene (Christ Follower vs. Christian debate for example) it is time to Die Religion Die.

And now for something completely different… theYP!

Churches Chasing the Crude

2010-07-16T12:13:00.002-05:00

What great days and times we live in. With the accessibility to spread our message to the veritable globe with a few keystrokes and mouse clicks, our words and actions can carry greater power and have broader impact than ever before. Of course, with history due to repeat itself, that’s not necessarily always a good thing.

As a clergyman, I hold preaching credentials with the Assemblies of God. The AG is the largest Pentecostal denomination and one of (if not THE) fastest growing of Christian denominations/sects, whatever you want to call it. That’s not saying much, though, since at the last survey there were only two “denominations” that posted an increase in numbers (growth). I don’t recall if the rate of increase was concurrent with the population growth (if the numbers increase, but at a lower rate than population growth, then you still shrank, it’s just less noticeable when stacked against other mainline denominations.) I’m a pretty solid defender of my beliefs and I’m a believer in my churches’ values and doctrines, but a recent news item regarding another church inspired a bit of a rant.

History is a funny thing. We tend to live in circles of repetition. Look at ancient Israel: they had several cycles where they lived close to God, then fell away, and tribulation came upon them so that they drew back to God. It reminds me of my toddler nephew I just spent a week with—he’s a stinker and runs off, plays with something he’s been warned about, gets hurt, and runs back, crying and looking for comfort. As soon as he feels better, he’s into mischief again. This cycle is not one that has ended in our “enlightened” times. We see that, according to Revelation and other eschatological (end times) scriptures, this vicious circle will continue even into the New Millennium, despite future Israelites sitting under Christ’s perfect, physical, present rule.

I noticed something I’d recently read in the book of 1 Samuel that seemed to parallel current times. Read 1 Samuel chapter 2; the two sons of Eli are interesting characters (referred to as the sons of Belial—a word with interesting etymology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belial). These two sons, Phinneas and Hophni, were temple priests, the interactive point of reference between God Yahweh and humanity. That’s an important, holy role.

I’ve been systematically reading 1 Samuel as of late and (while rereading some earlier sections for context,) the sons of Belial jumped out at me. The story of Anchor Assembly of God has been weighing on my mind a lot. It’s the church that is suing BP for lost tithes due to the oil spill. This sort of article riles me up (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38077826/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf). The combination of the pastor in front of his church and the sub-header quote that equates the Church to a business makes me cringe. (Remember, in regards to popular media, context doesn’t matter as much as audience perception—I don’t know the Pastor’s actual context, etc. only what’s presented in the article.) I do know that I’ve spoken to many people the last week about this and they have answered with a resounding “NO;” lay people and other pastors I’ve spoken with believe it is wrong for a church to sue BP in this given (or any other) scenario. To be fair to Anchor Assembly, any other persons answer might be like asking a person to empathize with Cameron Diaz and James Marsden’s characters in The Box [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(2009_film)]. What would you do if presented with an easy choice to make a million dollars, even if it meant the death of someone across the world whom you did not know?

As faithful pastors, we rely on the tithes to come in so that we can do the work of the church. (I believe tithing is biblical, but I’m not here to debate that; whatever your belief, we can agree that the increase and provision comes from God.) To circumvent the source of our provision and remove that factor of faith is what will transform a “Church” into a secular group. The thing of it is, the outside world is scrutinizing Christians more deeply than ever before and this type of suit is a prime example of why nonbelievers feel vindicated by their apathy or indignation towards the church. When the rest of the world has access to read what we claim to believe, it comes as a stark and obvious contrast when we begin to practice something different than preached. This is never more critical than when the subject matter involves money.

Pastor Dan Brown, leader of Anchor AG in Bayou La Batre AL, is suing a private business to make up money that no longer exists. (I use the word sue and suit as that is what the context of the article implies with pending litigation towards BP, though the article calls it a “Claim” so it may be a poor choice of words) He is quoted as saying, “You can’t tithe what you don’t have.” In the New Testament, the poor widow didn’t see a judge seeking increased money; she gave what she had. Having and not-having are moot issues when it is the Lord who provides (so often in the eleventh hour of our need.) I see a major political problem in this mix (in addition to the moral and scriptural ones which are obvious). For all the abuse of “Separation of Church and State” perpetrated by ungodly politicians and activists, this church is potentially abusing it now for their own gain. They seek to use a legal means to force a private party to render them finances (which can be viewed as funds given in exchange for services of a religious nature, depending on how a lawyer spins it.)

I ask, where is the faith? One of the earmarks of the AG is that we fervently believe in, and expect to see, miracles happen. Part of the core Assemblies doctrines are that, because of the active power of the Holy Spirit, which we believe is still at work today, miracles are still a part of His operation today. Even if you don’t believe in the theology or doctrine behind it (or even adhere to cessationism) what believer doesn’t turn to and hope/pray for a miracle in times of distress.

The world sees this lawsuit situation and wonders why a church is allowed to “double-dip.” In turn, it makes the world see God’s Church (capitol C) as corrupt. Theoretically, workers out of jobs are not able to tithe in the same capacity (as put forth in Brown’s claim) and are recompensed by a separate private party which is forced to give to both the church AND the workers, creating this double-dipping. If the church is recompensed and NOT the workers because there is no or less money left over in the “slush fund” for them, then the church either stole money from the poor, or has essentially forced them to give a preset amount, possibly greater than a 10% tithe. This is how of the world sees it. Regardless of what it boils down to, this scenario only discredits us and undercuts the mission of the Church (essentially, the Great Commission to evangelize the world.)

In the story of Eli’s sons in 1 Samuel chapter two, the corrupt priests abused their position for the purpose of personal gain. Forget that they were engaged in adultery, stealing, and incorrectly following matters of temple law, the real issue that God took issue with in the text, when his anger burned against them, was when their actions caused others to despise God. In verse 17, the young men who “despised the offering to the Lord” were not the priests—the offering was their meal ticket. Commentators and historians reveal that those who began to hate the offering were those coming to give it. Phinneas and Hophni discredited God via their hypocrisy (specifically revolving around what they were entitled to take—a clear violation of Levitical law) and sucked the joy out of giving. That makes it difficult to honor and worship God through the act of sacrificial giving. Eli, when he later tries to confront them, reveals that all of the countryside knew about the foul practices the priests were engaged in, and the nation faltered because of it. The reason God’s hand was against them wasn’t because of the adultery, the stealing, dishonoring God, or any of the other things, but rather the fact that the Priests had discredited God in the eyes of those whose worship He desired. When we cause others to stumble and publicly disgrace God’s image, we wander into dangerous territory, and it’s something that a lawsuit against BP is obviously capable of.

I had hoped that perhaps Anchor Assembly was one of those churches that improperly used a denominational term in its name (to which they did not belong) similar to how (hate-spewing) Westboro Baptist Church holds no affiliation with a mainline Baptist denomination, but rather is independent in makeup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Baptist). I checked our church roster; Anchor AG is one of ours, it’s not a rogue offshoot like Westboro. Of course, it’s also not a church that is spewing hateful rhetoric, so it would be an unfair comparison regardless.

I did have the chance to ask the national leader of the Assemblies of God to comment on the situation. Dr. George Wood is a hero of mine, a leader who I deeply respect. Coming from his point of view, (and background in law,) Wood believes that there are legal grounds and cause to sue based and feels that the BP is responsible for it. I don’t argue those factors at all and can even sympathize. Wood expressed that he’d met with affected regional leaders and the lawsuit would continue. His answer is not what I had hoped to hear; I guess it shows that you can disagree with a person and still respect and even heroise them. I had limited space and time to pose my question and should have done a better job. My primary concern (which might not have come across in this forum) was really whether or not we SHOULD sue, rather than are we legally entitled to.

Unfortunately, each of the dozens of articles that I read online showed nothing but a pending long winter of discontent over the lawsuit; it’s a reflection of this Cycle of Belial in the church (or at least the perception of it—people see this lawsuit as church people claiming our God is powerless to provide for His people.) I often say that the Entitlement Mindset has infiltrated the church like never before.

The reputation of the Church is in danger as social trends continue to villainize fundamental Christianity (which stands upon absolute truth). A 2002 Barna survey asked people which of eleven people groups they had favorable opinions of; Evangelicals ranked second to last—only prostitutes ranked lower in favorability. I would think that the credibility of the Church at large would be ever at the forefront of our national leaders’ minds. In the eight years between the survey and the BP spill the media has seen things such the fall of Ted Haggard, faith based attacks on now-gay former recording artists Jennifer Knapp and Ray Boltz, and unfavorable political ties and blunders not limited to Global Warming rhetoric, homophobia and gay marriage, and school curriculum.

The Assemblies of God has been growing, despite a downward trend in churched populations. I’m hoping that this is all some misunderstanding perpetrated by the church-hating leftist media… after all, the AP reports that BP is currently unaware of any pending claims by church groups or nonprofit organizations, so I don’t want to be holding a smoking gun over an innocent victim (although the response from Dr. Wood seems to indicate fair treatment by the media). I do hope and pray the best for Anchor AG; according to their Facebook page and that of the town of Bayou La Batre, they are a lifeline in times of distress (they are currently advertising help through efforts such as a food pantry, etc.) My concern is how will this affect the opinions in the secular world (and even create legal precedents that further rift us from the goodwill of our political enemies?) There is bad press surrounding this thing, though, and with negative media like this, I wonder how much longer our growth trend can continue.

Furnace-Fueled Evangelism

2010-07-01T10:15:00.000-05:00

Furnace-Fueled Evangelism

I was giving advice on buying a piece of property the other day to a fellow Chi Alpha campus pastor. I used to sell real estate for a living and knew the answers to many questions she had. It got me thinking about the last blog entry I wrote about effective techniques for “marketing” your church or ministry (something even I struggle with as I itinerate to raise money to get me to the mission field.)

A couple days ago I was at a sectional prayer retreat that many local pastors attended, most of them venerable. The meeting took place inside the church I’m currently helping at as a volunteer; it’s a church that shut down after many years of limping along. Months after the doors closed, a 30-something pastor friend of mine was asked if he would go pastor it—restart the church with fresh vision and fire, youth and vigor, and run a wholly new church from the old building as a church plant. One of the older ministers at this meeting said something regarding prayer that I picked up on.

“We don’t talk much about ‘praying it through’ anymore,” he said. “It’s an outdated, archaic figure of speech, but it holds true, still. Sometimes we need to stay and pray until we have an answer, push through and persist until we hear the voice of God.”

I’ve heard that a lot, actually. And what he said was true, every word of it. What got me thinking was the acknowledgement that we continue using archaic terminology in regards to Christian culture.

As I said, I totally believe in the truthfulness of what he said. It’s an accurate method, supported by scripture, and yet the expression “pray it through” is terminology from a bygone era, hearkening to mind the image of a sweaty jowled minister hunched over a radio condenser microphone in a black and white photo. Culture has changed and, unfortunately, stalwarts and contemporaries alike have prejudged the previous and new traditions in a nasty joint-cycle of ageism, reverse ageism, and other forms of social discrimination and judgementalism. There is fault on both sides. True.

In light of the bickering, we must consider the value of the human soul (Matt 16:26) and the mind-obliterating need for us to fulfill Jesus’ last command, the Great Commission (to evangelize the whole world-Matt 16:19). All arguing aside, isn’t the need for evangelism still so great that it looms above our own country like some mountain yet to be conquered?

We send missionaries out into the world, yes, but we forget that we have an entire country all around us to witness to. Many people (especially the older saints who remember “the good old days,”) ask what has happened to this once great nation. How is it that we’ve climbed so quickly into such a hand basket destined for hell? For the most part, the generation asking this question is that generation once responsible for training and educating the people in authority right now (both the church and secular realms). The bewildered blue-haired parents ask how we’ve fallen so far, and yet tell us all exactly how we must do proceed in our current ministries, dictating the only possible ways that God may move upon His people. I’ve been told before, by multiple people, that, “You only need to present God.” This is code that means, present God in the way I tell you: it worked in the past and so nothing else will work. I was even once told by an elderly minister (whom convinced many people in the community to resent the church I staffed at) that he didn’t understand “relationship evangelism” and that he would “refuse to hear anything about it.” When evangelism ceases to be about people and finds itself caged within mandated walls and restricted barriers it become a complicated machine and becomes just as binding as the old testament laws that held the Israelites in bondage after Christ’s atonement.

I don’t find fault with “You only need to present God.” I believe that. But saying that you can only do the presentation one way, an arbitrary, preset way, is like reading a script from a telemarketer call-center. This is what got our country to its current spiritual state. I honestly believe that western Christianity long ago lost the “Spirit of Issachar.” They lacked understanding in that black and white era I mentioned previously. In those days (the late 50s and 60s) a cultural cauldron was brewing, out of which emerged a new civilization: our current post-Christian culture. The saddest thing is how in those two decades there were such explosive opportunities to adapt methodologies and impact the emerging generations as they came into their own—think about it: a culture obsessed with changing music trends in the 50s which combined with the “free love” culture of the 60s! How intense an impact could we have had if we’d embraced emerging music rather than condemned it, and what if we had SHOWN love to those claiming it was the highest power on the planet and revealed love AS God instead of writing them off? The western church, instead, rebuked cultural shifts and has been paying for it ever since. We failed to be like the men of Issachar in 1 Chronicles 12:32, “men who understand the times.”

God is unchanging. He is the same and His words remain a bastion against the tides of time, but only God is eternal; we forget that. Read three random psalms from a KJV Bible to a group of Kindergarteners and watch their confusion. In 1611 the children may have understood what you’d said; language has changed as time progressed, however. There is no fancy method, technique, or ministry trend influencing that—just simple language development within culture. Time changes things. Resistance to change (that’s what we saw in the 50s/60s, even still today,) is based upon a couple of possible options: your personal comfort zone, prejudging others (seeing them through YOUR eyes and not GODS’,) or a lack of true faith. I think our current post-Christian world-state is a cause of all three.

Here’s what I want: the timeless Gospel truth related to an individual in ways that they can understand and comprehend. There’s a difference between evangelism and EFFECTIVE evangelism. I’m a football fan. I love to watch my favorite team play, but I hate to watch them “just play.” I only enjoy seeing them “play well,” anything else is painful to bear. I’ve been told that I doubt how “God will do all the work,” and that I “lack faith” when I claim we must lay aside old mandates, but that’s not it at all. I often see a cyclic, defensive argument meant to shield a personal lack of sincerity and maintain a status quo. If you tell a child to apologize for hurting their sibling and they snap a resentful “I’m sorry” back, it doesn’t resolve the circumstances. Further, it lacks the foundation that you were trying to get at: love, and exacerbates the condition. See, if we really loved the lost and yearned for them to join the righteous, we would do whatever it takes to show them the Gospel in whatever ways they might understand.

The cost of the human soul is too great. We MUST have the attitude of Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 (To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.) We must do WHATEVER it takes to present the Gospel effectively. To refuse to meet a lost soul’s need for salvation on THEIR level by claiming that it’s all “up to God anyway,” is but a half-hearted attempt to throw your faith at a prospective convert while refusing to leave your comfort zone. It’s kind of like the construction worker driving down the road who whistles at the pretty girl on the sidewalk; she has to run after the moving truck in high heels and throw herself inside the vehicle screaming, “I’m so glad you told me how you feel! Take me, now!” Moreso, it’s like going to Russia and preaching fervent, passionate sermons in English and mandating that the spectators learn English to sit in your audience. You will find yourself with little or no listeners. Think about it, people with this sort of attitude (the majority of “average Joes” in most church congregations) rarely save souls; their audience has left. Poll all congregants in your church who are older than forty. Ask for a show of hands on who led another soul to Christ in the last year; ask how many even “witnessed” to an unsaved person. The meager results will scare you and likely put your dreams of a new church building plan on hold.

I think previous generations saw certain types of evangelism as effective to the previous generation’s culture. It worked well enough at the time and so nothing new was ever attempted; eventually, with subsequent generations and culture shifts, we find ourselves where we are today. Now, we see a generation of young Issachars rising up with hearts beating to reclaim lost ground. Barriers and resentment separate many older and younger ministers as well as older and younger Christians. Brothers, these things should not be.

This whole argument aside must fall aside in the interest of the unsaved. There should be no division in our ranks as long as one person on this planet remains to be saved! Older, more traditional approaches and terminology may be effective on an older crowd, so use it when it works, but find an updated, alternate way to relate the timeless truths to newer groups—a way void of stigma and prejudgment by the prospective audience. See, while we are not exactly “selling something” to the nonChristian world, sales techniques demonstrate what is effective for presentation to an audience.

So back to my house-buying friend, I thought about an older house with a furnace. A nice, saleable home might have an old furnace that has all the appearance of antiquity. It may work perfectly well, run just as efficient as its modern counterparts, and keep a home at comfortable temperatures for the owner. Most homebuyers will see that furnace as a detractor; many comparable homes will have newer furnaces and make many buyers pursue the comparable ones rather than the one with an archaic furnace. Functionality has nothing to do with it; it’s all a mental perception on the part of the buyers. Were I still an agent, I would address that concern and offer suggestions to remedy the situation. In the best-case scenario, the furnace could simply be updated—a furnace is still there: it’s exactly the same in function, fuel, etc. but is relevant to the situational modernity of the home. This is exactly what we need to do. Keep the message the same, but not give negative resistance to our audience with our methods and language usage.

To maintain a positive marketability in the world, we should never fear updating those things that need a facelift in the church (and yet take care to maintain the integrity of God’s Word—don’t sweat the language barriers, buy a Greek lexicon and check your Spirit). Tradition is merely the repeated methods of our predecessors, not some specially ordained sacrament; who cares how it’s always been done? Sometimes lightbulbs burn out—so we replace them with new lightbulbs. We don’t exchange lightbulbs with blenders, nor do we put in other worn out bulbs, but replace them with newer, effective versions that function properly in their place. When a bulb fails to provide illumination any longer, it must be changed or we remain in the dark.

Let’s not forget the need. We must be as effective as possible and willing to reach beyond our comfort zones to impact the world. If the furnace filter needs changing then change the filter; if the whole furnace needs replacing, make it so. The cost of failure is far too great.

And now for something completely different… theYP!

Jesus Is My Super Hero

2010-06-09T10:25:00.001-05:00

(My daughter walks around singing this song. It’s really cute.)

I was thinking about superheroes the other day, probably because I just got done indulging my inner nerd. I recently read the entire “Blackest Night” DC Green Lantern story arc. It was something like 80 comics long.

As an author, I’ve actually been working with illustrators to develop a graphic novel, but I’m not going to tip my hand anymore on that until the project starts to develop with some sincerity. I have written a few pieces of superhero fiction as well (read this super-short one titled “Nuclear Powered Christian T-Shirts” that was published in Einstein’s Pocketwatch in Dec 09.)

The story in Blackest Night was good, I’d recommend it (though it got quite dark at the middle and seemed to lack hope at times) and it got me thinking about the differences between the two major comic houses, DC and Marvel. At one point, the two even collaborated and did a “Marvel vs DC” miniseries, just for all the fanboys. I noticed that DC has many more “Traditional” heroes. Their heroes are more likely to have an official super hero outfit with tights, capes, and logos. Typically, DC more embodies the traditional super hero that we think of when the word “Comic Book” is mentioned. Their major players include guys like Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, The Flash, and groups like Justice League. For most of their characters, the public persona of the character is obvious: these guys are heroes, cut and dried.

Marvel blurs that line a bit more. Interestingly enough, Marvel has even realized that and has launched a new initiative to rebrand their characters as role-models and heroes (The Heroic Age). Often, many Marvel heroes (especially the mutant variety) are hated and even hunted by authorities and they are often prone to vigilantism. The X-Men are not always known as heroes; they often don’t wear any sort of logo (or it’s quite small) and Marvel characters often fight secret types of wars with unsung and uncelebrated heroes that save the galaxy with no fanfare (of course you have Fantastic Four, Spiderman, and The Avengers, but they are often offset by The Hulk, Wolverine, Nick Fury, Punisher, etc.) I appreciate the seeming reality of Marvel, as any actual superhero actions would be deemed vigilantism by our laws, but people long for a champion that they can believe in—some sort of Superman (a concept which defies human nature) because it gives them hope: hope for rescue in times of need and hope that they, too, can overcome their inner evils and rise above them.

With a “Traditional Hero,” their logo/emblem advertises who they are and their affiliation as such; their reputation backs up any gaps. This got me thinking, shouldn't churches be more intentional in their advertising of who they are, too? We should have untarnished images that are recognized as heroes rather than villains: the line shouldn’t be blurred. We should be publicly known for our good (heroic) reputations and not have a fuzzy line between the methods of a vigilante/questionable ethics and a bonafide hero... we should be more Justice League in our cross-denominational efforts and less X-men.

How do we do that? We should have something within us that attracts the attention of the world (yes, we have Jesus, but also) we need intentional--and truthful/ethical--marketing techniques—we are fighting a media war here, we need less Pow! & Kazaam! And should utilize more savvy, researched and relevant techniques. “What are you talking about?”

Here are some things I’ve done or been told:
- In your advertising, put your pretty people in front—we don’t exclude anyone, but there are reasons that effective commercials cast models for their roles.
- Know your audience and be intentional in how you reach them so you don’t risk losing them. This goes both for initial contact as well as retaining them.
- Recognize what is actually working and relevant. So many churches say “look we are media savvy and at the top of trends!” What they often have is an ill-kept website, an email address, and a TV program that only shut-ins and nursing home residents tune in to… this is intentional: it intentionally reaches the elderly and increases the median age of the church… when we call this “being on the edge of technology” we alienate the savvy trendsetters via ignorance (and alienated people don’t stick around).
- Purposefully promote diversity! If you’ve got just one black person in your church, use them in all your advertising. We want to cross borders, right? Then use every method of breaking down resistance that you can, and one way is to show minorities that they are a valued and included segment of your body. Decrease the discomfort level that a minority person might have about your church by showing them that they are not ethnically alone if they attend.
- Utilize the advice of professionals (and don’t throw their advice off as irrelevant to your area)… for instance, a poll recently came out showing that the single most effective ad type for the money is a roadside billboard; despite the data, many Bible-Belt churches refuse to change the way they advertise (partly because they want the good will of the newspaper and partly because ANY change is scary to them.) Thing of it is, if someone sees your newsprint ad, it’s because they were already looking for it in the first place, you’re not reaching anybody new: see here.

On top of this, remember the two central pillars that I always tell my students, “Be genuine. Show love.” Being the real deal is vitally important; all the advertising in the world can’t fix a fundamental problem if your church doesn’t practice love or only pretends to do so. 1 Jn 4:8 says, “God is love,” so if there is no love, then somewhere John 4:40 has been flipped around and “We have increased so that He has decreased.” At this point, our trendy webspots and radio ads do nothing more than take a can of gold spray paint to a stinky turd. Underneath the shiny exterior lies a total crap core, and it doesn’t take much scuffing to reveal the true nature of this gold nugget.

The church must be a hero in public. Unlike Batman and so many others, we must not have a secret identity, we cannot hide a different face behind a plastic one—we must be genuine heroes through and through. We cannot wear a fake Jesus mask and WWJD bracelet on Sundays and rip down everything we stand for on Monday through Saturday. People see that from the outside and recognize a villain for what they are. If anything, people nowadays have become skilled at sniffing out fakes. The world generally recognizes that EVERYONE is wearing some sort of mask; our natural suspicions and curiosity has made us good at sensing what lies just below the surface. Genuineness is an absolute necessity.

Superman wears no mask (while still maintaining two personas)... he is the same guy inside the outfit as he is outside of it. He is a hero that has his private life outside of the cape but a standard of life and of ethics that mirror each other; that is how we should be. We should wear a costume/logo that proclaims the hero that we represent as part of our team (Jesus/Christ-follower), but also be that same hero every day in our own private lives. Our private lives have a way of spilling into our public ones.

Let’s make it a habit of helping others, of being the light on the hilltop that those in need of rescuing look to. Being a hero is not something you do only when the cape and cowl is on.

and now for something completely different… theYP!

Clichés from the Christian Karaoke Bar

2010-05-07T19:29:00.003-05:00

(a pretty much unrelated video, go to the YouTube page to read the lyrics)

Clichés from the Christian Karaoke Bar

So I’m not a big fan of cliché statements (though I confess to using them occasionally.) What irks me is when individuals overuse cliché after cliché. I’m sure we all know at least one or two people like that. Often, you catch on after a bit and then learn to completely ignore most of what that person espouses; after all, they don’t have any original ideas or insight, so why not give your attention elsewhere.

It’s like Karaoke clubs. If you really wanted to hear a top-notch rendition of some particular song, for instance Runaway, (let’s pick on Bon Jovi,) you would go out and either buy a CD, download, or get tickets to a nearby Bon Jovi concert. If you have one of those slightly insane type of friends and mention you wanted to hear that song, they might just start singing it for you. If that were the case, you’ll either ask them to stop, or chime in… most of us would make them quit. We want the real deal, not some karaoke version. When it comes to something as important as speaking in public about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we should excel in that; overuse of mental crutches kill the validity of your message.

I recently heard a message preached that used a cliché one individual has a habit of using repeatedly, both in conversation as well as the pulpit. “Christ loved the church so much that he gave himself up for her.” I know its scriptural, coming from Ephesians 5:25. My problem behind this whole thing is that the context is wrong. The passage in Ephesians is written as an example of extreme love by one party to another—a love unto death… it is not a scripture that we should be drawing a soteriological theology upon. (Soteriology is the study of salvation).

This cliché in particular drives me nuts. You can figure why if you’ve been a reader at the Holy Schmitz! Blog for any time: I’m pretty heavily Arminian in my theology (believe in the power of human freewill versus the enslavement of predestination.) I’ve been in situations in my life where I’ve had to decide between two choices: do wrong or right… choose good or evil in my course of action. If you truly believe that you ever had a say in the matter (that your choice wasn’t already made up for you) then you probably lean towards my school of thought. Calvinist doctrine teaches Irresistible Grace: that if God wants to save you and make you a good Christian then you have no say in the matter. If that’s the case, then why are there scriptures imploring us to quit sinning, to renounce evil, to press forward in the faith and not turn away, to not trample His redeeming work on the cross. If there was never any choice, then those scriptures were pointless and I don’t believe God speaks words with no reason.

Back to the cliché (as it’s not my attempt to debate Calvinism vs. Arminianism… that debate has rage for hundreds of years—I can’t solve it for you in this forum). My feeling, however, is that the choice of our words, which we have relegated to the dust-bin of trite phrases, has created a tiered structure of exclusivity. The modern Western Church sees people that have “paid their dues” at the top: they claim to live holy lives (evidenced by the fact that they hold positions of influence in the church, retain good jobs, and dress professional to business casual.) Below tier one is another group of people who may or may not have positions beyond laborers in ministry (work nursery duty and teach classes, janitorial or service jobs, etc. they are mostly middle class.) The third caste within is usually either young or lower class economically. These people desperately want to see God move, but don’t usually try to seek anything above their position. If asked, they serve, but it’s rare because the top tier frowns upon the bottommost one: they are merely tolerated because these people have a faith in Christ, but the other tiers see them as a necessary evil, as a group that “hasn’t truly arrived.” They don’t look as shiny and perfect as the upper group—and what bothers them the most is that they usually don’t care about their pariah status… to them, it’s about Jesus and social hierarchy be damned.

Outside the church, our tiering continues! Furthest from the upper echelons of the church are the untouchables: people who revel in gross sin such as homosexuality, promiscuity, frequenting bars, or listening to rock and roll (yes—we are still that judgmental—I read a Christian movie review site’s analysis of Ironman 2… it listed a reason to NOT see the movie being the fact that it has music by AC/DC in the soundtrack.) Above that group is everyone else that WE see as potential candidates to join our churches. We look at their outward station in life and plug them into the top two castes based upon all the particulars as soon as the convert claims to have received the faith. The well-to-do, successful business man who is an unregenerate sinner has everything in common with the upper-tier of the church except his belief, or lack of it.

We LIKE our caste system (those at the top, anyhow) because it is timeless. Those with influence always retain it as long as the power and authority of men exist (which it will until the end.) But only God can judge the heart. How do we know that those at the top are truly believers operating in places of authority: leaders weighed down by the burden of their responsibility of this station? We cannot. What especially bothers me about this is how it transforms the most lukewarm of converts that have a great social network into an immediate option for grand influencer of a local church while the passionate, radically saved sinner who doesn’t fit the mold of “tradition” isn’t allowed to do more than maybe fold the flowery Sunday Morning Bulletins.

I recently heard church planting guru Rev. Dennis Curran speak about the disconnect between older “believers” and young “non-believers.” There is a whole world of cultural differences separating those two compartments. Oftentimes, that “wild and rowdy” group of people that have no seeming place within the church find it that way because they have NOTHING in common with the assembly of Sunday morning saints. The top tier of well-to do holy rollers that revel in their outward piety and let everyone know it often (sometimes unintentionally) shun the sinner who might be drawn into a service by the Holy Spirit. Top Tier Saints have radical cultural, economic, social, language, and usually age gap differences on top of a worldview difference between faith and unbelief. The ONLY thing that can pierce all of these cultural discrepancies is pure, Holy Spirit driven love.

John Piper preached a message titled “For Whom Did Jesus Taste Death?” Our viewpoint on redemption has everything to do with how much we value the souls of the unbelievers. If we have the viewpoint that their just a dirty sinner getting what they deserve through life’s pain and eventual judgment and damnation, but that believers are hunky-dory no matter what we do because we’ve been rescued by an Irresistible Grace and have no say in the matter, then we will have a very low value to impacting social change, benevolence, and even evangelism. What’s the point if we can’t really choose accepting Christ anyway because its all been predetermined.

We must remember that Christ died for EVERY sinner: for every human being on the planet to ever live. The only requirement for that sinner to receive eternal life, their sins covered by the blood of Jesus Christ, is that they believe on Him and accept it (salvation by grace alone—there is nothing, no action that we can do in and of ourselves to achieve this. It is Jesus who saves; we just let him.) How many times has David Hasselhoff pulled a drowning swimmer from the ocean on Baywatch? Lifeguards cannot rescue the victim who struggles against their rescuer—they perish in futility as they thrash about in a vain attempt to live. I rest in the strong arms of Christ who walks upon the water, that’s even better than the Hoff’s motorboat-like legs.

Jesus rescues without distinction. He died for each and every man. Limited atonement or elect/select redemptionists would say that only some people have the lifeguard walking on the water reaching down to pluck them from the waves. I see it as Christ reaching down to every drowner, wishing each one to accept his embrace of life.

Christ DID love and give himself up for the Church. However, he gave himself up for EVERY man who will call upon His name. Before there was the Church there were only sinners in need of grace. This verse in Ephesians 5:25 flies out of context when it becomes a trite cliché (Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it). The verse is not about the church at all, it is about the love Jesus has for sinners and the extremes that Godly love goes to in order to redeem a person and transform them into a worthy member of the Bride of Christ! The verse brings in the Body analogy to reinforce how it must be CHRIST at the head, guiding and leading us—not the scheming (well-intended or not) of men.

When the verse from Ephesians 5:25 (so often we only quote the second half of it, thereby ripping out the context) gets used as a cliché, we begin to endorse a Calvinist perspective of Limited Atonement. As we couple that with the human headship of our individual church bodies (more often controlled from a few prominent pews than by a praying pastor) we find a Christ standing on the water wanting to reach down and save the unlovely, but those in control of the church prohibit him from saving others because the drowner has no place attending one of OUR church services. As Jesus tries to rescue the sinner, we either slap his hand or throw ourselves between Him and the victim, selectively pruning the vine that Jesus claimed we are a part of in John 15; we have leashed Jesus.

We spit out our bad-karaoke imitation of the Word of God, a lullaby for those drowning nonbelievers to hear. To so many, our William Hung rendition of the Gospel is such a turn off that they will never tune in to hear the actual love song that Christ sang to us through his sacrifice.

It is my opinion that the church (and often that being the Upper Echelon of pew-driven control) has been trying to “guard” the body against damage and influence by that Untouchable caste. We cannot let their influence cause a cancer in the Body of Christ. We forget though, that Jesus is the Great Physician and that He is in the business of radically changing lives. It is not our duty to fence the body in and weed out the sinners. We should not live lives endorsing the sin of the Untouchables, but must remember that we were all sinners! Our only job is to present the Gospel; the rest is up to God. We grasp for to much power, and thereby wrest control away from HIS church and compete with Christ directorship of his body, man-driven rather than Spirit-led.

We see only the outward side of things, scrambling to seize the high ground and take seats at the top where our peers can see our outward holiness and thereby respect our claimed authority. We forget that life is not a competition and therefore requires fewer judges! Weird Al jokes in his song “Everything You Know is Wrong” about dying and winding up with the room in Heaven located next to the noisy ice machine—my thoughts are that I’d be glad just to wind up in Heaven… better to be a pauper in Heaven than a king in Hell. And in The Ragamuffin Gospel Brennan Manning writes, “Counterfeit grace is as commonplace as fake furs, phony antiques, paste jewelry, and sawdust hot dogs. The temptation of the age is to look good without being good. If ‘White Lies’ were criminal offenses, we would all be in jail by nightfall.”

Without adding new members to the Body via evangelism the body will die—it’s the only way endorsed in Scripture and the only viable way to continue living and growing—without new life we simply age. I propose that we stop caring about position and introverted places of influence and position. The Church MUST BE about souls! We, as part of this Body, may look like a well-dressed old man in a trim and tailored fancy suit, but so did my great-grandfather as he lay in the casket at his funeral. Evangelize or die.

I only ask, what ever happened to coming “Just As I am.” Who cares about the rest? In 1835 Charlotte Elliot wrote these words in her hymn Just As I Am, Without One Plea.

Just as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot,
To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, though tossed about
With many a conflict, many a doubt,
Fightings and fears within, without,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
Sight, riches, healing of the mind,
Yea, all I need in Thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, Thou wilt receive,
Wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
Because Thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, Thy love unknown
Hath broken every barrier down;
Now, to be Thine, yea, Thine alone,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

And now for something completely different… theYP!

The Good Vampire Debate

2010-04-06T12:47:00.003-05:00

The Good Vampire Debate

(video content warning: Language)

(of course, it’s the “Christian” using the foul language here)

Last night I had a neat opportunity to tour a movie theater and walk through the projectionist’s booth. In the course of that I saw some posters for the new Twilight movie coming out. I talked with some theater workers about their thoughts on the New Moon movie (which I watched with my wife—we’ve both seen them in order to be able to conversate intelligently with sects of Youth Culture that (too) often find the movie/book series integral to their lives. As a vampire/werewolf movie/story aficionado I was hoping that New Moon would contain enough action to keep it interesting (which it didn’t). I often describe the movie series as “Dawson’s Creek with a Vampire.” Yeah, that reference will date me, I suppose, but it’s meant to reflect one thing: the movie is a teenage “Soap Opera” drama. I think it important, however, as someone who works with teens, to understand what/where teenage girls are coming from when they bring their angst and drama with them into relationships with friends, peers, and romantic interests. It hurt my brain to sit through the movies, but the kids I work with are worth it, and so I will probably see ALL of the movies—but not for me, for them… I’m just hoping the Twilight series doesn’t mandate a self-inflicted lobotomy (maybe I should leave my icepick at home) while I try to endure the film.

I was scanning through some of my documents on my hard drive and came across a blurb that I posted on a friend’s blog a little while back, and my thoughts returned to this threaded post from a few months back as I toured the theater with a friend. Wade Ogletree (another editor/author over at the betterfiction.com website) started an interesting discussion about the Twilight movie craze and the spiritual implications behind the subject of vampirism within Christian literature and entertainment mediums. It’s certainly worth checking out, radio personalities from American Family Radio and authors (including Eric Wilson of the Jerusalem Undead trilogy) weighed in with opinions… including yours truly. (Better Fiction blog/Good Vampire Debate)

One of the topics of discussion of course, has to do with the actual author and intent of the story itself, in addition to the very nature of what we understand vampires to be. There are a lot of interesting dynamics that you can bring into play as a writer, but the original author's intent usually holds the most sway. Who first invented stories about vampires then, we should ask. Nobody in particular: vampire myths exist in every culture in the world dating back quite far, and in all of the myths the vampire is an evil figure.

It is my personal belief that the “vampirism=evil” connection comes from two sources. The first is that there is a link between life and blood. This is a theme that runs throughout the entirety of the Christian Bible and is even rooted etymologically within the very language (with words such as nephesh: a Hebrew term that literally means "the life is in the blood."). The second issue is that I believe there is enough archaeological evidence to suggest that there is some sort of truth behind the vampire legends, even if that truth is nothing more than a mental condition similar to psychological lycanthropy which is often associated with werewolves.

Anyhow, an absolute statement is beyond my paygrade. Actually, I just don't have the time or resources to really delve into the topic. I do feel, however, that the Twilight characters show us the shifting mentality of moral relativism in western culture: we have taken something that has classically been viewed as anathema and heroised it. I could name scores of teenage girls who are "in love" with Edward Cullen, the vampire "hero" from the book/movie. That situation would've been unthinkable twenty years ago. A sidenote since my preacher side is ramping up: I don't hate or love twilight... it is what it is (a story that many love and many don't) but with a deeper issue behind it, we should remember that just because our cultural, corporate thinking has progressed, (from moral absolutism to moral relativity) that doesn't make our “new-enlightened” thinking better, like so many secularists suppose. No inpatient at the Mayo clinic gets excited to hear that their cancer has "progressed."

I don’t really care, personally, about the topic (I would rather leave the parenting to peoples’ actual parents—I do think that an open, honest discourse between teens and parents is a good thing! Both sides should be open to doing research together on a topic like this; use it as a good time to bond with children that the world tries so hard to rip away).

While this topic (Twilight/vampires) might hit home to some families with teenagers or children struggling with the nature of good and evil (and feeding their lives with a diet of fiction and entertainment that only exacerbates the condition.) This whole conversation isn’t new, either—we had the same issue when Harry Potter was the “new evil” that threatened to whisk our children off into the night and make sorcerers of our Sunday school pupils. Years later, I haven’t seen a new wave of magicians rise against the church… only disgruntled people continuing to find disenchantment within churches that spew negative rhetoric and condemn. Any literate follower of Christ can open a Bible to 1 Corinthians 10:29 and begin to ask themselves “Why is my conscience being judged by another?” Church attendance rates continue to decline and the growth of Wicca and Paganism continue to climb, but Harry Potter didn’t impact those trends.

Too many people have raised a banner of war against the entertainment industry and picked a fight with a giant. This is a battle that, win or lose, we vilify ourselves for drawing a line in the sand over. Most often, we say that we are fighting this culture war to protect our young people when those people are in the midst of making their own life decisions and coming to grips with their own power of choice and learning how to stand on their own for the first time. Our battle is only driving many of those people over into destruction as they try to walk out to assert themselves and ratify their own sense of conviction. So often, if you let them be, they will return on their own terms and be more the better for it (for instance, as a teenager I disagreed with my parents about many things concerning morals and decisions at that point in my life, after leaving for college and gaining a hunger for truth and knowledge I examined issues on my own and compared them to scripture to find an answer. When I speak now, I often discover that my parents had correct answers, but now the insight and conviction I feel over things is MINE and not another’s. I speak from my own experience rather than parrot the beliefs of another.)

One thing that I do know is that we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we condemn others for their entertainment choices. I’m not condoning foul things (I often cite King David’s pledge in Psalm 101:3 to “Set no wicked thing before my eyes.”) I just know that we hurt the work God’s Holy Spirit might be doing in a person’s life when we come out and speak condemnation over the things that "pre-converts" value (whether those “valuable” things are profitable for a person or not is moot.) We “close their spirit” according to Gary Smalley and disqualify ourselves to speak into their lives (and often the Gospel becomes guilty by association.)

I’ve heard so many good things about the movie “To Save A Life.” Unfortunately, I can’t see it. I want to see it, but it’s a “Christian movie” so it won’t come into town. Several years ago (in 2001) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone came to theaters. Christians lined the streets with posters condemning moviegoers and making it difficult to access the box office. That’s what happened here anyway, and in many other communities (funny I didn’t see it happen at the last two Harry Potter movies—where did our fire and conviction go?) The “Christians” made such a fuss that it impacted the sales numbers at many local venues. Every person who wanted to see the movie saw it. Maybe they went to different city where the hubbub wasn’t so bad or they waited until it came out on video, but they saw it. The only ones hurt by our “forceful boycott” were the owners and operators of the local theaters. In my town, the theater owners were so offended that they have pledged to “never bring in a ‘Christian movie’ to our theater.” That’s right, no Passion of the Christ, no Fireproof, no To Save A Life, and none of the effective outreaches in our communities that have revolved around Christians utilizing those movies in their communities.

We Christians have picked a battle with Hollywood. This is a battle that cannot be waged in a conventional manner. Leave your picket signs and bumper stickers at home! Get out of the protesting game and take someone out for a coke and enter into a rational conversation (not debate) with him or her. We need that relational foundation if we are going to see any POSITIVE results. People often say, “Why would I want to dress/act a certain way to impress those people [Christians]? I don’t even like them, and I know that they don’t like me.” Until we bridge that gap, our protests only further widen it.

Have we forgotten our purpose on the earth? We are not here to wage war against Harry Potter and Twilight and alienate those whom we were sent to preach to (preach means to “share the Gospel of Christ with” and not “effect outward change or make someone else conform to our appearance!” Let God do that.) Romans 14:16 states that “…the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God…” The culture war is a battle that can only be won through love and reliance on the Spirit of God—not on social activism and political maneuvering or purchasing clever PSAs. And I wonder if our current methods are actually displeasing to our God.

And now for something completely different… theYP!

The Cult of Mainstream Church Leadership

2010-03-15T17:22:00.004-05:00

The Cult of Mainstream Church Leadership

So I learned yesterday that I am losing my job. It wasn’t unexpected. My senior pastor (and direct boss) was voted out several months ago. The situation was messy, and that's because there WASN'T an issue of sin or broken morals; it was related to internal politics—and that leaves the laity so many unanswered questions, when your pastor is asked to leave and he is not clearly violated any set rule. What's done is done and sometimes you just have to deal with things the way they are. (Just for clarification, I’m not railing against my own church here—more against the nature of how we do things in general, we being creatures of habit. While the removal of a pastor, which subsequently demands my personal resignation is uncomfortable, that does not necessarily mean it is or isn't God’s will, nor should it vilify people and deeds leading up to that act. I'm pretty neutral-how can you be too upset when your looking forward to where God is bringing you next?)

Yeah, so back to getting fired; I’m not really getting fired, exactly. The church board is following what is considered “standard protocol,” even though it’s not really standard and its not hard protocol. If you’ve been involved in ministry or church leadership you might be familiar with some unwritten rule that when a new lead pastor comes on staff, the remaining pastoral staff is expected to resign and sacrifice everything they’ve worked for in ministry to the harsh god of change (but not too much change… this is the church, after all!) I recently was made aware that I needed to be searching for a new position. I have roughly two and a half months to leave town as the board has made other plans for the housing that I currently occupy. The part that really irks me is that trying to standardize how we should act in a messy situation. Standardizing our response attempts to put God in a box, to define right and wrong where scripture has made no attempt. (Let me reiterate that my wife and I have a sense of peace and freedom with this future move—but I am using the story as an insight into the human nature that often creeps into church management.)

I understand that some things must happen and that the new pastor needs the freedom to shape his own ministry with his own vision, leadership style, and ideas. I wonder, though, why staff resignations must be so arbitrary. Why must the extension ministries of a church shut down when new leadership comes aboard?

Of course, that isn’t what anybody wants, the people say. We want strong ministries that impact our community, so while we are actively removing the trained professionals who have devoted their lives and worked to develop rapport with the lost, schedule a calendar year’s worth of events, develop study materials, sermons, build relationships, disciple others, run a budget, and plan outreach activities and missions trips, we will make sure to replace those staff members with somebody who used to help in that ministry back when their children were a part of the church still. Quick! Somebody find us a tape deck so we can bust out our old Carmen human video sets! That will get the heathen kids at our high school saved! (Then again, maybe my cynicism is the reason that I’ve been asked to resign.)

I pulled into the church parking lot thinking about matters of the heart and about motives. I noticed the church janitor’s car in the parking lot and wondered if he would be expected to resign as well. I’m sure not. Perhaps the secretary would, but it’s not likely—she has all the payroll stuff figured out and knows how all our accounts work, etc. Those things are important. I recognized this: the janitor’s vision for the church will be the same under the new leadership as the old—to have a clean environment.

Aren’t people more important than payrolls? Isn’t excellence in our youth groups or children’s ministries more important than having the toilet scrubbed twice a week? How is it that the motivations and vision for extension ministries are going to change under new leadership? Won’t the goal still be to see people set free from sin through a relationship with Christ, and to develop disciples of Jesus in those people and the ones who were there before? The deacons and elders are not expected to step down until they have been ratified by the new leadership; if they cannot coincide with the pastor they may later be removed or asked to resign. Do we really have more trust in the spiritual integrity and the faithfulness of character of the custodian (in those cases when the janitor and pastor are not the same person.)

In the past couple of decades churches became wary of abusive pastors who had overstayed, overreached, and been overbearing upon their congregations. Church leadership overreacted and erected barriers and bylaws to make sure they had a way to protect themselves… they lost faith and trust in ministers at large and turned that system around. I know a lot of churches and many ministers. A couple of the pastors might be called abusive; many of the churches I’ve seen could fit that same description. They are more the norm than the minority,

It is no wonder that there has long been timidity from the pulpit; pastors have not had the freedom to preach the hard messages from God without fear for their continued means and support. The result has been happy, nice, prepackaged sermons that see little result. They are quaint, Readers’ Digest stories and it’s one of the reasons you can’t remember what the sermon was about: it wasn’t really about anything. There was no fire and no conviction, but it was safe.

The old way of doing things is not always the best. And it is not always in the best interest of the people. In the dark ages, believers were executed for reading scripture. I don’t hear the older congregants advocating that methodology. My place is not to force a board or a church to retain myself, or any other. But any time I’m told that I cannot ask a question and get straight answers, my blood boils. Mindless obedience is a characteristic of a cult. I don’t do well when I’m told to stop thinking and just obey. God is very explicit when it comes to using our minds: get your heads out of the muck and use the brain God put inside you!

Isaiah 1:18 says “Come, let us reason together” [the two being God and mankind] and 1 Cor 14:20 says “Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.” Our intelligence must be based in God’s Word, not the words and traditions of men. Col 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” That rings true with me right now as I listen to garbage from a neighboring churches board meeting that another pastor shared with me; men on their church board are trying to protect their borders and hold their own power and esteem. It makes me sick to hear that their “church is a business.”

We need to take a hard look at the reasons that we do things and stop hiding behind excuses such as “this is protocol” and “we’ve always done it this way before.” Unwritten rules, standard protocols, and even most written, broad and arbitrary guidelines don’t fit each scenario. Churches need to be aware that every situation is different and the general processes that we use to govern and guide leave a lot of people hurt, sidelined, or ejected entirely. We can make our excuses and explain our rationale, but the fact of the matter is that the outside world is watching us. Every reason that we give them not to come inside our churches is one more reason that they will use to justify their unbelief and foment resistance to the Holy Spirit’s call and prompting for salvation.

Our God demands excellence, true. Yes, we should strive for order and efficiency. But at what cost do we achieve these things? This church building operates so much better when there are no people in them, no screaming children, no weeping saints, no rowdy teens, no unexpected funerals or redecorating for weddings. Where has the younger generation gone? Why is it that most churches see very few congregants in the 20-30s age group? They’ve gone exactly where we’ve told them to go. Trust me, were I not so stubborn I’d be there too; on more than one occasion I’ve been told where to go.

When the church inclines itself to run as a business and operate under the premise that people must all behave a certain way and fit inside a perfectly formed box, you can count me out… and I grew up in the church—I have every reason to fall in line and manipulate church politics to my advantage. What must it be like for those from the outside? How terrible a place the church must look, and by way of association, how terrible a savior Christ must have been.

And now for something completley different... theYP!

The Sanctuary Hum

2010-02-14T21:50:00.005-06:00

So I'm not really reneging on my plans for my blog, but I wanted to interject something this month. Copied here to my blog are some posts that are interesting mental meat to chew on from myself and a facebook group for pastors involved with youth ministry.

XXXX [I am currently doing some "research" into why it is that so many young pastors are leaving the ministry. The more I look into this the more obvious it is becoming that we are headed for something in our movement that does not look good. Why are pastors leaving? What is causing our future pastors to be leaving in drov...es? Why are students spending 4+years and tens of thousands of dollars at bible colleges only to take a job at the local gas station and delivering pizza's at night? Are we at a crossroads? Are we on the edge of a crisis? Or is this just simply something that has been going on since the beginning of your movement. Are there pastors in our movement hanging on the egde of ministry? I am trying to find out. Any thoughts feel free to give them.]

My Comments/reply [hey XXXX, I just added you as a friend. I'd love to chat with you and see what the results of your research are (I have my own inklings and am writing a book about it after I hash my thoughts out on my blog) my personal belief is two-fold. Our new YPs don't have thick enough skin because they have been culturally babied (self-centered culture has given them a self-entitlement philosophy) and the second is that our churches have become abusive places to their ministers. I have seen it over and over. We need to both toughen up and learn/teach how to deal with confrontation (learn to take a stand well, defend yourself, but be Godly) and change the landscape in churches--they are too exclusive with people grabbing/retaining power/influence which leads to manipulation and abuse as "non pastors" seize the authority God has given our ministers. Sadly, too many pastors are not where God wants them to be because "God's People" are too resistant to what God wants. There is a great song by Project 86 called The Sanctuary Hum. The line that gets me: "God save us, save us, from your chosen ones."]

The Sanctuary Hum, live performance by Project 86

There are a lot of reasons that the American (western) church is in decline. I think this is a major area (though just a part of the overall issue). One thing is for sure: we need to get better at educating our future ministers, encouraging them, and give them realistic expectations. Becoming a new Christian does not instantly make you a better person, nor does it mean your life will simple, perfect, or even a happy one. Just as surrendering your life to Jesus does not immediately fix everything, neither does a pastoral change fix the issues of the past--implied, then is the fact that coming in as a new pastor does not guarantee instant approval, love, or obedience on the part of the congregation (finding a new wife because your last marriage failed is rarely a promising situation for the 2nd/3rd/4th wives... we need to objectively look at our problems and correct them). There is a biblical mandate for not only training up the next generation, but also for self-examination. Let’s forget the idea of personal comfort and instead focus on eternal glory.

and now for something completley different... theYP!

Intermission

2010-01-26T10:46:00.003-06:00

I've had an extremely busy January (hence I didn't blog this month--My band was very busy cutting it's first album.) I have plans to (beginning in February) blog about a topic for the next several months. The series title: Limbo Under the Stick In Your Eye. Look for the first article next month.

More of Hymn and Less of Me

2009-12-09T14:12:00.002-06:00

(a completely unrelated funny video)

More of Hymn and Less of Me

So I was at a prayer, praise and worship service and I had a striking realization. In the morning I’d preached on the need to advance the coming kingdom of God and the modern church’s resistance to go out and do that. In the past, we have made great advances as a community of faith in proclaiming the gospel.

Currently, our American culture is so narcissistic in it’s orientation, and apathetic regarding the salvation of others’ souls, that the Kingdom has retracted as we focus on ourselves. Social humanitarian work has gone mainstream in the secular realms, but the church has withdrawn and further introverted (not everywhere, but in large part this is true—kudos to you if you are the exception to the norm).

Communion followed my sermon. I tied the communion part into my message, explaining that the image of the cross was an example of our two-fold Christian relationship. We have a vertical relationship in respect to the host of Heaven (personal salvation through the blood, represented by the wine.) We also have a horizontal relationship: the world around us (represented by the bread of life, a communion emblem, that was broken before the eyes of men, Christ incarnate who was crucified.)

I thought about the horizontal relationship during the worship service and how we need to be declarative to the world around us. It is our duty to proclaim what we believe and live our Christianity out, to be on display in front of the world that does not know, does not believe, is at enmity with our God. A friend on facebook responded to one of my posts reminding me of a great verse in Ezekiel 3:17-20. We are appointed to be watchmen; the onus of salvation is on us. If we remain silent and allow wicked men to continue in their ways, then we have a part in their sin. No wonder America has fumbled God’s blessing—the church has a part in the sins of our nation because of our reluctance to act with boldness. Ezekiel 3 reminds me of Edmund Burke’s great quote, “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Christian should not be a noun, but rather a verb, in my opinion.

As I listened to the music of the songs, I caught something on the overhead displays. The way the songs read reflect something that the older generation of Christianity understood that we have forgotten. Hear me all you writers of Christian music! Contemporary Christian songs have bought into the me-centric idealism of our country. Most Hymns have horizontal, declarative lyrics proclaiming faith and salvation to others, while modern songs mostly focus on personal adoration of God—a vertical relationship. We have so focused upward that we forget to look outward. I really like modern worship, and hope nobody has ever thought I dislike hymns. I prefer the lyrical depth and complexity of the hymns, but the musical style of modern songs and believe we should reconcile that; I want to see more modern hymns!

Here are a few examples of very new song lyrics to illustrate the difference (horizontal and vertical points of view):
“Standing here, in your presence, thinking of the good things you have done. Waiting here patiently, just to hear your still small voice again.” The chorus to Marty Sampson’s For Who You Are goes, “I will worship You for who You Are (Jesus)” X6.
I love this song; it’s accurate, scriptural, and personal.
The chorus of Saved My Soul reads, “Jesus, You saved my soul. Jesus, You made me whole. Now I know that you are alive, you live in me, now I am yours.” The bridge repeats, “great is your name” either eight or sixteen times depending on how you play it. This is another of my recent favorites.
I need to worship God, but we must not forget our mandate to proclaim, either. Let’s look at some Hymn lyrics.
We Shall See The King, by James Vaughan proclaims, “There’s a blessed time that’s coming, coming soon.” The chorus repeats that, “We shall see the King, We shall see the King, We shall see the King when he comes.”
Are You Washed in the Blood, by Elisha Hoffman is practically a witnessing script. Every single line in the song (save one in verse four) is a question that exhorts one to be saved. I don’t believe it’s meant to be rhetorical at all. “Have you been to Jesus for the cleansing power? Are you washed in the blood of the lamb?… Are you washed in the blood, in the soul-cleansing blood of the lamb?”

I watched a movie just recently titled There Will Be Blood. It is a movie adaptation of Oil, by Upton Sinclair. It was an intense, deep movie about an oil tycoon who builds his own prison of hatred and mistrust and battles against faith, most notably against a local preacher. During that time, as illustrated accurately in the movie, congregations would walk and sing hymns as a declaration of their faith to others and would welcome unbelievers to join them and be converted. I understand that times have changed, this would not be effective in our modernity, but the focus should still be the same: on the world beyond the chapel walls.

I remember as a child in the eighties, our pastor would sometimes encourage us during the worship service to make the songs personal, changing lyrics, for example from God is good to You are good. It was a great exercise in making the worship sincere and personal, but that focus has become our norm in Christian life. We get stuck in a rut of self-focus and never venture outside of our own immediate bubble. The music itself is not wrong, but certainly indicates the shift in focus that is a reflection of how we live our faith out. Our praise has become monastic and vertical rather than evangelistic and horizontal.

Christ talks a lot about his return in glory at the end times. There are many warnings about the severity of it and how we are to continue on in our lives until it happens, not waiting on a hilltop somewhere. Matthew 24 in particular warns us about these things. We should be alert and working for the kingdom. Christ’s speech in this chapter is very similar to the parable of the talents (which Jesus gives only 14 verses afterwards). The master blessed those who worked with what they had been charged in keeping; the two that worked to expand His kingdom were rewarded with a blessing, literally being given a piece of the master’s domain. The wicked servant is the one who did nothing with what he was given –he didn’t lose it, he merely refused to act as he knew the master desired. That servant was cast into the outer darkness. The parable is a metaphor for true Christianity and is why I profess Christian should be a verb and not a noun. We must be doers. John 14:23 says (Jesus speaking) “All those who love me will DO WHAT I SAY.”

Let’s resolve to be outward, horizontal oriented people. I am, and I’ve been branded as a bit peculiar. Unfortunately, we are called to be a peculiar people… if we refuse that peculiarity, do we belong to that people group or have we become something else? Think about it.

And now for something completely different... theYP!

Decapitation or Targeted Pruning?

2009-11-19T11:28:00.000-06:00

Concerning Loss in the Ministry

So I was reading in the Gospel of John today, chapter 16. Verse 5-15 really struck a chord with me, and not necessarily because of what it overtly says regarding theology. In this passage, Jesus has recently told his disciples that he is about to leave them (he means die.) The disciples are very sad at this point (probably because they know Jesus hasn’t been wrong yet and he’s not likely to start now.)

The passage got to me personally because I recently lost someone close in ministry. My Senior Pastor is no longer with our church. A lot of people (including myself,) have been feeling like the disciples in verse six: “sorrow has filled your heart.”

Jesus says, however, “It is to your advantage that I go away.” Christ was foretelling them about the coming of the Holy Spirit. Through the Spirit’s power, God could birth an exponential increase in growth (both personal and in the churches numbers/effectiveness.)

I was at a conference just yesterday when Dr. Bradford of the Assemblies of God spoke strongly about the continued need for the guidance and reliance on the Holy Spirit to birth the increase and not our own creativity or special programs. He shared that recent statistics show that only two major denominations have shown growth in the last couple years and both of them were Pentecostal (one of them being the AG). We absolutely need the Spirit’s guidance, even moreso in the absence of Christ’s physical presence.

It got me thinking, the disciples lost their leadership, but Jesus considered a Spirit-led life a necessary upgrade, and one more powerful than the original plan the disciples had signed up for. My leader wasn’t Jesus incarnate. He was/is a godly man and a good pastor, but God has something else in store now. There is an even greater move coming next and one that might not have come unless change occur first and the Holy Spirit become our headship and not a man.

Sorrow comes, it is not sin and Jesus didn’t rebuke it, but he reminds us of a kingdom principle in verse 15. “All things that the Father has are Mine.” It’s a reminder to me, personally, of what the Father owns: everything. If He chooses to reallocate some of His resources, it is His prerogative to do so.

His plan is so much better than our own. The disciples had their own plan and political aspirations for Jesus, just as we all sometimes do. Loss in ministry hurts so badly because it derails not just our ministry objectives (or seemingly so,) but who we are personally. It is a blatant reminder of our own humanity and insignificance in the grand scheme of things, (God’s plans are sovereign, relying on no man to achieve.)

We absolutely need a deeper move of the Holy Spirit. Only His plans are perfect and sometimes we get ahead of ourselves with our own scheming and planning thinking that we’ve got God’s will all figured out, and we forget that we, ourselves are only human.

unAmerican?

2009-11-13T11:06:00.002-06:00

Surrendering My Citizenship?

I recently preached a missions sermon in my church, Williston Assembly of God. I approached the topic from an understanding of Basic Human Rights. While I was preparing this sermon, I really struggled with using that concept, not because it was hard, I just wasn’t really “feeling it.” I’d never heard a sermon like that before and I didn’t think that it would go over all that well, (mainly because it was outside of my own personal element—by that I mean that it wasn’t clever or laced with minor witticism that my sermons are known for.) The sermon came and went, and all went very well. The main thrust of my message (outside of scripture) was that the only real basic human right that we should all have is the option to hear the gospel preached at least once before we die.

Ironically, a week after my sermon, I heard a nationally known speaker take almost the same approach to his sermon about Christian conduct. I love it how sometimes God validates what you are doing by reinforcing and reaffirming your work through other sources you didn’t expect.

The idea of basic human rights got me thinking. The human rights that you may claim ownership over depend on your citizenship status and to which country you belong (with the exception of America—we tend to think that everyone deserves the right to do everything.) Our self-indulgent society has been over-played and exploited to such a degree that it’s enabled our self-indulgent narcissism. We Americans cry about special interests and want to see tax dollars funneled to groups that fall in line with our own ideals and cry foul when we don’t get our way.

We claim rights to do everything our wicked hearts desire (the right to marry same-sex individuals, right to kill humans post conception, the right to sodomize children [thank you ACLU and NAMBLA—your efforts don’t go unnoticed). People are so concerned with what they deserve that we have no time to serve. Why don’t we give up on our rights? As Christians, perhaps the best course of action to get our eyes off of ourselves and back onto our savior would be to voluntarily surrender our rights, to lay them down in lieu of something greater.

Our values must shift. The greatest thing of value is the human soul (Matt 16:26), much more valuable than all the dollars that can fund political programs or lobby interest groups. We need to once again live as if we are in the shadow of the cross and looking to the blessed hope of Christ’s return. If souls are not of tantamount importance to us, it becomes easy to focus on ourselves instead—on our own creature comforts and entitlements as Americans.

In essence, we have profaned God. The definition of Profane is to “make common.” We have ascribed a certain amount of mundanity to the battle for souls. Evangelism barely happens anymore—primarily because of fear or lethargy. The passion for the lost is a fire that has long since died in many American churches. We let the collection plate pass by empty in our services and give money to politicians who cannot save and do not know the hope we have in Jesus.

Wake up American Christians! We have a citizenship in something bigger and infinitely better than the American Dream—we should be pursuing the Godly Plan instead.

I had a pastor friend who had both a Canadian and American parent. Until he reached a certain age he was considered a citizen of both countries as a “dual-citizen.” There came, however, a time in his life when he was forced to choose which country he would belong to; he could not remain a dualie forever. I think that is exactly what we must begin to do to reignite our passion in this country: we must lay down our citizenship and all the rights that go along with it. Will we be known as citizens of the USA and cast our lot with a man-made system that has discarded any sentiment of the Almighty, or will we be citizens of an eternal kingdom, willing to sacrifice the temporal fading junk of this world in order to redeem the only thing of value and build up a kingdom of eternity?

And now for something completely different… theYP!

This month's worship song: Anthem (of a Generation) by Jake Hamilton

(this song is not mine, but I put together this video because several people have asked me how to play it.)

My Broken Medulla Oblongata?

2009-10-01T18:27:00.002-05:00

The Christian Idiot Monitor

By nature, we humans have a need for community. We love to be among our own kind. Perhaps it’s because commonality seems to validate our own existence? Personally, I think it’s funny how we Americans are so in love with individuality and often think we’re exercising the freedom of expressing it, but really we’re just showing off to a group of clones. Take the goth trend for example, it was birthed by self-proclaimed social outcasts who did their own thing. Soon, they found likeminded others: social outcasts dressed in bondage pants and eyeliner. Now they are a movement that must be advertised to by companies seeking to capitalize on youth trends… think of successful stores such as Hot Topic. The goths are no longer outcasts, but have unwittingly become another clique: try bleaching your hair and wearing a new Abercrombie outfit—walk through a busy Hot Topic greeting everybody with, “Hey brah!” Yeah, it’s gained elitist status.

Cliques operate with their own set of unwritten rules, their own social morays and lingo. Christians are no different, and on many levels we’ve become another sort of clique. I was on vacation last weekend, but I heard buzz of a college kid who attended our church wearing a wife-beater/muscle shirt and jeans. He wasn’t dressed like the rest of the congregation and I wonder what sort of judgmental glares he might have received.

Think of how we speak in our churches. Could an unchurched person understand the preacher’s sermons or congregants’ conversations? Seriously, to translate we shouldn’t need a Christian to Secular dictionary… although my mind suddenly wonders about marketing such a tool to pay for my college education. Christianese is something that we all fall into from time to time—it’s easy if you spend large amounts of time locked within the “Christian Bubble.”

I listen to the radio when I drive, mostly because I want to catch current events and news. I like talk radio programs because I can’t stand most Christian radio, personally. Most of the music sounds exactly the same, often it’s because the music is just that: exactly the same. I don’t know who’s in charge of the programming, but how many times a day can you play the current Casting Crowns single?

I often listen to a talk radio program on American Family Radio during my lunch break. Recently, a guy discussed sociological dynamics resulting from birth rate data concerning the Muslim world versus the American culture—a topic which greatly interests me, (I can’t remember if I wrote about this in the past or not, but I recommend further research here!) Analysts predict the global takeover by Muslims within a couple generations because of their birthrate trends versus the western cultures family-limiting mindset.

While listening, the author made an interesting comment when the host asked him about his involvement with the Muslim world. He’d replied that during a few years he was in the USA pursuing a “Tent-Making” Masters degree. Confused, the announcer asked for clarification. The author was amused how on a blatantly Christian radio interview, nobody understood his Christianese comment.

I understood the comment, and the moment he’d made it I had this thought: “What a stupid thing to say. How’s the secular audience suppose to follow along?” Clarifying, the author explained that he pursued a secular degree with which he could work a job to support his ministry, (we have Paul’s example as a tent-maker in the new testament while he planted churches).

One of the other problems I have with many Christian radio stations is the apparent lack of intellect by the announcers/supported programming. Of course, much of it is very good, but the morning programs usually cater to the happy feel-good crowd. Ministers who have a real heart for Truth and delving into scripture tend to look down on those of their ilk that are full of “seeker-sensitive fluff,” or give messages that just make people happy so they will keep coming back for their weekly, happy-pill sermon.

This morning, for example, the radio DJs spoke about introducing knock-knock jokes to their pre-school aged children. It was funny and heart-warming right up until it got stupid, (and I don’t mean the children’s jokes—I understand children’s humor.) A caller explained that her child had made up a knock-knock joke about photosynthesis. My son is very smart; at seven, he knows chlorophyll and a little about photosynthesis, (for crying out loud he knows that a butterfly cocoon is called a chrysalis!) so this didn’t seem far-fetched to me. The announcers laughed and had to ask her to explain what photosynthesis was because they didn’t know. I slapped my forehead in frustration; ask that question to any seventh or eight-grader and they will know exactly how to define it.

Here is the basic message that we just sent to the secular audience: Christian sentiment and an elementary education are all that are required to make you the best person to publicly advocate the Christian faith via live, national broadcast.

It gets better… no, not really. The lady explains that photosynthesis is when the leaves change color. What?!? Seriously? I’m imagining that scene from The Waterboy when Bobby Boucher insists to his professor that, “Momma says alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth but no toothbrush,” insisting it’s not because of their brain chemistry. Any junior high school student knows that photosynthesis is the process by which plant life uses the sun to make its own food.

See, we as Christians have typecast ourselves as soft-spoken fools; we have only one music preference beyond hymns; and display a shmoozy-huggy-love to everybody else, (except those unlike them—or already in the clique… then you’ll just get the silent treatment until you go away.) This Christian bubble effect is damaging to church growth and development, but most people inside it can’t understand what’s happening. They’re unable to fathom the idea that anyone outside the bubble wouldn’t want to come inside.

Christians should display the full range of emotions, be very knowledgeable, and be ready at anytime to mix in the non-christian crowd with a heart to love them, (not just to proselytize, rather to demonstrate real Love so that the Holy Spirit can bring hearts to repentance and eventually to conversion.)

We humans forget our place. It’s never our job to bring restoration or conviction to the secular world. The outside world will feel the power of the Spirit by seeing us do things rightly. We need not force others to change, or even to accept Christian morality; in time, the Spirit will do all that—that’s His job. The problem is that we’ve been trying to effect change from the outside for so long—something that never works, and we’ve gotten used to the idea that if we can mold someone on the outside into what we want, they will internalize it. (A great contemporary example if you’re a nerd like me: the last episode of Heroes season 3 and the beginning storyline regarding Sylar the super villain in Season 4.) I truly believe that part of this is tied to the demasculization/feminization of the church; most women I’ve met who’ve been married more than five years have admitted that they thought “[they] could change the things [they] didn’t like about [their] husband.” Change comes from within, not from without.

We can preach this message until we’re blue in the face, and many of us do—all the while our targets shout amen and hallelujah! We’re not successful, however, at removing the blinders from our congregants because they haven’t realized that the “Christian Bubble” isn’t the way of perfection.

Personally, I think this generation of “Comfortable Christians” has become too lukewarm to realize our plight; we’re content to let a well-oiled, (albeit inherently broken,) machine continue running, pumping out a flow of deadly status quo. After all, in the end we can always just blame the decline of American Christianity on the Democrats, right?

And now for something completely different… theYP!

Fall Chi Alpha Newsletter

2009-09-18T10:04:00.002-05:00

So I am putting here as my mid-month post my quarterly Chi Alpha newsletter. I am the Student Ministries pastor at Williston Assembly of God (www.willistonassembly.org) and part of what I do is run the college campus ministry (Chi Alpha) at Williston State College. I send out my newsletter quarterly (both snail mail and email) but wanted to put it up here as well.
WSC XA Fall Newsletter

I did reference a video clip called Seat Of Power in the newsletter and so I am posting that video right here:

Preacher Gets a Speeding Ticket

2009-09-18T09:54:00.002-05:00

So I was heading home after a long day, driving though a section of heavy road construction. I turned onto the highway, a fifty-five mph zone and saw a state trooper parked down the way. I checked my speedometer; I was driving about forty miles an hour, so I sped up and hit my cruise at fifty-five. As soon as the trooper’s car was in my rearview mirror, I saw him pull out with his lights on, hot on my tail.

They always ask if you know why you were pulled over, don’t they? I think it’s a law. I explained that I didn’t know why, actually. He told me that I was going fifty-two miles per hour on his radar gun. Still confused, he told me that the speed limit had been reduced for the road construction and I realized that I had missed the sign (which was right on the intersection where I turned on. The sign had been in my blind spot so I never noticed it.

The trooper was very polite as he took my driver’s license, though he noticed that it was out of state. “How long have you lived here,” he asked. Truthfully I replied that it had been almost nine months and that I knew I needed to get an in-state license but had been extremely busy as of late.

He asked me what I did for a living. When I told him I was in Student Ministries the trooper chuckled and replied, “Yeah. You don’t have enough time for that.” He smiled; he probably had a relative who was a pastor and so he knew how busy pastors could get sometimes.

I was thinking about the whole situation and how it really relates to what I had discussed with a group of students recently. I told them that we are who we decide to be (yeah, I’m a big fan of Arminius,) and that we are constantly faced with choices as we go about our lives. “In essence, we are defined by what we do—what we choose to do and choose to become,” I’d said.

We know that with every action there are always the principles of cause and effect, and we can choose an action that doesn’t always seem to have the desired outcome, for example, a right action doesn’t always guarantee a pleasant outcome—such is the nature of a fallen world. In a world that so often can take us by surprise and so often gives us an unexpected outcome, it often shocks us when we get exactly what we deserve in the big scheme of things—when the absolutes of the world actually surface and we get exactly what we deserve. Yup, I couldn’t talk my way out of it, the friendly North Dakota state trooper handed me a speeding ticket. I had to pay a total of ten dollars. An out-of-state friend told me, “Heck, for just ten dollars, I’d speed everywhere I go.”

In previous blogs, I’ve mentioned this cultural idea that we all have of self-entitlement. We are all pre-wired to fulfill the selfish desires of our flesh, and when the consequences come to us we try to pass the buck by whatever means possible. Ultimately, we all want someone else to pick up our bill for personal failings, as taught by pop-psychologists and daytime television. It’s not my fault! My father didn’t hug me enough as a child! Nobody understands that I was just made this way. The devil made me do it. We are an irresponsible people looking for someone to blame. Don’t believe me? Well, don’t give anyone a cup of coffee with out a written, signed, and notarized release or you could wind up in court should it spill.

I was musing on this when I thought of the sign in my blind spot. I was a little irked. How was I supposed to know that the limit had changed? My inner nature wanted to blame someone else, that sign was ill placed for any motorists entering the highway from that intersection. But then I thought of the other indicators. There was a speed limit sign that was covered over; that should have told me something was up. I knew the road was under construction; orange cones were everywhere and usually that does mean a slow-down. Just because there wasn’t a sign as I expected there to be doesn’t mean that someone hadn’t reduced the limit. The problem was one of my perception and personal expectations.

On that note, I recalled a recent conversation with a friend about aborigines in jungle tribes across Africa. They hadn’t heard about God or Christ, how could they be expected to find salvation through the name of Jesus if that is the only way to gain eternal life and escape God’s wrath. Many people are upset at this notion—it doesn’t seem fair to us that God would make a covenant requirement with mankind and then not inform everyone of it. God said here’s the speed limit, but didn’t place the sign exactly where we all expected to find it. Here’s the rub: that doesn’t mean we can get away with breaking the law just because we didn’t notice it or recognize the sign for what it was. We still break that law. Besides, there are other signs, too. Most every people group in the world invented some sort of deity because they recognized the hand of a godly being by creation’s very nature. There’s also the issue of man’s conscience (or the fact that the law of god—morality—is written upon the heart man.)

Still, I thought of another argument against the idea of moral laws, it also fits neatly into the speed limit analogy. My wife was in a college class discussing the topics of ethics in the classroom (she’s studying to get her teacher’s degree.) How should sexual health issues be treated? Should we teach abstinence, should sex-ed be taught at all, should schools distribute condoms and other prophylactics? One student explained that fundamental Christians are all idiots and don’t look at the fact that “Everyone is having premarital sex,” explaining that condoms need to be distributed to prevent the need for abortions—she grew up in a strict, sexually repressed home and was speaking from personal experience.

Yeah, she said, “Everyone is doing it.” Doesn’t that apply to speeding as well? Have you ever met someone with a license who hasn’t exceeded the speed limit at some point? Since when did the law and morality become subject to the whims of those that it governs? Hey everybody, look at the high percentages of people who have seen pornography online—it’s the number one searched topic… why don’t we start broadcasting it on network TV in primetime? Heck, let’s show clips during Saturday morning cartoons! After all, everyone’s doing it!

Just because mankind has a corporate sinful nature, that does not justify their sin. We have this idea that, since we’ve all been committing sin for a while and nobody has really called us on the carpet for it, that it must be okay. The consequences haven’t caught up with us yet, that does not mean they have ceased to exist.

It may seem that everyone is promiscuous, but what about all of those other warnings out there that this is dangerous? What about STDs and emotional heartbreak? Everyone is dealing with the fallout of their sinful actions, but we overlook that because we want to indulge in our own desires. These are the warning signs! But people who speak out about that are branded as idiotic fundamentalists, as unenlightened, weak-minded individuals that are forced to lean upon the crutch of religion. I suppose I’m fine with that—I’d rather some hoity-toity latte drinking yuppie call me names than need to rub anti-itch cream on my nether-regions whenever I have an outbreak or need to keep a detailed list of every person I should call to inform that I’ve just learned I may have passed herpes on to them. I was recently amused to see a booklet of Hallmark-type greeting cards meant to pass on this news; the front of one had a cute smiling kitten basking in the sun—inside it says, “Smile! By the way, you may want to get tested, I just found out I got The Clap.” Yeah, I’m thankful I don’t have to deal with that fallout, but that doesn’t mean I’m comfortable with it happening in this world. I have kids; what kind of world do I want them to come of age in?

Everyone’s doing it? So what if they are? It’s like we’ve all just decided that we can decide what our own personal speed limits should be. When the cops pull me over next time, it will go like this:

“Sir, do you know how fast you were going?”

“Of course, ninety-five miles an hour.”

“You realize this is a school zone? The limit is fifteen.”

“You don’t understand; I’m driving a black Escalade.”

“The limit is fifteen. There was a child in the crosswalk.”

“Can you tell the difference between these two? See, this one is black, that one is red. This car is black.”

“Sir, I’m going to have to ask you to step out of the car and walk a straight line.”

I can’t afford an Escalade. I can barely afford gas. The point is this: the law is the law, our own point of view, desires, opinions, or predispositions (even our birth place or ancestry) have no bearing on it. The world is not a fair place. We all start out under different, unique circumstances. God is more difficult to find in communist China than in America because of the “Bamboo curtain.” God is more difficult to genuinely serve in America than in China because of our culture of apathy. It’s harder to afford an Escalade when you work as a Student Ministries pastor in rural America. We need to stop whining about fairness and focus instead on the truth—on the law that remains sovereign to our own designs, despite our own desires.

There are subtle and overt references that all point back to the sign, back to that Speed Limit God placed on the side of the road. It may be that it’s now in our rear-view mirror, but just because it’s behind us does not make it any less relevant. It should be ever more important in light of that state trooper we see down the highway. We all die; we all will have to face the judge in the end for breaking that limit, and unlike my ticket, we can’t opt out of our court date and simply mail the court a check for ten dollars. The payment costs so much more than that.

and now for something completley different...theYP!

WORSHIP SONG:
(dont remember if I used this one or not)

Get Your Gay Ass Back In Church

2009-08-01T15:17:00.004-05:00

Get Your Gay Ass Back In Church

So, the title’s not meant to be vulgar. It is a very real sentiment regarding the biggest area we (the Church) have surrendered to the secularists: our speech.

You know this is true: you secretly dread Christmas-time song services because of those old Yuletide hymns. Come on, you know the ones that talk about our “gay hearts” and mention things like “the ass and the oxen” laying. Think about the last time you heard those hymns in church; you see the verse coming and panic about a measure and a half before the music gets there—you don’t know what to do. Deep down, it feels like your pastor is trying to trap you into publicly cussing. It’s like you feel as if you this is all a test, like maybe the proper course of action was written on the church membership document you signed but never read. The music arrives and the music falters slightly; only a little less than half actually sing that line, the rest drop out, or fake a cough, and then quickly recovers as everyone breathes a sigh of relief as disaster is averted.

The funny thing about that particular hymn is when you hear some folk try to squeeze the word “donkey” into the rhythm structure; it doesn’t work to well. We get uncomfortable around the words the world uses because we have given up many aspects of Godly terminology to our worldly counterpart and we have relented our battle against worldly influence. Perhaps relented is the wrong word, certainly relinquished would be correct, though.

Just the other day I was at our Church’s youth center and someone got really excited and jokingly yelled something like, “You stupid piece of… cheese!” Everyone commented on what a nice save it was (indeed, cheese was not the insult she had first formed in her mind). This girl, who I know is not a Christian knew just enough about me to understand that I was a pastor. And everyone knows you can’t curse in front of a pastor—you get to heaven based upon how good you are, and pastors will tattle such things to Jesus. Jesus is like Santa Clause: there are too many people in the world, so he basically makes a list and checks it twice—so as long as you seem hunky-dory those two times He checks in on you, then you won’t end up in Hell… unless some goody-goody Christian rats you out. I really think some people use that faulty logic.

Regarding language, there are two types of people in the world. The first type of person is afraid of letting a slip of the lip happen in front of their Christian peers. Oh, it still happens, but they are embarrassed and don’t want their religious friends find out that they used dirty words. The other type really doesn’t care; in fact, they want to shock and offend as many believers as possible for a variety of reasons. The second group is in a sorry position, but can’t be helped unless God gets a hold of them. Fortunately, I believe the first group is the majority. Of course, the flip side of that coin is that most of our nominal believers (professing Christians who live like heaven one or two days a week, but act like Hell the rest of the time) also tend to fall into that category.

Christians, as opposed to the world, have a language of their own that few understand. Each denomination has its own dialect. In my opinion, Christianese is an example of how we have surrendered ground in our culture war against the forces of the world (yeah, I’m talking about the spirit in this world: the forces of Satan.) I find it sadly ironic how the lost don’t know what we are talking about when we speak of things like Communion or anything Eucharistic. They don’t like being called post-modern because, not knowing its definition, they see it as an insult. Mention to an unbeliever that you’ve been “covered by blood” and the cops will arrive at your door in short order. So they have no idea what we are talking about and we get offended by the words they use when they talk like they normally do. That’s the perfect setup for a communicative disconnect.

We thin-skinned, touchy-feely type Christians are too easily shocked and offended. We shrink back from the more course type of individual, fearing the toxicity of their words like it might somehow contaminate us and undo all the regeneration Christ has birthed within us. We avoid the exact type of person that we are supposed to be influencing positively fearing that they will negatively impact US! That’s absurd! Did Christ really make us new creatures or not? If Christ has truly impacted us and transformed us, then we can take the heat—if you cloister yourself away from the world (which YOU are called to influence for the Kingdom) then you must ask yourself if you are truly saved; the secluded Christian is one who that is not living in the power of the blood. Those sorts are 2 Timothy 3:5 people, or those “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”

I know that many of these aforementioned people are pillars of our churches and who am I that I can question their conduct? I am a Christian who is walking in freedom and calling to influence back this depraved environment. Colossians 2:21 refers to people who decree that believers must “not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” The passage says not to submit to those sorts—that we should have freedom if we have really been set free from “the elementary principles of the world,” if we have “died with Christ,” [to them]. In fact, verse 23 states that this cloistering lifestyle “surely has the appearance of wisdom [but only] in self-made religion.” Monasticism was not the Christian life style modeled by our Lord.

Understand that we should expect crude speech and conduct from the nonbeliever or the new believer. At least they are sincere when they use such words. Such words don’t bother me anymore—and not because I am comfortable with them. I value sincerity. The two Godly principles that will transform our world are Biblical love and true sincerity. As Christians, we should expect the world to act in the flesh, yet work to see the lost saved; then, we must let the Holy Spirit deal with their conduct in His own timing.

Why is the alternative of Pro-Choice not equal and opposite; hasn’t it ever struck you oddly that there is Pro-Life but no Pro-Death? Why do let the opposition define the terms of modern vernacular. A political example: Bailout, or Stimulus—why wasn’t it called something like “Directed Funds for Political Allies?” And why are bills written by Congress that don’t change any laws that normally affect your typical American, but instead seem to “protect” us with the inclusion of special interest groups or minorities who already have that same protection?

See, we’re losing ground under the guise of having it protected. Obama’s democratic Congress is writing into law many bills that will reiterate the protection of the American people that we already enjoy, such as the illegality of hate crimes. Those bills go on to define those same old rights but then specifically define extended protection to groups such as homosexuals, gay rights activists, and even pedophiles (in some versions of the bill). Laws define marriage as a man and a woman joined legally; new bills assert the same, BUT ALSO same-sex unions.

Old laws simply get modified including language, which actually makes the former obsolete so we really lose some of our rights. We think that we are getting protection whereas we are actually losing it. This is just how our religious ground has been lost. We nod and smile thinking we are still protected while the outcome is actually subverting our beliefs, like an innocuous chess move that seems unthreatening. We sometimes even applaud those decisions and don’t see how one or two moves later that previous move was the pivot point for being forced into checkmate.

By elevating certain interest groups’ personal feelings regarding issues such as “hate speech,” the government is creating special classes of individuals that include lifestyles we Christians preach against. These special classes have more rights than the average American. For example, I have the right to religious freedom (which includes my freedom to evangelize) but the rights of a homosexual will be infringed upon if I witness to him or her because the Spirit’s conviction (a guilty feeling) can be called victimization through “hate-speech.” It won’t be long until it is illegal to preach the whole Word of God. Someone will be offended by my personal beliefs (which are fundamentally Christian.) I believe that marriage is God ordained between only a man and woman, that abortion is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, I have the duty as a husband to protect my family (even if it means arming myself,) and many other such mandates. When I have the right to believe these things, just not to vocalize them, teach them, or act upon them in any way—that is the death sentence to Christianity.

We are involved in a Cultural Cold War. This subversive war on Christianity will be won or lost by the definitions of the terms. This should not surprise us. AntiChrist is described as a leader who comes in through political means, using methodology that is subversive (imagery of one wielding an arrowless bow, rather than a sword, as others are described.) I believe we are in the last days, but even five hundred years ago the spirit of AntiChrist was at work in the world (2 John 7).

If we plan to win this war, we must advance the kingdom forcefully—reclaiming lost ground and taking back even more, starting with our vocabulary. We should call people on this. If opponents are allowed to continue unchecked as they steal our cultural relevance (through this mafia-hit on our dictionaries) our attrition rate will only escalate, leading to the further decline of our faith. Fight back.

and now for something completley different... theYP

August blog's worship song: We Like Sheep (YouTube/Tangle)

Jesus Is My Friend: the sermon

2009-07-25T11:57:00.002-05:00

so you all know that viral video... the Jesus is My Friend song by Sonseed? I actually showed that at my church as my main illustration for a sermon on the necessity for relationship/friendship evangelism. Since it really fits in with what I've been blogging about, here is the trimmed and edited sermon complete with video illustrations.

Top Ten lists

2009-07-20T16:36:00.003-05:00

so I've been at summer camps for the last couple weeks and couldn't take my computer along to blog (hence the late post). I've also been participating with a college summer internship program from my own alma mater: Trinity Bible College. I had to take a break from my blog series about evangelism, and will get back to that next month. I put together a top ten list, though, about the top ten things i hope to have taught my intern.

Top Ten Things I Taught My Youth Ministry Intern
(by Christopher Schmitz)

10. Your youth pastor is here to help you, except when he/she’s plotting creative ways to help you learn by using you as a public object lesson to show congregants the hardships ministers endure (and thus why we all need a raise.) Don’t worry, that will probably grow back/wash off (insert as applicable.)

9. Teenagers don’t like having to get up for Sunday School either. Deal with it.

8. Satan invented decaf. Yeah, it’s totally in the Bible.

7. Junior High girls don’t understand why there are “flavored items” for sale inside bathroom wall dispensers but this is a topic best left for their parents (unless they already bought a few.)

6. Don’t worry if the church people don’t like you. They probably don’t think too highly of the youth pastor either. Not after… the Sloppy Joe Incident.

5. Learn to play an instrument in college. At least you can always make spare change on the street corner to pay for your education.

4. “Intern” basically means toilet scrubber.

3. If you suck in all areas of life, God has probably called you to ministry.

2. The DYD has always got your back (unless you threw a water balloon at her.)

1. Pretty much any action on earth can be justified to a church board just by calling it a “Speed the Light Fundraiser.”

And now the top ten, for real:

10. Be quick to thank. Thank You cards are cheap. Give them freely and often and people will think the world of you (in fact, make up reasons to give them.) If you don’t send one when someone actually gave you something, expect that person to find new ways to be angry with you.

9. Don’t make a habit of letting your students arrive to anything before you. Set your coffee timer or an alarm clock.

8. Seriously, Decaf is the devil. Pray for deliverance.

7. People will complain and dislike you. You can never please everybody all at once (especially if you are preaching the Word.) You can, however, be assured that you CAN tick of everybody all at the same time, so choose your words wisely.

6. Teens that have bad habits were taught them elsewhere. You are called to reach the parents and family members as well… just don’t tell them that.

5. Worship of God. If you are not comfortable being a hand raiser, praise bouncer, or side-to-side foot shuffler during the music, then learn an instrument so you have an excuse because your hands/body is preoccupied by a some praise instrument. (We lead by example here).

4. Let love be your guide. If you always err on the side of love, you will do all right, and make sure everyone knows you love him or her.

3. Be missions minded! Pretty much all of our country has heard the Gospel (and most have rejected or become apathetic to it.) Send your heart into it anyway. Focus the Great Commandment on our backyards and invest significantly into the overseas Great Commission.

2. Be a friend of Jesus. We are reverent in our respect of his holy awesome wonder, but must balance life so that we are not so focused on his transcendence that we forget his presence. That leads to the disconnect cliché “So heavenly minded that we are of no earthly good” (which is a lie from Hell, by the way, and not grounded in true Christian conduct).

1. Never be out-passioned by someone else. Find a way to get refreshed or share your vision; keep your passion focused and alive and rooted in your calling. Remember that calling daily; Israel constantly struggled with a cycle of wayward focus/lost calling—it is common to man, but a killer of ministry.

God's Cosmic Staircase

2009-06-19T07:06:00.000-05:00

God’s Cosmic Staircase

Christianity would seem to disagree with the ability to really know ourselves (at least to some degree) because "the heart of man is deceptive and wicked beyond all measure." We can know ourselves, but we often choose to lie to ourselves because we’re inclined to desire that a more Humanistic theology ultimately prove true (which doesn't make it true. The christianese term "post-modern" perfectly describes this inclination.)

The forces of the "world/flesh" tell us a lie, that "mankind is basically good at heart" but this is a falsehood. Scripture tells us that we are all affected by Original Sin (which is why there is no human without sin, not even one--because our sin nature was passed down through a lineage of flesh. This is the reason that Jesus Christ was conceived in a virgin and by the Holy Spirit--to break that chain.) Yes, we can do good things, but no human has lived perfection. Ultimately we are a sinful, evil-inclined species with the tendency to perform evil acts and with infinite potential to do good.

The problem is that we confuse that potential as our actual pre-disposition. Our modern culture, controlled by a deceived generation (of which even I am a part... I'm just 29) downplays the idea of sin. "What's the big deal if I do a few bad things; I'm not as bad as Hitler or the sex offender down the street!" We tend to view things in terms of comparison and we don't fully understand the implications of our sin that we so readily trivialize. It was, after all, only one sin that ejected humanity from Eden (one tiny rebellion severed our relationship with God). The price of just one sin is eternal death.

God is Holy, and because of a human tendency to anthropomorphize Him, we think that God is more like us than He really is. We so often think of everything else in human terms (because of people’s base narcissism,) and find it difficult to see things from another's eyes until we have experienced that; as the human race progresses to “modernity,” we’ve gotten far worse at empathy. We forget that he cannot tolerate even that one sin--Holy means "Set apart and beyond/above." God remains above and sovereign in his justice; choosing to sin is a human act that willfully (albeit sometimes unknowingly) de-elevates us from his presence, causing separation.

Holiness literally means to be separate from. I compare it (and the concept of sanctification,) to being on a staircase with God waiting at the top. We walk up towards Him, becoming more and more like Christ (His Son) in our Christian walk. We do as Jesus said and demonstrated, as historical Jewish culture teaches us, in following the footsteps of a rabbi. We imitate our leader, trying to become a version of that rabbi we emulate (which is the literal meaning of Christian: "little Christ.) As we ascend those stairs, we come to several landings. Sinning is when we jump off the staircase and land on the ground (which often hurts us, especially the higher up we are,) back at ground zero.

Remember Original Sin? It points out how we all start this walk on the ground level and that we won't even begin the climb until we believe in our destination. Nobody can climb the staircase if they don’t know where it ends and rely on God's Holy Spirit to help us on that journey (to essentially give us access, to help us onto that first step.) Sanctification is the journey upwards: the act of becoming holy in our personal lives, and true holiness is only achieved at the top of the stairs.

It’s an incomplete analogy and not theologically deep, but I don’t want to overload anyone. It’s not intended to be a perfect example, but hopefully it is relevant. God bless.

Jared Allen is my own personal Jesus

2009-06-02T09:54:00.003-05:00

(click here for the video blog version)

Jared Allen is my own personal Jesus

Not really. Please understand that I’m using creative liberties with that statement. Jared Allen is a football player for the Minnesota Vikings, my favorite football team (and source of constant consternation.) Jared Allen happens to be one of my favorite players of the game.

What I really want to discuss, here, is my approach to evangelism. I utilize what is commonly called relational/relationship evangelism. Many people, especially people of an older ministry/evangelism paradigm don’t really know what this means. I have even had people make accusations that I am not open to the power of the Holy Spirit because I’m relying on a “method” or some new “model” to save, rather than the power of God… that is absolutely not what’s going on, but I want to lay some foundation on how evangelism works with today’s culture (and by works, I mean to imply is the most effective versus older methods.)

I’m really on a larger topic (that is, the seeming clash between the “younger” church and the “older” church) because it negatively impacts me at the core of my ministry. Because of that influence, I’m actually going to write a sequential series of posts on that topic. “Relationship Evangelism” lays the groundwork; this is a worldview approach and I want to define it and give it some clarity because the purveyance of “Christianese” buzzwords, some people who don’t fully understand it have relegated it to the same realms as prosperity doctrine or other false doctrines and faulty methodology. We Christians are very good at saying no to things, especially those things that cause change through personal growth.

Everything that I do in my ministry, from big events and topics to sermons and little conversations falls within the category of “evangelism.” This “method” challenges the old paradigm of a “salvation event.” Similar to the idea of Progressive Sanctification, the idea that we become more and more like Christ as we walk through this journey of life, my approach views salvation as a journey from complete lost-ness, to the road of sanctification… it’s the first leg of the journey, that is.

I reference the NFL because we can de-Christianize this topic by comparing the issue to football. There is nothing wrong with “Christianese” if we are talking with people who are familiar with the lingo, but let’s face it, most of us (even devout believers) get more excited when our team scores six points on third and long than when a rebellious teenager gets saved. (We scream thank God, a touchdown! But mutter, let’s see how long it lasts, to the latter.)

Lets say that you are really into football. The NFL is your own personal religion; Brett Favre is your Messiah and John Madden is his prophet. (Bear with me for the sake of the analogy.) Imagine a number scale with a 0 in the middle, a –7 on one end and a +7 to the far right. This is our scale where we can determine commitment levels to any topic, but specifically matters of faith. One day, you a meet a young child who knows nothing about this football that you just told him about. He is perfectly ignorant about the topic so his current involvement with football is at –7; the child is interested so begins to move closer towards 0 (the number where the scales begin to tip.)

Since we’re picking on good old #4 anyway, lets name this child Brett. One day, you tell Brett about the rules and show him how to throw a spiral. Brett agrees to watch a game with you. He doesn’t have a favorite team, or really understand it all, but he enjoyed the fellowship and is still interested in learning more about this football thing. Brett is somewhere closer to a –3. He may take in a game with some friends, he knows a little of the lingo and could keep up a conversation about a punt or field goal, but he won’t go out of his way to watch a game.

Eventually, through exposing Brett to your passion, he begins to develop a love for the sport. He gets excited about it and picks a favorite team. He knows the rules and Brett would even venture a strong guess (and often be right) over what the referees ruling will be on a booth review of a questionable call. Brett is more inclined than not to watch a game whenever it is on, even if you are not there to watch it with him. Brett is at level 0; he has made a commitment and is sticking with it. He gets excited over a good play (but maybe not enough to strip off his shirt and paint his chest with team colors.)

Now, Brett is following the draft. During his lunch break, he’s looking for opportunities to talk about football with others. When visiting another town on a Sunday, Brett forces his family to take a detour and stop at a sports bar so he can watch his favorite team. He is sold out; nobody would silently wonder, “Is Brett a football follower?” He wears his quarterback’s jersey frequently; because of his speech and conduct everyone who just glimpses at him can tell that Brett is an avid fan. Brett is somewhere on the positive scale, around a +3 I would guess.

What are other ways Brett could become more committed? Get the NFL sports package on Dish Network, participate in a fantasy league, or maybe even get involved by volunteering and even coaching a community league or high school team. These sorts of things will continue moving that number incrementally higher on that scale.

Regarding a person’s Christianity, the analogy holds true. A person (but not most Americans, in our supposedly Christian nation,) starts out knowing nothing of Christ. We are perfectly lost at –7 with no knowledge and the curse of “original sin,” (that natural tendency to commit sinful acts that alienate us from God and an innate desire to drift away from God as we gravitate towards our own selfish ambition.) At a –6 we know a little bit about Jesus and at –1 we have heard the gospel message and are close to accepting the truth. Salvation is at point zero, the balance is tipping.

Ironically, it should be noted that powerhouse atheists such as Richard Dawkins are also living at that same tipping point. Possessing a great deal of “head-knowledge” about God, they are just a decimal of a few thousandths of a place on the negative side of 0. But they have hard hearts that refuse to make any more progress. Ultimately, the believer is a guide to that person on his journey of belief. We cannot force Brett to move any closer to 0; only he can do that with us showing the way and encouraging.

Evangelism methods of the past typically geared everything towards that 0 intersection. I honestly believe that the power of the cross is absolutely necessary and vital, but we cannot overwhelm people before they are ready. We cannot, only minutes after telling him about football, start talking about coaching techniques or offensive formations or linebacker blitzing patterns. They don’t even know that the ball is oblong at this point or the scoring system. We need to keep in mind that this is a progressive issue. Some people might want to hear about the coaching earlier than others, and some converts are ready before others to hear about the Romans Road, 4 Spiritual Points, the Sinners Prayer, etc.

Previous methods that Christians employed to witness to their peers included events like music concerts or gatherings. In these settings, they usually sought to exclude everything worldly (no secular music or music styles… we all know how that devil beat will corrupt any good message and prevent a Christian message from being heard) and everything we did centered on suddenly jerking that –5 level nonbeliever all the way to 0. We make emotional appeals, manipulate, and scare them, whatever it takes to put another notch on our Jesus belt. Often, though, the convert is resentful or has a hard time coping with their decision because they were led to believe (because one drawback of that old technique is that it alludes to this,) that just making that decision to jump to 0, to pray the sinner’s prayer, will suddenly make all their problems disappear.

In my world, evangelism simply means moving a person’s commitment on that scale any increment closer to the positive side. It may be a small move, but it’s a step in the right direction. An event may feature no alter call, there might not even be Christian music or a Christian theme; it may be just a couple of guys hanging out and the nonbeliever gets a hint through body language, conversation or even just temperament that his Christian friends’ faith is relevant. That, to me, is a successful evangelism event.

As Christians we need to reflect on this in terms that we can also relate to. We need to understand this concept of relationship evangelism. It is effective; nearly everybody that receives Christ did so because a friend led him or her to the Lord—that relationship came first. Evangelists account for the minority of salvations… their track record for discipleship/retention is also much worse than that of a person with a relationship foundation.

Do the eternal lives of others mean so little to us that we are willing to adamantly stand by a mode that statistics prove less effective than it’s contemporary counterpart? Are we that unwilling to reach out to our world by building bridges. In college missions work, a Chi Alpha slogan asks us “Do you have room for one more friend?” I don’t think anyone can say that there is no more room.

Think about this. We unload our brains upon the uneducated, pour out all the football knowledge that we know, give them the reasons to get involved and make that sport a part of their life. How successful is that to someone who’s never seen a real game? That knowledge means very little to a person who has never sat on the sidelines and never heard the roar of the crowd nor felt the joy of the game. Get involved.

And now for something completely different... theYP!

a new worship song for this month:
Your Plan

Politeness vs. Necessity

2009-05-11T09:40:00.004-05:00

you can get the video version of this blog here:
http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=2dde2db9d420d4668531

When did being a Christian mean that you have to be a nice guy all the time? I understand the importance of love (I’ve been speaking about love a lot lately,) and because people hear me talk about it all the time, they just have to ask me the big question: “Pastor Chris, why are you such a jerk, then?”

If that’s the case, I apologize. You all remember Jim Varney’s character Ernest P. Worell? Like he used to do a skit about, sometimes I too don’t always know when to quit. Humor is pretty subjective and sometimes things don’t always come out as funny as intended. Also, as I’ve often said in the past, some people have purposely executed their sense of humor (for some reason, a portion of the Church believes comedy is sinful—I believe Jesus will put that part back into em when they get a glorified body.) Sometimes, we need to give correction or be honest, and in those cases, many people view criticism as an attack.

When people fall under criticism, they have been taught by our egocentric culture to view that as an attack; our post-modern culture (the idea of moral relativism, i.e. there is no absolute truth) has taught them to immediately suspect anyone offering correction and see them as a type of bully. I think that we can trace much of this back to the advent of the participation ribbon.

No longer does winning mean anything in America. There is no such thing as a winner or loser, only a group of competitors who feel good about themselves. I remember when this thing all started: I was in an elementary wrestling program. I wasn’t terrible, but I wasn’t very good at it either. I remember leaving one such competition with a big ribbon that looked suspiciously like a 1st place ribbon and driving home with my dad, riding in his big pickup. I wanted to throw that stupid thing out the window; I knew that the participation ribbon was supposed to make everyone feel like a winner, but it seemed to mock me for not being good enough, like a red badge of courage that reminded me of my failure on the mat. I still have it; that ribbon is one of the worst memories I have of my collective sports experiences.

Here’s the rub, when people participate in something, regardless of that what that pursuit is, they always seem to think that they excel at it. You know it’s true. Watch the first few episodes of any American Idol season and you will see contestants who think that they are amazing despite causing hearing loss and oratory bleeding in their audience. We have been so focused on self esteem these last few decades that we have a whole generation of people who have zero skills (but think they do) yet feel great about themselves. As one of my youth group kids would say, “they pretty much suck at life.” It’s the truth, and this generation is starting to come out of college now (which has been dumbed down since the bell curve has flattened) and real life smacks em in the face. They can’t hardly believe employers aren’t lining up to hire them with six or seven digit salary packages.

I have discovered that people don’t really want to know the truth; they love the comfortable lie. Folks would rather hear anything other than the truth. Generally, when people ask for advice, they don’t want to hear what you think—they want you to validate them, reinforce what they already believe. This is especially true when it comes to artists, as I’ve come to see as a writer involved in various projects with others.

In one such project, I was working with a visual artist who showed me his sketchbook. He had gotten me really excited about working with him and I’d gotten pretty pumped with my creative juices flowing… but everything inside his sketchbook was sub par work. The situation eventually got volatile (mainly because the artist flipped out on me, even threatening my families lives—he’d lost his grip on reality) so I never had to come to that impasse and tell him that his work wasn’t up to par.

So what do you do when that particularly rotund gal asks you, “Does this make me look fat?” Nobody wants to break the bad news to someone; nobody wants to be a dream killer. We do have an obligation to speak the truth with love, but sometimes situations get so delicate that we can’t help hurt someone. Proverbs 27:5 says “Better is open rebuke than love that is concealed.”

We need to be honest and forthright with people, even it means killing a few dreams along the way. If it was my goal and dream to be a premiere sculpture artist, chiseling marble down into shapes, but wasn’t any good, that would be noticeable. If my friends and family told me how good my misshapen, cracked, and mangled stone figures were, I’d begin to delude myself and never perfect my craft. Excellence would always elude me; that doesn’t do me any favors. Say I had a real skill will working with children or animals, that skill might never get developed since I am spending my time working with stone in a craft that I will never rise to prominence in.

Self-esteem has become so all-important that it is on the verge of trumping even the law. For a while, some school curriculum has placed a higher value on making students feel good than teaching right or wrong, a tricky issue when it comes to mathematics; two plus two is whatever you feel it should be since there is no wrong answer. In the political realm, President Obama will give a lifetime Supreme Court justice appointment. He made it clear that he will appoint someone who can relate to the feelings of the common man. The line is being skirted here; the emotions of charged criminals are going to be given greater weight than the law of the land. We’ve already killed moral truth; lawful justice is in the crosshairs; we can thank the self-esteem junkies and emotional psychology gurus of the past for this next step towards total anarchy.

Of course, we do live in the real world, too. I am not giving carte blanche to act like a jerk; I am merely stating that we need to get better at doing this truth thing. If we can’t get a handle on this, I don’t see how we can ever conquer the idea of moral relativism. And conquering that beast is perhaps the most important thing that the church can accomplish in this generation… before all hope is lost.

This Month's Worship song:

and now for something completley different... theYP!

you can get the video version of this blog here:
http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=2dde2db9d420d4668531

I Love Owning Slaves?

2009-04-16T12:37:00.001-05:00

So I was listening to some prominent Christian activists speaking today and I thought it a shame that we even have to use a caveat for our speech. I’ve played this broken record before, I know, but liberals are so quick to attack and have a habit of going about it the same way (because it’s so effective… ironically, they twist what is good, which is how Satan operates.) The speaker said “I love our country; I love America’s history and heritage.”

I don’t know when it happened, but making that statement has become politically dangerous. The speaker had to backup and clarify saying, “Please understand that I know it has had some dark days in the past, but I’m not talking about those, I don’t love those specific things.” I understand why he said it, but am ashamed that he had to. I’ve seen people verbally attacked saying that we love slavery and McCarthyism and racist acts and hate Europe, Mexico, and the ability for anyone but white males to vote. It’s idiotic, but somewhere along the way, we lost the ability to express general love for our country.

For so long, Liberals have enjoyed twisting our vernacular and redefining our terms. Recently, Pro-Life has become a term to actually describe pro-abortion and Pro-Family has come to mean (in some circles) that one is in favor of homosexuals marrying. How long can this wreck of ambiguity continue? As long as people remain idiotic, is my opinion. Redefining the terms is a common argument to try tricking people and eventually winning a debate or argument, it’s been going on a long time (with the obvious example being the disparity between the parties of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life; those terms are not equal in measure and weight. Equal terms would be Pro-Life and Pro-Death, but liberal spin-doctors twisted their definition to be known as Pro-Choice because Death is such a dirty word.)

That speaker got me thinking, ya know, I love America’s slave trading days. Yeah, I know. Here come the mobs with pitchforks and torches. Here’s the thing, America is in dire straits; before long, we may very well cease to exist (or at least I might, personally, as of yesterday my views on the validity of the Christian religion, the Word of God, the direction of our politics, and my general worldview have all firmly placed a label of “possible domestic terrorist” upon me. That’s right, I’m about launch an all-out prayer assault on you and there is nothing more terrifying than being a sinner in the hands of an angry God.) So if America is gone, dead, can we love it then? My thoughts were of my children; if one of them died it would be tragic and I would give almost anything to relive some of life’s moments with them. I would even take one of those “dark days.” If my beloved were gone, even the worst of times would be a blessing to be relived retrospectively.

My fear is that this could be exactly the path we are headed for. Clean up your words; be specific and speak with wisdom, knowledge, and authority. And Lord, send us a Jeremiah!

Love and Underwear

2009-04-10T11:01:00.003-05:00

Love and Underwear

Remember Growing Pains? I can’t think of anyone in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties that doesn’t get the instant mental picture of Alan Thick and Kirk Cameron (or maybe Leonardo DiCaprio if you tuned in for those last couple seasons). How about Mike Seever’s best friend, Boner?

Boner was quite the character. While surfing Youtube recently I came across a Mr. Bean excerpt that reminded me of Boner. Someone accidentally swapped pants with Bean in the locker room and so the quasi-mute comic figure went in search of his missing trousers only to find them around the ankles of a man sitting in the WC (he recognized them because his name was written on the tag,) of course, hilarity ensued. The first time Mike Sever and Boner met I recall a joke about Boner’s real name being Dickie so that his mother wouldn’t have to sew his name onto all his underwear.

Yeah, underwear is funny. It’s something that most all of us wear, something that we put on. As a Christian, what else are we supposed to put on? We could run all through the armor of God, but I’m still stuck on underwear and the label aspect. For those two (Boner and Mr. Bean,) those labels where who they were known by; the curious could always check the tag to see just who this person was (that is, if you’re the sort of person to give a wedgie rather than just ask).

In the Bible, John was known as the disciple who Jesus loved. Coincidently, his Gospel has many passages discussing that topic. John 13:35 says (and this is Jesus speaking) “By this all men will know you are my disciples: that you have love for one another.” We are commanded to wear an outward sign of our allegiance to our savior. You instantly recognize a Muslim woman by her burquah, or a Jewish man by his yarmulke; Christians are directed to put on a garment of love that will be visible to the world.

I was discussing this topic with one of my youth/teen leaders as we drove for hours on end through the flooded out areas of North Dakota to visit a college (my Alma Mater: Trinity Bible College.) He told me a story that blew my mind and demonstrates this love in action. The previous youth pastor from a few years back had a pie auction fundraiser for a Speed the Light missions program. There were two pies that were being auctioned with the express purpose of being smashed into the youth pastor and senior pastors’ faces. Of course, those pies were the hot bidding item. The Youth pastor got pied and it was all in good humor. For Pastor Kyle, my senior pastor, the winning bid was over $200. The winner walked up with his pie, set it on the ground, and returned to his seat. “I paid for it and I can do whatever I want with it.” That blew me away (especially since I’m not really used to seeing acts of love exhibited within the church… I really love this church I am a part of, btw.)

Last night I concluded a three-week series covering 1 Corinthians 13. I’ve been focusing on this topic because I believe it’s pivotal that we, as the Body of Christ, make this the theme of our lives. It’s so important that we couch everything in love (as much as humanly possible).

The list in 1 Corinthians 13 gives us an explicit definition of love. In speaking to my group, I showed them a clip from Disney’s Sleeping Beauty. Maleficent has Prince Philip in chains and mocking him she makes a quote that could sum up most Disney movies (although she uses it mockingly,) “True love conquers all!”

Love is our trump; in the game Hearts, the heart (a symbol for love) always wins the hand. Ironically, you can write one of the characteristics of love from 1 Corinthians 13 on each of the heart cards in a standard deck, ending with “Love Never Fails” over the ace. That’s a great reminder for a gamer like me.

Love is the ultimate victor. Scripture tells us that God is love. So how true that statement really is! John 15:13 says “There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Christ laid down his life for us, something we are reminded of this Easter season. Jesus was all-powerful; he could have chosen to come down off of Calvary at any time, but he chose love: to lay it all down on our behalf. Such a feat demands a reaction. When someone says, “I love you,” what is your response? How, then do you react to Christ’s ultimate act of love?

and now for something completely different... theYP!

April's Worship Song:
Make Me New

I cheated this month. Make Me New is not original to me, but is one of my favorites and is not well known at all.

Rorschach’s Journal

2009-03-16T12:11:00.001-05:00

So, I recently went to se The Watchmen. As I die-hard comic book nerd, I felt it was my duty to see it, despite not reading the comic line in the past; the preview did really pull a heartstring, however, and so choosing to check the flick out wasn’t a hard decision, especially when the alternative was holding my wife’s purse while she hit the weekend JC Penny’s sale.

I’d heard some mixed reviews about the story because of its well-deserved R rating and graphic nature. The cinematography does a pretty good job of drawing the viewer in and setting up the stage, actually making it easy to overlook the harsh “sin-cityesque” nature of the world portrayed in Watchmen. The quasi-dystopian cold-war era alternate reality almost hits too close to home, and as a Christian, there were several things that I “liked” about the movie. I’m gonna dive in and give a review from a Christian standpoint. If you follow my Holy Schmitz! blog, what I am writing this for, you may be familiar with my belief in reaching out to the world on their own terms, on their own ground, to present nuggets of truth to them that are relevant and revealing moreso to them than to us.

As a caveat that I must give, the movie does include graphic violence and gore, nudity, and foul language. As another caveat, the movie is honest and thought provoking and accurately portrays humanity as wicked and depraved creatures. I don’t plan to outline the movie and summarize it, nor give spoiler warnings. I assume that you know about the film or won’t mind (after all-the basic storyline this movie was written around was released as a comic back in the eighties.) I don’t endorse the types of behaviors and overt worldliness portrayed in the film, I just want that clear. I’m not recommending to anybody that they see it, but if you are already inclined to watch it, here are some things that leapt out to me.

The figure that seems to come to the forefront is the sociopath vigilante hero named Rorschach. That is what everyone else calls him, anyway, a sociopath. There is no doubt, as the backstory unfolds that he is disturbed and has some mental issues, but who doesn’t. It’s important to note, also, that there is only one character in the movie that has any true “superpowers.” Everyone else is basically a vigilante leaning either towards a Batman complex or the Punisher.

Through the film, the cinematography lends towards seeing things often through Dr. Manhattan’s eyes. He has become godlike in his abilities and can do almost anything, and he has lost his humanity. While he still works for good, he is so detached from humanity that he no longer sees things in terms of right and wrong or sees people as having much value—we are all just pawns in a system…that is until he has an epiphany later in the film. The characters, as well as the tone of the movie, often asks serious questions about God and whether or not he exists and cares. Manhattan makes a comment to Silk Specter that him producing a miracle to save the planet from nuclear annihilation would be pointless, because miracles by their definition don’t really have any meaning. Through his romantic relationship with her over the years he has learned many things and one of them is how unlikely the chances are of certain events. When Manhattan reaches into her mind near the end of the film, he discovers that she is basically a miracle… the chances of her being conceived and born and taking the path that she walked through her life. This convinces Manhattan to intervene in the end and ties all of the storylines together despite the Quentin Tarantino-like story arc.

Back to Rorschach. Rorschach is violent and murderous, but with just cause. I found myself glued to his story. He sees things in terms of black and white. Rorschach has an epiphany birthed in rage as he tracks down a pedophile that has kidnapped a little girl. He discovers the girl’s panties in the incinerator and finds she has been chopped up and fed to the man’s dogs (the pedophile has a cabinet full of torture devices and meat cleavers). Rorschach had (like Batman) always left judgment up to the legal system up until this point. The pedophile denies it at first and then confesses to Rorschach, telling him that there’s nothing that can be done, he’s sick and needs help. Rorschach realizes at this point, that justice is no longer being done. It, too, has been so corrupted and something needs to be done—someone must stand up for what is moral and right and put the fear of punishment into the hearts of those that are evil. For a really great snippet of the inner workings of Rorschach’s mind and how he views the world (and quit accurately so, in my opinion) check out this youtube clip from the director of the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEpz3h9Pr0Q (it’s a pretty powerful monologue Rorschach gives here about the type of people our world is filled with.)

Rorschach is jaded, true. He is a double standard in some ways, but he strives to live a life without compromise. The son of a prostitute and product of a hard-knock life, he is virtually impervious to temptation. He is relentless in his moral mission and almost inhuman, now (although his humanity is touched on during his verbal exchange with Nightowl, his only “friend,” after Rorschach’s escape from prison.) Rorschach claims to his therapist that his humanity died on the day he murdered that pedophile; now, only Rorschach remains.

In the end of the film, when the grand joke is discovered (the intricate plot of a madman trying to reengineer the fate of mankind for their own good) Rorschach is still himself and refuses to bend—something must be done about him. The other heroes realize that they most throw in their lot with the madman, and the viewer does as well. The film does a great job of detaching the viewer from the personal issues of the public and forcing one to look at the big picture: that most of our population is composed of pawns in some planetwide game of powerful players.

The villain essentially frames Manhattan for obliterating New York City and killing millions. He shows the heroes who have cornered him in his secret Antarctic lair, that he did it for a greater good. Millions were murdered to prevent the death of billions with the cold war on the cusp of going nuclear. Everyone reluctantly agrees that the plan must remain intact. The main focus suddenly shifts to sacrifice. Dr. Manhattan, once looked to as the planets greatest hope has been vilified, he must be sacrificed for the greater good. Manhattan agrees (after all-he is so detached from his own humanity that he is willing to be sacrificed—though indestructible, he will simply roam the galaxy, which was already his inclination anyway.) Rorschach, however, refuses.

He reiterates that he cannot live a life of compromise. He will tell the world because he cannot keep this secret and be a part of this, if he does, he becomes a hypocrite and destroys everything he stands for—basically condemning himself by his own judgment. Rorschach begins to leave, saying that he will tell the world, basically challenging his friends to kill him. Again, another must be sacrificed for this global peace to foment as the planet rallies against Manhattan. This is a sacrifice he is willing to give, though. He knows the value of world peace, but cannot tolerate the self-condemnation for which he would undergo. The rest of the heroes remain inside as Rorschach storms outside into the snow, only to find Manhattan already there.

Dr. Manhattan knows what he must do. Rorschach takes off his mask--none of the other heroes had seen his face before (not that we are aware of), and he looks into Manhattan’s eyes yelling at him to do it. Manhattan has a rare moment of emotion and ultimately kills his comrade.

There are several issues that come to the forefront of practical Christian theology, the condition of man, our own self-indulgent inclination to destroy ourselves, and a heroes’ sacrifice are the most prevalent ones. There is a powerful theme in the movie, that all of this evil in existence is not the fault of God. The movie itself is agnostic, unsure if there is a God, but if there is, the condition of our hearts and the condition of humanity is our fault and not his. Here is one such quote, “It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us.”

All in all, it was a powerful piece, and while I don’t exactly endorse or ratify the film, if you happen to see it and take some time to digest the story (I saw it a few days ago, actually) you will have one more tool in your chest with which to relate to a lost world that desperately seeks after the light.