An Impoverished Gospel

When you think of someone as having been changed by Christ, what does this call to mind? In our self-centered, egocentric, the world-revolves-around-me culture, change almost always involves a reversal of financial status as indication that God has radically changed a person's life. Unfortunately, the evils of the prosperity Gospel are subtly and insidiously infiltrating every corner of Christendom, morphing the Gospel of repentance into a Gospel of success.

Consider this illustration from LifeWay's Spring 2007 Life Answers Sunday School quarterly:

In high school I had a friend named Brock. He was what we called back then a "motorhead." All Brock talked about was working on cars and dirt bikes. He would show up for school in grease-stained clothes, long unkempt hair, and usually was bumming money for lunch. His grades were poor and his wallet was poorer. If there had been a "most likely to be a failure" category in the yearbook, he would have won by unanimous vote.

I didn't see Brock again until our 20th class reunion. When I saw him, I couldn't believe my eyes. Standing before me was a successful businessman, straight out of GQ. His expensive suit and well-groomed appearance were such a departure from the last time I saw him that it was hard to believe. I learned later that he had started his own company, and it had assets above one million dollars.

At the very heart of the Gospel is the concept of change. When Jesus enters into your heart and begins changing you into His likeness, the change is so dramatic that the people around you can't help but say, "You're a different person." And this is how it should be. radical change can serve as a signpost to us that our experience with Christ is real and valid (p. 15).

OK, what was wrong with Brock? Why did he need to change? How does Brock serve as an illustration of radical change, a real and valid experience with Christ? He was bedraggled, poor, obviously didn't own a comb, and enjoyed tinkering on cars. This makes him a viable candidate not for the transforming power of the Gospel, but rather Extreme Makeover. The implication here is that being transformed into the likeness of Christ means you have a bulging wallet, a fat bank account, and you walk in the upper echelon of society. Evolving from welfare to faring well is the essence of the Gospel.

Perhaps I am nit-picking this Sunday School quarterly, but sowing seeds such as these can only bear bitter fruit. The prosperity message is the single greatest heresy plaguing American Christianity right now and such errant teaching should not even be entertained. Too many believers are led astray thinking that God wants them to prosper financially when the Word of God teaches purely contradictory to the prosperity message.

The prosperity teachings rob churches of their evangelistic effectiveness, squelches missionary endeavor, and mints shallow believers, believers more concerned with their wardrobes than the plight of the poor. I do not consider this a wholesale endorsement by LifeWay of the health and wealth teachings, but to sow the wind reaps a whirlwind. Taking baby steps like these can still move you in the general direction of disaster.

Because you say, "I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing, you do not know that you are wretched, miserable, blind, and naked." Revelation 3:17

The Importance of Death Ministry

Rural church ministry does not lend itself to much proactive ministry. However, one thing is certain; funerals are going to come. There is no greater opportunity for the rural church pastor to show love and care for his folks than during a death. At the church I serve, I have officiated at nearly thirty funerals and have attended twice that number.

Morbidity aside, death ministry is very significant, not just in the life of a rural church, but at any church. After having been at the current church I serve less than three weeks, I was called upon to do a funeral. The lady was slightly mentally deficient, lived in a nursing home, and only had a sister surviving her. However, probably half the church turned out for the funeral. Looking back, I know why.

Funerals are important in the life of the church and mean a great deal to God's people. A minister who handles a funeral and the ministry that follows well, cements his relationship with his people and opens significant opportunities to later serve.

People are especially open and vulnerable during the loss of a loved one. The heart is fertile soil, receptive to the Gospel and the love of Christ. One valuable lesson I have learned during death ministry is not necessarily what you say but that you are there. Presence means more than anything; it is more tangible than any words that could be spoken. Later, folks will remember and say something like, "Well, my pastor was there when my husband died."

Follow-up is also key. I tend to make personal contact every day for at least three days, depending on the severity of the situation. From that point, I go once a week for a month and then once a month after that. I know it sounds overly practical and I don't always follow that simple plan. I tend to see the family of a deceased loved one more than that!

I also mark in my calendar the date of death and then I visit the deceased's family on the anniversary of their loved one's death. I have always gotten looks of incredulity upon arrival because I make the visit unannounced. The individual will always be grieving that day; I have not seen otherwise. A special visit on that day ministers to that person's heart in ways you cannot imagine.

I am never in a hurry during death ministry. For the deceased's family, time is standing still. For just a few moments, the pastor's watch can stop. Stumbling in out of breath, disheveled, clumsy, and altogether "not with it" communicates to the family a grave lack of care and concern. Christ is our Rock, our Refuge and Strength, and for a brief few moments, the family needs their pastor to be the same. However, do not be afraid to cry along with your people. Remember, Jesus wept.

And prayer is of utmost importance. Always pray. Every opportunity God gives, take advantage of it and pray with the family. They will be looking for some modicum of comfort and the wise pastor reassures his church family that there is a balm in Gilead.

I also have key Scripture passages memorized. Not only does it make the funeral service itself easier but it also serves as a timely word of comfort to a grieving family. Psalms 23, 121:1-2, John 11:25-26, and 2 Corinthians 1:3-5 are all appropriate. Through Scripture, God's people hear the audible voice of God speaking joy, comfort, and encouragement to them. Through it they can be reminded that God is familiar with death yet He is the One that by His own power overcame it.

Oftentimes, life's most dreaded nightmares become harsh realities. Death always causes more questions to be raised than answered and we will never have all of the answers. But we do know the One who does.

More on the Sexualization of Our Kids

It is plain to see that the overt sexualization of our culture is having deleterious effects on our children. Clothing and doll manufacturers are psychologically damaging young girls encouraging them to readily identify with immorality, provocateur, and subject matters too mature for them to handle. The British newspaper, the Telegraph, has reported on how these products' marketing manipulates a child's desire to be loved and cared for and teaches them improper ways of dealing with those feelings.

A generation of very young girls is being psychologically damaged by inappropriate "sexy" clothing, toys and images in the media that are corrupting childhood, leading psychologists warn today.

They say marketing takes unfair advantage of children's desire for affection and the need to conform, leading to eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression.

Apart from clothing for five- and six-year-olds, with old-fashioned frilly frocks replaced by mini skirts, plunging necklines and sequined crop tops, the report specifically criticises "Bratz dolls".

These outsell Barbie dolls in Britain by two to one and come dressed in miniskirts, fishnet stockings and feather boas.

The Bratz manufacturers confess that they are aimed at sale toward pre-teen girls. To regular readers of The RP, there are no surprises that Disney has contributed to the problem. The Telegraph continues to report:

Disney's Little Mermaid or Pocahontas "which have more cleavage, fewer clothes and are depicted as sexier than characters of yesteryear" are also picked out.

Where is the church's voice in these matters? It is strange that the same parents who are ready to pounce on pedophiles and hormonal adolescent boys are the same parents sending their girls to school (and church) dressed like trollops, advertising something they are incapable of selling.

The Telegraph also ran a portion of an interview with Dr. Jean Kilbourne, co-author of a forthcoming book, So Sexy, So Soon, that addresses this direct link between cultural sexual imprinting and the rise in under-age sex.

Dr. Kilbourne told The Daily Telegraph: "You see these clothes everywhere, tight T-shirts for little girls saying 'so many boys, so little time', that sort of thing.

"Parents think it is clever but they cease to think that when their child becomes sexually active at 12. There is huge pressure on girls to look sexy and dress provocatively at a younger and younger age and boys are getting graphic sexualized messages. But parents can say 'no' and REFUSE TO BUY THIS STUFF [emphasis mine]."

(HT: Doug Phillips)

Dawkins' Dangerous Idea

Regular readers of The Rambling Prophet will know that I have been sloughing through The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. For some reason Dawkins has chosen God as his sworn enemy and has declared an all-out war on faith; and not just Christianity but faiths of all stripes. Whether you are Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, Muslim, or you rub sticks together chanting while you sit cross-legged on a rock, you are on Dawkins' radar.

His book serves as a piece of atheistic evangelism, encouraging atheists and all would-be atheists to come out of the closet and be unashamed of their true colors. Dawkins' problem however is that he is a great scientist; but a poor philosopher. This is proven true in a recent refutation of the book by Alvin Plantinga, brilliant philosopher from the University of Notre Dame. Dr. Plantinga does an amazing job of showing how Professor Dawkins misses the real points of his own arguments.

Dr. Dawkins' primary problem, his delusion if you will, is his a priori commitment to naturalism. As Dr. Plantinga observes:

The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.

Often throughout the course of the book, Dr. Dawkins resorts to ridicule and vitriol without seriously addressing some of the major claims of Christianity (even though he asserts his primary beef is not with the Christian God). This is the sign of a poor argument, that one cannot seriously rebut, only mock and ridicule. At times I have found his smart-aleck, "I'm brilliant and I know it" tone quite annoying. As Dr. Plantinga concludes:

The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a "delusion."

The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.

Perhaps this is why Dr. Dawkins can claim only one convert to his religion. On page 117, his apparent affection for Douglas Adams, deceased author, is admirable and he refers to him as "possibly his only convert." Prayerfully, it will be his last.

Church Discipline in Jamestown

My family and I, along with our homeschool group, spent this past Friday in Jamestown, VA, the first permanent American colony, settled in 1607. Our tour guides were outstanding though I did feel the Powahatan Indian culture was treated a bit too stereotypical, but it was an elementary school-age tour. Going aboard the replica of the Susan Constant was a highlight of the trip and it was very difficult to see how 71 men and boys made it across the Atlantic without going insane.

In the Jamestown village was one interesting feature, at least to me, and that was the meeting house. Church services were required every day of the early settlers' lives. They were to attend twice a day every day and three times on Sunday. If you were to miss a church service, you lost your food ration for the day. If you were to miss a second service, you lost your food ration plus you were whipped with a cat of nine tails. Miss a third service and you were executed.

One in the tour group asked the burning question, "Was anyone executed for not going to church?" The guide answered that historical records did not show that anyone was. Such punishments, or at least the threatening of them, were not uncommon for that era's churches, but it raised a question in my mind. Has the pendulum swung in the opposite direction? The moral laxity and unregenerancy of the church of this era calls for a reclamation of a robust understanding of church discipline, a teaching practically abandoned by most modern, and especially Baptist, churches. Perhaps we should not return to execution or scourging, or even threatening it, but at least practice what the Scripture says about church discipline.

When Philosophy and Science Collide

Not to long ago, I was in a discussion with Streak about the nature of science and its interconnectivity with philosophy, particularly that of origins. It is possible to teach science in a controlled environment and for philosophies about the origin of life to never come up. However, it is unlikely that the subject will never come up and when a student's philosophy collides with his or her view on science, what should happen? Either one should be intellectually honest and confess that one believes in a young earth, holds to creation, etc. or one could simply hide that fact from one's professors and mentors.

Just because a person studies theories that differ from a creationist standpoint does not make that student an automatic proponent of it. A creationist professor can teach theories that differ from his own perspective and vice versa. That is simply scientific faithfulness. However, what if one's beliefs collide with what a scientific institution purports and a student receives a degree that blatantly contradicts deeply held philosophical beliefs? From BP:

Typically, a scientist must follow the guidelines of secular science if he wants to earn an advanced degree in the field from a reputable university. So when Marcus Ross wrote a dissertation to finish a Ph.D. in geosciences from the University of Rhode Island, he had to work within a conventional scientific framework.

Even though he wrote that the earth is more than 65 million years old, he doesn’t really believe it. Ross is a young earth creationist who believes in the Genesis account of creation and is certain the earth is no more than 10,000 years old [emphasis mine].

The New York Times article, Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules, 12 February 2007, justifies Dr. Ross' actions by "separating paradigms" and that Ross' dates are "entirely appropriate."

“For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one ‘paradigm’ for studying the past, and Scripture is another,” The Times reported. “In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, ‘that I am separating the different paradigms.’”

The aforementioned quotation illustrates the tension. Can (or should) the paradigms be separated? Should one publish a work that contradicts his deeply held religious beliefs and then use those same credentials to gain employment? Dr. Ross teaches earth sciences from a creationist perspective at Liberty University.

IT'S A BOY!!!!!

Mere words cannot express the joy and excitement in my heart. As most of my blog friends and regular readers know, I am the proud daddy of four little girls, ages nine, six, four, and two. My wife is expecting our fifth child and we were pleased to discover today, my wife being nineteen weeks and five days, that we are expecting our first BOY! Notice in the picture to the left that he is waving to us and might be giving us the thumbs up; "Every thing's OK in here. How are you all out there?" Notice the little guy looks just like me, doesn't he? Wait...everybody in the blogosphere thinks I look like a car...

Imagine that, I am going to have a son! We have to go buy all new clothes, not to mention that I need to buy fishing poles (a priority), baseball gloves, balls, and bats, and I need to put a .22 rifle away. Or maybe a 20 gauge. And a chocolate lab. Matchbox cars. I need Matchbox cars! And Tonka trucks...a football, and there is this great trebuchet in the Vision Forum catalog I can now get with adequate justification..."Honey, our son needs that trebuchet!!!"

I enjoy playing baby dolls, having tea parties ["I am Mrs. Nesbitt! Tell me I look good in the hat!" (Blog satisfaction to who can name that movie quote!)], and Little People. Now it will be cowboys, army men, tanks, and mud. It's a boy! And in the picture below, you have a shot of the proof, that infamous turtle every daddy looks and hopes for in the ultrasound room! Its been "Big Macs" the last four times, but there you have it!

Miracle Baby Amillia Sonja Taylor

Amillia Sonja Taylor was born at one day under twenty-two weeks, the shortest known gestation period for a live human birth. Born at less than ten ounces and roughly the length of a ball point pen, she was born by C-section. Given little chance to live, Amillia amazed doctors when mom and dad, Eddie and Sonja Taylor took her home Thursday, February 22.

She was delivered early due to complications her mother was experiencing and MSNBC reports that:

...if doctors had known Amillia’s real gestational age, they might not have intervened. He said he thought she was at least 23 weeks, and doctors were shocked when the Taylor's fertility specialist pinpointed the exact date of fertilization.

Her gestational period was first pinpointed at twenty-three weeks, but after specialists examined her they more accurately judged her gestation at twenty-one weeks and six days. The typical legal limit for an abortion is twenty-four weeks and this has put abortion in the spotlight. Thanks to advancements in medical care and neonatology, Amillia is the youngest baby to survive such an early delivery.

This has prompted a debate among medical doctors on the viability of a baby at twenty-two weeks. Normal deliveries take place between 37-40 weeks. Amillia went home healthy at 4 1/2 pounds and 15 1/2 inches spending four months, nearly the remainder of her gestation, in the neonatal intensive care unit.

The laws will not change without a lengthy debate, but the evidence is irrefutable; a baby at less than the legal limit for an abortion is thriving now, healthy, and at home. Should therefore, the laws be changed in light of this miracle baby? Follow the MSNBC link to see pictures of Amillia at birth and on the day she went home.

(HT: Doug Phillips)

Evangelism in a Static Community

Modern notions of evangelism do not endear themselves to rural church ministry. I had considered titling this post "Door-to-Door Don't Work" but decided against it. Not only is it grammatically incorrect but I thought it would send the wrong idea. Metropolitan churches tend to use door-to-door methods and they work admirably. However, in the sticks where people do not live in subdivisions enabling you to reach out your kitchen window to your neighbor's to borrow a cup of sugar, evangelism is a lot more relational.

Emphatically though, door-to-door does work in certain contexts. It has worked to a certain degree here even though the community is essentially static. I can count on one hand how many families have moved into this community in the last five years. The prospect list therefore is not very long and so evangelism is not very proactive.

Evangelism in a rural community takes place a lot less dramatically than on the front door step having just shared a full-bore Gospel presentation. Of all the folks I have led to Christ in this ministry, none of them were folks I didn't already know to some extent. They made a commitment to Christ while sitting on the tailgate of a pickup, leaning on a post-hole digger, across the dinner table, or at the front of the sanctuary.

Evangelism to rural folks is borne of relationship. Intentional evangelism has its place and I use that method when appropriate. The cultivation of relationships is key, having spent long hours in people's homes, at the country store, and even lending a hand chopping wood. These attain an audience more easily than just the entitlement of knocking on a door.

Most of the folks in the community I serve have lived here all their lives. Transfer growth is therefore virtually non-existent. Moreover, most rural churches are territorial. Once, I proposed at a fellowship meal to some key people that I wanted to start doing more intentional evangelism and that I would like to see our church reach all the folks within a five to seven mile radius of the steeple.

"We can't do that," was the immediate reply. It was not because they were afraid to tell other folks about the love of Christ but because if we followed through with a five to seven plan we would encroach upon another church's "territory." Territorialism is indicative of the mutual concern and care that rural folks tend to have over one another, often absent in metropolitan areas.

The fear of anything that might threaten that community is a hurdle to evangelism and a wise minister will not attempt to overcome that community but rather work with it. Community is what the church is to foster; why not use the existing structure and build upon it?

Farmers help other farmers at harvest; people give generously when others are going through a crisis; businesses are supported faithfully because they are local, not because they have competitive prices. Anything that builds community is welcomed and that which threatens it is fiercely opposed. So to be effective in outreach, being a part of the community is an absolute essential.

Glen Daman in his useful book, Shepherding the Small Church, quotes Steve Bierly:

The small church has a bad reputation for being "against growth" because it balks at plans coming out of the church growth movement. But smaller congregations have been unfairly labeled. It's not that they are against growth; its that they are against changing characteristics that make them unique. Small congregations aren't opposed to bringing men and women to Christ, but they are opposed to becoming mega-churches. They don't want to be asked to become something they are not.

Evangelism in a small community is difficult and often bears little fruit. Focusing only upon results fosters discouragement and amotivation. But one must focus not on temporal fruit, but rather the fruit that remains. And that makes laboring in this vineyard worth it.

Pastor Steals WHOLE Church

(Post updated.)

I have heard of stealing sheep, but the whole church? This is ridiculous.

For nearly a decade, members of Ripon's [CA] First Congregational Church bared their souls to Pastor Randall Radic. But clearly it didn't work both ways. There were certain things he wasn't telling them.

That became obvious a year ago, when Radic pleaded guilty to betraying his flock and secretly selling the church and its rectory out from under them. He used the money to buy himself a brand-new black BMW and a laptop...

[...]

"This is a town with a lot of faith," said Navid Fardanesh, president of the Ripon Chamber of Commerce. "People had a lot of trust in him, and unfortunately he took advantage of the situation."

First, Radic faked documents giving him possession of the parsonage, and used the property to take out about $200,000 in personal loans, prosecutors said. Then he forged papers saying he had the power to sell the church, and sold it to a couple for $525,000.

I do not know what to find most extraordinary...this pastor's bravado; the naivety of the couple who bought the property; or the fact that the new pastor lives in a motor home. You can read the whole AP report here.

(HT: Ken Fields)

How do Rural Church Folks Spell Love?

T-I-M-E.

A new blog friend and frequent commenter, Heather, posed a question in the comment thread in my last post. I think it deserves attention. She simply asked, I'd enjoy hearing hear about how you lead your people to be a loving church (or how the Lord is guiding you in that direction)!

One simple caveat: the things I do, I do not not prescribe as normative for every ministry. The things that I do, though very simple, are what work in the context of ministry in which I serve.

Once while preaching on parenting I talked about spending time with my children. I made the point that my children really do not care what I do with them, just as long as I spend a long time doing it. Once is never enough with them, and to quote my father-in-law, if once is good, fifty times has to be better.

I discovered that principle in ministry to rural church folks as well. While studying in seminary, the pastoral ministry professor taught a lot of simple principles. These were inculcated and erroneously filed away as normative. Don't sit on the bed when making hospital visits; visit, and give the impression that you will stay a while, but only stay a few minutes; follow-up once on sick and surgery patients; never give a gift to a church member.

Many of these principles were taught in the interest of good time management. However, life moves a lot slower in the hay fields of Virginia. I discovered that visitation is important. Granted, it gets tiresome and there is only so much visiting I can do before I tire of it and I am ready to do more proactive ministry.

Yet, when handled appropriately, visitation can be proactive. Most folks, especially the aged, enjoy a visit from their pastor. When I go, I plan on staying at least an hour; I stay longer yet I visit less. Relationships are not built in a few moments but over time. How do you get to know somebody you do not talk to? So, to leave after only a few minutes is seen as an insult; the visit is interpreted as condescending patronization.

Therefore, I try to take advantage of the time. A good pastor friend calls these kinds of visits "tea and crumpet" visits; but I see the inherent value in them. I turn the visit to spiritual discussions. I ask simple, probing questions, such as, "What has God been teaching you lately? Has any passage of Scripture stuck in your mind recently? How can I pray for you and your family?" These questions always lead to sharing about family struggles and perfect opportunities for discipleship. It leads the discussion to biblical solutions for problems, examples to uphold and prescribe, and sometimes, revealing of sin.

These days time is a precious commodity. In these days when communications are instantaneous, drive-thru windows are the norm, what's new is hot, and the old is not quite so good anymore, there remains a place for visitation. Relationships have eternal consequences and most of the time, the fruits of those visits are not seen. Time and time again, I have proven Jim Elliff's words true. In the article I referenced last post, The Rural Church Dilemma, he says of the lack of "visibility" in rural church ministry:

Remember that you are entirely unaware of the impact of your ministry. For instance, you may teach older adults without much visible impact. But one of them, perhaps a grandparent of an unconverted child, may receive stimulus from your ministry that makes her a true witness to her grandchild. Her witness, prompted by your stimulus and instruction, may be the very thing God uses to bring that child to Him. She may not even be aware of her impact. In fact, it may not come to bear until after she has passed on. The grandchild, in time, may one day marry a believer and raise up children who also become believers in another part of America. Do you really know what that will mean in terms of eternity? Do you know what it means in terms of generations of believers? What if, three generations down the line, one of the Christians in this line is instrumental in the evangelization of an unreached tribal group? Did you see that when you taught that grandparent on a sleepy Sunday morning? Likely not. Don't forget that Jesus said, "I will build my church." The time you taught that grandparent might be far more instrumental in the building of the universal church than ten years of ministry in some large city church with all its innovations and activities. You cannot know how God will work for sure, yet you can be confident that it would be a total surprise to you how significant your labors are. Therefore, "sow in hope."

This is what I do; I "sow in hope." Serving a church with a regular attendance of about 85, I thankfully know a little bit about every person in our church. Mega-church pastors, even mid-sized church pastors, cannot say that.

More posts on this topic forthcoming...

Love and the Rural Church

I am pastor of a mid-sized rural church. We are literally about six miles from a gallon of milk and often the ministry can be pretty lonely. I found this article, The Rural Church Dilemma, by teacher and writer Jim Elliff to be especially encouraging. This is a helpful quote about how rural churches can be very loving churches.

Be energized by the concept that your church could become the most loving church in the world. I find this compelling. There will be many things your church may not be. It may not be the most educated church or the most innovative church, or the most evangelistic church, etc., but it can be the most loving church. There is nothing to stop that from happening except your lack of determination and/or the will of the people. Love, after all, is the sign of maturity as a church. Now, if you are seeing this, you will find ways to encourage love. This will mean that you will work out ways for people to be in your home, and in the home of the other church members. You will think of ways to get people to really know the insides of each other. Sheep need help to overcome their reserved nature. They will need to be commended for acts of love, just as Paul often did. You will need to set the pace and demonstrate a passionate love for the people. Dream about this. And, my experience is (and the Bible's teaching is) that this is a powerful way to witness. The love of the people of God for each other is, as Francis Schaeffer said, "the final apologetic."

Commitment: Part of the Problem?

To commit to something means to devote oneself or pledge oneself to the doing of a certain thing. When that term is used it often expresses a desire on the part of the one making the commitment to stand firm for that commitment.

How often Christians use that term to express their relationship to God; "I am a committed Christian." However, in our culture of laxity and drive-thru lifestyles, commitments are often too easily abandoned. If something that is more attractive presents itself, we readily turn our backs on that prior commitment and then commit ourselves to the doing of that other thing.

Commitments are typically made with a few caveats. I commit as long as it does not interfere with soccer practice on Tuesday evenings; I commit as long as it does not cause me to do serious introspection; I commit as long as I can be arbiter of how long the commitment lasts; I commit as long as situations and circumstances do not change; I commit as long as this thing to which I commit brings accolades and lauds of praise; I commit insofar as it does not put me out; I commit as long as it is convenient.

I am persuaded that the Bible really does not teach commitment, at least not our American idealistic understanding of it. Consider:

Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let Him deny Himself, take up His cross, and follow Me." Matthew 16:24

Christ was not calling for commitments. He was calling for absolute surrender. Surrender is purely antithetical in our rugged individualistic lifestyles, our DIY mentalities; yet surrender is exactly what Christ calls for. A commitment presupposes that you can question the thing to which you have made the commitment. Christ demands unflinching obedience.

When Christ said to His disciples that they must take up their crosses, they were not woefully ignorant of what He was asking of them. They had witnessed too many crucifixions for that. They understood that He was calling them to a life of unwavering obedience and absolute surrender to His will for their lives. If He called them to die, then so be it. And they were to find joy in it.

How easily we check out when the going gets tough. We commit to give God our all but when something less than appealing jumps in the way, we head for the hills, checking out on that commitment. Church not going the way you like it, the way you think it ought to? There is another one down the street. That relationship struggling? Go elsewhere. Mentoring that baby Christian not as easy as you thought? The fledgling ministry floundering? Obedience to those commands just too tough? Pastor, do you have your resume in your inside coat pocket?

Perhaps part of the problem is commitment and perhaps it is derived from the fact that commitments are not typically kept. Perhaps it is that one commitment leads to another commitment which leads to over-commitment and then the weary, overzealous Christian flames out underneath the burden of keeping all these commitments. These things are not a sign that one's life is surrendered to the lordship and authority of Christ.

Here is an idea: tell them "no" and then see what happens.

Christ did not commit Himself to the cross. He was surrendered to it. His Father's will is what held sway over Him; not some mealy-mouthed commitment. That is why He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, "Lord, not My will, but Your will be done." As long as Christians remain committed and not surrendered, their lives will bear little or no spiritual fruit. Surrender is what produces the fruit that remains.

Commitments do not carry you through the tough times. Commitments weigh you down even further, like a millstone around the neck. But to be surrendered to the Lordship of Christ even the difficult times bring joy because you then completely understand that this thing (you fill in the blank) can be worked out for your good. Surrender also gives you the faith to stand firm even if that thing does not work out for your good.

Consider that Sunday School favorite, the story of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. They refused to bow down to an image of gold. They answered and said to King Nebuchadnezzar,

"We have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us form the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up." Daniel 3:17-18

Commitment just says "but." Surrender says "but if not."

Snake Handlin' Done Right

What do you do with a sixteen foot anaconda? You kill it!

At least that is what sixty-six year old Joaquim Pereira of Brazil did when he found the snake wrapped around his eight year old grandson, Mateus. Mateus was playing with friends near a creek on his grandfather's ranch in Cosmorana. Joaquim bludgeoned the constrictor for half an hour until he released his hold on the boy, finally killing the monster snake. Normally very afraid of humans because they kill the large creatures on sight, they will attack the unwary. Follow the link to see pictures.

Wow. And I was aggravated the other night because I had to put out a mouse trap.

(HT: Doug Phillips, via CNN World)

Cinderella: Greeting Card Trollop

Do you pay particular attention to items that are for sale that are targeted toward children?

Today, my family and I were in WalMart (I know, I know). We were searching for the latest flimsy cardboard cutouts that they might give them to their friends next Wednesday in the name of Valentine cheer. As I perused the seasonal aisle of Valentine's flotsam, I began to notice a trend among several of the boxed sets of cards.

The boys' cards were what you would expect; Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Superman, Spiderman, and Pirates of the Carribean, your standard testosterone inducing fare. However, many of the girls' cards were along the same level. They were hormone inducing, but not for the same reasons as the boys' cards.

The girls' selections were comprised of notably, Disney Princesses, such as Cinderella, Ariel (The Little Mermaid), and Belle (Beauty and the Beast). Tinkerbell of Peter Pan had her own box and then there were the Bratz; radical, pre-adolescent change agents.

The Disney characters were noticeably different from what I remember from my childhood and adolescent years as well as recent family viewing. Cinderella was not what these cards portrayed her to be. In the film, she was innocent, virtuous, chaste; an unspoiled maiden, the envy of her wicked stepsisters. Cinderella was not the trollop brazenly and voluptuously brandished across those children's boxed sets of Valentine's Day cards.

Without being overly descriptive, Cinderella was posing in such a way to betray her "best" features; a hand provocatively slung back on her hip; slyly leaning forward in a much bustier dress than she wore in the classic movie; all accompanied by a mischievous "come hither" look. The Tinkerbell cards were much worse, some of her poses offering a soft porn flavor.

The departure from the childlike innocence of the original movies to parallel the erotic love often associated with Valentine's Day is especially troublesome, particularly on a child's set of cards to be handed out to other children. This is not the same Cinderella that scolded Bruno the dog for dreaming that he was chasing Lucifer the cat; "That's bad!" Cinderella insisted.

Cinderella would also say "that's bad" to how a slick greeting card company turned her sweet, chaste demeanor into provocateur rather than further dignifying her as the patient lady in waiting that she most assuredly was; not to mention the simple fact that the cards are aimed at sale to children.

The message that this sends to young girls is obvious; chastity, propriety, and modesty are no longer virtues. It may not be implicit on the face of each and every little card, but the seeds of impropriety and immodesty are being sown and they cannot be denied nor overlooked.

Cinderella is the wrong character to impose this kind of licentiousness upon. Tinkerbell might have been crafty, sneaky and even downright mean; but Cinderella? The Bratz seem to have been created for the express purpose of instilling sexuality and a mall mentality in the minds of young girls before the age of nine, but Cinderella? The extrapolation is sickening.

Why contort Cinderella? Why defame her good nature, undermine her humility and ridicule her femme sole? She could easily be the poster-girl for chastity and purity. I know the answers to my questions. If it can be instilled in the minds of girls at a young age that sexy, provocative dress, sly backward glances, and flirtatious body language "works" and gets them what they want, then why not start early? Its what boys look for and what they expect, isn't it? Cinderella was communicating the way girls ought to look and act, and chaste is not it.

Nevertheless, my girls did not notice Frankenrella. Thankfully, they were more interested in the barnyard animal, Care Bears, and bug-eyed house pet cards.

Just How Biblical is the Sinner's Prayer?

This post is essentially thinking out loud about something I have been pondering for a while. I thought by posting this I could get some feedback and evaluate my thoughts. Someone may have already addressed this adequately. I hope I am not splitting hairs too finely, but here goes...

When I came to Christ as a teenager, I prayed a prayer similar to what you find in most Gospel tracts:

"Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I am sinful and I need your forgiveness. I believe that You died to pay the penalty for my sin. I want to turn from my sin nature and follow You instead. I invite You to come into my life. In Jesus' name. Amen." Steps to Peace with God, Billy Graham

I know that countless others have prayed this prayer to initiate their life with Christ. On the surface, the prayer seems theological enough--there is acknowledgment of need, confession of sin, the substitutionary nature of Christ's death, and repentance, all biblically necessary for receiving salvation.

However, is there anywhere in the Bible that someone prays for their initial salvation? I don't think so. I do not want to say that if an apparently Scriptural practice, if it is not chapter and verse, that it is immediately unbiblical. There are a lot of modern constructs used in Christian life and practice that though they do not have a biblical precedent it does not make the usage of them sinful. Nevertheless, there is no notion of a sinner's prayer in the Scriptures.

God has outlined the plan of salvation clearly in the Scriptures. And from that plan, there is no mention of prayer being a prerequisite. The plan goes like this:

1. Hear the Gospel message (John 5:24, Acts 15:7, Romans 10:14).
2. Believe in Jesus as the resurrected Son of God (John 3:16-18, 11:25-26, Romans 10:9).
3. Repent of sin (Matthew 3:2, Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30).
4. Confess Christ before others (Mark 8:38, Romans 10:9).
5. Be baptized as an outward testimony and as an act of obedience (Matthew 3:13-15, Acts 9:18, 16:33).
6. Live faithfully and steadfast as a Christian (Matthew 10:22, Hebrews 3:6, 14).
   

Of all the conversions recorded in the New Testament, there is no witness to any kind of prayer to receive salvation. There are nine conversions in the book of Acts alone and all follow this plan.

1. 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41)
2. Simon and the Samaritans (Acts 8:9-12)
3. The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-39)
4. Saul/Paul (Acts 9:1-19 & Acts 22:3-16)
5. Cornelius’ Household (Acts 10:44-48)
6. Lydia (Acts 16:11-15)
7. The Philippian Jailer (Acts 16:16-34)
8. The Corinthians (Acts 18:1-8)
9. The Ephesians (Acts 19:1-7)

There are also the conversions recorded in the Gospels (for example, Nicodemus, the woman at the well, the Gadarene demoniac, Zaccheus) where similar patterns are evident, though they do not follow the pattern from the book of Acts.

What I am not trying to do is impose a rigid rule upon the salvation experience, for each person's experience coming to Christ is different. However, it seems that a pattern can be discerned from Scripture that is noticeably devoid of prayer of any kind. I do not think prayer as a matter of course cannot be part of the initial saving process. The concern raised in my mind is what the usage of the sinner's prayer has done to discipleship. Has the church overemphasized the usage of the prayer to the effect that it has the opposite effect on maturity?

The prayer seems to truncate the primary Christian discipline of discipleship as well as the most noticeable indicator of salvation; that one continues in the faith. I have served in church long enough to garner enough empirical evidence to see that those who have prayed the sinner's prayer, if it is not solidified with discipleship, the prayer then becomes an end unto itself. The sinner has then staked his eternal soul not on the merit of Christ, but a tenuous prayer.

The sinner's prayer, often used as a substitute for the dirty work of discipleship, can even be prayed again if one does not "feel" saved, purely contrary to the Scriptural teaching on salvation.

So, just how biblical is the sinner's prayer?

Quote of the Day

"Christianity is neither creed nor ceremonial, but a life vitally connected to a loving Christ."

- Josiah Strong, 19th century preacher

Albert Einstein, A/theist

The faith of Albert Einstein is a conundrum indeed, and in the course of reading, two contradictory views have come to my attention, both of which offer opinions as to his faith. Often in the course of an argument, assertions will be made about a certain historical figure's faith or lack thereof to build a case for faith. Einstein's faith is one that has been grappled with through several writers' works and there is no dearth of opinion on what stripe Einstein was. Was he a theist or an atheist? Susan Wise Bauer, in The Well-Trained Mind, and Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, hold conflicting opinions about Einstein's faith, yet both use his faith, or lack thereof, to support their views.

To be fair, Mrs. Bauer does not claim Einstein was a Christian, but a theist, that he believed in one God, with more of a penchant toward deism than a personal, relational God. Einstein believed, Mrs. Bauer implies, essentially in a cosmic clockmaker, who wound the clock, and then left it to run down on its own with no outside intervention. She says in a chapter ironically about religious fallacies,

Don't ignore the faith of many of the West's greatest scientists. The theism of scientists and mathematicians, from Pascal to Einstein, deeply affected their professional and intellectual pursuits (p.416).

Mr. Dawkins however, asserts that the claims for Einstein's "faith" are based on faulty extrapolations from primary sources and that proponents of faith "cherry-pick" quotations to support the hypothesis that Einstein was a man of faith (whatever that "faith" was). Mr. Dawkins says this on Einstein's faith:

There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic (p.18).

Pantheism, Dawkins aptly demonstrates, is merely (in his words) sexed-up atheism. He goes on to argue that Einstein, like Stephen Hawking, used the word 'God' in a purely poetic or metaphorical sense and that all scientists are sometimes guilty of slipping into the language of religious metaphor, though he wishes that scientists would refrain from using the word 'God' at all. Because of Einstein's use of religious language only as descriptive, Dawkins' conclusion is that Einstein was an atheist.

Nevertheless, one thing is certain, and that is that Albert Einstein was of course a brilliant man, contributing much to the scientific field. Whether or not his religion or lack of it had anything to do with his intellectual pursuits is not clearly known. Einstein was like any other man, a recipient of God's common grace, the grace bestowed upon all to be and to do all that God has appointed him or her to be, even apart from saving grace. Dawkins would vehemently disagree with that statement and would contend that Einstein was a product of his own design and machinations, but alas, I am not an atheist.

Homeschooling Quote from Susan Wise Bauer

Tangential to several discussions hosted on this blog and elsewhere in the blogosphere, I came across this quote reading today. I thought some might benefit from it.

In the effort to offend none, the public schools have managed to offend practically everyone--either by leaving religion and ethics out of curricula altogether or by teaching them in a way that satisfies neither believers nor skeptics. In sympathy, we'll say that the public schools are in an impossible situation. They are legally bound to avoid the appearance of promoting one religion over another. And in a mixed classroom, how can you take one religion seriously without antagonizing those who don't share it? The inevitable result is summed up by a character in P. D. James's mystery Original Sin:

"There were a dozen different religions among the children at Ancroft Comprehensive. We seemed always to be celebrating some kind of feast or ceremony. Usually it required making a noise and dressing up. The official line was that all religions were equally important. I must say that the result was to leave me with the conviction that they were equally unimportant."

When you're teaching your own child, you have two tasks with regard to religion: to teach your own convictions with honesty and diligence and to study the ways in which other faiths have changed the human landscape.

Mrs. Bauer's comments are balanced and fair. She does not treat each and every faith as valid pathways to the same God. Neither does she promote neglecting (or avoiding altogether) teaching about other faiths. What she does affirm is that our children should know how to respond to those of differing faiths and convictions and how to address them with grace and humility. That cannot be done if we know little to nothing about other faiths and convictions.

Also, she does not ignore the simple fact that people of faith have influenced history at every turn and to avoid the study of religion and ethics is catastrophic. Until a student is able to soberly and comprehensively address the influence various faiths have had on the history of humanity, his study will be woefully incomplete.

Source: The Well-Trained Mind, by Susan Wise Bauer, p.414.

Valentine's Day at LifeWay: Love Like Jesus

Back during the Christmas season, I wrote a post about the apparent silliness of LifeWay's "pray while you shop" campaign. Leave it up to LifeWay to outdo themselves, and outdo themselves they have. For all you over-enamored, starry-eyed, twitterpated lovebirds, you can go to LifeWay and learn to love like Jesus! The link takes you to LifeWay Store's main page with a second link that will take you to peruse the online catalog of their new "Love Like Jesus" line of novelty gifts (just in time for Valentine's Day). You can get the Love Like Jesus embroidered pillow. Or the Love Like Jesus divided heart tray (no irony here). Or the Love Like Jesus tote bag. Maybe your darling heart would like the Love Like Jesus plush bear with a photo holder.

LifeWay is promoting the new line of gifts with Jesus' words from John 13:34, "Love one another;" of course, that is LifeWay-ese for "come go shopping." To take one of the most profound, life-altering statements Christ ever made and turn it into a selling point is deplorable. I shudder to think that this is what Jesus really meant when he said those words, especially the context in which He said them.

After He had just denigrated Himself to that of a foot-washer, acknowledged who His betrayer was and loved Him anyway, and knowing that He was only a few heartbeats from the ignominy of the cross, He gave each one of His disciples a little memento of His coming: a heart-shaped coffee-mug with a matching coaster. Jesus' timeless message to His disciples, us included: Go shopping.

Oh, and sorry to let the cat out of the bag, but I thought I would give you the dirt on LifeWay's upcoming selections. For the doctor in your family, there will be the Heal Like Jesus set of medical equipment, replete with a Heal Like Jesus examining kit. For the teacher, the Teach Like Jesus chalk and board set. For a modest price, you can get a Sermon on the Mount or Sea of Galilee backdrop. For the prayer warrior in your family, you will certainly want the Pray Like Jesus prayer shawl, mat, and knee-pads. And for the lawyer, the Litigate Like Jesus matching coat, tie, vest, slacks, and cummerbund.

I think I need a good dose of Pepto-Bismol for the soul.

Insight from an Atheist

Religion as free enterprise?

Dr. Richard Dawkins, noted atheist claims so. Currently I am in the midst of his book, The God Delusion, and am immensely enjoying it. Though Dawkins has assuredly declared a war on faith of any stripe, there is significant insight contained in this tome, even though you must sift through his jaded sarcasm and biting British wit.

...the religiosity of America stems paradoxically from the secularism of its constitution. Precisely because America is legally secular, religion has become free enterprise. Rival churches compete for congregations--not least for fat tithes that they bring--and the competition is waged with all the hard-sell techniques of the marketplace. What works for soap flakes works for God, and the result is something approaching religious mania among today's less educated classes. In England, by contrast, religion under the aegis of the established church has become little more than a social pastime, scarcely recognizable as religious at all.

This quote also broaches another topic that came up in the comment thread of my last post, and that is of historical revisionism. Revisionism takes place essentially when a historical fact does not necessarily line up with your supposed worldview and then the meaning of those facts are changed to suit your purported belief

In the aforementioned quotation, Dr. Dawkins patently asserts that the founding fathers of America were secularists, yet Drs. Dobson and Falwell, and many others representing the religious right, would assert that America was founded on Christian principles. Who then is correct? That would be my question of the hour.

Yet Another Reason...

...to consider homeschooling your children.

Homeschooling is a priority in our home is because our children are precious gifts from God. They are my responsibility; not anyone else's, especially not the government. Yet the government would like to think that children are just pieces of property to be farmed out to the highest bidder. Bob Allen, writer for EthicsDaily.com, quotes a Stanford professor's criticism of the homeschooling endeavor in this January 16th article:

Stanford Professor Robert Reich said he is skeptical of studies showing homeschooling to be superior, because most are based on research done by homeschool advocacy groups. He also argued the state has an interest in knowing its children grow up to be well-rounded citizens [emphasis mine].

Say what, Dr. Reich? Where did I ever get the funny idea that my children belong to me? And besides, if well-rounded citizens is the best the state can do, I think I'll just keep them, thank you very much. And if you think pro-government educators like Dr. Reich do not feel threatened by homeschooling, think again:

"If parents can control every aspect of the kids' education, shield them from exposure to things that the parents deem sinful or objectionable, screen in only things which accord with their convictions, and not allow them exposure to the world of democracy, well the children grow up then basically in the own image of their parents, servile to their own parents' beliefs," he said.

It is very naive of Dr. Reich to make a statement like this, because I, a stalwart homeschooler, agree with him. Really, this is not a criticism of homeschooling, but simply a straw man Dr. Reich has constructed. Are not the government schools' agendas mirror images of what he criticizes homeschoolers of doing? Do they not intend to shelter "their" kids from what they deem objectionable, a firm faith in God? Do they not intend to have "their" kids grow up in "their" own image, servile to the efforts of the state?

Could I get a little clarity in here?

My wife and I have been criticized by well-meaning public school teachers on numerous occasions. My response has always been a trite maxim, "The proof is in the pudding." If homeschooling was turning out weak-minded, blathering brats unable to articulate a coherent, complete sentence, I could understand his hypersensitivity. Nevertheless, homeschooled children typically outperform their public schooled neighbors in every area.

And are not state standardized tests tailored so as to get the best possible results, yet government schooled children still do undeniably worse on standardized tests than homeschooled children? If there is a testing bias, it is certainly on behalf of government schooled children. This is the marked difference between homeschooled and government schooled children and why homeschooled kids out perform their government schooled friends: homeschooled kids learn; government school kids are educated.

Dr. Reich, I love my children, enough to give them my very best. That I intend to do, until I no longer have breath. And no, neither you nor the state can have them.

Scriptures I Won't be Preaching From Sunday

"I take my text," Charles Spurgeon said, "and make a beeline to the cross." Somehow I think with the following Scripture passages, that beeline might not be quite so straight. What do you think?

• Genesis 38:1-10
• Exodus 4:24-26
• Leviticus 18:19
• Deuteronomy 21:18-21
• Judges 11:30-35
• Song of Solomon 4:5
• Mark 14:51-52

Are there any you might add?

This is Unconscionable

A Connecticut toymaker has manufactured and is now distributing an action figure of Saddam Hussein, deposed dictator of Iraq, dangling from the end of a rope. I refuse to place a picture of the toy on my blog that is so very wittily being publicized as the "Dope on a Rope." The toy smacks of misplaced values and an abuse of capitalism.

This is not the first such undertaking for this toymaker, who claims the toys are essentially novelties targeted at adults. They have marketed more than 100 satirical figures, including Tony Blair as an Action Man in combat fatigues, George Bush as a superhero, and Michael Jackson holding a baby over a balcony.

This further confirms my suspicion that in America, everything is for sale. If you can make a buck off of it, then go for it. Morals or simply good taste and common courtesy are not issues for some. Some in America may make a mockery of Saddam, but his ghost will taint history much more so than his actual life. FOX News ran this blurb laden with false humility:

“Of course, it’s not gonna be received well by everyone," the company's president, Emil Vicale, said on Monday in a phone interview with FOX News.

I have said before, Saddam was a bad man; he probably deserved to die. Nevertheless, he should not be the butt of sick jokes. Even though he does represent all America stands opposed to, at least allow the man some dignity in his death. The situation in Iraq is much too grim to turn their deposed leader into a laughingstock. Not now; not ever. It is regrettable in America that no one even blinks when a man's death is used to make a dollar. This is capitalism at its finest.

You can click here if you want to see a picture of this sordid little curiosity.

A Pertinent Question

Are we missing the point? Raborn out at Ray's X-Change asks and answers a tough question that I myself have been arguing for a couple of months now here on my blog. His post reads off the hip yet hits the mark dead-on. Here is a brief snippet to whet your appetite:

While much of the thrust of the contemporary church is on understanding, mentally assenting to and defending the right doctrinal positions, the thrust of Jesus' ministry (both then and now) seems to be more focused on helping and healing hurting people.

[...]

At times, we have interpreted the phrase "and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" to mean "don't cuss, don't drink, don't chew and don't run with those who do". But, could it be that not allowing ourselves to be polluted by the world rather means refusing to play the worlds game of "loving those who love you", and instead choosing to give to those who can't give back and choosing to love those who would even be considered our enemies? Have we really bought into the pollution of the world while seemingly refusing to give into it?

Parts of his post read similarly to an article I have been pondering before I bailed on it and decided to go in a different direction, plus the contested post I published a few days ago on the Christian intellectual did not really garner the feedback I had anticipated, which Raborn's post strangely answers that question; the one implicit in my post from January 2. I quote myself from that same post:

We have invested so much time in determining what the Bible says we have accomplished this to the exclusion of how to respond to what it says. There are many out there who know what the Bible says. However, evangelicals are woefully inadequate at extrapolating what God expects out of us from that same text.

Can we get beyond this detriment as the Body of Christ, cease allowing Hollywood superstars to fill the obvious void left by the church, and as Raborn says, begin being Jesus to hurting people? Or are we missing the point?

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also, faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:14-17

Ugh!! He Got Me!

Or, I've been tagged! This is a first for me, so it should be relatively painless. Its not often somebody wants to get to know you better, so brother Steve, thanks for tagging me! The game goes kind of like this...I have to answer "Five(ish) Things I'd Like to Know about You." Hey Steve, do I get any lifelines; phone a blogger, ask the blogosphere, 50/50??? ;)

OK, here goes...

0) What’s your name and website URL? (optional, of course)

Hope the questions aren't this hard all the way through! My name is Tony, and my blog is http://ramblingprophet.blogspot.com. If you are wondering about the name, I wrote a whole 'nother post addressing that issue, if you're interested!

1) What’s the most fun work you’ve ever done, and why? (two sentences max)

Only two sentences? You will probably think I'm crazy, but I worked at a little restaurant called Our Daily Bread on the SEBTS campus; I was chief cook and bottle washer. What made it so great was the man I worked for; Brian Lasure. We had a synergy that got work done, pleased the clientele, and we had fun doing it. I sit at the Huddle House and sometimes wish I could jump back there and cook!

2) A. Name one thing you did in the past that you no longer do but wish you did? (one sentence max)
B. Name one thing you’ve always wanted to do but keep putting it off? (one sentence max)

A. Sigh...exercise regularly. (Steve, I don't think I like this game anymore!) I used to play racquetball, basketball, and golf frequently; now, well...anybody care to hear my excuses? Anyone? I didn't think so.

B. Learn to play a musical instrument (piano, guitar) and I REALLY want to go back to school.

3) A. What two things would you most like to learn or be better at, and why? (two sentences max)
B. If you could take a class/workshop/apprentice from anyone in the world living or dead, who would it be and what would you hope to learn? (two more sentences, max)

A. I would like to learn to be a great daddy. I have four children, expecting number five (I know, all those loud sounds I just heard are all of my readers falling out of their chairs.) and they are the most precious gifts God has given me, besides my wonderful wife. And, golf! I just love a good game of "pasture pool."

B. Oh boy...I know the real spiritual answer would be to talk with Jesus, but I'll do that in heaven, so, golfing lessons from Payne Stewart, philosophy from Francis Schaeffer, cooking from Alton Brown, and flying lessons from Superman (my favorite superhero).

4) A. What three words might your best friends or family use to describe you?
B. Now list two more words you wish described you…

A. Organized, tender-hearted (my wife suggested this one), and helpful.

B. Handyman (helpful does not imply this) and laid back. I can't fix anything and oh yeah, my wife suggested handyman, too. Sigh.

5) What are your top three passions? (can be current or past, work, hobbies, or causes– three sentences max)

They are my family (ESPECIALLY my young'uns), ministry, and learning.

6) Write–and answer–one more question that YOU would ask someone (with answer in three sentences max)

Wow! This is a toughie.

Are you where God wants you to be in your life right now? My answer: Yes and no! I know beyond the shadow of a doubt I am where God has called me to ministry. However, my life is not where He wants me personally. How can I be a better disciple, minister, husband, daddy, student, friend, etc.?

[Bonus: What is one question you wish people would ask themselves?]

Am I treating this person the way I would like to be treated?

Now, if I understand this little game correctly, I am supposed to tag a few others for this. OK, here is a shout-out to:

My new blog friend at Along the Shore, Geoff Baggett; Cameron Cloud at Nephos; Jill, the HeadMistress at Homeschrewling, and Heather at Barefoot in the Garden. If you are interested, do your own post and leave a comment here so we can get to know one another better!

Thanks Steve! It was nice to do a "not so serious" post.

Blessings to all!

Go to the House of the Rechabites

In Jeremiah 35 is the telling story of God's command to Jeremiah to go and see obedience modeled. The Judeans, whom Jeremiah had been ministering to for many years, were poor examples of what obeying God meant. However, the Rechabites modeled godly behavior better than the Judeans, and they were God's chosen children. I saw a parallel in this CNN news blurb, Muslim congressman seeks out critic on House floor:

On his first day in Congress, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, the first Muslim elected to Congress, finally met the Republican who criticized him for his decision to use the Koran at his ceremonial swearing in.

Ellison asked another Democratic member to introduce him to Rep Virgil Goode, R-Virgina, who spoke out against Ellison in a letter to constituents last month. Ellison told CNN that he approached Goode on the House floor and the brief meeting went well.

"I shook his hand and he shook mine. We greeted each other." Ellison asked Goode to grab a cup of coffee with him soon and Goode accepted.

Asked if he was felt singled out as the first Muslim member, Ellison said no and added, "By reaching out to Congressman Goode I'm not trying to be accepted, I'm trying to build bridges. In this world there are too many misunderstandings. I want to put a human face on things."

There has been much said about Congressman Goode's behavior toward Ellison, which his behavior was marked with bigotry, prejudice, and a thin veneer of "patriotism." My prayer is that Congressman Ellison's outstretched hand spoke to Congressman Goode in a way that shows Goode Christianity modeled better by a non Christian. Too often Christianity has to take its cues from outsiders. "Go to the house of the Rechabites, speak to them, and bring them into the house of the Lord..." Jeremiah 35:2

(HT: Street Prophets)

Differing Perspectives on the Death of Saddam

A January 2nd Baptist Press article, Debate over Hussein execution extends beyond Iraq, into capital punishment, while adequately treating the execution of Saddam Hussein, offered several different perspectives that showed a very interesting progression of thought throughout the article, culminating in a dogmatic assertion by a Southern Baptist ethics professor. I find it shameworthy that all the other faith traditions consulted in this journalistic enterprise displayed a modicum of grace and mercy toward the doomed dictator; with the notable exception of Southern Baptists. A few excerpts, beginning with a Catholic statement:

Cardinal Renato Martino, Pope Benedict XVI's lead clergyman on justice-related issues, said Hussein's execution punished a “crime with another crime.”

“The death penalty is not a natural death. And no one can give death, not even the state,” Martino said.

The Vatican's press office also issued a more lengthy statement, condemning the execution as “tragic.”

A second excerpt, from the Anglicans, represented by the Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury:

He told BBC radio that Hussein deserved punishment, but not the death penalty. “I think he deserves punishment and sharp and unequivocal punishment.... But I would say of him what I have to say about anyone who has committed even the most appalling crimes in this country, that I believe the death penalty effectively says there is no room for change and repentance,” Williams said.

And now for the Southern Baptist take on the issue:

But a Southern Baptist ethicist told Baptist Press that the Iraqi people had the right to execute Hussein with a process governed by the rule of law. “Romans 13, where the Apostle Paul wrote that God has instituted human government to restrain evil, allows for capital punishment. And Paul was writing this about a government hostile to Christianity,” said Craig Mitchell, professor of Christian ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas.

“God has given the state the authority and power to carry out punishment,” Mitchell said. “He has given them the sword. You don't spread butter with the sword. The sword is used to kill. This execution was something that was long overdue. Saddam Hussein did deserve a trial. The rule of law did have to be carried out. And while we shouldn't rejoice that a man is dead, we should rejoice that justice was served for the Iraqi people who suffered under Saddam Hussein's boot for nearly three decades.”

And finally, a quote from Dr. Richard Land:

“Simple justice demanded Saddam Hussein be found guilty by his countrymen and executed in the manner that befits such a war criminal, by hanging rather than a firing squad,” Land said. “The justice that demanded his execution, however, was cheapened by the less-than-dignified manner in which the execution was carried out.”

The Southern Baptist response really troubles me, especially Dr. Mitchell's intellectual arrogance. Every work I have read about Romans 13, commentary and otherwise, carries with it some weight of intellectual honesty, that the sword could also be deemed a deterrent as well as a killing weapon but Dr. Mitchell has dogmatically and unequivocally declared that the sword is an executioner's weapon. I mean, you don't spread butter with that thing.

Dr. Land's blood lust also carries with it a very troubling sentiment; that Hussein rightly died by the hangman's noose instead of the more quick, painless, less violent method of death by firing squad. I am not saying that Hussein did not deserve to die but I am saying that this should give us a few moment's pause before jumping to so many conclusions.

Land noted that “despots around the world who are so dismissive of other human beings lives will now have to now take into account the fact that there is the very real possibility that they will be held accountable for their crimes against humanity and also will be dealt with justly and swiftly.”

Yes, Dr. Land, but not everyone shares your opinion. This from Robert Fisk of the London Independent, via Covenant News:

At first, those who suffered from Saddam's cruelty will welcome his execution. Hundreds wanted to pull the hangman's lever. So will many other Kurds and Shia outside Iraq welcome his end. But they - and millions of other Muslims - will remember how he was informed of his death sentence at the dawn of the Eid al-Adha feast, which recalls the would-be sacrifice by Abraham, of his son, a commemoration which even the ghastly Saddam cynically used to celebrate by releasing prisoners from his jails. "Handed over to the Iraqi authorities," he may have been before his death. But his execution will go down - correctly - as an American affair and time will add its false but lasting gloss to all this - that the West destroyed an Arab leader who no longer obeyed his orders from Washington, that, for all his wrongdoing (and this will be the terrible get-out for Arab historians, this shaving away of his crimes) Saddam died a "martyr" to the will of the new "Crusaders".

Tragically, this reveals much of who we are. I am no ecumenist, but Samuel Kobia of the world council of churches adequately summed up how we ought to feel.

"We pray that those who hold power in Iraq now and in the future will create a new heritage of government for its people," said the Rev. Dr. Samuel Kobia. "May Iraq’s leaders pursue reconciliation and mutual respect among all its communities."

"While holding a leader responsible for his crimes is significant," Kobia said, "each taking of a person’s life is a part of a larger tragedy and nowhere is this more apparent than in a land of daily killings."

Where are the Christian Intellectuals?

Having been in the blogosphere for a little while now, I have come across an interesting trend. Engaging in discussion with many evangelicals is roughly akin to getting hit in the head with a brick. Sound argument, reason, and thorough discussion often are jettisoned in place of (insert sarcasm here) a favorite argument of mine, which is absolutely a conversation stopper; "The Bible says what it means and means what it says."

Don't misunderstand; I am a conservative evangelical. I believe the Bible to be inspired by God, completely sufficient, and (gasp) inerrant. Nevertheless, an unintended consequence of the battle for the Bible is a dearth of modern Christian literature. We have invested so much time in determining what the Bible says we have accomplished this to the exclusion of how to respond to what it says. There are many out there who know what the Bible says. However, evangelicals are woefully inadequate at extrapolating what God expects out of us from that same text.

Often, I hear that the Bible is simple. Is it? Conservatives often use this maxim as an intellectual scapegoat. Wed this idea to the equally disturbing notion that the "Bible is all you need" (another fretful argument) and it culminates in a shallow intellectual tradition. Why proclaim that the Bible is simple when it says of itself that it is not?

"However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:6-8

No matter your opinion, this faith is an incredibly complex one. Turning it into a simplistic easy reader has invited men such as Bono to step into the obvious vacuum unfulfilled by deep Christian thinkers. Blog friend Streak said this in a month-old post on the same subject:

Simple was the way to avoid tradition, training, intellectual rigor, etc. No need for "book learning" and all you needed was a lay preacher who could read the Bible. Wow, that has really served us well, hasn't it? Given us slavery, segregation, anti-feminist rants, capitalism masked as faith, and even a cottage industry eschatology that has spurred a horrible foreign policy.

Sir Isaac Newton made an important discovery in the 18th century. He noticed that a beam of white sunlight, passing through a glass prism could be split into its constituent colors--red, orange, yellow, blue, indigo, and violet. The prism did not impose those colors on the white light; it allowed them to be discerned. What had beforehand been taken to be a simple color--white--was indeed a menagerie of different colors; a complex unity.

The same is true of Christian theology; the message of the cross is a unity; but it is a complex unity. To dissolve it down to some simplistic drivel is an insult to the mighty God who gave it; a failure to pursue God with all one's mind is to be disobedient to the very Scripture some claim to be so simple.

Jesus said to him, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." Matthew 22:37

The church should not fear raising up intellectuals the likes of Francis Shaeffer, Dietrich Boenhoffer, Helmut Thielicke, and C. S. Lewis. Christians have become insular in their faith--so much so that we do not even read outside of our own tight circle anymore; we settle for some thin aesthetic and call it theology. We chuckle at the shallowness of the mavericks of Christian publishing; Lucado, LaHaye, and upstart Osteen. (Don't get me started on Warren.) Yet, these are what are flying off the shelves at the local Christian bookstore.

Do pastors even ask why? Has our preaching and teaching so mirrored these mavericks that we have unconsciously adopted their style because its what sells? Should we always put the cookies on the bottom shelf, so to speak? I am persuaded differently. God's people are hungry. Who will feed them? Pastor, if you are reading, do not be afraid to use big words. Teach them to the people you serve; cease teaching monosyllabic, watered-down Sunday School lessons about Noah and the ark, David and Goliath, and Joshua and that big wall.

Dan Edelen out at Cerulean Sanctum is blogging an interesting series right now which was the inspiration for this post. In Busting Myths about Christianity, Dan says this:

So whither the Christian intellectual? Do any still exist?

Say what we will about history, but it's loaded with Christians (and people who mentally assented to Christianity) who drove the arts, philosophy, literature, and science—and in large numbers.

But what happened to them all? Where did they go? Sure, you see a Plantinga here, and a…uh, hmm. I'm not coming up with any names for contemporary Christian lit authors. Artists? Nope—no one comes to mind. In fact, I suspect that most Christians, even if their lives depended on it, couldn't name one contemporary Christian intellectual or artist.

Are we so bereft today that all we can remember are those great Christian intellectual luminaries of the past? Christianity nurtured Western civilization into being, yet in the 21st century we Christians gave it all away.

[...]

That this ignores most of the rest of Scripture, and also makes a fine distorted case for tearing all the wisdom books out of the Bible, eludes far too many people. In the end, Christianity never calls anyone to turn off his mind. To insist it does only results in the kind of brain-dead emotionalism that leads to error. Hoisting godly wisdom by its own petard makes the Church look vacant in the cranium.

And unfortunately, that is how the conservative, evangelical church looks--vacant in the cranium; sinfully inadequate at addressing some of the world's most distressing needs. The Christian world needs some deep Christian thinkers to help her comprehensively address such world needs as poverty, the AIDS pandemic, the environment, and greed. Right now the Christian response is...well, is there one? So, to continue on the present course, proves Dr. Alister McGrath's words in his book about Christian myths, Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths, perfectly true.

Christianity is not a verbal religion; it is experiential. It centers on a transformative encounter of the believer with the risen Christ. From the standpoint of Christian theology, however, that experience comes before the words that generate, evoke, and inform it. Christianity is Christ-centered, not book centered; if it appears to be book-centered it is because it is through the words of Scripture that the believer encounters and feeds upon Jesus Christ. Scripture is a means, not an end; a channel, not what is channeled.

I would by no means consider myself an intellectual, but I am trying desperately to get a foothold in the vastness of this God. Ultimately, the solution does not rest in finding the right words for the most accurate persuasion, but just real, honest-to-goodness, believers in Jesus, convinced that God can and does work in and through them to accomplish His great purposes, and then putting that argument to work. Change will come indeed.