Your spiritual life is important. Not many people in America get that, but what happens in your spiritual life – how you grow, are feed, are protected, and reach appropriate states of maturity – is a big part of who you ought to be. It is a testimony to our own culture’s spiritual bankruptcy that we think of “spirituality” as an add-on to our lives. We *have* to earn a living, take care of our bodies, and watch “24” or “Lost” – but attending to the needs of our soul as it relates to the Creator is a peripheral matter. I don’t believe I’m exaggerating when I say that ninety percent or more of the membership (where even that occurs) of a typical church care more for their automobiles than they do for their eternal souls. Just look at their credit card statements and checkbooks.
We make two mistakes. The first is that we think that we are “good enough.” We like to think we have a ‘good bead’ on our lives and our spiritual condition. I recently did an analysis of an evangelical church’s survey on its health. The results indicated that members of the church believed themselves to understand the Bible very well. Yet, that same survey indicated that, even if they knew how, the majority of the membership would not share their faith with an unbeliever. I’m sorry, friends, but if you think that you know the Bible but don’t know the importance of sharing the gospel – you are deluding yourself. This church, in its mass delusion, thinks they know the Bible “good enough.” Yet, the survey result clearly shows they don’t know the Bible at all. Maybe they are “into the Bible,” but they have not allowed the Bible to get into them. The disease of “good enough” means that a person doesn’t believe they need help.
The second mistake is that even if we recognize that we are not where we should be, we don’t think anyone else can be of real help in our growth. We have bought into the self-help movement so much that we apply it to our spiritual lives even when the Bible is absolutely crystal clear that spiritual life and growth must be done in relationship with other believers. We think we can go it alone and solve our own problems. This leads to a general disrespect for the pastorate. Pastors are specifically trained, gifted, and called to be “physicians of the soul.” But we would rather self-medicate.
My closing: let’s take our life with Jesus seriously enough to understand that we are not “good enough” and to battle our pride to let those around us help us get better.
20070417
20070331
How I Stay Informed
Blogger.com has done a great service for us by making blogging pretty easy. Almost "Blogging For Dummies" (yes, the book has been written: http://www.amazon.com/Blogging-Dummies-Computer-Tech/dp/0471770841/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8271523-2379241?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175356720&sr=8-1). One feature I thought interesting was "favorite movies" and "favorite music." It's good to get a read on the blogger by seeing their interests and pop-culture preferences, and then have that context to evaluate the posting.
I thought I'd share my favorite magazines and periodicals.
Newsmagazine: "The Economist" - when I can afford it. When I first heard of it, I thought it was a egg-headed periodical dedicated to the arcane world of economics. While the magazine (they call themselves a "newspaper" - must be a Brit thing) does cover economics, it is a general news mag. The things I like about The Economist are several:
I thought I'd share my favorite magazines and periodicals.
Newsmagazine: "The Economist" - when I can afford it. When I first heard of it, I thought it was a egg-headed periodical dedicated to the arcane world of economics. While the magazine (they call themselves a "newspaper" - must be a Brit thing) does cover economics, it is a general news mag. The things I like about The Economist are several:
- The perspective is broader than the typical "Time," "Newsweek," or "U.S. News & World Report." The Economist writes for people that aren't in the United States. As shallow as that is about me, I appreciate difference in perspective.
- The articles are uniformly very well written. There is a craftsmanship to journalism and my take is that they do that well.
- The editorial perspective: while socially liberal (not my cup of tea), they are economically conservative. At the same time they raz on Libertarians, they actually espouse what Libertarians want to be when they grow up. I get a refreshing dose of economic policy common sense that is both intelectually rigourous and humanely thoughtful. The Economist is a reliable source of world news.
Christian Development: I enjoy "Leadership" magazine. It speaks to my heart and mind about the stakes and blessings of Christian ministry. It is a rare priveledge to be able to serve Followers of Jesus in what we call "ministry." This magazine helps me appreciate that priveledge more. I resonate with the editorial heart of "Leadership," as well as its grounded pragmatism and innovation. I'm always challenged by every issue in my own heart, skills, and vision for ministry.
Cultural Engagement: I subscribe to an audio magazine, "Mars Hill Audio Journal." Once every two months, I get a CD of six to eight interviews with intellectual leaders speaking on Christianity's engagement with culture. Ken Meyers, formerly with National Public Radio, interviews authors on a variety of topics such as marketing to adolescents, C.S. Lewis, architecture, the Tolkien film trilogy, Muslim engagement with the non-Muslim world, poetry and literature, the nature of beauty in art, politics, et al. Meyers is a remarkable interviewer: well researched, engaged with his interviewees, and quite a mind himself.
As to pop-culture, I really enjoy the Relevant podcast: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/podcast.php . Christian perspective, very funny, and - well - I like it.
For general news, I usually get the headlines off of my Yahoo portal page. If the treatment isn't complete, then I can go deeper. Personally, I have taken a "short-term news fast:" I stay away from daily newspapers, T.V. news, and most local news. I find that several of my friends (who are news junkies) are the best source of keeping me informed with what's important: they act as my filters. In this "daily news fast," I find that my understanding of news events is more "trend" focused and helps me integrate the atomized events that are brought to my attention.
20070318
Evolution, Information, and Politics
Here's a sample of what seems to be a typical Evolutionist blog... http://healthvsmedicine.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html (starting with the August 3rd posting)
The person here fills their site with a variety of interesting scientific information. Yet, and here's the key thing, not much of that information actually speaks to the issue at hand. What is the issue at hand? Are all of those stupid, willfully ignorant, Bible-thumping, homophobic, %#@&! CHRISTIANS correct when they assert that "God created?"
First, please observe that these blogs don't direct their venom at anyone else but Christians: Jews whose scriptures teach a Divine Creator do not get any attention. Muslims, who teach a Divine Creator, never get a word. No; note well that in the U.S. and Europe it is the Christians who get the hate mail. Talk about ethnocentricity!
Please also notice the unspoken assertion in these comments. The real premise is this: evolution explains life so therefore God isn’t needed. This begs the question: why is it important to not need God? Why is it important to make an assertion that God needs not to exist? What is it in the minds of these folks that drives them to conclude that even the idea of God is bad? It certainly isn’t because the concept of God is intellectually repugnant – the history of great thinkers throughout all of our civilization (as well as others) show that the concept of God is vital to a rigorous intellectual life. So what's the deal?
Second, note that a lengthy, detailed, and coherent discussion of the science of cellular biology does not advance a whit the proposition that Darwinian evolution is true. Such information is useful, helpful, and good to know. But such information, as a tool, is as inappropriate to apply to the issue of "creation vs. evolution" as is the use of a pneumatic jack-hammer to the task of interpreting Shakespeare. It's not "Apples and Oranges," it's "Apples and Laws covering the settlement of bank drafts" - almost completely unrelated!
Let me restate: the 'evolutionary' evidence often purports to prove much more than it actually does. The question is, if I understand it properly, "What happened?" That - right there - is an historic query, not a scientific one. Here's where the typical "Evolutionist" gets off the tracks. The issue of what happened is one of history and must use historical processes to determine what actually was the truth of the matter at a certain place and time. The process of history actually makes use of legal reasoning rather than scientific reasoning. Why is scientific reasoning the inappropriate process? Because science, rightly understood, is the process of observation, hypothesis, and repeatable phenomena to prove the hypothesis. Even then, a right understanding of science always makes such conclusions tentative and speaks in terms of probability (Noam Chomsky states that, in fact, there's no such thing as scientific "proofs"). In any case, history is not amenable to the scientific method, if for no other reason, because there is no place for a repeatable experiment.
Do you want to prove that Julius Caesar wrote “The Gallic Wars?” You can’t perform an experiment on that because Caesar’s putative creation of a specific work is a one-time occurrence – it can’t be repeated.
When you are rightly doing science (as opposed to the quasi-religion of “scientism”), you are limited to repeatable phenomena. When you are doing history, you are generally restricted to one time occurrences.
Certainly, you can use science to bolster a historical hypothesis. And you can use history to add weight to a scientific hypothesis. But, and here’s the crux, you can’t use science alone to “prove” a historical event.
So what historical event are we talking about? The evolution or creation of homo sapiens.
Here’s what we are unable to do: we can not create humans as the theists claim that God did.
There’s the old joke: One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost." God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well. How about this? Let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!" But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure; no problem." and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!" (http://members.tripod.com/~TechBabe/dirt.html)
Here’s the even more damaging thing: scientists can not even create life. We aren’t even talking about critters, or even cells. Even the "building blocks" of life itself is beyond the grasp of human technology, engineering, and science. Not only that, but there is no real good theory of how life arose in the first place. Darwin’s “spontaneous generation” of life turned out to be an embarrassing dead-end.
The “prebiotic soup” (simple amino acids created in a laboratory flask) theory of life emergence are even more embarassing. Those were the experiments based on the work of Oparin and Haldane and then Urey and Miller and turned out to be one of the most notorious frauds of science. They had no proof that earth’s early atmosphere contained ammonia, methane, and hydrogen (the basis of the “successful experiment”), but there is considerable research to show that the earth’s early atmosphere contained great amounts of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen – remarkably inert chemicals. When the infamous “flask of life” was created in the laboratory from ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and a sparkplug (for which there is no evidence those conditions ever existed) – those conditions were stacked in advance to get the results desired: a single type of a VERY simple amino acid.
Further, amino acids (note: there are many!) are just the first step in constructing a functioning cell. Getting all the parts of a simple cell together and working is, well, chemically and physically no easy thing and something scientists still can not do, nor do they have a good theory to explain how this happened.
Then, of course, you have the evolutionary problem of DNA.
Evolutionists invoke DNA as evidence for the validity of Darwinian evolution. That is a terrible mistake. Evolutionists should run far away from DNA - far and fast. Why? Historically, in the 'unlocking' of the understanding of DNA, it was not evolutionary biology that helped us get a grip on the function of DNA, it was the application of Information Theory. When it became clear that DNA wasn't just a chemical catalyst, but actual information that directed the progress of cellular function, then its function became clear. We understand DNA in that way to this day.
Here's the rub: DNA is information (I don't know anyone who seriously denies that). However, if that is true, then information has to imply an "Informer." While 'design' does not necessarily imply a "Designer," information clearly requires an intelligence.
Where did the intelligence come from?
I'm a theist so, for me, the answer is obvious. Your mileage may vary.
This discussion is good stuff: how do we make sense of the world we find ourselves in? It is these observations, questions like these, and the hypothesis they create, which is the core of the scientific method. By the way, these specific intellectual issues are part of the "Intelligent Design" discussion.
But Intelligent Design has, irrationally, become politicized. A legitimate inquiry of science and philosophic thought has suddenly been spun as "code words for religion." Because one of the implications of Intelligent Design might be the concept of personal creator, suddenly we are told that we must stop such inquiry (become scientific Amish) because we tread "dangerously" close to the ground of religion. First, why is thoughtful inquiry "dangerous?" Second, why must we all be forced to commit intellectual suicide by not allowing these matters to be discussed, explored, maybe even rejected (on their merits!)? Third, why have we allowed politics to spin these matters into ones of "dangerous religion?"
What do you think?
The person here fills their site with a variety of interesting scientific information. Yet, and here's the key thing, not much of that information actually speaks to the issue at hand. What is the issue at hand? Are all of those stupid, willfully ignorant, Bible-thumping, homophobic, %#@&! CHRISTIANS correct when they assert that "God created?"
First, please observe that these blogs don't direct their venom at anyone else but Christians: Jews whose scriptures teach a Divine Creator do not get any attention. Muslims, who teach a Divine Creator, never get a word. No; note well that in the U.S. and Europe it is the Christians who get the hate mail. Talk about ethnocentricity!
Please also notice the unspoken assertion in these comments. The real premise is this: evolution explains life so therefore God isn’t needed. This begs the question: why is it important to not need God? Why is it important to make an assertion that God needs not to exist? What is it in the minds of these folks that drives them to conclude that even the idea of God is bad? It certainly isn’t because the concept of God is intellectually repugnant – the history of great thinkers throughout all of our civilization (as well as others) show that the concept of God is vital to a rigorous intellectual life. So what's the deal?
Second, note that a lengthy, detailed, and coherent discussion of the science of cellular biology does not advance a whit the proposition that Darwinian evolution is true. Such information is useful, helpful, and good to know. But such information, as a tool, is as inappropriate to apply to the issue of "creation vs. evolution" as is the use of a pneumatic jack-hammer to the task of interpreting Shakespeare. It's not "Apples and Oranges," it's "Apples and Laws covering the settlement of bank drafts" - almost completely unrelated!
Let me restate: the 'evolutionary' evidence often purports to prove much more than it actually does. The question is, if I understand it properly, "What happened?" That - right there - is an historic query, not a scientific one. Here's where the typical "Evolutionist" gets off the tracks. The issue of what happened is one of history and must use historical processes to determine what actually was the truth of the matter at a certain place and time. The process of history actually makes use of legal reasoning rather than scientific reasoning. Why is scientific reasoning the inappropriate process? Because science, rightly understood, is the process of observation, hypothesis, and repeatable phenomena to prove the hypothesis. Even then, a right understanding of science always makes such conclusions tentative and speaks in terms of probability (Noam Chomsky states that, in fact, there's no such thing as scientific "proofs"). In any case, history is not amenable to the scientific method, if for no other reason, because there is no place for a repeatable experiment.
Do you want to prove that Julius Caesar wrote “The Gallic Wars?” You can’t perform an experiment on that because Caesar’s putative creation of a specific work is a one-time occurrence – it can’t be repeated.
When you are rightly doing science (as opposed to the quasi-religion of “scientism”), you are limited to repeatable phenomena. When you are doing history, you are generally restricted to one time occurrences.
Certainly, you can use science to bolster a historical hypothesis. And you can use history to add weight to a scientific hypothesis. But, and here’s the crux, you can’t use science alone to “prove” a historical event.
So what historical event are we talking about? The evolution or creation of homo sapiens.
Here’s what we are unable to do: we can not create humans as the theists claim that God did.
There’s the old joke: One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost." God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well. How about this? Let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!" But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure; no problem." and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!" (http://members.tripod.com/~TechBabe/dirt.html)
Here’s the even more damaging thing: scientists can not even create life. We aren’t even talking about critters, or even cells. Even the "building blocks" of life itself is beyond the grasp of human technology, engineering, and science. Not only that, but there is no real good theory of how life arose in the first place. Darwin’s “spontaneous generation” of life turned out to be an embarrassing dead-end.
The “prebiotic soup” (simple amino acids created in a laboratory flask) theory of life emergence are even more embarassing. Those were the experiments based on the work of Oparin and Haldane and then Urey and Miller and turned out to be one of the most notorious frauds of science. They had no proof that earth’s early atmosphere contained ammonia, methane, and hydrogen (the basis of the “successful experiment”), but there is considerable research to show that the earth’s early atmosphere contained great amounts of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen – remarkably inert chemicals. When the infamous “flask of life” was created in the laboratory from ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and a sparkplug (for which there is no evidence those conditions ever existed) – those conditions were stacked in advance to get the results desired: a single type of a VERY simple amino acid.
Further, amino acids (note: there are many!) are just the first step in constructing a functioning cell. Getting all the parts of a simple cell together and working is, well, chemically and physically no easy thing and something scientists still can not do, nor do they have a good theory to explain how this happened.
Then, of course, you have the evolutionary problem of DNA.
Evolutionists invoke DNA as evidence for the validity of Darwinian evolution. That is a terrible mistake. Evolutionists should run far away from DNA - far and fast. Why? Historically, in the 'unlocking' of the understanding of DNA, it was not evolutionary biology that helped us get a grip on the function of DNA, it was the application of Information Theory. When it became clear that DNA wasn't just a chemical catalyst, but actual information that directed the progress of cellular function, then its function became clear. We understand DNA in that way to this day.
Here's the rub: DNA is information (I don't know anyone who seriously denies that). However, if that is true, then information has to imply an "Informer." While 'design' does not necessarily imply a "Designer," information clearly requires an intelligence.
Where did the intelligence come from?
I'm a theist so, for me, the answer is obvious. Your mileage may vary.
This discussion is good stuff: how do we make sense of the world we find ourselves in? It is these observations, questions like these, and the hypothesis they create, which is the core of the scientific method. By the way, these specific intellectual issues are part of the "Intelligent Design" discussion.
But Intelligent Design has, irrationally, become politicized. A legitimate inquiry of science and philosophic thought has suddenly been spun as "code words for religion." Because one of the implications of Intelligent Design might be the concept of personal creator, suddenly we are told that we must stop such inquiry (become scientific Amish) because we tread "dangerously" close to the ground of religion. First, why is thoughtful inquiry "dangerous?" Second, why must we all be forced to commit intellectual suicide by not allowing these matters to be discussed, explored, maybe even rejected (on their merits!)? Third, why have we allowed politics to spin these matters into ones of "dangerous religion?"
What do you think?
20070301
A Loss Experienced
I have some unhappy news – a dear friend of the family and former boyfriend of Irene’s was found dead last Sunday at his home. Geoff Prozora was much loved and a wonderful guy. He was bright, talented, and a deep lover of Jesus. A few months back he’d began to show symptoms of depressive mental illness. At that time he and Irene broke up – with the hope that when Geoff got better they could be a couple again. That was not to be. I really liked Geoff a lot. He and I would play together in the worship band. I could go on and on about Geoff, but you get the idea.
I would count it a favor if you could pray for this situation. Please remember Geoff’s parents and sister – the pain in their lives is unimaginable now. Please pray for Irene as she is going through a hellacious time. Please also pray for Geoff’s best friend, Chase, who has loyally stayed with Geoff through the sudden agony that became Geoff’s live over the last few months. Remember Kevin, our youth pastor, for whom Geoff was ‘his guy.’
As I have been experiencing my own grief and observing the grief of others, a few things have occurred to me.
First, grief varies by individual. One of the hard things to deal with in a loss of this sort is expectations. Not everyone is built to engage in rich emotional expression. Some people are mullers – they will take time to process their loss. When they roll things around enough in their hearts, they will come to a helpful conclusion. Some people are contagious – even though the loss wasn’t very personal or close, they empathetically feel the loss of others and find they respond as if the loss was their own. Some people are analytical – they attempt to find meaning even when there is none. When no meaning is found, then they can give themselves permission to feel. Some people are expressive – they weep, groan, shake their fists, and use up a lot of Kleenex. They have a rich emotional life and feel free to express it. Other people are doers – they need activity. As they are distracted by tasks surrounding the loss, they can take small, bite-sized portions of their own grief and process it in ‘manageable’ ways.
The point is that when good-intentioned people put out expectations that having the “meltdown” is the only legitimate greif response then they deny the uniqueness of people. Grief counselors encourage “healthy” mourning by only encouraging the ‘meltdown model.’ So, again, a mourner not only feels loss, but now may feel guilt that they aren’t mourning in a “healthy” way.
Second, Christians are frequently drawn to make theological statements during a time of loss – statements that are meant to be helpful but frequently are out of synch with the needs of mourners. I noted that even within minutes of hearing of Geoff’s death, people were reactively struggling with the theology of the situation. And that is appropriate. However, some were taking the opportunity to press their particular theological theory. When I heard that, it was irritating to me. My consolation was that in such a time, nobody retained those comments.
Third, we can occasionally forget about the peripheral mourners. There were other kids who are and have been struggling with even greater issues than the death of Geoff. When Geoff died, it was a reminder of their own pain. But because Geoff was a rather charismatic guy, the response to his passing was very public. Nobody seemed to think of the secondary effects on already wounded people.
I’m still sorting out what I am seeing and hearing. I am an ‘analytic’ and this helps me with my own sense of loss. But I’ve come to these initial conclusions:
- Death is pretty crappy. It is good to remember that death is still the enemy
- It is not unspiritual, immature, faithless, or less godly to feel pain at the loss of a loved one or friend
- Death, in itself, is a reminder that "It is not supposed to be this way!"
- As much as we can try to ‘handle’ or ‘manage’ our grief ‘process,’ we should not be surprised when that breaks down: we can’t expect this kind of thing to be ‘managable’
P.S.: (20070331) I've received lots of comments on this post off-line and have been very encouraged by them. Recently, I ran across this article on what NOT to say to someone in grief: http://www.pastors.com/rwmt/default.asp?id=302&artid=10355&expand=1
20070223
Licensed for Ministry
First, let me tell the world that today is my son Theo’s “Decade Day:” Theo is ten years old today. As Theo was getting ready for school this morning, it started snowing here. “Dear Theo, Happy Birthday! –God.”
One of the cool things is that as I’m progressing in my studies, I’m also progressing in my ministry responsibilities. I am the Director of Outreach at my church and just last week my Senior Pastor finished the paperwork to have me licensed as a clergyman in the state of Washington. Now, being licensed doesn’t have any big effect except that I can officiate a wedding and have some increased access when visiting a hospital. I’m not down-playing the role of the clergy, I’m merely stating that the state of Washington doesn’t seem to think “licensed” clergy are that big a deal. Really, the intent is to regulate marriage and to identify those who may be eligible for certain tax treatments.
However, just as that paperwork was finishing up, I was doing reading for school and read a chapter in “Authentic Faith” by Gary Thomas (a book I recommend, by the way). The chapter was titled, “Titanic Testimony: The Discipline of Persecution.” In it, Thomas contrasts the typical Olsteen-esq presumption in Western Christianity that faith in Jesus will bring blessing, comfort, and protection. But Thomas tells us that during the most vigorous times in the history of the Faith that physical persecution could be a normal part of following Jesus. Thomas does a bit of speculation that even the American church might see a foretaste of persecution when, politically, Christianity is labeled as a ‘religion of hate.’ As absurd as that is, there could well be a time when Christianity – a faith that repeats the claims of Jesus: “no one comes to the Father except by me” and stands for good citizenship (1 Tim. 2:1-6) – becomes hated even in the United States.
So then, during my devotional time, I read through Matthew 10 where Jesus talks about persecution and remembered John 15:20 – “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you…” Reading that passage sealed a thought for me.
Let’s just say that Thomas is on to something. When even a Baptist like President Bill Clinton can respond to his fellow Baptists’ desire to tell the Good News about Jesus by stating “his opposition to whatever organizations, including the Southern Baptists, that perpetuate ancient religious hatred.” You heard it: evangelism is a hate crime. Christian – you’ve been put on notice.
So who are the people who are stirring up Christians to such hatred? Yes – it’s their ministers, pastors, and clergy! How will the state know who to round up for perpetuating hate crimes? All the men and women who are licensed as clergy! So my being licensed as clergy puts me on a governmental roster for “Peddlers of Hate.” Yikes!
OK, OK – that sounds pretty extreme and maybe over the top. But it gave me pause – for about a second – when I realized that is exactly the point. Following Jesus has a cost and I had, decades ago, made a decision to follow Jesus whatever the cost might be. So whether it is the change of career, change of neighborhood, change in economic circumstances, or even physical persecution – following Jesus is worth the cost.
One of the cool things is that as I’m progressing in my studies, I’m also progressing in my ministry responsibilities. I am the Director of Outreach at my church and just last week my Senior Pastor finished the paperwork to have me licensed as a clergyman in the state of Washington. Now, being licensed doesn’t have any big effect except that I can officiate a wedding and have some increased access when visiting a hospital. I’m not down-playing the role of the clergy, I’m merely stating that the state of Washington doesn’t seem to think “licensed” clergy are that big a deal. Really, the intent is to regulate marriage and to identify those who may be eligible for certain tax treatments.
However, just as that paperwork was finishing up, I was doing reading for school and read a chapter in “Authentic Faith” by Gary Thomas (a book I recommend, by the way). The chapter was titled, “Titanic Testimony: The Discipline of Persecution.” In it, Thomas contrasts the typical Olsteen-esq presumption in Western Christianity that faith in Jesus will bring blessing, comfort, and protection. But Thomas tells us that during the most vigorous times in the history of the Faith that physical persecution could be a normal part of following Jesus. Thomas does a bit of speculation that even the American church might see a foretaste of persecution when, politically, Christianity is labeled as a ‘religion of hate.’ As absurd as that is, there could well be a time when Christianity – a faith that repeats the claims of Jesus: “no one comes to the Father except by me” and stands for good citizenship (1 Tim. 2:1-6) – becomes hated even in the United States.
So then, during my devotional time, I read through Matthew 10 where Jesus talks about persecution and remembered John 15:20 – “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you…” Reading that passage sealed a thought for me.
Let’s just say that Thomas is on to something. When even a Baptist like President Bill Clinton can respond to his fellow Baptists’ desire to tell the Good News about Jesus by stating “his opposition to whatever organizations, including the Southern Baptists, that perpetuate ancient religious hatred.” You heard it: evangelism is a hate crime. Christian – you’ve been put on notice.
So who are the people who are stirring up Christians to such hatred? Yes – it’s their ministers, pastors, and clergy! How will the state know who to round up for perpetuating hate crimes? All the men and women who are licensed as clergy! So my being licensed as clergy puts me on a governmental roster for “Peddlers of Hate.” Yikes!
OK, OK – that sounds pretty extreme and maybe over the top. But it gave me pause – for about a second – when I realized that is exactly the point. Following Jesus has a cost and I had, decades ago, made a decision to follow Jesus whatever the cost might be. So whether it is the change of career, change of neighborhood, change in economic circumstances, or even physical persecution – following Jesus is worth the cost.
20070112
The Surreal Life of Seminary
So it hit me again this last week. It was the first day of classes for a new semester. I’ve now been in seminary for a year and am beginning my second year.
As I was sitting in a Spiritual Formation course, it hit me that I’m in a classroom, there’s a teacher up front, all the students are at our chair-desks listening and discussing the topic at hand. Now in all my decades of going to school which include elementary and high school, as well as community college provided by the good tax-payers of California, then on to both undergraduate and graduate degrees – all those years and diplomas, certificates, and a few letters behind my name – for all those years the purpose of education was completely secular and practical.
In elementary school, it was my ‘job’ to learn to read, write, and do ‘rithmatic. I learned those skills, a bit of science, history, and some arts, as well as playing well with others. Those skills allowed me to make my way through much of modern society – not well, but at an ‘elementary’ level. In High School (“Go Spartans!”), I did more of the same with a hope that I would be prepared for even greater educational challenges (remember the term, “college prep courses?”) – but basically it was the same: language skills, mathematics, social studies, physical education, some life-skills, and some vocational skills. At the end of the diploma track, I was ready to take my place in adult society, especially the economic part – I could now hold down a job.
I went to college. The first two years were at a community college (we called them “junior colleges” then), then I went off to a private school and learned that education was costly! But my major was Business Administration and, clearly, that was a secular purpose. I happened to go to a Christian college so was able to ‘sneak in’ stuff that I was interested in like Bible, theology, and some ministry things. But the strictly Christian stuff was – as I sold it to my parents (who were not wild about me going to a Christian college) – collateral material. You don’t go to school to learn how to love God and Man!
About 15 years ago, I went to law school, graduated, and passed the California Bar exam (first time!). Again, the purpose of law school is to teach knowledge and skills to accomplish a straight-forward secular purpose. The classrooms were larger, the academic demands were greater, the tuition more expensive (!), but the purpose was recognizable by anyone walking by the campus.
So it hit me as I was in this seminary classroom that seminary is a massive paradigm shift. I am, in fact, here in this place and paying this money, to better learn how to love God and others. It is not the goal to competitively get the best grades, but to cooperatively become people of godly character.
My mind rebelled: that’s nuts! That’s crazy! People go to school to learn ‘practical’ things like reading, writing, ‘rithmatic, and how to sue people in a court of law – school is secular! Sitting in a classroom learning why and how we can love God better is, is, well, it is just … absurd!!
Now my mind returned to a less-fevered pitch and I realized my misconceptions. First, if I really believe all that “God, Jesus, and the Bible” stuff, then I’ve got to admit that the most pragmatic and practical skill I can posses is how to love God and others. And, oh by the way, because I’m privileged to learn these things, it is required of me that I teach these things well to others. Second, that learning how to love God and others in a class room sure seems absurd, but my teacher does it rather well without being reductionistic or losing the heart of love that such a class requires. Third, it really is not my concern how people walking by the campus react to the purpose of the campus, it is my concern how they may react to an invitation to live their lives with Jesus.
So, at the end of this, seminary is a very different educational experience than I have had before and because of that, it seems a bit surreal. But that may well be because I am, in fact, learning about the transcendent which is imminent.
As I was sitting in a Spiritual Formation course, it hit me that I’m in a classroom, there’s a teacher up front, all the students are at our chair-desks listening and discussing the topic at hand. Now in all my decades of going to school which include elementary and high school, as well as community college provided by the good tax-payers of California, then on to both undergraduate and graduate degrees – all those years and diplomas, certificates, and a few letters behind my name – for all those years the purpose of education was completely secular and practical.
In elementary school, it was my ‘job’ to learn to read, write, and do ‘rithmatic. I learned those skills, a bit of science, history, and some arts, as well as playing well with others. Those skills allowed me to make my way through much of modern society – not well, but at an ‘elementary’ level. In High School (“Go Spartans!”), I did more of the same with a hope that I would be prepared for even greater educational challenges (remember the term, “college prep courses?”) – but basically it was the same: language skills, mathematics, social studies, physical education, some life-skills, and some vocational skills. At the end of the diploma track, I was ready to take my place in adult society, especially the economic part – I could now hold down a job.
I went to college. The first two years were at a community college (we called them “junior colleges” then), then I went off to a private school and learned that education was costly! But my major was Business Administration and, clearly, that was a secular purpose. I happened to go to a Christian college so was able to ‘sneak in’ stuff that I was interested in like Bible, theology, and some ministry things. But the strictly Christian stuff was – as I sold it to my parents (who were not wild about me going to a Christian college) – collateral material. You don’t go to school to learn how to love God and Man!
About 15 years ago, I went to law school, graduated, and passed the California Bar exam (first time!). Again, the purpose of law school is to teach knowledge and skills to accomplish a straight-forward secular purpose. The classrooms were larger, the academic demands were greater, the tuition more expensive (!), but the purpose was recognizable by anyone walking by the campus.
So it hit me as I was in this seminary classroom that seminary is a massive paradigm shift. I am, in fact, here in this place and paying this money, to better learn how to love God and others. It is not the goal to competitively get the best grades, but to cooperatively become people of godly character.
My mind rebelled: that’s nuts! That’s crazy! People go to school to learn ‘practical’ things like reading, writing, ‘rithmatic, and how to sue people in a court of law – school is secular! Sitting in a classroom learning why and how we can love God better is, is, well, it is just … absurd!!
Now my mind returned to a less-fevered pitch and I realized my misconceptions. First, if I really believe all that “God, Jesus, and the Bible” stuff, then I’ve got to admit that the most pragmatic and practical skill I can posses is how to love God and others. And, oh by the way, because I’m privileged to learn these things, it is required of me that I teach these things well to others. Second, that learning how to love God and others in a class room sure seems absurd, but my teacher does it rather well without being reductionistic or losing the heart of love that such a class requires. Third, it really is not my concern how people walking by the campus react to the purpose of the campus, it is my concern how they may react to an invitation to live their lives with Jesus.
So, at the end of this, seminary is a very different educational experience than I have had before and because of that, it seems a bit surreal. But that may well be because I am, in fact, learning about the transcendent which is imminent.
20061213
Grace In The Garden
I was listening to a friend’s sermon the other day and it caused me to reflect on the grace of God. Specifically, I was reminded of the grace that God displayed in the Garden of Eden and especially when Adam and Eve fell into sin. Though it seems to be rarely preached, that whole episode just drips with grace and mercy. I’m indebted to Dr. Gerry Breshears for many of these insights.
First, I think it is real important to understand the nature of the Garden. It was a ‘dispensation’ that was marked, if by any description at all, by the word “freedom.” The Garden, was full of wonderful things: “The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; .... Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food;” The landscape was lush and pleasing, the garden was a source of four rivers, and God told Adam, eat whatever you want; there was only one exception. But, in our weird pathological way, we focus on the exception rather than the overwhelming provision and freedom that God gave Adam.
God was pretty clear about that exception – if you eat it, you will die. Now most preaching gets this part pretty wrong. Most preaching seems to put these words in God’s mouth: “If you eat this, I’ll kill you!” This makes God a vengeful person waiting to squash people. This is wildly inconsistent with God’s own description of himself in Exodus 34:6-7. By the way, did you know that passage is the most quoted verse in the Bible by the Bible? This statement of consequences should be stated this way: “Don’t eat that fruit or you’ll suicide.” It was a warning; very akin to Grandpa saying to his five year old grandson, “Don’t try to use that power saw in the garage or you’ll hurt yourself!”
Well, we all know what happens next. Lucifer, in the form of a ‘serpent,’ manages to get Eve’s attention and both Adam and Eve sin. Let’s not forget that Adam clearly knew the deal about that fruit and still chose to eat it.
After Adam and Eve sinned by exercising faithless autonomy in the eating of the prohibited fruit, God exercised grace in several ways.
Speculatively, we can say that God did not destroy them (including the serpent) immediately. He generously allowed all of them to draw another breath and their hearts to continue beating.
First in the text, we read that God came to them (Gen. 3:8). He did not force them to come to Him; He initiated contact with his now-sinful children. God didn’t make a power play, God came to people. As we think about Christmas, shouldn’t this echo in our ears? God with us – “Emmanuel.”
Second, we read that God called out to them (Gen. 3:9). He did not immediately declare punishment; but He sought communication with them. He asked where they were. He asked for an explanation. He patiently interviewed all the parties that he was interested in.
Well, it was obvious that Adam and Eve had disobeyed and there were consequences. God had three curses to hand out. He began with the serpent.
The third point of grace is that God can’t even get through the first curse without holding out the prophetic hope that humans would get their – well, 'revenge' would not be too strong a word (Gen. 3:15b). God promises that humans, though bruised on the heel, would strike back at the head of the serpent. This is amazingly hopeful! Women are cursed with painful childbirth and strained relationships with their husbands. Men are cursed with work that is toil and knowlege that they will physically die and disintegrate.
The fourth point of grace is that God sees the shame they feel regarding nakedness and provides coverings (Gen. 3:21). This is significant in that innocent animals had to die for these coverings. God shows grace by his provision, even though his kids had really wrecked everything.
Lastly, God protects Adam and Eve from the Garden by hiding it from them. They are in a state of spiritual death and need to be protected from the Tree of Life. Think of it, if they were allowed to continue eating from the Tree of Life while in a constant state of spiritual separation from God, it would be unthinkable in its spiritual horror that Adam and Eve, and all their descendants would continue to biologically live in some sort of zombie-like state. We can only speculate at the real terror of that. In any case, God protects them from something awful, maybe some sort of sacrilege, by hiding the Tree of Life. But, not to worry, the Tree of Life shows up again at a time when we will be better able to metabolize it. Look at Revelation 22:1-2.
So all of this tells me that God’s grace was pervasive even in the midst of “The Curse.”
First, I think it is real important to understand the nature of the Garden. It was a ‘dispensation’ that was marked, if by any description at all, by the word “freedom.” The Garden, was full of wonderful things: “The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; .... Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food;” The landscape was lush and pleasing, the garden was a source of four rivers, and God told Adam, eat whatever you want; there was only one exception. But, in our weird pathological way, we focus on the exception rather than the overwhelming provision and freedom that God gave Adam.
God was pretty clear about that exception – if you eat it, you will die. Now most preaching gets this part pretty wrong. Most preaching seems to put these words in God’s mouth: “If you eat this, I’ll kill you!” This makes God a vengeful person waiting to squash people. This is wildly inconsistent with God’s own description of himself in Exodus 34:6-7. By the way, did you know that passage is the most quoted verse in the Bible by the Bible? This statement of consequences should be stated this way: “Don’t eat that fruit or you’ll suicide.” It was a warning; very akin to Grandpa saying to his five year old grandson, “Don’t try to use that power saw in the garage or you’ll hurt yourself!”
Well, we all know what happens next. Lucifer, in the form of a ‘serpent,’ manages to get Eve’s attention and both Adam and Eve sin. Let’s not forget that Adam clearly knew the deal about that fruit and still chose to eat it.
After Adam and Eve sinned by exercising faithless autonomy in the eating of the prohibited fruit, God exercised grace in several ways.
Speculatively, we can say that God did not destroy them (including the serpent) immediately. He generously allowed all of them to draw another breath and their hearts to continue beating.
First in the text, we read that God came to them (Gen. 3:8). He did not force them to come to Him; He initiated contact with his now-sinful children. God didn’t make a power play, God came to people. As we think about Christmas, shouldn’t this echo in our ears? God with us – “Emmanuel.”
Second, we read that God called out to them (Gen. 3:9). He did not immediately declare punishment; but He sought communication with them. He asked where they were. He asked for an explanation. He patiently interviewed all the parties that he was interested in.
Well, it was obvious that Adam and Eve had disobeyed and there were consequences. God had three curses to hand out. He began with the serpent.
The third point of grace is that God can’t even get through the first curse without holding out the prophetic hope that humans would get their – well, 'revenge' would not be too strong a word (Gen. 3:15b). God promises that humans, though bruised on the heel, would strike back at the head of the serpent. This is amazingly hopeful! Women are cursed with painful childbirth and strained relationships with their husbands. Men are cursed with work that is toil and knowlege that they will physically die and disintegrate.
The fourth point of grace is that God sees the shame they feel regarding nakedness and provides coverings (Gen. 3:21). This is significant in that innocent animals had to die for these coverings. God shows grace by his provision, even though his kids had really wrecked everything.
Lastly, God protects Adam and Eve from the Garden by hiding it from them. They are in a state of spiritual death and need to be protected from the Tree of Life. Think of it, if they were allowed to continue eating from the Tree of Life while in a constant state of spiritual separation from God, it would be unthinkable in its spiritual horror that Adam and Eve, and all their descendants would continue to biologically live in some sort of zombie-like state. We can only speculate at the real terror of that. In any case, God protects them from something awful, maybe some sort of sacrilege, by hiding the Tree of Life. But, not to worry, the Tree of Life shows up again at a time when we will be better able to metabolize it. Look at Revelation 22:1-2.
So all of this tells me that God’s grace was pervasive even in the midst of “The Curse.”
20061026
Second Testimonies
So I’m taking a break from studies this week and attending the A2 conference hosted by Willow Creek near Chicago.
This is the first time I’ve been to the Willow Creek campus and it is impressive. It shows what can be done when a church decides to impact their community with excellence. Much more can be said, but as a conference attendee, I am having a positive experience.
The most impactful session of the day was the first given by Bill Hybels. Hybels seemed to be suffering under some low-level bug (is this the same one from August?), but he rallied well and spoke on leadership. Charging that pastors are just like industry managers, they will take ideas from conferences (such as this) and decide that those ideas need to be implemented whole cloth into their own ministry back home. They will do all of this without the hard work of determining what their real needs are, what God has given them, and if this solution really fits at all. But the biggest problem is because the ministry leader isn’t really leading out of who they are. They are attempting to lead out of the results of someone else.
Hybels discussed the concept of a “second conversion;” that is, that once saved, a leader can be powerfully impacted by a subsequent encounter with God that may break apart his world and cause him to change his ministry because of it. Hybels used the Biblical example of Peter in Acts 10: the dream and then ministry to the gentile house of Conelius.
It is these “second conversions,” or “second testimonies” that Hybels says marks every leader who has had a powerful and innovative ministry.
The question that is begged is: are ministry leaders willing to allow God to break them apart so that he can put in a vision for the new thing? Of course, my question is: will I let God break me so that I can hear from him?
This is the first time I’ve been to the Willow Creek campus and it is impressive. It shows what can be done when a church decides to impact their community with excellence. Much more can be said, but as a conference attendee, I am having a positive experience.
The most impactful session of the day was the first given by Bill Hybels. Hybels seemed to be suffering under some low-level bug (is this the same one from August?), but he rallied well and spoke on leadership. Charging that pastors are just like industry managers, they will take ideas from conferences (such as this) and decide that those ideas need to be implemented whole cloth into their own ministry back home. They will do all of this without the hard work of determining what their real needs are, what God has given them, and if this solution really fits at all. But the biggest problem is because the ministry leader isn’t really leading out of who they are. They are attempting to lead out of the results of someone else.
Hybels discussed the concept of a “second conversion;” that is, that once saved, a leader can be powerfully impacted by a subsequent encounter with God that may break apart his world and cause him to change his ministry because of it. Hybels used the Biblical example of Peter in Acts 10: the dream and then ministry to the gentile house of Conelius.
It is these “second conversions,” or “second testimonies” that Hybels says marks every leader who has had a powerful and innovative ministry.
The question that is begged is: are ministry leaders willing to allow God to break them apart so that he can put in a vision for the new thing? Of course, my question is: will I let God break me so that I can hear from him?
20061004
Deacon of Mental Health? A Proposal.
So I’m taking a Pastoral Counseling course in seminary. Dudes and Dudettes, I am not wired by God to do well in a pastoral counseling situation, nor am I wired by God to really even care. So this course is a challenge, which I welcome.
I welcome the challenge because I know that the reasons for pastoral counseling are profound. People hurt. In our time, most of the people I’ll ever meet are not hungry, or threatened with immediate violence, but they are – having been fully engaged in our fragmented culture – broken, confused, hopeless, and betrayed. If postmodernism emphasizes relational authority, it will be the broken relationships that are endemic to humanness that will plague both those in and out of the body of Christ in the next decades. Broken relationships are just one cause of broken emotional disease that requires healing.
While we are all broken and need the healing which God offers, some of us are so broken that it overtly interferes with our ability to function. We need help. Without getting into the “validity of Christian Counseling” debate; let me just affirm that I believe “Christian counseling” is viable, appropriate, and part of how the body of Christ can bear each member up.
So where does that put the church; especially the local church?? As evangelicals, we like to rightly use the Bible to search for the timeless truths of “faith and life.” This is good! Even more so, we especially like to go to the book of Acts and see the very early (“primitive”) church as a model for how church ought to go for us 2,000 years later.
So, today, I see a need for the church to provide help for people. The church has ALWAYS been about providing help for people. One of the early church’s bright moments was that they were the only group who were, for example, willing to go into a plague-infested city and take out plague-orphaned children and the sick to care for them. The church has, historically, shined brightest when it addresses real needs while it affirms real truth. Need I go into all the history of the church’s battles with dark spiritual forces of superstition and more overt counterfeit spirituality?
We find ourselves today facing plague (AIDS) and famine (general poverty) and the church, after being distracted by attacks on its worldview (world: "Your worldview isn't rationalistic, mechanistic, and control-oriented: Why not?!!" church: "[sigh] OK, here's why our world view isn't IRrational, unpredictable, or sloppy..."), getting back to its business. I am grateful to see the church return, in this way, to its roots.
However, I wonder if there is yet another need that the church can provide. Can the church look out among the emotionally and mentally broken people and see a need; even see that need within its own? I hope so.
How can the church meet such a need? Well, I go back to the book of Acts. How did the very early church meet needs of members? Look at the sixth chapter of Acts. It first affirmed the need: food was not being made available. The church then affirmed that the role of the apostles-elders were to devote themselves to prayer and the word. The church then looked for seven guys, noted for their character, spiritual maturity, and discernment; and then had them look after the needs of the hungry. These, who we now call “deacons,” are the precursors of our care-giving ministries for all the churches we have today.
Hmmm. So we have a new need; we have an old pattern; can we put them together? I suggest that churches might be able to do real good by creating the function of a “Mental Health Deacon.” Is there not a man of discernment, qualified as a deacon, that can facilitate the referral of emotionally or mentally broken members and seekers to Christian counselors and therapists? If not involved with actual referrals, then is able to build bridges of trust between counselors and the church?
For those who are significantly influenced by the teaching ministry of a certain church located in the northeast portion of the San Fernando Valley of California, you won’t even buy into the validity of “Christian counseling.” Reaction to lawsuits aside; that is exactly the point. Most pastors shouldn’t be burdened with a significant counseling ministry. After three to six sessions of about an hour each, if someone needs more counseling, they really need to be referred to a professional. This is so if for no other reason than that of avoiding liability.
But let's not think only of counseling, but of all the aspects of mental health brokenness: "Celebrate Recovery," local chapter of A.A., various support and recovery groups, and all those ways that we can use our theology of general revelation and common grace to help heal broken hearts. Let's not captitulate the care of souls to those who don't theologically "get it."
So my proposal is to recognize the need for mental health care, to be proactive about it, and build referral networks that are under the care and guidance of the pastor and deacon functions.
I welcome the challenge because I know that the reasons for pastoral counseling are profound. People hurt. In our time, most of the people I’ll ever meet are not hungry, or threatened with immediate violence, but they are – having been fully engaged in our fragmented culture – broken, confused, hopeless, and betrayed. If postmodernism emphasizes relational authority, it will be the broken relationships that are endemic to humanness that will plague both those in and out of the body of Christ in the next decades. Broken relationships are just one cause of broken emotional disease that requires healing.
While we are all broken and need the healing which God offers, some of us are so broken that it overtly interferes with our ability to function. We need help. Without getting into the “validity of Christian Counseling” debate; let me just affirm that I believe “Christian counseling” is viable, appropriate, and part of how the body of Christ can bear each member up.
So where does that put the church; especially the local church?? As evangelicals, we like to rightly use the Bible to search for the timeless truths of “faith and life.” This is good! Even more so, we especially like to go to the book of Acts and see the very early (“primitive”) church as a model for how church ought to go for us 2,000 years later.
So, today, I see a need for the church to provide help for people. The church has ALWAYS been about providing help for people. One of the early church’s bright moments was that they were the only group who were, for example, willing to go into a plague-infested city and take out plague-orphaned children and the sick to care for them. The church has, historically, shined brightest when it addresses real needs while it affirms real truth. Need I go into all the history of the church’s battles with dark spiritual forces of superstition and more overt counterfeit spirituality?
We find ourselves today facing plague (AIDS) and famine (general poverty) and the church, after being distracted by attacks on its worldview (world: "Your worldview isn't rationalistic, mechanistic, and control-oriented: Why not?!!" church: "[sigh] OK, here's why our world view isn't IRrational, unpredictable, or sloppy..."), getting back to its business. I am grateful to see the church return, in this way, to its roots.
However, I wonder if there is yet another need that the church can provide. Can the church look out among the emotionally and mentally broken people and see a need; even see that need within its own? I hope so.
How can the church meet such a need? Well, I go back to the book of Acts. How did the very early church meet needs of members? Look at the sixth chapter of Acts. It first affirmed the need: food was not being made available. The church then affirmed that the role of the apostles-elders were to devote themselves to prayer and the word. The church then looked for seven guys, noted for their character, spiritual maturity, and discernment; and then had them look after the needs of the hungry. These, who we now call “deacons,” are the precursors of our care-giving ministries for all the churches we have today.
Hmmm. So we have a new need; we have an old pattern; can we put them together? I suggest that churches might be able to do real good by creating the function of a “Mental Health Deacon.” Is there not a man of discernment, qualified as a deacon, that can facilitate the referral of emotionally or mentally broken members and seekers to Christian counselors and therapists? If not involved with actual referrals, then is able to build bridges of trust between counselors and the church?
For those who are significantly influenced by the teaching ministry of a certain church located in the northeast portion of the San Fernando Valley of California, you won’t even buy into the validity of “Christian counseling.” Reaction to lawsuits aside; that is exactly the point. Most pastors shouldn’t be burdened with a significant counseling ministry. After three to six sessions of about an hour each, if someone needs more counseling, they really need to be referred to a professional. This is so if for no other reason than that of avoiding liability.
But let's not think only of counseling, but of all the aspects of mental health brokenness: "Celebrate Recovery," local chapter of A.A., various support and recovery groups, and all those ways that we can use our theology of general revelation and common grace to help heal broken hearts. Let's not captitulate the care of souls to those who don't theologically "get it."
So my proposal is to recognize the need for mental health care, to be proactive about it, and build referral networks that are under the care and guidance of the pastor and deacon functions.
20060920
Rocked My World
I have just finished reading an assignment that has rocked my world a bit.
The reading was from a couple of sections of Alister McGrath’s book, “A Passion For Truth.” Specifically, the Introduction and chapter 4 (“Evangelicalism and Postmodernism”). In the Introduction, McGrath states that Evangelicalism – especially in North America - has steered a course away from “Academic Theology” (a theology whose agenda is dictated by the values and goals of the academy). For those evangelicals that have tasted of Academic Theology, the response is probably: “Duh – of course!” McGrath says it is because of a fundamentalist heritage, a pragmatic orientation, the secularism of the academy (which has lost touch with theology’s prophetic role), and the elitism of academic theology (it has lost touch with its pastoral role).
McGrath’s observations and conclusions are very helpful – and not surprising to any evangelical who has dipped a bit into the murky waters of “academic theology.” However, the interesting bit (for me) came in chapter four where McGrath challenges evangelicals to re-consider their unspoken (and unconscious) assumptions in the face of a new societal hermeneutic – the infamous “postmodernism.” Oh, yes! Postmodernism clearly has a meta-narrative.
The Enlightenment and Modernity (consider those terms synonymous) are based on the notion that reason was able to accomplish anything. What is troubling is that, generally, evangelicals have uncritically bought into that notion for three hundred years. As modernity has influenced great theologians of evangelicals, it has influenced – for the worse – evangelicals understanding of several key areas:
* The nature of scripture – ignoring the clearly emotive and narrative nature of most of scripture, evangelicals have been sucked into looking only for propositional truth
* Spirituality – having ignored the emotive characteristic of scripture, evangelicals have tended to purge emotions from their culture
* Apologetics – evangelicals have assumed there is a universal rationality and ignored the observable facts that Christianity is not purely rational and that not everyone interacts with their world in the same manner
* Evangelism – a misunderstanding of Biblical truth; “Truth” has been assumed to be propositional in nature and all truths of scripture are “logically consistent” with each other; yet this is not itself consistent with the evidence (N.B. the irony). Biblical “Truth” is more related to “trustworthiness” and is very personal: Jesus *is* truth
This is not to deny that there are rational and cognitive elements within the Christian faith, it is merely to note that we can appreciate postmodernism for its help in freeing the faith from a foreign worldview.
As a thoroughly indoctrinated modernist, much of postmodernism is disrupting to me, of course. However, in facing my own mental filters, it is this transition into a postmodern world which facilitates my better understanding – and greater commitment to – a Biblical Christianity.
I note that in a postmodern world, Christianity is clearly relevant. It is relevant to our fundamental questions: Why do we and the world exist? Why are things this way and not another? The question for a postmodern looking at Christianity is not just is Christianity true for the writer of this blog; but is it true also for the reader?
Evangelicals don't need to adopt postmodernism - there is plenty in that framework that is hostile to Biblical thought - but postmodernism can help Evangelicals to strip off the incompatible accoutrements of the Enlightenment.
20060909
An Atheist's Rage
Man, I was annoyed. Friday night my daughter Irene came into the room in tears because of an email she’d just received. Now Irene is a pretty tough gal and so it takes a lot to get her rattled. So what was the email about? Some catty girls dissing on her, some terrible news tragedy? No, it was one of her school ‘friends’ decided to rant on Christians. Hmmm. The previous version said that the guy was angry because his parents were fighting and needed to ‘rant.’ The revised blog can be found here.
Now my first reaction was that “this punk is gonna feel some PAIN: he made my girl cry, he’s gonna pay!” That feeling, BTW, was still floating around and was inevitably expressed here. The next reaction was to read the email for content and ignore all the flaming language. Once analyzed, I could coach my daughter into refuting the arguments presented with objective facts and conclusions. That would make me feel better because it would confirm that I’m smart and this punk (there I go again) is really rather stupid, uninformed, or both. But that would be rather infantile of me. The third reaction is to note a teenager in great pain: he feels alone (copy that), alienated, and his parents (the two most important people in his life) are in conflict. It was a long time ago, but I remember how I felt when my folks were fighting – it was not a “happy place.”
First, let’s dispense with the Father’s Rage part: if you’ll notice, Irene has shown herself to be a ‘contagious Christian’ in that this guy admits that she’s one of the few self-reporting Christians who seems to actually be Jesus-like. As a father, I’m rather proud of my little girl for that.
Second, let’s dispense with the arguments that young Mr. Punk has advanced. There are plenty of atheists on MySpace and the general blogsphere. Even more to the point, there are plenty of Christian-haters out here. But why are all the Christians proclaiming from the rooftops: “I’m a Christian and I’m not afraid to show it?” Well, there’s the implied fear from showing oneself as being a Christian. Why? Because emails and blogs like young Mr. Punk’s come out and trash on them! People say that Christians are intolerant – well intolerance is sure not limited to Christians. It’s a pretty natural reaction to get defensive in the face of an attack. Why are Christians “afraid?” Why, it’s because of people like you, young Mr. Punk: you rant on them, and intimidate them, and attack them.
But why are Christians so big on telling people that they’re Jesus-people? Well, in spite of the attacks they receive, Christians really believe that they have – from Jesus himself – The Message that will transform your life like it has theirs. They’ve experienced something … wonderful! … that defies what we usually see in our world. They are trying to get that news out. They are so excited about the overwhelmingly positive consequences of this information that they’re willing to go out on a blogspace limb and say: “Lookit, lookit! See what I’ve found!!”
In my opinion, it takes more courage to stand in the blogsphere and declare: “I have a message that you won’t agree with or want to hear. But it’s so important that I’m willing to get the inevitable flaming emails (like this) that will result.” On the other hand, there’s no courage in going with the flow: “smoking, drinking, and f***ing,” as Mr. Punk says his friends are doing.
The other thing to remember, young Mr. Punk, is that Jesus himself was pretty clear that not everyone who self-reports to be a “Christian” really is one. For you Bible-people out there, I remind you of Matthew 25:31-46. In fact, Christians are told they must examine themselves (though never told to examine others) to see if they are really born-again fully-devoted followers of Jesus (check out the little book of 1 John).
As to young Mr. Punk’s conclusion that our fear of the unknown after death compels us to do good; I think Mr. Punk is right. That God has arranged life so that death is an unknown is a powerful motivator for people to search and grope for him. Looking at death, we see some powerful truths: “I am not ready. Not only that, I’m sure I’ll never be ready. After death, there’s God waiting and it’s clear from what I see in this world that God is holy and has standards that I’ve not met.”
I need help. As Mr. Punk has rightly pointed out; I need a crutch. What The Message says is that Jesus died as a substitute for the spiritual consequences of my inability to meet the standards. Jesus then brought himself back to life to confirm his claims. If I rely on Jesus to pay for those lapses, then God will say (since he set it up in the first place), “Good, you’re seeing things from my perspective now. Come with me and let’s get started on some other good things.” God doesn’t promise prosperity, popularity, or that those dearest to you will get along – though that often happens. He does offer you new life in a community of fellow travelers. But let me repeat this very clearly for you, Mr. Punk: I definitely need a crutch. And that crutch’s name is Jesus.
Mr. Punk, God has arranged the world along a fine balance. There’s just enough information to compel a good mind to see and accept God and there are seemingly good reasons to reject that God is there. It is so finely balanced that God has left it up to your choice. And God will give you your desires. If you desire to be with him, he will receive you with open, welcoming arms. He will put you into a ‘forever family’ of people who really will be able to say, “Amen!” You’ll have no need to fear death because your position with God is secure because of what Jesus did for us.
But if you choose to reject God, then God will give you your desires: If you don’t want to have anything to do with God, then after you die you will have nothing to do with God. Do you remember what we call a place where there is no God? Sure you do. This is what we call that place: “Hell.” That’s the other thing: God doesn’t put people in hell, people choose to go there.
Finally, I am so sorry that your parents were fighting. I’m getting a bit misty-eyed even as I’m writing this. I wish I could give you assurance that everything will be OK. In reality, I can’t; because I don’t have the power to change your parents. But this is what I read in your pain-filled email: “I’m hurt and there are people out there who tell me that there’s an answer, a treatment, a way that will be better. But most of them are really messed up, just like me. How can I trust them?” I find it significant that in your pain, you turn your anger on Christians. I wonder … are you angry at Christians because they are somehow responsible for your pain? Or are you angry at Christians because you’re a lot closer to them: in our agony we frequently strike out at the ones who are closest to us.
What if God, who desperately loves you and has been trying to get through to you, is banging on the door of your life to get your attention? Is it possible that God might have used your parents’ argument to compel you to come a little closer to the people with The Message that you need to hear? I’m not suggesting that God caused the argument, but just that he is nudging on your heart because of that event. There are people in your life – you’ve already identified them – who want to help you make a good choice.
God does not want you to chose to reject him. The results are catastrophic.
Choose well.
Now my first reaction was that “this punk is gonna feel some PAIN: he made my girl cry, he’s gonna pay!” That feeling, BTW, was still floating around and was inevitably expressed here. The next reaction was to read the email for content and ignore all the flaming language. Once analyzed, I could coach my daughter into refuting the arguments presented with objective facts and conclusions. That would make me feel better because it would confirm that I’m smart and this punk (there I go again) is really rather stupid, uninformed, or both. But that would be rather infantile of me. The third reaction is to note a teenager in great pain: he feels alone (copy that), alienated, and his parents (the two most important people in his life) are in conflict. It was a long time ago, but I remember how I felt when my folks were fighting – it was not a “happy place.”
First, let’s dispense with the Father’s Rage part: if you’ll notice, Irene has shown herself to be a ‘contagious Christian’ in that this guy admits that she’s one of the few self-reporting Christians who seems to actually be Jesus-like. As a father, I’m rather proud of my little girl for that.
Second, let’s dispense with the arguments that young Mr. Punk has advanced. There are plenty of atheists on MySpace and the general blogsphere. Even more to the point, there are plenty of Christian-haters out here. But why are all the Christians proclaiming from the rooftops: “I’m a Christian and I’m not afraid to show it?” Well, there’s the implied fear from showing oneself as being a Christian. Why? Because emails and blogs like young Mr. Punk’s come out and trash on them! People say that Christians are intolerant – well intolerance is sure not limited to Christians. It’s a pretty natural reaction to get defensive in the face of an attack. Why are Christians “afraid?” Why, it’s because of people like you, young Mr. Punk: you rant on them, and intimidate them, and attack them.
But why are Christians so big on telling people that they’re Jesus-people? Well, in spite of the attacks they receive, Christians really believe that they have – from Jesus himself – The Message that will transform your life like it has theirs. They’ve experienced something … wonderful! … that defies what we usually see in our world. They are trying to get that news out. They are so excited about the overwhelmingly positive consequences of this information that they’re willing to go out on a blogspace limb and say: “Lookit, lookit! See what I’ve found!!”
In my opinion, it takes more courage to stand in the blogsphere and declare: “I have a message that you won’t agree with or want to hear. But it’s so important that I’m willing to get the inevitable flaming emails (like this) that will result.” On the other hand, there’s no courage in going with the flow: “smoking, drinking, and f***ing,” as Mr. Punk says his friends are doing.
The other thing to remember, young Mr. Punk, is that Jesus himself was pretty clear that not everyone who self-reports to be a “Christian” really is one. For you Bible-people out there, I remind you of Matthew 25:31-46. In fact, Christians are told they must examine themselves (though never told to examine others) to see if they are really born-again fully-devoted followers of Jesus (check out the little book of 1 John).
As to young Mr. Punk’s conclusion that our fear of the unknown after death compels us to do good; I think Mr. Punk is right. That God has arranged life so that death is an unknown is a powerful motivator for people to search and grope for him. Looking at death, we see some powerful truths: “I am not ready. Not only that, I’m sure I’ll never be ready. After death, there’s God waiting and it’s clear from what I see in this world that God is holy and has standards that I’ve not met.”
I need help. As Mr. Punk has rightly pointed out; I need a crutch. What The Message says is that Jesus died as a substitute for the spiritual consequences of my inability to meet the standards. Jesus then brought himself back to life to confirm his claims. If I rely on Jesus to pay for those lapses, then God will say (since he set it up in the first place), “Good, you’re seeing things from my perspective now. Come with me and let’s get started on some other good things.” God doesn’t promise prosperity, popularity, or that those dearest to you will get along – though that often happens. He does offer you new life in a community of fellow travelers. But let me repeat this very clearly for you, Mr. Punk: I definitely need a crutch. And that crutch’s name is Jesus.
Mr. Punk, God has arranged the world along a fine balance. There’s just enough information to compel a good mind to see and accept God and there are seemingly good reasons to reject that God is there. It is so finely balanced that God has left it up to your choice. And God will give you your desires. If you desire to be with him, he will receive you with open, welcoming arms. He will put you into a ‘forever family’ of people who really will be able to say, “Amen!” You’ll have no need to fear death because your position with God is secure because of what Jesus did for us.
But if you choose to reject God, then God will give you your desires: If you don’t want to have anything to do with God, then after you die you will have nothing to do with God. Do you remember what we call a place where there is no God? Sure you do. This is what we call that place: “Hell.” That’s the other thing: God doesn’t put people in hell, people choose to go there.
Finally, I am so sorry that your parents were fighting. I’m getting a bit misty-eyed even as I’m writing this. I wish I could give you assurance that everything will be OK. In reality, I can’t; because I don’t have the power to change your parents. But this is what I read in your pain-filled email: “I’m hurt and there are people out there who tell me that there’s an answer, a treatment, a way that will be better. But most of them are really messed up, just like me. How can I trust them?” I find it significant that in your pain, you turn your anger on Christians. I wonder … are you angry at Christians because they are somehow responsible for your pain? Or are you angry at Christians because you’re a lot closer to them: in our agony we frequently strike out at the ones who are closest to us.
What if God, who desperately loves you and has been trying to get through to you, is banging on the door of your life to get your attention? Is it possible that God might have used your parents’ argument to compel you to come a little closer to the people with The Message that you need to hear? I’m not suggesting that God caused the argument, but just that he is nudging on your heart because of that event. There are people in your life – you’ve already identified them – who want to help you make a good choice.
God does not want you to chose to reject him. The results are catastrophic.
Choose well.
20060830
Vacation'06
We took a mini-vacation the last few days. As much as I really enjoyed the two-week driving all over the country vacations that my parents took me and my sister on in our childhood, I feel I've not been able to provide the same experience with my own kids. Still, we have been able to do week-long trips every other year.
This year, we took four of our five (wife Barb, daughter Marian, son Theo, and myself) on a mini-road trip. We live in Washington state and are still new here only moving in two years ago. So we've been throughout the state and into Canada a few times. Last year we did a loop through lower B.C. and Alberta, then Montana and Idaho. That was fun and ambitious.
This year was smaller scale. We did a loop through some scenic southern B.C. We left Sunday afternoon, stopped and walked a while through Chinatown in Seattle. Then drove up to the boarder to Peace Arch Park, a favorite of mine. We then crossed the boarder without incident and overnighted in Vancouver.
Monday, we did a loop through Stanley Park (another favorite) and then went north to Horseshoe Bay. There was a lot of road construction and a reminder about how rugged this terrain is. We then started our climb up the mountains to Squamish (lunch), Pemberton, and Whistler (Starbucks and walking around break). We pressed on and, at the recommendation of a local, stopped by and hiked to see the Nairn Falls -worth the walk: spectacular.
We then pressed on and tested our little engine on the mountain roads and came through Lillooet and finally to Cache Creek, our destination for the night.
Tuesday, we headed down by the North Thompson River and then met the mighty Fraser River and travelled down the Fraser River Valley. We had a nice late breakfast in Hope and then headed back west on the Trans-Canada Highway. We made a required stop at Tim Hortons for a snack and then west on Highway 1A and reentered the states north of Lynden, WA.
I enjoy Canada very much and B.C. is a great place to visit. Parts of our trip reminded me of the road trips we took as children through the back roads of California. A bit of adventure, a bit of uncertainty, and a lot of beautiful scenery.
It was only a couple of days, but it was a nice break before getting back into the school grind.
This year, we took four of our five (wife Barb, daughter Marian, son Theo, and myself) on a mini-road trip. We live in Washington state and are still new here only moving in two years ago. So we've been throughout the state and into Canada a few times. Last year we did a loop through lower B.C. and Alberta, then Montana and Idaho. That was fun and ambitious.
This year was smaller scale. We did a loop through some scenic southern B.C. We left Sunday afternoon, stopped and walked a while through Chinatown in Seattle. Then drove up to the boarder to Peace Arch Park, a favorite of mine. We then crossed the boarder without incident and overnighted in Vancouver.
Monday, we did a loop through Stanley Park (another favorite) and then went north to Horseshoe Bay. There was a lot of road construction and a reminder about how rugged this terrain is. We then started our climb up the mountains to Squamish (lunch), Pemberton, and Whistler (Starbucks and walking around break). We pressed on and, at the recommendation of a local, stopped by and hiked to see the Nairn Falls -worth the walk: spectacular.
We then pressed on and tested our little engine on the mountain roads and came through Lillooet and finally to Cache Creek, our destination for the night.
Tuesday, we headed down by the North Thompson River and then met the mighty Fraser River and travelled down the Fraser River Valley. We had a nice late breakfast in Hope and then headed back west on the Trans-Canada Highway. We made a required stop at Tim Hortons for a snack and then west on Highway 1A and reentered the states north of Lynden, WA.
I enjoy Canada very much and B.C. is a great place to visit. Parts of our trip reminded me of the road trips we took as children through the back roads of California. A bit of adventure, a bit of uncertainty, and a lot of beautiful scenery.
It was only a couple of days, but it was a nice break before getting back into the school grind.
20060822
Summer Coursework Reflections
Happy August! Traditionally, this is vacation month. I remember when we lived in England that August was the month that all of Europe shut down: everyone was on “holiday.” Of course, the word “holiday” comes from the phrase “holy day;” but that meaning has long been lost. Do you think that’s happening here in the U.S.?
Well, the course work is done for the summer semester. I delivered my last requirement for the Old Testament DVD survey course last Friday: an exegetical paper on Numbers 16:1-7. If any of you are interested in reading it as a late-night sleep aid, just let me know and I’ll forward you a copy.
I have appreciated the Old Testament survey course more in reflection upon it. There are some very powerful lessons in the narrative of God’s people. What is especially striking, in my reading, was the inevitable rebellion or forgetting of God among the people. They would turn away from Yahweh, “follow after” other gods, and then bad things would happen to them.
I wonder if they fell into a pattern of thinking like this: “Sure, that God-stuff was a big deal 40 years ago. But this is now; things are different; times have changed; sure there are a couple old nut-cases floating around screaming, ‘repent, repent!’ but – come on! – I have to deal with real life.” Having forgotten who God is, they had no foundation to obey God’s rules. When they didn’t obey God’s rules, they reaped the resulting harvest.
So… as you go on your vacation this month, give a thought to the fact that you are living out a Sabbath principle. Have fun with your family! Play! Eat fun food! Celebrate your year! And give a thought to Yahweh who gave you strength and prosperity this year that you might enjoy your “holyday.”
Well, the course work is done for the summer semester. I delivered my last requirement for the Old Testament DVD survey course last Friday: an exegetical paper on Numbers 16:1-7. If any of you are interested in reading it as a late-night sleep aid, just let me know and I’ll forward you a copy.
I have appreciated the Old Testament survey course more in reflection upon it. There are some very powerful lessons in the narrative of God’s people. What is especially striking, in my reading, was the inevitable rebellion or forgetting of God among the people. They would turn away from Yahweh, “follow after” other gods, and then bad things would happen to them.
I wonder if they fell into a pattern of thinking like this: “Sure, that God-stuff was a big deal 40 years ago. But this is now; things are different; times have changed; sure there are a couple old nut-cases floating around screaming, ‘repent, repent!’ but – come on! – I have to deal with real life.” Having forgotten who God is, they had no foundation to obey God’s rules. When they didn’t obey God’s rules, they reaped the resulting harvest.
So… as you go on your vacation this month, give a thought to the fact that you are living out a Sabbath principle. Have fun with your family! Play! Eat fun food! Celebrate your year! And give a thought to Yahweh who gave you strength and prosperity this year that you might enjoy your “holyday.”
20060816
Leadership Summit: Day Three
Day Three was somewhat disorienting. It started with Wayne Cordeiro. Now Cordeiro comes bouncing up on the stage, spends significant time kidding with Hybels and then – almost incongruously – speaks of his bout with an emotional breakdown. Now I get that: “I’ve suffered from major depression and now I’m all better” is the message.
The message was powerful and a fearful warning for ministry people who may be closer to the edge than they know. He discussed symptoms of ministry burnout; the positive things that can come out of only suffering; and then some practical thoughts on how to avoid or recover from breakdown.
Bill Hybels finished up the conference and his talk had two parts. This contributed to my sense of disorientation. The talk was entitled, “The Power of Clarity;” and, knowing Hybels, you might expect a the-stakes-are-too-high-to-not-be-clear-about-your-vision-for-without-vision-the-people-perish thing. But that was not to be. He began by talking about how something recently caused him to change his mind about what he’d talk about today. OK, that’s got my curiosity up, right there. Now I'm disoriented. What happened? What’s the catalyst for the change? Then he used the title to make a clear and strong statement about the place of the theology of Substitutionary Atonement.
Now Hybels said some great things about this, and I appreciated his stand. Far too many in certain segments of the “Emerging Church” movement have – wrongly – stated that Substitutionary Atonement has no rightful place in Christian theology, doctrine, or belief. This ranges from Brian McLaren’s rather lukewarm acknowledgement of even the existence of the term to some more rabid bloggers who deny the validity of the doctrine. In the hurry to affirm the true-at-the-same-time other models of the Atonement, several have decided to jettison Substitutionary Atonement. This is wrong, of course.
So it gets me back to wondering what event cause Hybels to change his talk to become an affirmation of Substitutionary Atonement. Hmmmm.
The message was powerful and a fearful warning for ministry people who may be closer to the edge than they know. He discussed symptoms of ministry burnout; the positive things that can come out of only suffering; and then some practical thoughts on how to avoid or recover from breakdown.
Bill Hybels finished up the conference and his talk had two parts. This contributed to my sense of disorientation. The talk was entitled, “The Power of Clarity;” and, knowing Hybels, you might expect a the-stakes-are-too-high-to-not-be-clear-about-your-vision-for-without-vision-the-people-perish thing. But that was not to be. He began by talking about how something recently caused him to change his mind about what he’d talk about today. OK, that’s got my curiosity up, right there. Now I'm disoriented. What happened? What’s the catalyst for the change? Then he used the title to make a clear and strong statement about the place of the theology of Substitutionary Atonement.
Now Hybels said some great things about this, and I appreciated his stand. Far too many in certain segments of the “Emerging Church” movement have – wrongly – stated that Substitutionary Atonement has no rightful place in Christian theology, doctrine, or belief. This ranges from Brian McLaren’s rather lukewarm acknowledgement of even the existence of the term to some more rabid bloggers who deny the validity of the doctrine. In the hurry to affirm the true-at-the-same-time other models of the Atonement, several have decided to jettison Substitutionary Atonement. This is wrong, of course.
So it gets me back to wondering what event cause Hybels to change his talk to become an affirmation of Substitutionary Atonement. Hmmmm.
20060731
Jack and The Washer
I ride motorcycles. I have two bikes and my wife has one.
I'm a member of the Christian Motorcyclists Association ("CMA" http://www.cmausa.org/). My local chapter, the Olympia Lightriders (http://www.olylightriders.org/), participated with the state-wide rally called, "The Classic" on July 15th, 2006. All the chapters meet locally and then ride to a central location. Our chapter met at the Hawkes Prairie restaurant at Marvin Road and I-5. We're in Washington state so all the state chapters from west and east come to Packwood on US 12 for an afternoon.
I didn't ride with my local chapter but rode with friends, Scott & Joni Wheeler, and we took off early to get to our stops early to see if help was needed. Once we got to the park at Packwood and saw that things were good (especially that the BBQ lunch was on target - yes!), the group from my local chapter rolls in. It was good to see familiar faces and I went over to say howdy and small-talk about the ride, bikes, and such. As I was making the rounds, I noticed one of our members, Jack, was hovering over his ride.
Now Jack Veggin is one of our more "colorful" members. His ride that day was a tricycle. It has a VW backend and a motorcycle frontend. So Jack sits on a single rider motorcycle seat and there is a backbench for two other riders on the rear end. Jack had a gal, T.J., as a passenger that day.
Jack was saying that his clutch was binding something awful ever since the group had started off from the restaurant. There were a couple of other guys around standing around like myself as Jack tells us what's wrong. Jack decides he's going to tear into it right there. So he starts disassembling the back bench and looking at the clutch linkage. We look at this and that and finally, as Jack is working the clutch pedal, he notices that the linkage is binding at a particular point. It is a cobble. The actual part that is used for the VW isn't there. The problem is that there is a nut swiveling against a cupped flange - but it isn't moving smoothly.
I don't know who mentioned it; Jack, one of the other "supervisors," or myself; but I remember saying that what Jack needed was a wide and stout washer that would allow that nut to move more smoothly.
That got Jack's attention. He started patting down his vest and pants muttering something about 'where is that thing??' I thought the heat had gotten to him! He said that he'd found a washer that would probably do him just right. When did he come across this washer? Would he still have it on his person? Would it be the right size? This was getting more absurd the more I watched.
But then Jack clarified it: that morning, while he was waiting for everyone to show up at the restaurant, he'd just happened across a washer laying in the parking lot. Like picking up a penny, Jack just stuck it into his pants pocket and commented AT THE TIME (confirmed by T.J. who'd now joined us): "This might be useful someday."
So he tells us that story and then he finally located the washer - a little rusty but still very sound - in his pants pocket and proceeded to see if it fit.
It did.
Exactly.
And the clutch now worked properly.
The lesson we learned was that God provided the solution for a problem THAT DIDN'T EVEN EXIST YET.
Jack picked up the washer (the solution) in the parking lot of the Hawkes Prairie Restaurant. He didn't notice the clutch binding (the problem) until he got on the road. The solution to that problem was in his pants pocket all that time.
Now, this is just one of those every day little miracles of Providence, but it's pretty cool to remember that God can provide for even the smallest of needs.
I'm a member of the Christian Motorcyclists Association ("CMA" http://www.cmausa.org/). My local chapter, the Olympia Lightriders (http://www.olylightriders.org/), participated with the state-wide rally called, "The Classic" on July 15th, 2006. All the chapters meet locally and then ride to a central location. Our chapter met at the Hawkes Prairie restaurant at Marvin Road and I-5. We're in Washington state so all the state chapters from west and east come to Packwood on US 12 for an afternoon.
I didn't ride with my local chapter but rode with friends, Scott & Joni Wheeler, and we took off early to get to our stops early to see if help was needed. Once we got to the park at Packwood and saw that things were good (especially that the BBQ lunch was on target - yes!), the group from my local chapter rolls in. It was good to see familiar faces and I went over to say howdy and small-talk about the ride, bikes, and such. As I was making the rounds, I noticed one of our members, Jack, was hovering over his ride.
Now Jack Veggin is one of our more "colorful" members. His ride that day was a tricycle. It has a VW backend and a motorcycle frontend. So Jack sits on a single rider motorcycle seat and there is a backbench for two other riders on the rear end. Jack had a gal, T.J., as a passenger that day.
Jack was saying that his clutch was binding something awful ever since the group had started off from the restaurant. There were a couple of other guys around standing around like myself as Jack tells us what's wrong. Jack decides he's going to tear into it right there. So he starts disassembling the back bench and looking at the clutch linkage. We look at this and that and finally, as Jack is working the clutch pedal, he notices that the linkage is binding at a particular point. It is a cobble. The actual part that is used for the VW isn't there. The problem is that there is a nut swiveling against a cupped flange - but it isn't moving smoothly.
I don't know who mentioned it; Jack, one of the other "supervisors," or myself; but I remember saying that what Jack needed was a wide and stout washer that would allow that nut to move more smoothly.
That got Jack's attention. He started patting down his vest and pants muttering something about 'where is that thing??' I thought the heat had gotten to him! He said that he'd found a washer that would probably do him just right. When did he come across this washer? Would he still have it on his person? Would it be the right size? This was getting more absurd the more I watched.
But then Jack clarified it: that morning, while he was waiting for everyone to show up at the restaurant, he'd just happened across a washer laying in the parking lot. Like picking up a penny, Jack just stuck it into his pants pocket and commented AT THE TIME (confirmed by T.J. who'd now joined us): "This might be useful someday."
So he tells us that story and then he finally located the washer - a little rusty but still very sound - in his pants pocket and proceeded to see if it fit.
It did.
Exactly.
And the clutch now worked properly.
The lesson we learned was that God provided the solution for a problem THAT DIDN'T EVEN EXIST YET.
Jack picked up the washer (the solution) in the parking lot of the Hawkes Prairie Restaurant. He didn't notice the clutch binding (the problem) until he got on the road. The solution to that problem was in his pants pocket all that time.
Now, this is just one of those every day little miracles of Providence, but it's pretty cool to remember that God can provide for even the smallest of needs.
Restoration
I have a passion for restoring churches. No, that doesn't mean the "Extreme Makeover" or "Decorating on a Dime" types of restoration. Rather I mean working with a church that has experienced severe stress or stagnation that now threatens its survival. Christ-centered churches, when they are working right, can be a powerful force for God-energized good in our society as well as God's Kingdom.
I am always on the lookout for biblical accounts of restoration to see what they can teach me.
One of the Big Ideas of restoring a church to health and vitality is that the church's leaders need to be restored. In my studies, I came across a real interesting mini-biography that helped me understand this a little bit more. I'm indebted to Dr. Carl Laney for some of these insights.
The Biblical book of 2Kings is pretty depressing. The book records the rise of Solomon as the king over Israel. He is very smart, has a clear mandate to rule, and prospers as is fitting for a great man and a great nation. However, as the rest of the book reveals, even Solomon falls into idolatry and begins to forget Yahweh. From there, it is mostly downhill. Solomon's son takes bad advice, most of the tribes of the kingdom succeed, and thus begins the inevitable downward spiral that will lead to captivity, exile, and dispersion.
It has been pointed out that in the Northern Kingdom (commonly referred to as "Israel"), there is not a single good King to be found. All of them forget God of the Exodus. They are conquered by the Assyrians and dispersed, never to return en-mass to the Promised Land.
Among the Southern Kingdom (commonly referred to as "Judah"), there are occasional good Kings. However, there are more evil ones. A good King was Hezekiah. He got rid of the terrible and gruesome religious cults that had insiuated themselves into the people. BTW, there was nothing "earth friendly" or "noble" about these religions - they were wicked, murderous, oppressive, filled with hate and fear. Hezekiah got rid of their various "high places," phallic monuments, and other icons of creatures that were being worshipped rather than the Creator. Hezekiah was a good guy, a reformer, and he brought prosperity and success in his efforts because "he clung to the Lord" - like I said, a good guy.
However, his son was a different matter. Hezekiah died in battle due to an unwise action and his son, Manasseh, took the throne. He did evil - for reasons that escape me, after watching all that his father had been able to accomplish, Manasseh decides to go in exactly the opposite direction. He deliberately undoes all of the obvious progress that his father had worked to achieve and - is this predictable or what? - he suffers. I can't imagine the pain that must go through a person to reject the good, the faithful, the prosperous, the pragmatic, and embrace hopelessness, fear, death, and worthless sacrifice. I can't blame it on his dad - there's no indication that Hezekiah was anything but a good guy.
Manasseh continues down this road and "misled Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to do more evil than the nations whom" God had already punished! Manasseh is captured by the forces of Assyria and taken away in "hooks, bound in bronze chains" to exile. This wasn't a nice exile being kept in comfort - he was "in distress." 2Chron.33.
Yet, only then did Manasseh come to his senses. He finally did business with God and humbled himself "greatly." Manasseh had earned the reputation of being one of the most evil Kings in his country's history and after a lifetime of intentional wickedness comes to God - maybe for the first time - and repents. It is recorded that God heard Manasseh's prayer and then was moved to rescue Manasseh from captivity. Manasseh returned to his old Kingdom, his old capitol, and instituted several reforms that renounced his former ways.
So what this shows me is that God is very sensitive to a repentant heart.
What is sad is that while God allowed Manasseh to come back and try to put things back right, there were still consequences to Manasseh's former life. Manasseh apparently couldn't get through to his son, Ammon. Ammon turned out to be another evil king, carrying on in the ways of his dad's early career. Sadly, Ammon ruled for only two years and was assassinated when he was only 24 years old (2Chron. 33:21-24).
The happy ending to Manasseh's story is that while his son Ammon was a loss, it looks as though Manasseh got to his little grandson, Josiah. Josiah was only six when Manasseh died and Ammon became king, but the impressions that little Josiah got from listening to the stories from his grandpa must have been very powerful. For it was Josiah who became one of the most powerful reformers of the Northern Kingdom.
The lesson I learned from Manasseh was that while there may be painful consequences to a life poorly led, yet God can redeem and restore based merely on repentance. Churches and church leaders willing to repent can see restoration as God works through them.
I am always on the lookout for biblical accounts of restoration to see what they can teach me.
One of the Big Ideas of restoring a church to health and vitality is that the church's leaders need to be restored. In my studies, I came across a real interesting mini-biography that helped me understand this a little bit more. I'm indebted to Dr. Carl Laney for some of these insights.
The Biblical book of 2Kings is pretty depressing. The book records the rise of Solomon as the king over Israel. He is very smart, has a clear mandate to rule, and prospers as is fitting for a great man and a great nation. However, as the rest of the book reveals, even Solomon falls into idolatry and begins to forget Yahweh. From there, it is mostly downhill. Solomon's son takes bad advice, most of the tribes of the kingdom succeed, and thus begins the inevitable downward spiral that will lead to captivity, exile, and dispersion.
It has been pointed out that in the Northern Kingdom (commonly referred to as "Israel"), there is not a single good King to be found. All of them forget God of the Exodus. They are conquered by the Assyrians and dispersed, never to return en-mass to the Promised Land.
Among the Southern Kingdom (commonly referred to as "Judah"), there are occasional good Kings. However, there are more evil ones. A good King was Hezekiah. He got rid of the terrible and gruesome religious cults that had insiuated themselves into the people. BTW, there was nothing "earth friendly" or "noble" about these religions - they were wicked, murderous, oppressive, filled with hate and fear. Hezekiah got rid of their various "high places," phallic monuments, and other icons of creatures that were being worshipped rather than the Creator. Hezekiah was a good guy, a reformer, and he brought prosperity and success in his efforts because "he clung to the Lord" - like I said, a good guy.
However, his son was a different matter. Hezekiah died in battle due to an unwise action and his son, Manasseh, took the throne. He did evil - for reasons that escape me, after watching all that his father had been able to accomplish, Manasseh decides to go in exactly the opposite direction. He deliberately undoes all of the obvious progress that his father had worked to achieve and - is this predictable or what? - he suffers. I can't imagine the pain that must go through a person to reject the good, the faithful, the prosperous, the pragmatic, and embrace hopelessness, fear, death, and worthless sacrifice. I can't blame it on his dad - there's no indication that Hezekiah was anything but a good guy.
Manasseh continues down this road and "misled Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to do more evil than the nations whom" God had already punished! Manasseh is captured by the forces of Assyria and taken away in "hooks, bound in bronze chains" to exile. This wasn't a nice exile being kept in comfort - he was "in distress." 2Chron.33.
Yet, only then did Manasseh come to his senses. He finally did business with God and humbled himself "greatly." Manasseh had earned the reputation of being one of the most evil Kings in his country's history and after a lifetime of intentional wickedness comes to God - maybe for the first time - and repents. It is recorded that God heard Manasseh's prayer and then was moved to rescue Manasseh from captivity. Manasseh returned to his old Kingdom, his old capitol, and instituted several reforms that renounced his former ways.
So what this shows me is that God is very sensitive to a repentant heart.
What is sad is that while God allowed Manasseh to come back and try to put things back right, there were still consequences to Manasseh's former life. Manasseh apparently couldn't get through to his son, Ammon. Ammon turned out to be another evil king, carrying on in the ways of his dad's early career. Sadly, Ammon ruled for only two years and was assassinated when he was only 24 years old (2Chron. 33:21-24).
The happy ending to Manasseh's story is that while his son Ammon was a loss, it looks as though Manasseh got to his little grandson, Josiah. Josiah was only six when Manasseh died and Ammon became king, but the impressions that little Josiah got from listening to the stories from his grandpa must have been very powerful. For it was Josiah who became one of the most powerful reformers of the Northern Kingdom.
The lesson I learned from Manasseh was that while there may be painful consequences to a life poorly led, yet God can redeem and restore based merely on repentance. Churches and church leaders willing to repent can see restoration as God works through them.
20060717
Review of the FiveBooks
In my study of the first five books of the Bible I've noticed how harsh God's judgment can seem to me. Why would that be?
God tells us that he is compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, and overflowing in kindness and truth (Ex 34:6). Yet there he is sending plagues, having the earth swallow up the rebellious, and so forth. Is there an inconsistancy there?
I say no.
What I'm learning is that God places a special premium of responsibility to those who have seen him work directly. These people were the very eyeballs that saw the cloud by day and the fire by night every waking moment of their day. The saw - repeatedly - the miraculous working of God and the repeated confirmation of Moses as his prophet. And yet several still didn't want to get it. That's what I get out of the judments I see: God saying (I'm speculating here): if you don't believe me after all of what you've seen, you just never will.
I think specifically of the guy named Korah who claimed Moses was lording it over the people. Moses actually listened to this, gave Korah the night to think it over, and then Korah continued to resist the inevitable conclusion of all the years of Moses' prophetic role with Israel in the wilderness. Korah was judged and his life taken from him.
Yet, in these same books, I see that God is as he says he is: compassionate and forgiving. One might think that Korah's name would be blotted out forever in the history and culture of Israel. But the contrary is the case: it is the "Sons of Korah" who contributed 12 Psalms to scripture. Later generations of Korah's family pressed in so close to God that their poetry was recognized as God's Word.
I think that today, when we see God work directly, is there not as terrible a responsibility to live according to what we've seen?
I also see God's working on Abaraham, even though Abe made terrible choices early in our biography of him. Abe's family was plauged with "dysfunction," yet God was faithful and kept his promise to them. I think of Moses - God continuing to work in Moses' life as a leader even though Moses wasn't going make it to the Promised Land.
That gives me hope! If God can take Abe and Moses from "zeros" to "heros," perhaps he can work in my life, too.
God tells us that he is compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, and overflowing in kindness and truth (Ex 34:6). Yet there he is sending plagues, having the earth swallow up the rebellious, and so forth. Is there an inconsistancy there?
I say no.
What I'm learning is that God places a special premium of responsibility to those who have seen him work directly. These people were the very eyeballs that saw the cloud by day and the fire by night every waking moment of their day. The saw - repeatedly - the miraculous working of God and the repeated confirmation of Moses as his prophet. And yet several still didn't want to get it. That's what I get out of the judments I see: God saying (I'm speculating here): if you don't believe me after all of what you've seen, you just never will.
I think specifically of the guy named Korah who claimed Moses was lording it over the people. Moses actually listened to this, gave Korah the night to think it over, and then Korah continued to resist the inevitable conclusion of all the years of Moses' prophetic role with Israel in the wilderness. Korah was judged and his life taken from him.
Yet, in these same books, I see that God is as he says he is: compassionate and forgiving. One might think that Korah's name would be blotted out forever in the history and culture of Israel. But the contrary is the case: it is the "Sons of Korah" who contributed 12 Psalms to scripture. Later generations of Korah's family pressed in so close to God that their poetry was recognized as God's Word.
I think that today, when we see God work directly, is there not as terrible a responsibility to live according to what we've seen?
I also see God's working on Abaraham, even though Abe made terrible choices early in our biography of him. Abe's family was plauged with "dysfunction," yet God was faithful and kept his promise to them. I think of Moses - God continuing to work in Moses' life as a leader even though Moses wasn't going make it to the Promised Land.
That gives me hope! If God can take Abe and Moses from "zeros" to "heros," perhaps he can work in my life, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)