Matt's Musings

The 10 Commandments, Idolatry, the Gospel, and Delighting in God

2010-12-05T19:28:00.001-05:00

I had an epiphany during Sunday School this morning. Something that hadn't "clicked" before did today. Where is the intersection between the 10 commandments, idolatry, the Gospel, and Delighting in God? Probably, John Piper answered this question in Battling Unbelief (which is a light edit of the application chapters of an earlier work Future Grace). I'll reread Battling Unbelief this week to see but for now I wanted to put down a few thoughts while they are still fresh in my mind.

Why do we sin? We sin because we believe - in the moment, fleeting as it may be - that the sin will give us lasting pleasure. Thus, each sin - as Martin Luther taught long ago and Tim Keller recently wrote - is an act of idolatry. When we sin, we invest hope in what we're doing and as such we worship, trust, and serve something in creation thinking it will bring us lasting meaning, security, fulfillment, satisfaction and pleasure. But sin can never bring us that. It might bring us momentary pleasure (Hebrews 11:25) but cannot deliver lasting happiness.

Can anything deliver lasting happiness? YES! As Augustine said long ago, "God, you have made us for
yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find their
rest in you." Sin is our trying to find rest in something other than God. However, when we believe the gospel we begin a lifestyle of turning from placing our hope in things other than God (repentance from idolatry) and instead placing it in God (faith in Jesus). As John Piper has put it well in God is the Gospel, the point of believing the gospel is not that we simply get "benefits" (great as they are!) like justification, sanctification, and eventual glorification but we get God again (1 Peter 3:18). The great war Paul writes of in Romans 7 is the war between our flesh which invests hope in created things and our renewed spirit which knows that we will be restless until we rest in God.

The 10 commandments provide a test matrix for our Christian lives and how we are doing integrating the gospel into our lives particularly as it relates to us turning from idols and delighting in God. Let me relate the commandments and delight in God briefly. I'm assuming here that how this works with the 1st commandment is obvious.

2nd commandment - if I'm delighting in God as He's revealed Himself in the Bible, I'm satisfied with how He's pictured Himself especially in Jesus and I don't need to produce an ill-fitting and necessarily distorted picture of God for my help in worship or comfort in life.

3rd commandment - if I'm delighting in God and thus in His Name that stands for all He is to me in Jesus Christ, then I can't possibly use His Name casually or callously. If God doesn't mean all that much to me I can bear to throw His Name around without much thought.

4th commandment - if I'm delighting God, resting in Him, and enjoying that I have been brought to God through the perfect life, death, resurrection, and ongoing intercession of Jesus, then I treat the Lord's Day as a gift where I get to especially spend time with God, His people, learning His Word, and doing the merciful missionary work He's called me to do as one of His children. If I don't really enjoy God, then I'll easily desire other distractions on the Lord's Day and find worship, fellowship, and service burdens rather than joys.

5th commandment - if I'm delighting in God, I'll also rejoice in the structures God built into Creation including the authority structures. This will cause me to gladly honor Father and Mother as well as the other authorities (vocational, civil and spiritual) in my life. However, if I'm secretly upset with God (instead of delighting in Him) for seeking to exercise authority over me, then I'll resist His authority and the authority of those God has placed in my life as authorities over me.

6th commandment - if I'm delighting in God, I'll also be submissive to and patient with His dealings with me as I come to know His providential will in my life. If I don't delight in God, I'll consider God unwise and I'll chafe against that which He brings to pass relationally in my life resulting in anger and perhaps even violence as far as murder.

7th commandment - if I'm delighting in God then I won't have my hopes set on sex as the solution to my sadness. However, if I believe sex will make me ultimately happy for a moment or a day, then I'll seek it even in the arms of another man's wife (or wife's husband) or virtually in pornography or romance novels.

8th commandment - if I'm delighting in God, then I don't have my hopes set on "stuff" as the solution to my unhappiness. However, if God isn't the center of my life, I'll feel empty and think that "stuff" can make me feel significant and happy and I'll go so far as to steal to get that which I think will make me joyful.

9th commandment - if I'm delighting in God, I won't seek to harm others by my speech because I won't need to bolster my self-esteem. Instead, I'll have a Biblical view of myself based on the gospel. That gospel teaches me that though I'm so bad Jesus had to come for me I'm so loved and cherished Jesus was glad to come for me. That Jesus loves and cherishes me (so I'll return to Him and love and cherish Him as He deserves!) will be enough for me and I won't need to tear others down so I can build myself up. Instead, I'll use my speech to build others up.

10th commandment - If I'm delighting in God, then I won't have my hopes set in something I don't yet have whether that is a possession, a worker, a tool, or another spouse. However, I will fall into covetousness easily if I'm not delighting in God because in my flesh I'll tend to seek something, anything, that will make me happy. Our culture is especially responsive to this idol as all advertising seeks to convince me that I'll be happy if I only have something I don't currently have.

That's the epiphany from Sunday School today. If I don't delight in God, I'll seek happiness elsewhere via idolatry expressed in sin. What is the cure for this? How do I delight in God? Tim Keller and John Piper have sought in their works to help believers regain this crucial insight from the Reformation especially as it was displayed in the Puritans. Thankfully they've put these insights into 21st century language that is a bit easier to read than the Puritans.

In short form, when I'm rehearsing the gospel to myself daily, I'm reacquainted with my sin, God's grace in Jesus, and thus God's worthiness to be worshiped, trusted, and served. Indirectly (and this is where I think I get in trouble because I don't draw this much insight into the moments when I'm tempted to sin), by preaching the gospel to myself daily, I become more and more convinced that idols and their fruit, sin (which I do because I think sinning will make me happy) can't make me happy. But this is a fight, a spiritual battle between flesh and spirit.

May God cause us to treasure the gospel, turn from idols (and their fruit, sin), and as result gladly keep His commands because we delight in Him.

Pastors Should Read Leadership Books

2010-12-05T18:19:00.001-05:00

I have a confession to make ... I've learned more about team dynamics (and thus team leadership) from reading Pat Lencioni's Five Dysfunctions of a Team than anything written from a Christian perspective. And I'm not embarrassed. I've also recommended that book countless times to other pastors and shared my teaching notes of how I found the principles to actually have Biblical/gospel roots (not that this was the author's intention but he does wisely observe reality). By the way, I'm also happy to share those notes with you if you're curious.

Why do I share this confession? I find a great disconnect in pastors and ministries who are serious about Biblical exposition and that emphasize the ordinary means of grace. This disconnect is between "spiritual" things (like learning that is derived from the Bible and books written by Christians) and "pagan" wisdom. I'm happy to see a leadership book by a seasoned pastor like John MacArthur. However, this is an arena where plundering the well-meaning pagans can be useful.

While we may decry using "business" principles in church work (and I'd be on that band wagon!) the reality we face is a world where some of the smartest people (by God's common grace) are not on our Leadership Team at church. Instead, God chose to invest leadership smarts in people who don't yet know Jesus and don't have His glory in mind. But that doesn't make them any less useful when their insights are used rightly within a Biblical framework.

An illustration may help you understand what I mean. I'm a dedicated Biblical counselor in the CCEF tradition. However, that doesn't mean that sometimes the OBSERVATIONS that traditional psychologists and psychiatrists make aren't helpful. Sometimes - to our shame - they are better observers of human actions and the shaping influences of peoples lives than we are. This is the same vein in which I think an author like Pat Lencioni is exceptionally helpful. He's an astute observer of people and how they relate together in a team, in an organization, and how they react to leadership.

In the Five Dysfunctions of a Team Lencioni helps you understand that a team cannot function if the members don't trust each other. I know, not rocket science. But when was the last time you were in a meeting where everyone did trust each other? What happens when they do? How would you take a group that doesn't trust each other and help them begin to? How would you do that Biblically with the gospel and not just pragmatically (i.e. if you guys can't trust each other, these meetings are always going to be painful and we're not going to get anything done)? These are important questions and it is in the answer to these questions that real spiritual leadership is exerted.

To me, this kind of reading helps me understand the distortions of the gospel in the hearts of those I'm trying to lead. It's not that Lencioni can point me towards a Biblical solution, but he can help me understand the problem acutely. And understanding the problem accurately is at least 50% of the solution.

So as to not leave the reader hanging, let me give you a bit of sense as to how I've worked through the trust issue with my Leadership Team. From a Biblical standpoint none of us are trustworthy. We are depraved and unworthy of trust by anyone including ourselves. That especially applies to pastors who often think everyone should simply accept their wisdom and expect to be looked up to as "the authority". When we're trusting ourselves we are terribly insecure people who must either hold our opinions to ourselves (to protect our fragile egos) or we must display them strongly so as to make sure things go our way (and our fragile egos can be bolstered by winning).

So what can lead us forward? We must grapple with our inherent lack of trustworthiness and that of our team members. When we can own that we can begin trusting not based on past performance (good = "I can trust you" or bad = "I can't trust you") or present agreement with "my side" but based on the fact that the same Spirit of God that is at work in me is also at work in the one I'm finding hard to trust. This is a gospel answer to trust issues on a Christian Leadership Team.

When a team is growing in grasping the gospel, then they'll be growing in trust for each other. They'll find it easier to express their fears, concerns, disagreements, and quibbles because they know they aren't accepted with God or their team members based on performance but based on grace. That is, they aren't trying to gain their own security by how a particular conversation goes because they are already secure in Jesus. The practical effect of this is that "politicking" is unneeded. A back channel of communication is unneeded. Real conversations take place in meetings where everyone expresses and is heard and respected. Unsurprisingly, meetings like this produce better Biblical decisions. These decisions are well informed and wise because the all the members of the Leadership Team bring the riches of their wisdom unabashedly to the table.

This is one illustration of how a writer, who isn't writing from a Biblical viewpoint, helped me think through trust, an issue that faces every team. I think this is the virtue of reading books on leadership. God gave lots of people including some unbelievers great leadership insight that we ought to plunder placing those insights in a Biblical framework of spiritual leadership.

Thus, in my humble opinion, pastors should read books on leadership.

Can A Song Saying One Thing Prove Its Opposite?

2010-12-02T13:25:00.002-05:00

My Ph D (in some kind of aesthetics which will be funny momentarily!) -seeking friend JK posted a link in FB today to this song. If you can't laugh at it, something is wrong with you.

But after laughing you should muse a bit about this song and your reaction to it. Think of all the uniquely human - created in God's image - aspects to our experience of that song. Harmony, synchrony, and the creation and appreciation of humor are all things animals don't do. If - as atheists say - we are simply the product of matter, time, and chance then the song could not have been created.

One author is known to say, the penguins in Antarctica are not judging their friends dives into the the water or their style in catching fish. Appreciation of another's creation is a shadow of us appreciating the Creator who made us and all things.

Atheists may want a song but even their yearning for a song and enjoyment of this song reveals a yearning for something far greater, a yearning for the God who made them creative and humor enjoying. Indeed a song saying one thing can prove its opposite.

Channeling Dr. Jones for a minute...

2010-08-21T16:08:00.001-04:00

There's much that could be said about the Prop 8 controversy in California. This article helpfully lays out some of the potential issues for Christians. These potential issues are not expressions of "the sky is falling". All one needs to do is to look to Canada and some of the European countries to see that calling homosexuality immoral is now considered hate speech.

So where does Dr. Jones fit into this? For those who don't know Dr. Peter Jones you can read about him at truthXchange.com. (Fair disclosure: I serve as the Chairman of the Board for truthXchange.) One of the Dr. Jones' main points about homosexuality is that it is the outgrowth of a religious worldview.

The reader unacquainted with Dr. Jones' work might be saying "huh?". I thought it was objection to homosexuality that flows from a religious worldview. Indeed it does. But support for homosexuality (and thus gay marriage and a host of other forms of alternate sexuality) also flows from a religious viewpoint, that of oneism. See this blog post by Dr. Jones for assistance in understanding how oneism inexorably leads one to an embrace of all forms of sexuality.

So where does this leave us ... it leaves us in the unenviable position of attempting to explain to those who would push for gay marriage that they are also working from a comprehensive religious worldview. Moreover, we must patiently explain that they are being just as bigoted and exclusive in their claims as they say we are. it's not that some of us are religious, all of us must be. But which of the two competing worldviews (oneism or twoism) can explain our "need" to be religious?

I love the PCA Strategic Plan AND the Alternative

2010-06-01T09:18:00.001-04:00

Yesterday I spent a couple of hours getting up to speed on the PCA Strategic Plan and the debate surrounding it. Conveniently Wes White has compiled a page on his blog that gives readers easy access to much of what has been written on this topic. If you want to get up to speed on the proposed plan and with what speakers in the blogosphere are saying, it's a go to place.

Here's my brief take: I love both, the PCA Strategic Plan and the Alternative. Here's why ... I think Paul would like both. I think both embody PART of the way Paul thought about ministry and together they represent the best of the totality of the way Paul thought about how church ought to be done locally AND across diverse ethnicities and geography.

I've had the great privilege of being at a new call over the past two years and preaching through the book of Acts. If you haven't preached/studied Acts, you should. It will challenge you to actually work out what Biblical ministry looks like in the midst of congregational life. One thing it has done for me is that it's given me greater perspective on the personal ministry of Paul and the more global view he held of the work of Christ's church.

Let me briefly comment on why I think Paul (and thus God since we don't see the things Paul did gaining God's disapproval but rather His blessing and ultimately it's been to our blessing as most of us - especially in Seattle! - live at the ends of the earth relative to Jerusalem) would be excited about both proposals, the PCA Strategic Plan and the Alternative. I figure if Paul could be excited about both, then it would be okay if I was as well.

First, let's take the Alternative. To my reading, the Alternative comes from and appeals to the "Ordinary Means" crowd in the PCA. I'm a proud product and member of that group. Some of you might even know of a podcast by that name. If Paul were evaluating the Alternative I believe he would say, "Right on! That's the kind of goals and means I used in my house to house ministry, when I helped plant a church, and when I sent out men to revitalize churches." The virtue of the Alternative is that it robustly reasserts what local church ministry should focus on and seek to inculcate in the sheep.

I believe Paul would also enthusiastically give two thumbs up to the PCA Strategic Plan. Why? Paul didn't ONLY do ordinary means ministry in local churches and encourage it. He saw a nascent 1st century church that wasn't facing it's ethnic struggles and ministry climate and he made sure both were faced (Acts 15 & Galatians 2 for ethnic struggles and cf. the variety of Paul's ministry approaches among the Gentiles). Paul wasn't content with a ministry that didn't also connect with the larger church in the world. He provided a connection point and encouraged others to pursue a love relationship with the broader church (i.e. the collection from the various Gentile churches that came to Jerusalem in a demonstration of the unity of the Body of Christ, cf. Romans 15:25 and Acts 21 for the delivery of the gift with representatives of what was then the global church).

Acts 15 is a fascinating study. Was it a safe place for dialogue on a sensitive issue pertaining to the question, "How do we minister given today's realities concerning a people of God that now crosses - and must cross - ethnic boundaries"? I believe it was. As I've taught Acts 15 to my leadership, it is evident that a tough question was wrestled through and one side didn't "win". It was a consensus with folks who were hardened on either side ultimately "losing" in the final analysis. And yet, because they were men who believed the Holy Spirit to be at work in their midst, they could say at the end in the letter that was sent to all the churches, "...it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." And they said this when no one "won" in that I don't believe anyone had the solution when they gathered initially.

At this point I must give out a kudo to an old friend (in the ordinary means camp!). Near the bottom of Martin Hedman's second post on his analysis of the PCA Strategic Plan he helpfully points out that a large part of the problem as we process the struggles in the PCA (and really everything else!) is our sin. One of the sad ways sin works itself out in the PCA is that sometimes we don't "hear" each other. We talk past each other. In Acts 15 I don't see that. Frankly, they were better men than we. They were willing to "lose" and move from their entrenched position so that at the end the final product was a group product that was good to the Holy Spirit.

My sense of this debate is that we are actually in Acts 15 sort of situation in the PCA. If you watch the video of Bryan Chapell working through some of the longer version of the Plan, you'll see him simply be honest about how we evaluate each other in the PCA. The reason the Plan engenders so much debate is that both groups are "entrenched" and seemingly speaking past each other.

Let me perhaps try to move things a bit forward by asking a series of questions.

Do the drafters of the Strategic Plan think an ordinary means style of ministry is wrong? Not to the best of my understanding. I believe they "assume" that's what what we're all already doing and so they didn't feel a need to reassert those aspects of our common life.

Do the drafters of the Alternative Plan think we should be insular, only concerned with "my local church" and have no regard for changing culture in America and worldwide realities concerning the church? No. Some of those men and their churches are the most active in intentional local, regional, national, and international missions.

So what is the dividing line that is showing up? IMHO opinion the dividing line that is showing up is whether - as a denomination, a group of churches in a geography not unlike the 1st century - we should be concerned MOSTLY with our local ministry and BARELY with the rest of the situation in our country and world or whether we should BALANCE these concerns.

The Alternative plan puts the emphasis on solid, ordinary means, local church ministry and sees that as the "solution" to whatever ails the PCA. I believe Paul would say, "Amen!" and then he'd say, "But what about ..." And this is where I see the Strategic Plan coming in to fill out the other aspects of the Kingdom work Paul felt God wanted to see happen through his ministry.

The Strategic Plan (Theme #1) puts the emphasis on engaging with a changing ministry environment that needs us to pull together to do intentional ministry. That is messy to produce (Acts 15 was messy, but it was a "safe place" for the messiness to happen).

That Kingdom ministry (Theme #2) should reflect the kind of Biblical Kingdom variety we see Paul using in his ministry. Paul made good use of older men, contemporaries, younger men, women, and cultivated new leaders intentionally.

Last that Kingdom ministry should be concerned with the larger church and what we can learn from it and give to it. This was certainly on Paul's heart. (Theme #3)

To be honest I don't think Paul would be content with only the Strategic Plan or the Alternative. I don't think he would have recognized either as sufficient in itself.

Let me add one more layer to my analysis. I believe the Alternative plan is seeking to work out the implications of the gospel for local church ministry. I believe the PCA Strategic plan is seeking to work out the implications of the gospel for a denomination ministering in a changing ministry context at home and abroad. BOTH plans are seeking to lead us to gospel faithfulness but in different realms. The Alternative is concerned with faithful ministry in the local church. The PCA Plan is concerned with crafting what a faithful ministry would look like by our group of churches believing we are stronger together than standing alone. To return to Paul, I believe he was concerned about BOTH of these questions. Certainly his actions reveal that he was. Shouldn't our actions that flows from our plans?

Can I tell a story on myself as I move towards the end of this absurdly long analysis? Some years ago I had the privilege of becoming friends with a "missional" PCA guy. At that time I identified myself with the "ordinary means" camp (still do, hence the podcast name, but that's a longer story than I should tell today). When we began spending time together neither of us understood each other or where the other was coming from. We both assumed that "ordinary means" and "missional" were mutually exclusive positions. We assumed they were speaking about the same issues in a divergent manner. We were wrong and it took us a both a while to figure that out.

Let me explain what I mean because I think getting this right will help the PCA through the process it is in currently. "Ordinary Means" thinking relates to the ways in which we do ministry (i.e. we focus on preaching, the sacraments, and prayer as the ordinary means God uses). "Missional" relates to the "stance" we have as we go about doing ministry. That is, do we think of ourselves as missionaries even here in the US. A missionary has a certain "stance" as he approaches ministry. "Means" and "stance" are quite different things actually. A few years ago I heard Lig Duncan say something close to this, "There's no such thing as an uncontexualized ministry." And this from THE ordinary means guy in the PCA! This paragraph is a brief attempt to make the point that "ordinary means" (the focus of the Alternative Plan) and "missional" (the focus of the PCA Strategic Plan) are not enemies. Ideally, they are friends. This is the way Paul viewed them.

For my own ministry in Seattle and for my leadership here we have moved towards something we call "intentional faithfulness". The "faithfulness" aspect of this term embraces the kinds of things the Alternative Plan puts forward as the keys to renewal in the PCA. The "intentional" aspect of this term embraces the kinds of things the PCA Strategic Plan puts forward as key to our continued Kingdom fruitfulness.

Perhaps the way forward is to think about these two documents in tandem not in disagreement. Do we need reminders to stick to the "foolish" means God has ordained for the conversion of hardened sinners and their sanctification? Yes. Do we need reminders that we don't exist on an ecclesiastical island as individuals churches that can afford to not be intentional about our ministry context? Yes. These two documents together call us to "intentional faithfulness" and that's a good call in my mind.

A Predictable Collapse

2010-05-27T13:31:00.001-04:00

My old friend Drew Collins commented on FB on this article. The article is insightful and very helpful. When some have asked me how the emergent thing 1) got started and 2) it's future, I've repeated some comments several times but until now have never written them. With this helpful article in print today seems a good day to add my humble comments to this phenomena.

Before Emergent existed, some (mostly younger) folks felt Boomer evangelicalism (typically contained in megachurches that more resembled malls than churches) was shallow, lacking the spiritual depth church should involve. This resulted in a fork in the road.

To the left (and yes, the direction chosen here is purposeful) was a fork that ended up in Emergent. To the right was a fork that ended up in young, restless, and Reformed.

Combating shallowness, which results in a sense of disconnectedness from God, is the design of taking either of those forks. Emergent types thought evoking ancient practices that weren't content focused would help them connect with God. Instead it has only heightened their focus on "this world" and increasingly removing God and His Word from view except to evoke guilt.

The collapse of emergent into something which quite closely resembles early 20th century Protestant Liberalism was somewhat predictable to those with a historical perspective. As J. Gresham Machen made clear nearly 100 years ago in Christianity and Liberalism, liberalism in any form is really another religion. Dr. Peter Jones for the past 20 or so years has been documenting the resurgence of oneism (if you haven't seen Mark Driscoll explain oneism yet, you should) in traditional mainline Protestant churches and more recently in the emergent movement.

On the other hand those who chose the fork to the right (young, restless, and Reformed) are among the shining lights in not only American evangelicalism but evangelicalism worldwide. Instead of seeking to reconnect with God through content free practices, this fork in the road embraces deep Biblical and theological reflection centered on the gospel and its implications. The recent Together for the Gospel conference with 7000 attendees indicates this fork is taking the American evangelical scene by storm with positive results. Passionately twoistic, God and His Word is central among the young, restless, and Reformed crowd.

One might wonder though if those who took the fork to the right are doing any good in this world. Interestingly enough, they are. Rooted in the Scriptures which teach of a Jesus who was "mighty in deed and word" (Luke 24:19, ESV), these churches are as passionate to proclaim Jesus as the sole savior of mankind (thus showing concern for the 40 billion years - and that's just the prologue - of life that will follow ones short earthly life) as they are to bear the fruit of the Spirit through loving their neighbors (near and far, personally and institutionally) in practical ways. Thus the fork to the right produces two fruit: vibrant passionate connectedness to GOd AND genuine practical deeds towards men.

Published in 1920, Robert Frost's poem The Road Not Taken (while variously interpreted) seems helpful to conclude this analysis/commentary. For the past 40 years of American evangelicalism (some would say 100 or more!) the well worn path is the one the Emergents have taken with the well bent grass of experience at the forefront. But without any content to root the experience, the grass is dying on that path.

The young, restless, and Reformed crowd likewise seek an experience of God but one that is rooted in content. Well fertilized and watered, deeply cultivated and richly seeded, that road is less traveled but ultimately honors God and blesses people. May it become increasingly the well used path that doesn't wear as it is rejuvenated, stays green, and is increasingly resplendent by the outpouring of God's Spirit on His church.

Health Care Wisdom

2010-03-18T14:51:00.001-04:00

Read this article (though some of the comments aren't as sharp as the article) for some excellent thoughts on the health care debate and how Christian should think about health care.

On Saturday I plan to interact with a horrible piece from 3/14's SF Chronicle on this same topic.

Only Two Things Are Inevitable...

2010-01-16T20:42:00.001-05:00

I'm frustrated by articles like this. They old saying that only two things are inevitable is true. Only death and taxes are sure, at least in American minds. But there is one more thing that is sure... judgment at the seat of Christ (2 Cor 5:10).

I'm concerned that in the midst of health care debates such as engages our country at the moment that we lose focus on something FAR more crucial. People without health insurance may die sooner. This is lamentable and should be solved in another way. For my thoughts see my blog post in health care not costing enough.

What is lost in this debate? Someone may die at 40 instead of 60 (again lamentable, I'm not for this at all, but I do disagree with the plan to solve it) but if an issue of far greater importance (alienation from God) is not resolved, their eternal life (yes, all people live forever) will be miserable. The priority for Christians - while pursuing a personal and church ministry like Jesus' that was powerful in word and deed (Luke 24:19) - is the salvation of people through the proclamation of the gospel.

The idea that people "won't die" if they simply have health insurance is untrue. They might not die 20 years earlier. That is true. But they will eternally die if they die at 40 or 60 without Jesus. The scale here is important. 40 billions years without Jesus will be miserable if you die at 60 while 40 billion years with Jesus will be pleasurable even if you die at 40.

Brooks Gets It Right

2010-01-16T19:07:00.001-05:00

The disaster in Haiti is unspeakably horrible. However, the reason the disaster is so great - according to this article by David Brooks - is due to Haiti's poverty. In that article Brooks outlines the reasons why poverty persists in Haiti and in other places.

I couldn't agree more and readers can refer to my previous blog post concerning World Vision for more of my thoughts on the foolishness of much economic development that doesn't address the underlying worldview - and thus life habits (Brooks' main concern) - of the people being aided.

As well, the Brooks article provides a nice opportunity to share a resource I've greatly benefited from in the last 6 months or so. Wayne Grudem is someone who has recently done a lot of thinking about poverty fighting and economic development. You can hear audio of the results of his research - presented to his own Sunday School class so lay people ought to listen - here. A pdf of the notes he handed out is worth its weight in gold and can be found here.

On Grudem's recommendation I'm presently making my way through David Landes' monumental THe Wealth and Poverty of Nations. If you're into thinking about economics, economic history, or economic development it's a good read.

Lost Serendipity

2009-10-27T16:07:00.001-05:00

I keep telling myself I'm not a Luddite and then I read something else that makes me wonder if I am.

Al Mohler's Daily Link List (a VERY helpful sampling of news articles related to cultural issues delivered to your email box) for today pointed me to this article about a Massachusetts prep school eschewing physical books.

That brought back to mind these reflections from Ken Myers referencing this VERY helpful article by Alan Jacobs. As one who has been dubbed an "ever curious child" by my colleague in ministry, serendipity is more of a lifestyle for me than it is anything else. Just walking in his office a few minutes ago and looking at his bookshelves revealed for the nth time that he owns a book I've known about and wanted to read for some years. These kids in Massachusetts won't have that experience, ever. Kind of sad.

When Health Care Gets Really Costly

2009-09-27T11:55:00.001-04:00

I've never really been into the whole health care debate. Not sure why really. In fact this time around I told myself that I didn't have time to get into the details of this convoluted issue and attempt to make any sense of it. Well I've been sucked in. Reading this excellent article made me want to say something small for now.

Near the end of the linked piece Towey says, "I lived and worked in an AIDS home in the mid-1980s and saw first-hand how the dying wanted more than health care—they wanted someone to care." This is my passion in this debate. We want to "solve" a problem by throwing money at it.

I'm all for good health and good health care. Under new insurance in a new state with a newly pregnant wife, it can be daunting and frankly a bit nerve wracking because it's all different. I admit that it's a delicate situation with a lot of considerations. My concern is that the proper considerations are not in view.

Why can't people afford health insurance? Doesn't that seem like a better problem to solve? The reason this problem is not the one that's on the table is because solving the "why" problem would take personal work by people. Economic development of individual families is a family to family, person by person work. Now that's expensive, personally expenssive. And if we're honest, we'd rather open our wallets to more taxes than open our lives to the hard work of helping other families experience the prosperity we have.

Just like the AIDS patients Towey knew wanted more than health care, those unable to afford health insurance around us need more than our tax dollars, they need our personal love and care for them. That's when health care gets really costly, when it costs us ourselves. And yet this is what is really loving, to look at the long term, multi-generational effect of what we're doing instead of "feeling good" by throwing money at a complex problem.

The problem with what is being proposed in Washington is not that it is too costly. It's costly to our wallets, don't get me wrong. But if we want something more than a solution for a single generation that has to be renewed and funded for the next generation, then it will cost us more than tax dollars. It will cost us time, love, and care.

A Gospel Way That Is Neither Liberal Nor Conservative

2009-08-28T16:11:00.002-04:00

Okay, so I'm home on my day off supposedly finishing a fence project that I started last summer. The wife and kids are gone to the zoo to give me peace and space. I look forward to their return even as I enjoy work in peace. As I work I'm listening to the radio and what I'm listening to is hacking me off.

At present I'm listening to Michael Medved. He's talking about this story which I agree is horrific. But the way he's talking about it reveals the paucity of his conservative Jewish worldview.

How does liberal politics deal with sex offenders? Here's in a nutshell (the fence awaits my attention after all!) what a liberal view says: criminals are not bad people, yes they've done some bad things, but if they get a better view on life via rehabilitation (like education only later in life after you've screwed up), they can reenter society.

How does conservative politics deal with sex offenders? Here's the summary: criminals are bad people, that's why they've done bad things, they may be convinced that the spoils of crime don't add up to the benefits of right living, if so they can be released but if not keep them locked up and never let them back in society. This last phrase is what Medved is saying about the recently arrested man who kept the sex slave for 19 years.

Here's my hasty analysis... the liberal gets it wrong because they don't see people as really broken and sinful. The conservative gets it wrong because although they see people as truly broken they don't believe true internal transformation is possible.

The gospel way to think about this (and apologies in advance if this offends you, but if it offends you, you've got more of the gospel to understand my friend) would follow these lines: we're all broken and sinful including sexually, we express our brokenness in different ways, some people are more careful with their sexual perversion than others, but all people - NO MATTER WHAT kind of sexual perversion they have (and we all have them, including the writer and the reader!) - can be freed from the power of that perversion by conversion under the gospel and kept from that perversion by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This perspective is lacking in Medved. Sadly it's also lacking in other conservative talking heads who espouse Christianity or a form of it. We can't leave "perverts" hopeless or we leave ourselves hopeless. Either the gospel applied by the Holy Spirit CAN transform the "very worst" of sinners or its simply something to help us "lesser sinners" get along in life. Which is it?

A Smaller Pea Shooter Than They Think

2009-08-26T12:17:00.001-04:00

This past Sunday's Seattle Times had a Sunday magazine article covering World Vision, a non-profit ministry based in Federal Way (a city on the I-5 corridor between Seattle and Tacoma). You can read the article here.

Before I take a broadside at World Vision, let me be complimentary first. It is laudable to seek the relief of the poor. Helping people who can barely eat or who don't have clean water or who have no opportunities for schooling is fabulous work. I'm all for it. But... I'm all for it within a larger context of work World Vision and other non-profits must also do.

My beef with World Vision (and frankly with tons of non-profits, NGO's, and "ministries") is they are very shortsighted in their work. Relief of the poor is good. On the other hand, thoughtful economic development via worldview transformation is far better, farther reaching, and (most importantly!) more effective, life transforming, and generationally freeing. Let me explain ...

Maybe you've heard the Chinese proverb, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." World Vision's approach is very "Give a man a fish." Or, at the most, there is with schooling and micro loans the hope that somehow those efforts will help "feed him [or her] for a lifetime". However, without worldview transformation wholesale economic development is impossible.

Trillions spent in the developed and undeveloped world don't lie. Have some been fed for a day or two? Yes. But have whole countries or even villages or tribes been developed economically? Rarely if ever in the past 100 years. Why? Because the fundamental things that would have to happen for that to occur World Vision chooses not to do.

World Vision seems humble knowing they are up against a great Goliath. Towards the end of the article Richard Stearns is quoted saying, "We're aiming at global poverty with a pea shooter." I agree and not just because we're little creatures trying to solve a very large problem. By choosing "feed a man for day" (or at best for a lifetime) instead of the wiser goal of worldview transforming economic development they've used a smaller pea shooter than they think.

The Seattle Times Magazine rticle writer (Janet I. Tu, The Seattle Times religion reporter) notes, "The organization does not proselytize and serves all, regardless of their faith." I'm in full agreement with the second part of this statement. Loving your neighbor can't be selective.

For historic Christians though, it is radically unloving to your neighbor to not seek their conversion. A person fed in this life (even fed for a lifetime!) is slightly happier now but will be forever unhappy when this life ends if they don't turn to Christ. "Deeds without creeds" kill not save.

And there's more sadness that comes with this approach ... let me illustrate this sadness with a surprising statistic. Do you know what is most likely to land a child in America in poverty? Having a single parent. All other issues aside (including ethnicity, geography, family history, skills, etc.) the way to end up poor is to grow up in a family where (most likely) Dad isn't around. Poverty persists where family structure doesn't in America. And where does a glad embrace of family structure come from? A Christian worldview that flows out of a person being proselytized into the Christian faith. If we want less poor kids in America, we need more Dads that stay around for more than one night.

What about around the world? In my studies in economic development (ask me in the comments for reading suggestions if you're curious) the two greatest factors that prevent the economic development of a particular geography are political instability/corruption and the worldview of the people. Let me offer some brief comments on each of these.

Big dollars amounts given in "economic aid" to developing countries rarely end up feeding the hungry. Why? Corrupt, unaccountable politicians line their own pockets and feed their cronies in style while suppressing and starving the opposition. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe is the expert in this style of country-raping oppression. But it happens everywhere where aid comes in.

Big governments simply aren't equipped to selflessly bless the citizenry if they aren't Christians or don't have a heritage of accountable democracy that flows out a Christian worldview. Even in America where we have that kind of political heritage the corrupt hearts we all possess reveal their dark side in graft, corruption, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance. Developing countries rarely have governments that can effectively bring about a fair distribution of aid. So we feel good that we "helped" but at best we fed a man for day.

Just as the worldview of a government has a large effect on how they govern the citizenry (or abuse it as the case is frequently in the developing world), so also does the worldview of the citizens. Many times the worldview of the citizens PREVENTS their own economic development.

I should say as an aside here (and thanks goes to Dr. Peter Jones, a mentor of mine who sharpened me at this point) that when I talk about "economic development" I'm not saying that a suburb of Dhaka should look like my neighborhood in West Seattle. Simply exporting the selfish affluence of the West would be to import a degree of curse instead of blessing. I'm not pushing for the developing world to reach a point where they are as unhappy as we are in our wealth. Rather, what I'd like to see is children who grow up fed, whose health is cared for, who have the opportunity to learn, participate in the arts, worship their Maker, and use their gifts for the blessing of their city and God's Kingdom.

But at present so many live in grinding poverty with no hope of anything else. World Vision (compassionately and laudably!) wants to see this change. My point though is this ... without proselytizing, that is without wholesale change in worldview, many developing countries cannot economically develop. Why? The nuts of bolts of what can lead to economic development are not in place so it can't happen.

Though I LOVE the concept of micro-lending (it's one the best on the ground ideas in familial economic development to come along in years), it's single generational. Let me explain ... Suppose a male child grows up in a family with a single mom who gets a micro loan but never gets any sort of worldview training that would result from his family becoming Christians. That male child will likely go on in his own life better fed, perhaps in slightly better health and with more schooling but with the same ethics as his own father. All the system does (without proselytizing that leads to worldview change) is perpetuate the need for the woman this male child eventually impregnates having to get her own micro loan after he knocks her up and leaves.

I know this kind of speech is straightforward and not very politically correct. To many it is anathema to say that for people to develop economically their culture and belief system must change. But it must or else we are actually slightly loving instead of fully loving.

An example of how worldview affects economic development is in order. A story is told by Bryan Chapell in his book Holiness by Grace of his accomplished farmer father going to Africa to attempt to try to help some poverty stricken farmers grow more crops. Chapell's father suggests they implement some modest technology to help them yield more. They refuse and remain in poverty. Why? According to their worldview, if they changed the way they farmed the land their ancestors had farmed for hundreds of years, the spirits might be upset and they might not have more crops but less. In their minds, it was better to subsist in poverty than risk upsetting the spirits.

It's a small example but it could be multiplied across cultures and countries. Where reality (i.e. the Christian worldview) is embraced, right thinking, right ethics, and right living result from the transformed hearts of people who live differently in Christ. And economic development happens when good ideas (like relief and micro-lending) are combined with proselytizing that results in worldview shift. Where this doesn't happen we actually aren't being all that loving.

World Vision is shooting a big problem with a smaller pea shooter than they think. And they don't have to, it's just easier to.

As I finish this missive I realize I have proposed something different, only theorized and critiqued. What would real help to the poor of the world look like? It's happening in Uganda right now. Ministerial candidates come to Westminster Theological College and Seminary and learn not just the ministry but also the basics of how to support themselves and teach others to do the same. So they bring back to where they minister not just the gospel but a form of life that is economically ahead of subsistence. This form of life is what they spread as the church grows.

This kind of effort is fully loving, multi-generational, and long-sighted. But would pluralist, pagan, "I want to feel like I'm doing something" American donors give to such an effort. Unlikely. Ironically so many in the West want the feeling of helping without really helping. We enjoy the prosperity such worldview transformation brought about in the West hundreds of years ago but won't multiply that - because of our paganism - to the developing world. Not very loving is it. But it is what is going on.

Syncretism As the Solution?

2008-12-18T18:54:00.001-05:00

This article from the Boston Globe contains an interesting take on how religions should consider each other. This article pleads for more than a peaceful coexistence. Instead it ponders a world where 9/11 and Mumbai would be impossible because the great faiths would get along and see that they only have a piece of the great spiritual pie to themselves. Many religions will be willing to join this kind of effort as they are linked by a spiritual core of explaining the world by the world. Despite the wishes of Jenkins (the author of the Boston Globe article) bemoaning an age past of syncretism, Christianity cannot be syncretistic in its outlook. We proclaim a faith of a Creator who is distinct from all and created all. Worship not directed to the Creator (Yahweh) is idolatry and finally can't satisfy the longings of the human heart. It is for this reason that syncretism is profoundly unloving and unsatisfactory. Only if we hate people should we go this route of syncretism between the religions.

Helpful Economic Perspective

2008-10-17T12:15:00.001-04:00

I was forwarded in an email this article. I find it a much needed and helpful perspective. It's got me musing. Hope it does the same for you.

The Scary World On the Other Side of the Slider

2008-09-12T02:14:00.002-04:00

For well over a year God's been working on me in a big area of rebellion in my own life. My big sin ... refusing to be content to be a mere creature. I've been tempted to dismiss this as a little thing. But the longer I've dwelt on it and meditated on my own attitudes in comparison to God's Word, the more I've become convinced it's one of the most insidious and prevalent sins I commit.

It's insidious because the more I think about it the more I realize that multiple daily sins flow from it. It's prevalence is staggering in that this sinful way of thinking has been for 19 years of Christian living my default mode of life.

Let me explain the title and then describe a bit of what I've learned. It's as though in my life there is a sliding glass door I can see through. The world on the other side of the sliding glass door is more pleasant, more honoring to God, less stressful, and involves living in the real world God made. I don't live in that world except rarely. I can see how nice that world would be but it scares me.

I've always been one of those annoying type A people (well at least annoying for non A's). I've always believed I could get it done in the world. And I did well in the world before I began doing ministry. Then things got scary.

For years I've taught that the more you believe John 15:5 the better your discipleship will go. But my practice of that verse has not kept up with my teaching of it. In the spiritual realm things are quite different than in the realm of making good grades or playing a sport or leading a team. While all of those activities require God given skills, if you use the skills you'll likely succeed in the world's eyes. Not so in ministry.

One can do all the right things in ministry and still not "succeed" as many measure success (Harry Reeder says a false way of evaluating success is the "nickels and noses" test). No, ministry is a God thing in which you play a part but don't fully determine (or many times even partially determine) the outcome. That is, there is much ambiguity in ministry as there is in life in general. And that's where things get scary for me.

Why are they scary? Because I can't be the one in control of how things end up. In my more lucid moments I can see that I'm not the one in control of how things end up and that this is a good thing. If only those moments were more frequent.

I look through the sliding glass door and see how wonderful it would be to be comfortable being a mere creature and yet I feel so far from that. I show all the symptoms of wanting to be God instead of being content to be a creature. What are my symptoms you ask? Let me name a few:

Fear/worry/anxiety
An "I can do it" spirit evidenced by relative prayerlessness
Expectations of myself and others which are unrealistic
Perpetual rehashing of things said or done with prayer and wisdom which didn't work out well
Concern over the reactions of people to whom I've acted righteously but over whom I have no control

Maybe you exhibit some of these symptoms as well. With the help of CJ Mahaney's helpful little book Humility I've come to see that my unwillingness to be content within my creaturely limits is plain old pride. Like my first parents Adam and Eve I'm daily seduced by Satan's oldest line, "you can be like God". I'm coming to see that I wasn't made for that.

So much of the expectation I put on myself about the past, present, and future isn't stress God expects me to carry. I'm now in the business of trying to see that the world on the other side of the slider - where I'm content to be a mere creature - is the desireable world. I'm seeking for God to convince me of my limits and to help me embrace and enjoy them rather than living in unreality where I expect of myself that which God doesn't.

Unknotting a Challenging Text

2007-10-18T11:14:00.001-04:00

This morning a good friend emailed me this question, "What's your take on Rom 7: 9;11? Paul, had already claimed to be dead in Christ, a bit confusing. Love to here your thoughts."

Here's my response....

Why don't you pick easy passage for me to interact with you about?

I think where Paul is going is to say something similar to Romans 3:20. Before we are aware of the expectation of God - to keep his commands perfectly - we think ourselves alive. But once we see ourselves in light of the law, suddenly we see that the way we've been living is sinful. To our apprehension what was "okay" before suddenly is seen in a new light. Where I thought I was alive I now realized I was actually dead and the knowledge of sin brought that about. I can't recall when you realized that you were a sinner. When I realized I was, it felt like I died. I had always thought I was a good kid and when God brought me to the realization that I was bad, not good, it was depressing.

By the way, I think in background Paul is here reflecting in Romans 7 on both his pre-Christian experience and also his "in Christ" experience. These verses are a look back in my opinion.

Okay back to the main point. The commandments are supposed to be the best path, the best that life can be lived. They are to be life and joy. Paul isn't trying to say something like, "the law has the same power as the Holy Spirit to bring life to the dead". Though Psalm 119 says some great things about the law, that isn't the point Paul is trying to make. God's commandments are supposed to be a life giving blessing but when we realize that we can't and don't keep them we realized we've been duped and the law that was supposed to be good for us becomes a curse to us due to our disobedience. This deceit is like that of Hebrews 3:13.

How Many Assumptions Can You Count?

2007-09-10T13:10:00.001-04:00

I was just reading this article on the Boston Globe website. It is stunning in the assumptions which the writer brings to the table. Let me highlight a few with a few comments thrown in.

"An increase in the price for prescription birth control obtained at
campus health centers has some college officials worried that students
will be at greater risk for unwanted pregnancies." - unless the students were abstinent resulting in zero risk for unwanted pregnancies.
"The price increase has left Massachusetts college campuses scrambling to accommodate students' needs." - this sure seems like a huge assumption. Since when has contraception been a "need" rather than a desire?
"Imani Williams, a sophomore at UMass-Boston, said, 'If the problem is
children having children, then contraception shouldn't cost so much.' - how can it be that no one is thinking about abstinence as a form of contraception that costs nothing?
"Angus G. McQuilken, a spokesman for the Planned Parenthood League of
Massachusetts, said his organization has been lobbying Congress to
change the law. 'Birth control is basic healthcare. Making birth
control less affordable for college students and low-income women is
bad public policy, and counter to the goal of reducing unintended
pregnancies,' he said. - if it's basic healthcare then why don't we overtly tell young people who don't want to get pregnant that the healthiest they can be is abstinent?

The above, besides being annoying reveals that the culture assumes that kids are rabid sexual creatures incapable of not having sex and that we should do all we can to support them indulge their animal nature. This is not only harmful but demeaning to those made in the image of God.

A Brief Critique of Torture

2007-09-03T13:33:00.001-04:00

Early on in my blog career I considered posting on torture when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. I'm not quite sure why I eventually didn't post anything. But the topic nags me periodically and today I felt like saying something.

My thoughts are not a well developed nuanced political philosophy. They more flow from some personal growth I've been experiencing in my own Christian life. Believe it or not I'm going to link my sinful tendencies towards worry, anxiety, and fear of the future to torture. I believe them linked because both seek knowledge of the future which isn't available to us as mere creatures. That is both are an idolatry, a seeking to be God instead of a mere creature.

Let me carry this brief critique forward with some questions.

1) Do individuals and governments have a responsibility to care for life taking measures to protect it? Yes. The positive side of the sixth commandment requires caring for our lives and the lives of others.

2) Can torture by a government be a legitimate means of caring for the lives of the people governed? No.

I know that seems bold and narrow and straight forward with no gray areas. Personal and and national security can be an idol. Perhaps you know a germophobe. They're miserable to be around because they try to so protect they and their children's lives from germs that they can hardly do anything with anybody. They're paralyzed by their fear. They do foolish things because of their fear of the future; knowledge of which is unavailable to them.

I liken torture to this same kind of thinking. Unwilling to trust God with what may well be a violent end to the lives of some of our citizens we instead disobey God through dehumanizing people. The seeking of information about the future can be an idolatry in itself. Is torture really something different than other clearly pagan ways of trying to find out the future? Isn't all this an inability to reconcile our finitude as creatures with our lust for knowledge? Isn't this precisely what Eve and Adam sought in the garden, to be like God?

These are preliminary thoughts for sure. But it's an angle on torture that I haven't heard but which needs to be heard.

2007-08-15T15:36:00.000-04:00

UPDATED - One strand of the 20th century web or Why you should read Dr. Peter Jones' booksNOTE: Below is an edited version of a post which originally went up in November 2005. I've reposted this in an edited form because I've become aware of a "must read" book that needs to be added to this reading sequence. See the section marked NEW below for that book and why I think it's important.

---------------------------------

In my last post I indicated the usefulness of reading the works of Dr. Peter R. Jones. In fairness to the reader I should mention that I'm a personal friend of Dr. Jones and also serve on the board of CWIPP, the ministry which provides a support structure for Dr. Jones' work. Thus I am not a neutral recommender but rather a enthusiastic supporter. But as I hope you'll find below, it's for good reason.

In my years of knowing Dr. Jones and ministering among different groups of people I've been asked with some frequency, "Why should I read what Dr. Jones writes?" At some point I get weary of repeating myself and so this post is an attempt to answer that question in a rather full form.

The reason why Peter Jones is an important current author to read begins with thinkers who ministered beginning in the latter half of the 19th century. As David Naugle has ably documented in Worldview: The History of a Concept (well worth the read on its own merits) worldview thinking while necessarily present since the beginning of time became more conscious from 1850 onwards. One of the seminal thinkers in developing worldview thinking was Abraham Kuyper. If the reader is to fully appreciate reading Dr. Jones' work your first stop on a literary trail must be Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism. This will introduce you to the concept of Christianity as total system of thought which touches every aspect of personal life and culture.

To understand where Dr. Jones fits into the picture we must move on from Kuyper to J. Gresham Machen. Machen's Christianity and Liberalism reads in the words of one of my deacons, "like it was written yesterday" though it hails from 1923. Machen, in the same stream of theological worldview thinking as Kuyper, prophetically (in the forthtelling sense of telling the truth as it is in foreboding terms) announced that Liberal Christianity was not simply an attempt to modernize Christianity (as it's proponents stated). In reality Liberal Chrisitanity - in Machen's words- was/is an entirely different religion akin to paganism. Dr. Jones' work is essentially the continuation of Machen's prophetic ministry but in more detail and covering other religious traditions in addition to Liberal Christianity. Machen wrote in a time when there appeared to be only two players on the world religious field, Christianity and Liberal Christianity. In our time a better metaphor would be that we have religious alphabet soup (see the previous 4 posts for how this metaphor works out).

But before we begin thinking about why Dr. Jones is important to read today we have stop at one more spot on a strand of the 20th century web of thinkers. Kuyper ministered into the beginning of the 20th century while Machen ministered in the 1920's-40's primarily. Dr. Jones took his PhD in the early 70's and didn't begin to write material about the resurgence of paganism until mid 1990's. In the years between Machen and Jones, Francis Schaeffer ministered ably through the work of L'abri. Most importantly for our thinking in this post is Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live? (the link is to a recently released DVD set which is very reasonably priced. You can also find the book of the same name here.) If you've never had the privilege of reading this book or watching the film production, do yourself a favor and get it for Christmas. Schaeffer reviews simply and helpfully the history of the world relating historical events, religion, and the arts in a high quality production shot in fabulous locations. Most importantly Schaeffer stood (he produced How Should We Then Live in 1977 and died in 1984) in the prophetic tradition of Machen. Some details are important for helping the reader see why Schaeffer is an important figure.

Near the end of How Should We Then Live Schaeffer - after reviewing the worldviews which have existed in the world from the beginning - gives his opinion as to where he thinks things will head in the 80's and beyond. Prophetically he predicted that religion in the West having rejected rationality and the Christian worldview would begin to move eastern in its religious thinking. This as it turns out was an accurate prediction. The alphabet religious soup with interfaith services, Jewbu's (that is a person who is both Jewish and Buddhist at the same time, see this link for more details) and Liberal Christians emphasizing not only a lack of miracles (the issue in Machen's day) but also overtly pagan forms of spirituality (i.e. labyrinths, centered prayer, etc.) is a product of the West going East religiously.

NEW: One more work should be read before moving on to Peter Jones' works. That book is titled The Making of the New Spirituality: The Eclipse of the Western Religious Tradition. It is by James Herrick, a rhetoric professor at Hope College in Holland, MI. The reason this book is a "must read" is that it fills in why and how Schaeffer's prediction comes true. If Schaeffer is the history of the last 2500 years of thinking, Herrick is an intense view of only spirituality for the last 500. This is one of my top books of all time.

Now we can talk about where Dr. Jones fits on this strand of the 20th century (and now 21st century) web of thinkers. Summarizing the above we could simply say Kuyper developed Christian worldview thinking while Machen observed the jettisoning of it in Liberal Christianity. Surveying the history of religious thought and the particular thought forms the 20th century produced, Schaeffer predicted that the outcome of what Machen observed would be that the West would become Eastern in its religious thinking. What Scheffer predicted Dr. Jones documents as actually occurring in our present culture.

It would be useful - as I've hinted at above - to read the works cited above from Kuyper, Machen, and Schaeffer (in that order!) before reading Dr. Jones' books. This is not required but it will help you get a sense of the theological and worldview environment which preceded our current alphabet soup. If you take up my exhortation to read Dr. Jones, the place to begin is with his little book Gospel Truth, Pagan Lies. (all of the books I'm going to mention are available from the online store at the CWIPP website) This may seem simplistic at first but will help lay the foundation for what else you may read. Next I would read Spirit Wars. This book documents the rise of the pagan worldview in the West. Then you'll be ready for Capturing the Pagan Mind. This work is less documentation of the rise of a new movement and more helping you relate what you've learned thus far to how to believe and practice your faith as well as equip you for the massive task of evangelizing pagans. Hasn't everyone and everyone's friend read the Da Vinci Code? Dr. Jones' latest work - co-written with James Garlow - responds to the worldview claims of Dan Brown's influential book. If you are seeking to talk to a friend about the true Christ who's been influenced by the Da Vinci code, this would be a useful read.

Well as I advertised at the outset, I'm not a dispassionate observer. One of the reasons I serve on the board of CWIPP is because the work which Dr. Jones is doing is absolutely crucial in equipping the church to answer thoughtfully a growing paganism in our midst. Tolle legge! (for those who don't know at least little Latin, that translates "take up and read")

2007-07-18T14:45:00.000-04:00

Now This Makes Sense!I receive an email each week from Focus on the Family that highlights news they think will be of interest to their readers (in this case pastors). One recent news bite made me go searching for more. As many of you know, I'm good friends with Dr. Peter Jones and serve on the board of CWiPP the ministry that employs Dr. Jones. Over the last 10 years I've been highly influenced by Dr. Jones and his insightful work on the ongoing reemergence of pagan spirituality in America and across the developed world. With this background perhaps now you can understand why this article makes perfect sense to me. Go read it and tell me your reaction. Okay, did you read it? What was your reaction? I suspect something along the lines of being horrified. But to me - with Dr. Jones insights in the back of my mind - this makes perfect sense. The school is ELCA affiliated. The ELCA long ago abandoned Christian orthodoxy for radical Liberalism. Back in the 1920's J. Gresham Machen in his classic Christianity and Liberalism (which you ought to immediately go buy and read if you've not) pointed out that Liberal Christianity was not just an aberrant form of Christianity but rather it was paganism. Okay fast forward to St. Olaf hiring a Hindu to run their Religion Department. For a moment think of a beautiful cherry pie. Paganism teaches all religions are actually unified at their center. All the wedges of a cherry pie unite at the middle. Paganism realizes that all religious are not duplicate thus the reason that wedges of pie have some differences at the edge of the pie plate. But at their core - according to paganism - all religious are one. This is the kind of theology that St. Olaf has bought into. If all religions are one, then who cares whether an adherent to a religion other than Christianity heads up the religion department of a historically Christian school? Though - to an ELCA pagan - their version of Christianity and Hinduism have minor differences they are united at their core. This is the reason why this hire makes perfect sense.

BTW - this is also the reason why multiculturalism and diversity training are so big at colleges and universities these days. Cultures flows from worldviews which in themselves are inherently religious (I know that's a packed statement, see the articles at this link for background on that statement. Thus if all religions are one and none are thus superior then no worldview and thus no culture can be superior. Instead all distinctions must disappear and absolute leveling of cultures and religions must be forced upon people as the most basic tenet of pagan faith.

2007-07-18T14:13:00.000-04:00

Fear, Worry, Stress and Anxiety - The School I've Been InRecently a friend related she struggles with stress and worry. This struck a chord with me. Probably for my whole life in Christ, these particular concerns (fear, stress, worry, and anxiety) have marked my path prominently. But in the last year or so, theHoly Spirit has opened up my heart to me so that I might see what lies behind these sins. I thought it might benefit my friend as well as others if I shared how God is at work in me.

Before I do so, I should commend a book and an article to the readers of this blog. Although written for women, I can wholeheartedly recommend to anyone Elyse Fitzpatricks Overcoming Fear, Worry, and Anxiety. You can buy the book at this link. I read this book quickly some years ago so as to know if it would help a struggling parishioner. For all I know all I say below is basically reiterating the book without me knowing it. I hope not, but at least youll know that the book is there.

The article is by Randy Alcorn whom I love as an author. You can find his ministry website at www.epm.org and a very helpful article for the worriers of the world at this link.

Now that Ive given you some resources written by others let me share what it is that God has been working in my heart.

Life is hard. We live in a broken place as broken people surrounded by broken people. Life is filled with many unknowns. Its filled with much pain, frequently from the hands of other sinners who sin around us causing havoc. My points below are not to minimize any of this. We are prone to think because of what the previous sentences say that our fear, stress, worry, and anxiety are acceptable, legitimate, or even necessary. I have thought this in the past. Im becoming convinced that those descriptors are untrue.

As Ive pondered with the help of the Holy Spirit my own heart, Ive recognized a major contributor to my fear, stress, worry, and anxiety is the fact that I cant see the future. Duh you might be thinking. But think more carefully. Who is the only person who knows the future? God alone knows the future. I can predict the future at times but usually Im worse at it than your typical meteorologist.

How many times have you and I stressed, worried, fretted, been anxious and fearful about something that never transpired? For me, it is 95% of the time. The 5% of the time what Ive worried about has come true, it likely not as bad as I thought it was going to be. I look back on a life filled with worry as a wasted life. I spent much time and energy worrying instead of working.

As I indicated above, God is changing my perspective. I sense that God is seeking to convince me that Im only a creature and all He expects of me is to fulfill my responsibilities as someone who only knows the past and present, not the future. Let me unpack those two insights.

Im only a creature. The temptation Satan used against Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden revolved around them becoming like God. We still fall for the same thing only more subtly. Wed never say out loud to anyone that we want to act like God. But what are we seeking to do when we fear, stress, worry, and are anxious? We are seeking insight into a future that is unavailable to us. We are fighting against the fact that we are merely weak creatures and we dont like it. We are seeking to have the knowledge only God has and getting emotionally upset because we cant have it. But yet we keep trying to get something which we cant have, werent designed to have, and would be dangerous for us to have.

The second insight is move from habits of heart to habits of daily life. What God is teaching me is to ask a particular as I go throughout my day. Heres the question, Lord, what do you expect of me right now.Why this question? I have found to my great shame that Ive been consumed with seeking knowledge and taking responsibility for matters for which God doesnt hold me responsible. Ridiculously, Ive been holding myself to a standard that God does not. This sad result of this is that things that God would have me do, I havent done because Ive been busy doing things He doesnt expect me to do.

An example would probably help flesh this out. This past Saturday I had the privilege of moderating a portion my local Presbyterys quarterly meeting. A few minutes before the meeting was to start the moderator approached me and asked if I would moderate a portion of the meeting because he wanted to participate in the debate. I acceded to his request but immediately began getting anxious. I thought to myself, Well if I knew that this was coming up, I would have brushed up on my Roberts Rules, I would have prayed more ahead of time, I would have .... In retrospect I was anxious because I was surprised and didnt like it. I didnt like the out of control feeling of it all (even though I was honored by the request). Frankly, I didnt like being a creature with limited knowledge at that moment. I sought in that moment to be responsible for preparation that was impossible for me to bring about and that is what caused my anxiety.

What did God expect of me in that circumstance? He didnt expect me to be prepared. He didnt expect me to have any time to pray or practically prepare except for a few moments of desperate pleas for grace for a responsibility Id never undertaken before. He expected me to lean not on my own knowledge or strength but to lean on Him, His knowledge, His grace, and His power at work despite my weakness. This I find is what Im resisting in the midst of fear, worry, anxiety, and stress. Im resisting simply being a limited, dependent creature and resisting in the form of rebellion that goes by the name self-reliance.

So heres the practical way Im seeking to move forward and perhaps a way you can move forward if you struggle with stress, worry, fear, and anxiety by Gods grace. First, I ask myself as I begin to struggle, Is knowledge about what Im stressing over (or fearing, worrying, being anxious about) available to me as a creature? Second, ask myself, What does God expect of me regarding this circumstance?

Why do these questions help? What I find is that the first question gets me off my own hook that I put myself on. I couldntknow that my friend was going to ask me to moderate a portion of that meeting last Saturday, so I have permission to not beat myself up that I wasnt prepared. I couldnt have been prepared. The second question makes me realize that a hook of Gods making exists and thats where I need to go. I need to go there because God does know the future, He loves me, what is going on doesnt surprise Him in the least AND He has a good plan for how He is going to work all things out. When Im tempted to worry I need to know what He would have me do TODAY regarding an issue rather than speculate about a future I cant know as a mere creature.

Seems simple doesnt it? I agree. But as I ponder my anxiety, worry, fear, and stress these are the things going through my heart. Im seeking a control I dont have. Im seeking a knowledge that is impossible for me to obtain. Im seeking to be self-sufficient and smart enough to anticipate the future and avoid embarrassment over being simply a creature. Im seeking to be independent of God instead of radically dependent.

Let me know what you think in the comments about your experience with fear, worry, anxiety and stress and how God is at work in you revealing your heart sins and producing heart change.

2007-06-19T16:29:00.000-04:00

Some Interested In Reading the Other BookYou might be interested to read this article in the Washington Post. It seems some other people in the world are also concerned about children in particular reading the "other book". Sadly "ministers" or "Christian leaders" are not on the list of concerned people. One wonders if most of the people mentioned in the Post article are concerned because they think children - from the pagan point of view - will miss that they are one with the world if they never get into the world. Obviously as Christians we ought to be concerned to not only enjoy God's world but also to "get behind" Creation to the Creator who is to be worshipped.

2007-06-15T11:34:00.000-04:00

Pi As A Scrap of GloryImagine an odd scenario with me. I come home from work and find the gray carpet under my dining room table littered with scraps of colored paper. Fascinated, I pick up a piece and stare at it. Between my fingers I grasp a red scrap in the rough shape of an elongated triangle. Suddenly Im assaulted from behind by a scrappy, sandy blonde, outrageously curly 4½ year old named Jesse yelling, Daddys home. I scold him for breaking my concentration and return my focus to the crimson shred in my hand. Hows that for being rude?

This is precisely what happens each March 14^th as math devotees celebrate Pi Day (3/14 or close the simple 3.14 that is used to express Pi when most of us it). This article chronicles the fascination with a shred ignoring the Person behind the shred.

Pi is an interesting feature of Creation. You remember the crucial function this little number serves dont you? It represents the ratio between a circles circumference and diameter. Moreover Pi is (Encarta 2002 reminded me) an irrational number meaning it has infinite number of decimal places. Now this is interesting ... is there something an infinite number of decimal places is supposed to reveal to us?

To its devotees, Pi is more than interesting. As the above linked article indicates it is an object of worship for some. This is foolishness of the Biblical manner. In the Bible, a fool is someone who is morally off. Am I a math hating Bible teacher hammering on people who like numbers? No, except if those people who love numbers also worship them.

This is in the language of Romans 1 exchanging worship of the Creator for something in Creation. Using my above imaginary scenario (I am regularly assaulted by Jesse, that part is real!) folks who exalt Pi are fascinated with a scrap of glory instead of the One who is infinite in His being. It makes sense that an infinite being would create a shape like the circle. Pi with its infinite decimal places makes sense because of whom God is. But He is the One deserving worship not a mere scrap of His glory.

A Plea for Reading the "Other Book"

2006-07-29T20:01:00.000-04:00

I'm on study leave this week in Coeur d'Alene (C d'A), Idaho. This morning in a coffee shop I got the most typical question pastors on study leave get, "What are you studying?" I answered in a non-typical fashion. I replied that I'm studying nothing but instead working on two books. Those two books (one on preaching and one church planting, stay tuned for release dates) are rather heavily reliant on the use of the Scriptures in Christian ministry. I could - if I was fast on my duff -have answered in another way though. I could have said that I was intent on studying this week the "Other Book".

This post is a plea. It's a plea to read what I will call the "Other Book".

Let me explain what I mean by the "Other Book". Historically Bible teachers have said that God speaks through two books, the Bible (special revelation) and Creation (general revelation). While Christians admit the existence of knowledge about God in Creation, if we are honest we rarely actually read that book.

As a pastor I'm rather concerned with Biblical literacy. I would never recommend that people stop reading the Bible. I admit that what can be known about God in Creation is limited. But when we say something is limited (i.e the old saw about general revelation is that it's is enough to condemn a person but can't give them what they need to be saved) we are not at the same time saying that it is unimportant due to its limitations. I can't write a book a day. That's a limitation of my ability. But does that mean that a blog post a day is unimportant?

Let me assure you before I get into the substance of my plea where I stand on the Bible. We need the Scriptures or we wouldn't have them. In fact we desperately need them. They tell us about who God is, who we are, and how that unenviable situation can be resolved through Christ. And yet a person who reads just one of God's books is deficient. They are deficient of awe.

I unabashedly admit that studying in this locale is glorious. I seek to strike a balance on study leave between musings on both books. After a hefty morning and lunch of reading and thinking about the Bible and its ramification for lots of things (like preaching and church planting) I took some time to study the "Other Book". I took a walk along the shore of Lake C d'A on the campus of Northern Idaho College. Weather permitting I intend to read this "Other Book" each day of my study leave.

You might wonder at this strange plea. Is that what Christians truly need? Isn't most of our problem that we don't the Scriptures well enough? Some of our problems can be related to our misunderstandings and ignorance of Scripture. But what causes a person to pick up the Scriptures and look to them? Respect for the author. When a person believes that God in His Word gives us the understanding that we need to not only survive but thrive then they read. But no one reads someone whom they don't respect. My humble contention is that our respect - our "awe" - for God is small because we only read one book instead of two.

How do you get respect for a person? You get to know them. Once you get to know them and find them worthy of being listened to, you begin to listen to them. My contention is that regarding God we are "awe deficient". As Wynn Kenyon puts it, we have no theology of awe anymore. Perhaps reading the other book can help us with this.

This post has been long in coming. I tested these ideas on some friends back in April and continue to muse on them frequently. My musings arose in an odd way. This spring I began reading David Brainerd's diary. In the edition I picked up there was also a brief biography of Jonathan Edwards. As you might know Brainerd died at Edwards' home. Edwards' daughter took care of Brainerd unto her own death soon after his having picked up TB from him. What a sacrifice for a 19 year old!

As I've read about Edwards' and Brainerd something struck me about these two men. They frequently read the other book. Both men spent significant time in prayer while reading the other book. This resonated with me as for years I've found my best praying takes place while walking in Creation. Is there something that we modern, mostly urbanized Christians have been missing that Brainerd and Edwards got?

I think so. What enabled Brainerd to persist in his ministry despite sickness and apparent failure? What enabled Edwards to be such a powerful tool in the hand of God? They knew deeply the One they served. In part, their knowledge of Him came from reading the other book. Let me propose how I think this works.

I have a background in computers. One of the most common solutions to a problem with a computer is to push the reset button and see if simply a new session of the operating system solves the problem. For me, reading the other book has this same effect. Whatever malaise I'm in, whatever is burdening me, what seems so large is set back in perspective when I go out to see the grandeur of God. When what is in reality small to God (i.e. "why can't I find a good introduction to this sermon?" or "how can I approach this person about an unbiblical divorce they're considering?") becomes large to me, I must find a way to get a God-sized perspective.

I'm not for a second dismissing the fact that Scripture can and should help us do this. But I have to honestly admit, that at times looking at another text is the last thing I want to do. Isn't it just as Bibical to go get awed, recharged, and reset by experiencing God power, glory, and enormity in His world. Then, frequently having been re-awed by God's glory, I'm ready to go back and pray and read to prepare for what lies ahead.

Can this be abused? Sure like any gift. Tons of people with $80K and up boats enjoy Lake C d'A without ever "getting behind" (a concept I'm developing and will post on in the future) the beauty to the Beautiful One. But Christians shouldn't react knee jerk to a temptation. Instead they should recognize the tempation and use the opportunity rightly instead of simply avoiding any possibility of temptation.

You might wonder if this is a Biblical form of spirituality. Absolutely! Read Psalm 8 or Psalm 19. Listen to God's silencing of Job in the latter chapters of that book or read Isaiah 40. God is passionate about us seeing Him in His world! The question is whether you are as passionate about reading God's "Other Book" as He is.

Here's the point... pondering the spots on a ladybug, reviewing the intricate patters of a leaf, surveying the intricacies and variety of stones, sensing the enormity of God's control and power by thinking about wind or clouds or weather these all serve to re-set our thinking. They put us back on the right plane of thinking about our enormous God. Sensing His glory in Creation engaged moment by moment with the activities of 8 billion people on earth plus simultaneously upholding the bird you see as well as the physical principles of lift and gravity that allow it to fly, these kinds of thoughts help us see God anew as the Awesome One. They reassure us of God's working in the world and send us back to our calling with hope that God can intervene in my situation because I see His enormity anew.

Here's my humble plea derived from the Scriptures and some old friends in the faith. Read the other book. Read it frequently. Read it fervently. Wring it for all it's worth. It'll change your life.

Reveling in God's Providence

2006-05-15T07:45:00.000-04:00

In response to a sermon (look for my part 1 of my sermon on Mark 4:35-41 at our church's audio page) a congregant asked me about whether a strong view of God's Providence leads to a que sera sera attitude in life. My response is below.

--------------
A que sera sera view of the world has no end or purpose in mind nor is it personal. The Christian view is that things are not just unfolding "okay" or "right" but rather are unfolding in such a way that God is glorified and individually (i.e. personally) His people are satisfied because they are being saved and sanctified.

It struck me yesterday that I neglected to share with you an important point that the Westminster Confession of Faith puts extraordinarily well. Let me quote it and explain why I think it's helpful.

WCF Chapter III
I. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

1. Psa. 33:11: Eph. 1:11: Heb. 6:17
2. Psa. 5:4; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; see Hab. 1:13
3. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28: Matt. 17:12; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33

It's particular the very last phrase I'm interested in. When most people hear what I propounded yesterday from the Scriptures they hear that what we do is of no effect or influence. But this is as far from the truth as one could be. God's effective working in the world establishes the effectiveness of 2nd causes (our acting).

God not only ordains the end but also the means. Thus to take what we looked at yesterday and think about it in this way would sound like this: God had the end of revealing more about Jesus and the disciple's hearts to the disciples. He led them into the storm that He was brewing so that they would come to the end of themselves and realize their utter dependence upon Him. This resulted in them relying upon Him and realizing better who He was. God had an end and the means both of which were ordained by God.

Let's take it into the realm of an individual sinner where this is more clear. God had the end of saving Matt Bohling. In order to achieve that end he puts Christians in my life who were obligated to pray and witness to me so that through the means of prayer and proclamation God would save me.

Thus far from removing our responsibility, God's effective working in the world assures us that our working has a real role in achieving God's purposes for us, for others, and for the world in general. Because God has ends that He's achieving through means, we are really useful.

Perhaps imagining the opposite (as we find in Desiderata) would be helpful. God has no genuine ends He's bringing about in the world, He sits in heaven hoping that some people will come to Christ but whether that happens really lies in their hands. As a witness and as a prayer I don't know whether my praying and witnessing will have any effect at all on anyone in my entire life. To me this is what would lead to apathy and a que sera sera approach to life which isn't Biblical. The wonderful truth is that God is sovereignly accomplishing His purposes THROUGH us taking our responsibilities seriously.

Hope that helps.

matt

Moms and Future Moms Take Heart

2006-03-02T11:50:00.000-04:00

Who are the shapers of civilization? Is it the movers and shakers in the work world or is the dedicated Moms who shape children in this generation so that they shape generations to come (see Psalm 78 and the multi-generational vision of God for child-rearing)? Clearly it is the latter. But the cultural elites disagree. They're wrong and you're right for staying home (or planning to stay home future Moms). You Moms are the real world shapers. By God's grace and out of love for Him, keep at it!

Gotta Surround Your Kids With Love and Teaching

2006-02-22T08:48:00.000-04:00

It's pretty hard to surprise me. As a Bible teacher I've taught on some difficult and sensitive topics requiring that I read material and think through matters I'd rather leave alone. I don't promise this link will be an easy or comforting read. It wasn't for me. But I do hope that it reminds you of the absolutely cruciality of making sure your own kids get love at home and that you're intentionally forming their worldview including overt teaching on sexuality.

Before Your Heart Starts Bleeding ...

2006-02-22T07:59:00.000-04:00

Okay I don't want to be know as the "death penalty guy" but come on... You can find out some details of the crime Michael Morales was convicted of here. Do you want to honestly tell me that if this man cruelly bludgeoned, raped, stabbed, and dumped the body of a 17 year old girl that he deserves an "absolutely pain free death"?

I don't have time this morning to develop this but this sounds an awful lot like the euthanasia folks and their "right to die". Maybe there is a parallel here to be worked out.

Surely when the Founding Fathers formed the Constitution they didn't mean to say that any form of execution was cruel and unusual. Hanging was the prescribed form of execution in those days and it surely wasn't pain free. If it was pain free, I'd be happy for us to return to it especially since it was public and might have a bit more of a deterrent effect than our sanitized executions today.

Hearts Hungering After the Hugeness of God

2006-02-15T12:51:00.000-04:00

It was Pascal who said that every person has a God-shaped vacuum. My read is that all our thrill seeking in life is an attempt to fill that vacuum with anything but God. There's a new way to be thrilled. Take a gander at this link. But where will someone who's been buried for a thrill go next? There's nowhere to go. Nothing in creation can satisfy the hearts of image-bearers except their Creator. Only His character and power and abilities can continue to overwhelm and thrill us every day we ponder them.

From the Sad But True and Unsurprising Department

2005-12-14T13:52:00.000-04:00

Well it's finally happened... what Christians have known all along - that an abortion can produce deep emotional and spiritual effects - has been finally recognized in a journal article in Europe. This is sad for sure. We shouldn't triumph at this point just because finally we have some agreement from secularists. Instead, we should mourn with these ladies. We should mourn that we are sinners like they and that death is profoundly unnatural no matter what way it comes. Perhaps mourning together we can point them to our only hope, Jesus who was also put to death unjustly so that those who put others to death unjustly don't have to die solely under God's justice but also under His mercy.

What about Justice?

2005-12-12T10:37:00.000-04:00

I've been listening to NPR and reading the occasional news story over the past couple of weeks as they have covered the upcoming execution of Tookie Williams. The linked article illustrates the worldview which lies behind those who are pleading with Governor Arnold for clemency. In particular it says, "They [Williams' supporters - mb] say he has redeemed himself by speaking out against violence and writing children's books on the evils of gang life." There are two particular faults with this kind of thinking.

First, if we assume that the justice system worked (I know, I know this is a major complaint in America jurisprudence but that's why I said "assume") and Tookie Williams is guilty, there is an issue I haven't once heard mentioned. What about justice? What about "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." (Gen. 9:6). What about the fact that the blood of those whom Tookie Williams killed cries out from the ground for vengeance (Gen. 4:10). Missing in any talk of Tookie Williams is God and the affront murder makes upon God who placed His image on each murdered person.

Second, Tookie Williams and every other person on earth can't "redeem themselves". No matter how much good Tookie Williams does (good for which I'm very thankful!) he can't repay God for his sin. Only Jesus can do that.

The answer Governor Arnold should give to a plea for clemency is two-fold. First, "No. Tookie you killed those folks and you deserve to die." Second, "Tookie you don't have to go to hell to pay the penalty for your sins. The reason Christ came at Christmas is that God's justice for murderers like you could be meted out on His Son and not on you." I wonder what Arnold will say ...

They're Just Sinners

2005-12-07T15:40:00.000-04:00

States are struggling with how to treat sex offenders. This is a worthy topic of discussion both in the state and in the church given the reoccurrence rate among sex offenders. I'm not seeking to be a simpleton nor to set public policy but this is easier than it looks while impossible at the same time.

While it may be the sincere opinion of many mental health professionals that sex offenders are not psychotic what this means is that treatment is not needed for them. This yields no solution though since if a prisoner has done his time and there is not a compelling state interest in holding him in a mental facility, he must go free. People don't want sex offenders to go free though since most likely they'll commit a crime again. Thus the conundrum with no spiritual view of things.

Without a Christian view of this topic it's impossible to solve. Religions come in only two forms: those which conform people's behavior by external constraint and those which conform people's behavior by internal change. The first is everything but Christianity (including godless, secular humanism which lies at the root of our modern American penal system) and the second is orthodox Christianity. A penal and mental health system whose worldview cannot encompass the spiritual needs of those it serves can only be frustrated. Thus the impossibility of a Spirit-less system solving the "what do we do with sex offenders" question.

But a Spirit-ual system (i.e. one which mandates the renewing, renovating, heart overturning work of the Spirit of God in granting new life to dead sinners) makes it look easy. A sex offender is one who views others as the tool of his pleasure rather than a fellow image-bearer to be respected and cherished while sexual fulfillment is found in marriage. What is wrong with a sex offender's thinking and actions is easy to determine but impossible to change for fellow humans.

However, what is impossible for man is possible with God. Not just in a virgin having a baby but in inveterate sex offenders becoming new people in Christ by the powerful operation of the Spirit granting new life to dead sinners. Sex offenders may or may not be psychotic. I'll leave the psychiatrists to figure that out. But this sinner knows that apart from the Spirit of God I could be a sex offender and so could you. The difference is not inherently in the sinner but in the Savior's Spirit who mercifully changes heart.

What Ever Happened to the Idea of Calling?

2005-12-07T14:58:00.000-04:00

I'm appalled. Americans are not willing to put in a decent day's work to make money? The linked article indicates that the immigrant who works cutting your fish makes $300/ wk in the winter and $700/wk in the summer. Even if the "summer" is only 4 months long that's a yearly wage of $22,000 or $11/hr.

Isn't preparing someone else's food a legitimate calling from God? I hope so or a lot of Mom's are displeasing God. It is appaling that we've completely lost any sense of vocation/calling and won't work at legitimate jobs to provide for our families. Would I want to do it? Probably not unless it was the only work available and then I'd do it in a heart beat. Why must immigrants do this work when there are likely tons of unemployed folks in Mass living off the system? The answer is that it's easier - though less fulfilling, think French riots - to live off the system.

Wise Advice on Stress and Busyness

2005-12-06T12:55:00.000-04:00

Sometimes someone else just says it better than you can. I submit to helpful and superior wisdom.

French riots partially explained

2005-12-02T12:03:00.000-04:00

Gene Veith does an able job beginning to explain the origin of the French Riots in this article. There's a bit more analysis that needs to be done - IMHO - to explain everything that is going on in France with regards to this disturbance. Perhaps I can throw my two cents on the pile later today or early next week. In the mean time, Veith will give you plenty to think about.

Houses and Crowns

2005-11-22T10:54:00.000-04:00

Today I received a request from a friend to explain a bit of the Scriptual teaching on rewards. Will we have mansions of glory and jewels in crowns? What follows below is the bit of wisdom I attempted to pass on to this friend.

------------------------

As for your question about rooms in the house or jewels... Take a look at John 14:1-2 - Jesus here talks about preparing a room for each believer. This is for each person who trusts in Christ, it's not a graded reward as you read about in other places.

Regarding rewards in general the best author on this topic is not me. Randy Alcorn has written extensively on this topic. Below are some links to things he's written that will help you gain a Biblical perspective on rewards for the believer.

This is not an easy topic. In fact I've never taught on it for that reason. It will take some thought to get your arms around it. Let me give you my couple of sentence answer and you can read the details in Alcorn. Here goes ... for some reason (I believe that it is to motivate us to do good works out of gratitude for grace) God has chosen to crown His work of grace in us with rewards when we choose to take the grace He supplies and serve sacrificially in His Kingdom. It's not as though we'll get to heaven and look at our rewards and say, "WOW! Didn't I do good, look at my haul." Instead our response will be gratitude and wonder that God would crown our pitiful response to His grace.

When you asked if "the closeness of our walk" is what will gain rewards I think you were on the right track but not quite there yet. What God is interested in - as I read the Scriptures - is that Eph 2:10 results because of our in-depth appreciation of Eph 2:8, 9. What I mean is this ... love is a feeling whose existence is proven by action. Our love for God is proved by our responding in gratitude to His grace by doing good works. It is our worship of God (perhaps that's what you meant by "a close walk") both in our hearts and with our lives that He's looking for.

What you want to avoid is thinking about it like this ... I'm not going to get any rewards because I didn't do anything "notable" for God. For example I think it would be very common that a mom could think like this, "Oh the preacher is going to get a greater reward than me because all I did was run kids around, do laundry, keep a house, and cook meals all while supporting my husband." But what I just wrote is absolutely wrong. I think it is likely that my wife (and likely you!) will receive a greater reward than me as you do those good works God prepared beforehand (i.e. Eph 2:10) that come up in your daily life as you pursue your calling as wife and mother. Again what God is looking for is that you seek daily to reflect upon His grace and show forth your gratitude for it by the way you live.

http://www.epm.org/articles/rewards2.html - basics
http://www.epm.org/articles/qaeternalrewards.htm - questions answered

One strand of the 20th century web or Why you should read Dr. Peter Jones' books

2005-11-18T11:28:00.000-04:00

In my last post I indicated the usefulness of reading the works of Dr. Peter R. Jones. In fairness to the reader I should mention that I'm a personal friend of Dr. Jones and also serve on the board of CWIPP, the ministry which provides a support structure for Dr. Jones' work. Thus I am not a neutral recommender but rather a enthusiastic supporter. But as I hope you'll find below, it's for good reason.

In my years of knowing Dr. Jones and ministering among different groups of people I've been asked with some frequency, "Why should I read what Dr. Jones writes?" At some point I get weary of repeating myself and so this post is an attempt to answer that question in a rather full form.

The reason why Peter Jones is an important current author to read begins with thinkers who ministered beginning in the latter half of the 19th century. As David Naugle has ably documented in Worldview: The History of a Concept (well worth the read on its own merits) worldview thinking while necessarily present since the beginning of time became more conscious from 1850 onwards. One of the seminal thinkers in developing worldview thinking was Abraham Kuyper. If the reader is to fully appreciate reading Dr. Jones' work your first stop on a literary trail must be Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism. This will introduce you to the concept of Christianity as total system of thought which touches every aspect of personal life and culture.

To understand where Dr. Jones fits into the picture we must move on from Kuyper to J. Gresham Machen. Machen's Christianity and Liberalism reads in the words of one of my deacons, "like it was written yesterday" though it hails from 1923. Machen, in the same stream of theological worldview thinking as Kuyper, prophetically (in the forthtelling sense of telling the truth as it is in foreboding terms) announced that Liberal Christianity was not simply an attempt to modernize Christianity (as it's proponents stated). In reality Liberal Chrisitanity - in Machen's words- was/is an entirely different religion akin to paganism. Dr. Jones' work is essentially the continuation of Machen's prophetic ministry but in more detail and covering other religious traditions in addition to Liberal Christianity. Machen wrote in a time when there appeared to be only two players on the world religious field, Christianity and Liberal Christianity. In our time a better metaphor would be that we have religious alphabet soup (see the previous 4 posts for how this metaphor works out).

But before we begin thinking about why Dr. Jones is important to read today we have stop at one more spot on a strand of the 20th century web of thinkers. Kuyper ministered into the beginning of the 20th century while Machen ministered in the 1920's-40's primarily. Dr. Jones took his PhD in the early 70's and didn't begin to write material about the resurgence of paganism until mid 1990's. In the years between Machen and Jones, Francis Schaeffer ministered ably through the work of L'abri. Most importantly for our thinking in this post is Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live? (the link is to a recently released DVD set which is very reasonably priced. You can also find the book of the same name here.) If you've never had the privilege of reading this book or watching the film production, do yourself a favor and get it for Christmas. Schaeffer reviews simply and helpfully the history of the world relating historical events, religion, and the arts in a high quality production shot in fabulous locations. Most importantly Schaeffer stood (he produced How Should We Then Live in 1977 and died in 1984) in the prophetic tradition of Machen. Some details are important for helping the reader see why Schaeffer is an important figure.

Near the end of How Should We Then Live Schaeffer - after reviewing the worldviews which have existed in the world from the beginning - gives his opinion as to where he thinks things will head in the 80's and beyond. Prophetically he predicted that religion in the West having rejected rationality and the Christian worldview would begin to move eastern in its religious thinking. This as it turns out was an accurate prediction. The alphabet religious soup with interfaith services, Jewbu's (that is a person who is both Jewish and Buddhist at the same time, see this link for more details) and Liberal Christians emphasizing not only a lack of miracles (the issue in Machen's day) but also overtly pagan forms of spirituality (i.e. labyrinths, centered prayer, etc.) is a product of the West going East religiously.

Now we can talk about where Dr. Jones fits on this strand of the 20th century (and now 21st century) web of thinkers. Summarizing the above we could simply say Kuyper developed Christian worldview thinking while Machen observed the jettisoning of it in Liberal Christianity. Surveying the history of religious thought and the particular thought forms the 20th century produced, Schaeffer predicted that the outcome of what Machen observed would be that the West would become Eastern in its religious thinking. What Scheffer predicted Dr. Jones documents as actually occurring in our present culture.

It would be useful - as I've hinted at above - to read the works cited above from Kuyper, Machen, and Schaeffer (in that order!) before reading Dr. Jones' books. This is not required but it will help you get a sense of the theological and worldview environment which preceded our current alphabet soup. If you take up my exhortation to read Dr. Jones, the place to begin is with his little book Gospel Truth, Pagan Lies. (all of the books I'm going to mention are available from the online store at the CWIPP website) This may seem simplistic at first but will help lay the foundation for what else you may read. Next I would read Spirit Wars. This book documents the rise of the pagan worldview in the West. Then you'll be ready for Capturing the Pagan Mind. This work is less documentation of the rise of a new movement and more helping you relate what you've learned thus far to how to believe and practice your faith as well as equip you for the massive task of evangelizing pagans. Hasn't everyone and everyone's friend read the Da Vinci Code? Dr. Jones' latest work - co-written with James Garlow - responds to the worldview claims of Dan Brown's influential book. If you are seeking to talk to a friend about the true Christ who's been influenced by the Da Vinci code, this would be a useful read.

Well as I advertised at the outset, I'm not a dispassionate observer. One of the reasons I serve on the board of CWIPP is because the work which Dr. Jones is doing is absolutely crucial in equipping the church to answer thoughtfully a growing paganism in our midst. Tolle legge! (for those who don't know at least little Latin, that translates "take up and read")

Alphabet Religious Soup - part 4

2005-11-17T12:30:00.000-04:00

If we survey the modern - or more accurately postmodern - religious landscape we find a unique phenomena occurring. Religions which used to be opposed to one another are coming together. Just last week I saw a sign for an interfaith service at a local church. What lies behind this movement towards interfaith dialogue and unity? Is it simply - as we've just commemorated Veteran's Day in America - that everyone has decided religion isn't important enough to get into a war about? Or is the movement evidence of another war? If you've read the posts in this series up until now I've been using two metaphors to discuss the history of world religions. We've been thinking about this history as a spiritual war between God and Satan fought between the followers of each. In addition, we been looking at the religions as though they were pasta letters floating in alphabet soup. If we merge these two metaphors the current battle in the war is evidenced by a developing ring of F's in the bowl of soup.

Prior to 1850 it would have been inconceivable that a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, and a Buddhist could argue for interfaith dialogue to find common ground between them. But the philosophical and religious landscape has changed dramatically since then. Several significant scholars have written on this upheaval and some time soon I'll survey them for you. At this point I don't want to give details but instead want to simply observe the movement and indicate why Christians should be especially vigilant during this battle in the war. While lacking physical aggression as a tactit, the current movement to unify religions is dangerous and should be expected by Biblically informed Christians.

If you've pondered some of what I've written in the previous 3 posts, the current scene in America and in the West in general should be expected. If - as I've been arguing - all religions which don't acknowledge Yahweh and worship Him alone are essentially unified, this unity you would expect would come forward at some point. And indeed it has and is. When anyone refuses Yahweh (as happens even in Liberal Judaism and Liberal Christianity especially through the embrace of evolution as an explanation of origins) as Creator, the ground has been laid to join hands with any other worshipper. This is because what unifies religious adherents (i.e. the suppression of the truth, the refusal to worship Yahweh) is greater than the superficial details that might separate them. What was present in Athens in Acts 17 is what is present today. Lots of people worshipping lots of different gods in different ways but without rancor. Rancor only exists where an absolute claim exists to which people must adhere or face consequences. Yahweh makes this claim and thus this is why in our modern context any religion is fine but Christianity. The real enemy in our postmodern context is someone who believes they have the truth and lives like it seeking others to believe it. Interestingly we wouldn't be upset by someone who claimed to have the truth about how to prevent people from getting the bird flu. This is because this kind of truth doesn't make any claims upon me, it only benefits me. What offends people about Yahweh as Creator is that He demands - and rightly so - absolute allegiance and repentance from worship of myself or any other idol.

So as we look at the soup and we see a ring of F's beginning to form should we be concerned? ABSOLUTELY! We should see behind it something more than simply everyone wanting to get along. If you recall where we began way back in Genesis there is a war going on. Satan is rather interested in getting his forces unified against God. The beginning of a ring of F's in the bowl of soup should be recognized for what it is, the marshalling of one army we might call neo-paganism. I don't use the word "army" lightly. There is a militaincy in the unified forces of neo-paganism. All you have to do is look to the jailing of Christian teachers in Australia and Scandinavia who taught an antithesis between Christianity and other religions (Islam in Australia, paganism revealed in radical suport of homosexuality in Scandinavia).

Our concern should manifest itself in different ways. First, Christians should get better informed about the army which is coming together. An excellent source for this is the work of Dr. Peter Jones. Second, we should move forward with the gospel in confidence. As of the writing of this post I'm preaching through Mark's gospel. What you see in the early ministry of Jesus is that Satan and his minions are not equals with Jesus. Instead, they fall in battle before Him. Satan knows he is a vanquished enemy and is now conducting a guerilla war. The end of the war is known to us (Rev. 20:9, 10) and Satan won't win. But how will those blinded by Satan (2 Cor. 4:4) be set free to true liberty in worship of the One who made them? It is only through the preaching of the gospel, the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16). What Paul did in Athens we must do in our time, call people to repentance to turn back to the One who made them and sent His Son for them. In preaching the gospel we proclaim our unity with all people in that we are all sinners but also proclaim that true unity between people must be based upon a shared belief in Christ (Eph. 2:11ff) not on a shared rejection of the Creator. This is God's call to us in these neo-pagan times.

Alphabet Religious Soup - part 3

2005-11-17T11:37:00.000-04:00

In brief compass we've considered the history of the world in its religious aspect. My point has simply been this: although God made man to worship Him, man from the garden onwards has rebelled against worship of the one true God and in many cultures through time has developed various forms of false worship which are the world's religions. We were last considering the fact that although religions like Mormonism and Buddhism appear rather distinct from the outside, at the core they are actually rather related.

In Romans 1:25 we find the most important text that will help us look into our alphabet religious soup and see that in actuality all we have are an A and multiple F's religiously speaking. That is we have a successful religion and failing religions. Successful religion revolves around worship of the one true God - the Creator - who made everything. The multiple F's are the various forms of worship which aren't centered on Yahweh the Creator of the world. The world's religions exhibit the behavior described in Romans 1:25. Adherents of the world's religions exchange the truth about who made them and thus deserves their worship for the lie (NKJV gets it right on this translation). God clearly wants you to see through the hand of the apostle Paul that there is one truth and one lie. You might protest at this point that I'm not taking seriously the differences between something as "unsophisticated" as animism and as "sophisticated" as secular atheism.

I won't dispute that the lie exists in different forms. The next passage we'll consider indicates that Paul experienced that in Athens. I'm not disputing the valid differences between the world's religions. But at their core there is something that unifies them. Their unity lies in this: they refuse to worship God the Creator alone. Instead, they worship something or someone created. This is true whether one is Marxist (economic equality is worshipped), Mormon (self-elevation to godhood is worshipped), Buddhist (enlightenment is worshipped), or secular (human self-progress is worshipped). This is what unifies the world's religions and provides the impetus towards harmonizing religions. Instinctively people realize that a mutual avoidance of Yahweh is a unifying factor that supersedes real but essentially superficial(!) differences.

How do we react to the fact that as we look closely into our alphabet soup there are multiple F's and one A? We would do well to follow the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:16ff as he ministers in Athens. Paul recognizes that despite the diversity of false gods they still had some doubt and even worshipped an unknown god just to cover their bases. Paul picks up on this opportunity and preaches to them not about another god they could add to their pantheon but instead about the Creator. This Creator needs nothing from man and instead is the one who made man and even is the one directing history and sustaining each person's being. Because God is a spirit he can't be captured in a statue. Those who have worshipped the creature in the past must repent from worship of something created and instead worship the One who made them. In this brief sermon Paul makes the case for what I've been arguing in the last 3 posts.

Despite their diversity, the world's religions are similar in that they refuse the true God, make of heaven and earth. For those following the current debates about the inclusion of teaching about intelligent design theory in high school biology classes this is simply the latest skirmish in the war. What lies behind that debate is what we've been discussing. Will we acknowledge the Creator or do something, anything, else? Is there a Creator or isn't there? Evolution has been a convenient excuse to exclude the possibility of a Creator from public discource and teaching in the schools. Any thought that there might be a no-name creator (all that Intelligent Design posits) must be resisted absolutely because if someone or something made us, then that something or someone might place obligiations on us. Since people want to avoid the obligations (worship and service) they avoid even the possibility that they are made.

So if we sum up a bit of what we've been considering over these last 3 posts we see that God began the war in Genesis 3 and expanded the war onto multiple fronts in Genesis 11. As the war raged on these multiple fronts it appeared Satan was winning the war as various world religions developed and expanded their influence. Certainly by the time Christ came, the Jewish people were a huge minority in the ancient world with millions of people worshipping around the world in a zillion forms with very few worshipping the one true God. But though the war looked for a while like it was going badly for God, it was a facade. God is zealous for His own worship knowing that man will only be truly satisfied when he worships the One who made him.

In compassion towards confused idolaters God steps in decisively in Jesus Christ and the world hasn't been the same since. In the teaching and preaching of Paul we see the war clarified. We see that this isn't a competition between multiple equally promising proposals for satisfying man's religious impulse. Instead it is a simple war with only two sides in reality. Some are on the side of the worship of the Creator of all things the rest are on the side of worshipping anything but Yahweh. In our next and last post we'll consider the crucial nature of seeing this war rightly and what hope there is for the end of the war.

Alphabet Religious Soup - part 2

2005-11-17T10:50:00.000-04:00

As we look at the world today we see an alphabet soup of religion. In this series of posts I'm attempting to trace how we got such a mishmash of religious traditions in the world. We began last time looking at God's creative work in Genesis 1. God created man in His image thus establishing a special relationship between God and man not found between God and animals. Made in God's image man must worship. He was designed to worship Yahweh but Adam's relationship with Yahweh was broken when Adam disregarded God's Word and snubbed Him in eating from the tree. Rebellious Satan, having seduced Adam and Eve, is cursed by God. God declares war upon Satan establishing a personal hostility between Satan's servants and the servants of the woman and her God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Thus the war was begun. But how was the war conducted in history?

Simply flipping through Genesis we realize the war looked like a losing proposition for God for a long time. Already in Genesis 6 we find God distraught with Satan and his forces influencing a great majority of people to not serve God but him. Thus God starts anew with Noah and his family. But alas this doesn't turn out very productive either. In Genesis 11 we find the people's idolatry to be so great that they sought to make a name for themselves rather than for their Creator who they were designed to worship. In response God judges in a unique manner crucial to the history of religion. In Gen. 11:7, 8 we find God judged the people by splitting them up geographically and culturally. This division of people prevented them from cooperating effectively and pooling their idolatry. This is the origin of the many people groups, languages and thus cultures we find in the world. We must note carefully that God didn't separate joyful adherents to him but rather active idolaters, that is people in rebellion against Him unwilling to serve Him.

What is the result of this judgment of God at Babel? The result is that separate groups of idolaters develop different ways of expressing their religious impulse. Remember all people are religious and worship - even the irreligious are religious about their irreligion - because God made them that way. People can't avoid worshipping, they are made to run on it. It is simply what or who they will worship not whether they will worship. Thus as we think about religious history what we find is that in different parts of the world as people developed culturally they also developed different ways of expressing their idolatry. This is the origin of the world's religions.

Seems simplistic doesn't it? I agree. It's much simpler than other arguments. But remember that most other arguments about the history of religion begin with different people groups existing via evolutionary dispersment. This evolutionary dispersment results in different cultures advancing at different rates etc. What is missing in the traditional arguments is WHY people as they were dispersed - whether by God or evolution - worship. Worship is universal because man is made in the image of God and is created to worship. The development of the world's religions is evidence of this.

As we survey the world's religions we find their diversity is at the same time both real and apparent. Yes they are different in many ways. But they are also all similar. If we look at the Scriptures we find that there are not multiple options people can choose from religiously. In reality there are two options to choose from: worship of the true God who made everything or worship of something created. That is, everyone will either worship Yahweh or an idol. Every other world religion is idolatry except Christianity. In the last of these posts we'll consider why this is important to maintain in the face of multi-culturalism and attempts to harmonize world religions. In the next post we'll consider in more depth the two religious options which exists for all people everywhere in all cultures and times.

Alphabet Religious Soup - part 1

2005-11-17T10:03:00.000-04:00

"Pastor, where did all the world religions come from." This question came to me twice in one week a while back. No one had ever asked me that question before. I don't think I had ever overtly pondered the question either. So - perhaps foolishly - I answered the question on the spot by referring both of those audiences to the first Scripture passages that came to my mind. Some months later I've discovered through discussions with other Bible teachers that while my formulation of an answer to this question isn't profound, it also hasn't been written down by anyone, at least not recently. So below you'll find the beginning of a Christian answer to this question. This question will take several posts to answer, so please exercise patience. Hopefully your patience won't be disappointed. First though some comments on why I'm going to offer a "Christian" answer to the question.

It's rather possible that if we took a religious historian, a historian, a sociologist, a psychologist, a liberal Biblical scholar, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Marxist, a secularist, and a Jew and put them around a table with me that we would offer competing answer to the question I've listed above. While much wisdom derived from God's common grace might be shared around the table, there would be insufficiency in all of the answers except that offered by me. The reader might be thinking, "Oh my, what an arrogant blogger!". Don't misread me. The insufficiency of the answers posed by any of the above folks - as fine and moral people as they might be - would be that they lack the viewpoint of the one true God.

I'm of course assuming that one true God exists amidst the competing claims of religious and irreligious adherents. This is what I mean that the below is a "Christian" response to the question. There is no answer to this question that can be answered "neutrally" from the vantage point of a disinterested observer simply looking in from the outside assessing the facts. This is because each observer brings his web of beliefs or worldview with him to the facts of the history of religion and assesses those facts through the interpretive grid his worldview provides him. No one can step out of their worldview and shake themselves of their foundational beliefs to look dispassionately at anything. So I don't offer the below assessment as a disinterested observer but rather as a committed Christian who believes that a true God exists and that He can be known by people.

So where do we begin answering the question, "Where did the world religions come from?". The most suitable starting point is Genesis 1:1. If you look there you'll see a most profound statement. In the beginning there was nothing only God existed. Then God created the universe. When He created He made man and woman in His image (Gen. 1:27). This made man unique among the creatures and formed a relationship between God and man which has a different character than the relationship God created between Himself and the animals. God's creative work must be emphasized if we are to understand the religious impulse which exists universally in the world which is captured in various faith traditions. Made in God's image, man yearns for relationship with the One who made him. This is what lies behind all religion whether true or false.

The world of course didn't stay in the state of bliss. Instead when we flip over a page to Genesis 3 we find that something went horribly wrong in God's world. A rebellious angel - Satan - entered the garden in the form of a serpent. Adam diregarded God's command to tend the garden (Gen. 2:15, the word used in Hebrew has clear religious overtones in that "tending" is to be taken as "guarding" or even "priesting") keeping it not only productive but pure and the results were destructive. While Adam stood there, Eve was seduced to disobey God doubting His Word and goodness. Adam continued disregarding God's command and also ate. Then the cursing began and that's where things get crucial as we look into our alphabet religious soup.

Genesis 3:15 is in the same breath the most hopeful verse in the Old Testament and the most foreboding. It is hopeful in that it is the first preaching of the gospel of salvation through Christ who will crush Satan in His birth, life, temptation, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension and eventual return in world judgment. It is most foreboding in that God here declares war upon Satan. If you think in outlines this point would be titled "The War Begun". Notice carefully in Gen. 3:15 that God is the one who puts enmity - personal hostility - between Satan and the woman and between Satan's progeny and the woman's progeny. The most simple history of the world would be this: God and Satan are at war through those allied with both of them. In Gen. 3:15 God declares war and also certain eventual victory through the seed of the woman who is clearly Christ.

In God the Father's timing He didn't choose to send His Son immediately. The war wasn't a quick one comprised of few decisive battles. Instead decisive victory would be delayed. It is during this time of delay that the world religions begin to arise. In our next post we'll consider how the war continued as Biblical history proceeded.

Have you wondered how it happened?

2005-11-09T11:14:00.000-04:00

I was catching up on my reading of Al Mohler's commentaries today and came across an interesting factoid that put together some pieces for me. Did you even wonder how the Supreme Court - who rules on Federal matters - even began to decide 1st Amendment cases for individual states? In this commentary Al Mohler quotes a constitutional scholar who exlains that it was a misapplication of the 14th Amendment to the 1st Amendment which started it all. Very interesting as a power grabbing strategy.

An Eyeore Day More Should Share

2005-10-25T10:31:00.000-04:00

Yesterday was a typical blue Monday. Pastor's are of two minds - generally speaking - when it comes to taking a day off. Some take off Friday while others choose Monday (others don't have a regular day off and ought to go back and look at the 4th commandment not in Sundayness but rather how it correlates with the 6th commandment and preserving our own lives). I choose Friday as I'd rather get a jump on the week. However, after 3 days (Friday-Sunday) where my boys get to see more of me than Monday-Thursday, Mondays are generally blue. My wife takes back over managing things during the day herself and I'm back to my usual ministry responsibilities.

All that is background for yesterday which was an Eyeore day. My family hates Mondays. I especially hate Mondays. It's not returning to another week of ministry I deplore. I love what I do and of all the days of the week I typically feel productive with lots of tasks accomplished on Mondays. It's the curly heads I leave at the top of the stairs peeking through the baby gate as I close the door. For those readers who don't know my family personally I have curly hair which is quickly moving from dark brown to grey. My 3 boys (Jacob - 5, Jesse - 3, Joseph - 1) all have curly hair but none my color. In fact for ease of use I simply call them red curly, blond curly, and brown curly. Beginning all of their names with J is cute and all but makes it terribly hard to get the right name out especially when one boy is about to pounce on another and bring about life ending injury.

Okay back to the point ... yesterday was an Eyeore day because it was a Monday. I mentioned Eyeore to some people yesterday and they stared blankly back at me. If you don't know who Eyeore is here are your marching order: go to the library and check out a collection of Winnie the Pooh stories, find a random curly headed child who likes stories and read to them for a while. If you can't find one, come to my house, you'll find a ready audience, curls provided gratis.

For the unitiated, Eyeore is known for always being gloomy. If we were to characterize Eyeore in the way my Old Testament professor (Iain Duguid, soon to be professor at Grove City College, coming Fall '06) taught us, he looked at the world through Ecclesiastes eyes. All is gloomy with no hope. Now that isn't exactly what I felt yesterday morning as I left 3 curly heads sadly at the top of the stairs. There was hope for us though, dinnertime (with appetizers beforehand, explantion some other time) would come soon!

Why do I share this story? I have found that men and sadly Christian men don't particularly enjoy their children. Very few men feel like Eyeore on Monday morning. Thus my title. I don't think many men struggle to leave for work on Monday morning because they'll miss their children all day. I'm all for work, love what I do, get charged by it and through it, and think it's a great thing. I'm not anti-work! But I am pro-children and enthusiastic about it. It pains me that more men are not.

Let me share a quote and then a few words of exhortation to the fathers or prospective fathers who might be reading this. "Too many children are growing up feeling that their mothers and fathers did not regard them as sources of pleasure." (Herbert Hendin) How would your children respond to that quote? Can you honestly say that your children are a source of pleasure? Do your children sense they are a welcome reward from God (i.e. Psalm 127:3)?

I suspect that many of my male readers are now feeling guilty and probably rightly so. Why men do we have such a hard time enjoying our kids? Why don't we feel like Eyeore at least on some Mondays? Surely the manly taking of dominion is more difficult to measure in child raising. It's easier to see that you made a sale, wrote a sermon, finished a project, fixed something or built it from raw materials. That I agree; fathering is an ambiguous profession. But let me gently suggest as well that there is something spiritual going on.

In that list of fruit of the Spirit the hardest it seems for men is patience. The curse produces an unrest in us that will be only finally resolved in the New Creation. But now we must be patient not impatient. This includes our interest and interaction with our children. With pain I hear stories through my wife of husbands who spend as little time as possible with their children. Sounds like that quote from a few paragraphs up. Children take patience which means discomfort and even repentance at times for unrighteous impatience with our chldren. At least that's the pattern in my house. Let me open my heart a bit more and see if you're in a similar spot.

When I'm impatient with my children and take the time to actually think about it after the fact I almost always find that I was impatient because I thought in my heart of hearts "I ought to be doing something more important than having you waste my time being silly or playing". And then I repent because I recognize that my heart is against the heart of God at that point. Even as a pastor (!) the 4 most important folks who need my time and talents reside in my house not anywhere else. Is that what you feel? You'll know if you have some Eyeore times because you have to leave your kids. You'll know that it isn't your heart if your consistent feeling is that you don't want to go home to see your kids.

What's the remedy if you are like a typical guy and struggle with patience with your kids and struggle to enjoy them? Without being trite, the cross is your first stop where mercy can be found for sin and grace for temptations ahead. Next stop is to spend your devotions (are you having any?) reading, praying, and meditating over what God has to say about children in His Word seeking that you would be transformed in your mind (Rom. 12:2). As you seek the Spirit's work in your heart making it beat along with God's, start acting like you are changed. Choose to stop doing something when you could be spending time with your kids. If your patience is tested, consider it the medicine you need. If you blow it, ask your kids to forgive you. They need models of repentance as well as models or righteousness.

May you share an Eyeore day with me in the near future.

Potentially Dangerous Consumption Habits

2005-09-08T12:05:00.000-04:00

My blogging has been light the last couple of weeks as I got ready for a glorious week of vacation on North Carolina's Outer Banks. When you have as good of a time as I did in such a beautiful place it makes me wonder how incredible the New Heaven and New Earth will.

An aspect of my enjoyment of vacation was my reading of Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. It's a good read. Most of the folks who would read a blog considering the topics I do from a Christian perspective won't be happy with some of the book. That's okay because you'll be able to filter the junk while you profit from the perspective.

I had hoped to write this blog piece on labor day but time got the best of me. I wanted to write on that day because Schlosser make many points about the effect of a fast food culture on the workers in that industry and in the industries that support the fast food industry. Perhaps I'll document this in future posts. My point today though is just to introduce a concept to have you think about.

Here's the concept ... am I held responsible by God if my consumption habits require that producers of what I consume sin against their workers? Let me give a clear cut example and then we'll work backwards from there. If I find a pimp and offer him $50 to find me a certain kind of female to have sex with, I've put that pimp (though he has put himself there as well!) in a spot where I'm requiring him to sin to fulfill my desires. I think that's pretty clear cut. But what if the same thing happens by my consumption habits in as direct but less obvious ways?

Suppose for example that I love $.99 hamburgers at McDonald's. I'm also an investor in McDonald's (the role of investment we may consider in a future post as well) expecting a good return on my investment. Thus McDonald's is subject to my demands on both ends of the equation. If McDonald's is going to please consumers with low prices and investors with high returns how can that happen? It can only happen in one way. It can only happen through low expenses combined with incredible productivity.

This is where things get tricky. How do low expenses happen? Given that fixed costs are fixed by nature, wages are depressed. How does incredible productivity happen? Through getting the most out of workers in the least amount of time no matter what it costs them in injuries and sanity. And this for depressed wages.

Think about those last couple of sentences. Is that the way you prefer to be worked? Of course not. So as a Christian, how would you apply the Golden Rule in this situation? You would have to be willing for the price of your hamburger to rise and your investment expectations to fall sufficiently that those who work behind the counter and butcher the cows are able to work in the same way you like to work.

As things stand now, my consumption habits are more than potentially dangerous. How about yours?

No more evolution

2005-08-25T16:01:00.000-04:00

I suppose I shouldn't have been laughing but I was. In a Washington Post article the author lamented along with a scientist the loss of habitat in the Bahamas for lemon sharks. I like lemon sharks, they are a cool creature.

The reason I was laughing was not at the sharks. But what I was laughing at was the unconscious on again / off again evolutionary thinking of a scientist the author quotes. Let me give you her quote and then comment. She said, "They've been survivors on an evolutionary scale, but they've met their match, and it is us." The clear intent of this quote and the article is to convince the reader to stop thinking evolutionarily and suddenly start thinking as though they had a moral obligation to something or someone.

Yes you read that right. The author - and really not just this author and scientist but everyone who seeks to ground any sort of concern for the environment in something less than God's mandated stewardship of His Creation - seeks to impose a moral obligation on the reader to do something to preserve the lemon sharks. That's right you are to throw off your evolutionary instincts to be a winner and instead help someone else be a winner.

This double-speak is endemic to our conversing because we are made moral creatures. The environmentalist attempts to convince us to violate the dictates of evolution by not seeking to preserve ourselves only but to be altruistic and help other species. But are we obligated to preserve other species? No, obligation only arises in relationship with another person. Though the evolutionist seeks to avoid accountability with God they can't avoid accountability, they can just pervert it.

Naive news writers

2005-08-25T15:44:00.000-04:00

I'm confused ... an article from 8/3 in the Washington Post makes clear that the writers don't think evolution is a religious viewpoint. Let me quote them so that I can't be accused of misquoting. Here's what they say, "Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce religious -- especially Christian -- thinking to students." What is clearly left unstated is that evolution is a tested scientific theory (did I miss something or did someone replicate macroevolution in the last 5 years) and non-religious.

It's this 2nd aspect of evolution being non-religious that is naive. Somehow because a matter is "science" it sits off in some area that is neutral. Not true. Every scientist brings his beliefs with him. If you doubt it, work with one. They'll convince you otherwise. The true fact is that evolution takes as much or more belief in an unreproducible event or events than Creation. That anyone does anything without assuming ultimate answers in a worldview is impossible. It's the way we were made.

Clothing Not Optional

2005-08-18T16:49:00.000-04:00

Though his family didn't follow his wishes, a nudist who died recently went into the ground fully clothed. Why would a pastor care about a nudist's wish to be buried naked? It's not because I don't like the human body or think nakedness is wrong in the right context.

The human body is to be enjoyed within the bounds of marriage in private. There and only there is nakedness permissible. As much as before the Fall God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone, He also said through His actions in clothing Adam and Eve in more than bikini style clothing (see Gen. 3:21), that it was not good for fallen man and woman to be naked in public.

What the nudist refuses in his or her rebellion against God is that man is fallen and thus public nakedness is wrong. But there is something hidden in the rebellion. It is the sense that men and women are made for complete openness - including physical openeness - and union. However, that openness and union first come with God through Christ and then only, among humans, in marriage with a member of the opposite sex.

So in a matter of speaking the nudist gets the concept right but the context wrong. Yes we are made to be naked and unashamed. But without Christ we are naked and ashamed before God. With anyone but our marriage partner we ought to be dressed and if we aren't we should be ashamed. Clothing is not optional in a fallen world, it's required.

Of Toads and Trust

2005-08-04T10:10:00.000-04:00

There are many worldview implications involved in the recent debate regarding the nomination of John Roberts to the SCOTUS. Last week we considered the not so stealth religious litmus test being applied to Mr. Roberts.
This week it seems one of the main topics of debate revolves around Roberts ruling in a case involving an endangered toad. Supposedly because of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, the Federal Government can watch our for endangered species wherever they are found in the states. We'll leave the constitutional debate on that matter for another time.

My focus in bringing up this aspect of the debate is to drill down into whether Mr. Roberts can be trusted because of his view on a toad. The debate in the background is not about the Commerce Clause but rather whether the nominee believes certain religious commitments held by the left in America. There is a religious commitment to the environment and the dominion mandate that is from God. I've explictly taught that and wrote on this theme recently.

This is not the kind of thing being expected of Roberts. What the left in America wants in a candidate is an explict avowal not of Christianity but of paganism. Those of a supposedly neutral religious perspective desire that a candidate agree with their conviction that all species should be preserved irrelevant of impact to culture, society, and economy. That is, there is nothing which trumps the preservation of species.

Some other time we'll consider how this is actually counter to typical evolutionary thinking. For now though I simply want to make the point that this value of species preservation at all costs is explicity pagan in worldview. What does a pagan think? He thinks that this world is all there is and the world is a great unity which ought not be broken. If a species is lost, the unity of the world is broken and "sin" has occurred. This is the kind of thinking which leads incredible attention being paid to a Panda bear cub because it is an endangered species while no attention is paid to the 1.5 million children killed each year in abortion. Humans are in no danger of going out of existence so we don't have to concentrate on their preservation (see just previous post today). Instead we must focus on keeping the circle of life intact.

What Judge Roberts is expected to be is a pagan, someone who could sing songs from the Lion King and Pocohontas without reservation and with religious commitment. Yes to trust him he'll have to put a toad above all else. This is yet another religious litmus test but instead of rejecting him because of his Christianity rejection is being sought because Roberts isn't pagan.

Is Life About Our Comfort?

2005-08-04T09:31:00.000-04:00

Sadly a British Appeals Court has ruled that a terminally ill person can be starved to death. Specifically if "a patient is no longer able to express his or her wishes or is mentally incapacitated, doctors can withdraw treatment, including ANH [Artificial Nutrition and Hydration - mb], if they consider it to be causing suffering or 'overly burdensome.' " How food and water can cause suffering to someone is a bit obscure. However, the "overly" burdensome category is simply convenience speak for "your life isn't worth living and you're too much hassle to take care of". I have a 10 month old at home who is quite a bit of work. He doesn't feed or hydrate himself on his own but requires multiples incidents of intense care throughout the day. Is it inconvenient? Sure if I deem that what I'm doing is more important than him. But God is the one who sets importance on people made in His image and it isn't our right to determine that caring for a dying person is "overly burdensome". Babies are also "overly burdensome" or perhaps better "character building". Life - under the curse - is not about what is easiest or most comfortable. Instead it's about doing what it our duty knowing in advance that we live a cursed place where much of what we do is difficult. But this labor also helps us look forward to the New Heavens and New Earth where disease and difficulty will be no more.

Tolkien on Sex

2005-07-27T16:24:00.000-04:00

While rank pagans debate the symbolism of J. R. R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" books and now movies, in his letters to his sons he left no doubt as to his views on sex. Do I have to tell you its explicitly Christian? Click the link and enjoy the fruit of Al Mohler's study of Tolkien's letters.

Not So Stealth Religious Litmus Test

2005-07-27T16:20:00.000-04:00

While the Constitution says, "... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (Article 6, end of clause 3) the current debate regarding Judge Robert's nomination to the Supreme Court sure looks like a religious test.

CNSNEWS is generous in calling what is happening a "stealth" attempt. In my opinion it is not so stealth. Sadly those who are opposed to a man of conservative, perhaps even Christian, convictions don't even realize that they are imposing - in the name of irreligion and separation of church and state - religion on the country. Everyone acts out on some worldview and its impossible to not in any instance.

The debate in appointing and confirming a Supreme Court nominee isn't about whether a candidate will bring religion into his opinions but rather which religion. For more on this matter from my keyboard see Never Neutral.

Already Answered Science Questions - take 1

2005-07-25T15:55:00.000-04:00

World Magazine (can't find the link on their website) alerted me to a special feature in Science magazine upon their 125th anniversary. They've constructed a list of the top 125 questions left unanswered by science. Even just the top 25 are a field day for this former scientist turned pastor.

Expect a few posts along these lines as I consider a few of the supposedly unanswered questions which Science can't yet answer but God already has in His Word.

The 2nd question in top 25 list is, "What is the biological basis of consciousness?" They can keep asking this question and seeking an answer but they won't find it. As long as science maintains materialism as its idol and version of the lie (see Romans 1:25, New King James Version), it will be unable to explain human consciousness.

Human consciousness is of course mediated through a body while on this earth but is not dependent upon a body. In Revelation 6:9 we read that the souls of the martyrs cry out for vengeance. Though deprived of their bodies, they are utterly conscious especially that their blood has not yet been avenged.

Try as they may as long as science refuses the fact that man is a psychosomatic (soul & body) whole, they will be unable to answer some questions. It strikes me funny that an industry which happily relies upon non-material entities like laws of logic refuses that man could be made up of a material aspect and an immaterial aspect.

Lance Isn't the Center of the Universe

2005-07-25T15:42:00.000-04:00

On this day after Lance Armstrong wins his 7th consecutive Tour de France, he's rightly receiving honor for his hard work and obvious physical and mental abilities. However ...

I'm loathe to give honor to Lance alone. The purpose of all Creation is to give praise to its Creator. Infrequently Christians give the time necessary to getting what I call "behind" a wowing aspect of Creation. Let me explain what I mean.

Few people - perhaps none - have witnessed the incredible power of Niagara Falls and not been rendered speechless. But how many took the moments to then "get behind" the phenomena of Niagara Falls to the One who can create such a wonder as easily as your or I can chew a grape.

Everything which awes us in Creation is to bend us back towards worship of Yahweh - our Creator and Redeemer. So as you mentally gawk at Lance, don't forget that Lance's prodigious mental and physical abilities are derived from our God. Can you imagine what His abilities are that He can make Niagara and Armstrong?

Covering Up Reality

2005-07-22T16:40:00.000-04:00

I rarely get to read the New York Times Magazine (and you can't either if you don't pay for it somehow). But the issue from June 12th had some great pieces in it that deserve to be commented upon. In a piece by Clive Thompson (the link would drive you nuts if I provided it so just think I'm saving you the hassle and believe that I'm giving you the real gist of the story!) titled "Not Ready for Their Close-Up: The unintended consequences of high-definition TV" the author relates the fact that plastic surgeons are busy. They're busy fixing up TV people in their 30's.

Why you might ask? Well it seems what was invisible via regular TV broadcasting technology is now visible using High Def technology. So that scar you got falling down as a kid what was hitherto invisible is now ugly. Wrinkles it seems stand out rather prominently making those who are apparently beautiful not so.

If we bring this closer to how we might evaluate this trend from the Bible's perspective I suggest that the 30's TV type at the plastic surgeon is merely doing a sophisticated version of fig leaf weaving. When Adam and Eve sinned they realized they were naked and sought to hide reality from others in their shame.

Moderns do this in multiple ways ranging from the age-defying antics of medical plastic purveyors to the strong silent type American male who refuses to find or reveal what is going on his heart to the unbeliever who is unwilling to face the facts regarding their sinfulness. All of these are attempts to hide reality because we don't like it. They are in essence to put up a good front and appear "righteous" or "perfect" in some form or another through hiding.

Let's face reality ... we are becoming-wrinkly people with sinful hearts who do sinful things that are embarrassing. Without Christ cover up is needed because a close-up will reveal who we are. With Christ we can sustain the ultimate high def, the presence of God, because what will be seen is Christ's righteousness not our lack thereof. Run to Christ and don't mind the close-up it is reality after all.

Pastors, Get Blogging

2005-07-22T16:17:00.000-04:00

I have to admit that I was at first a reluctant blogger. Having imbibed joyfully a great deal of Neil Postman, I'm always wary of new mediums and their effects upon their adherents. I was struck though by the argument of a pastor friend who eventually convinced me that I should be blogging.

That friend (whose blog can be found here) convinced me that blogging was an extension of something I already did in my congregation. A bit over two years ago Phil Ryken, Senior Minister at Philadelphia's Tenth Presbyterian Church convinced me at a conference to begin addressing cultural issues with my congregation.

Ryken accomplishes this development through the publication of a weekly "Window on the World" (some of which have been collected in He Speaks to Me Everywhere: Meditations on Christianity and Culture). I set to work in my congregation and began in May 2003 writing "Cultural Perspectives". My congregation greatly profited from the very enjoyable time I spent writing those pieces. I will likely continue those pieces at a future point in my congregation's life. But for now, I'm switching to blogging with joy.

Why you might ask? Ryken's congregation gets a weekly dose of developing their Christian worldview for most of the year. My congregation - at the height of my writing Cultural Perspectives - got two doses per month. This is a reasonable pace at which to teach people but not ideal.

I've recently been preaching on the Ten Commandments and was reminded when I read Calvin's sermons on the Commandments from Deuteronomy that a number of the sermons were preached not on a Lord's Day but on a weekday. It used to be the case that church people received doses of God's Word multiple times during the week. Sometimes we pastors are lucky to get them once a week now. Obviously we don't lower the importance of weekly attendance at church. But could we recover the daily interaction people need to have in order to develop their Christian worldview in the midst of a culture which pushes them in pagan directions constantly?

In my mind blogging is not at the same level as hearing Calvin preach a sermon a weekday. Preaching and blogging are different tools in the pastor's tool kit. But my contention is that it ought to be in the pastor's tool kit. Your people called you be their pastor for a reason, they wanted to hear what you have to say week in and week out. Blogging serves a similar need as is usually taken care of through a phone call or email asking for a Christian perspective on this or a Christian answer to that.

But blogging is better because it's an answer given to everyone in your congregation who wants to know. Blogging is a multiplication tool. Better than that, when the pastor reads other pastor's blogs he can point people to significant things that other people are saying. Just today I pointed my readers to a friend's blog where he did an excellent job of explaining the nature of Biblical forgiveness. Now I don't have to write that, I can point people to that blog entry and then we can talk about it if necessary. In my mind blogging is the shorter version of giving someone a book to read to gain perspective on an issue.

Does blogging take time? Sure, everything takes time. But if you're like the typical pastor, you spend an enormous amount of time reading and interacting with cultural media forms. You constantly thinking through things and assessing how you might teach your congregation how to think Biblically. All blogging does is allow you to bear the fruit of your thinking sooner than later.

Conclusion ... pastors, get blogging. It'll be good for you to be forced to synthesize your cultural thoughts more frequently and it will bless your congregation as their Chrisitan worldview is built piece by piece day by day.

Clarity on Forgiveness

2005-07-22T11:59:00.000-04:00

David Wayne, a PCA pastor in Glen Burnie, MD, has written a phenomenal blog entry on the nature of Biblical forgiveness that is absolutely worth reading. With so much fuzziness around the matter of forgiveness and its relationship to repentance in the Christian world, this is a breath of fresh air. Read and learn.

Revealing Incarceration's Powerlessness

2005-07-21T12:49:00.000-04:00

Just today, a national sex offender registry was launched. The concept of publicly identifying those who have committed crimes has a long history. In fact Hawthorne wrote a book about the idea called the Scarlet Letter. My interest however is not history but in the possibly of change in wicked people.
Why is a sex offender registry needed? It's needed because no one - well almost no one, more on that in a minute - believes sex offenders can change. All the proof you need is the recent case in Coeur d' Alene to prove that. Making sex offenders register allows those around them to see their Scarlet "O" and keep their distance. But is this enough?
Modern penology avoids attempting to embody any spiritual understanding of humans and as such treats them as animals. Supposedly scaled back versions of re-education camps (read prisons) are the answer to people who cause others harm. Avoiding the possibility that people are at the core sinful, modern penology assumes that people can be released when the recognize that what they did is wrong and have a desire to not do it again. "Did you learn your lesson? If so, return to public life. But wait there's more ... you do need to sign this registry because we don't actually think you've changed but we'll set you free anyhow." Hopeless!
The existence of a national sex offender registry reveals that incarceration can't accomplish its goal, the rehabilitation of prisoners. Never can someone be said to "have been" a sex offender but instead will always "be" a sex offender. Sounds strangely like the modern assumptions regarding abuse of alcohol in that someone remains an alcoholic but may not be practicing now.
Into this hopelessness the Bible's perspective comes as a breath of fresh air. Hear what God says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, " Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were . But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." Notice the bolded text. Some of the Corinthians were sexually immoral (sex offender fits here) but now they are not. Why? Becuse the Spirit of God came to reside in them effecting real change at the heart level permanently changing behaviors and tendencies making possible substantive change in life.
Incarceration can't change people where they need it, at the heart level. But the incarnate Son of God's Spirit can and does. He did it to the Corinthians and He can do it today.

Wrong Question Yields Wrong Answer

2005-07-21T12:23:00.000-04:00

Much of the modern cultural debate regarding contraception revolves around when/if contraception should be available to young people and whether emergency contraception should be available without a prescription. We'll have to wait for the FDA to rule on the 2nd matter in September.
Regarding the first matter it seems somewhat universal to assume young people will engage in sexual activity and to inhibit their freedom is "wrong" or put more nicely "misguided". Interestingly what used to be "wrong" - i.e. fornication - is now "expected" with those who now impinge on fornicators the ones who are "wrong". Given this cultural landscape its unsuprising then that in this recent piece the primary issue brought to the reader is whether condoms are effective or not.
What's missing? What is missing is any concern for the well being of young people who would use the condoms safe sex advocates want to distribute freely. Certainly there is a concern that the rate of uintended pregnancy be reduced as also the incidence of STD's. These are laudable goals but short-sighted. What about the mental, relational and spiritual health of our young people? Sexually active teens have higher depression and suicide rates. The onset of sexual activity in a relationship is the greatest indicator that the end of the relationship is coming. College students understand this and now practice anonymous sex not even bothering to gain the name of a sexual partner.
Far from anyone's mind in the debate is the fact that God, who made us and watches over us through His law, tells us that sexual activity outside of the marriage bed is out of bounds because it damages human beings. The issue with condoms is not their effectiveness but rather their effect when used outside of a marriage bed. Do you want to seriously drop the rates of unintended pregnancy and STD incidence? Discouraging fornication is the best way.
And yes, realistic labeling that helps condom users understand that usage of the product doesn't ensure perfect prevention of pregnancy or transmission of STD's (condoms are ineffective in transmission of STD's that reside on genital surfaces not covered by a condom) would be helpful. But there also ought to be on condom packages a disclaimer about the relationship and spiritual effects of their usage outside of marriage.

Why would the truth need to be defended violently?

2005-07-20T16:12:00.000-04:00

Truth is a wonderful thing. Because truth always reveals itself to be such by its consequences and effects, it doesn't require to be defended with force. This is the historic Christian view of the truth and why freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are hallmarks of American culture - or used to be, but that's another blog entry for another time (read this if you think all is well in America regarding our freedoms). Anyhow ... historically Christianity didn't defend itself violently because it believed the truth makes itself plain by consequences. Here's an easy test to see what I mean. Find someone who wouldn't want to live in a culture where the 10 commandments were followed by everyone. Contrast the historic Christian view with this poll which reveals that Muslims in large numbers - but thankfully less numbers - say "suicide bombings that target civilians are justified in the defense of Islam". Since when did the truth have to be defended by force? If Islam was the panacea that academia says it is, why would it need to break the law to defend itself? We should always doubt what someone claims as truth when it has to be enforced with violence.

Alzheimer's and Family - Unsurprisingly A Good Combination

2005-07-20T15:58:00.000-04:00

I had the privilege of participating today in the kickoff event for our local Alzheimer's assocation Memory Walk. The featured speaker (Dr. W. J. Monsour, a local Alzheimer's doctor) said something which resonated with me as making sense given the Christian worldview. It seems patients with Alzheimer's do better if they are cared for by family rather than by an institution. Since God made us for community (think of "it's not good for man to be alone" and all the references in the NT to the "Body of Christ") a person ought to be healthier in community. There is also broad research which indicates that Alzheimer's patients who have a spiritual component to their life also do better. This is unsurprising as well since God made us for worship.

Defeating Death, My Way

2005-07-20T08:25:00.000-04:00

If we take for granted that humans were designed by God to live forever as a psychosomatic (soul & body) whole, it would make sense that fallen human beings would seek to achieve this goal apart from God and His provision for eternal life in Christ. One way this happens is through cryogenics. This recent article speaks about the cryogenics company that froze Ted Williams' head opening up a new facility. In their own words, "We're about defeating mortality". One could only wish that their instinct for eternal life and immortality could meet up with the reality that such is available through Christ.

Scary but true...

2005-06-08T14:29:00.000-04:00

At this link you'll find an article which is both scary and unsurprisingly true. When one uses another one selfishly for sexual pleasure, one should not be surprised if that selfishness becomes violent.

Environmentalism & the Christian

2005-06-01T10:29:00.000-04:00

At times I find American Christians imbibe a bit too much talk radio than serves their own good. While I enjoy both local and national expression of talk radio, it is with Biblical antennae up that I partake. Perhaps in future postings when a particularly egregious example takes place, I'll bring your attention to it.

Today my axe to grind regards environmentalism and how incautiously that movement is wholesale rejected by most talk radio hosts of a more conservative strand. This strikes my Biblically thinking mind wrong. Certainly there is a strand of environmentalism that must be rejected by a person committed to thinking Biblically (to use Cornelius Van Til's language, to think God's thoughts after Him). That strand is the Star Wars variety (BTW, when the DVD of Revenge of the Sith comes out and I can transcribe one of Yoda's brief sections of teaching, expect a post on that hopeless dribble). A concern for the environment that flows out of a strongly religious viewpoint - i.e. God is NOT everywhere but rather god is everything - must be rejected as quickly as a Mother Earth secularist view which sees Nature (notice the capital "N" replacing the the capital "G" of "God") in perfect harmony and man as its spoiler. Neither of those alternatives can be embraced by the Christian.

I should say before I begin a brief account of what a Christian environmental concern would look like, that my musing on this matter came as a result of reading on the subject what kinds of killing is God talking about in the 6th commandment (if you're interested, in particular I was reading pgs. 207-210 of J. Douma, The Ten Commandments: Manual for the Christian Life [Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 1996] ). Of late I've been musing rather frequently about the New Heavens and the New Earth (if you really want your mind trained in thining about heaven, a must read is Randy Alcorn's Heaven [Tyndale, 2004] ) and what the result of right thinking about heaven would have upon life on earth now. Since bliss will be earth and heaven reunited in a physical place where believers will live along with the rest of God's creations this gives us a different take on what we think of the physical now. It gives us a different perspective on how we should the earth right now. This along with several lines of thought Douma brought to bear has got me thinking about what a truly Christian view of the environment would be.

I would summarize my musings under three headings. First, environmental and animal abuse is out of the question. Where do laws against the abuse of animals come from in our country? They come from a Biblically informed worldview which says that all that God has made is valuable (though man is the most valuable). Thus since God made animals and all that we see in the world, it ought to be respected. Second, the BIblical concept of stewardship is a useful one in thinking about the environment. This creation is not to be wasted, not to be plundered for all its worth, and certainly not to be used for whatever purpose we see fit to advance our agenda. This last matter is one which is particularly troubling. While I'm certainly not a Luddite nor a technophobe, I am concerned about how greed among sinful people is devasting (and has devastated) the environment. Progress is good and part of our role on earth as Christians (see the 3rd heading). However, the advance of our own wealth at the expense of the environment is not righeous. There isn't present in that thinking a balance to the demands of Biblical ethics. Third, God's command to Adam and Eve was to subdue the earth. Some would say that I've soft pedaled this aspect of Christianity. This is not my intent. Instead, I want to say that our subduing of the earth must fit within the other parameters God gives us. In subduing a petty criminal we aren't allowed to kill him in the process just because we recognize the need to subdue him. As it's possible to subdue a petty criminal without killing him, it's possible to subdue the earth without abusing it. This is what I'm pleading for. I'm pleading for an ethic which is bigger than us, our purposes, and our greed. Now let's briefly consider some applications for these three principles.

Should the Christian buy a hybrid car? Should the Christian use green power at greater expense? These are the kinds of questions that the radical environmentalist is imposing. However, they are not bad questions to consider as I write in the midst of coal country with its scattered piles of coal mine tailings and runoff. What I propose is that we don't support advancement in any realm of government or commerce which requires abuse of the environment. This is what is prohibited by God. If that means we make other choices which may be more costly, so be it. It's a part of discipleship. It's time we begin thinking for ourselves and outside of the "if it helps America, we can do it" box.

Another blog?

2005-05-31T12:52:00.000-04:00

You might wonder why a busy pastor would spend valuable time in posting to a blog. Good question ... My main reason for beginning this blog is found in its title. A lost skill among most Americans is the ability to muse. In religious language we would call this meditation. A previous age put their musings into the form of stories that artistically caused another to muse along with the author. Unfortunately I'm not skilled enough to produce fiction worth reading. But muse I can and muse I enjoy. Periodically when I find something worth musing about I'll write a few words or post a link I think you might find interesting. Perhaps together we can regain a lost art.