The Conversation

I never read Ta Nahesi-Coates Between the World and Me. On the other hand, it was widely excerpted in many reviews, and the one excerpt I read that made me think I might want to read the whole thing some day was about "the conversation" that black parents need to have with their children about interactions with the police. I have since had opportunity to talk about this with an African American pastor I know and he confirmed that he has talked with his son, and given him this counsel: "Do what you have to do to survive the encounter. We can figure out how to respond legally later if we need to." Honestly, based on my (very limited) interactions with the police, I can't imagine having that conversation with my children, but I can certainly understand why it happens.

But over the last few days, I have felt the need to have a different sort of conversation with my teenage sons. The Kavanaugh hearings have developed a Through the Looking Glass feel to them, where the total absence of corroborating evidence plus a judicial philosophy antithetical to the so-called "living Constitution" is taken to equal proof of allegations of sexual assault some 35 and 36 years in the past. If there is any justice in the world, Kavanaugh's accusers would be asked to either provide significant corroborating evidence or face criminal perjury charges and civil slander and defamation suits. But I do not think that there is. In the world in which we now live, a long history of exemplary public and private conduct is no guarantee against accusations being made and believed. So I sat my boys down this morning and told them, basically:

Gentlemen, there are two reasons to not go to parties where drinking and sexual immorality are part of the equation. Number one, because fleeing immorality and drunkenness please God. That's the best reason. But the second reason is because we are now living in a world in which an accusation, true or not, can ruin your life. The only way you will survive living in that world is to live your days from now till death with complete moral integrity. If there's no evidence you were ever at such a party of sexually active with anyone but your wife, that truth might save you in the day of trouble. But you should still be prepared for a world in which you might well be Joseph.

Walking in God's ways is always best, always safest for many reasons. Here's another one. Though it saddens me that even doing so is no guarantee your reputation will be unsullied, it is my hope that these events might be one thing that points people back to the ancient paths and then, perhaps, to the Maker of those paths.

Process, results, and Mark Driscoll

In my last sermon, I opened with a bit about "destination people" versus "journey people." It wasn't meant to be serious, or to provoke much serious thought. It was mostly to help people to relax and engage with the text of Exodus, which is a book about Israel's spiritual journey out of slavery and toward their destination of the Promised Land. So it was fascinating to me that after the service, as people were making their way out and greeting me (as is still tradition in our church), that a friend stopped me with a serious comment about this illustration.

He told me that journey vs. destination is another way of talking about "process orientation" vs "results orientation." Which is true. Some people don't care about how something is done, only that it is done. For others, how you get there is at least equal in importance as that you arrive. This led to a further discussion about politics and also about church ministry. My friend told me that he is usually more process than results oriented. I lean the other way.

The conversation was sharpening for me in light of recent events involving Pastor Mark Driscoll. I have read much of what Mark has written and found much of it beneficial and helpful (esp. Doctrine) and enjoyed a few of his sermons. Moreover, I respect the fact that his church, Mars Hill, has been able to effectively share the Gospel with so many people (esp. young men) in a city as aggressively secular as Seattle. I did have questions, as many did, about various comments he made or actions he took, but somehow, through a combination of my own spiritual immaturity and results orientation, I largely ignored the warning lights.

Now the warning lights have given way to smoke pouring out of the engine. I have no desire to join in what has become a generalized internet pile-on. Yet, I do think that pastors (like me!), who tend toward seeking results above all do well to pay attention to what has occurred. Too many of us were willing to ignore evidence of immature and ungodly behavior in Mark because his ministry was going so well. There really were lots of people coming to faith in Jesus. There were churches being planted. And that's what many of us pastors (again, including me!) hope will one day happen in our churches too. At our best, we want to see those things happen not out of some megalomaniac desire to build a monument to ourselves, but because we really do believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the dividing line between heaven and hell and that life is only found knowing Him. So out of love for others, we greatly desire to see as many as possible know and love and follow Jesus.

Yet it is apparently easy for that good desire to transmogrify into ugly self-exaltation. May I and my fellow pastors never be granted influence that outruns our character, nor allow ministerial results to so overrule the process of obtaining them that we discredit the Gospel message we so earnestly desire to spread.

Three Cheers for Church Discipline

Those of you reading that title must think that I have perhaps: a) taken leave of my senses; b) become a hard-line fundie, who loves whacking people publicly for their sin; or c) become hopelessly irrelevant in a modern church-going context, since the disciplined person(s) will, likely as not, simply go on down the road to the next church, probably a larger one, at which they can disappear and not bear the stigma of facing correction. Nevertheless, though option a) always remains a strong contender, I'll assure you that none of the above is the case. Moreover, I think that the restoration of discipline to the appropriate place in the life of the Church is of supreme relevance, because I believe that is the distinct lack of it which is at the root of many of the Church's problems in our day.

So without further ado, here are three reasons to celebrate appropriate, restorative, biblical discipline by the Church:

1.  Protection. One of the things which is even now wracking Roman Catholicism is the priestly sexual abuse scandal. Men who should have been immediately defrocked and removed from office were allowed to continue, even being moved from place to place so that they could find fresh victims. I am not so naive as to think such sins are strictly a Roman Catholic phenomenon(though this particular type is admittedly less common among evangelicals). Nevetheless, appropriate discipline serves to protect the people within the church from continually being victims of sin The good of the Body demands we protect its people.
2.  Purification. Sin is like cancer, always seeking to spread to new people. Churches which never discipline or do not seriously pursue it soon find themselves wracked by divisions and problems. Sin can even become part of the culture of a church, such that no effective ministry can be done because so much time is dealing with the results of sinful behavior. 
3.  Witness. Nothing is more thoroughly scandalous to me than the fact that, by many measures, Christians live their lives in a way indistinguishable from unbelievers. For example, the fact that many "Christians" watch porn and have sex outside of marriage leads many to think that Christians are not against sin, they are only against those forms of it in which they themselves are not participating. Thus we come across not as those who want to rescue people from sin and its results, death and hell, so much as self-righteous hypocrites who simply don't like other people and their sins. For our Gospel to be good news, it must be accompanied by the power of a life well-lived in submission to the Jesus we claim to follow. And our failure to discipline sin means that too many people see no distinction between the Christian life and their own as an unbeliever.

Christmas in Newtown

Last week, a murderer went on a rampage in a locked schoolhouse, killing 26 people before turning the gun on himself. And whenever things like this happen, the question is always asked: “Where was God?” That question is often asked, but it is seldom given a good answer. As a Christian, I believe that the Bible provides good answers to many of life's toughest questions, including that one. And one of the answers is provides, believe it or not, is Christmas. I can tell you that I love Christmas as much as the next guy. I love the stockings, the tree, the candy, the spiral hams, the parties, the Christmas music, the gifts, the cold and snow that hopefully will show up then. I love it all! I’m still a big kid, basically, when it comes to Christmas.

But Christmas, as anyone who has listened to Linus each year could tell you, isn’t really about any of those things, nice as they are. What it’s really about is how the God who made us loved us and invaded our world. He came on a rescue mission to put right the world we broke (and continue to break) and to do it in a way that doesn’t involve destroying all of us for the evil that lurks in our hearts. Christmas is about that, about God not only loving us, but loving us enough to wade into the darkness of this world and take that very darkness and the punishment it justly deserves upon Himself so that the world and its people would be healed from it and restored to relationship with Him. Christmas is about how God isn’t removed, watching us from a distance, like some absentee landlord, but willing to wade into the muck and mire of human life as one of us to deliver us from the destruction we by nature bring on ourselves and everyone around us.

Ever since the Fall in the Garden, every single human human being has flung himself or herself headlong into rebellion against God. That rebellion takes many forms, from pride, coveting, lust, greed, and other common, nigh unto "respectable" sins, to the darker ones like hatred, immorality, wrath, idolatry, rage, adultery, murder, and yes, schoolhouse shootings. All of it is fruit from the same tree, which is a twisted heart, bent away from God. Which is why whatever "solutions" we come up with to prevent the next example of this kind of evil may succeed in the short run, but will not eliminate evil from our society. As Solzhenitsyn said, "the line of good and evil cuts through every human heart. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" There are only two solutions: either eliminate all the dark hearted people (which is all of us!) or change the hearts of men.Without changed hearts, we will never run out of tragedies and examples of the deep evil present within human beings. Next week will probably bring another one. In fact, so will a good look in the mirror.

But the joy of Christmas is that Jesus came, just like God promised over and over and over through the Hebrew Scriptures. He is the Seed of the Woman, the son of Judah, the true Passover Lamb, the son of David, the Son of God, who had a ministry that began Galilee and ended with his rejection and death. God used heinous evil committed against His own son to bring restoration from and forgiveness for evil to all who will trust in Him. That is what Christmas is all about. That is the reason we celebrate Jesus’ birth, the certain knowledge that all the things in the world that are not as they should be will not always be the way they are. Indeed, we human beings, who have the most the do with the reason the world is the way it is, have the opportunity to be made right. That is God’s reason for Christmas, His Christmas gift to us.

The pull of the old ways...

Yesterday was my day off. I try as hard as I can to ensure that as little of my life is consumed by ministry on Mondays as possible. I don't usually answer the phone, don't usually go the office, or work on anything remotely pastoral. Instead, I spent the day hanging out with Karen, going for a run, and taking a nap. It's my small attempt at maintaining some helpful "margin" in my otherwise crazy life. As part of the day, we watched a little Michael Strahan and Kelly Ripa, who were interviewing Hugh Jackman (Valjean in the Les Miserables movie) and listening to Richard Marx (last seen in the 80's doing Right Here Waiting for You). Jackman was engaging, funny and, in the clip of film I saw, amazing as Jean Valjean. But what was really interesting was Richard Marx. He sang Casting Crowns' version of I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day. As long-time readers of this humble blog know, this is my all-time favorite Christmas hymn. The lyrics are based on a Longfellow poem written in 1863 at the height of the Civil War, after Longfellow's own son had gone to join the fight for the Union.

The carol's third verse is: "And in despair I bowed my head. 'There is no peace on earth,' I said. 'For hate is strong and mocks the song of peace on earth goodwill to men.' And this is the verse that concluded Marx's rendition for Kelly and Michael. It ended despairing, with perhaps a glimmer of hope in the chorus about "peace on earth, goodwill to men," but without any real basis for that hope. For some reason he left off the final verse, which is: "Then pealed the bells more loud and deep, 'God is not dead, nor doth he sleep. The wrong shall fail, the right prevail, with peace on earth goodwill to men.'" Without God, there is no hope. Without a living God, able to help, desires for peace and goodwill on earth will remain that, simply desires.

I think that in many ways, this rendition of the song is a metaphor for our culture here at the end of 2012. We still love the ancient traditions, the old songs, and the old ways, but without the substance on which they are based. We want "peace on earth, goodwill to men," but without the intervention of the Savior on whom that certain, though yet future, hope is based. We want brides in white dresses and church weddings, but without the chaste living the dress symbolizes. We want a middle class lifestyle, but without the work such a life requires. We want a powerful nation without any sacrifice of life or treasure, liberty without responsibility, and the whole world to bend around our individual desires. These are hopes and dreams that are bound to be dashed because they do not align with truth or correspond to reality.

Yet here at Christmas, the pull of the old ways is perhaps at its strongest, because even as we dash around making merry, we remember what really matters: faith in God, family, and living well by doing good. My Christmas prayer is that the old ways would not be forgotten when the last of the lights are stored away, that the basis for our hope at Christmas would not go unmentioned, and that we as a people would once again "seek for the ancient pathways" and find our Lord and Savior standing at the end of them.

A time for choosing

It's quite possible that I am getting curmudgeonly in my old age (though I haven't yelled at any kids to get off my lawn in a while), but I find I have less and less patience with those who say they have come to faith in Christ yet do not seek to obey Christ in any meaningful or difficult way. I seem to be meeting more and more Christians who are content to live with their girlfriend/boyfriend before marriage, who accept homosexual behavior as normal and even moral for some, who see no problem with gossip, or drunkenness, or swearing, or porn, or divorce, or cheating or pride. The only sins they renounce are hypocrisy and judgmentalism. But Christianity is more than being a nice person. It is a personal commitment to following the Risen Savior and reshaping your beliefs, your worldview, and your behavior, bringing them into conformity with and obedience to the Word of God empowered by the Spirit of God.

It's time for choosing. Either yes or no. It's like this famous scene from The Karate Kid, one of the iconic movies of my youth:

Mr. Kesuke Miyagi: Now, ready?
Daniel LaRusso: Yeah, I guess so.
Mr, Kesuke Miyagi: [sighs] Daniel-san, must talk. [they both kneel] Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later, [makes squish gesture] get squish just like grape. Here, karate, same thing. Either you karate do "yes", or karate do "no". You karate do "guess so", [makes squish gesture] just like grape. Understand?
Daniel LaRusso: Yeah, I understand.
Mr. Kesuke Miyagi: Now, ready?
Daniel LaRusso: Yeah, I'm ready.
Mr. Kesuke Miyagi: First make sacred pact. I promise teach karate. That my part. You promise learn. I say, you do, no questions. That your part

It really is this simple. We have made a "sacred pact" with Jesus. Some would even call that a "covenant." Part of the deal is that what He says, we believe and do. It's either Christianity do "yes" or Christianity do "no." There is no middle ground, no Christianity "guess so." And it's past time for us who follow Christ to allow that truth to transform our lives and quit pretending to follow Jesus if we aren't going to follow all the way. Either the Bible is true and Jesus is Lord or it isn't and He isn't. If it's not and Jesus is just another religious leader, then why not find something else to do with your life and time? But if Jesus is Lord (He is!) and the Bible is true (It is!), then it's time to get serious and stop wasting your life in "kinda Christianity."

Love and judgment

I read something an old friend wrote the other day. She said, "Love with judgment isn't love." I respectfully diagree. In fact, I think love without judgment is a good definition for indifference, which is first cousin to hatred. Who loves their child more, the parent who imposes boundaries, standards, and rules, even if they are temporarily hated by their child, or the parent who simply says, "Hey, whatever blows your hair back kid, go for it"? Absence of standards equals absence of caring about the other person at all. Reminds me of one of my favorite exchanges in Casablanca, where Peter Lorre's Ugarte asks Humphrey Bogart's Rick, "You despise me, don't you Rick?" Bogart answers, "If I gave you any thought at all, I would, yeah."

On to my larger point: My friend is a practicing lesbian who evidently believes that it isn't Christian love to warn people about the dangers of that life (spiritual, emotional, and physical). To this there are a couple possible responses: 1) Jesus frequently warned people against sin in the strongest possible terms (cutting off limbs, plucking out eyes, brood of vipers, whitewashed tombs, etc.), so doing as he did minus the graphic verbal images isn't non-Christian or unloving, at least not obviously so; and 2) Which is more loving, telling a friend you love that the road they are on is the broad highway leading to their destruction, or simply standing back and affirming them in their choices as you witness the train wreck their life becomes? How much do you have to hate someone not to warn them away from self-destruction?

Evangelicals and the closet

A thought experiment regarding the current direction of our culture:

1. Try to think of all the places outside of the evangelical Church where "coming out" LBGT would hurt your career prospects.
2. Now try to think of all the places outside of the evangelical Church where "coming out" as a Bible-believing evangelical Christian would hurt your career prospects.

It is at least interesting to me to note that there are, if you think about it,  many more places where coming out evangelical would hurt your career advancement than coming out gay, lesbian, etc. We as a society no longer frown on what used to be defined as immorality. Now we celebrate that, and what we now condemn are what are seen as immoral and/or retrograde beliefs. Thus evangelicals are closeted and people engaged in all sorts of immorality no longer feel any shame: from fornicating to adultery, from porn to "friends with benefits" and all the variations of being gay, lesbian, etc., whatever blows your hair back is good, baby. Let your freak flag fly! It's a weird world, to say the least. Put more biblically, I am grieved to see non-Christians (and some Christians!) on the one hand becoming hard-hearted and calloused toward sin (Eph. 4:18-19) and on the other hand see Christians so afraid of the disapproval and jeers that we will not "come out of the closet" to share the Gospel with people who need most to find freedom from their slavery to lust.  

Be bold, my friends! A world gone crazy needs the life and freedom granting power of the Gospel now more than ever.

All the Single Ladies

I have been a pastor now for close to 11 years. In that time, I've had my theology of sin regularly affirmed by both my own behavior and that of my parishioners. We truly are a depraved race of rebels, me included. But for whatever reason, there are some sins that I find more troubling than others. And one of the ones that bothers me a lot is the number of young Christian women I see who are willing to make serious compromises in their romantic lives for the sake of a relationship with a dude. I've dealt with this so often that I practically have a speech prepared. The speech itself doesn't usually work, since most people who are "in love" don't have ears to hear a rebuke, even if it is one delievered in love and with their long-term future in mind. But in the possibly vain hope that I will save someone a lifetime of heartache, here's the guts of "The Speech."

1. Don't date and don't marry a non-Christian. Despite clear Scriptural teaching, lots of Christian girls wind up married to non-Christian men. This is because they so deeply long for a man to pursue and love them that his faith, or lack thereof, is deemed a non-issue. They may rationalize dating him on the hope he will come to Christ later. Some do. But most don't. And a man who says he is a Christian but who doesn't go to church is simply a liar. So is a man who can't articulate his faith in Christ-what he believes about Jesus. If I had a dollar for every woman I know who married a man who wasn't a believer and who wasn't interested in church when they were dating who now comes to church alone, I might not be rich, but I could definitely take Karen to a very nice dinner. Ladies, don't underestimate the value of common faith. It's a Scriptural command and that should be sufficient to obey. But please consider this too: if you want a deep connection at the heart level, you won't have it with a man who doesn't share the deepest commitments of your heart. Instead you will be frustrated, sad, and continually praying for God to break through to the man you love while you try to raise your children to know the God their father rejects. It's painful and God wants to spare you from it because He loves you.
2. Don't date and don't marry a man who isn't a real man. I don't mean you need a guy who can rip a phone book in half with his bare hands or pull nails out of the wall with his fingers. I mean you want a man who is responsible, who can not only get, but also keep, a job and who works hard at the one he has. I mean you want a man who opens doors, pays his bills on time, doesn't live beyond his means, doesn't live with his mother beyond a year out of college, doesn't blame others for his failures, and who is a leader instead of a passive follower who lets you decide everthing. You want a man who treats you as a prize to be won and who will lay down his life for you, since daily doing that is what Scripture requires of him (Eph. 5:23). You want a man who has put away both childish things and immoral things. If some of these things aren't true, he isn't worth your time. You should walk away before you wind up married to a man who frustrates you for life.
3. Keep your sexuality pure. Perhaps no commitment is harder to keep than that of reserving sex for marriage, especially when you are deeply in love. But keeping sex (in all its forms!) out of the equation actually helps your relationship immeasurably. First and foremost, doing so honors God, who set it up and blesses marriage and marriage alone as the appropriate context for that fire to burn. Second, purity keeps you from thinking you have more than you've got, mistaking committed love for emotions, hormones, and temporary passion. Third, it also guards your heart, so that do you do not wind up feeling used when the relationship ends (as most will). Fourth, godly men aren't attracted to ungodly women. A man who is really following Christ with all his heart won't find appeal in a woman who is only following Him with half of hers. Finally, when saved for marriage, there is a security, a depth of passion, and a freedom that comes from sharing sex with just your spouse that the promiscuous will never know.
4. Be willing to wait. Lonely married is far lonelier than lonely single. Lonely single people have hope. Lonely married people are often hopeless, having long since resigned themselves to the idea that this is as good as it will ever be. Don't be one of them. Wait for the Christian man who truly is a Christian man.

Apostasy and Apologetics

Apologetics begins out of a genuine heart for lost people and a deep desire to see them embrace the faith in Jesus Christ which will give them new life in both the present and eternity. And it also begins with the recognition that a great many things Christians believe are confusing, hard to swallow, or otherwise totally alien to average unbeliever in general and to the apologist's non-Christian friends in particular. And underlying all apologetic efforts is a passionate conviction, even if left unarticulated, that if the faith can be sufficiently clarified, explained and rightly presented, then the non-Christian(s) that the apologist loves will intend place his/her/their trust in Christ and be saved from sin, death, and hell. In other words, apologetics begins with noble motives of love for the non-Christian.

However, it can and often does turn quickly toward apostasy. It frequently proves a short jump from "clarifying and explaining the faith correctly" to softening it down to a level felt to be more palatable, removing hard teachings, sharp corners, and rough edges. The apologist's motivation often leads to simply eliminating or explaining away scriptural statements that, on their face, are pretty clear and don't require much explanation. For example, no one reading the New Testament, and in particular Jesus' teaching on the subject, can come away from that concluding that Hell is something other than a place of eternal conscious torment away from God's presence or that consignment to that place is anything less than permanent. Likewise, there is no biblical evidence supporting women as elders/pastors or having teaching authority over men, the holiness of homosexual relationships of whatever label or type, or a view of Scripture as less than the authoritative, divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God.

Yet today, we find evangelical pastors and leaders espousing all of these views. Why? I think in most cases, it is because they find the actual teaching of Scripture in these areas too hard, presenting too high an obstacle for the unbeliever to clear to come into the Kingdom of God. To put it as charitably as possible, their apologetic desire for people to come to Christ stands in the way of faithfully preaching the Word of Christ. And though their love for people and desire for them to enter God's Kingdom is commendable in itself, it is loaded with serious problems.

Number one, it rests on the assumption that God didn't really mean it, or that the Bible isn't "fully" (i.e., in every place) inspired, or that there is some "trajectory" or arc from Scripture to the current day from which we can infer a different teaching about hard passages than the Bible itself presents. That is problematic in itself, since the Scripture's unreliability about "hard" teaching doesn't exactly fill a person with confindence about "easy" teachings like Jesus' death and resurrection as the hope of forgiveness and eternal life. But the bigger problem is that it sets up the apologist himself or herself as the final arbiter of truth, determining what is truly biblical and what isn't. And as a basis for building a new life, that's a pretty shaky foundation.

Number two, it assumes the apologist is "more gracious" or "more loving" than God. If it is true that the Bible is indeed God's Word (and if it isn't, then the whole debate is absurd!), then the apologist's feeling that softening hard truths is better than leaving them hardened presumes that God is less interested in seeing people converted than the apologist. Yet the idea that humans love their fellow humans more than the God who sent His Son for the rebellious is not just wrong, it's blasphemous. Moreover, if God is really loving, then we must conclude that He gets to define what love is, and apparently, it includes telling people the real truth, hard edges and all. After all, which is better, telling a man with stage 4 cancer that he needs aggressive chemo, radiation, etc. or that he should go home and eat a fudgsicle and he will be fine? One is "harder" for sure, but that road is also the one that leads to life and freedom, while the other feels better but leads to death.

Number three, it does not produce what it promises. The dirty little secret of almost every effort to round off the corners of the Christian faith is that they do not produce converts. The people who bought Rob Bell's books, and Brian McLaren's, and countless others, from Schleiermacher's on back through time, were largely the disgruntled children of the orthodox and evangelical. They aren't reaching new people so much as helping people who find their parents' faith distasteful to still call themselves Christians. But such efforts lead not to a revitalization of the church, but to its decline. The last 20 years, which have witnessed the rise of both the megachurch and the "emerging church" as major influences in evangelicalism, and which have both sought, in divergent ways, to make Christianity "easier" have also witnessed a declining percentage of actual Christians.

Finally, it assumes that becoming a Christian is actually easier than it is. It is true that our message is so simple that even a child can understand it and believe it. But there is simply no easy way to tell someone that he or she is a sinner deserving of God's wrath, and that Jesus' death and resurrection is the only hope of eternal life. Nevertheless, those who try to cushion the blow for the non-Christian act as if the only thing separating  him/her from fully embracing the Gospel and the new life that flows from it is a good presentation of the right information and a decision to embrace it. But that's not actually true, at least not fully. What actually separates the person from God is the very sin we proclaim as part of our message. And that sin makes the transformation of a non-Christian into a Christian the most miraculous thing that can occur. Indeed, it is an impossible thing, apart from God's own power. We must therefore not forget our role: we are to proclaim the Gospel, hard edges and all, and God who is rich in mercy and love, will save those whom He has called.

The End of a Ministry

I got the official word today. The rumors are true. Another husband and wife team whose ministry I respected and from which I benefited greatly are separated and probably headed to divorce court. That theirs was a marriage and family ministry only makes it worse. And I am sad. I'm not shocked. It no longer surprises me when seemingly great marriages flame out or crash on the rocks of sin and rebellion. But I am still grieved. I am grieved because I hope that Spirit empowered love and romance will conquer sin, betrayal, lust, and foolishness. Yet more times than I'd like to count, seemingly "good examples" fall and fail. I can count the examples of people I personally know in the church and only have a couple fingers left. Among them are people who taught me, mentored me, and served as pastor to me.

Sadness therefore grips me again today, reminding me of old scars even as fresh ones are inflicted. Yet from these things, I also gain a warning and renewed commitment. The warning echoes back through time, from an older man who taught me about David (and later fell into David's sin) that "Satan is willing to wait 50 years if he has to, in order to take a man down." Our Enemy is indeed patient, and unrepentant, private, "little" sins and darkened corners of the heart have a way of revealing themselves publicly if the wait is long enough. I remember too what the Scriptures say: "Let him who thinks he stands take heed, lest he fall." And I tremble with fear, knowing that many better men than I have fallen victim to selfishness, pride, and sin. So I, like Billy Graham said, "run scared" and try never to put myself in a situation where temptation can run wildly into life destroying sin. And I also renew my commitment, both to my bride and my Lord and King. There is no greener grass, and I will rejoice in the wife of my youth until the day we die, till we are no longer young, till we can't see, hear, or eat with our own teeth. By God's power and through His great grace, we will make it, loving each other before the Lord until the last breath.

On politics and religion

Jonah Goldberg is not a Christian. I don't know what his faith commitments are, though my guess would be some variety of Conservative (as opposed to Orthodox or Reform) Jewish. Regardless, his comments from today's G-File are among the best and most reflective that I've read anywhere about the role politics currently plays in modern American life. Here's the meatiest part:

 If you clear the public square of what we traditionally call religion -- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism etc. -- we will not have a public square free of religion. We have a public square full of religion fighting under the false flag of "secular values" -- with no opposing sources of moral authority to resist it.

The utopianism, millenarianism and radical egalitarianism at the emotional core of liberalism are fundamentally religious in nature. That doesn't mean liberalism is evil or totalitarian. But it is less than totally self-aware. The nice thing about traditional religion is you know where it comes from. The unwritten faith of liberalism masquerades in the costumes of modernity, progress, social justice and the like without recognizing that liberalism requires leaps of faith, too.

Liberalism's lack of self-knowledge about its nature makes it very powerful and very dangerous. Liberals can simply claim -- without seeming like they're lying, because they actually believe it -- that they are cold, rational presenters of fact and decency. Comte's "religion of humanity" has forgotten that it is a religion at all. But forgetting something doesn't make it any less real. Wile E. Coyote forgets there's no land underneath him. His ignorance doesn't keep him aloft.

This is how the New Class of experts and helping professions become secular priests of a wholly political religion. We confuse credentials for ordinations, regression analyses for consecrations. And without a conception of a higher authority, without a more enduring and transcendent dogma to inform our consciences, we are left following the captains of rudderless ships leading us to ruin.

Live quietly and get a job!

For about the past six months, I've been a subscriber to gotandem, a ministry of "Back to the Bible". They send me daily devotions to read through my email or phone and I've found a number of them thought provoking and encouraging for my daily walk with Jesus. Here's a selection from one of messages I got today:

I've been just as guilty at times of equating and encouraging enthusiasm and initiative as evidence of a genuine heart for Jesus. I have urged people to find a way to "change the world," to "be on fire for God," and to "give 110 percent." (Okay, I've never said that last one. It's just mathematically impossible.)

Maybe it's a noble impulse to give our lives for Christ with some kind of all-or-nothing initiative to convert continents or get an ad on the Super Bowl or "storm the gates of hell," but this verse always brings me down to the earth I think God means for us to walk on as we follow Jesus:

"Make it your goal to live a quiet life, minding your own business and working with your hands, just as we instructed you before. Then people who are not Christians will respect the way you live, and you will not need to depend on others" (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12).

Wow, that's counter-intuitive when you're on fire for God and trying to change the world. It won't look very good on the inspirational posters we're hoping to sell down at the Christian bookstore: "Live quiet!" "Leave people alone!" "Get a job!"

It's a long-term strategy: Live like Jesus for years in your neighborhood, being a respectable citizen, and people will notice over time.

It might not sound as exciting, but it's as real as it gets.

Agreed. Too many of those who want to "change the world for Jesus" can't get moved out of their mothers' basements. And even more have Christian lives which don't evidence much maturity or long-term faithfulness. So live quietly, get a job, leave people alone, and live like Jesus in your neighborhood is as timely a set of instructions as ever.

Fear Not

This video really hits home. As a pastor, I spend far too much time worrying what people think and too little worrying what God thinks, too much time worrying that my sermons are not good and not enough worrying whether they are of God. What about you? Do you fear the right things?

What I'm Reading...

I believe it was Erasmus who said, "When I get a little money, I buy books. If I have some left over, I buy food and clothing." Apart from the occasional firearms purchase, I can fully relate to that brother. I dearly love books and never seem to have enough time to read. And as is typical, I've got several going at the same time. Here's what on the stack and newly added to the Kindle that I'm chomping through:

• The Hunger Games trilogy by Suzanne Collins. I'm 2/3 of the way through Mockingjay, the last book in the series. It's pretty dark, taking place in a dystopian future, but as someone who doesn't read much fiction, I'm enjoying the author's exploration of warfare, morality, freedom and government through its pages. Also it's a ripping good tale!
• Don't Call It A Comeback by Kevin DeYoung, Colin Smith and friends. Offers Reformation influenced theology in modern, accessible language. Great stuff for high school and college students.
• Christ-Centered Preaching by Bryan Chapell. I finished this some time ago, but as I'm leading the Elders at our church through a discussion on preaching this weekend, it was worth picking up again for a review of the first couple chapters. This is a very practical book, not only for those seeking to develop their preaching gift, but for those of us who are trying to preach Christ from all the Scriptures.
• Spiritual Leadership by J. Oswald Sanders. This is my 4th or 5th trip through this little book, but I keep coming back to it every time I need to meet with men who want to be leaders. This book, probably more than any other I've read, comes closest to describing what it means to actually live and embody the qualities of spiritual leadership.
• The NIV Application Commentary: Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephenaih. I'm currently preaching a series on Habakkuk. This is what I'm using to make sure what I think and say is in line with what the text actually means. Good stuff that's not overly technical, written so that well-informed laymen can get their arms around it.
• Geneis in Space and Time by Francis Schaeffer. Not started yet, but I was taught, once upon a time, by one of Schaeffer's students and this book greatly influenced his thinking on some things, so I'm looking forward to it. Summer is coming, so perhaps then.
• The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris and The Genesis Record by Henry Morris. I'm a historic creationist. That is, I believe in an old earth, prepared for a young humanity in six literal days at a point in time less than 30,000 years ago. But these books were given to me by a dear brother who is a young earth creationist. I intend to read them, as they seem to be the most comprehensive of the young earth books out there. Perhaps I will change my mind. Perhaps not, but it's always healthy to read others' best arguments as you shape your position.
• Creation and Blessing by Allen P. Ross. I'm finishing up Genesis (chapter 25-50) this year and this should help, as it comes highly recommended by my old friend and mentor, Steve Benton.
• God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God by K. Scott Oliphant. This is one I haven't started through yet, but is about how Jesus is the complete revelation of God and God's complete explanation of his character and relationship with us.
• The Bible Story Handbook by John H. Walton and Kim E. Walton. This is a book about how to teach kids each one of 175 Bible stories, not just as a story, but giving each story's focus, theme, application, place in the Bible, and mistakes to avoid. Since a lot of kids in Sunday School learn the Bible's stories as episodic incidents, divorced from both context and all but the most moralistic application, I'm hoping this gives me some good ideas toward a different approach I can use with my own kids and perhaps recommend reading to the Children's Ministry Team here at CBC.
• The Cross of Christ by John Stott. I've never had the opportunity to read this, but since I'm starting a new series on the Cross next week, I'm going to be reading it to sharpen my own thinking and enrich my own preaching of the Cross.

This will probably keep me busy for a few months. But then on to others, still unread. Maybe if I get a sabbatical in a few years, I can read (and write!) as much as I want to. Till then, I fit these in as I am able. Maybe there's a few of you, dear readers, who might like to chomp through one of these with me and offer me your thoughts?

Podcasts

It has been my privilege to preach at Chilli Bible for the past 4 1/2 years. If you are wondering what I actually sound like or what a sermon by yours truly is all about, you can quench that desire over at http://www.chillibible.org/. Click on the "Resources" button, followed by "Podcasts." There are sermons going back to January 2009, I believe, from both yours truly as well as Pastor Jim (and other gifted men too!).

Art and the common man

I've long suspected that most of what we call "art" in the modern era is unworthy of the term. And every now an then, you run across someone saying something you believe better than you ever could. Here's Jonah Goldberg, from his latest G-File:

I once read somewhere that architecture is the best example of an "artistic" school that has completely broken with popular tastes. Architects certainly seem to design buildings to please each other and the critics and not the public. The average intelligent person goes to the Louvre in France and marvels at the beauty of the 17th-century buildings. The average architecture critic yawns at the musty old antiques and gushes over I.M. Pei's glass pyramid. I don't hate the glass pyramid (okay, maybe I do a little). But I don't go to Paris to see a structure that I could see at a relatively upscale suburban mall. The phenomenon is even more pronounced when you look at modern architecture in more conventional businesses and houses. What's more appealing to the eye, stately Wayne Manor or the Hall of Justice?

Still, I don't know if architecture is the best example of the phenomenon. Modern art caters to popular tastes just as little as architecture. A great deal of performance and installation art strikes most normal people as a colossal joke or a straight-up con. And please don't tell me that my failure to appreciate three squares and a triangle or a blob of paint on a canvas is my shortcoming. If something isn't aesthetically pleasing or interesting, doesn't require skills I do not have, and makes a stupid point stupidly, I don't appreciate it as art. That doesn't make me a philistine. It makes me a non-rube.

Anyway, it seems to me that the more a relatively artistic field of endeavor caters to critics over consumers, the worse it gets. You can see this all over the place, from haute cuisine to music. Some of my best friends in college were music majors, and they would ramble on about how Philip Glass is a genius. Maybe he is. But I'll take Beethoven or the Beatles over him any day. I don't follow the literary world too closely these days, but my impression is that the same is true in the world of fiction. If you write for the critics, only the critics will read you.

And one more makes...twenty!

It's been interesting to watch the reactions to the excited announcement by Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar that they are expecting their 20th child. It seems we are quite discombulated as a culture by the idea that a loving couple might be so...what's the right word?...ah yes, unnecessarily prolific. I mean, maybe back in the day when everyone farmed and people buried as many children as they raised (and often more), maybe such fecundity made sense. But now? In the post-Pill, post-Roe era? Why, such people are as hard to understand as aliens from outer space. I've heard reactions from admiration that one woman could even endure that many pregnancies (one dear friend, who is currently expecting said to Karen, "Just thinking about 18 more babies makes all my lady parts hurt!") to celebration of life (many Christians), to a scolding, don't-you-know-how-babies-happen-yet-you-coupla-rednecks (many on the left side of the media). Interestingly, the same sort of reactions, along the same sort of spectrum, could be found at the recent announcement that the 7 billionth child had just been born this month.

And while I find the thought of adding 16 children to our family fills me with a sense of profound weariness, when I see this lovely family, celebrating new life not as a number, but as a long-awaited joy, my heart fills with joy for them, though I don't know them, at the same time that it weeps for a culture where babies are  not as welcomed bundles of joy, but as a burden to society. May that change. And to all my "young evangelical" friends in search of a cause worth giving your life for so that our culture reflects Gospel values: here's one.

The Christian and the Vote

“every true, born-again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian.” ~ Robert Jeffress, Senior Pastor, First Baptist Dallas

On the off chance this particular deceased equine hasn't been sufficiently flogged, let me ask the question: Is that true? Should a Christian always prefer the Christian candidate in any particular political race? What if the candidate in question is a fool, or his/her theology is off more than half a bubble out of plumb? How much theological heterodoxy is permitted before a person can be safely declared "not a Christian" and thus no longer require me, a "true, born-again follower of Christ" to vote for him or her?

These are not idle questions, but cut to the heart of the matter: How should a Christian vote?

In my mind, it comes down to the following criteria:

1. Proven character. A good leader should be a good man or woman first. If he or she has not proven faithful in smaller matters, like being able to police his/her passions, why should he/she be trusted with a position of leadership? Personally, I was never comfortable with the idea that a person can be privately immoral, but publicly lead well. A person who has integrity in private will exercise it also in the conduct of his/her official duties, and who lacks it privately sooner or later won't be able to demonstrate it publicly either.
2. Effective leadership. Can the person inspire people and get important tasks accomplished. Is there a record of such accomplishments? Any politician will have to lead not just people of his/her own party, but also those of the opposition. Can he/she make even enemies be at peace with good decisions, well executed?
3. Enforcing justice fairly. This is one of the areas of our society which is always under challenge. Biblically, we must not grant special favors to the rich or connected because of their riches or connections. Cronyism or class-based favoritism is prohibited. But similarly, we must not put a thumb on the scale for the poor against the wealthy. We in the church are called to help the poor, but government's role is to enforce the law fairly for all. Does the candidate understand that, or does he/she stand on one side or the other?
4. Policy proposals that focus on results rather than intentions. Nothing is easier than endorsing policies which sound good and make their promoters feel good about themselves. But as the old proverb says, "The road to hell..." Good intentions matter less than good results where people are concerned, and politicians do well to remember that Murphy was an optimist, and most policies have unforseen consequences. [Consider for example the push for so-called "electric cars." What they really are in most parts of the country is "coal powered cars," since the electricity they run on is provided by coal, a less-efficient and dirtier form of energy than gasoline. If everybody buys a taxpayer subsidized electric car, that will effectively result in a need to construct a whole lot more coal-fired electrical plants and much dirtier air].
5. Minimization of the role of the state. If we believe what the Bible says that man is sinful and that man given power is prone to not just mischief, but destruction, then we should seek politicians who want to minimize rather than maximize their own role and their own scope of power over others' lives. This applies whether the pol in question seeks war or just do goodery "for the children." The power of the state seems to operate on a one-way ratchet, so look for pols who are either seeking to undo the ratchet a few clicks or at the very least, advance it no further.
6. No political messiahs. This is related to last one. It seems that every election brings out the messianic in every pol. This is natural, as it seems you have be an above-average narcissist just to run for office. Thus, they promise "heaven" to those who vote for them and that "hell" will result if they are not elected. They scare the voters, hoping that the glories they promise for support and the hell of their own loss will result in their elevation. But knowing that this is the nature of politics, we as Christians ought not be bamboozled. There is one Messiah, Jesus, and all others are mere pretenders. Don't vote for a man or woman who is there to save the world; they can't. Vote for the fellow who takes the tragic view that our best efforts can only improve things a bit, if at all. It's downbeat as a philosophy, but realistic in it's expectations of fallen people.

Is Mormonism a Cult?

In a certain sense, no. That is, if by "cult," you mean the sort of mesmerized, secretive organization which demands unquestioned allegiance to the leader and which leads to the deaths of many of its adherents, a la Jonestown, David Koresh, etc. then Mormonism isn't a cult in that sense. At least, not today, though even cursory reading about early Mormon history certainly leads one to conclude that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were more akin to Koresh than to Paul or Jesus.

But moving over to the theological realm, the answer is certainly an emphatic "YES." Consider the following:

1. Mormonism was founded by Joseph Smith, who claimed that he was told via direct revelation that he needed to found a new church of "Latter Day Saints' specifically because all other churches and Christian denominations were false and corrupt. Thus, their differences with historic Christian orthodoxy are not incidental, but central to Mormons' self-identity and reason for existence.
2. Mormonism rejects the unique authority of the Scriptures, and considers them their inerrant nor complete, adding to them not only the Book of Mormon, but also Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price.
3. Mormonism emphasizes the continuing nature of revelation through official prophets. Through the Mormon hierarchy of President, First Presidency, Twelve Apostles, First Quorum of the Seventy, and Second Quorum of the Seventy, Mormons can receive authoritative interpretations of both the Scriptures, the Mormon additions, and entirely new authoritative revelations. It is uncharitable to point out that some of these "new revelations" have come about because of the changing of social mores or desire for social acceptability in the wider culture, but with issues such as polygamy and the admission of blacks to the Mormon priesthood, such certainly seems to be the case.
4. Mormonism affirms a primordial spiritual existence before birth as God the Father's spirit sons and daughters, who receive bodies when humans procreate here on earth. How the first humans got their bodies I do not know, since there seems to be a need for a first set of bodies for the Father's spirit children to inhabit, but whatever.
5. Mormons are non-Trinitarian. They affirm the Father, Son, and Spirit as unity in purpose and mind, but not in essence, and such unity as there is not eternal. Moreover, Mormonism is explicitly polytheistic, with Brigham Young teaching, "How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never as a time when there were not Gods and worlds."
6. To Mormons, Jesus is Redeemer, but his deity is derivative and lesser than that of God the Father.
7. For the Mormon, humans are not inherently sinful. They do not possess an innate sinful nature, but are basically good.
8. Mormonism teaches that eternal reward can come to Mormons by their own efforts. Salvation is thus essentially not by grace, but by works.
9. Mormon salvation means that good Mormons ascend to the highest level of reward (the Celestial Kingdom), where they and their spouses (to whom they are still married for eternity!) continue to procreate as Gods, whose spirit children will one day inhabit other worlds. Less good people, who aren't quite righteous, go to the Terrestial Kingdom, where they don't suffer, but also aren't ruling as gods. The Telestial Kingdom is for the wicked and includes suffering. And finally, the Devil and fallen angels are confined to the Lake of Fire.

That is not even an exhaustive treatment of Mormon theology and its departures from historic Christian orthodoxy. But it is quite enough to say that while Mormonism is something, it is not "Christian" in any recognized theological sense of the term. At best, it is a religious movement which incorporates some Christian terminology and uses the Christians Scriptures. But it is not inaccurate in the least to label it a "cult."