God and happiness

"I think God wants me to be happy." So goes one of the standard explanations of many Christians who are either currently, or about to be, engaged in something they know God forbids. It is a lie, yet we are endlessly self-deceptive when we are determined to prostrate ourselves to some makeshift deity we have made, for the moment, supreme lord of our lives. Yet all such "gods" turn out to be hard masters, destroying even the pleasures they initially offered with the much larger and more overwhelming disasters that follow in their wake.

C.S. Lewis, as usual, puts it far better than I when he wrote:

Of course this law has been discovered before, but it will stand re-discovery. It may be stated as follows: every preference of a small good to a great, or a partial good to a total good, involves the loss of the small or partial good for which the sacrifice was made.

Apparently, the world is made that way. If Esau really got the pottage in return for his birthright, then Esau was a lucky exception. You can't get second things by putting them first; you can get second things only by putting first things first. 

In other words, pursuing happiness instead of pursuing Him who brings joy will not, in the end, result in happiness but in emptiness and misery. But putting Christ first and obeying His will, produces joy and happiness as a by-product. You cannot sin your way to peace, joy, and the good life any more than you can grow wealthy by burning your money in the fireplace.

Something worthy of posting

The story is told that Albert Einstein was once scheduled to speak at an event, but showed up and told the assembled crowd, "I have nothing to say. If in the future, I feel I have something to say, I will return and say it." He later did return and make a speech, when he felt he had something to contribute.Not that I have Einstein's intellect, but I have struggled to have something worth saying in this space for the last little bit. I've wanted to have something to contribute which would be uplifting and encouraging when the darkness seems to be spreading across our culture. I've been busy and thus tired and thus tending to depressive for too long. So rather than broadcast that, it seemed better to just be quiet.

But even when I feel pretty dark, God has been and will continue to work, both in me and in others. He is not limited by my moods, my schedule, or my energy level. Which encourages me. If life and godliness depends upon me, I am already lost. Thank God it does not!

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of baptizing my eldest son, John. He has shared his testimony with me and the church family and I believe his faith is both real and deep. Being baptized was simply the next step in his spiritual growth, but it was one I was blessed as both his dad and his pastor to be able to participate in. How good and gracious God has been to me!

Here's the video:

The Privilege to Preach

When I was a seminary student, my favorite classes were those with J. Scott Horrell and John Hannah. Dr. Horrell taught systematic theology and became a dear friend and mentor to me. He took Karen and me on our first missions trip (to Mozambique!), hosted us in his home, hired me as his grader, and generally loved me like Jesus. Of such men, the world is in woefully short supply. Dr. Hannah taught us all about ministry under the guise of teaching Church history. He and I were not friends, though I loved to listen to him and respected him deeply (and still do). There is so much that you are shoveling into your brain in those years, that it actually takes a few afterward to sort through it all. But one of the things that stands out in my memory is Dr. Hannah's comment: "Gentlemen, remember that preaching the Gospel is not just your responsibility. It is also your privilege."

I've turned that over and over in my mind in the years since, trying always to bear in mind that what I get to do as a pastor is a rare gift to be treasured, not a job, not a burden, nor something I do for which others should feel pity. I was reminded once again of the privilege this past weekend as I shared the Gospel at a Wild Game Feast in Buckeye, Arizona and then returned on a late night flight to preach 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 at home. What right do I have to stand before God's people and have them listen to me? None. What standing do I have that they should listen? None. And yet... And yet... God has called, I have obeyed, and He has blessed me with opportunities I could not imagine.

Here therefore is my prayer: "Lord, help me to remember the privilege, even on days when I am tired or frustrated, or depressed or even just bored. Help me remember that this is something I not only have to do, but something I get to do as well. Amen."

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."

Holding the line

It seems to me that the hardest thing in the world is to preach and believe the Bible as it lies on the page. It is quite easy, by contrast, to depart either to the right or to the left. If we depart to the right, we become one or another variety of fundamentalist, who seek to make the Bible say more than it in fact does, or make it speak clearly about issues on which it either has little to say or leaves freedom for the individual believer's conscience. Thus, fundamentalists warned us against the evils of coffee, games played with cards (even if there was no money involved), Bible translations other than the KJV, songs other than the ones in their hymn book, even non-intoxicating levels of drinking, playing games on Sundays, interpretations of eschatology other than pre-trib/pre-mil, and so on. These warnings elevated matters of either personal choice or conviction to matters of "biblical" obedience, often out of good motives, but nevertheless restricted people's freedom to follow Jesus as He might lead.

We are not, thankfully, in much danger of the evangelical church re-embracing the excesses of fundamenatlism. To do so would be a serious departure from Gospel and one from which I am glad that evangelicalism has largely escaped. But we are, I think, in danger of an equally serious one: departing from the Gospel to the left. By that, I mean all the variety of the ways that we remove from our beliefs that which we no longer wish to discuss or affirm. In some churches, this means not preaching through books of the Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, because that might bring up things we'd rather not discuss. This has led, unsurprisingly, to staggering levels of biblical ignorance as people with no sense of the broad sweep of the Bible don't know how it fits together or why the Old Testament is even there. It can also mean ignoring or minimizing passages that teach contrary to what we want to do. One particular favorite in this regard is 1 Timothy 2:12, which seems to offer a pretty much unconditional prohibition on women having teaching authority over men. Worst of all is the tendency to reduce the Gospel by making it more about serving people and doing nice things than warning them to flee the just wrath of God and embrace salvation and new life by grace through faith in Christ.

Thus the challenge is to hold to the line, proclaiming all that God says with fidelity. It means preaching and obeying the whole of Scripture, not just the parts we find most congenial. It means helping people understand how Jesus fulfills the Old Testament and why that matters. It means neither adding to, nor taking away, by either deliberate oversight or ignorance, what the Scripture has to say. It means especially that we keep the Gospel which saves people from death the center of all things and that we show how living in obedience is connected to that message no matter where we are in Scripture.

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.

Where you been?

Contrary to what may have been the impression that I have left of late, I have not traveled to the edge of the earth and fallen off. Here's what I have been up to:

Immediately after the kids' school year ended, Karen and I cut out with them for parts South, specifically 7 days at Walt Disney World and two days at New Smyrna Beach. We were one exhausted, tanned, happy, sandy bunch on our return, which was good because...

Our church's associate pastor had resigned his position to become a senior pastor at a church in Washington state and his last Sunday was just four days after Karen and I returned, sans kids from Indiana, where we had left them for the next week-and-a-half to party while we got caught up with life, laundry, and each other. I had just enough time to wade through approximately 250 emails, send some belated birthday and anniversary cards out to parishioners, open the mail, and write a sermon before Sunday came and we said tearful goodbyes to Jim, Darci, and Lucy.

That Sunday night, Karen and I checked into the Mission Oak Inn, finally making use of a gift certificate for that place which we had been given for Pastor Appreciation back in '09 (I think! It's been a while in any case). It was also something of a belated anniversary celebration for us since we were enjoying the actual day with our kids rather than alone. We ate field green salad with garden tomatoes and peach balsamic vinaigrette, linguini with alfredo, garden peas, giant scallops, and shrimp followed by chocolate cheesecake. The  next morning was cool and beautiful, with a mist rising over the lake and fields, and a breakfast of good strong coffee accompanied by southwestern eggs and stuffed French toast. We spent the day up in Bolingbrook shopping and hanging out together, ate lunch at Ikea and shared crackers and cheese with something bubbly that night. The next morning was another elegant breakfast then back to work and home, hitting the ground running, especially since we started leading youth group until we find a new associate for our church.

That Thursday we picked up my truck, which finally had its bumper repaired (don't ask), and we packed for Indiana again to get the kids. We left on Friday, returned with them Saturday, at which point detox from their long vacation began. Sunday was ministry and worship, and Monday started a new whirlwind week. Monday-Wednesday was Cub Scout Day Camp for the boys and me, with stops by me along the way to do Skype interviews with the Elders and a couple of our leading candidates for our new associate pastor, and lead the morning men's Bible study and youth group. Meanwhile, Karen has run Sara to summer sectional flute lessons, and Ashley to World of Wonder classes down at Bradley, where she is learning all about drama and acting (skills I hope she keeps confined to the stage and doesn't bring into the house!). All of which brings me up to today and this humble blog, which if you are still reading, ought to give you a reward of some kind, because I am freshly tired again from thinking about the whirlwind of life we have been living. But all of that to say, here's where we've been, I'm hopeful life will settle a bit in weeks to come, and there's a lot of things I've meant to write about that I haven't yet, so stay tuned...

Eschatology and the Mission

Over the past decade or so, the American Church has spent enormous energy pursuing theological renewal in the areas of soteriology and ecclesiology. Movements like the emerging/Emergent church have challenged traditional notions of what it means to "do church" and to be the church in a postmodern culture. They have also brought renewed clarity to our understanding of the Gospel, both what it is and isn't. Through movements like the Gospel Coalition, we are now discussing issues like the place of what is rather inelegantly labeled "social justice" in our gospel proclamation. These debates are all healthy and contribute, I think, to the renewal of the Church.

I think it is time for a renewal in eschatology as well. Among many of my brethren, the study of the last things is regarded as either the province of weirdos with charts or among the "things indifferent," about which Christians may disagree but which really don't matter. But in the New Testament, it is the in eschatological passages in which we most often find exhortation toward both mission and personal spiritual renewal. And so, as we approach the time when there are fewer American missionaries than there once were (as many are now old and starting to retire), I believe it is time once again to remind people of the Bible's great teaching about the last things and motivate a new generation to sanctify themselves and complete the task of world evangelization.

I believe it is simply true that:

• If we don't really believe in Hell as the Bible teaches, then no one will sacrifice the comforts of home to make sure people they've never met don't wind up going there.
• If we don't really believe in the coming of both King Jesus and His Kingdom, then no one will be willing to suffer martyrdom to reach the Muslim world (which is most likely the price that will have to be paid to do so). 
• If we don't really believe that Jesus could return today, then no one will ever develop any sense of urgency about repenting of their sin and reaching their neighbors with the Gospel.
• If we don't really believe in the Tribulation and God's wrath, then we will never warn anyone about it or share with them the Way of escape.

And that, I believe is the problem. Many of us affirm these things, but we don't really believe them enough to allow their truth to transform our day-to-day lives. So we sleep in comfort as the world quite literally goes to Hell.

Polygamy and the Bible

As many of you no doubt know, the State of New York recently legalized gay marriage and, significantly, did so in the absence of judicial fiat (as in Connecticut, Iowa, & Massachusetts) or ultimatums (as in Vermont) but through the normal legislative process (as happened in New Hampshire). New York is the largest state by far to have instituted gay marriage, and its passage there has been the occasion of a lot of commentary from both left and right about the nature of marriage itself. More and more, people on both sides of the political aisle are finding it difficult to conclude that marriage necessarily means one man and one woman. As a result, that biblically based concept is increasingly under fire, and now is seen as the last refuge of the bigot.

Indeed, one of the more common attacks against it is the idea that there is simply no such thing as "biblical marriage" as equivalent to one man, one woman given the polygamy of some of the patriarchs and kings of the Old Testament. Thus, the reasoning goes, if God does not condemn polygamy, how can monogamous, albeit homosexual, "marriages" be worthy of condemnation? They are, in this, partially correct. It is true that God nowhere explicitly (more on that in a moment) condemns polygamy anywhere in the Old Testament and it is true that some of the patriarchs and kings were polygamous and yet blessed by God. So how can this be if it is true that God's plan was always monogamy? But they conveniently choose to leave out the following facts:

Genesis 1 tells us that God, in making humanity "in his image" created one man and one woman in a relationship (marriage) designed for fruitfulness and mutual blessing. There are no indicators that any other kind of relationship was ever part of God's original design.

Genesis 2 speaks of God creating and then bringing the woman to the man as his perfectly suited companion. Again there is no indication that multiple women, or indeed, multiples or singles of anything or anyone other than a woman would be the ideally suited companion to complete the man.

In Genesis 4, we meet Cain, who is not only the first murderer, but also the one who sets up a civilization opposed to God. One of Cain's descendants (Lamech) not only doubles down on Cain's murdering, he is also the first polygamist. Say what you will, this is hardly a recommendation for the concept.

Or, if you want to get actually into the details, consider the four major figures who were polygamous in the Old Testament. All were blessed by God, but it must have been in spite of their polygamy, because their polygamous families are all presented in their respective narratives as a mess you wouldn't want any part of. Consider first Abraham: Abraham married Sarah, Hagar the Egyptian, and Keturah. He had Isaac through Sarah, Ishmael through Hagar, and six sons through Keturah. Hagar and Sarah were at war when they lived in the same household and Hagar was eventually "sent away" (i.e., divorced). Her son, along with the sons of Keturah, formed the Arab and Bedouin tribesmen that were at war with Israel (the sons of Abram's grandson Jacob) from 1500 BC to the present day. So that worked out well.

Now consider Jacob: He had two wives, Rachel and Leah, along with two concubines, Bilhah and Zilpah. There was unrelenting competition among the legit wives, who each gave their handmaiden to Jacob as an additional wife. The whole sordid story, including Leah "renting" Jacob from Rachel in exchange for some of Reuben's mandrake roots, the selling into slavery of Joseph, the firstborn of Rachel, and so on makes one wonder "How can God be using these people to redeem the world?" but it never makes you think, "If only I had some more wives, because this looks like a good plan that God blesses."

How about David? Well, one of his sons (Amnon) raped his half-sister Tamar, in recompense for which he was murdered by his half-brother Absalom. Absalom then, after a complicated series of events, led a rebellion against his father David and took the kingdom for a time. This rebellion was due, at least in part, to the fact that David was not going to give the kingdom to him, but to the son David had with Bathsheba, whom David had gained as a wife through seduction and murder. That son, Solomon, had his half-brother (Abijah) executed because Abijah was scheming for the throne as Solomon's older brother by a (more) legitimate wife. So again, this seems like a pattern worth replicating, no?

Solomon, the all time biblical polygamy champ, was "led astray" from the Lord by his many wives, who introduced explicit idolatry into Israel again. He is in fact the living embodiment of the reason for God's command in Deuteronomy 17:17 that the king "must not take many wives for himself, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold." Moreover, because of Solomon's violations of these very commands, his foolish son Reheboam lost the northern half of the kingdom to a former general who set up idolatry, continuing the worship that had been imported along with Solomon's wives. The spread of idolatry, which grew to prominence in precisely this way was in fact the reason for the eventual exile from the land of both northern and southern kingdoms.

Moving to the New Testament, Jesus emphasized repeatedly that "At the beginning of creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one." (Mark 10:6-8). Note that Jesus goes back to Genesis 1 and 2, emphasizes the original pattern given by God as equivalent to God's plan for marriage. Also note the following: 1) male and female; 2) "wife," not "wives"; and 3) the repeated use of "two" as the number denoting a proper marriage. Jesus doesn't support the polygamous idea as anything other than a corruption of God's ideal.

Further, in the list of requirements for church leaders (elders and deacons) in the Pastoral Epistles, the Greek term mias gynaikos andra (literally, "one woman man") is used to indicate that the proper number of wives for a Christian leader is one.

Thus, there is simply no evidence for the claim that biblical marriage has a wider definition than that of the one-flesh union of one man and one woman. Not that I think this will convince anyone not already inclined to accept the Bible as authoritative and true. That is, I don't believe that anybody making this argument is doing so as anything other than as a way to tell Bible believing Christian to shut their collective pie holes already. But at least you can point them to what the Bible actually teaches on the subject rather than what they seem to think that it does.

My Inner Roman Catholic

I've recently been convinced that, despite my deeply evangelical Protestant beliefs and heritage, inside me lurks a Roman Catholic which is dying to get out. Lest some of my long-time friends or (gasp!) parishioners reading this turn it off and conclude that Pastor Joe has finally gone 'round the bend, let me explain.

This week I was back to leading our Men's Bible study as per usual after several weeks of letting the other men take turns at sharing leadership. We are still reading and studying through C J Mahaney's The Cross Centered Life (which I cannot recommend highly enough, btw). Anyway, we came to my favorite chapter, "Breaking the Rule of Legalism." Mahaney defines legalism as "basing our relationship with God on our own performance" or, as he quotes Sinclair Ferguson stating more eloquently, "assuming we remain justified only so long as there are grounds in our character for justification."

That is what I mean by my inner Roman Catholic. I fall far too easily into this trap, thinking that the more I "do" for God and/or the more my character improves over what it used to be, the more God loves me, because I have earned more "merit" with Him. The Bible is pretty clear that nothing could be further from the truth. It was not from "works of righteousness which [I] have done, but according to His mercy He saved [me] (Titus 3:5)." Likewise, I received "every spiritual blessing in Christ in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 1) not based on my performance, but in spite of it. God chose me as His child quite apart from any merit, before I had done anything, either good or bad, but simply by His grace (Rom. 8-9).

How hard that is for me to accept, yet what freedom and joy fills my heart when I remember to embrace it. Thanks be to Jesus, who saved me in spite of what I have done and do, and who already loves me perfectly.

On Sin and Suffering

I've spent a lot of time talking with people about Jesus and sharing the Gospel with them. If the person with whom I'm speaking is a bit resistant to the Word, one of the arguments that invariably comes up is the problem of evil, as in, "Yeah, well if God is so good, then why is there so much evil in the world?" They mean "Why did my grandmother get sick and die, why is there illness, sickness, warfare, divorce, murder, adultery, death, and things like these?"

This is the question which every person deeply feels down the core of who they are. Every one of us, of every type of religion and none at all, intuitively knows the the world as it is is not the world as it should be. And for our Gospel to be coherent at all, it must include answers to this, the most penetrating of all questions. Consequently, I have thought about it a great deal. Here are the best answers I have:

1. Jesus. God not only knows what it is like to lose those you love to death (John 11), he also knows what it is like to be betrayed, abandoned, forgotten, and rejected. He knows what it's like to suffer agonizing torture and death when you are innocent of any crime. There is no type of human suffering with which God is personally unfamiliar. It's true that God allows suffering, but it's also not as if He doesn't know what it's like or does not promise to be with us in it.
2. Sin. Since we're sharing the Gospel, what do you think I've been talking about when I mention sin? Do you really think that sin has only personalized and individual results? No, sin has permeated all of creation (cf. Romans 8:19-25), and all of human life and relationships (Gen. 3:14-16).
   
3. Patience. To paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, most people think that all God would have to do to eliminate evil from the world is to get rid of all the bad people. But the line of good and evil cuts through every human heart. And who is willing to destroy his own heart? To put it another way, there are not any good people, only people tainted by sin and evil. The snarky version of this is to ask, "What if God decided to eliminate all the evil in the world, beginning with you?" More biblical, and less sarcastic, is Peter's statements that "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some count slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance," (2 Pet. 3:9) and later, that "our Lord's patience means salvation" (2 Pet. 3:15). God is saving a people, and He is not willing to rush the cadence and lose any of the elect whom He has chosen. When the last of the elect enter the Kingdom by grace through faith, then God's judgment will come on all kinds of evil (2 Pet. 3:10-13), destroying wicked people and everything tainted by wickedness utterly, and re-creating the universe (Rev. 20-22).
4. Mercy. We object to suffering and death because we think that our sins are outweighed by our sufferings when in fact the opposite is true. If the Christian doctrine of Hell is true (and it is), then we deserve an eternity of conscious punishment not later, but now. Yet God does not judge that way immediately, not because He doesn't see us suffering, but because He wants that suffering to produce repentance instead of Hell.

Big is not a synonym for healthy

I had my semi-annual meeting with my gastroenterologist last week. He told me that my Crohn's disease is still in remission (Yeah!), that I'm due for another colonoscopy (Boo! But it's been 4 years since the last one, so okay) and that I need to lose 30 lbs., minimum, before he sees me again in 6 months (Boo! Hiss!!). So I'm going to need to write down what I eat, including every bite of something, and spend a lot more time on the treadmill and the elliptical machine in addition to my usual practice of hitting the weight room. Those of you who have read this blog awhile know that I didn't exactly greet this news with shouts of jubilation so much as a resigned sense of "Well, he's right. It is for my long-term health anyway." So back I'm headed, into the breach, hoping that this will be the time when I not only lose some weight, but that I'm able to take it far enough into the wilderness that it doesn't find its way home. So y'all can pray for me as I suit up for battle...

But since I'm a pastor, I couldn't help thinking about how my situation is analogous to much of the modern evangelical church, which has very definitely concluded that Big is indeed a synonym for Healthy. When it comes to our bodies, we intuitively know this is not the case, yet when it comes the Body of Christ, we somehow think that different rules apply. At the risk over-generalizing, and of sounding either envious or simply self-justifying (since my church is of much more normal proportions), permit to draw out the analogy a little, if for no other reason than to challenge this unhealthy assumption.

1. When you're too big, some parts of the body work overtime while others don't work at all. Big people have hard working hearts, lungs, blood vessels, livers, kidneys, and colons. But the rest of the body moves slowly when it moves at all. In fact, the bigger the person, the harder the vital internal organs work while the rest of the body becomes even less able to work, move, exercise, etc. In the mega- or even simply large church the same rules apply, with the paid staff working very hard along with a relative handful of dedicated people. But all the work of these organs within the Body doesn't improve its overall health, because to be healthy all of the parts have to move and be exercised.
   
2. When you're too big, a lot of energy is devoted to consumption and expansion. Big people think about food and focus energy on it in ways that people with a healthier perspective usually do not. Moreover, they seldom need to buy bigger clothes to accommodate the results. In the same way, it's my observation that in the average mega-church, the vast majority of its members and friends spend a lot of time consuming. Thus, "What are they doing for people like me?" is a common question for people seeking such a church while "I didn't get anything out of it" is a common reason given for leaving the last church. Moreover, it's my observation that the average mega-church does little to actively combat this attitude, so the vast majority of the Body sits, consumes, and gives its money to be spent on bigger pants (er... bigger buildings) to hold the expanding bulk more comfortably.
3. When you're too big, it's because you eat what you like rather than what is good for you. I'm not saying that every big person got that way via a diet composed exclusively of Ho-Hos, Doritos, and beer. But what I am saying is that being overweight is a result of taking in more than your body is using, and also saying that most big people probably have eaten far more junk food and far too little broccoli than we're typically willing to admit to ourselves. After all, who wants to think of himself as an unhealthy eater? Likewise, many of the people in mega-churches don't put into use what they learn, so that they become simply a repository for biblically based teaching with little or none of it used to further the Kingdom. Additionally, many big churches have gotten that way by feeding the flock a diet of theological junk food that tastes good but does nothing except expand the belt size. All the while, Sin, Judgment, the Cross, Grace, and Redemption go unpreached. This is not to say that the glory of God in Christ and salvation never are taught in such places, only that they are often appetizers or even garnishes instead of the main course, which is precisely the opposite of what is healthy.
   

Kinda Christianity

An old friend from long ago is now the coolest author of books that analyze/criticize the Emergent/emerging church. And so naturally, not just because he is a friend, but also because he is a friend with some really important things to say to the 21st century American evangelical church, I'd like to commend one of his latest offerings to you ~ Kinda Christianity: A Generous, Fair, Organic, Free-Range Guide to Authentic Realness. Here's the book description, from its own Introduction:

So you're ready to take the plunge. Ready to translate your quest into action! Without defining yourself, and certainly without boxing yourself into one particular rigid way of doing theology or church, you're ready to become emergent. You have a username and clever screen name picked out at Emergent Village(tm), and maybe you've even begun having church in an empty warehouse in the industrial sector of your city. If so, good for you! But those are just the first, baby steps in your journey (your dance, if you will) into Kinda Christianity. This book will help you along the rest of your uniquely creative path to super-terrific self-discovery.

What I've been doing besides blogging...

It's been a long time. I haven't written any posts so far for the month of April, and I wrote darn few in the month of March. Here's what I've been up to:

1. Visiting family. My sister and her husband are home from China with my niece. We haven't seen them in 2 years, and after they leave this summer, probably won't see them again for another two. So we've been blessed to visit with them twice in the past few weeks.
2. Hiring a new church secretary while pretending to be one. My former secretary left our part-time position to seek a full-time position. This means that my associate, Jim, and I have had to fill in the gaps on all the administrative tasks. Which reminds me of the many reasons why we're trying to hire a replacement.
3. Holiday service prep. Easter and Palm Sunday are a very big deal at our church, as they are at most churches. This year we not only had that usual level of craziness, we also added in hosting the annual Community Good Friday service. Since we're doing all of this while #2 is also going on, I've been even busier than usual.
4. Being tired and kinda grumpy. Being overly busy and not getting enough time to rest or nearly enough time to be a good husband and father does not make me a very happy person. Which makes me a cranky blogger. And nobody wants to read my prideful, self-centered crankiness. Heck, I don't even want to write it. So now that I'm getting my schedule (and more importantly, my attitude!) re-adjusted, I'm back to it. Hope you enjoy getting more regular posts.
   

Missing Men

One of the abiding challenges of ministry in the US here at the beginning of the 21st century is the relative absence of real men. Within the church there are lots of "guys," males who are successful in their jobs, faithful to their wives, and do a decent job of trying to be involved in their childrens' lives. They go to church regularly, and often give time and even money to church and other spiritual activities. But they just aren't that deeply committed to or excited by following Jesus.

I'm far from the first person to notice, of course. The legions of frustrated wives who wish their husbands would lead their families in a spiritual way give loud testimony to it. Likewise, virtually the whole genre of "men's books" on offer at the local Christian bookstore are an epiphenomenon of this reality. So men are encouraged to be Wild at Heart, or Tender Warriors, or to be the Point Man or to take a look at the Man in the Mirror. We have been told Why Men Hate Going to Church. All of these books and the multitude of others like them have at least some nuggets of truth to them (some considerably larger than others). All try in various ways to both diagnose the problem and to offer some solutions. Generally speaking, the problem is understood to be both a confusion about appropriate sex roles in our post-everything society and the lack of godly masculinity within the Church itself. Solutions include doing more Bible study and prayer to such things as modifying the language of church ("We're glad you're here and we want to have intimate fellowship with you" and "My boyfriend Jesus" type songs just creeps out most men), as well as practicing the "manly arts" of rock-climbing, fishing, wilderness camping, etc. There is merit to all of the suggestions, I'm sure. Bible study and prayer are, after all, central to Christian living and what man wants to be in a quasi-romantic relationship with God or other people at church? And I'm an outdoorsman who relishes the masculine aspects of outdoor sports, as many men do.

Yet it seems to me that the bigger problem is not societal, or even ecclesiastical, but a matter of the heart. Men have not been gripped by the true knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who is not just the compassionate Father of Luke 15, but also the conquering King of Revelation, who commands obedience and submission from all. They have not encountered the true Christ, who offers to men (and women as well!) a life worth living and a faith worth dying for. And until Christ is encountered in all his glory, a man senses little to gain from the spiritual life apart from gratefulness for forgiven sin and appreciation for eternal salvation, and little to sacrifice for apart from the goal of being a generally nice guy. Thus, we in the church produce legions of nice guys who are thankful for their salvation, but make little impact on the world for having occupied time and space in it.

Wrestling with election

No, this is not another political post. I'm talking about sovereign election, the Bible's teaching that God really does choose those whom He wants to be His children and the corollary teaching that He has not chosen everyone to be saved. For the 2nd week in a row, I am wrestling through these issues with my Wednesday morning Men's Group.

That the Bible teaches election is obvious from even a cursory reading of the biblical text. After all, who has not at least heard of the Jewish nation referred to as the "Chosen People"? Indeed they are, but such references make no sense apart from the Bible's teaching concerning God's sovereign choice. That's the most obvious example of course, but consider God's choice of Abraham out of all the moon god worshiping pagans in Ur, of cheating Jacob rather than honest, if short-sighted, Esau, of Saul and then David and then Solomon as kings of Israel, and so on.

Moreover, Romans 9 is even more clear from the questions it raises and answers. For example, after writing for a while about God's sovereign choice of whom to save, Paul says this:

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (v. 9:19-21, ESV)

It thus seems to me on reading my Bible in depth on this topic that any understanding of election in which God is not so sovereign in his choice that Paul's rhetorical question must arise is not a biblical understanding of it. I therefore find myself forced by the Bible's own words to embrace a strongly Calvinistic theology of election. That said, I am still not quite comfortable with it.

Specifically, my objections to election boil down to questions of mercy and caprice. While I don't want everyone to be saved (i.e., I like the idea of a heaven which does not include Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Alexander, Mao, Ceausescu, Che, the Castro brothers, and various other tin pot dictators and evil men), I also like the idea of a great wideness in God's mercy which encompasses most everyone except the most evil. Since God's Spirit can transform sinners into redeemed saints, why doesn't God do so in all but the most hardened cases? Or even do this with a few of the hardened cases just to make the point that God's mercy far exceeds even the greatest and deepest of man's sin? To put it another way, while it comforts me that God is perfectly just, so that He will finally balance the scales of cosmic justice, I find it at the same time disquieting that there will apparently be a lot of ordinary sinners (in other words, people like me) who go to hell. Since I am an ordinary sinner, but lots of other ordinary sinners will go to hell, does that make God capricious in his mercy?

Let me be clear: I do not think that God is either capricious or unjust. I believe rather, that God is unbelievably merciful by saving anyone, and my deepest reaction to the fact that His mercy includes saving me is one of indescribable gratitude. Yet there is still a part of me which longs for the salvation of people I know and love but who do not seem to be included in God's mercy with me. For them I grieve, and pray, and continue to wrestle with God. Moreover, I find comfort in my wrestling in Romans 9. For alongside Paul's strong statement of God's sovereignty ("Who are you, O man..."), you also find Paul saying this:

I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsman according to the flesh...(v. 9:2-3, ESV)

So I guess I'm not alone in my wrestling. It's even in the Bible. I hope that those of you, my loyal readers, who are theologically inclined will keep wrestling along with me, struggling toward a deeper and fuller understanding of our mighty and matchless God and Father.

Pastors' Meeting

I spent the biggest part of my day today with about a dozen central Illinois pastors. We spent our time talking about ministry in both its ups and downs, about hope, disillusionment, pain, and God's faithfulness. I heard more openness from these men in a few hours than I bet most of them have had with anyone other than maybe their wives in probably a long while. I sensed among them a deep desire to be found faithful by Christ mixed with a deep longing for eternal impact. To a man, they are hoping and praying that the task to which they have given their lives and for which they have sacrificed (in some cases, greatly), will be found in the End, to have been worthy of the Savior. Yet in the interim it seems that many of us worry that somehow, there has to be more to the ministerial life than what we are experiencing.

I'll bet that virtually no one in any of these congregations knows these things about their pastors. Yet I wonder if it would be good if they did? Would that kind of vulnerability help those in their flocks that feel the same way? Or would it be a wedge used against the man and a reason to dislike him or even release him from service? I've been around enough churches and heard enough stories from pastors over the years to know that it depends on the church, and that there would probably be some of both even in the healthiest places. Which is why these men talk to each other, where they feel safe, and not to many others, if at all.

Yet I can't help thinking that this is not the way the Church is supposed to be. It is not the healthy, after all, who need a doctor, but the sick. So why are people at the hospital so often offended when they find the ill and the dying in their midst?

Behold the hairless wonder!

We started AWANA this fall at our church after a 10-year hiatus. Our "Commander" told those of us on the Elder Board that he was hoping for 30-35 kids on the first night. Since we normally have 20-some on Sunday morning for Children's Church, that didn't seem like a very big goal to me, and I told him that I hoping for more like 50. Well, 60 kids showed up on the first night and it has continued to grow ever since as kids bring their friends who then bring other friends. The second week, I told the kids that, if they would bring enough friends that we reached 100 kids in attendance, then I would shave my head.

Last week we had 96.

This week, 102 kids showed up and it was time to pay my debt. I'm enjoying the results, though it's a cold time of year to go bald, and I'm definitely going to have to find some warm hats to wear this winter. More than that, I'm enjoying the fact that we are sharing Christ with a large number of kids each week, many of whom have never read a Bible, been to church, heard about Jesus, or been presented with the Gospel. So for me, at the end of the day, the loss of my hair breaks down like this:

1. New Barber Clippers: $23.99 on sale at CVS.
2. Time to re-grow hair: 3 months.
3. Sharing Christ with 100+ kids: Priceless
   

Reading Ruth in a Recession

I'm currently preaching through the book of Ruth at CBC. I got started on 11/8, after finishing Philippians the previous week. I had the week off this past Sunday, since we had a visiting missionary in town to bring God's Word to us. So this Sunday, I'm back in the saddle for chapter 2. And one of the things that strikes me about the book of Ruth generally, and chapter 2 in particular, is how subtly God's provision is made. In verse 1, we read that Naomi had a relative on her husband's side, from her deceased husband's clan, who was "a man of standing" (i.e., a wealthy and powerful man). In verse 3, the author reports that "as it turned out, [Ruth] found herself working in a field belonging to Boaz, who was from the clan of Elimelech." Then we read in verse 4 "Just then..." that Boaz showed up. All of these statements together form a sort of ironic hyperbole, in which the narrator of the story is emphasizing the "chance" nature of these facts to highlight the real nature of God's provision. For the point of the story is that God is always working to provide for and demonstrate love to his people, but subtly, and behind the scenes. In fact, God's provision is so subtle that a person might miss it.

It occurs to me that God often works in similar ways today in my life and in the lives of others. His provision is always there for those whom He loves, but subtly. It is visible to those with eyes to see, but might seem like coincidence to some observers. We always have "too much to deny, too little to be sure," and so we trust God, and see His hand faithfully providing. I think too that books like Ruth have marvelous applicability in these days. Ruth had no social standing, few legal rights, and little hope, but she believed God. That faith made all the difference. God provided in ways she could not have expected, foreseen or imagined.

But one must have eyes to see what God is doing and the faith to trust Him in the how and why and when.

Making Peace

In an earlier post, I talked about how my pastoral calling sometimes necessitates being the "responsible adult" who acts to call people back to reconciliation and peace. Not that this always works, but it does come with the territory. In fact, Paul's letters deal with church problems and conflicts virtually exclusively, teaching correct theology largely in response to the errors being spread rather than as an end in itself.

As I have preached my way through Philippians, I was certainly not unaware of these things, but I was somewhat surprised to find both a great example of pastoral peace making and good principles for peace maintaining, all wrapped up in the little section that has to do with Euodia and Syntyche (v. 4:2-7). These two ladies were engaged in a very public fight. It had become so bad that the church had exhausted itself and appealed to Paul, who was several hundred miles away and imprisoned besides, for relief and counsel. Here's the wisdom of Paul in response:

For Peacemakers:

• Address the combatants tactfully. Paul is very kind and diplomatic as he addresses these ladies. He doesn't claim his apostolic authority, though he obviously could. He doesn't order. Instead he writes, "I plead with..."
• Encourage reconciliation privately. In his pleading, Paul tells them "agree with one another in the Lord." Even though the situation has become public, he still encourages private peacemaking.
• Affirm commonalities as more important. In 4:3, Paul mentions their past partnership with him (literally, "fighting alongside me") in spreading the Gospel and the fact that both of them are "in the book of life." He is reminding them of the eternal things that bind them together, and the fact that the both belong to Christ and ought to act like it.
• Involve others if necessary. Paul asks for someone he calls "loyal yokefellow" (possibly a name, but more likely an elder or the pastor of the church) to assist these two ladies in making peace. Sometimes, a mediator has to step in. Peace in the church is more important than worship (cf. Matthew 5:23-24), so peacemaking is an essential part of church leader's task when necessary.
  

For Maintaining Peace:

• Rejoice in the Lord. Generally speaking, when we're in conflict, it's not only evidence that we're failing to rejoice in the Lord, rejoicing in the Lord is the last thing on our minds! We're thinking about winning, not about how we can glorify Christ as Lord. We've got our defenses and emotions up, and we're sure of our own righteousness. But if we are rejoicing in the Lord always, it's just possible we would be in conflict less isn't it?
• Let your gentleness be evident to all. The word that's rendered "gentleness" (Greek epieikes) is often translated "meekness" and has to do with keeping one's power under good control. Here in context it means keeping a rein on your emotions, your temper, your reactions (and even your body language), so that you deal kindly with others, even those with whom you have strong disagreements.
• Remember that the Lord is near. I believe that is a reminder that the Lord is personally (as opposed to eschatologically) near to us. This is a healthy reminder, since when we're in the midst of a fight, we forget that God is near. And his nearness means that he is both still sovereign over our situation (meaning we neither need to win or worry) and that our conduct is happening in full view of the Lord (which ought to temper it a bit).
  
• Don't worry. Instead pray and thank God. It's easy to forget at times that we don't need to worry about anything, but in everything to pray and go to God with our needs and then to thank him for his answers. It seems like Christianity 101, but it's still hard to do when we are in the center of the storm.
  
• Let God's peace descend upon you. When we pray and trust God, he promises to give us his peace. It's amazing, but it is still wonderfully true.