Sojourner

Celebrate the Journey

2010-11-13T15:14:00.003-05:00

This is the fourth, and final, part of my story on how I got to Concordia Seminary. If you haven't read the other parts, you'll want to start here.

It was 2006 and I was now seeking God's Will. Please understand a very important distinction: I was not seeking God's Will for me...no that is what I had been doing all of my adult life. Now, through the tender work of the Holy Spirit, I was now finally seeking to conform my will to His. And, this was the beginning of Him opening the door for me vocationally.

I think, maybe, that some people learn to do this early in life. I didn't.

The first challenge that stood in my way was my undergraduate degree. The fact remained that I was a college drop-out. I didn’t know what to do and didn’t know how to accomplish this. I prayed for God to guide me to His way of dealing with this obstacle. A family friend contacted me to tell me of a new program starting a local university. In 2007, I applied to Evangel University and was accepted.

The folks at Evangel University love Jesus and they loved me. By the Lord's grace the two years to finish my undergrad flew by swiftly and successfully. It was a special time working in a cohort of friends I'll never forget, but we all got through and graduated. I moved to the next step: applying to Concordia Seminary.

However, a special thing happened. During the final week of July 2009, I was contacted by one of the pastors at our congregation about the possibility of leading worship and being a lay preacher for the following Sunday. A variety of circumstances caught the congregation without a pastor for that particular Sunday and none of the retired pastors in the area were available. I humbly accepted the opportunity and proceeded with the necessary preparation for both early and late services. That Sunday was August 2, 2009. As I was praying prior to Worship that morning, it dawned upon me that this was the 10 year anniversary (to the very day) of our departure for Concordia Seward in 1999. I was being asked to preach from the very pulpit that my old family pastor had blessed me from exactly 10 years earlier. This was a very personal and powerful affirmation from the Lord for my current path!

The affirmations continued and there still to this day. One of the most encouraging things I've experienced being at Concordia Seminary is hearing the stories of my classmates. God has worked to affirm each of their paths as well.

The first quarter is complete. Greek is completed. (That fountain jump was cold!!) The next step is Hebrew. And after that will be another milestone, and then another after that (as many of my second and fourth-year brothers have shared with me). Each of these milestones are a step upon this path and each of our journeys have these. I have shared my story to encourage all of us to not focus on the obstacles, to not focus on the difficulties, but to fix our eyes upon Jesus. Desire to want to want what He wants.

Did you catch the construction of that sentence? Want to want what He wants. "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” —Matthew 6:13.

And, celebrate the journey, from the foot of the Cross.

Seeking the Will of God

2010-11-05T05:33:00.012-05:00

This is part 3 of a series of posts telling my story on how I got to Concordia Seminary. Begin here if you are just joining us.

In my previous post, I shared how I had made an incredibly huge mistake in trying to go against God's Will. As the calendar approached 2000, Debbie and I had to make a difficult and painful decision. We could no longer avoid the conclusion that God had closed this door. We had run into a brick wall of epic proportions.

I called my old employer in Springfield, Missouri, and asked him if he had an opening. Not only did he have an opening but he was looking for someone to help him run his new computer training center and could put me to work right away at a salary that could help us save our house in Nixa from foreclosure.

So, I informed Concordia Seward that I would not be returning for the Spring 2000 semester and instead moved back to Missouri. And, by January of 2000, went to work at New Horizons Computer Learning Centers in Springfield, Missouri, as an instructor and shortly thereafter as the Director of Operations.

The years that followed were among the most confusing of my life. I achieved immediate and sustained vocational success. God poured out his blessings on my new position at New Horizons and delivered my family literally out of the jaws of complete financial destruction. Instead, we began paying off all of our debts and were blessed with two more beautiful children (Aaron, born in 2001, and Ally, born in 2004).

The difficulty for me amidst all of this blessing was simple: Why did God halt my attempt at serving Him in full-time ministry and then subsequently bless my attempt at another vocation? I began operating under a very simple conclusion: God did not want me to be a pastor.

However, at the same time, Debbie and I joined a church plant near our home that would eventually have a very important impact upon our understanding of ministry. From 2001 to 2005 our lives gradually, but dramatically, changed. Our view of church life changed and became a faith-integrated approach to daily life. We began to interact with the reality of the Gospel in our daily life instead of being a people centered on our lives throughout the week and spending an hour or two “in church” on Sunday morning.

Instead of our Sunday-focused week, somewhere along the way we began living with a Christ-focused week. Our interaction with faith changed from a mostly compartmentalized approach to a more integrated approach. And, it would be in this fertile soil of a renewed and deepened trust in which the Holy Spirit had been working with His gracious hands that He would bring me back to face an important reality: I still had not sought to do things His way. I was still seeking His will for me rather than seeking to conform my will to His.

In 2005, I led a Bible study at our church on the Book of Romans. During the course of that class, one of the participants came up to me and asked me if I had ever considered being a pastor. This question arrived at my heart like an exploding bomb.

I politely responded that I had once considered it, but that it didn’t work out. I then briefly explained how God had subsequently provided another plan for my life. The elderly woman smiled warmly and with equal politeness suggested that maybe it was time to try it God’s way. She smiled, patted me on the cheek and walked away. From that moment forward, the stone in my shoe was back. In fact, I began to realize it had never truly left, and that I had simply developed calloused feet.

This realization broke me into pieces. The only description I have for this was despair. So, in the midst of my confusion, frustration, sadness and despair, I started praying.

I literally spent a year praying almost exclusively about this issue. For at least a month or two my prayer was for God to remove this from me. Take the stone away, I would pray. And then, as more time passed, and I spent more and more time in His Word, by the power of His Spirit, I eventually began to do something, which for me was completely amazing: I began to seek the Will of God.

I started praying everyday for His will to be done His way and in His time according to His plan.

In late-2006, my old friend Dana Hobelman called me up again (Dana, what is it with you and all of these huge life changing events?!?). He invited my dad and I to meet up with him and his dad in Kansas City for a conference. Again, it was great fun to reunite and enjoy tremendous fellowship.

While there, one of the guest preachers gave a message in which he asked a simple question: “What would you do with your life if there were no obstacles of time or money? Write it down.” As tears filled my eyes, I wrote down that I would preach and teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a broken world. I would fill my days being with people who need Jesus and point them in His direction. I would be a pastor.

The preacher then asked us to consider if there were any obstacles that the Living God could not remove. “Don’t you think the One who spoke and the universe leapt into existence could remove the obstacles that are preventing you from doing what you are supposed to be doing?”

His message cut to my heart in ways that my words cannot express. He was even using the very words that I had prayed about in terms of me seeking God’s will to be done His way and in His time according to His plan. I had been praying not about God’s will for me, but rather for Him to direct my will.

I left that conference and came home, continuously praying about this. I prayed about the obstacles. I prayed about doing it His way. I prayed about being a humble and willing servant. One could say that I finally had joined with Abraham, as Paul records in Romans 4:21, in the sense that I was now fully persuaded that God has the power to do what He has promised, even with my own stubborn heart.

From this day forward, the stone in my shoe was gone. To be continued...

Going against the Will of God

2010-10-30T18:01:00.005-04:00

In my previous post I shared how I got started on the path towards Concordia Seminary. While there were many points along that path that God used to guide me, none was more controversial to me than my strange encounter with Pastor Wilson where he had told me that God had spoken to him in a vision that morning and had plainly stated that I should become a pastor.

As time passed, the memory of that day and that strange encounter with Pastor Wilson would not pass. It intensified and became the focus of, as Greg Koukl would describe, a stone in my shoe. After a few months of thinking about this and sharing this with friends and family and even my pastor, they all suggested that I investigate the pastoral ministry again. So, Debbie and I resolved to visit Concordia Seminary in St. Louis at the next scheduled “Institute on the Ministry” event.

While there, I heard a message preached about how pastors get to “make a difference in the things that matter most.” This message resonated with me! After this visit, Debbie and I made the decision to see “what it would take” to come to Seminary. A list of obstacles was created.

The first obstacle was completing my undergraduate degree. So, I promptly re-enrolled in Missouri State University to get back into good academic status (since I had simply walked away one semester and forfeited all credits being earned at the time). That process was successful.

During that year, I also contacted Concordia University in Seward, Nebraska. In what was one of the most monumental mistakes of my life, I essentially concluded that if God wanted me to be a pastor, he would make it all happen in a “storybook” way. As it played out in my mind, we were going to go to my home state and go to the school I always wanted to go to . . . and it was going to all work out great.

Even as I write these words, more than a decade later, I am baffled as to how blind I was. God did indeed need to do a work in me, and it was going to be through my suffering and the suffering of my family that I would begin to learn and understand things in a new light. Even as we were making plans to move to Nebraska, we discovered that Debbie was pregnant. What amazing and joyous news that was! But, inexplicably, it seemed to only further my resolve to move and proceed with my plans.

In 1999, I completed the requirements needed to achieve good academic standing. I applied to Concordia Seward and was accepted. Debbie and I planned to sell our home and move to my home state of Nebraska so I could complete my undergraduate degree there. On May 1, our firstborn, Mariah Leann Hunsaker entered this world to our complete joy. But with a face set like flint, I pressed onward.

All throughout the summer, Debbie and I prepared in every way we could. In my eyes, everything seemed to be perfect. In July, as the deadline for moving fast approached, we still had not sold our house. Our family pastor took me aside and heartily warned me that this did not have the appearance of a good plan. He cited many valid reasons that in retrospect were all rooted in wisdom. However, as I described to him at the time, I resolved to walk by faith.

So, we moved to Seward, Nebraska on “faith.” As I fully understand now, making my own plans and then throwing the responsibility for accomplishing them upon the shoulders of God is not faith! On the contrary, it is utter foolishness! However, just as Christ died for us when we were yet His enemies, so God protected my family during my rebellion and lovingly cared for us during our headlong journey off of a proverbial cliff. And, admittedly, this would later help me grow to understand Him as my Rock and my Redeemer rather than my personal “genie.”

Classes began in Seward and all started well. I attended class full time while working as much as I could to keep our finances up. However, with our house in Nixa, Missouri, sitting vacant and mortgage payments continuing to fall behind, the numbers just never added up. God worked mightily through our extended family and friends and church to provide immense support (spiritual, emotional and financial) in the midst of our failure. The Hobelman family will never know this side of eternity how much they helped us.

But, as I successfully completed my first semester at Seward, it was finally becoming clear to me that this situation was simply not working. Eventually, our mortgage company called to tell us they were going to begin foreclosure proceedings on our home in Nixa. All during this process, I had been calling out to God to help us, to not let us fail. I was confused and blind and could not understand why he would not help us on our “journey of faith.”

Then came October 31, 1999. The worst day of my life. After just having moved my family into the basement of a dear friend’s home in Lincoln (with the hope that this savings on rent would make the difference), I hit rock bottom. I very nearly died that day. Was it all a cruel joke by God to lead us on this fool’s errand? These were the blind and self-centered thoughts and feelings I had as I contemplated our situation. I had grieved before...I had experienced loss before...but in all dark situations before this day, I always had hope alongside any disaster I had encountered. On this day, however, I lost all hope.

Standing in the back of a box truck that night, trying to unload everything by myself, the cold Nebraska wind cut through me. As it did, so did the realities of my mistakes.

My circumstances were a real-life metaphor being played out in front of me.

Struggling alone on that truck in the cold darkness, I was trying to lift things I was not strong enough to carry by myself. I was trying to do things alone that can only be done with help. Like scales falling off of my eyes, I was beginning to now see what I could not, would not, see before.

I was going against the Will of God.

To be continued...

How Much Time Do You Have?

2010-10-23T13:26:00.002-04:00

That is the response I give folks when I’m asked: “So, why did you come to Seminary?” I’ve been asked this many times so I’ve come up with the 30 second version, the 5 minute version and the “let’s go out for coffee” version.

So hey, wanna go out for coffee?

As a 38-year-old guy with a blessed career in the IT field, it has been a long journey to get to Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. I spent the last six weeks just trying to absorb the reality that I’m finally here and praying many prayers of thanksgiving for the fact that God’s plan to bring me and my family here has involved so many people helping to make it happen. I’ve sat in Greek class more than once and pinched myself. Of course, the daily quizzes are enough to let me know that this is all very real!

I was seventeen years old when it was first suggested to me that I should become a pastor. For all intents and purposes, I shrugged it off as a really whacky idea from out of left field. And, I proceeded to ignore the idea completely.

A major life event would occur at age 25 (just two years after Debbie and I were married). Out of the blue, my closest friend from childhood, Dana Hobelman (whom I had not talked with in several years at the time) called me. He wanted to know if I would stand with him at his wedding. I was honored, so my wife and I traveled to Lincoln, Nebraska, and joined with friends to celebrate their special day. Ironically, the pastor officiating the wedding was one of my childhood pastors, Pastor “Woody” Wilson. It was all quite nostalgic and very much fun.

During the reception that followed the ceremony, Pastor Wilson walked straight up to me and looked me square in the eye and said: “Mark, God wants you to be a Pastor.”

He was very serious. But, for me it was as if he struck some kind of nerve. Quite arrogantly, I responded, “When?”

Pastor Wilson did not know why I asked that question. I was a 25-year-old college drop out that was planning a career working in computers and was already well underway in my plan. I was thinking along the lines of, “Well, if God wants me to be a pastor then he will have to make a way.”

Pastor Wilson was surprised and clearly confused by my response. He then told me that God had spoken to him in a vision that morning and had plainly stated that I should become a pastor.

Certainly, after hearing something bearing such a supernatural description and dramatic truth claim, I was taken aback. I had no response. I was immediately skeptical.

“So, you should get started as soon as possible!” he quipped after the brief silence. And, after a few more awkward moments of silence, we shared a brief conversation during which I continued to be dubious about his startling claim. He walked away shaking his head. Once again, very blind about what I was doing, I shrugged my shoulders and thought to myself, “If God wants that, he'll make it possible.”

I was focused on the many obstacles which prevented me from going off to Seminary. I was convinced that God had some work to do before anything like ministry could be a part of my life. And, on that last point, it would seem that I was right.

To be continued…

Implication Land

2010-09-21T15:42:00.002-04:00

I was blessed this morning to attend the Theological Symposium at Concordia Seminary. While I know some of you may prefer a variety of torture scenarios to attending a theological symposium, I am having fun.

The primary topic of this morning’s presentations was the interpretation of Scripture. This is an interesting challenge that Tim Saleska took on in his essay, and it produced no small amount of debate in our breakout session which followed.

My read of Dr. Saleska’s key point in the first part of his presentation was that, at the end of the day, when we seek to interpret scripture we are trying to understand the author’s intent. As such, a key slide in his presentation read, “INTENTION = MEANING.” I cannot find fault with this assertion because any attempt to falsify it only proves its truth.

So, from this point we understand that when we seek to interpret Scripture we are really wanting to know what the author’s intentions are in a particular passage. As Dr. Saleska was speaking, my mind quickly jumped to John 20:31 where the author of the narrative says, “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John seems to be making his intentions clear.

Saleska, after demonstrating this and other important elements of his assertion, then moved toward the conclusion of his presentation. In doing so, he constructed the case that our families, our worldviews, our experiences and other similar important mitigating factors all have an effect upon the way we go about determining authorial intent. His point seemed to be that we are biased. More importantly, in this fallen world, Saleska asserted it is utterly impossible to truly escape one’s bias.

I may be biased when I say this (ba-dum-pum), but I think Dr. Saleska is correct. How could all of these factors not play a huge role in our view of texts that are so very important? We are certainly biased and that bias will most certainly taint our view of Scripture. There is no escaping this important point.

It is at this stage of the presentation that, through no fault of his own, Saleska lost me. My mind was swimming and like one of those scenes in movie where the director tries to have us see the perspective of someone losing consciousness, where everything goes blurry on the screen and the sound of the speaker’s voice gets lower and lower until...

There I was, sitting in a seat in Werner Auditorium wrestling with the implications of such conclusions. The kind presenter was likely at this point providing a nice and tidy wrap up to what so far had been a brilliant exploration of the topic, but I was off in implication-land. I’m convinced that there are objective answers to the truths of the Scriptures’ most important questions that are not held captive to my own biases. Why am I so convinced? Because there are objective truth claims in the Scriptures.

And, while I know that us Christians may differ on the answers on many doctrinal points, each of which are very important in the overall scheme of things, there must be objective answers even to these! The mere fact that we struggle to agree on those answers does not in itself eliminate the possibility of objectivity. The mere fact that we do have biases and do have different interpretations does not in itself eliminate the possibility of objectivity.

I was in implication-land.

However! The fact remains that we do have biases and we do differ. For example, my Calvinist friend may say that God elects some to salvation and some to damnation and I will declare—in love—my dear Calvinist friend to be wrong. My Arminian friend may say that it is solely Man’s choice unto eternity, and I will declare him (again in love) to be wrong. And they, in turn, will think their crazy Lutheran friend holds to a position that doesn’t make any sense to them. And I would say “Now on that you are right!” Perhaps we could all then go out for a beer and love our Lord together! Oh wait, there’s a good chance the Arminian is not allowed to drink beer. Its okay, beer messes up my stomach and I’m the only one of the three that can take both Romans 9 and 11 at face value with no theological gymnastics. But I digress.

The real question is this: In John 11 Jesus says, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

When I landed in implication-land I could not help but think of Jesus’ question. He is not asking a hypothetical or abstract style of question. Nor is he making a wishy washy truth claim. He is stating an objective truth claim followed by a very real question of Martha (who he was speaking to at the time) and to us: Yay or nay? True or False? The answer to this question is a one or a zero.

Ah, you may say “Bah, Hunsaker, you’ve missed the whole point of the presentation! Saleska was asking us to consider the question of how do we know Jesus wasn’t just talking to Martha?!? Why do you interpret it in such a way to think that Jesus is talking to you?!?”

My response is to lay claim to Saleska’s main point: Intention = Meaning. Exhibit “A” shall be entered into evidence: John 20:31, where John says, “...these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John’s intention, or might I say the meaning of the passage, is clear.

Look, I know I’m just a padawan learner here (woe is me, the lowest of lows, a first year seminarian) and there is much yet to learn, but I am old and wise enough to know that “everything is just relative” is not the answer. It is an illogical self-contradicting statement since it itself is an objective truth claim.

And, I certainly don’t think that’s where Saleska was going with his presentation when I went off to deal with the implications. However, in the breakout session that followed, some of my classmates were worried about that being a real possibility. Me, being a first year guy, decided to keep my mouth shut. Or, could it be that I hadn't figured all of this out yet...I don't know.

I think we should take a hard look at our biases. We won’t be able to spot our blind spots or they wouldn’t be blind spots, but when we engage our worldview and think about it and struggle with it we will be able to focus in on where the Lord is molding us and shaping us, teaching us to grow and learn. We know from history that Jesus can indeed break people out of their biases for His purposes (Reformation, anyone?) and we know that much care must be taken when interpreting Scripture. And so, from this we can indeed learn and grow.

I know I sure did today! In the mean time through my faith and my reason, I know this: By the power of the Holy Spirit, I do believe that through Christ, I will never die! If you share with me in this belief, what are the...implications?!?

In Christ,
Mark Hunsaker

The New Milestone

2010-09-06T23:09:00.002-04:00

September 2010. The new journey begins! Now that I’m nearly 40 years old, I’m starting classes at Concordia Seminary. This certainly means I’m a slow learner. But, it also means I have much to offer those whom I’m going to meet along the next stretch of this journey!

I once tried to make it here and proceeded to crash before getting off of the runway. And so, I continue to celebrate the journey that God has placed me on, trusting in Him in ways I never would have when I was young.

For example, in 2005, I led a Bible study at my old church on the Book of Romans. During the course of that class, one of the participants came up to me and asked me if I had ever considered being a pastor. This question arrived at my heart like an exploding bomb.

I politely responded that I had once considered it, but that it didn’t work out. I then briefly explained how God had subsequently provided another plan for my life. The elderly woman smiled warmly and with equal politeness suggested that maybe it was time to try it God’s way. From that moment forward, I had a stone in my shoe. Per Greg Koukl, he portrays the image of a “stone in your shoe,” having something follow you, annoy you and become a point of tension in your life. This constant tension disrupts your journey, nagging you to take off your shoe and get that pebble out of there. So here I was, the stone in my show driving me crazy like it had when I was young.

I literally spent a year just praying about this topic. For a while I was simply asking God to remove the stone. And then, through time in His word and by the power of His Sprit, I eventually surrendered my will to him. I prayed everyday for His will to be done His way and in His time according to His plan.

That was four years ago. And now, here I am, ready to pass this new milestone…I’ll share that journey in this space and hopefully encourage you to celebrate your journey on the path God has laid out before you!

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. - Proverbs 3:5-6

Blessings!
Mark

End of a Journey

2009-07-01T10:22:00.002-04:00

I started this Blog exactly four years ago when I was a different person with a different purpose. Then I was a guy with an opinion, seeking to celebrate a journey. Now, I'm a guy with an opinion, but no longer convinced this medium is adequate for sharing, interacting and growing.

I'm still celebrating my journey from the foot of the cross, but the process of expressing that and sharing that will be different going forward.

In Christ,
Mark

Somewhere
Beyond these reasons and feelings
Somewhere
Beyond the passion and fatigue
I know You're there
And that Your Spirit is leading me
Somewhere
Beyond all this

The Reality of Christ

2009-03-29T19:02:00.001-04:00

Please watch this video to see evidence of the Reality of Christ.

(HT: Between Two Worlds)

Fewer Abortions

2009-03-18T13:55:00.004-04:00

President Obama says he'll remove protections for pro-life medical professionals - rescinding the Conscience Clause - and force physicians and nurses to participate in abortion procedures (see FOCA).

All this from the guy who says he wants fewer abortions.

That is kind of like someone who says he wants fewer incidents of under age drinking and then promotes legislation to force liquor store owners to sell liquor to anyone buying, regardless if they feel otherwise.

Mr. President, I have a humble suggestion for you. If you are honest when you say you want fewer abortions, then make it illegal.

But here is a more important question: Why does he want fewer abortions? If there is nothing morally suspect about abortion, why reduce them? Why not increase them?

As you see on STR and LTI, the answer to this question ultimately lies in the answer to another: What is the unborn?

If the unborn is not a human person, then no justification for abortion is necessary.

If the unborn is a human person, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

“Dumb” Preaching

2009-03-06T13:50:00.002-05:00

Matt Chandler, in this video, captures one of the main visions I have for being a pastor. Note how he focuses on Christ... (HT: Extreme Theology)

Faith. Yeah Faith.

2009-03-02T14:31:00.002-05:00

After a blogging dry season (call it complete overload in all other areas of life), I'm trying to return. I'm starting back slowly, trying to catch a wind, per se...“just look cute and cuddly boys, cute and cuddly...”

FAITH. Yeah, faith. What in the world is faith anyway? How does it work? What does it look like?

Right now, I'm in a place where much faith is needed. My future as I draw it seems so simple, and yet when I look at the reality of things beginning to crack and crumble around me I'm wondering what the future holds. I'm reminded that my understanding of what should happen may be in stark contrast to what my Master has in mind for me.

So I have FAITH. How does that work?

The writer of Hebrews says it like this: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). Being sure of what we hope for? Well, now that involves something more than a blind jump now doesn't it? This implies more. Being certain of what we do not see? This calls for something quite different than what the world claims faith to be.

G.K. Chesterton once wrote: “A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed.”

Isn't this the case? We think if we can just get our minds wrapped around things we can figure it all out. That is certainly how I am. But, oh boy, the world doesn't fit to our understanding, does it?

But you know the writer of Hebrews didn't just toss us that verse and say, “This is your plan for conquering life. Enjoy!” Uhh, no.

Instead, the author proceeds to then give us a myriad of examples. Real people doing real things, having real problems, dealing with real emotions, being broken in a very real way. And, in every case believing what they had been told. Not doing something, believing something. Not trying something, believing something.

“Faith is believing what you know to be true and trustworthy.” These people had encountered the living God. They knew His nature, His purpose and in many cases His plan. But at some point, they had to believe Him. They had to trust Him.

I'm in that place. Needing to trust Him. I know He is true, and I know that He is trustworthy. I know His nature. I know His purpose. I don't know His exact plan, but I know His overarching plan.

I need to believe what I already know to be true. In so many ways we all have knowledge of things, of people. But in the end, we don't trust what we know. We don't hang onto the true reality of the situation, and instead try to create our own.

I need to believe what I know to be true. Only He can help me to do that. I believe that He can, and I trust that He will.

Now here is the ultimate irony! In Hebrews 11, after the author provides a bulleted list of the faithful, he reminds us of this critical fact: “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect” (Hebrews 11:39-40).

There is a greater purpose for us to trust in...a greater purpose that is bigger than us individuals, bigger than us as a group. It is His plan for His kingdom.

Amen. Come Lord Jesus.

Listen To Your Life

2008-12-05T14:11:00.001-05:00

HT: BW3

An Open Letter to President-Elect Obama

2008-11-05T10:42:00.003-05:00

Mr. Obama,

Congratulations on your historic victory. I do agree with you that this election is evidence of the fact that the opportunity to be president of our land is not restricted in the same ways it used to be. I join in the celebration of millions about what your victory represents for so many people in America who have been discriminated against because of some sort of quality about their person: their color, their ethnicity, their appearance, their background or their age.

And, it is precisely because of this celebration that I am sad. In our society, there is still one people group that is being discriminated against based upon a quality about their person: those who are not yet old enough to have escaped their mother's womb. With utter irony, the primary defense of those who choose to kill those precious children is that they are not yet persons.

Did you catch that Mr. President-Elect? Do you see the irony of that, especially in light of the historic nature of your victory? People think that those children, simply because of their age, that they are not persons.

In your victory speech from Chicago last night, you said that you would listen most carefully to those who disagree with you. Well, on the subject of the unborn, I'm seeking your ear. I ask you to consider this simple logic (which was coined by Greg Koukl of str.org):

If abortion IS NOT the ending of a human person's life, then no justification for abortion is necessary.

If abortion IS the ending of a human person's life, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

Please be honorable and do what you said in your speech. Let's dialog about this matter as a country. Listen to those who disagree with you. I understand that my side needs to listen too, and that we need to make concessions too. But, you said last night we can work together. I'm taking you at your word.

If you really want to unite this country, then don't play party politics with the unborn. Let's sit down and talk about this. Is someone who has more melanin in their skin really not a person? Is one baby that is six weeks younger than another baby really not a person? THESE TWO QUESTIONS ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, MR. PRESIDENT-ELECT.

I didn't vote for you because your record has been clear: you think a younger baby is not a person. If you were truthful in your speech last night, then I look forward to an opportunity for the American people to discuss this issue together.

If you were not truthful, then you will be tarnishing the history you have made in your amazing victory.

Respectfully,
Mark Hunsaker

Why I'm Voting for John McCain

2008-10-26T19:00:00.002-05:00

In this season of seemingly unending politics, I must weigh in on my selection for the presidency. I'm not so interested in trying to convince others to favor my candidate as much as I am in hoping that individuals would select their candidate critically, by analyzing the philosophies that underlie each ticket.

Having said that, my decision process is very straightforward because of my world view. Which candidate's world view is most compatible with a Christian world view? Perhaps in the end, we all decide on our candidate in this manner. We all vote for the candidate that thinks closest to the way we think, don't we? Isn't that why we like (or dislike) them?

I'm convinced that the election will be closer than the polling data indicates because that has been the case in the last two consecutive elections. Our country is more polarized than anytime in my lifetime in terms of critical thinking and philosophy. Abraham Lincoln said that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next, and we are seeing that transition well underway. The people of our culture—more and more—make decisions in a state of mind that whatever is empirical is true and everything else is personal speculation. This philosophical outlook is having tremendous impact upon the politics of our nation.

When John McCain selected Sarah Palin for his running mate, this was the moment that will in the end (one way or the other) define this election. She is a lightning rod of traditional conservatism and the controversy such values attract. She calls it as she sees it (to the chagrin of her own ill-advised campaign team) and this causes people on the other side of the aisle to despise her.

She is new on the scene and is changing the face of the Republican Party. And, just about everyone hates her for it. Her own party resents her immediate power and the left sees her as a threat. For me it is her uncompromising loyalty to her world view that catches my attention and it is her approach to the game of politics that wins my vote. The argument that she has no experience is invalid for the following reasons: (1) Some of our very best leaders started young and with little experience and (2) the Democrats have put forth a candidate for President that has been a Senator for just two years. In other words, if you disqualify Palin for this reason you have to do the same for Obama.

Speaking of the Senator from Illinois, he has already admitted that the most important decisions in this world are "above [his] pay scale." That, of course isn't true, he knows exactly what he thinks about abortion, but plays party politics in the midst of a campaign which keeps promising change.

In the end, I'm voting for the McCain/Palin ticket because it is a vote for the 40 million (did you catch that? 40 MILLION) children that have been murdered in this country since Roe v. Wade. No war, no disease, no atrocity in the history of our world approaches that much bloodshed. This is not a single issue vote, it is an ultimate issue vote. As Greg Koukl says: If abortion is not the ending of a human person's life, then no justification for abortion is needed. If abortion is the ending of a human person's life, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

Visiting Seminary

2008-10-23T14:16:00.002-04:00

I've been wanting to post an update regarding our recent visit to Concordia Seminary, but I've been swamped in the design process of the new TXKTraining.com Web site, completion of two more classes at Evangel University and, oh by the way, my daily job of actually teaching IT classes. Phew. Everyone told me that this course of life would be difficult, but knowing that doesn't make it any easier. Sigh. I digress.

Well, we had a great visit! It was wonderful to meet so many special people (both those considering attending Concordia Seminary and those among the students and faculty). Many of the questions Debbie and I have had about this process were answered and overall it really eased my mind about many of the details of the programs there.

What I thought would happen as a result of that visit is that I would be confirmed in my decision to go the traditional residential route of actually relocating my family to the St. Louis campus during my studies there (as early as fall of 2009). However, after returning home and processing our visit in view of the context of our lives here and the life of our local congregation, I was literally shocked that this may not be our choice. Instead, if I had to choose today, I would likely go the route of a "Specific Ministry Pastor" or SMP.

For me, the reason for being originally swayed away from the SMP program has been the lack of a specific ministry for me, per se. What I mean is that my role in our current congregation for so long has not been directly integrated in growing our ministry there (from my point of view). This statement is not a criticism of anyone other than myself. Instead, I have viewed my role as practical and task-oriented. Because of this, I did not detect a way in which I could find myself in a Specific Ministry role. My calling by the Holy Spirit is toward preaching and teaching, not Web design or Audio/Visual tasks (which have been my primary role at ROL during the last seven years) and this led me to want to break out into a formation process that would not be tied directly to my current and past roles.

So, I (perhaps quite erroneously) had pigeon-holed myself as the resident Christ-Centered Geek in our congregation. When I have had opportunities to preach and teach, they have been some of the most alive-moments of my time there, and I could not see an opportunity to do that on a more permanent (vicarage) basis.

However, our visit to Concordia Seminary and subsequent return has changed that opinion. As I drove home from St. Louis I just didn't feel a peace of mind about the resident program being the choice for us.

I now see all kinds of possibilities. I now see a tremendous need either in my congregation or in communities directly adjacent. I suppose what happened is I began to change my self-image when I began to be honest with myself: maybe I can be more than a Christ-Centered Geek in my Christian Community. Or, at the very least, maybe I should try.

So, while I thought October of 2008 would bring my decision to choose a route, I'm going to stand pat for a while now that I've realized (for about the 946,785th time) that God views the situation quite differently than I do (go figure), and I need to be much more open-minded to His work.

Now when I went to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ and found that the Lord had opened a door for me, 13I still had no peace of mind, because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said good-by to them and went on to Macedonia.

This is a quote from 2 Corinthians 2:12-13 where Paul is recounting his decision making process about ministry. He thought he had everything all lined up and God and even participated in that process, but he had not peace of mind about it at decision time. He wasn't settled in that course of action. At this moment, I can definitely relate to his situation. I have no peace of mind about the residence program...but instead I find myself very much attracted to the SMP program. I'm excited to see what God does in this process!

Peeling Away the Layers

2008-09-12T18:34:00.003-04:00

In some of my IT Security classes, we talk about how a good approach to security is like that of a good onion. There will be many layers, some even varied in their implementation, so that a malicious attacker will need to deal with and overcome many barriers to break through. These many layers create an ever-increasing level of complexity and of cost (in terms of time, effort, skill and money).

I cannot help but think of this analogy as it relates to the process of navigating ideologies. It seems that when you really start to unpack an ideology, you can find yourself in an ever-increasing level of complexity and cost (again, in terms of time, effort, skill and even money to acquire some of the resources which may be needed).

In my journey towards full time ministry, I have many layers to peel off my onion as I confront decisions which will need to be made in the coming months, not the least of which is the choice between a traditional route offered by Concordia Seminary or the new SMP program. In a few weeks I will travel to the seminary for a bit of an open house they are having to help answer these and other questions.

I like to think of myself as a careful student of these matters, one seeking to learn and understand and in the end to help advance the Kingdom of God. But as complexity increases, my emotions begin to fragment. It is difficult to maintain balance and I find that can only come with much prayer and devotion. Let me be honest though, it is still very difficult.

One of the greatest difficulties I'm encountering is the realization that my denomination's expression of Lutheranism has a very real divide within it. I'm learning that there are conservatives and liberals within one of the most conservative organizations among Christendom. If you search for Lutheran blogs you will find a great number of them which contain writers who are pretty clearly emanating from the right side of the ideological continuum (or so they say). So, out of curiosity today while I was waiting to head into a meeting, I did a search on “liberal” Lutheran blogs just to see what I would find. I stumbled across this post by Christopher D. Hall where he was doing a similar search, asking, “Where are the 'moderate' LCMS blogs?” Imagine my surprise to find the following reference by Rev. Tom Chryst among the comments:

Article 7 is about the only one I know of. Oh and that guy “celebrating the journey” (Sojourner?). And one of the pastors posts “A few simple Lutheran Sermons”. There are a few, but not many.

What does this mean? I have to tell you that this would be the first time I've ever had that kind of label associated with me. That feels very weird. :-) So here is another layer of complexity, eh? I might be a social conservative, a political conservative, a theological conservative, but I'm a moderate Lutheran? Weird, weird, weird.

I don't know if it is even true. Is it because I don't like the “High Church” movement? Is it because I don't think liturgical worship should be a requirement among our congregations? Or, here's the most likely reason: Is it because I classify “close communion” with the theological term: hogwash? Well, okay. If that is the case then I guess I'm a moderate. I feel like I should go get a blue bumper sticker or something.

But seriously, this kind of thing scares me to death. In all my life I've never really thought about the political nature of a denomination and now it is being thrust in front of me...should I campaign? I'm not interested in Church Growth...does that help? I don't have a vested interest in the ABLAZE movement and I really really really like Christ Centered, Cross Focused theology. What if I said I actually like liturgical worship, but just like the freedom of other forms of Christ Centered, Cross Focused worship. Does keep me from going too far left?

You know, I'm actually an open minded sort of guy. So, if you are a conservative and I'm a moderate (wow that is just so WIERD) and you would like to convince me that all congregations should use liturgical worship, I would be willing to listen very carefully. If you think close communion is the way to go, please talk with me, I have questions. You just need to bring good reason, a Christ-centered theological perspective and a bunch of Scripture. I'm very Lutheran in my expression of Christianity. God help me.

In the mean time, I'm going to keep peeling on that onion and I'm going to keep celebrating the journey. God help me.

Single Issue Voting

2008-08-25T22:23:00.002-04:00

Are you a single issue voter?

If John Doe was a great candidate that had a great economic policy and had a great foreign policy, but was a card carrying racist, would that disqualify him for you? I'm betting it would.

If Jane Smith had great social ideas and tax reform, but included a platform which promoted bribery, would that single issue eliminate her from contention? I'm fairly confident that it would.

So, if one were convinced that human life begins at conception and that all human life is of equal value, and there was a candidate that was pro-human-life-destruction at a young age, would that disqualify him? Why, yes, it would.

I think we are all single issue voters, one way or another. It just depends on what issues are most important to each of us.

(HT: Amy Maxwell)

My Conscience

2008-08-07T10:00:00.030-04:00

Concerning Baptism, our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation and that God's grace is offered through Baptism. They teach that children are to be baptized. Being offered to God, through Baptism they are received into God's grace. Our churches condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the Baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.
— Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, AC Article IX.

As I continue on a path towards full time ministry, I'm proceeding to study the doctrines of my church body. This begins with The Book of Concord, a collection of “confessions” from the sixteenth century which the folks in my church body uphold as the faithful exposition of the Word of God.

So I started with the Augsburg Confession. This document was produced in the middle of a political and theological cauldron during the time of the Reformation. Reading the document reveals as much, but my purpose for reading it is different. It is held up as a confession of faith in my church body. As such, it needs to hold up as my confession of faith if I am to take the oath of ordination one day.

Which takes us to article IX. Let's look at the first sentence: “Concerning Baptism, our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation and that God's grace is offered through Baptism.”

The phrase: “Baptism is necessary,” flies in the face of Scripture. Before I note more on that, I want to point out that I think that the second phrase: “...God's grace is offered through Baptism,” is clearly taught in Scripture. See:

Acts 2:38-39, “...for the forgiveness of sins”
Romans 6:3-5, to be “...united with Him is His resurrection”
1 Peter 3:17-22 “...baptism now saves you”, among others).

But Baptism is not necessary for salvation! Note this situation as it unfolded during Jesus' Crucifixion:

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
—Luke 23:39-43

That criminal believed the Lord Jesus and it was credited to him as righteousness. He was justified by his faith, just like Abraham in Genesis 15, just like the Tax Collector in Luke 18.

Now, I do not think Philipp Melanchthon was somehow just missing this event in Scripture. Indeed, he likely had a couple others in mind, such as Mark 16:16 where Jesus says:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Or another in John 3:5 where Jesus is explaining the Kingdom of God to Nicodemus:

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Here we have Scriptural evidence for both positions. Some will throw out Mark 16:16 because it is part of the “long ending” of Mark that does not appear in our most reliable manuscripts. I hesitate to do that because even though it is not necessarily reliable text, it is there and was probably accepted by the many of the saints who shed their blood so that I could sit here comfortably and ponder such controversy. Instead, I might borrow some language from one good theologian who found text he didn't like and call the long ending of Mark a passage of straw, and then leave it in anyway. (Martin Luther was the most arrogant and boisterous theologian I've ever read...and I love him for it. I think I relate.)

But we still have that John 3 passage. Jesus is clear and this is in all of the earliest manuscripts! How do I deal with this? Throw my hands up and say, “SEE THERE'S A CONTRADICTION!!”

Sorry Mech...er...Charlie. ;-)

Nahh. This is such good stuff we're dealing with in this passage. Jesus is revealing the nature of His Kingdom and who the subjects of that Kingdom would be and what they would be like. He is also directly revealing the nature of God and His will for all mankind at the same time (see John 3:16!).

I resist the notion that John 3:5 is a theological command. Instead it is a theological instruction. In other words, Baptism is to be normative.

Just as in Mark 16:16 Jesus hones in on faith, so he does in John 3:16. This is the critical requirement. But for normative situations Baptism is going to be a part of walking in step with the Spirit. Jesus answers this dilemma with everything we need to hear:

Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"
Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."
—Luke 18:26-27

I have much more to study in the Formula of Concord, and will have many more struggles like this one. This collection of confessions, we must remember, is not scripture. Therefore it is not authoritative in the same manner as Scripture. I remember back to the moment which launched the confessions themselves into history:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen. —Martin Luther 1521

You go Martin. And Lord, I pray your help upon me. I want to serve the people you have called me to serve, but I want to do so in accordance with Scripture above all else.

Does this mean I am holding to a “quatenus” (insofar as) subscription to the confessions? I'm struggling with this, but it seems the answer must be yes right now. And, I never even got to the whole “condemn Anabaptists” part. I don't condemn anyone for holding to a different doctrine about Baptism! God help me.

I want to follow the path God has placed before me, and too much has happened to not believe He wants me on this path. However, my church body would require me to hold to a “quia” (because) subscription to the Lutheran confessions, where one subscribes because the Book of Concord is a faithful exposition of the Scriptures.

Pray for me, that I would too discover in this matter that “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”

What a Summer

2008-07-29T15:17:00.004-04:00

Well, I've been missing in action for nearly three months. My apologies! It has been busy, it has been crazy and it has been fun. More than anything it has been fun...

In some ways, I've grown much since I've last posted. It has been a nice “blog vacation” but I'm back and have much to share.

I've had the opportunity to preach at our church twice (with a third time coming up this Sunday). That has been a great learning experience.
Our family had a “stay-cation” where we stayed home and did things around our area instead of driving or flying somewhere. In the picture here, Ally, Debbie, Mariah and Aaron (left to right) had just mastered a local putt-putt golf course! Learn more over at Deb's blog...
I've struggled with and rededicated my path towards Full Time Ministry (I bet this happens many more times before I conclude this journey).
I'm considering two paths toward vocational ministry: The traditional LCMS route and a new program called SMP.
I've completed two more classes in Evangel's Degree Completion Program and am starting another Thursday night.
I've been putting together sort of a mission and vision statement for why I want to go into ministry. This is a work in progress.
I'm involved in a new division of our company including a huge branding/marketing launch and a new Web site (more to come on this soon).

Phew. I've left a bunch of stuff out, but that is a brief synopsis of what has been going on with me this summer. I'm happy and I'm excited. God, as usual, is at work in my life. I'm enjoying the journey.

P.S. My pastor, Jim Buckman, has a new blog over at the Springfield News-Leader site...visit and drop him a line!

Real Heroes

2008-05-11T23:23:00.002-04:00

Jeremiah Scott Cole, my sister's nephew, was killed in the line of duty while serving his country in Bermel, Afghanistan. Recently, my sister's family participated in an effort to establish a memorial in Hiawatha, Kansas, for the heroes from their community who have served and offered up the greatest love a man can offer: to lay down his life for his friends.

Watch the video here. In the video you'll see my sis Leann Jimeson and her husband, Terry and the rest of Scott's family. You go guys...

Thank you Scott. Thank you all.

Being Confessional

2008-04-29T17:19:00.005-04:00

I belong to a church body called the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS). It is, to say the very least, a completely unique church body among those in America. Spawned from a fiercely German heritage on the banks of the Mississippi River in 1847, the LCMS is not like any other church around.

Without a doubt this is a Lutheran church body. That is to say, as a church body, the LCMS derives its focus and doctrine from the Formula of Concord—a unified collection of statements of faith and exposition of Scripture. Make no mistake, the chief statement in terms of doctrinal authority in the Formula of Concord rests with Scripture alone, through Grace alone for Christ's sake alone. But for Lutherans, the Formula of Concord is correct because it is the correct exposition of all things in Scripture. If you are interested in learning more about the Formula of Concord in its entirety, visit Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions—a very interesting site.

So what's my problem? Well, the LCMS is currently in the midst of a rather ugly situation. Recently, certain folks with authority in the church body chose to abruptly cancel a radio program called Issues Etc. on the denomination's radio station KFUO. To put it mildly, the manner in which this cancellation was handled was not appropriate. It has generated a firestorm of controversy and debate within the Synod about the leadership, the direction of the Synod and everything in between. Examples of this can be found here, here and here.

Yikes.

My heart laments that people from both sides of the aisle have chosen to use this event as a lightning rod and a rallying cry to call troops to arms as it were. What I mean is that even if everything the bashers of the current LCMS leadership have said is true (something that remains to be seen), I find no place within our proud confessional heritage to behave they way they are behaving. There words contain fire and they are breathing them wherever they can.

Maybe I'm just naive. Maybe I'm just foolish.

But I believe all this Jesus stuff. I believe that He died for our sins and that He rose again from the dead. I believe that He is coming again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the life that will never end.

I believe teach and confess Scripture Alone, that we are saved by Faith Alone through Grace Alone for the sake of Christ Alone.

Because of all this, when my brother sins against me I must go to him and seek reconciliation. Not defile his reputation or spew venom at him. Our Lord teaches and our Confessions make clear that we are to have a clear and specific mind set and approach to situations of disagreement. Why would we seek to behave like the world when we encounter things of the world within our midst?

The only time this happens is when we depart from our beliefs, our teachings and our confessions. We become practical atheists and begin working against the very thing we are trying to protect. I speak from personal experience.

By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
— Matthew 7:15-17

I've borne my share of bad fruit in my time. This is one purpose of the Law, to be a mirror to help us see when we are in error. When we are breaking commandments and going against the very Nature of our Lord (see Romans 5:8) in order to move forward our agenda, we are in error. I know this first hand.

I believe, teach and confess. And I weep. And then I remember the Lord. And then, once again, I hope.

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
—Romans 8:22-25

I call upon my brothers and sisters in Christ to reconcile with one another. May we truly experience “concordia” once again.

***

Epilogue: You know, for some reason God chose humans to build the Kingdom of God. Perhaps it is because we know what Grace really means, since we are the recipients of it...perhaps it is because “the last shall be first.” But the truth remains, that wherever people are, they will be messing up whatever it is they are involved in, and I'm the chief one of those.

Grace. Grace. Grace. Come Lord Jesus.

1,975 Years and Counting

2008-04-06T19:55:00.007-04:00

Yesterday represented the 1,975th anniversary of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. On April 5th, 33 AD, Jesus of Nazareth walked out of His tomb.

Celebrating this anniversary is a very, very important thing for me. It also marks a new day for this blog. I've created this new design as a token to the new focus of my writings here, namely that I'm interested in sharing my journey's perspective from the foot of the Cross.

Someone recently asked me where I got this stock photo of the cross in the masthead above. I was very proud to answer that this is not a stock photo, but rather I took this picture in May of 2005. My wife and I were celebrating our 10th wedding anniversary while on a business trip/vacation in Riverside, California. We were blessed to be able to stay at the Mission Inn, a historic and very fancy hotel near Los Angeles. On the west end of the compound stands this rustic cross just outside the chapel.

I had once seen a photographer lay down face up on the ground with the top of his head to the Gateway Arch and take photos from that angle...so I tried that with this cross. That day the sky was almost a perfect blue and made for an incredible picture.

I look forward to sharing more personal stories like this one while continuing to discuss important matters about Christianity and the deep topics we face in our lives. You are always invited to join the conversation...

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. --1 Corinthians 15:3-7

...from the foot of the Cross.

Where Does 'Ought' Come From?

2008-04-02T12:46:00.001-04:00

If we think a person “ought” to do something or to do otherwise, where do we get such a notion? Our government's laws? Or is it something deeper? Is it something overriding?

Consider these words by Richard Dawkins (HT: Amy at STR):

My own view, frequently expressed . . . is that there are two reasons why we need to take Darwinian natural selection seriously. Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.

My question for Dawkins would be this: Where does he get the idea that we should look after the poor? Is it just his preference, like a flavor or a color, or is it more transcendent then that?

The naturalist has no grounding for “ought” and yet they are constantly telling others what we “ought” to do. Some naturalists have told me that I'm limiting my intellect by getting my “oughts” from a book. When I respond that I don't get my “oughts” from a book, but that I think they come directly from God, that he placed them in our hearts when He made us in His image, they reject that and say that “oughtness” comes from our upbringing, our society and other relative points of contact.

The problem with that conclusion is that reality doesn't work that way. Most all of us have a conscience that prompts us to have a feeling of “ought.”

Naturalism doesn't have an adequate explanation for this. For naturalism to be true, “ought” would have to be an illusion.

And, well, to use a carefully thought out term, that's a bunch of hog wash.

The Case for the Resurrection

2008-03-23T22:21:00.003-04:00

Lee Strobel is one of those guys that is quite gifted at what he does. If you haven't read his book The Case for Christ, I highly recommend it. He interviews several scholars and provides an in-depth bibliography for deep study.

Here is an excerpt for why he converted to Christianity from atheism, based largely on the evidence for the Resurrection:

His True Nature

2008-03-21T12:40:00.002-04:00

Today we are celebrating Good Friday. This is a day we set aside to remember and ponder the True Nature of our Creator. I offer this quote, in full, of Isaiah 53:

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

When I read these words I weep. And I praise.

When I read these words I hurt. And I heal.

When I read these words I see darkness. And I see light.

When I read these words I know there is evil. And I know there is good.

When I read these words I know that I'm a dead man. And I know that He has destroyed death.

When I read these words I know that I'm a dead man. And I know that He rose again.

When I read these words I know that I'm a dead man. And I know because of Him, I'm alive once again.

Hello Old Friends

2008-03-13T09:58:00.005-05:00

That's the title of an old Rich Mullins song. I watched him sing this once when he sent his band off stage for a break. He sat there with his guitar and no shoes on and told us that life's pretty rough and that we needed to stick together if we were going to make it. I found this funny becasue Rich rarly talked in such cliche-like language. He himself then laughed and said something like this: "You know, we shouldn't try to be 'spiritual.' People always talk about being 'spritual.' What does that mean? Being spiritual doesn't mean you go to church more or raise your hands to heaven more, it means you mow your neighbor's lawn or bake cookies for a friend." Then he sang this song.

Hello old friends
There's really nothing new to say
But the old, old story bears repeating
And the plain old truth grows dearer every day
When you find something worth believing
Well, that's a joy that nothin' could take away

I was thinking about this song this morning on my drive this morning (I've been commuting to an off-site training location to help deliver a Microsoft Exchange 2007 class). This song reminds me that "the plain old truth" doesn't really matter if we don't share it together. Truth has no helpful meaning if we don't have the context of sharing it, experiencing it . . . together.

And so we meet again
After all these many years
Did we sow the seeds we're reaping
Now that the harvest calls us here
It seems that love blooms out of season
And much joy can blossom from many tears

Love blooms out of season indeed. Think of that and think of how joy can blossom from many tears. I have to tell you I've been sharing my faith and sharing my convictions and sharing my soul, but in this forum that doesn't work very well. What's the point of offering ideas if we can't look each other in the eye and be together to struggle with them together? How can words help if we don't see the joy or the tears each of us may be experiencing?

So old friends you must forget what you had to forgive
And let love be stronger than the feelings
That rage and run beneath the bridge
Knowin' morning follows evening
Makes each new day come as a gift

I think that sharing my faith cannot work when I cannot share myself. So I'm going to share myself and pray that along the way by knowing me you'll know Him.

A new leg of the journey has begun, because each new day has come as a gift.

Objective Truth

2008-03-10T21:17:00.001-05:00

Is there such a thing?

Ponder this: if you say "no," then you appeal to an objective truth.

Some might try to claim there is no objective truth, but no one actually lives that way. Think about it. We use objective truth at the bank, the hospital, our workplace and everywhere else we live our lives. Why do some claim that there is no objective truth when they view the purpose of the universe?

They might say about your convictions or about mine: "True for you, perhaps, but not true for me."

My question: Is that true for everyone?

Interesting Evidence?

2008-02-29T15:08:00.001-05:00

I was reading an interesting article by historian Paul Maier today (HT: Between Two Worlds) where Maier is using a wide variety of historical data to to try to come up with an actual date of Jesus' nativity.

During the course of the article, Maier reminds us that historians are able to convincingly pinpoint the date of the crucifixion: Friday, April 3, AD 33.

Later, as the esteemed professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University was providing the evidence for the above date, he shared a fascinating nugget I had not seen before. He references Luke's comment in chapter 23, verse 44-45a where as Jesus died the following happened:

“It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, for the sun stopped shining.”

And then Maier shares this:

Phlegon, a Greek from Caria writing a chronology soon after AD 137, reported that in the fourth year of the 202d Olympiad there was “the greatest eclipse of the sun” and that “it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that the stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.” How intriguing that Year 4 of the 202d Olympiad should be AD 33!

It is a shame that Phlegon didn't give us the exact day of these events that year. It would have been interesting to see people's reactions to that. Although, I suspect in the end, those who reject the existing evidence would continue to do so.

I suspect in these matters when one rejects Christ, it is not on the basis of evidence, but rather on the basis of the will. I recently had a co-worker say to me: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I asked: “How extraordinary? Would a video be enough? If you had a time machine and send video equipment to record the site of the tomb on Sunday, April 5, AD 33, would that be adequate evidence? If you had a video of Jesus walking out of the tomb, would that be enough?”

It took a minute, but the answer was a resounding “no.” A variety of additional qualifications would have to be met. Was it really him or an imposter? Is it possible that the recording could be faked? Etc. etc.

What would be adequate?

***

My coworker held to a position which suggests that Christianity promotes some kind of “club” system where there are two groups of people. He described a theology of those on the inside and those on the outside of the club. I do agree that a superficial involvement in some circles found in Christianity might cause one to think that, but an in-depth study will show that this idea is not found in the Scriptures.

Instead, Christianity is a worldview where Jesus provides an explanation for the reality we live in and He provides an answer to it. Groups? Clubs? People seem to like these types of organizations, but that isn't what Jesus is interested in. Jesus is interested in life and death.

***

When my wife (of nearly 13 years as I write this) and I met, there was an instant chemistry. We fell in love almost immediately and had a short eight month courtship before we married. During this courtship, the key to our relationship was trust. She was the first person I ever trusted with my whole entire being, and for her it was the same way. Only weeks into our relationship we both knew we were going to be together forever.

This type of a relationship is not a superficial “in or out” concept. And, I submit to you that our marriage (which I view to be unspeakably rich) is but a primitive and shallow relationship compared to the one Christ seeks to have with us. He loves us and desires for us to trust Him. He did inform us that there would be those who do not wish to participate in this relationship, but that is their option.

Importantly, the value of a person doesn't change when this rejection happens. Christ has shown us that He will continue to pursue that individual until their final breath. He has shown us that His Love and Grace has absolutely no relationship to our desires or efforts. But, in then end He will invite all people to come home with Him. John writes in chapter 20 of his gospel:

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Why I am a Christian

2008-02-20T12:53:00.005-05:00

In 2005, I posted a response to a question: “Why do you believe what you do? Seriously. I'm very deeply, seriously interested.”

I'm recycling that post in the form of a “second edition” if you will, updated and edited to include the progress of my journey.

Why do I believe what I believe?

The answer is contained in the following four components ordered by priority (none of which can exist separately mind you, but they are ordered in terms of most meaningful to me):

(1) Christ Lives

I have no memory of ever being without Christ. The first memory I have of any kind is of my baptism as a child, when I was one month old. I’ve always known Him, and he’s always cared for me. He has been a part of my life, literally from my beginning.

Rich Mullins, in his song Creed says it better than I can:

And I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am
I did not make it, no it is making me
It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man

Without a doubt, my personal and very real Sojourn is the most important reason I believe Christ to be God. I encounter him daily, and I have done so each of my days during my 35 (and counting) rides on the Solar Coaster.

Unfortunately, there was a time in my life when I rejected him, pushed him away and tried to live without him. Thankfully, he did not quit pursuing me.

I know I'm different because of the Grace of God in my life and the personal work of Christ Himself. How do I know? Because of the evil that exists in my heart. Every day I encounter the darkness, the true empirical evidence of sin.

Many Christians write about how C.S. Lewis impacted their lives in understanding this idea of Christ providing light over the darkness. I love Lewis' writings, but for me it was G.K. Chesterton who made a more significant impact.

Chesterton's premise is that the problem of evil, especially the evil found within mankind, is a primary point of focus when trying to “answer the riddle” of humanity's condition and search for purpose and truth. For Chesterton, it is a natural, practical discussion rather than some kind of an arbitrary “ivory tower” truth received from somewhere outside the boundaries of human experience.

Chesterton continues, “Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin—a fact as practical as potatoes.”

He strikes with this critical point: “Whether or not man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing.”

He then concludes, “The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do.”

Chesterton then offers this opinion, which I find fascinating: “A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed.”

Christ provides the true answer for the dilemma of evil and He has done this for me personally.

(2) Personal Experiences

On numerous occasions, Christ has personally intervened in my life in a very observable, physical manner. These occasions have always been at or during defining moments of my life (both positive and negative). Many of these experiences are extremely personal, some have been external and public, some have been with loved ones, some with complete strangers.

On each of these occasions, Christ revealed Himself, His will, or in some cases His servants to me in exactly the way I needed at the exact time I needed it. On one very specific occasion, one of the darkest days of my life, he sent a messenger to my family to comfort us and help us deal with a tragedy. This was a supernatural event witnessed by myself and my dad and a hospital worker in December of 1991.

Indeed, personal experience can never stand alone, but at the same time, when combined with these other components of my belief, they are a powerful testimony to the reality of Christ.

(3) Simple Logic

There are four pillars of knowledge, namely, the law of non-contradiction, the law of causality, the basic reliability of sense perception, and the analogical use of language.

The Law of Causality shows us that there cannot be an effect without a cause. Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could. Our temporal universe had a beginning and there must be an eternal thing or being which caused it. Because this thing or being is eternal, it has never not existed.

The Law of Non-Contradiction keeps us focused on truth and prevents us (or should prevent us) from deceiving ourselves.

Think of this example: “The only reliable truths are those which can be verified empirically.” Since this statement itself cannot be empirically verified it contradicts itself. The LNC helps us avoid such silliness.

The Basic Reliability of Sense Perception simply helps us know that the reality we experience is real. It is like the philosophy student who asked his professor, “How do I know I exist?” The professor rightly responded, “To whom shall I direct my answer?”

The Analogical Use of Language prevents us from declaring everything a matter of semantics. Aristotle rightly recognized that two human beings could create such an infinite loop of discussion that their conversation would eventually become useless. For knowledge to be possible, we need to have language and the ability to communicate concepts on equal ground.

Why do I bring these pillars of knowledge up? Because the Christian World View is the only one I’ve discovered which does not violate one or more of these pillars of knowledge. In other words, the Christian World View is inherently logical and lines up with the reality we live in better than any other approach I’ve studied.

Atheists will invariably reject one or more of these laws. They, instead embrace naturalism which forces one to conclude the following:

Nothing Produced Everything
Non-life Produces Life
Randomness Produces Fine-tuning
Chaos Produces Information
Unconsciousness Produces Consciousness
Non-reason Produces Reason

Each one of these, by themselves, is illogical. Combined, they are untenable.

(4) The Historical Fact Of The Resurrection

I’ve listed the reasons for the historicity of the Resurrection in a previous post. If you haven’t read that post, please do look at it.

For my perspective, it is critical that one’s faith be rooted in history. It is absurd to suggest faith could or should exist in contradiction to history, science or other forms of empirical evidence. On the contrary, the fact that the empirical world radically verifies my faith has been a key component of my journey. It separates me from those who seek to create their own reality. For more depth, take a look at Greg Kokul's position at STR.

Now, it is very important to note that once you arrive at the Resurrection, you arrive at Christ and once you arrive at Christ you arrive at the full breadth of Scripture. The Bible.

When I study the Bible I see incredible beauty, depth and symmetry. I see an incredible view of a portion of history. I see undeniable prophesy, much of it fulfilled already, some yet to be fulfilled. I see unspeakable treasures of theology. I see the revealed Word of God. I see Truth.

The Bible reveals the specific nature of God, indeed the logos or Word who became flesh!

Coming up over the next few posts, I'll delve into deeper detail about the Scriptures.

***

Again, I must emphasize that these four aspects of why I believe what I believe are inseparable even if they are ordered in priority. Think of them as four legs on the table of reality for my life. Remove any of them and the table falls.

It should also be noted that each of these aspects of my world view cannot really be adequately described in a humble blog post. To really look at the details, let me know, we'll get together and I’ll be happy to buy the coffee.

Ash Wednesday

2008-02-06T14:31:00.001-05:00

Our church has an excellent traditional worship service on Ash Wednesday. This is the Wednesday that always falls 46 days prior to Easter, marking the beginning of the Lenten season (a time of focusing on what Christ has done for us upon the Cross).

At the service tonight, the pastor will take ashes which are from one of our Christmas trees that were burned after that season concluded. He will take those ashes and make the sign of the cross upon the foreheads of those who come forward. The ashes symbolize remorse for our sins, but by making them in the shape of a cross we also remember the hope we have in Christ and what he did for us upon the Cross.

This is all about atonement. He has atoned for our sins. On Ash Wednesday (as merely one day among all days) we take a moment to stop and bring this to the forefront of our thinking. Indeed it should always be there, but in the daily walk of life our sin often pulls us away from such thinking. We start to think that we are, in some way, helping our situation. We are being a little better than we once were...that is what we tell ourselves.

An important aspect of the Gospel seems lost in our generation. Consider these three options regarding sin:

We are really struggling with sin and need to “re-dedicate” ourselves to God and really mean it this time. We are not committed enough when we fall into sin. In this line of thinking we use Ash Wednesday and the Lenten season to “give up” something for God so that he'll know we are giving it our all.
We continue to sin, recognize our failure and conclude that we may, in fact, not be “saved” since we continue to sin. In this line of thinking, we might use Ash Wednesday to receive the sign of a cross to secure our salvation. We hope that after this our behavior will be different.
We recognize we can do nothing about our condition. In this line of thinking, Ash Wednesday takes us back to that time when the old world started dying and the new world started coming on. We recognize that we are at the same time (simultaneously) sinner and saint. A war rages within us (see Galatians 5:17 and Romans 7).

On the basis of Paul's teaching in Galatians and Romans, Luther spoke of Christians as paradoxically at one and the same time "saint and sinner" (simul iustus et peccator). He wrote, "The saints in being righteous are at the same time sinners; they are righteous because they believe in Christ whose righteousness covers them and is imputed to them, but they are sinners because they do not fulfill the law and are not without sinful desires. They are like sick people in the care of a physician: they are really sick, but healthy only in the hope and insofar as they begin to be better, healed, i.e., they will become healthy. Nothing can harm them so much as the presumption that they are in fact healthy, for it will cause a bad relapse" (quoted from Herman Preus's book A Theology to Live By, p. 113 cited from Luther: Lectures on Romans, in “Library of Christian Classics,” Vol. XV, trans. and ed. Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1951), p. 208).

Ash Wednesday takes us back to this truth taught in Romans 5:8:

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

And so it is with this thought that we remember the Gospel as we worship on Ash Wednesday (from 1 Cor 15):

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

Praise you Lord Jesus, that you have saved me, a poor miserable sinner.

It's Always the Cross

2008-01-22T16:57:00.001-05:00

I've been involved in a recent discussion involving the apparent difficulties found in understanding the nature of God we see revealed in the Scriptures. Here is the problem, in a nutshell: In some places recorded in the Old Testament, God seems to do things that make no sense to us modern followers of Jesus. Examples of this include God wiping out the people of the earth in a big flood, or commanding the Israelite army to kill all men, women and children in a particular village. There are many more.

God of the OT = Mean Old Dude. Jesus of the NT = Teddy Bear. The only way to come to this conclusion is to have not read the Scriptures.

Ironically, I would argue that the New Testament contains just as many (if not more) “disturbing” passages than the Old Testament. Jesus talked about, and preached about Hell more than anyone. Disciples that lied to God fell over dead on the spot. Paul and Peter were teaching us that suffering is a blessing. And then there's the book of Revelation. Phew, we don't want to even go there do we? Lake of fire anyone?

So the question is before us: How do we read the Scriptures? From what perspective? Do we approach them as a single work or a collection of works? Do we read Genesis as a science book or a theology book? Do we read 1 Samuel in a vacuum or do we look at what Isaiah had to say about it? Do we read Romans without having read Judges? Do we study Hebrews without knowing what was taught in Leviticus?

The accusation thrown against those difficult "angry god" passages of the Old Testament is that God just downright seemed mean. He seemed selfish. He seemed, well, even irritable. He didn't seem to have the same nature as the one depicted in the New Testament. Again, I will submit to you that you have to be quote mining to arrive at that conclusion. My Old Testament has books like Isaiah and Ruth and Daniel in it. Yours does too. Sit down, read Ruth sometime. Wow.

Then, after reading Ruth, go read Genesis 3. Then after reading that go read 1 Samuel 16. Then after reading that, go read Isaiah 40. Then after reading that, go read Daniel 9. Then after reading that go read John 3. And then, after that go read Matthew 26 and 27. And then round out your whirlwind tour with Romans 5.

I challenge you to do one thing: Remember The Cross. For us Christians, we have to answer the question theologically: Why did Jesus die on the Cross? Seriously, why did He die on the cross? You see, when we read a difficult passage, and we view it from the perspective of the cross, we can see that difficult passage in the way that God saw those events unfolding.

***

I don't have to do word gymnastics and strange translations to answer difficulties when I look at the Cross. Instead, I can see that the Scriptures are the revelation of God's Rescue Plan. Everything that happened in the Old Testament was looking forward to the Cross. Everything that happened in the New Testament (after the Crucifixion) was looking back to the Cross. The culmination of everything that is happening in the future (New Heavens and New Earth) is a result of the Cross.

Paul said he was all about preaching Christ Crucified. Why? Why not health and wealth? Why not long life? Why not happiness and joy? Because the death rate on this planet is 100%! ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

The Cross was about defeating death. From that perspective, whether people die at a young age or an old age (I'm thinking of the flood, the village destructions, etc.), the final solution had to come via the Cross. So, if my point of view is to get to the Cross, I'm going to do whatever it takes to get there, and if there are people standing in the way would I not rather that they have an early physical death than an eternal spiritual death?

You want to know God's nature, look at the Cross. Because He set His face like flint toward Jerusalem from the beginning (Genesis 3:15). Those who try to defraud God or the Scriptures by saying this that or the other action by Him was reprehensible, are taking away from the Cross. God sacrificed everything to save us because he loves us so very much.

You want to know the answers to the tough questions in Scripture? It's always the Cross.

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

—Acts 17:24-31

The Dream

2008-01-21T10:16:00.001-05:00

Martin Luther King Jr. was an inspriational leader for many reasons. I'm convinced that the most compelling reason for his effect upon our land was his emulation of Christ. He understood the nature of our world and the world to come.

Consider this quote from his famous "I Have a Dream" speech:

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

He trusted in Christ and lived an integrated life, not separating the ideas of faith and life. He recognized the materialism of our land and knew that it contributed to the racisim which he fought so valiantly against.

One thing that we need to not forget: Martin Luther King Jr. gave his life for his dream. He was a martyr both for his people and for the church. I count myself among both groups. His conviction was unmistakable and his trust in Christ was rooted in that conviction.

Often people will try to separate King from his faith, or to omit that in their admiration of him. I find this remarkable, since it was his faith that provided the foundation for all that he did. I also recognize that whenever any group of people is oppressed that we wll suffer. This was King's genius, knowing that oppression is universal and certain. Oppression is the harbinger of tyrrany and it must be opposed at every turn:

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

Furthermore, his plea was for a united land, praying that freedom would ring and that we would all join hands singing together. Imagine that! I share in Dr. King's dream! And, I trust in the One who makes it more than mere sentiment. I trust in the one who makes music higher than the songs that we can sing. The stuff of Earth competes for the allegence I owe only to the Giver of all good things.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

I am a Christian

2008-01-15T16:39:00.000-05:00

There is much discussion amid the blogosphere as to whether one should describe himself or herself as a Christian (for those who follow Christ). It seems that as some take a hard look at the purpose of the term Christian, the tendency is to reject that label so as to shed association with some of the various organized institutions which bear that label.

I really do see where this is coming from and empathize with the position these folks are taking. Ah, many many times I've grown frustrated with fellow “Christians.”

However, as I've stated in the past, I'm convinced the desire to rid ourselves of corruption is so bad that we swerve the wheel too hard, going from one ditch (corrupted organizations) to another ditch. The proverbial baby is being thrown out with the bathwater.

I love the fact that some organizations of followers of Jesus will incorporate different labels to describe themselves. Hearkening back to Church 1.0's "The Way" or "The Way of Jesus" or some such labels are helpful to people unacquainted with these groups' purpose. And, I readily agree that the term "Christian" includes baggage which our generation may mistake for our purpose.

However, I cannot help but think of the history of the term “Christian” and then pause. Beginning in Acts 11 Luke tells us when the term was first used at Antioch. And then later, the Apostle Peter shares this thought from the fourth chapter of his first epistle:

If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

Peter is writing to Christians who are being persecuted because they bear the name of Christ and then instructs us to praise God that we bear that name. I immediately want to point out that I understand that labels will have different meanings in different eras, so I'm not taking a wooden literal bent here. In Peter's time, the name Christian did not carry the same baggage that it does two millennia later. People did not wear Jesus T-shirts in Antioch, Ephesus or Corinth. Indeed, when knowledge of your Christian identity may result in your persecution, I would imagine that those participating in Church 1.0 didn't do so for the popularity or prosperity it might bring them.

They participated because to live is Christ and to die is gain.

So for me, I bear the name Christian not because I want to wear a Jesus T-shirt, or because I want my name on a membership role at an institution somewhere, but rather because God worked through those first Christians to preach the Gospel to world filled with dead people.

By their actions, God has worked so that these two millennia later, I have received the gift that they offered, many times emulating their Master by shedding their own blood.

In other words, I would not be a follower of Jesus had there not been Christians! REAL Christians.

Instead of trying to abandon the name which others may have corrupted, I will seek to restore the name to its original meaning: one who bears the name of Christ. In scripture, the idea of bearing a name is far different than the label-ridden culture we live in.

Bearing a particular name meant that you took on those properties, you emulated your namesake on many levels. Being called a Christian in Church 1.0 meant that people were saying you were like Christ. May we too seek to be like Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that we would demonstrate what a Christian truly is...and in so doing preach Christ Crucified to a world filled with dead people...so that they might live.

When The Old World Started Dying

2007-12-24T18:43:00.001-05:00

I love Christmas.

This is the time when we remember the day that the old world started dying and the new world started coming on...

This is the time when we remember how real love really is.

This is the time when we sing songs and celebrate the fact that we can sing songs and celebrate.

This is the time when GRACE is celebrated even by those who reject it.

This is the time when magic can be magical because it is for Freedom that Christ set us free.

This is the time when I know there's good will toward men On account of that Baby born in Bethlehem.

This is the time we remember...when the old world started dying and the new world started coming on.

Merry Christmas!

*Italicized words written by Rich Mullins.

Living Among the Dead

2007-12-19T15:19:00.001-05:00

Ravi Zacharias said the following quote in a recent podcast which I listened to on the way to work this morning:

“Jesus did not come to make bad people good, he came to make dead people live.”

For Ravi, the authenticity of the Risen Christ is so compelling that it takes an utterly rebellious heart (read: depraved) to reject Him. Ironically, it is the Holy Spirit Himself who then gives us the ability to receive Christ.

As I move forward on my challenging journey I have many fears and doubts. My defense mechanism seems to be one of trying to “figure everything out” so that I can intellectually know what is going on.

I crave certainty so that I can conquer my uncertainty.

So there I am, driving to work and Ravi shares this thought and it occurs to me that the Cross is the only certainty I have. Neither my intellect nor my emotions can provide any certainty. I can try hard to do the right thing, but most of the time I don't end up doing the right thing. I can study hard to try to figure things out, but in the end I rarely achieve the clarity I seek.

My theology and my practice are worthless at the end of the day. And yet, I live. By sheer Grace, I live.

Indeed, when I cling to the Cross I find an answer for all questions, all fears, all doubts, all sadness, all guilt, all failure, all trouble, all suffering. At the Cross I find unity within diversity, I find beauty within the repulsiveness which is our world, I find music among the noise, I find logic among the nonsense and I find the living among the dead.

What is your 'Platform' on Christ?

2007-12-07T10:17:00.000-05:00

**Important Note: I personally am not concerned with the idea that Mitt Romney is a Mormon as it relates to the presidency. I would not vote against someone simply because of their theological position, unless it has a direct impact on the decisions a president might choose to make (e.g., abortion). Here, I'm merely focused on careful distinctions in theology for individuals.**

A great deal of buzz is going around regarding Mitt Romney's speech about faith and politics. During the speech, Romney seemed intent on clarifying his position on Christ:

“I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.”

Hey, if you are a Christian, that should do it for you. If you like Romney's platform, and your only concern was his Mormonism, then it's all good now, right?

Well, regardless of his Mormonism, I would challenge you that if anyone says to you that “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind” in order to try to join with you in faith, then a follow up question must be asked: “Who, precisely, is Jesus Christ?”

As Orthodox Christians our answer is that Jesus Christ is God. We believe, teach and confess that He is eternal. He is True God and True Man. We read in Jeremiah 23:6 that His name is YHWH Tsidkenu. As Jesus said in John 8:58, “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Romney, if he is true to the teachings of Mormonism, would utterly reject the above paragraph. Mormons clearly and explicitly teach that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer and that as Jesus is, you and I can become.

Careful distinctions like this must be made. Consider John's warning in 1 John 2:22-23:

Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

It is again imperative to note that I'm not placing a label on Romney or any other Mormon. Further, the idea of “antichrist” as presented here is merely “one who is against Christ” not some final enemy of the church as portrayed in some eschatological systems. Instead, I'm suggesting that it is critical for us to have careful distinctions in theology.

Regarding politics, I do not disqualify Romney because of his theology. However, I'm quite intrigued by the other guy from Hope, Arkansas.

What Be The Cross - Part II

2007-11-28T14:05:00.000-05:00

In view of the last post, when I visited STR's blog today and noticed that they had posted several videos of an interview with Greg Koukl, I thought I would share his take in the video below. Before you watch, see what you think about his explanation of Jesus' mission in light of Jesus' words as recorded in John 3:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." John 3:16-17

"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
John 20:30-31

Thanks Melinda!

What Be The Cross?

2007-11-27T10:16:00.001-05:00

An important discussion has been going on recently on several blogs that I think needs to be amplified. It seems to me that as I seek to learn to better communicate about the faith among believers, one thing I've learned is that terms I use may mimic the terms they use, but the meanings may be very different.

The question is simple: Why did Jesus of Nazareth, God in Human Form, choose to die on the cross?

I would love to know your answer. Below, I've gathered three distinct views. These are not the only views among Christians, but what I hope you will do is read each view carefully and then think about the terms carefully chosen by each author.

John Piper
(from: Did Christ Die for Us or for God? on www.desiringgod.org)

God saw his glory being despised by sinners (like David) – he saw his worth belittled and his name dishonored by our sins – and rather than vindicating the worth of his glory by slaying his people, he vindicated his glory by slaying his Son.

Brian McLaren
(from McLaren's latest book: Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007, pp. 79-80)

Jesus came to become the Savior of the world, meaning he came to save the earth and all it contains from its ongoing destruction because of human evil. Through his life and teaching, through his suffering, death, and resurrection, he inserted into human history a seed of grace, truth, and hope that can never be defeated. This seed will, against all opposition and odds, prevail over the evil and injustice of humanity and lead to the world’s ongoing transformation into the world God dreams of. All who find in Jesus God’s hope and truth discover the privilege of participating in his ongoing work of personal and global transformation and liberation from evil and injustice. As part of his transforming community, they experience liberation from the fear of death and condemnation. This is not something they earn or achieve, but rather a free gift they receive as an expression of God’s grace and love.

Martin Luther
(from The Small Catechism [online edition] p. 7)

I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord. Who [via the cross] has redeemed me, a lost and condemned person, purchased and won me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil; not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, that I may be His own and live under Him in His kingdom and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, just as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity. This is most certainly true.

Pay careful attention to the theology of each individual. Each brings his own "system" of thought to the question and applies his understanding of these terms and concepts to the question at hand.

Now compare these conclusions with the Paul's thoughts from Romans 5:

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

The key to this discussion is not to pick your favorite theologian or author, but to be convinced in your own conclusions as to what the Scriptures teach us. The Word of God should be the authority for what we believe and how we should live in the context of a Christian World View.

So I now pose the question to you: Why did Jesus of Nazareth, God in Human Form, choose to die on the cross?

From Head to Toe

2007-11-12T18:29:00.001-05:00

"I am a Penguin and I turn my head. Can you do it?"

This is the opening question of my kids' current favorite bed time book, From Head to Toe by Eric Carle. I always try to do my voice different for each character...having the most fun with the voice of the gorilla: "I AM A GORILLA AND I THUMP MY CHEST...CAN YOU DO IT?"

My youngest daughter Ally (she is 3) begs every night before bed: "Daddy, can we read the gorilla book?" Not much in life makes me happier than granting her request.

But what is interesting is the fact that there are other requests that she makes of me with equal cuteness and jubilation that I'm forced to say no.

Ally, if allowed to, would eat only cookies and candy, she would drink only chocolate milk and she would play on starfall.com the entire day. While I admit that I love how much she learns on Starfall, I think you can see what I'm about to say: As a parent I have to provide rules or curbs to prevent Ally from hurting herself. Furthermore, I have to use other rules to teach her how to be safe...and then there are even more rules to teach her how to act toward other people.

Sometimes Ally refuses to follow the rules, seeking to impose her will. And, make no mistake, she is seeking precisely to impose her will. Is it because she does not love me? Nope. She loves me, I know that by both her words and her actions. And yet, she resists. Is it because she doesn't believe me...I don't think so. She seems to understand that many of the rules are there for her own good. And yet, she resists.

See a parallel? Those of you who are parents have likely discovered this parallel soon after your first child began to exhibit the effects of sin. Clearly, one purpose of rules (read: God's Law) is to protect us, to help us live better lives and to teach us how to treat one another. And yet, we resist.

Are there other purposes? How about a mirror? Is the Law a mirror? To help us see our resistant nature? Indeed, the Law is a mirror.

Perhaps the other purpose of the Law is precisely what the word suggests: Justice. The Law serves as the ultimate rule of justice.

Historically it would seem that our struggle as Christians is to find a balance between the Law and the Gospel. If we study the Law it doesn't take long (if we use it as a curb, a mirror, or a rule) to see that we are not able to keep the Law. The Law tells us that God's Wrath demands Justice.

The Law tells us that we are condemned.

The Gospel tells us that that God became a man like us to take that very Wrath which demanded Justice upon Himself.

The Gospel tells us that we are saved, or reconciled.

As such, if you remove the Law, then you pervert the Gospel. How can we be saved or reconciled without the Law?

As Christians we must be keen to this fact. We must not try to down play or ignore the Law...even if others have abused it. The Law demands Justice. The consequences of that justice are eternal punishment! To deny this or ignore this is at the same time a dramatic departure from Scripture and a perversion of what Jesus did for us on the Cross.

But a balance between Law and Gospel yields a life focused on the Cross, filled with God's Grace. Jesus' undeserved loving kindness towards us becomes real and not some kind of fluffy bunny warm fuzzy kind of thing.

As I've been learning all this year, it also means being a disciple...so that we can grow to become more like Christ. Not just learn about him.

LAW - 2 Peter 2:4-10

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.

GOSPEL - John 3:16-21

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

THE PROCESS OF BECOMING LIKE CHRIST - 2 Peter 1:3-11

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.
Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I am a Christian and I bend my knee...can you do it?

Speaking with Conviction

2007-11-10T19:34:00.000-05:00

I've been reading a ton of postmodern material lately and I have to tell you the thing that has been wearing me out has been this discussion about certainty. For one thing, it is a circular argument, because everyone who promotes the idea is quite confident in his or her conclusion.

But there was something else bugging me. Something else...I just couldn't quite put my finger on what it might be.

Then I ran across this Taylor Mali video over at Extreme Theology:

Mali certainly has a way with words. ;-)

Reformation Day

2007-10-31T16:31:00.000-05:00

History is an interesting thing. If we study it, we will undoubtedly discover things that will change our future, just as it changed the future of those who first experienced it.

History reports that 490 years ago today (October 31, 1517), Martin Luther nailed his incredible 95 Theses to the doors of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. We also know that Luther mailed the theses to the Archbishop of Mainz, the pope, friends and others on that date.

One of my favorite of Luther's Theses, which were in direct response to the practice of Rome to pay for their grand building programs, is number 68: "Yet [indulgences] are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross."

History indicates that Luther's goal was truly one of Reform. That is, one of change. He never wanted a "Lutheran" or Protestant church, and I don't think he ever dreamt of the true schism that might develop as the result of this day.

I suppose the reality is that it would have happened even if Luther had not acted, for he was not the only man to come to these conclusions. But, ah, he was certainly the man for the job wasn't he? His courage, conviction and conscience is what really made history and why he receives the credit he receives for starting such a movement.

I for one am grateful for his sacrifices and am thankful for his passion, and I will take time on this day to seriously give that gratitude to God, so that He may thank Martin personally on my behalf.

Return of the Jedi

2007-10-29T15:12:00.001-05:00

Okay, well I'm no Jedi, but I am returning and I've tried for over two years to come up with an excuse to use that headline. I'm saddened by the fact that I even had an opportunity to use Revenge of the Sith before this one. Oh well. So, in the culturally-embedded words of Luke Skywalker: "You've failed your highness, I'm a Jedi, like my father before me."

The analogy for me is that much like my childhood hero, I've finally embraced and begun to walk in the steps I probably should have walked in a long time ago (but not necessarily in a galaxy far far away).

So the question is: Where have I been for the last month? On September 20th, I returned to school to finish my undergraduate degree. Entering into Evangel University's Degree Completion Program, and now with my first six weeks under my belt, I've been faced with a new schedule that has proved to be just a bit daunting. But, I have to tell you, I'm loving it!

As I chronicled in a post from January, this is the first big step in my journey toward full time ministry. And, even though it caused me to take a month off from blogging, I'm getting used to my new life as an old student and could not be more excited!

Be Christ

2007-09-27T13:12:00.001-04:00

Michael Spencer, otherwise known as the Internet Monk, has a great post today which grabbed my heart in a special way. Essentially, God used Michael to impact me, my emotions and my thinking on a day when I really, really needed it. Read on.

Perspective on Terror

2007-09-18T17:29:00.000-04:00

We'll be having an interesting guest at our church on Sunday, September 23rd. Walid Shoebat, a former PLO Islamic Terrorist, will be the guest speaker, sharing his testimony of conversion from Islam to Christianity. The commercial below tells all...including our pastor flexing his Green Beret muscles...you go Jim!

Walid will be speaking at 7:45, 9:00 and 10:30 a.m. on Sunday, September 23rd. Consider yourself invited.

Origins

2007-09-13T15:48:00.001-04:00

I accidentally stumbled across this article by Dr. Jerry Bergman. Bergman puts his many degrees to work in this fascinating paper about the origin of life.

Entitled Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible, Bergman puts forth some compelling arguments that remind us of an important fact: Many of the things we were taught in High School Biology class were completely without evidence, and furthermore, demonstrably false. Consider these his thoughts here:

It appears that the field of molecular biology will falsify Darwinism. An estimated 100,000 different proteins are used to construct humans alone. Furthermore, one million species are known, and as many as 10 million may exist. Although many proteins are used in most life forms, as many as 100 million or more protein variations may exist in all plant and animal life.
Even using an unrealistically low estimate of 1,000 steps required to “evolve” the average protein (if this were possible) implies that many trillions of links were needed to evolve the proteins that once existed or that exist today. And not one clear transitional protein that is morphologically and chemically in between the ancient and modern form of the protein has been convincingly demonstrated. The same problem exists with fats, nucleic acids, carbohydrates and the other compounds that are produced by, and necessary for, life.

As we obtain more and more evidence about how life works, and how it is observably generated, excellent questions are put forth which current scientific establishments are unable to answer, including this one:

Where do viruses come from?

I asked this question of my High School Biology teacher and he literally said that they may have arrived on meteors. Whoah.

Consider these comments by Bergman:

Many bacteria and all viruses possess less complexity than required for an organism normally defined as “living,” and for this reason must live as parasites which require the existence of complex cells in order to reproduce. For this reason Trefil noted that the question of where viruses come from is an “enduring mystery” in evolution. Viruses usually are much smaller than parasitic bacteria and are not considered alive because they must rely on their host even more than bacteria do. Viruses consist primarily of a coat of proteins surrounding DNA or RNA that contains a handful of genes, and since they do not

... reproduce in the normal way, it’s hard to see how they could have gotten started. One theory: they are parasites who, over a long period of time, have lost the ability to reproduce independently... Viruses are among the smallest of “living” things. A typical virus, like the one that causes ordinary influenza, may be no more than a thousand atoms across. This is in comparison with cells which may be hundreds or even thousands of times that size. Its small size is one reason that it is so easy for a virus to spread from one host to another—it’s hard to filter out anything that small ([ Trefil, James. 1992. 1001 things everyone should know about science. Doubleday, New York.] p. 91).

In order to reproduce, a virus’s genes must invade a living cell and take control of its much larger DNA. A bacterium is 400 times greater in size than the smallest known virus, while a typical human cell averages 200 times larger than the smallest known bacterium. The QB virus is only 24 nanometers long, contains only 3 genes and is almost 20 times smaller than Escherichia coli, billions of which inhabit the human intestines. E. coli is 1,000 nanometers long compared to a typical human cell that is about 10,000 nanometers long (1 nanometer equals 1 billionth of a meter, or about 1/25-millionths of an inch) and contains an estimated 100,000 genes. Researchers have detected microbes in human and bovine blood that are only 2-millionths of an inch in diameter, but these organisms cannot live on their own because they need more than simple inorganic, or common inorganic molecules to survive.

My thoughts are this: We have more questions today than we have answers, and theism is more than ever present at the table in tackling these questions. Buckle your seat belts, the next 50 years are going to be very interesting in this field, and much rhetoric will fly from every side of the discussion. It sounds like fun.

Doctrine of Election

2007-09-13T10:29:00.000-04:00

An outstanding discussion on Election is going on over at the Internet Monk's blog. You'll want to check it out...

(HT: Kelly's Blog)

Strangely, they link to an essay I happened to read just yesterday regarding Luther's view on Predestination by Don Matzat, so I'll link to it also. It's a great read, highlighting the Scriptural data on this deep topic.

Evil is Real

2007-09-12T14:43:00.001-04:00

This week we all looked back at the attacks which took place on our soil just six years ago.

It was a day of evil.

In light of my last post, looking back at a discussion about morality, I couldn't help but think about how the current trend in our culture is to view everything as relative. Did we think it was relative that day, September 11, 2001? Did we?

Everything is a shade of gray, it is just a matter of your opinion or your perspective. Perhaps it is your upbringing.

That is what they tell me. What about that day?

Let me ask you something. Did the hijackers do what was right, according to their circumstances? Many in our culture would answer "maybe" or even "yes." I think we are intellectually bankrupt when we come to that conclusion. I'll say it this way: some things are evil even when the people that do those things think that they are right.

It was a day of evil.

Mark! What about when we invaded Afghanistan? Wasn't our action there considered evil from the Taliban's perspective?

Without a doubt I'm sure some might have felt that way. And, since I wasn't there I cannot claim that we did not commit evil that day. But I do know this: If someone attacks you and kills your loved ones, and then cheers about it in the streets and declares they'll come again, responding to protect yourself is not evil. There is an important distinction. How do we make that distinction? Because we have a moral standard...we have this word in our language, we use it all the time: Justice.

9/11 was a day of evil.

Consider these thoughts by Greg Koukl:

To say something is evil is to make a moral judgment, and moral judgments make no sense outside of the context of a moral standard. Evil as a value judgment marks a departure from that standard of morality. If there is no standard, then there is no departure.

Evil can't be real if morals are relative. Evil is real, though. That's why people object to it.

(HT: STR)

I'm not trying to say that everything is black and white. We all understand that as a part of daily life, but my point is simple: Evil is real. To deny it you must throw away terms such as good, just, right, noble, etc.

Evil is to Good as Dark is to Light. Evil is to Good as Cold is to Hot. Our experience of life is one of the most empirical evidences of the reality of evil.

The number one reason I know evil is real is not because of days like 9/11. Rather, it is because I see it at work in my own heart. I try to resist it, to conquer it, and yet it remains. Lurking about. I know that I'm not alone in my experience.

When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.

Indeed it is the inner struggle with evil that is most defining to us in our lives. This struggle demonstrates an important reality about humanity: Inside of us there lies incredible good and incredible evil. Indeed, this struggle with evil points us toward Good.

Christ.

He is the only answer to evil because He endured it with us and for us. Romans 5:8 points out that He reaches out and saves us even while we are in the midst of our evil—even while we hate Him!

Atheists love to challenge Christians to answer the "problem of evil." I would respond that we have the only answer, Christ Himself. He was crucified on a cross to atone for the evil in our hearts, to reconcile us unto Himself. He rose from the dead to proclaim His divine power. He will use that power to create a world where we will freely be with Him, where evil is eliminated once and for all. When we arrive there, with Him, we'll be Home.

Nobody tells you when you get born here ~ How much you'll come to love it ~ And how you'll never belong here ~ So I call you my country ~ And I'll be lonely for my home ~ And I wish that I could take you there with me — Rich Mullins

The Problem of Suffering

2007-09-07T13:20:00.001-04:00

Early this year I had an interesting conversation with an old friend about The Problem of Suffering. Mechphisto had put me onto a post by atheist John Loftus where he challenged Christians to deal with the problem of suffering.

I responded with an obvious question: If you reject Christian Theism, then how do you arrive at an objective understanding of Good and Evil? In a narcissistic way? Such as: “I think the kinds of suffering I see on CNN are bad in my opinion.”

Or is it an objective claim? If so, what is the objective standard?

I had posted these questions on John's site and the other day he visited here and posted some great thoughts. I don't want you to miss them! Read the whole thing.

The Struggle for Truth

2007-09-05T14:09:00.001-04:00

I've been posting about this idea I call "Church 1.0". Admittedly, I began thinking about this when I first started reading books and blogs about what is called the "Emerging Church."

At first glance, I was extremely excited about what I was reading. I loved the idea of Christianity departing from so many of the completely silly traditions and non-historical approaches to the faith. I related personally to the call for authenticity, more emphasis on relationships and the idea of "being the church" instead of going to church.

These ideas resonated with me because I saw a great chasm between what Christianity was practically and what it should be ideally. I looked at my own Christian experience and noticed how far a true unified faith life was from what the one in which I found myself.

But at the same time, I've always been troubled by the Emerging Church. I keep getting this sense that we're throwing the baby out with the bath water. We're swerving the wheel too hard.

Emergers seem to want to do away with certainty...to some extent. There seems to be a caution to avoid certainty for the purpose of avoiding the abuses and poor traditions exhibited by Christianity over the last couple of centuries. I do agree with this approach, so far as it goes. What I mean is this: We should always be examining our traditions and practices. We should be skeptical about the past, and we should look at the data to see where the Church has been and what they are now doing. But, there are some things we must be certain about or our foundation for truth crumbles.

Consider these thoughts by C. Michael Patton:

As we said before, [Emergers] are unwilling to stand for things of which they are uncertain. While this sounds good and noble, there are always going to be many things which we are less certain of than others. Where does one draw the line of certainty? How certain does one have to be before he or she can hold and articulate their beliefs with conviction? I, for example, am not certain with mathematical certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. However unlikely, there could be outside variables that I don’t know about that will cause the earth to stop its rotation. Does this make me irresponsible and arrogant to believe that the sun will rise? Not at all. In fact, it would be the very definition of insanity for me to demand mathematical certainty about the rising of the sun. I have good reason for believing the sun will rise because of the amount of evidence. Therefore, I have a moral obligation to believe and plan according to the evidence.

...

It is important for Christians to hold many of our beliefs in tension, but these beliefs must be limited to those on which the Bible does not speak emphatically and clearly. Views about the nature and work of Christ do not qualify for this type of uncertainty. Views about predestination, while there is legitimate room for disagreement, do not need to be sacrificed in the name of love or creedal unity. One wonders if these were not important, why did God bother including them in Scripture? What is to prevent people from ripping out certain portions of their Bible?

...

As well, while [Emergers] seem to evidence humility with regards to their ability to come to know truth, this humility can often be misleading. While this could evidence a respect for the fall and its resulting effects upon the mind (noetic effects of sin), it could also be because of the postmodern tendency to seek acceptance even when the cost is compromise. Let’s face it, the less you stand for, the more people will like you. The stronger your convictions, the more chance you have to be rejected.

Patton really articulates the difficulty I have had with the emergent movement. It is a philosophical difficulty: how do we treat truth? This struggle will define where we stand when the storms come, it will define where we stand when difficult decisions must be made.

The more I study this struggle among Christians, the more I discover this fact: Christians from all denominational backgrounds who have a firm grasp upon the Scriptures and in doing so, have an authentic, living and vibrant relationship with Jesus Himself, will not exhibit the failings the Emergers are reacting to from the past 200 years of Christianity. Instead, in their real fellowship with our Master, they will become more like Him.

How can we expect to be like Jesus if we are uncertain about Him?

We cannot escape the need for a Risen Savior as the head of the church. I'm convinced that when you look at any church failing you will find this simple cause: Christ was not the head of the church. I really believe it is that simple.

You show me a church, emergent, traditional or anywhere in between, where the Risen Christ is the head of the church, and I'll show you a community of believers that will be authentic, relational, radical and exhibiting a dramatic impact upon the people around them.

The struggle for truth begins and ends with Jesus Christ. He is not an idea, he is not a vague concept, but rather He is our Lord, He is real and alive and working in our world to build His kingdom. He has invited us to join Him.

***

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth. - John 4:23-24

***

Read Patton's whole article Understanding the Postmodern Mind and the Emerging Church here. It is a gem. HT: Between Two Worlds

Accomodation

2007-08-26T22:36:00.000-04:00

Francis Schaeffer wrote in The Great Evangelical Disaster: “Christianity is no longer providing the consensus for our society. And Christianity is no longer providing the consensus upon which our law is based. Here is the great evangelical disaster—the failure of the evangelical world to stand for truth as truth. There is only one word for this—namely accommodation: the evangelical church has accommodated to the world spirit of the age.”

Following through on Schaeffer's observation, he would seem to indicate Christianity's failure during the last forty years is not that the secular movements are so strong but rather because American Christians have become so weak.

How many Christians do you know that are strong in the Word? Strong-Word Christians are likely strong in many other areas of their life...and have an effect on the world around them. What would happen to our landscape if dozens, hundreds or thousands of the people in our communities were strong in the Word?

Indeed when I gaze across the landscape, there are those who are strong in the Word, and indeed they have an impact. A practical, real, authentic, impact. They teach, they love, they share.

Regardless of the type of movement, or the methodology of the movement, strong-Word Christians have an impact. Certainly we need to communicate in a clear manner to the people we interact with (you go Rob...keep teaching me!) and certainly we need to draw upon the real and practical Grace of our Master, realizing the utterly radical message He brings to the world. But doesn't it always boil down to having stronger Christians? Christians who are rooted in the very Cross of Christ?

Does it seem the church experienced a crisis regarding justification prior to the Reformation, and now we are in a crisis regarding sanctification in our current time? Is not church practice a direct extension of sanctification—our growing to be more like Christ?

Here is where Accomodation rears its ugly head. We know something is wrong with the church so we start jerking on the wheel. We're headed for one ditch and perhaps we are swerving the wheel...swerving it too hard, right into the other ditch. We look for seven steps or how to be purpose driven or how to teach life applications, fluffy bunny stuff and so forth. Did the martyrs shed their blood because they were seeking a purpose driven life or because they were following the seven steps?

Did the Christians in the coliseums go to their deaths because they were trying to be more relevant to the world? Indeed, they died because they were preaching Christ and Him Crucified. Consider this thought, given by Waldo Werning:

In our culture, the combination of individualism and materialism has produced a debilitating lack of mobility in service to God among the Church even while we are very mobile in our personal lives.

Spirituality that depends on enjoying a spiritual high on Sunday morning while the entire week is secularized does not have the strength to participate in renewal. Accomodation will only prolong this process...

We need strong Christians—strong in Christ's Word—and then they will know the Radical Christ, and He will work through them and change history once again. The single key ingredient in Church 1.0 is not accomodation, but rather a steadfast strengthening program for Christians, as put forth by our Master in these words:

John 8:31- 32 “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Church 1.0

2007-08-12T22:13:00.000-04:00

I've made it clear in previous posts that while much of the Christian and para-Christian world wants the Church to emerge or evolve, I'm convinced that it should devolve. We need Church 1.0. The meaning of this idea is to return us to our roots, to the very foundation that Christ founded His Church upon: Himself, the Cornerstone.

At first glance, this may sound like a ridiculous generalization, but think about it! Is it not true that the main detraction of the Church is undernourished Christians? Is not our problem widespread spiritual anorexia? We starve when not on a steady diet of God's Word. Consider this element of Church 1.0 (Acts 2:42 and 46):

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer...Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts...

Notice that the apostles' teaching (we call this the New Testament, see 2 Peter: 15-16) was a key element to their daily life. And, obviously, they didn't limit this activity to solitude devotions, but experienced it together in prayerful community.

Methodology and techniques have been enshrined as some sort of new gods in the modern and postmodern church. The issue seems to be related to the unique format for spiritual life in our current culture: our basic spiritual existence does not integrate and unify faith and action in the total life.

How to change? How to correct? I'm convinced that only the Holy Spirit can do such, and that means we Christians must have, as Martin Luther described, “living, daring confidence in God's Grace.” It is the ultimate of ironies that He has chosen us broken vessels to help build His kingdom, and it is the ultimate of testimonies that He does this even as we rebel against Him.

Paul proclaims to us in Romans 12:1-2 how we are to change:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

This begs the question: How shall we be transformed? How will our minds be renewed? Again, I direct your attention to the activities of the first Christians: Worship, study of the Scriptures, Communion, each was part of their daily regimen, and it is through the means of God's Grace that the Holy Spirit transformed them into a force of change upon the earth.

Imagine a group of people exhibiting real love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Would this not have a dramatic impact upon the community in which they live? Would God's Grace not splash all around their very neighborhood?

Take the current Church, subtract the institution, add the daily surrender to Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit and you will get Church 1.0.

And, may I remind you, Church 1.0 changed the course of history like no other group of people in the history of the world.

Let's do it again.

To be continued...

Marriages By Design

2007-08-08T21:48:00.000-04:00

My good friends over at Marriages By Design have launched their new site, even if it is in beta right now. They have their new ministry package for helping strengthen marriages and rebuild those that are broken down, keeping Christ at the center. Congrats guys!

Busy Busy

2007-08-07T14:43:00.001-04:00

Well guys, I'm happy to report to you my incredibly busy time has passed. The road ahead will still be a full one, but no longer an over flowing one...ahhh I can breathe a little easier. I'm still in the process of launching a couple of Web sites (more to come on those later in the week), finishing up on some Windows Vista certifications and last but not least getting rolling with the degree program over at Evangel here in Springfield.

But let me tell you, it is much less busy than it has been!

Upcoming topics:

Marriages By Design
Church Practice
Romans

I'll be back tomorrow to write about Marriages By Design...I think you'll be blessed.

God Justifies the Wicked

2007-07-27T23:45:00.000-04:00

Here is the message I delivered on July 22. I learned a great deal and I have a great deal more to learn!

What is the Gospel?

2007-07-26T16:41:00.000-04:00

An interesting question, yes? A question with an obvious answer? Perhaps not.

Since the original controversy between Pelagius and Augustine (indeed, since Christ ascended into Heaven), the Evil One has been trying to pull the church into a "performance-based" Christianity.

Mark Moore responds to such an idea like this:

The gospel is what we must believe in order to be saved. To believe the gospel is to put one's trust and confidence in the person and work of Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. To preach the gospel is faithfully to proclaim that historical event, along with the God-given interpretation of that event. It cannot be stressed too much that to confuse the gospel with certain important things that go hand in hand with it is to invite theological, hermeneutical and spiritual confusion. Such ingredients of preaching and teaching that we might want to link with the gospel would include the need for the gospel (sin and judgment), the means of receiving the benefits of the gospel (faith and repentance), the results or fruits of the gospel (regeneration, conversion, sanctification, glorification) and the results of rejecting it (wrath, judgment, hell). These, however we define and proclaim them, are not in themselves the gospel. If something is not what God did in and through the historical Jesus two thousand years ago, it is not the gospel. Thus Christians cannot 'live the gospel', as they are often exhorted to do. They can only believe it, proclaim it and seek to live consistently with it. Only Jesus lived (and died) the gospel. It is a once-for-all finished and perfected event done for us by another.

(HT: JollyBlogger)

This is an important important distinction that cannot be overstated. With American Christians focused on living missional and being relevant and being authentic (each being an excellent response to God after having received the Gospel), we must maintain careful focus on what it is we are tasked with...namely preaching the Gospel and then making disciples.

Being given the opportunity to Preach the Gospel publicly the other day, this focus seemed all the more important.

The Gospel is not a five or seven step "self-help" program, nor is it a method for living. Instead it is as Paul says in the first chapter of 1 Corinthians:

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Amen!

*Program note: I have obtained the video of my message and I'll post it here tomorrow.

Fun in the North

2007-07-17T13:52:00.000-04:00

Sorry for not posting recently, but I've had a good reason for my absence: Debbie and I were treated to a wonderful gift of vacationing with her parents and siblings on an Alaskan Cruise. It was a tremendous time of adventure and relaxation, not to mention visiting some of the most beautiful scenery on the planet.

This photo shows the two of us in front of a small lake in British Columbia, not far from the Alaskan town of Skagway.

It was an incredibly fun trip that I will never forget. The generosity of Debbie's parents cannot be overstated in treating us to this memorable time to experience such places and at the same time share it with our loved ones. David and Iris: Thank you!

Messaging

2007-07-02T14:17:00.001-04:00

On July 22, I'm going to get the opportunity to deliver a message during a worship service to the Christians I regularly worship with. I'm excited...while I've had three opportunities to do this in the past, they were each at times when I didn't really have the proper time or tools to prepare. Maybe that was good, maybe that was bad, but I'm going to get to find out what it is like to have a full preparation.

I'm thinking about preaching on an excerpt from Romans 4 where Paul proclaims that "...the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."

Did you catch that?

God justifies the wicked. That is to say, God makes bad people righteous. Just sit and let that marinate for a while. God is the God of Justice. He is the source of all Justice, and here He is coming to the people who reject Him and fulfilling Justice Himself and then freely giving righteousness to us!

It is the ultimate Truth in all of the universe.

Now the focus of my message will be, then why do Christians live with guilt? Certainly there is the guilty conscience, but I think you will agree that we can make a distinction between a guilty conscience (healthy guilt, something that accurately reflects our continued state of rebellion against God, even in the midst of His Love to us) and guilt which find's its source in the lies of the evil one.

I'm betting you know the kind of dark guilt I'm referring to here. Where we don't go to God because we are sinful. We don't feel worthy to spend time with other Christians in worship or Bible study.

That kind of guilt is a lie.

I have much more to study in preparation, but if you live in the area consider yourself invited.

I close with these words from Paul in Romans 7 and 8:

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Why I Reject Darwinism

2007-07-01T21:57:00.000-04:00

Do you believe in evolution?

It seems to be the question of the day. I've heard it in recent political debates, I've heard it in recent online forums. It is a great example of an important topic being discussed among the people of our culture.

I doubt you will find anyone who rejects generic evolution, if we define it as "change over time." This is a simple observable fact we can all agree upon.

But, do you mean Darwinian evolution, which—by definition—requires change over time to be guided by natural selection (a completely undirected process) and accounts for the origin of life upon the earth? To accept Darwinian evolution, here are the concepts you must embrace:

Nothing Produced Everything
Non-life Produces Life
Randomness Produces Fine-tuning
Chaos Produces Information
Unconsciousness Produces Consciousness
Non-reason Produces Reason

(HT: Lee Strobel)

Show me one shred of evidence that any of these things have happened in the real world and we'll talk.

Screwtape, Wormwood and MacPhisto

2007-06-28T21:54:00.001-04:00

I've had to travel a great deal lately, and I've been reading C.S. Lewis' book The Screwtape Letters. I simply cannot believe I've read so much of Lewis and only now am reading TSL!

It may be his best work of all.

In the fictional work, the demon Screwtape writes letters to his nephew Wormwood. Each letter discusses, quite frankly, tips and suggestions for Wormwood's capturing the soul of his "patient." Various discourses are provided by Screwtape on how one might go in preventing the patient from being taken by the Enemy, which from his perspective is Christ. Here is such an example:

For this reason I am almost glad to hear that [the patient] is still a churchgoer and a communicant. I know there are dangers in this; but anything is better than that he should realize the break he has made with the first months of his Christian life. As long as he retains externally the habits of a Christian he can still be made to think of himself as one who has adopted a few new friends and amusements but whose spiritual state is much the same as it was six weeks ago. And while he thinks that, we do not have to contend with the explicit repentence of a definite, fully recognized sin, but only with his vague, though uneasy, feeling that he hasn't been doing very well lately.

I would likely quote the entire book if I could because it is so good. So just go get a copy or visit the library you won't regret it. And, besides, if you are a U2 fan, now you'll know where Bono may have gotten the idea for appearing as MacPhisto , where he played the part of a devil named after a demon from a German legend.

Don't wait for the movie, read the book!

Good Reason to Believe

2007-06-28T20:57:00.000-04:00

The notion that Christianity is based on a “leap of faith” rather than an intellectual commitment of mind and soul to God is widespread in our culture. Christianity is not a worldview for the weak-minded and it is not based on a blind leap of faith.

Recently I've been studying the Book of Acts, where Luke writes the history of the first Christians. In Acts 2:32 as Peter was talking to the Christians who had just experienced the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, he did not say "have faith" my brothers! Instead, he said this: "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."

As Christians, we need to join in Peter's approach and testify to the fact of the Resurrection. It is not a mere matter of faith, but rather a faith which maintains a robust relationship with reason.

We all proceed with faith in every matter of our lives, spiritual or otherwise. We proceed with faith that our senses are relatively accurate, especially when we take our lives into our own hands piloting a vehicle at 70+ MPH on the freeway. We also have faith in that situation that our fellow drivers are also in command of their senses! Most of the time, right?

We proceed with faith that the people we trust will do as they say, especially our employers who promise to pay us for work. Indeed, it is quite rational to trust someone who has continuously provided for our needs.

We never abandon that faith in the face of reason, nor should we abandon reason in the face of faith. Rather, as Kyle over at Skeptical Christian (thanks to him for the opening paragraph of this post) suggested in a recent Podcast, faith seems to be just what we experience on a daily basis: we trust in that which we have good reason to believe!

Are we Fizzing?

2007-06-28T19:21:00.000-04:00

What sort of molecular structure leads to an idea? What kind of arrangement of neurons becomes an argument?

If you were to take a bottle of Mountain Dew and another of Dr. Pepper, shake them vigorously, and put them on a table, it would not occur to anyone to ask which one is "winning the debate." They aren't debating; they are just fizzing.

Doug Wilson over at BLOG and MABLOG (my favorite Blog title of all time) has been having an online debate with Christopher Hitchens, a vocal atheist who is out to convince people that --among other things--Christianity is harmful to our world.

Hitchens represents the so-called "new" atheists of our time, which, unlike their predecessors, offer little substance in their arguments. Indeed, many of their claims are not even arguments, but would be better classified as rants!

I suppose this is why I loved Wilson's replies to Hitchens, because his ways with words and wit rival (and I would argue exceed) the talent displayed in Hitchens' fast-footed quips. For Hitchens' every attempt to dodge and duck Wilson's questions to him, Wilson refused to relent . . . and at the same time maintaining the grace one should exhibit as a representative of the great Grace Giver.

Some of Wilson's best quotes from the debate "Is Christianity Good for the World" are shown below with some of my comments:

What I want to know (still) is what warrant you have for calling some behaviors "good" and others "wicked." If both are innate, what distinguishes them? What could be wrong with just flipping a coin? With regard to your retort that my "talent for needless complexity" has simply gotten me "God's coexistence with evil," I reply that I would rather have my God and the problem of evil than your no God and "Evil? No problem!"

Wilson here states a point which atheists rarely even seem to comprehend. They immediately claim that we are trying to take the Moral High Ground when in reality we are just trying to find out how they know what High Ground is! Certainly our goal is not to compare the morality of different groups of people, but rather to demonstrate the similarities.

The next area of their discussion focused on the problem naturalists have in explaining the fact that non-material things (such as the conscious mind and the ideas it produces) exist, as we will see in Wilson's example:

If you were to take a bottle of Mountain Dew and another of Dr. Pepper, shake them vigorously, and put them on a table, it would not occur to anyone to ask which one is "winning the debate." They aren't debating; they are just fizzing. You refer to "language in which to write this argument," and you do so as though you believed in a universe where argument was a meaningful concept. Argument? Argument? I have no need for your "argument hypothesis." Just matter in motion, man.

Wilson then responds to Hitchens' simple rejection of the evidence of the Resurrection with the mere wave of the hand, calling Hitchens to actually deal with the evidence, one way or the other:

Actually, I believe I can present evidence for what I know. But evidence comes to us like food, and that is why we say grace over it. And we are supposed to eat it, not push it around on the plate—and if we don't give thanks, it never tastes right. But here is some evidence for you, in no particular order. The engineering that went into ankles. The taste of beer. That Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, just like he said. A woman's neck. Bees fooling around in the flower bed. The ability of acorns to manufacture enormous oaks out of stuff they find in the air and dirt. Forgiveness of sin. Storms out of the North, the kind with lightning. Joyous laughter (diaphragm spasms to the atheistic materialist). The ocean at night with a full moon. Delta blues. The peacock that lives in my yard. Sunrise, in color. Baptizing babies. The pleasure of sneezing. Eye contact. Having your feet removed from the miry clay, and established forever on the rock. You may say none of this tastes right to you. But suppose you were to bow your head and say grace over all of it. Try it that way.

You say that you cannot believe that Christ's death on the Cross was salvation for the world because the idea is absurd. I have shown in various ways that absurdity has not been a disqualifier for any number of your current beliefs. You praise reason to the heights, yet will not give reasons for your strident and inflexible moral judgments, or why you have arbitrarily dubbed certain chemical processes "rational argument." That's absurd right now, and yet there you are, holding it. So for you to refuse to accept Christ because it is absurd is like a man at one end of the pool refusing to move to the other end because he might get wet. Given your premises, you will have to come up with a different reason for rejecting Christ as you do.
But for you to make this move would reveal the two fundamental tenets of true atheism. One: There is no God. Two: I hate Him.

In my own experience with atheists, rarely have I encountered an attitude of really wanting to look at the facts, or to deal with various aspects of our reality that don't match up with their worldview. In my own studies of validation for my worldview I actually plunged into doubts about many of the truths I was raised with...the process of validation helped me learn the "why" of who I am and where I came from and where I'm going. The answers to these questions ultimately form or remove the barrier that exists between us and the truth about God.

There are, however, atheists who have decided to honestly look at the evidence. Anthony Flew, who only a few years ago was among the top names among atheists has recently become a theist. Watch a video interview with him here.

Are We Thinking?

2007-06-13T11:52:00.001-04:00

Consider that we live in a time when many people are certain that we should not be certain about anything.

Consider that we live in a culture where right and wrong are relegated to a level of personal preference: a culture of choice. Do you prefer vanilla or chocolate? Do you prefer the baby lives or dies? Its your choice.

Are we thinking?

Consider that we are educated to believe that everything came from nothing and that our conscious minds came from random unconsciousness. We are taught that where we see order, it is really chaos. I wonder, what should we think then of chaos?

Are we thinking?

Consider that we are reminded that there is no truth. Is that true? It is suggested that each of us has our own story and that is where we find our own meaning. Does that mean everyone is right?

If that is true, then why do so many people disagree? Oh, perhaps that is because there is no truth.

Are we thinking?

Consider those who say that all religions lead to the same god or to the same conclusion. We're each discovering one piece of the same truth they say...is that true? Or is there any truth?

Jesus is a good teacher, they say. They just don't like what he taught.

Are we thinking?

Stop fighting, they say. Pull out the troops and the others will be sure to follow. They are a people of peace they say.

I look and I find “people of peace” everywhere, but regardless of their skin color, their heritage or their beliefs, I don't see peace.

Are we thinking?

They keep telling us, everyone is right and no one is wrong. These are the same ones who say we should not be certain. They tell us there is no truth and that there is no right and wrong and that everything came from nothing. Perhaps they think doing it their way will result in spontaneous peace out of an ocean of war the same way they think the universe generated spontaneous life out of a pond of goo.

Are we thinking?

Consider that when you place your head on your pillow tonight that millions don't have a pillow. Are we to believe that by not being certain, by adhering to a world that has no meaning because it is all a big nasty coincidence, by thinking that right and wrong are a matter of choice, by accepting the notion that there is no truth and that humans find their own narcissistic meaning in their stories...are we to believe that will somehow help those children who will starve tonight, or have their throats slit by evil men, or the slave girls who will be raped tonight by their owners or the family destroyed by fire or the victims of countless storms which destroy their homes?!?

Are we thinking?

I trust the Most High. The Living God. I have encountered him personally, spiritually and physically. I testify to you that He is with all of His suffering children. I testify to you that He is real and that He is whispering your name as a lover of your soul. His Love is better than life. He is the Truth. He is the Way. And, He is the Life. Call out to Him and He will rescue you. He has been pursuing you during each breath that you've drawn, for He is the one who has given each one to you.

And He wants to give you so much more.

Are you Confessional?

2007-06-07T00:34:00.001-04:00

When we contrasted the current cultural label of “evangelical” with the traditional idea of being one who shares the gospel, we saw many significant differences. I shared how my experience with Christianity has been different, having been brought up in a confessional tradition.

What does that mean...confessional?

It is a question of immense importance because it is a foundational description of one's approach to Christianity on just about every level. And, I must admit that it I've struggled with defining the concept here.

If you were to do a lookup on what others have say about this topic, especially those of Confessional Lutheran tradition, you will see that the discussion always seems to revolve around exegesis. That is to say, confessional Christianity finds itself focused on on critical explanation or interpretation of the Scriptures...literally put: to read out the texts.

Now, it is important to understand how this manifests itself in the business of doing Christianity. For one thing, everything seems to start with the phrase that as Christians we believe, teach and confess. These concepts seem to be inseparable for the confessional Christian because they represent how one would approach his/her theology. Rather than Christianity being some sort of continuum which ebbs and flows with time, morphing with culture or circumstance, the act of confessing declare's one's position and draws a line in the sand as it were. The Formula of Concord is the prime example of confessional Christianity in my own tradition as it represents the exegesis of Scripture centered squarely on Jesus Christ.

Not upon the sovereignty or glory of God...but upon the Word made flesh.

Interestingly, there is a great deal of discussion among evangelicals about the idea of being missional. When I look for definitions of this idea I find paragraphs like these: “Missional means: to participate in the mission of Jesus in the world, to incarnate in the experiences of our lives and our communities the good news of God’s love for the world.”

When I read about such ideas I find nothing but good in them . . . but being missional seems to be a result of one's theological conclusions rather than a foundational approach to Christianity. Living out your faith implies that it must be defined first. For example, why couldn't a confessional Christian be missional? Indeed one could and one should!

And this draws me to my criticism of some confessional Christians (especially those purple-cross ones like me). Just like the bad trends among evangelicals there are bad trends among confessionals:

The High Church Movement - I don't know how many of my evangelical friends have encountered this approach to Christianity but it is downright disturbing. Putting the Confessions above Scripture (even when not intended), those in this movement seem to focus on ensuring that the reality of Christianity will be forever burdened by “religion” in the worst sense of the word. In Christian doctrine, we understand that there is an idea known as the visible church and another idea known as the invisible church (As the Church invisible, the church consists of all those from every time and place, who are vitally united to Christ through regeneration and salvation and who will be eternally united to Jesus Christ in eternal life. The Church visible consists of all those who visibly join themselves to a profession of faith and gathering together to know and serve the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.). If you corner a High-Churcher, you might just get them to say that “we” (read LCMS) are the visible church. One word fellas: Yikes.
Doctrinal Arrogance - If I'm going to criticize then I'd better be willing to be criticized. I know confessional Christians are doctrinally arrogant because I find myself in this condition all too often. While the symbols of the Scriptures might be the true formula of Scriptures, our attitude about them needs to remain in check. Jesus was Truth Incarnate and He never lorded his Truth over others. Indeed, the focus of the Symbols is Grace, which was the focus of our Master...and should always be ours as well. (Special thanks to my online friend Rob for help in this matter...you know dude, we need to get together for coffee sometime...).
A de-emphasis on missional living - Another way of saying this is that my Lutheran brothers might have great doctrine but I really think our practice stinks. Lutherans love to talk about fishing...but do they fish? Indeed they do, but man...we could learn from our evengelical/missional brothers and sisters!
Cross Inversion - This is basically a modern form of Phariseeism. It starts like this: We need to be Christ Centered and Cross Focused. Great, you go on with your bad self. But then, we become so proud of our Christ Centeredness and our Cross Focusness that we are anything but! Case in point: I was told once that printing out prayers so that visitors could read them (you know, the ones who don't have the liturgy and prayers memorized) is a flawed approach to worship because it is man-centered instead of Christ centered. Huh?!?
Attitude - I have been scouring the Web for a Lutheran blog that isn't all about bashing people that aren't confessional. I know there is at least one out there, but I haven't found one yet. Come ON people! We are going to spend eternity together...

My purpose in this series is that we all have room for improvement and should continue to live by the Spirit as Paul teaches us in Romans 8 and Galatians 5.

But my real question is this: Why must we limit ourselves to either being evangelical, confessional or missional?

If you read 1 Peter chapter 3, you will find the Apostle being...

Evangelical: “...But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect...” (1 Peter 3:15)
Confessional: “...and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him...” (1 Peter 3:21-22)
and Missional: “...Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives...” (1 Peter 3:1-2)

It would seem that to be Christian is to be confessional, to be evangelical and to be missional. Let's celebrate that journey together.

Are You an “Evangelical?”

2007-05-30T14:12:00.001-04:00

For the longest time, I would have answered this question with a yes. For me, I received the question without an understanding of what was truly being asked. I was assuming they were asking if I was a Christian who strived to share the Gospel with people...but I've grown to understand that the term “evangelical” is not necessarily describing such. While I am not about to toss around labels in an effort to categorize people, my point here is to understand different approaches to Christianity. Perhaps it is so I can understand the people I read/meet/talk with.

Perhaps it is so I can understand myself.

I've discussed here that one of my goals is not to be involved with improving the church but rather to be involved in returning the church to its original form — the church that Jesus planted: Church 1.0.

Either way, I recently came across this list of “Ten Deadly Trappings of Evangelism” over at Joe Carter's Evangelical Outpost. Here is the summarized list of evangelical fixtures which Joe considers to be particularly harmful, with some of his comments following each point:

Making Converts — I've always felt uneasy about the idea that Christians should be seeking to make converts. Am I wrong in thinking that the making of converts is a task associated with Islam, rather than Christianity? Perhaps I have a flawed understanding of the Gospel, but I always thought the purpose of evangelism is not to make converts but to make, as Christ commanded, disciples. Indeed, my primary complaint against each of the other nine methods on this list is that they are usually ineffective in instigating true conversion much less helping make true disciples.
The Sinner's Prayer — The gates of hell have a special entrance reserved for people who thought that they had a ticket into heaven because someone told them all they needed to do was recite the "sinner's prayer."
“Do you know Jesus as...” — This is one question that needs never be asked for it shows (a) you do not know the person well enough, (b) the answer is yes and the person is a lousy Christian, or (c) the answer is no in which case you just activated their Fundie-alert system and caused them to switch their brains into ignore mode. Instead of asking about a "personal savior" you might want to simply try to get to know the person.
Tribulationism — Ask a non-believer to give a rudimentary explanation of "the Rapture" and chances are they can provide a fairly accurate description of that concept. Ask the same person to give a basic explanation of the Gospel message, though, and they are likely to be stumped. The reason for this curious state of affairs is that evangelicals have promoted what I refer to as "Tribulationism" -- an overemphasis on eschatology that overshadows the Gospel. I'm sure that somewhere in the three dozen novels that comprise the Left Behind series the Gospel message is presented. But there is something horribly wrong when the greatest story ever told is buried beneath a third-rate tale of the apocalypse.
Testimonies — Several years ago, during a job interview for a Christian organization, my prospective employer asked me to tell him my "testimony." The fact that I was a Christian apparently wasn't enough. I had to have a good conversion story to go along with my faith. Now you may have a great story about how the hound of Heaven" chased you down and gnawed on your leg until you surrendered. No doubt your story would make for a gripping movie of the week on Lifetime and lead to the making of numerous converts (see #1). But the harsh truth is that your story doesn't much matter. You are only a bit player in the narrative thread; the main part goes to the Divine Protagonist. In fact, He already has a pretty good story so why not just tell that one instead?
The Altar Call — In the 1820's evangelist Charles Finney introduced the "anxious seat," a front pew left vacant where at the end of the meeting "the anxious may come and be addressed particularly--and sometimes be conversed with individually." At the end of his sermon, he would say, "There is the anxious seat; come out, and avow determination to be on the Lord's side."
Witnessing — Evangelism ain't Amway. It is not a form of Multi-Level Marketing in which you get extra credit for the number of people in your network and you don’t get a great commission for the Great Commission. If you want to sell something door-to-door make it Amway products not the Good News.
Protestant Prayers — We have entire books to teach us how to pray yet Jesus managed to wrap up the lesson in less than forty words. Why isn't that prayer good enough for evangelicals to use?
The Church Growth Movement — Let me know if you find anyone that tells you they think the church growth movement is a movement in the church to grow disciples.
Chick Tracts — Chick Tracts are a tool of the devil. That fact--and yes it is a fact--is not changed just because you know a guy who knows a guy who heard testimony about a guy who said the Sinner' Prayer after finding "The Long Trip" on the floor of a truck stop restroom.

My Lutheran heritage only exposed me directly to numbers 7, 9 and 10 (especially 9, the Church Growth Movement). As a kid, I did always think it was strange that my Baptist and Pentecostal friends always had altar calls but never had actual altars! I remember thinking around age 7 or 8: “hey, our church as an altar, but we never have an altar call?” Once, when I was at a friend's church, he invited me to come forward with him to rededicate my life to Christ, so I went forward with him. But not because I was in the process of rededicating my life to Christ, but because I was pressured to do so. What a very weird experience.

Regarding The Lord's Prayer, I remember being told by a preacher once that it was an example of a “baby prayer” that someone prays when they first become a Christian.

(Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying my Lutheran upbringing was all perfect and wonderful, for that is another story for another post.)

My point is this: Each of the points above are indeed commonly found fixtures in American Evangelical churches and each represent a departure from Scripture. I've begun wondering if some of the emergent movement is an attempt to throw off some of these fixtures...so here I sit agreeing with that trend, but all the while wanting to ensure that we do not throw off the good stuff at the same time...hoping we don't throw the baby out with the bath water as it were.

So, I don't think I could consider myself an evangelical if it means we include these approaches to ministry...but I do consider myself to be evangelical, meaning that I have a passion to share the gospel...with the goal of helping to make disciples of all nations.

So if Lutherans are not “evangelicals” then what are they? Again, I'm using these labels with a grain of salt, merely to have the conversation so that I can learn and grow in understanding about being a follower of Jesus in a very polarized culture.

I'm guessing that if I were to write a letter to my denominational headquarters with this question, they would respond that Lutherans are not evangelicals, but rather they are confessional.

What does that mean? We'll have to talk more about that next time.

5 Reasons God Exists

2007-05-24T14:03:00.000-04:00

10 Questions

2007-05-22T14:10:00.001-04:00

Scott Klusendorf over at the Life Training Institute Blog has delivered an incredible post. His 10 Questions for Secular Critics are ten questions we should all study and eventually memorize when discussing the abortion issue in our culture. I highly encourage you to read his post, but I want to summarize his ten questions to help motivate you to go there right now:

What counts as real knowledge?
What is the pro-life case and why, exactly, is that case mistaken?
How does it follow that because the pro-life view is consistent with a particular religious viewpoint (such as Christian theism, Conservative Judaism, or Islam) that it can only be defended with arguments exclusive to that viewpoint?
Why is the claim that an embryo has value any more religious than saying a 10-year old has value?
How can a strictly materialistic (secular) worldview explain why anything has value or a right to life?
How can secular materialism account for moral oughtness?
Are you saying religious conservatives should be denied a voice in the public square? If not, what exactly is your point?
Can you show me an argument for abortion rights that doesn't assume some transcendent grounding point?
Why is it okay for you to do metaphysics but when I do, you scream foul?
How can secular materialism account for minds and ideas?

Scott's summation points out that a theistic universe better explains human rights and human dignity:

For the theist, humans have value in virtue of the kind of thing they are, creatures who bear the image of their maker. At the same time, objective morals make sense because they are grounded in the character of an objective moral law giver. Secular atheists, meanwhile, have difficulty offering a substantive ontological foundation for human dignity, human rights, or moral obligations. As Paul Copan points out, they can certainly recognize moral truth epistemologically, but they can’t ground their moral claims ontologically. In short, they can’t really tell us why we ought to behave rightly on abortion or any other moral issue. Nor can they plausibly account for basic human rights, like the right to life or even the alleged right to an abortion.

Scott's outstanding post is intended to provide a thoughtful discussion with pro-abortion advocates, but I think his questions on this topic speak to an overarching issue that our culture is steeped in: A postmodern combination of Relativism, Political Correctness and Society-Imposed Atheism. These self-contradictory positions are replete with positions that are inconsistent and intellectually dishonest...and yet they are “accepted” so routinely by a loud voice in our culture.

I hope that Scott's questions get asked to many of those who hold the megaphone...and that they will honestly answer them. Over five million children have been aborted since the start of the Iraqi War and few seem to notice this unspeakable tragedy...I pray that more will...thank you for your continued efforts Scott!!

Pastoral Thoughts

2007-05-21T14:28:00.001-04:00

Sorry for the long time between posts. I've been off preparing for and delivering some high-end IT classes that have used every available brain cell...phew. Well, admittedly, there are always a few brain cells reserved to pondering philosophy, theology and the general business of helping to build God's Kingdom during this Sojourn.

One thought that has been on my mind is the word “Pastor.” It is an interesting word which has an interesting history. Since this is the vocational path I've chosen (Lord willing), I thought it might be appropriate to study the word, the concept and the vocation. Here are some important points I've looked at briefly:

My reference to the word is drawn from the Greek word ποιμην (poimēn), which appears 18 times in the New Testament. The uses of the word are translated as either shepherd or pastor. Most English translations render poimēn as it appears in Ephesians 4:11 as pastor.
1 Peter 5 describes the act of pastoring as one of Christ-emulation since Christ was the ultimate Shepherd.
People who are pastors and “lord it over” those entrusted to them are operating contrary to what a pastor is called to be.
Leadership through servanthood is the model. In every case that shepherding or pastoring is described, it is in a context of sacrifice.

The emergent movement of our time seems to want to radically reduce or completely remove the role of a pastor for a variety of reasons. Some of the ideas they put forth are healthy ones: the pastors of the NT are not political leaders, nor are they intended to be the sole one who does the work of the church. Indeed, Christianity functions in community as a participatory medium.

Those who love Jesus respond to His love by helping to build His Kingdom as they are gifted by Him to do so...Paul's description in Ephesians 4:11 could not be better stated:

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

But as we see in this one of many examples, reducing or removing the role of the Pastor would be anti-biblical and as a result a large mistake.

Pastoral vocation seems to be about serving. I suspect however, that those who want to do away with the concept are really just wanting to restore this meaning to the vocation, and in that spirit, I'm in complete agreement.

The word “pastor” conjures up many things to many people. I pray that it would once again begin to conjure up the intended meaning: one who cares for and serves the flock.

A successful pastor, it would seem, is not a lone leader, but rather a corporate servant complimented by others working for the same purpose. He is among others who join him in the process of “preparing God's people for works of service.” A successful pastor would not necessarily be the one who has built a large megachurch so he can drive a Lexus to Sunday meeting, but rather the one who is involved in a community which changes the people around them...a community exhibiting love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

I'm convinced that such a community would eventually rival the best megachurches in terms of logistics and resources, but change the world on a far grander scale...one person at a time.

A Time of Trouble

2007-05-04T12:34:00.001-04:00

In light of today's post of how communication mediums can be abused, I felt obliged to pass along this little twist that I fear is far more common place than we realize.

Michael Behe, a microbiologist who wrote the controversial book Darwin's Black Box was asked to write a piece for Time Magazine. Incredibly, what Time printed was dramatically different than what Behe submitted. View the two links below:

What Behe submitted:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/time_what_michael_behe_actuall.html#more

What Time printed:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100/article/0,28804,1595326_1595329_1616137,00.html

It is clear that the editors of Time had a clear agenda in painting Behe as a Bahble-thumping fundamentalist and disregarded the substance of what he had to say. Rarely (I hope) will we see such a clear-cut example of media bias. Wow.

Communication Questions

2007-05-04T11:25:00.001-04:00

Keith over at The Christian Mind quotes James M. Houston in a discussion about Christendom's flirtation with technology, where the idea is put forth that Christians have completely succumbed to this powerful delivery medium. The contention is that experiences of weeping at the viewing of The Passion of the Christ or powerful images in a pastor's PowerPoint presentation could (and have according to Houston) eclipse the messages themselves.

I respectfully disagree.

I think the confusion lies in distinguishing between the marketing of an idea and the communication of an idea. We are right to be cautious and even skeptical of any message that is marketed to us, be it Gospel-oriented or otherwise. What is the purpose of marketing?

Sell. Sell. Sell.

I think this is where Houston's opinion originates. And, without a doubt Christians have succumbed to the unending waves of marketing on just about every level. There are at least three books, two DVD's and one magazine that I would love to run down to Mardell's and get right now. (Don't worry honey, I wont!)

But Houston goes one step further: the suggestion is that the medium itself is the evil at work. The very notion of watching the nails piercing Christ's hands rather than reading about this event is what Houston is concerned about:

People wept over its celluloid presentation as they never would have done in reading the Gospel narrative because it was so much more vivid to the senses. Was their response then hyper-real or real?

An excellent question, and I think there would be different answers for different people. My own testimony demands that my reaction was real. Why? Because the viewing of this presentation transported me to the streets of Jerusalem—to Golgotha itself—in a way I had never experienced in my life. Did I, for one second believe that this was a 100% true account of the events of that first century spring day in Palestine? By no means! Rather the portrayal took me deep within my heart, reminding me of my own sin and providing a visual affront to my deep-seeded resistance to understanding what the real price was for my soul.

I certainly knew that it was Jim Caviezel and not Jesus of Nazareth. I knew the “stripes” were not indeed the ones by which I'm healed and I knew that the Resurrection was far more incredible than the one briefly shown to us.

But none of this takes away the value of the communication medium itself! Suspension of disbelief is something we have all learned very early on growing up in a generation of ultra-rapid progress of communication technology. I don't think I'm unique in this respect.

This goes back to a misunderstanding I encounter frequently in evangelicalism: a poor understanding of sin. For every tool, there is the one (or the many) who misuse that tool. Be it the printing press, the big screen, the Internet or PowerPoint, there will be people who misuse the tool. The total depravity of man remains, and it is the job of the church to continue to preach Christ and Him crucified. And, we must preach it from the mountain tops—even if those mountain tops are virtual.

Should we abandon the use of motorized vehicles or telephones or postal mail because these mediums have been abused? Certainly not! Rather, we apply the same principles of Scripture which has kept the church from being destroyed for over two millennia. And we trust our Master to guide us along the way...and to bear witness to the Truth.

We are utterly lost, and he has utterly saved us. Period. You just read those words and it is not the pixels which will help you or me, but rather the work of the Holy Spirit.

It is the message, not the medium.

**Note: I had oringally listed Lauren Winner as the author of the quote above, when it was actually James M. Houston. Thanks for the clarification Keith!

Sounds Fishy to Me

2007-05-01T11:20:00.001-04:00

Now it came to pass that a group existed that called themselves fishermen and there were many fish in the waters about them. In fact, the whole area was surrounded by streams and lakes and the fish were hungry. Week after week and month after month and year after year the group that called themselves “fishermen” met in meetings and talked about those called to fish, the abundance of fish, and how we might go about fishing. Year after year they carefully defined what fishing meant, defending fishing as an occupation, and declared that fishing be the primary talk of fisherman. These fisherman built large beautiful buildings for local fishing headquarters and their plea was that everyone should be a fisherman and that everyone should fish. However, the one thing they did not do, they did not fish!

In addition to meeting regularly these men determined to send out fishermen to places where there were many fish. This sending committee was headed by those who had great vision and had courage to speak about fishing and to promote the idea of fishing in far away streams and lakes, held meetings to define fishing, to defend fishing, and to decide what new streams should be thought about. But the one thing the staff and the committee members did not do, they did not fish!

Large, elaborate training centers were built whose original and primary purpose was to teach fisherman how to fish. Over the years, courses were offered on the needs of the fish, the nature of the fish, how to find fish, and the psychological effects of fishing. Those who taught had doctorates in ‘Fisheology’! But the teachers did not fish! They only taught about fishing.

Further, the fishermen built large printing houses to publish fishing guides. Presses were kept busy day and night to produce material solely devoted to fishing methods. A speaker’s bureau was also organized to schedule special speakers on fishing. After one stirring meeting entitled ‘The Necessity Of Fishing’, two young men left the meeting and actually went fishing and one of them actually caught two fish! He was honored for his great catch and was scheduled to appear at all the big meetings to tell how he did it. So he quit fishing in order to have time to tell his experiences to the other fishermen!

Now it is true that many fisherman sacrificed and put up with all kinds of difficulties. Some lived near the water and had to put up with the smell of dead fish. Some had to endure the ridicule of some who made fun of these fishermen’s because they claimed to be fisherman but they did not fish.

And they wondered about those who thought it was of little use to attend meetings and talk about fishing. I mean, after all, were they not following the Master who said, “Come and I will make you fishers of men”?

Can we rightfully call a person a fisherman if year after year he never catches a fish?

**Note: After repeated attempts, I have been unable to discover who originally wrote the piece above. I originally heard the article read in a Bible Study circa 1990, and at that time it was accredited to a Mennonite pastor. I've tried to find this article for years, so special thanks to Bishan Church for posting it recently.

Don't Be So Certain!

2007-04-24T19:58:00.000-04:00

They say the best humor is so funny because it is rooted in the truth. David over at Horn Swoggled is at it again:

The Universalist Unitarian Conference has launched a new in-reach ministry designed to make its members more ambivalent about their association with the group. UUC President Walter Forde said the program is designed to address a troubling trend: confidence among members that their decision to become a Unitarian Universalist was correct.

"As I travel across the country, I meet people from all walks of life. Many of them share their thankfulness that the cosmos led them to unitarian universalism," Forde said. "While I understand their karmic sensibility, I have to shake my head at their naivete in believing so strongly."

You'll want to read the whole post!

Preaching

2007-04-18T11:52:00.001-04:00

What should we think about preaching? This is an important question. As our generation struggles with how the church should evolve (or, perhaps devolve?) it seems one of the things that gets reduced is preaching. I would suggest that we need to carefully think about this.

In my community of Christians, we have adopted a metaphor where we look at Christian Community as an airplane which has two wings. This metaphor—I think—was coined by William Beckham in his book The Second Reformation: Reshaping the Church for the 21st Century, where he recognizes the need for a small group cell model for community (think house church/simple church etc.) and the need for corporate worship (think gatherings for the explicit purpose of worship, preaching, teaching, etc.).

The two wings are drawn from Acts 2:42-47 where Luke describes Church 1.0. One wing was meeting at the temple, the other wing was meeting in their homes. The concern is that when we limit our community to only small groups we potentially can lose some of the benefits we best receive in a more corporate setting: mainly that of preaching.

In our culture, I'm skeptical that the dynamic of preaching can work in a living room with 6-12 adults (not to mention the kids playing down the hall or downstairs). And yet, preaching was a an important component of Church 1.0.

Use your favorite tool to search the scriptures for the word preaching. In the NIV, I found many explicit examples of preaching by the Old Testament Prophets, the New Testament Apostles and of course Jesus' entire public ministry was marked by His preaching about the Kingdom of God!

We must not forget the importance of preaching.

***

Ask yourself, have you ever listened to a sermon that caused you to do a double-take? I have many times and a recent example stands out prominently in my mind. I had a situation with a consulting role of mine where the client was consistently not paying when we agreed he would pay. My emotions got the best of me and in my anger I privately planned to end the relationship once and for all.

Now, just with those facts you might notice I was not being Christlike in my thinking and my decision making. And, since I was mad, I was not interesting in praying about it. Ironically, part of the reason for my anger was that I was counting on the money for a trip to Kansas City the following day to meet some old friends for church and dinner.

That next morning, when we arrived at the church the pastor preached on dealing with difficult situations involving employers and how we should not allow our emotions to get the best of us. This was not just his application, but rather it was his explicit message.

God clearly used this sermon to settle me down and make me consult HIM prior to making a rash decision. Further, through this sermon He helped me see where my own sin was part of the cause the problem.

My consulting arrangement is ideal for helping me earn the funds necessary for attending seminary in 2009 so it would not be wise to storm out of such a beneficial arrangement just because things didn't go precisely as I would want them to. Preaching impacted my life in a dramatic way that day, and it certainly has not been the only time that has happened.

***
Voddie Baucham is another preacher I listened to recently who gave a powerful message which had a powerful impact on me. This morning, I read an interview with him over at Unashamed Workman (HT: Between Two Worlds) where he was asked about the importance of preaching:

I believe preaching is central to the grand scheme of church life (see Acts 2:42ff). Preaching/teaching sets the tone and the parameters for all other functions of the church. Our understanding of fellowship, evangelism, discipline, worship, etc., all arise out of our understanding of God’s word. Without sound preaching and teaching, all else will falter. Hence, preaching is of seminal importance in the grand scheme of church life.

He also comments on how preaching does not mean we must create artificial separation between laity and clergy:

...I am one of three elders at our church. All of us preach and all of us shepherd. We are also raising up young men to carry the load. We do not see ourselves as part of a clergy/laity divide. We are merely gifted men equipping other for the work (Ephesians 4:11). We do not believe God has called us to do the work ourselves. This is incredibly freeing.

These are all good thoughts for us to consider as we seek to shape our Christian Communities in the future and find a way back to Church 1.0. I encourage your feedback!

Faithful Reasoning

2007-04-17T15:40:00.001-04:00

William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland have both recently launched Web sites promoting their writings and talks. Craig's site, www.reasonablefaith.org is right with downloadable MP3's, PDF's, etc. Moreland's site is more of a blog. (HT: Between Two Worlds / STR)

An article on Craig's site (registration required) highlights some of the important concepts often forgotten by folks who erroneously suggest faith requires you to check your brain at the door. Consider these thoughts offered by Dr. Craig:

...the whole scientific enterprise is based on certain assumptions which cannot be proved scientifically, but which are guaranteed by the Christian world view; for example: the laws of logic, the orderly nature of the external world, the reliability of our cognitive faculties in knowing the world, and the objectivity of the moral values used in science. I want to emphasize that science could not even exist without these assumptions, and yet these assumptions cannot be proved scientifically. They are philosophical assumptions which, interestingly, are part and parcel of a Christian world view. Thus, religion is relevant to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. More than that, the Christian religion historically did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born and nurtured.

Worldview Superiority

2007-04-11T10:31:00.001-04:00

Continuing on this discussion with Rob and company about Politics, Faith and Abortion, Rob stopped by and brought up a profound point: “We continue to communicate that we have a superior worldview and that anyone who does not agree with us is illogical or immoral.”

While this is not my intention (to suggest those who disagree with my points are illogical or immoral) I have clearly sought to support my points through logic and morality. Hence, I've forced people into a corner...and to what end? To, as Rob rightly hopes against, win a worldview competition? CERTAINLY NOT!

This is a critical point for me, because I'm not interested in winning a debate. I'm interested in saving some of the nearly 4000 children who are aborted each day in the United States!

Rob rightly suggested that this can only be changed with Jesus' love, not with politics and laws. I heartily agree with that. Indeed, my church is lanching a Crisis Pregnancy Center that I will be involved with, and perhaps we can make an impact in our own community. But does this mean we can not discuss matters that are charged with such emotional energy in the public square? Does that mean we cannot appeal to simple logic when we try to grapple with such difficult issues? People who share different points of view certainly will not stop trying to persuade us!

My questions are not rhetorical, nor are they satirical. I truly seek feedback on this. How do we engage our culture which suggests no objective truth exists and try to persuade them otherwise? The minute we do, we are accused of being right-wing fundamentalists! In my mind that pejorative term delivers the image of a backwoods hillbilly that does things only because their “bahble sahys ta do that.”

It is clear I need to learn how to communicate ideas of logic and morality in ways that do not generate such intense rejections, but rather promote healthy discussions.

It is interesting: Others who started religions (Muhammed, Bhudda, etc.) said things like “this is the way” or “that is the way” while Jesus said “I AM the way.” He loved people from a point of truth, not out of some sort of warm fuzzy notion. He did not back down from the truth, but rather he embodied it.

He didn't try to win a worldview contest, he simply lived and taught the truth. I will study this and I will seek to do the same...

Politics, Religion and Abortion

2007-04-10T21:41:00.001-04:00

A powerful discussion has developed over at Rob's blog. Rob must have been wanting to spike his traffic by posting a video from Barack Obama and then just saying “Feedback?” It reminds me of those comedy skits where the commentator would throw a controversy out and shout in her best New Jersey accent: “Discuss!”

All joking aside, since it was a political discussion I went and dropped the “A” bomb. I brought up Abortion:

1. The taking of an innocent life is wrong.
2. Abortion takes the life an innocent life.
3. Abortion is wrong.
4. Obama supports the pro-Abortion laws which exist in our country.

I always struggle with candidates who support abortion. You see, I really like some of what Obama has to say. He has a compassionate spirit that permeates his talks and his writing. He is gifted in understanding that Americans are tired of political games. But I cannot get past the abortion issue because it is so very important.

Obama's position is that he is personally against abortion but feels that it is a personal decision for each American -- hence the current laws dealing with abortion should be maintained.

I find this to be illogical. That is like me saying I'm personally against stealing, but each American should be able to choose for themselves.

Another example of this logic: I personally am opposed to illicit drug use, but perhaps we should each be able to do to our own bodies whatever we want.

We do not use this logic with any other issue in morality. Why does Obama employ it here?
I suggest that it is because he is towing the party line.

It is imperative to note, however, that I never omit God's grace from the dilemma of Abortion! Christ is our Risen Savior! He is the one who delivers us from ALL sins. Grace is ever present to us who fail to live up to the standard our Master demands.

But this discussion is about who to vote for in 2008. And I'm back to this inescapable truth:

1. If a fetus is a person, then no justification for abortion is adequate.
2. If a fetus is not a person, no justification is necessary.

When I listen to Obama's relativism I do not hear a man seeking to resolve this issue, but rather to avoid it. Indeed! In the video you will find on Rob's post, he says that to draw such dramatic distinctions as this is dangerous!

I find his entire speech to be an effort to win disgruntled conservative votes...rather than offer true solutions that his faith should inform. And yet, while he and I are worlds apart in politics, we are together in the grace offered to us by our Master, Jesus Christ.

Of First Importance

2007-04-06T19:53:00.000-04:00

Today's guest blogger is Paul of Tarsus:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

1 Corinthians 15:3-7

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28

Maundy Thursday

2007-04-05T10:05:00.001-04:00

The Thursday prior to Easter is celebrated by millions of Christians as Maundy Thursday. Many of my evangelical friends look at me strange when I tell them today is Maundy Thursday, thinking perhaps I'm confused about what day it is (“Mark, it is Thursday, not Monday” they will often say).

Other friends of mine will think I've gone Roman Catholic or Anglican on them and assume I'm adhering to some obscure church holiday which remembers a certain pope or a special day to give alms.

There have been different observances of this day through the centuries by Christians of different traditions, but the tradition I've grown up in (think German and Lutheran) focuses on the words of Jesus and the events of that night in which he was betrayed...to arrive at “Maundy” Thursday.

In our tradition we focus on the events in the upper room the night before Jesus died. These upper room events are described in Matthew 26:20-30, Mark 14:17-26, Luke 22:14-35, and John 13 - 17. Matthew, Mark, and Luke focus on the institution of the Lord's Supper and the eating of the Passover meal. John focuses on the words of Jesus and His washing of the disciples feet.

The name "maundy" comes from the words of Jesus, "Mandatum novum" ("a new commandment," John 13:34). From the Fourth Century on, Maundy Thursday, was viewed as the last day of the Lenten fast and also as the day of reconciliation (i.e., when those excommunicated could repent and be reconciled to the Church). See Francis X. Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1958), 188-189.

Since it was on this night that Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, Communion has often been the chief emphasis of Maundy Thursday. You would certainly find this to be true in our community of believers. The Lord's Supper is described in detail and celebrated fully. Often we will even include the full Seder meal, truly remembering the actual meal that Jesus and His Disciples would have eaten that night and discussing why they ate it.

At the end of the service, the altar is stripped, in preparation for Good Friday. This symbolizes Christ's being stripped by the Roman soldiers prior to His crucifixion. Psalm 22, a Messianic Psalm written hundreds of years prior to the events of Holy Week, which clearly prophesies the Messiah's death, is read while the altar is stripped.

From ancient times the Church in various places has also observed a ceremony of footwashing, in memory of our Lord washing his disciples feet on this night (see John 13). This liturgy of footwashing came to be called mandatum. While the churches I have attended have not done this, I think it is also an incredible tradition that should be brought back and celebrated more often. How would it affect us to truly wash each others' feet?!?

Maundy Thursday was the day the New Covenant was initiated between God and us. All things began the process of becoming new...

And how did Christ initiate the New Covenant? By giving us His body and His blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Consider these words recorded in the 9th chapter of Hebrews and think about celebrating Maundy Thursday:

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Are you Pauline?

2007-03-29T21:10:00.000-04:00

Many movements exist within Christianity today. I'm convinced that the questions current generations are grappling with are important and need to be dealt with...but I continue to be concerned with a climate of overreaction among those Christians who find themselves wanting to break free of historical Christianity.

During the past two months I have been asked some variation of this question: “Are you Pauline?”

On one level, I clearly understand the question, and on another I'm baffled. I understand that there are those who subscribe to a form of Gospel Reductionism where the idea that we should just take the words of Jesus and run with them...all of this controversial Pauline theology can be set aside and nobody gets upset.

And this is why I am baffled. My response is always this: “Which words of Jesus should we focus on?”

Two possible answers are put forth: (1) All of Jesus' words or (2) Some of Jesus words

If answer number 2 is presented then our conversation is going to be very different, and probably lengthy. If however, the answer is that we should focus on All of Jesus words as they are recorded in the New Testament, then how can we not be Pauline by default? Indeed Jesus said, “[Paul] is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel” (Acts 9:15).

Anytime our movements take us away from Jesus, even if superficially they may seem to take us toward Him, we are in trouble. I'm very much Pauline because Jesus is Pauline. Indeed, the historical process which led us to our current canon of Scripture was not a short one, but rather took over two centuries. Let us not throw out Christ's chosen servant so that we may not offend!

Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him” (John 14:6-7). I know of no other more offensive comment found in Paul. Paul did not claim to be God...Paul did not claim to have the authority to Judge...Paul did not tell his contemporaries that he would give them the sign of Jonah!

Instead Paul, as Christ's chosen servant, did the very thing that we should do. Consider these words from 1 Corinthians 1:22-24, emphasis mine:

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Elitism

2007-03-15T13:53:00.001-04:00

One of the problems which persists among people who debate ideas is Elitism. For example, if I were to announce that I subscribe to a view that the universe was created in six 24 hour days, I would likely be ridiculed by those who claim they are more “enlightened.” Even in my description of my accusers, I have included a mild reduction of their status by implying that they are not enlightened.

I'm convinced that the key to being careful about communicating in this type of discussion is to separate ideas from people. For instance, it is quite clear that I'm elitist when it comes to ideas. I resoundingly conclude that some ideas are valid while others are not. Certainly there are many ideas in between these two extremes that need research and discussion, but the point is that there are some ideas which are clearly valid and others which belong in the trash heap of thinking. We all are elitist about ideas in one way or another.

Consider this idea: the earth is flat. I'm confident we could all agree this is an invalid idea. When we declare this idea as invalid, we also implicitly reduce its value to zero.

Now, where we get in trouble is when we start being elitist about people. Perhaps this is the result of common thinking in our time...which some label as postmodernism. This "common thinking" is described as a continuum where people decide what is true for themselves. While I'm not sure if this is truly how people do think (I'm skeptical when we lump people into such categories regarding thinking) I do see evidence of this approach in our culture. Relativism and Political Correctness are two such symptoms of world views where truth is not necessarily objective.

If a postmodern person were to challenge ideas in this context of Relativism and PC, then a difficulty is immediately forced upon them. If truth is not objective, how can you disagree with a person who holds a different view than you do? If all (or even most) ideas have value for the person who holds them, then what are you left with if you cannot agree with their conclusion?

Instead of reducing the value of the idea, the postmodern is forced to reduce the value of the person who holds it!

Let's go back to our previous example. If I make the truth claim that the earth is flat, an idea that we all agree is invalid, but yet we hold to a position where all ideas are valid for those who hold them, then instead of reducing the value of the idea, we reduce the value of the person!

I have encountered this personally. I've been labeled as delusional, a "fundy" or fundamentalist and a bible thumping freak, among other things. Quite frankly, I'm not concerned about the labels or even the negative connotations which accompany them. Rather, my concern lies in what becomes of us as a people when our landscape of discourse and debate is measured not by the validity of the the ideas presented, but rather the people that present them!

This places us on a collision course for tyranny of the worst kind: where your ideas are only valid if you are valued by those in your audience. Take a look around and you will see, this is precisely what is taking place in our culture.

Let's be elitist about ideas, not about people.

En-Crypt-tion

2007-03-05T12:49:00.001-05:00

My wife and I watched “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” special on the Discovery channel which aired Sunday night (March 4th). We also then viewed the “Critical Look” show hosted by Ted Koppel which followed the special. I wanted to share some thoughts about both:

I thought the docu-drama was well made. As someone who would one day love to make documentary style films, I really thought Simcha Jacobivici did a great job from a storytelling standpoint. His use of strong themes, dramatic recreations and computer-generated imagery produced a compelling and quite persuasive communication of his hypotheses.

However, in terms of dealing with truth, numerous deceptions were utilized. Multiple times during the special, I paused and backed up to listen again, utterly amazed at truth claims being made which were summarily assumed. This style of presentation repeated itself throughout the film, where ideas the filmmakers wanted us to focus on were presented in such a way as though we should expect them to be compelling.

The case is built through a series of IF-THEN statements. Quite a long series I might add, and naturally if you break any one link of this chain, then the whole thing falls like a house of cards. The part I really hated though was the “place the square peg in the round hole” approach to try to force Mariamene to be Mary Magdalene. This was the worst of the deceptions as so many facts about this issue were conveniently omitted from their discussion of the topic. Some of these important facts are spelled out by my future teacher, Concordia Seminary professor Jeffrey Kloha in a document he wrote called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”: A Perfect Storm? - by Jeffrey Kloha:

For the name “Mariamene e Mara” the filmmakers suggest the translation “Mary, known as the Master.” “Master” is given as a translation of the Aramaic word “Mara.” This is dubious, however, since the “e” in the inscription between “Mariamene” and “Mara” would have to be understood as the Greek word “the,” with “Mara” an Aramaic title. Far more likely is the conclusion of the original archeologist, that the “e” represents a common abbreviation for the Greek word “and” or “also,” and that “Mara” is another spelling for Martha. The translation would therefore be entirely from Greek and would read, “Mary, also called Martha.” Significantly, a previously known ossuary inscription in Greek is cited by the original archeologist as a parallel: “Alexa, also called Martha.” The reconstruction “Mary, also called Martha” is therefore far more likely. Furthermore, both Mary/Miriam and Martha are two of the most common female names of the period, making it more unlikely that “Master” is intended rather than a personal name.

However, the filmmakers claim that Mariamene is not a common name, and in fact that it was the specific name of Mary Magdalene. Keep in mind that “Magdala” or “Magdalene” is found nowhere on the box. So where does it come from? According to NYTimes.com (2/27/07), Francois Bovon, professor at Harvard, has “determined from the “Acts of Phillip” that Mariamene is Mary Magdalene’s real name.” Note, however, that the “Acts of Philip” is a fourth or fifth century composition, and that the earliest purported use of this name for Mary Magdelene apparently comes from a third century writing...

These kinds of things destroy the credibility of the program and severely limit the benefit of such a presentation.

Now, there were a few things I really was interested in and wished Simcha Jacobivici had pursued further. An example of this was the symbol that was over the Talpiot tomb. Notice the pronounced upside down V with the circle located underneath. Jacobivici discovered this same symbol in a nearby burial place which was reportedly a 1st Century Christian burial ground. As a viewer this really caught my eye and made me wonder aloud: Why would one not study this more? What does the symbol mean? What connection would there be between the two tombs? Are there other archeological digs which have answered these questions or discovered other symbols like this? How do we determine both are authentic from the first century?

Now if you are going to play Indiana Jones, these are the things to look into.

Regarding the critical program which followed, I was interested to hear what some other folks had to say. Koppel seemed to have built his own trap for Jacobivici, and gathered the wolves to strike. After some arguing and banter among the historians/archeologists, Koppel then trotted out a Catholic priest, an conservative evangelical seminary professor and a more liberal seminary professor “to see what the theologians have to say about the possible religious implications.” A predictable, and yet interesting combination to say the least.

Darell Bock (the conservative evangelical) rightly pointed out that if a person ever did discover with proof that he/she had the bones of Jesus, then Christianity would fall. This is an important point for Christians. While indeed it is our faith through Grace which saves us, the obvious question is in whom to we place our faith? A good teacher? No, we place our faith in the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, died and was buried. On the Third Day He rose again. He rose in his physical body. The NT writers go to great lengths to ensure we don't miss this. The historical evidence for the Resurrection provides a critical anchor to our faith, showing the difference between our faith and that found in other religions (and also dismisses such absurdities like the “Spaghetti Monster”). Ours is the only one that I've discovered which provides this unique combination of the spiritual and the physical...one that we celebrate weekly when we share Communion.

James Tabor (Jacobivici's side kick of sorts) kept citing Paul, mumbling some nonsense about spirit and body. I think he was referring to 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul says in verse 44 “it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”

But this utterly betrays the text! The old saying applies: A text read out of context indicates a pretext. While Paul does indeed note the differences, he also explicitly maintains the continuity between the natural body and the resurrected or glorified body. His entire discussion is based upon the idea of continuity! Read the complete section of 1 Corinthians 15 as I end with these words:

But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

Overseers

2007-03-01T20:36:00.000-05:00

There is a growing movement within Christianity to, in large part, abolish the clergy.

The idea suggests that Christianity is not a spectator sport, but rather a participatory lifestyle and the clergy are not needed. So goes the idea, that clergy have been promoted to higher levels than garden variety Christians and that this has created a false distinction between parishioner and pastor in terms of who performs ministry.

I agree with these ideas, sharing the concerns about the so-called Constantinian mode of church many of us have grown up with. I have listened intently to teachers from the “Emerging Church” to what they have to say about ways they would go about/are going about having church. Indeed, I love to read Rob Horton's blog about this topic because he so carefully communicates the issues at hand.

Much of what is talked about within this movement includes terms such as House Church, Simple Church, etc. My favorite is Church 2.0. (Kinda lands nicely with Web 2.0, eh?) I personally am involved in a House Church and have been tremendously blessed by this method of gathering and building community...and seek to learn and experience more.

If you said: “Mark, the traditional concept of 'church' is bankrupt,” I would be in complete agreement with that statement. Why? Because the concept of traditional church (as we know it from a 21st Century American point of view) does not line up with what is presented in the New Testament.

Ahhh, but there is the kicker. The New Testament. I'm interested in something that lines up with that...and I must tell you, that there is a bunch of stuff coming out of the new movement that no more lines up with the NT than the old one did. It goes back to that analogy where we are driving the car and there is a ditch on both sides of the road...we must be careful not to yank the wheel too hard so that we avoid one ditch, only to crash right into the other one.

Now, truth be told, I'm betting every generation of Christians has faced this issue (that parts of movements are not always rooted in Scripture). And, perhaps a reformation is needed in every generation...to draw us back to The Word.

This one idea, that of abolishing the clergy, is a troubling one to me. I'm convinced it is an overreaction to the skewed notion of clergy most of us grew up with...consider these words from Paul's first letter to Timothy at the beginning of the third chapter:

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

Here we see the concept of an Overseer presented to us as Paul instructs Timothy. What is an Overseer? What does one look like? We get an introductory picture in this passage. It is implicit that he is a leader of sorts, a teacher of sorts and a man above reproach. Later, in chapter 5, when speaking of Elders (a word that appears to be used interchangeably with Overseers) this statement is made:

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

I'll continue to study this topic, but I think that when one declares the idea of clergy as obsolete, we need to be careful what we are saying. Are we saying that the white collar and all of the Pharisaical constructs it represents need to go? Great. But to say that there are to be no leaders, no preachers, just Christ and His disciples is to depart from Scripture. Let's not swerve the wheel to hard.

We need to do church as it was done by the first Christians as we see it in Acts (especially 2:42 and following) and the rest of the NT. I would contend that the American Christianity we saw in the 20th century was not Church 1.0, it was more along the lines of Church 14.8, build 26. We need Church 1.0. Church 1.0 had overseers that served, taught, and preached.

They did not have political authority but rather spiritual authority, in the manner that is presented in the NT, helping to keep God's people rooted in the Word so as to maintain sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. From what we see in Scripture, there were probably multiple overseers present in a local community, and if they were indeed rooted in the Scriptures then they maintained systems of accountability.

Regardless of the culture, the generation, or the situation, authentic Christianity will always be about preaching Christ Crucified and developing real community in a manner that is all-encompassing of one's lifestyle. Ecclesia is, as Rob might say, a gathering of those who love Jesus. If this is truly authentic it will not be limited to a specific format or a specific day of the week, but rather it will truly reflect a 27/7 ecclesiological life centered on Christ. Rob communicated this idea powerfully: “Incarnational Ecclesiology permits the church to appropriately adapt in a variety of contexts in order to most effectively live and move” (emphasis mine).

I would only add to those words that when we remain rooted in Scripture, and centered on Christ, the Holy Spirit will empower us to do just that...which would seem to mean that He might raise up a few overseers to help along the way.

Wanting Green, Feeling Blue

2007-02-28T15:02:00.001-05:00

Okay, I'm going off topic today, in terms of theological and philosophical matters. But this one is almost as important. Almost. If you are not a football fan, you'll probably want to come back tomorrow. I'm working on a discussion about church clergy that might prove interesting.

If you are, however, the least bit interested in the matters of football, which is not as important, but almost*, then read on.

***

I think the Kansas City Chiefs may be contemplating the trade of their starting quarterback Trent Green to the Miami Dolphins. And, may I say, if this has any realm of truth, then I'm ticked off.

First of all, you need to know my thoughts about Trent Green. This is a great guy. Now, I don't know him personally (Trent, if you should somehow read this, I'd love to buy you a beer or a cup of coffee sometime and hear your side of the story) but I like to think I'm a pretty good judge of character from a person's actions, and I feel pretty confident in telling you that Trent Green is a great guy.

He stands for all of those things that aren't popular in modern professional sports. You know: character, hard work, perseverance, integrity, family, community, etc. He also is a great football player. Notice I didn't say he is a great quarterback, I said he is a great football player. Dan Marino was a great quarterback, but Trent Green is a great football player.

I've seen Trent Green throw more real blocks than any other quarterback. I've personally witnessed two at Arrowhead which resulted in respective Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson touchdowns. Maybe Brett Farve could compete in this area, but that is about it.

I'm convinced that he is among the top three quarterbacks the Chiefs have ever had. That puts him on the list with two hall of famers: Len Dawson and Joe Montana. If the Chiefs had even a slightly decent defense in 2003, they would have won the Super Bowl and who knows where Trent would have been graded by the media. Ironically, if Rodney Harrison doesn't put a cheap shot on him in the Preseason of the 1999 season, Trent Green would have been a Super Bowl champion that year and likely would have never donned a red helmet.

I could go on and build an amazing case why he is a great guy and a great quarterback. But my concern is that the Chiefs are going to trade him. Just like James Cameron, I'm connecting the dots. I pray I'm as wrong as he is:

Trent's concussion on opening day of the 2006 season
Damon Huard's remarkably excellent off-the-bench play during Trent's absence
Herman Edwards' desire for a “Martyball” style run and punt offense
Trent's struggle to adopt the new “Martyball” philosophy and concurrent poor play down the stretch after his return to the lineup in 2006
Herman Edwards' mandate to make the Chiefs a younger team, Green turns 37 this year
The firing of Quarterbacks Coach, pro-Air-Coryell-anti-Martyball-offensively-minded Terry Shea at the conclusion of the 2006 season
The Miami Dolphins head coach (and former position coach for Trent Green) Cam Cameron's hiring of Terry Shea
The signing of Damon Huard to a new three-year deal this past week
Chiefs GM Carl Peterson's public affection for Miami Dolphins backup QB Joey Harrington
The Dolphins' desire to deflect young Harrington's large salary for the 2007 season

Now, it may not be that the Chiefs are interested in Harrington, who will likely be released by the Dolphins anyway, but they are interested in some talent along the Defensive and Offensive lines and either players or draft picks would do them well. I'm betting KC could acquire at least a third round pick for Green.

I know my heart clouds my vision and provides dramatic bias on my part when it comes to all matters red and gold (this might be partially attributed to my constant re-watching of Super Bowl IV and the 1993 AFC divisional playoff game against Houston).

I have to tell you, while I enjoyed watching our team improve on Defense this past season, I'm somewhat frustrated with the Herman Edwards coaching regime. If it is decided to trade or otherwise subtract Trent Green from the Kansas City Chiefs, my mild frustration will change to complete and utter disapproval.

The trade of Trent Green would take us back to the days of Mark Vlasic (Denver fans, I don't want to hear it). Please, Carl and Herm, don't do it. You might be tempted, but don't make the mistake. Trent is more than a quarterback. He is a football player, he is the leader of our team. Understand the good he has done and bring him back for more.

Okay, it is off my chest now. I'll try to keep these things to myself from now on, but we'll have to see how things play out.

***

Okay, okay. Football is not almost as important as theology and philosophy. But it is kinda important...sorta. You know, uhh, it affects our economy and stuff. A little.

Lenten Fare

2007-02-26T19:29:00.000-05:00

Hilarious!

Visit Kansas City Catholic to see the whole church sign conversation!

(HT: And the Word Became Stardust)

Cashing In

2007-02-26T19:04:00.000-05:00

I wondered how long it might be before someone would come along to try the Dan Brown formula. You know the one: Make up a story which ruffles just enough feathers so that you catch the eye of enough people's curiosity that they buy your book, watch your movie and argue. Meanwhile you laugh all the way to the bank.

This time, James Cameron has stepped up to the plate, producing a documentary about an archeological dig which took place in 1980. The claim is that they have found the burial remains of Jesus.

While I doubt Cameron will cash in on the level Brown did, he will likely make some significant g's, as it were. “There's a definite sense that you have to pinch yourself,” Cameron said today at a news conference. Heh, I'll bet.

Paul Maier of Western Michigan University writes these points in an e-mail to his colleagues:

(HT: GentleWhisper and Between Two Worlds)

(See the entire message here):

...here are the facts:

1) Nothing is new here: scholars have known about the ossuaries ever since March of 1980. The general public learned when the BBC filmed a documentary on them in 1996. James Tabor’s book, The Jesus Dynasty, also made a big fuss over the Talpiot tombs more recently, and now James Cameron (The Titanic) and Simcha Jacobovici have climbed aboard the sensationalist bandwagon as well.

2) All the names – Yeshua, Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matia, Judah, and Jose -- are extremely frequent Jewish names for that time and place, and thus most scholars consider this merely coincidental, as they did from the start. One-quarter of Jewish women at that time, for example, were named Maria.

3) There is no reason whatever to equate “Mary Magdalene” with “Mariamene,”
as Jacobovici claims.

4) So what if her DNA is different from that of “Yeshua” ? That particular "Mariamme" (as it is usually spelled today) could indeed have been the wife of that particular “Yeshua.”

5) What in the world is the “Jesus Family” doing, having a burial plot in Jerusalem, of all places, the very city that crucified Jesus? Galilee was their home. In Galilee they could have had such a family plot, not Judea. Besides all of which, church tradition – and Eusebius – are unanimous in reporting that Mary died in Ephesus, where the apostle John, faithful to his commission from Jesus on the cross, had accompanied Mary.

6) If this were Jesus’ family burial, what is Matthew doing there – if indeed “Matia” is thus to be translated?

7) How come there is no tradition whatever – Christian, Jewish, or secular – that any part of the Holy Family was buried at Jerusalem?

8) Please note the extreme bias of the director and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici. The man is an Indiana-Jones-wannabe, who oversensationalizes anything he touches. You may have caught him on his TV special regarding The Exodus, in which the man “explained” just everything that still needed proving or explaining in the Exodus account in the Old Testament! It finally became ludicrous, and now he’s doing it again. – As for James Cameron, how do you follow The Titanic? Well, with an even more “titanic” story. He should have known better.

Did You Know?

2007-02-22T13:44:00.000-05:00

This presentation, entitled “Did You Know?” was created by high school student Karl Fisch and modified by Scott McLeod. I guarantee that your investment of six minutes to watch it will be worth your while:

(HT: HarvestBoston)

Be Christ-Centered

2007-02-21T14:30:00.001-05:00

I came home the other day only to have my wife ask me questions about theology. I am blessed among men.

So, she asked me this question: Why do some Christians say they are more Christ-Centered in their theology as compared to other Christians?

What does Christ-Centered mean?

Clearly the words Christ-Centered carry a self evident meaning which might seem to be redundant for one who describes himself or herself as a Christian. Wouldn't a follower of Christ be Christ-Centered by definition?

Consider Paul's words from 1 Corinthians 1:22-24...

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Why does Paul describe “Christ crucified” a stumbling block for the Jews? I'm convinced that he answered this boldly in Romans 10, verse 4: “For Christ is the end of the law, that everyone who has faith may be justified.”

This is further explained when he sternly rebukes the Galatians in chapter 3, verses 1-2:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?

I think this is the difference between Christians who are Christ-Centered and those who are not. Preaching Christ crucified will not raise money, it won't help you as a preacher on TV, it will not come across as a plan for success for Americans, because it has nothing to do with human effort.

My wife's grandfather once told me that if I were to speak in tounges I would have a closer walk with Jesus. Now, before that statement creates controversy on either side of the aisle, I want you to look beyond the statement itself.

He was saying if I did something, I would get something.

To this, I hear Paul shouting: “Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?” Galatians 3:3

My point is NOT about speaking in tounges (my wife's grandfather never asked me if I had spoke in tounges, he merely heard the word “Lutheran” as I described my background and jumped to conclusions). It is not about the WHAT as much as it is about the WHY. Paul is explicit in Galatians 6, verses 13-15:

Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

Being Christ-Centered means we anchor our life at the cross and the response that happens in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Period. People from all doctrinal backrounds have done and are doing this. They know that God is not a mutual fund. Instead, the Scriptures reveal to us that he has prepared for us an inheritance! We do not earn our inheritance, but rather He adopts us into His family so that He may give it to us freely exhibit our gifts, be they tounges, prophesy, etc., in an way that strengthens the church.

Christians, let's be Christ-Centered, knowing that he said IT IS FINISHED when He was on the cross. We do not have to do something to get something. Rather we respond in love, our hearts having been changed by the Holy Spirit and we eagerly desire the gifts He has in store for us.

Everything we know about righteousness comes from the Law, but by this Law we can not become righteous. The law says, "do this," and it is never done. Grace says, "believe in this," and everything is done already. “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Galatians 5:1

On this Ash Wednesday, let's renew our minds by centering our focus on Christ and his work on the cross.

Be Christ-Centered.

Visit the Lighthouse

2007-02-20T09:57:00.000-05:00

Cassandra from The Lighthouse stopped by to comment about Greg Koukl's talk on Moral Relativism. She provides a great post, which is an excellent follow up to his talk, for you to read here:

http://millennium-notes.blogspot.com/2007/01/post-modernisms-fallacies-iii.html

Moral Relativism

2007-02-16T10:00:00.000-05:00

Greg Kokul offers a great talk on Moral Relativism.

Consider these statements/questions:

Are all beliefs equally legitimate?
Who are you to say what is right and what is wrong?
Don't push your morality on me!
You cannot legislate morality.

Are these statements/questions accurate? Have you thought them through?

Are not all laws based on morality? Murder is against the law in our country (and all the countries that I'm familiar with)...so aren't we legislating morality? Isn't that the case with every law?

Is there such a thing as moral neutrality?

These are some great points of discussion. His approach is even handed and focused on logic. I highly recommend that you view the video here.

Good Questions

2007-02-13T20:03:00.000-05:00

Some good questions shared between a Harvard student and Ravi Zacharias:

Student: How can an all-good and all-powerful God allow such evil and suffering in our world?

RZ: Will you assist me in answering your question by answering some questions for me?

Student: Yes.

RZ: When you say there is such a thing as “good” are you assuming there is such a thing as “evil?”

Student: That is correct.

RZ: When you say there is such a thing as good, and then such a thing as evil, aren't you assuming that there is such a thing as a “moral law” by which you differentiate between good and evil?

Student: I would accept that.

RZ: If you posit then that there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver, and that is the very one you are seeking to disprove. So, if there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no such thing as good or evil...so what is your question?

RZ: [Joking aside]...You see without God this question is not even valid. But with God, the question must be answered! And, that leads us to the cross, where evil is dealt with once and for all, and done so in the context of love where we have rational choices.

View the video here.

Washing

2007-02-12T14:17:00.001-05:00

I've begun reading G.K. Chesterton's classic book, Orthodoxy. I have to tell you, I began with some aprehension, because I was not in the mood for a dry theology book. Let me testify to you: this is not a dry theology book by any measure.

He immediately begins with a simple point, dealing with the idea that successful people are those who believe in themselves. Chesterton's response is full of wit: “Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Super-men. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums.”

Chesterton's premise is that the problem of evil, especially the evil found with in mankind, is a primary point of focus when trying to “answer the riddle” of humanity's condition and search for purpose and truth. For Chesterton, it is a natural, practical discussion rather than some kind of an arbitrary “ivory tower” truth received from somewhere outside the boundaries of human experience.

He strikes with this critical point: “Whether or not man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing.”

He then offers this opinion, which I find fascinating: “A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed.”

This lends me to think about our culture and our world. So many different approaches, different ideas, different forms of thinking...how do we discover truth?

Is that not the most important question?

Put On His Coat

2007-02-09T10:49:00.001-05:00

I have a confession. I've been ticked off lately and have had a downright bad attitude. My anger led me to pride, which led me to be motivated in very much the wrong direction. And, quite frankly, it has caused me to wear the wrong coat.

So, what has angered me? I've been frustrated with the anti-Christian fervor that has grown more prevalent of late. I've been amazed and outraged that people are more interested in name-calling and thowing insults than they are at dealing with the arguments themselves. This is true both in the widest (our culture in general) and the narrowest (directed at me in particular) senses.

I'm an extremlely emotional person and this was a clear-cut case of me allowing my emotions to dictate my actions, resulting in sin. I was wrong to act this way.

What worsens the matter is that I then act in a way that is out of line as directed by my Master as recorded in the 5th chapter of Matthew's Gospel:

But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

The irony here is that I too was an evil person in this case. So I confess and ask for forgiveness and then, importantly, repent: which is to say --> change my actions and move in a different direction.

The Master makes it even more clear as the Apostle John records Jesus explaining in the 15th chapter of his Gospel:

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'

Jesus is telling me to chill out. And, more importantly, He is teaching me about a new method of apologetics. One that is not so much focused on convincing other people through debates and discussions, but rather through living.

Consider this story recounted by Ravi Zacharias in his epic book Can Man Live Without God:

There is a magnificent story in Marie Chapian’s book Of Whom the World Was Not Worthy. The book told of the sufferings of the true church in Yugoslavia where so much wrong has been perpetrated by the politicized ecclesiastical hierarchy. That which has gone on in the name of Christ for the enriching and empowering of corrupt church officials has been a terrible affront to decency.

One day an evangelist by the name of Jakov arrived in a certain village. He commiserated with an elderly man named Cimmerman on the tragedies he had experienced and talked to him of the love of Christ. Cimmerman abruptly interrupted Jakov and told him that he wished to have nothing to do with Christianity. He reminded Jakov of the dreadful history of the church in his town, a history replete with plundering, exploiting, and indeed with killing innocent people. “My own nephew was killed by them,” he said and angrily rebuffed any effort on Jakov’s part to talk about Christ. “They wear those elaborate coats and caps and crosses,” he said, “signifying a heavenly commission, but their evil designs and lives I cannot ignore.”
Jakov, looking for an occasion to get Cimmerman to change his line of thinking, said, “Cimmerman, can I ask you a question? Suppose I were to steal your coat, put it on, and break into a bank. Suppose further that the police sighted me running in the distance but could not catch up with me. One clue, however, put them onto your track; they recognized your coat. What would you say to them if they came to your house and accused you of breaking into the bank?”
“I would deny it,” said Cimmerman.
“‘Ah, but we saw your coat,’ they would say,” retorted Jakov. This analogy quite annoyed Cimmerman, who ordered Jakov to leave his home.
Jakov continued to return to the village periodically just to befriend Cimmerman, encourage him, and share the love of Christ, with him. Finally one day Cimmerman asked, “How does one become a Christian?” and Jakov taught him the simple steps of repentance for sin and of trust in the work of Jesus Christ and gently pointed him to the Shepherd of his soul. Cimmerman bent his knee on the soil with his head bowed and surrendered his life to Christ. As he rose to his feet, wiping his tears, he embraced Jakov and said, “Thank you for being in my life.” And then he pointed to the heavens and whispered, “You wear His coat very well.”

I pray that I will learn to wear His coat. I apologize to those whom I've hurt and seek forgiveness. In the mean time, you'll find me here working heard to learn how to put on His coat and to learn how to wear it very well.

Blessings to you,
Mark

Ironic Delusion

2007-02-06T13:46:00.000-05:00

I'm delusional, so you'll have to check this link out for yourself:

Does Richard Dawkins Exist?

Freedom

2007-02-01T20:22:00.000-05:00

What is Freedom?

Is it being free from Governmental oppression? This is the freedom that our political leaders talk about.

Is it being free from Social oppression? This is the freedom minority leaders talk about.

Is it being free from Religious oppression? This is the freedom atheists and agnostics talk about.

Or, is real freedom being free from that which haunts you in the middle of the night, knowing that any outcome is truly a good outcome?

Is real freedom having love, joy and peace as your allies?

Is real freedom a life that is filled with patience for those who accompany you, or encounter you on your journey?

Is it having kindness toward the travelers that you encounter, and truly being filled with goodness that flows in like cool fresh spring water into a dry, dusty cup?

Perhaps freedom is found in faithfulness? Always trusting and caring...always. Not having to worry that you will be betrayed...

What would freedom be like if it did not include gentleness? The freedom of gentleness lets us proceed without fears of harsh reprisals.

Indeed, is not the ultimate freedom found in self-control? Taking of the chains of desires which drive you, removing the shackles of the decisions you make and yet cannot understand?

People rally behind the causes for freedom. And they should, for we must be free from Governmental oppression. We must be free from Social oppression. We must be free from Religious oppression. These are all laudable!

But what of the man who seeks to free people from government but then cheats on his wife? What of the woman who defies the social oppression of her culture, but hates her sister?

What does it mean when a person frees himself from religion, but then worships himself?

So I ask: Are you free? Do you champion the causes of this world and sleep with hatred inside of you? Do you proclaim freedom in the day and fill yourself with pride during the night? Do you celebrate freedom in one breath while dissenting from your neighbors in the next?

There is only one True Freedom, and True Freedom sets us free, for Freedom’s sake.

Some look at True Freedom and decide that they would rather have their own chains. Others look at True Freedom and despise the Truth of Freedom. Still others see the opportunity which True Freedom represents, and attempt to profit as a result. Some compete with True Freedom, some fight with True Freedom, even fighting wars for or against True Freedom.

Some have mastered the art of proclaiming True Freedom without ever being free.

Finally, there are those that simply surrender their chains. They love, they have joy, they experience peace. They are patient in their journeys, while kindness flows from their hearts and goodness is the fruit of their lives. They are faithful to True Freedom and are gentle in their dealings with others, being able to control themselves when emotions run high and Deception rears its ugly head.

They, my friends, are Free. I'm on a journey to join them, and I long to take you there with me.

*This is a slightly modified, but recycled posted from August 2005...my mind has been on these matters lately and I wanted to shared it again. Thanks, Mark

Horn Swoggled

2007-01-31T10:57:00.000-05:00

On a very light note you need to visit Horn Swoggled. This hilarious blog is a true gem in bringing us all back to just get a good laugh now and again...especially about the serious matters we discuss here so often. Consider this funny quip:

An athiest couple from Baltimore is suffering marital difficulties after discovering that "their song" is actually a contemporary Christian ballad. John and Jill Freidrich met in a college lecture on evolution, and subsequently fell in love after a weekend party at which they first heard the Amy Grant/Vince Gill duet, "House of Love."

Ever since, the Friedrichs have considered "House of Love" their special song, and have often related the story of that party to their children. But their relationship is on the rocks after a co-worker told Jill that the duet is a song about God.

"Every time that song comes on the radio, I tell our oldest daughter about how her father and I sneaked off and conceived her that night," Jill recalled. "But now I find out it's supposed to be religious. It's creepy."

John Friedrich said he's considering legal action in the face of what he calls "a major gross-out."

"I must have listened to that song 500 times while Jill and I were dating," he said. "I don't remember hearing one thing about God in all that time.

"If you're going to sing about your so-called 'god,' at least have the decency to come out and say it, so the rest of us can stop listening."

Funny stuff.

Rational Morality

2007-01-30T09:56:00.000-05:00

Mechphisto and I have had a good conversation about the contrasts between naturalistic and theistic world views. This was spawned by my questioning of the idea of chance as an explanation for the origin of life and of the universe.

During our discussion, the debate went on and on about the differing arguments on each side of the issue, as it were. But, we were only really looking at cosmological (origin of the universe) and teleological (purpose, or design of the universe) discussions.

Perhaps the most important question to tackle is the moral discussion.

In a recent post, I responded to an argument about suffering put forth by atheist John Loftus. Of course, his compaint against thesim in general, and Christianity in particular, was that in our world view God allows suffering.

This truth claim inherently appeals to an objective moral value where suffering is bad. This begs the questions: How does he know what bad is? How should we define suffering?

Additional, more fundamental questions abound! How can good or evil be quantified in a naturalist world view? What sort of molecules contain what is good or evil? What sort of matter or energy can be described as good or evil?

The basic Moral argument which challenges the atheist to answer these questions, looks something like this:

Moral facts exist.
Moral facts have the properties of being objective and non-natural.
The best explanation of there being objective and non-natural moral facts is provided by theism.
Therefore the existence of moral facts provides good grounds for thinking theism is true.

The debate is determined by point number one. Do moral facts exist? Is torturing babies for pleasure a bad thing? There are people who claim moral facts do not exist, which would cause the debate to move in a different direction.

But most people I have encountered appeal to morals sooner or later. If not, just punch them in the nose and see what happens.

There are different responses to the basic Moral argument. One, that Mechphisto has put forth in previous debates here is that it is possible morals are the result of evolution by natural selection. In other words, we learn that being good to people results in a better, more survivable life, and so we choose to do good. Another wording of this belief as I understand it, might be that through science and education we are evolving to become better people.

This last view, that science and education are the vehichle which will deliver us from evil, I think lend to the hostility towards Christianity (and also towards Islam). The moral evolutionist or secular humanist, as you might describe him, concludes that since pure science and education will eventually remove evil (see Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek for a great exploration of this idea) we should pursue it with priority.

When Christians step up and question the philosophies which may fuel this priority or passion within science, they are labeled as midevil, ignorant, etc. We are then associated with the evils of the world, and shown to be an obstacle in the advancement of humanity. This is a lamentable misunderstanding of the facts.

A gal by the name of Linda Zagzebski put forth this counter argument:

Morality is a rational enterprise.
Morality would not be a rational enterprise unless good actions increase the amount of good in the world. (Morality has to be efficacious if it is to be rational.)
There is no evidence that the amount of good in the world is increasing through our good acts.
Therefore we must assume that there is an extra-human agency on the side of the good.

Here she makes a more sophistocated claim that not only shows appealing to the morals in and of themselves requires an extra-human agent, but the very idea that we should appeal to morals in the first place implies an extra-human agent.

This is interesting because it shows that the more we talk about morality, the more it is assumed. When the atheist Loftus concludes that one cannot be a theist because of all the suffering in the world, one might put for the question to Mr. Loftus: Why are you worried about this fact? What about this fact troubles you? Why would less suffering be good? These questions demonstrate the inconsistency of Loftus' position.

Responding to common naturalistic arguments in this category, Zagzebski's ideas are supplemented by the following discussion based on the idea that naturalism entails moral skepticism.

Morality is a rational enterprise.
Morality would not be a rational if moral skepticism were true.
There is much too much unresolved moral disagreement for us to suppose that moral skepticism can be avoided if human sources of moral knowledge are all that we have.
Therefore we must assume that there is an extra-human, divine source of moral wisdom.

Certainly the naturalist can question #3 from above and then question whether the remedy in #4 from above works. As to #3, it is true that we can cite many long-standing moral disagreements in a society at any one time (as witness abortion, capital punishment and the like). But it may be claimed that over most of their daily decisions human beings know what the morally correct thing to do is.

A common list of fundamental moral rules (forbidding lying, stealing etc, commanding honesty, the honoring of promises, etc.) will be acknowledged by most moral agents, even if their behavior does not match.

Indeed it is not hard to find people who behave in an immoral manner. What is difficult to find however, are people who do not value justice, virtue, and integrity.

The Moral argument is a powerful argument for thesim because the detractors seem to have only two choices:

(1) Deny that objective morals exist
(2) Deny that morals must come from an extra-human agent

I've read attempts to take either path and they are frought with difficulties...at least as many difficulties that the theist is left with when defending his position. As such, I'm convinced that the Moral argument—above all else—keeps the theist at the table when debating ideas.

Indeed, the apostle Paul was a unique figure in history as Jesus' chosen one to take the Gospel to the world. His upbringing of Moral tradition was contained in the citezenship of Rome's Legal tradition and carried forth in the Philisophical tradition of the Greeks. Please read these words recorded by Luke in Acts 17:

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

The War Against Surrender

2007-01-29T14:31:00.000-05:00

I'm struggling.

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.

I need to surrender. I need to give it all up. I need to die unto myself. I've known this for some time now, and there have been times when I did. But then something happens, some excuse comes forth and then I fail.

For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

I fall into patterns of thought and behavior which betray my Master. I get emotional one way or the other. First I fell sorry for myself, then I try to justify myself and all the while I cannot. I can only be justified by Him.

For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.

Martin Luther once described this scenario as a battle between the “old Adam” and the “new man.” I understand theology but I struggle with practice. I'm ready to leave the ivory tower.

For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am!

So here I am, ready to surrender, but am I willing? Or, am I willing but not ready? God presents this question to me: Are you ready to die for me? Heh, taken at face value, that would be easy. It's the living for Him that is the hard part! But of course, his point is much deeper. Rob and Kent reminded me of that today...and that my cultural context doesn't help matters.

But I really think that even if I were a serf in second century Asia, I would struggle with surrender. I always think I can have my cake and eat it too. Irony abounds...

Who will rescue me from this body of death?

During my life I've spent most of my time as a believer. Unlike other evangelicals of different backgrounds, I cannot tell you about the day I became a Christian. I don't remember a time when I didn't know God. Indeed, I can share the controversial story about how I remember when I was baptized (at the age of two months old)...and I do have a vivid memory of that event. Others tell me that the memory is the result of various potential psychological phenomena, but the memory remains. But all the while, I've been a believer. I've known God's presence.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

I do trust in Christ for everything. He is my Master. He set me free. And yet, I knowingly go back and put on some of the chains that once bound me. Why?

Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.

I'm very tired of the chains. I want them off. I really really do. I'm ready to be a disciple...

The mind controlled by the sinful nature is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace. The sinful mind is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

So where is my mind and what is my desire?

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

I trust my Father. And with his help...I will follow him.

My kids and I love to sing this bedtime song together...written by Rich Mullins, and I think it is time to sing it now:

Oh God, You are my God
And I will ever praise You
Oh God, You are my God
And I will ever praise You
I will seek You in the morning
And I will learn to walk in Your ways
And step by step You'll lead me
And I will follow You all of my days

*All italicized text in this post is quoted from Paul's Letter to the Romans, chapters 7 and 8

Not a Chance

2007-01-26T10:14:00.001-05:00

We live in an amazing universe. And, the more you look around, the more amazing it becomes. Take for example, a total solar eclipse, which occurs when the Moon passes directly between the Sun and the Earth.

Here is an incredible fact: The Sun, whose diameter is 400 times that of the Moon, just happens to be about 400 times as far away from the Earth. This condition permits the Moon to just barely cover up the Sun. In fact, if the Moon's diameter (2,160 miles) were just 140 miles less, it would not be large enough to ever completely cover the Sun -- a total solar eclipse could never happen anywhere on Earth!

Why is this important? Without eclipse's of this kind, we would never have discovered the make up of our solar system's star. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely we would have properly understood the full electromagnetic spectrum (a total solar eclipse is the only time you can see the entire spectrum). Total solar eclipses, to our knowledge, are only visible from the planet earth. We have not discovered any other place in the known universe from which you could view one.

Chance! Coincidence! Phew...lucky for us. I enjoy my satellite TV, my cell phone, wireless internet...etc. So this begs the question, what is chance anyway? I mean, can you put it in a bottle? A test tube? A box? Nope. Chance is an idea. How very ironic that the foundation of naturalism does not exist in the natural world!

Consider these definitions of chance from dictionary.com:

the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency: Chance governs all.
a possibility or probability of anything happening: a fifty-percent chance of success.

The first one seems to be the definition that we see in discussions of this kind, or perhaps even the second. But of course, if you start talking probability and you start looking at the many elements, far beyond total solar eclipse's, which all play a part in bringing us to this universe we call home, you get into some interesting discussions. Oh, like what are the probabilities of coming up with the dozens of "fine-tuning" aspects which define our universe and make it possible for us to live: effectively zero.

So that leaves us with CHANCE. Can anyone say “god of the gaps?”

In reality, chance is a word that is used when we cannot explain something as we see in the first definition above. Notice the definition also includes that chance is often personified! Indeed, when taking a hard look at naturalism, you realize that while naturalists claim intellectual superiority over supernaturalists, they have in fact resorted to their own form of magic: chance.

Consider the example of the eclipse. Our moon is exceptionally large for a planet of our size as we compare it to the other known planets. But, because of its size, it keeps our planet from wobbling on its axis...exactly where it needs to be to support life. If the moon were smalller, chances are that life would not exist on our planet. But because of it's precise size, it maintains the gravitational forces necissary to support life AND it appears to us in the sky as the same size as the sun SO THAT we can make such incredible discoveries.

Do these facts (and the countless others we could cite here about the “apparent” design of our universe) require us to come to a conclusion of supernatural intervention in our universe? Of course not. But whether you invoke God or Chance as the cause, you are going to need faith to hold to the conclusion. This demonstrates supernaturalists being consistent within their world view and it is yet another example of naturalists being inconsistent in theirs.