The nines Haiku

Warnings about pride
"We don't hear, get impatient"
That was Troy Gramling.

Tim Stevens' three words:
You, your mission, their teammates.
All three must be good.

B. Carter followed
Successors live in shadow
He learned to be self.

Anne's Mad Church Disease
Church work distracting from Christ?
Relying on "Me".

How does one mentor
I do then slowly you do
that's Dave Ferguson

Scott Hodge wants God's voice,
faith and courage to obey.
Mornings are for Him.

Which Way the Wind Blows

Acts 20:22

"And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there." -Paul

Acts 21:4

Through the Spirit [the disciples] urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.

In studying what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit for a sermon, I was reminded of this strange little movement in Acts.

Did the Holy Spirit want Paul to go to Jerusalem or not? Paul felt compelled by the Spirit to go. The disciples were compelled by the Spirit to urge him not to go.

I think that the Spirit did want him to go, but wanted him to go through that bit of testing to be sure he was ready.

However, this brings us an important lesson for those of us trying to follow the Wind of God. Just because he compels us to try to stop someone from "going to Jerusalem" does not necessarily mean he wants that person to listen to us.

Perhaps also, we should consider that just because he sends us toward a city, doesn't necessarily mean he wants us to arrive there.

Poets, Prophets, and Preachers PART 3

Well, the response I've been getting about Rob Bell (from at least four people just recently) is that he is "out there" on some things. Therefore, I should be pretty careful.

My response has been out where? Such generalities are not helpful to anyone. If there is a problem, define it.

I am not pretending that he is always right. Only my Mom carries that honor (at least, that is what she tells me). I can point to a couple things off the top of my head that I did not think were quite right.

For instance, even though I did find the trampoline illustration in Velvet Elvis helpful in some ways, it fell short in showing how some "springs" are more important than others. (The doctrine of forgiveness is bigger than how often we take the Lord's Supper, for instance). And some are essential. (The resurrection of Jesus, for instance).

However, the same could be said for any teacher I've ever listened to for very long (especially yours truly). We all fail somewhere. I can't tell you how often I groan on Sunday afternoon about something I said Sunday morning. I long to be perfect, alas I'm not.

Overall, I think he is a pretty sound Bible teacher.

He taught five sessions, three of them were 'how-to' construct a sermon. Here are some things that I can tell you about his preaching from hearing those sessions.

1. He is an expository preacher.

Rob Bell always starts his sermon preparations with the text. I already knew this. But he showed how he approaches the passage. He tries to memorize the text way in advance so that it can "live with" him for a long time before he preaches. He focuses on the words, studies their linguistic origins, examines how they are used elsewhere. He researches the backgrounds. He works a passage hard before he starts assembling the sermon, and it shows.

2. He is passionately in love with God's Word.

You can see this in his sermon prep. It also show in his body language when he talks about the text.

3. He is passionate about God's work.

It would be interesting enough for me if he just showed the neat things he discovered in his research. But he works the sermon all the way to applications.
4. He works really hard on his messages.

This was the most striking thing to me. I always assumed he was just really gifted as a communicator. He is that, but wow, he works hard. He showed us his process. Every part of his sermon is the result of a lot thought a preparation.
5. He still believes the sermon is a very powerful tool in the post-modern world.

Many post-modern church leaders are giving up on sermons. They see the method as dated and ineffective. Not so with Rob. Though he doesn't often use the force of the 'bully pulpit, preferring to give the first words of a discussion rather than the final word. (This very different approach is why I think he tends to be misunderstood).

Poets, Prophets, and Preachers PART 2

Rob Bell did most of the speaking. But he had some guests too.

The surprise guest guest was Zach Lind, drummer from Jimmy Eat World. (You can find his blog here) Rob interviewed him about the creative process of song writing, and then applied that to the creative process of sermon writing. The biggest take-away from that was that writing a good song or sermon doesn't just happen. It often takes much working and re-working.

That was probably more fun than helpful.

Peter Rollins was one of the other guest speakers. He had two one-hour sessions. The first he was interviewed by Rob, the second he just spoke. Peter was really funny and charming (with his thick Irish brogue).

Peter, however, might be one of the reasons that so many evangelicals are nervous about all things Emerging. (I'd argue that the biggest reason is that evangelicals get nervous is that they are group that is labeled. Any time that happens, the labeled group is seen as new and therefore unorthodox. But that's a discussion for another day.)

Peter is absolutely mad. I would say that there is a method to his madness, but many will never be able to see beyond the madness. He speaks quickly, rapidly dropping bombs of provocation. He speaks with far more question marks than periods.

I'd argue he is more a performance artist than a preacher. If you understand him in that way, it makes much more sense. Let me give you an example: For Lent, he instructed his group to give up God. For those 40 plus days, they did not read the Bible or pray. Instead they read atheist writers like Freud and Nietzsche. Already, he may have lost you. But by the end, he talked about how a need and a hunger for God had been created.

That's Peter Rollins in a nutshell. His performance art carries the danger of being misunderstood, but it also carries a tremendous potential to speak in ways that a speech canot. The best things I got from him were two illustrations (maybe I'll share them another day) and the motivation to try to work in more performance art into service (attentive to the dangers, of course). His books may be worth reading just to inspire creativity.

The other guest speaker, Shane Hipps, pastors a Mennonite church of about 300 in Arizona. Before he became a preacher, he worked for a marketing firm that had accounts with Porsche and others. As a part of that work, he did much research into how people think in the effort to coerce them into buying whatever his firm was pimping. He left that behind, but now carries some important warnings about what unintentional messages are media carry.

You can can catch the heart of his first message here (It's a 5:40 video) or in an articel he wrote here. (You might want to check out some of the other interviews about virtual community too).

The infromation he gave in his first session should be required for any student of preaching. Really good. Really important.

Since he contends that the medium is the message, his second session was about what kind of message do you as medium convey (beyond the text of your sermon, of course).

That session was confusing to me. I found his blog and asked him to explain the ideas from his second session more. You can find his response here. He deserves a lot of credit for responding so quickly and graciously. I'm still probing more, because it is new to me. I want to know more about what he means before I swallow it whole or deny it completely, or (more likely) do something between those extremes.

Poets, Prophets, and Preachers

This is a review of the Poets, Prophets and Preachers conference I attended last week. It was a preaching conference hosted by Rob Bell.

I have been somewhat careful about telling people I was going to hear Rob Bell, because I grow weary of answering all of the rumors and accusations that surround him. I don't agree with everything he says. The same could be said of any author, speaker, or teacher, though.

Most of the more passionate attacks seem to be from people who have not actually read his books, or seem to completely misunderstand them.

But like I said, I'm tired of this debate. So, I have been listening and reading him in relative silence for a couple of years. When I would quote him, I'd say "I heard a preacher say..." Cowardly, I guess.

Things changed a little when a fellow attender was fired by his church for just being at this conference. Now I feel like saying nothing may be allowing ignorance to handicap the church. I'm not going to commit myself to daily fighting this battle. But I will let you know what I see, good and bad and let you form opinions of your own.

This is already getting lengthy, so I'll break it up into a couple parts.

What enticed me to go:

1. I really want to get better at the craft of preaching
2. If you paid for one registration, it was good for two people, which encouraged us to experience it in community, where you could digest the ideas together. I got to do this with an old acquaintance from college. This was much better than going to a conference without anyone else. I've done that before: not fun.
3. Since we split the registration price, the cost was only $125 for 2 and a half days. Compare that to other conferences and you will see what a value that is.
4. It was in Grand Rapids, a pretty quick drive from here. Compare to Chicago, Atlanta, and San Diego where other appealing conferences were.
5. Rob Bell is an amazing communicator. I was hoping I could learn some of his preparation and delivery techniques. (I was not disappointed, by the way).

I think in the next post, I will give you my impression of the two other speakers, Peter Rollins and Shane Hipps. Then, in a third post, I'll give you my impression of Rob's five talks.

Gluttonous Cannibals

America earned the “consumeristic” label long ago. We consume, gorge, and stuff ourselves until the point of bursting. But this consumption is not limited to food alone. We consume goods, resources, and at times each other. We are gluttonous cannibals, devouring one another.

In the Aramaic portions of Daniel we find an astounding idiom. Though the idiom is translated “to denounce" or "to accuse maliciously,” the literal meaning is “to eat the pieces.” Daniel 3:8 states that the “astrologers” came forward to denounce Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego because they were not bowing down to Nebuchadnezzar’s 90-foot image. Then in Daniel 6 the other leaders, jealous of Daniel’s rise to prominence, used his piety to convict him. After Daniel was delivered, the king brought the men who “ate the pieces” of Daniel before him, and threw them and their families into the lion’s den (Daniel 6:24).

This phrase, “ate the pieces,” is so stark—as though the defamers are literally removing parts of people with their words. But we have similar idioms in English:

nitpicking
tearing them a new one
picking them apart
shredding

All these phrases dealing with words carry some sort of violence being enacted upon the subject of the words. I used to scoff at the silly Public Service Announcements that tell us that “words hurt”:



But I can’t watch such things with an attitude of ambivalence anymore. Words do hurt and lead to all sorts of awful consequences. It is worse when it happens in the church—a place that is supposed to be safe and free from such attacks. And yet, as much as we try put on our Sunday Christian personas and separate our actions outside the church from those when we walk through the doors, our words still come through. After all, “From the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45). And when we attack each other verbally, we may as well be chopping up and eating one another like cannibals.

The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. Gal 5:14-15

A Memorial Service

Tomorrow is Memorial Day in the United States. It is a day that has been set aside by our government to remember. We remember those who answered the call of their country and willingly gave their lives for something bigger than themselves. To remember, millions go to military cemeteries to remember the fallen. To remember, a small American flag will be placed on the grave of every fallen soldier in Arlington National Cemetery and in cemeteries around the country. To remember, many will place beautiful flowers on the graves of fallen soldiers. To remember, we set aside our schedules and our day to day routines to honor sacrifice.

There are a lot of similarities between Memorial Day and our Communion Service. Everyone in church services today has someone who loved him or her enough to lay down his life on the cross for their sins. And so we take time out of our schedules and our routines and we gather to remember.

We remember he was “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities.”
We remember “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
We remember that Jesus “himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.”

But the key to understanding communion is in the differences between it and any other memorial observance. There is no tomb for us to visit and lay flowers on. No, we serve a risen savior, who’s in the world today. Flags and flowers do not honor him. No, we gather at a table instead of a tomb and we lay our lives at the foot of the cross as a living sacrifice for Jesus.

Each Lord’s Day millions gather around the Lord’s table to remember the crucified and risen Lord. Let us eat the bread and drink the cup “in remembrance” of our wonderful Savior.

A Good Knight

Why does a knight serve his king? (I'm talking about the mythical medieval knight here.)

The reasons are plenty. A knight could serve his king because of the pay, the position it would put his children in, the fun parties, the celebrity status, the power over people associated with the position, family traditions, or a variety of other selfish reasons. There are many ways that a king can get knights to serve him. But none of them would really stick - well, maybe family tradition might. Another king could come along and offer more pay, offer higher societal positions for the knight's children, bigger parties, a higher seat at the table, or more power.

So what is a king to do if he wants a knight that is truly loyal?

He would have to offer a vision of the way he wants to shape the world that would cause the knight will put aside his dreams for higher pay, the societal status of his children, his enjoyment of the most grand parties, his celebrity status, his power over others, and even the traditions of his family. The knight, the kind a king would want, would put aside all his selfish ambitions to help the king bring about his plan for the world.

Does God want any less of us than a king wants of a good knight?

He offers us the opportunity to join with him in making our houses and our neighborhoods a better place. All he asks is that we buy into his vision of the world. We need to put on the breastplate of faith and love and wear the helmet of the hope of salvation (1 Thes 5:8). In the end, we need to put aside all of our selfish ambitions, surrender our hearts and desires to God, and begin to work on shaping the world into the world he planned for it to be. Anything else is just serving for the wrong reasons.

And God is different than a king. A king can be tricked by outward appearances, posturing, and traditions. God cannot. He can see straight into our hearts and see if it is really His.

Encountering the Bible...literally

A few weeks ago I was asked point blank by a church member, “Do you take the Bible literally?” While she did not intend it to be so, this is a loaded question. By saying “yes” you must then do everything written therein literally. By saying “no” you are impinging upon the reliability and authority of the Bible. Of course, anyone involved in such a discussion knows the matter is far more complicated than those two options.


For example, what do we mean by “literal”? Do we mean “historically literal”—that what the Bible purports to have happened actually happened in that way? This approach assumes a few things: that the authors understood history writing as we do and that they had the materials in hand to accomplish such a feat.

Contrary to these assumptions, historiography (how history is written) is a modern construct and applying it to ancient writers is anachronistic and unfair to their intentions. Biblical writers were not writing an unbiased history of what occurred. Rather, it is a theologized history—that is, a history from the viewpoint of a faithful people reflecting upon a saving God.

Even if they were writing with unbiased intent, they did not have the primary materials to accurately convey historical events. Many things described in the Bible were reconstructed from oral transmission since they were not a written culture and did not write things down.

Thus we should not be surprised when there are tensions (or to put it more boldly, “contradictions”) in the text. They were not concerned with transmitting events exactly as they happened. Rather, they incorporated historically based events into their overarching themes and shaped them into a coherent whole. A brief look at the Synoptic gospels belies such a position. When Matthew says that Jesus taught on a mountain (Matt. 5:1) and Luke says he “came down and taught on a level place” (Luke 6:20), is one of them just wrong? No, it means there is more to each author’s presentation than meets the eye and it calls for a little investigation.

All of this is to say, we should be wary to take the Bible as “historically literal” because we open ourselves to criticism when a Biblical account seems to be contradicted by other “histories.” What we can say is that the Bible is based in history and contains some historical accounts, but at the end of the day the authors are far more concerned with the theological message than the historical accuracy.


Well if we don’t mean “historically literal” perhaps we mean “proscriptionally literal”. That is, when the Bible makes a command, we take it literally and do it—no questions asked. On the one hand, such a literal view has its appeal. It removes any interpretation from our part and places it firmly in God’s hands. There is no need to justify our actions because God has the final authority.

The problem with this literal view is that it does not account for all the laws in the Bible. What do we do with the Old Testament laws? Unfortunately, many too easily dismiss Old Testament laws by saying we live under the New Covenant. Also, what do we do with cultural laws—that is, laws whose context can be traced to a specific time and place but whose impact is lost on a different, modern culture? A most obvious example is Paul’s command for women to dress modestly, which excludes braided hair, gold jewelry or pearls (1 Tim. 2:9). Yet even the most staunch advocate for literal adherence to the laws would probably concede that this command was culturally focused and described modern day prostitutes. Yet, literally, women should not wear jewelry or braid their hair. But such an understanding would seem to be ludicrous by today’s standards. Or, more graphically, when Jesus recommends gouging out your eye or cutting off your hand to avoid sin (Matt 5:29-30), who, except the most ascetic among us, would literally follow such a command?


Hopefully my point is clear—patently accepting biblical stories and laws as literal is not a correct appropriation of Scripture. This approach does not take into account genre, metaphor, hyperbole, parables, etc. Perhaps more egregious is that this approach does not consider authorial intent. Though we may never know exactly what an author was thinking, we can generally deduce a probable theological theme. Thus, a literal interpretation is not always a correct one.

By saying that I don’t always take the Bible literally should in no way imply that it is not the main source of truth that God has revealed to humanity. The Bible is true and does not need to hold up under factual and verifiable scrutiny. It reveals God’s relationship with God’s creation and is not a handbook of World, Israelite, or Christian history. It is a revelation of God's saving works and not a handbook of moral or ethical laws.


To conclude, correctly understanding Scripture requires a Spirit of wisdom coupled with a proper understanding of context and background. And each new generation needs to allow the Bible to speak anew to the needs of the community. May we take the Bible seriously, even if we don’t always take it literally.

Unlikely Disciple

I just ran across this book. It looks like an interesting read.

The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University

Here is the article on it that got me interested in it: Liberal Student Infiltrates Liberty University to Write Exposé and Discovers Intolerance...From the Left

A liberal Ivy League student decides to enroll at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Virgina and write a book exposé (The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University) supposedly showing the intolerance that must be there, or so he thought. The liberal student, however, was surprised to find little of the expected intolerance but is now finding plenty of it from the left because his book was not an outright condemnation of Liberty University nor of Jerry Falwell whom he met during his semester there.

Great Atomic Power

Pandora just played the song from Elizabeth Cook and the Grascals entitled "Great Atomic Power." I would advise checking it out, but I do not know where. It's apparently a popular bluegrass song by how many have made covers of it.

It made me laugh.

Do you fear this man's invention that they call atomic power?
Are we all in great confusion, do we know the time or hour
When a terrible explosion may ring down upon our land
Leaving horrible destruction blotting out the works of man

Chorus:
Are you ready for that great atomic power?
Will you rise and meet your Savior in the end?
Will you shout or will you cry when the fire rains from on high?
Are you ready for that great atomic power?

There is one way to escape and be prepared to meet the Lord
Give your heart and soul to Jesus, He will be your shield and sword
He will surely stand beside and you'll never taste of death
For your soul will fly to safety and eternal peace and rest

There's an army who can conquer all the enemy's great bands
It's a regiment of Christians guided by the Savior's hand
When the mushroom of destruction falls and all it's fury great
God will surely save His children from this awful, awful fate

Are you ready for that great atomic power?

Change Starts with Recognizing Our Condition

All growth is change. And most growth starts with the recognition of our need to improve. On this Good Friday, I am reminded of Christ's sacrifice for me and everyone else and the subsequent failure on my part to always respond to Jesus' loving action properly.

Nehemiah, a servant of the king of Persia, heard of the state that Jerusalem had fallen to despite the recent ritual revival that had occurred there. Nehemiah responded to the sad situation with weeping, mourning, prayer and fasting. Nehemiah 1 records one of his prayers.

Today, I have updated that prayer for our situation. If you want to read the real prayer, go to Nehemiah 1. Here is my prayer on this great day.

O Lord, God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and obey his commands, let your ear be attentive and your eyes open to hear the prayer your servant is praying before you day and night for your servants, the church. I confess the sins we Christians, including myself and my local body, have committed against you. We have acted very wickedly toward you. We have not obeyed the command to love our neighbors as you taught.

Please remember the instruction you gave your servant Moses, saying, 'If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the nations, but if you return to me and obey my commands, then even if your exiled people are at the farthest horizon, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place I have chosen as a dwelling for my Name.'

We are your servants and your people, whom you redeemed by the great sacrifice of Jesus. O Lord, let your ear be attentive to the prayer of this your servant and to the prayer of your servants who delight in revering your name. May our lives give you glory. Give your servant success today by granting him favor in the presence of others.

Then Nehemiah went to do the will of God, risking his life, facing scorn and danger, and leaving the comfort of the king's presence - all to bring glory to God. In the end, Nehemiah's struggle was not in vain. None of his success would have happened if Nehemiah was not able to see that the reality of the world was different than the reality God intended. So often we also realize this but justify it away. Nehemiah did not do what we have the tendency to do. He followed the revelation by mourning, fasting, and prayer over the Israelites fallen state. When we strive for that which is better and are willing to change ourselves, God can be glorified.

So the wall was completed on the twenty-fifth of Elul, in fifty-two days. When all our enemies heard about this, all the surrounding nations were afraid and lost their self-confidence, because they realized that this work had been done with the help of our God (Nehemiah 6:15-16).

They realized that God was at work. Let us mourn, pray, and fast that the world will realize that God is at work in their midst, and may we be the people willing to be used for that work. But be assured, we will have to change for that to happen. All growth is change.

Rappin' for Jesus

A few weeks ago I saw an old friend, Marcus, whom I had not seen in about 8 years. He is a bright guy and has his hands in writing, mixing and producing his own music. He is also a writer/contributer/editor of “The Holy Observer,” a satirical Christian news source similar to “The Onion.” Anyway, combine those two aspects of his life and you get this news story in which he made a song just for the story. Listen to the song here and the lyrics are posted below. If you don’t get any of the references, just google them and you will figure out just how clever the song is.

Tru Dawgma – Straight Tribbin'

Eschatological know-how, not evangelical lowbrow
Postmodern cash cow
Revelation based on canonization
The millennial nation looms in dispensation
I spit pedagogy orthodoxy
Prima manifesto in the incarnation proxy
Imprimatur, my roots be the hypostatic union
The theocratic fusion, infusin'

Portiuncula mentalities be waxin'
Straight tribulation factions gaining esoteric traction
No apology, my strict epistemology
Will influence doxology and put you in a quandary
Infralapsarian… tribulation prose
Makes me wary and your pragmatism's blatantly exposed
I Didache your Tim Lahaye while rapture spankin' Jerry Jenkins…
Now cogitate this great awakenin'

Hook
Tribba-what (what?), Tribba-who (who?)
Flex eschatological like straight tribbahs do (2x)

Rapture, comin' at ya, gonna fetch ya, gonna catch ya
I be a theocrat with exegesis comin' natural
Ontology gazes in the wake of Armageddon
Pleroma in soma, not a disconnected remnant
Reviviscence is valid and callus as operatum
While your unbelief and disposition won't even fade Him
Cardiognosis, He knows your thoughts and your dreams
Like the Sadducees, your heresy is leaking out the seams

What, what, who? Henotheistic views
Are romanticized, sanitized, still ain't true
But from the parthenogenesis to the Parousia
We got imputed righteousness until the day we meet up
Since the ascension we got metaphysical nominalists
Refer to Postulates for obedientialis
Hidden like the pseudepigrapha in the
Deuterocanonical pack – the apost-hata's back!

One Faith, One Body, No Lines

There is one faith and one body, but God does not see the denominational lines that we have drawn. Just because one worships at a church that has a book of doctrine (that you might or might not agree with) does not exclude that person from the body of Christ. Likewise, just because one worships at a church that does not have a book of doctrine does not mean they are automatically part of that body. A church without a book of doctrine like our churches still have a lot of unwritten doctrines that are extra-scriptural. God is glorified in the lives of faithful Lutherans and he is glorified in the lives of faithful Nazarenes just as he is glorified in the life of a faithful non-denominational Christian.

Everyone usually goes to the church that they think are doing things the best and have the best grasp on Scripture. But for pride and self-glorification, people argue that their sect is the best and put others down rather than try and build one another up. This is nothing new. It was happening in Corinth.

Paul addressed it in 1 Corinthians 1.

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

Those who claim to follow Christ alone can be just as divisive as those who claim to follow Christ the way Luther did, the way Wesley did, or the way that any other human did. It is arrogant to think that we follow the Scripture alone without any influence from our forefathers. I read the Scripture the way that Alexander Campbell taught that Scripture should be read, that is a different way than the way that Martin Luther or John Wesley read it. But that does not mean that my faith is far greater than a Lutheran, a Methodist, or a Nazarene. My intellectual pursuit of the faith might be different, but we will not be judged by our intellectual pursuit. Rather, we will be judged by whether we have a heart that is totally surrendered to God.

Isaiah 29:13 states:

"The Lord says: 'These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men."

Israel was God's people. There was no group that was more God's than them, but they were still out of step with God. Their title or ethnic origin had nothing to do with whether they were right with God; God wanted their hearts. Likewise, God wants our hearts, anything short of that is not enough. We can give him our hearts whether we are in a Catholic church or in the middle of the woods alone. The key to the healthy Christian life is that we realize nothing but total surrender of our heart makes us right with God. There are acts of the faith that we will participate in when we surrender, but I do not think that God looks down and decides who has given him their heart based upon what church they attend or how they read the Scripture.

The law stated and Jesus repeated, "But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul."

Anything less than our whole being surrendered to God does not make us right with Him, not the name of the church we attend nor the lack of formal doctrines and creeds.

The sectarian lines that we have drawn in the sand wash away in God's eyes. Being part of one sect or another does not outweigh a heart that is totally surrendered to God.

So let us not be like those who divided the church by claiming to follow Christ, Cephas, Apollos, or Paul. Let us follow Jesus with our whole heart, not being judgmental, and loving those that we encounter every day. Let us help everyone we encounter to take their next faith step, whether that is their first or the next one after a life of total surrender of ninety years.

"Kings" - a modern take on an old story

The following is a post I made at another blog. It entails a show that substantially reflects the biblical story of David and Saul. If you have seen it I would be interested in your feedback. If you haven't, give it a try.


I watched the first 2 episodes of “Kings”—a new drama on Sundays at 8:00 on NBC. The commercials intrigued me because I thought it recast America as a monarchy instead of a democracy. So I was interested to see how the writers pictured such a world. However, my assumptions about the background of the show were completely wrong. Rather, it is a modernization of the biblical Saul and David story found in 1 and 2 Samuel. I figured this out immediately as there were many allusions to the biblical story—some overt and some more subtle. Here are a few:

The main city with a New York skyline was Shiloh
The king was named Silas (Saul); the young upstart was named David Shepherd; the king’s daughter and David’s love interest was named Michelle (Michal); the Prophet was named Reverend Samuels
An early scene saw David going up against a tank whose model was named “Goliath”

Others could be listed, but you get the point. A more subtle allusion revolved around the anointing of the Spirit. In the biblical narrative, the Spirit is on Saul and then leaves him and rests on David. In the show the Spirit is symbolized by butterflies that come and settle like a crown on the actors’ heads. I thought this was an interesting and profound appropriation.

No matter how many parallels and allusions are included, many modernizations of classics end up falling flat. However, I put this “Kings” one on the level of Romeo + Juliet (1996) with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes. One aspect that sets this show apart from other attempts to modernize ancient stories is the clever mix of modern and ancient language. While Romeo + Juliet tried to keep much of Shakespeare’s language, “Kings” uses modern English while sprinkling in some “spiritualized” language. For example, when Reverend Samuels denounces the king he says, “I bring a message. Since you have cast aside the word of the Lord he has cast you aside as king. He grants you no more favors. He protects what you love no longer. God wishes a man after his own heart. You have none.”

Through the first 2 episodes they have done a pretty good job of conveying the original storyline without too much fabrication or plot twisting. However, I wonder if they can keep it up without too many contrived stories. One problem I have is with the portrayal of the king’s son, Jack (Jonathan in the biblical account). In the TV edition he resents David, while the biblical account shows a man, who though he should resent David, loves him and accepts David’s ascension to the throne. Unless a plot line makes them best buddies, it will be a pretty significant divergence from the original.

As I said, my biggest fear is the writers turning this story into something it is not, or choosing to show one side of the characters over against another. But if they do, they will be in good company since the Biblical writers do the same thing. 1 and 2 Samuel tell all the dirty secrets of David, while Chronicles cleans up his history and presents a more pristine “man after God’s own heart.”

I don’t know where this series is going, but I like it thus far and recommend you give it a try. You can watch the first three episodes on the NBC website.

A Holiday Worth Celebrating

An important holiday came and went with little fanfare. On March 12th, 515 BCE (2524 years ago) the Bible records the following from Ezra 6:14-16:

So the elders of the Jews built and prospered, through the prophesying of the prophet Haggai and Zechariah son of Iddo. They finished their building by command of the God of Israel and by decree of Cyrus, Darius, and King Artaxerxes of Persia; and this house was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius. The people of Israel, the priests and the Levites, and the rest of the returned exiles, celebrated the dedication of this house of God with joy.

There are cards for sweetest day, secretary’s day, boss’s day, Arbor Day and every other day one could imagine. And yet, I found no “Second Temple Completion” cards. It is no surprise since few people in the modern world keep a lunar calendar or have any clue in what solar month “Adar” falls. Add to that the location of this story in a book that is rarely read, even by Christians and you have a holiday that is no longer celebrated.

I can only imagine the joy that was felt by this rag tag group of exiles who had returned to their homeland for the purpose or reinstating worship of their god Yahweh. They went from refuges to restored people. And all of it was through because of the command (will) of God. God used a pagan nation to not simply allow this great occasion, but to pay for it. God used prophets and other faithful followers to encourage the rebuilding. And God used the very people whom he had exiled to restore the people once again. It is quite an amazing story.

Now, I don’t propose making a big to-do about it every year, but I would like to point out a spiritual application. We need to regularly celebrate God’s successes in our lives. We need to celebrate restoration. We need to celebrate what God has done and is currently doing in our lives in and the lives of those we know. These regular remembrances help organize and focus our year, bringing out the joy that God has bestowed upon our lives. They may not make for catchy Hallmark cards and they may not sell a lot of candy and such. But they are integral in fully realizing the exiled places from which God has returned us.

hope

^{1 Corinthians 15:17}And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. ¹⁸Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. ¹⁹If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

If no one else has any real hope for resurrection either, why would we be pitied even more than they? Unless, the cost of discipleship is only worth it if there will be resurrection?

The Season of Sorrow

"'Even now,' declares the Lord,
'return to me with all your heart,
with fasting and weeping and mourning.
Rend your heart and not your garments.'"
Joel 2:12


O God, our great shepherd, you tenderly gather us as lambs, carrying us with your all embracing love. Yet, like sheep, we wander from you: following our own ways, ignoring your voice, distrusting your provisions.
Forgive our stubborn rebellion, our hardened hearts, our lack of trust.
Forgive us for those things that we have done though we should not and those things we have left undone that we should have done.
Refresh us once again by your quiet waters of mercy and restore our souls by your redeeming love.
Guide our paths that we might follow you more closely.


May your Season of Lent rend your heart back to your creator and Savior.

Sound Off

Allen Iverson on Charity and The Afterlife

I've always been a fan of Allen Iverson despite his reputation as one the NBA's bad guys. Much of that always seemed to come from the way he dressed, the way he wore his hair and the number of tattoos he has. None of that concerns me in the least.

Recently he provided some pretty interesting quotes to a reporter. Here are the highlights:

When asked about the highly publicized charity work organized by the league, he said it was "Fake."

"I just look forward to doing it. I don't need all the publicity that comes with it. I don't need that. When it's time for me to get toward that gate, either [God is] gonna say, 'Come in,' or He [is] gonna say, 'Turn around.' And a camera won't decide whether I get in or not."

Someone asked if Iverson thought he was going to heaven or hell.

"I've done a lot of good things in my life and done a lot of bad things in my life so I don't know. I hope the good things outweigh the bad things. I'm damn sure I don't want to go to hell.

"I'm not saying that I'm not in, because I think I am. Unless some things go dramatically wrong in the next how many years, I think I'll be welcomed through those gates."

He was asked if athletes should be considered role models?

"We have more impact on the world than people may think, than even we might think, you know what I mean? When I was younger, when we talk about role model-type situations, I never knew that we were important like we are.

"We are role models, regardless if we like it or not. It is something that we got to accept, but it is something that people should know that we're human and we make mistakes and we are not going to be perfect. You can want to be like Allen Iverson, but I don't think people should try to be like Allen Iverson. I think people should be better than Allen Iverson."

The Big Brother Bother

On more than one occasion, when I have taught the parable of the Prodigal Son, people have objected on behalf of the older brother. They feel that his gripe is legitimate. They think that the Father is playing favorites with the younger brother.

One person got so upset by it that I think he missed the beauty of perhaps Jesus' most wonderful story, the outlandish compassion of our heavenly Father.

I think this is important to clear up, because it will affect how we view our Heavenly Father and all those who would approach him. This is the context of the story (see verse 1 and 2). It is important to see the failings of the older brother (as well as the younger), and the generosity the Father shows both of his sons.

With that said, here is the case against the older brother:

1. He lacks the love of the father. It's easy to judge your siblings, but what father wants his child enslaved by a Gentile, tending pigs and starving? Or what father could allow his son to be his slave, see him everyday and treat him as a stranger?

It was the older brother's responsibility to plead to his father on behalf of a wayward brother. This older brother takes the opposite route. It is hatred fueled by jealousy, pride and pettiness.

Interestingly, there was a rabbinical parable of a prodigal son whose father does force him to be a slave to teach him a lesson. But that vindictive behavior does not reflect the Father in Heaven. But that story (if well-known) would have made Jesus' twist all the more dramatic.

2. He dishonors his father. Look at the humble words the "sinful" son uses upon his return. Now look at the obstinate words the older brother uses. He does not address him as "father". He shows great disdain for his brother, and his Father's decision to celebrate his return.

It is somewhat rude in our culture. It would have been seen as much worse in such a patriarchal culture.

3. He was ungrateful for what he had been given. His emphasis was how he had earned so much and received so little. His father's retort was how he had been given everything, while not acknowledging that any of it had been earned.

4. He is hypocrite regarding his father's mercy. While he had to know that his behavior was disrespectful, he wanted his brother's disrespect punished. His father continues to show him great mercy. See the way he seeks him out. Hear the tenderness as he addresses him as "my son".

So, I say, be careful not to pity such a dark reaction to the Father's love. Show mercy to older and younger brothers alike without excusing their behavior.

The Puzzling Power of the Resurrection

If you have ever done a jigsaw puzzle you know the full range of emotions that come with the task. At times it is a struggle - desperately looking for the right pieces. The frustration that sets in as you think you found a match and then realizing that is not right. The feelings of joy that come when you get a section completed or finally find that piece you have been looking for. And of course, the great feeling of satisfaction that comes over you when you finish the puzzle, all the pieces are in place, and you can see the fruit of your labor as you have the complete picture and can see how everything worked together.

I believe a jigsaw puzzle provides the perfect picture of what Paul is talking about in Philippians 3:10-11. How can there be joy in suffering? How can he desire to go through the pain and agony that Jesus endured? Because Paul knows that each struggle is a piece that is fitting together to form a fuller picture. And every piece that fits together unites us with Christ in a profound and unexplainable way. Again and again Paul returns to the thought that when the Christian has to suffer, he or she is in some strange way sharing the very suffering of Christ. To suffer for one’s faith is not a penalty, it is a privilege, because we are working towards completing the picture.

And never doubt the promise that if we suffer with him, we will be glorified with him. If we suffer with him, we shall reign with him. Experiencing the power of the resurrection means that we are so united with Christ that day by day we come more to share in his death, so that finally we share in his Resurrection. To know Christ means that we share the way he walked; we share the Cross he bore; we share the death he died; and finally we share the life he lives for evermore.

But in order for Jesus to dispense life, death is involved. There must be death to self to experience a resurrected life. Jesus offers a new life to any of us, at any time if we are willing to give over our selfishness, our pride, our desire for complete control over to him. That may take us places that we would have preferred not to go. That may cause some suffering for the name of Christ. But the guarantee that is backed up by Jesus’ resurrection is that we will experience the power to overcome, not just when we die, but here and now. To know Jesus is to believe unwaveringly that he will complete the puzzle.

Deja Vu...It's Last Week All Over Again

I am going to repeat last week's post because it is what I am still dwelling on. Sam provided guidance, but nobody else said anything. Maybe nobody has anything to say because Sam said all that needed to be said. Who knows?

As we begin our search for a church in the Oxford area, I have some serious questions.

Here are my guiding verses.

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (Acts 2:42)

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Luke 10:25-27)

How would a visitor measure whether a church is loving?

How would a visitor measure whether a church has a healthy fellowship?

How would a visitor measure whether a church is a praying church?

How would a visitor measure whether a church teaches proper doctrine?

For those of you in ministry, how would you show a visitor that you are striving to be what the church should be.

The Promise or the Premise of the Gospel?

I have been thinking about the content and nature of the gospel message – how people differ on what its contents are, how people differ on the presentation of this good news. And it has led me to ask what I consider to be a very poignant question: “Would you follow Jesus if there was no heaven and no hell?” Before you get bogged down on defending the locals of the next life, understand that I am not overtly denying their existence (though I have a discussion of Hell here – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). So, set that aside for a second, and consider, would you follow Jesus if there was no heaven and no hell?

I believe many would have a difficult time answering this question and it may well be impossible because heaven is inseparably bound up in their gospel. A shortened version would read something like this:

God sent Jesus to save us from our sins so that we can spend eternity with God in heaven.

Or perhaps on the opposite side of the coin,

God sent Jesus to deliver us from evil and the punishment of hell.

Thus to extricate heaven and hell from the gospel message would prove to be a difficult task indeed. But I recommend we try because I believe that this exercise gets at the full gospel message. More than that, I believe this exercise would challenge our understanding of why we do the things we do – our motivation for loving, forgiving, and living holy lives. So really consider the following: What if the work of Jesus accomplished reconciliation with the Creator, but there was no expectation of an eternal reward? Would you still seek to live a holy life or would you still try to love God and neighbor?

Might I propose something somewhat shocking – I think that many Christians would not be as “good” (or perhaps would be less “good” as we are not doing a great job currently). Haven’t we all heard preachers and teachers repeat the words of Qohleth when lambasting atheists? These speakers tell us that if there is no God and there is no heaven then we may as well “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.” If we found out that there was nothing to look forward to then how would we treat this life? Probably we would seek more pleasure and selfish joy at the cost of loving others. We may not go around killing each other or swindling one another, but my cynical nature believes that we would cease putting others first.

But let me put something out there – a variance of the gospel message. Jesus came to show us the best way to live. He came for more than just saving me from my sins. He came to bring a full life (John 10:10) and that doesn’t have to include heaven. This full life contains a fulfilling existence while on this earth – a lifestyle of love and grace. When we understand that the best life is the one modeled by Jesus and that finds its fulfillment in the Kingdom of God then our motivation for emulating this lifestyle stems not from expectation of eternal reward or punishment but from the firm belief that all joy, happiness, and fulfillment can be found in this life, following the shadow of the Savior.

A Quote on Prayer

I ran across this quote following the discussion between Sam and I yesterday on how to find a praying, fellowshipping, loving, and doctrinally sound church.

This concerns how to discern whether a church is a praying church. This is from Emilie Griffin's Clinging: The Experience of Prayer

People who pray, really pray, don't talk about it much. After you have looked into the matter carefully, you may be able to puzzle out who is really praying....In order to find a person who prays, you have to look for clues: charitableness, good temper, patience, a fair ability to handle stress, resonance, openness to others. What happens to people who pray is that their inward life gradually takes over from their outward life.

How to Find a Church that is...

Today I return to Chi Rho Live with questions rather than a post working through my thoughts. As we begin our search for a church in the Oxford area, I have some serious questions.

Here are my guiding verses.

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (Acts 2:42)

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Luke 10:25-27)

How would a visitor measure whether a church is loving?

How would a visitor measure whether a church has a healthy fellowship?

How would a visitor measure whether a church is a praying church?

How would a visitor measure whether a church teaches proper doctrine?

For those of you in ministry, how would you show a visitor that you are striving to be what the church should be.

The Shack

Okay,I just finished 'The Shack'. I don't want to give a full review. I just want to share a few thoughts.

As over-exposed as it is, the story behind the book might be the best part of it. It inspires me to want to write for smaller closer audiences. What a gift he gave his kids.

It is not as bad as you have heard, nor is it the best book ever written.

As with any book that tries to give theological answers about God that are not overtly stated in Scripture, it was at times annoying, for me anyway. Nothing horrible. The idea that God adamantly against us thinking we have responsibility was more than a little odd.

Every time the main character was shocked by the deep truths God was revealing made me laugh. These are the authors thoughts, and he thinks awe is the most natural reaction to them. I'm not knocking him. That's just one dilemma of writing words into God's mouth. If a man were not awed by God's words, then it wouldn't be God. But how do you come up with such words?

I think the book is cathartic. It was interesting (with the possible exception of the middle where it becomes all dialogue with no action for a while). It will make you think. It's worth the read for anyone who can remember that the book does not pretend to be anything more than fiction. And for that reason, I might not recommend it to everyone.

A Chase After The Wind

A few weeks back a friend asked me to visit a cabin he owned in the U.P. He knew I was tired and needed some revitalization. So, he wanted to be able to get away.

However, getting there, he said, was a little tricky. "You know how to get to the bridge. That's the easy part. But after that there so many unnamed roads. And the scenery and landmarks may have changed. It seems every time I give someone directions (turn right here, go four miles, etc...) they always lose their way."

Bemused, I asked, "How exactly do you expect me to find this place then?"

"Well," he chuckled, "the wind blows and swirls toward the cabin. Follow the wind, and you will get there."

This is not an account of actual events, but is an illustration to help us think about the Holy Spirit. Remember that the word for Spirit, pneuma , also mean breath or wind. So, in Galatians 5, where it says that since live by the Spirit, we should keep in step with the Spirit, it may be helpful to picture keeping in step with the wind.

How would this be helpful?

I guess it reminds me that the Spirit is not still or stagnant. He moves like the wind.

It's easier to tell where wind has been than where it is going. You just look at the things blown over.

So it is with the Spirit, I think. We can tell where he has been. His fruit is there. Love. Joy. Peace. Patience. Kindness. Goodness. Faithfulness. Gentleness. Self-Control. If you find broken Laws, then that is not the fruit of his presence.

I think that such ethereal directions are a challenge for sense of independence and control. Any time someone tries to give me landmarks, I grit my teeth and ask for road names. But it does seem to me to be the Way.