The Gad(d)about

First They Came ...

2010-04-24T00:20:00.000-07:00

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

- Pastor Martin Niemöller

Public displays of grace

2010-04-21T21:39:00.000-07:00

I was watching a couple today and I'm fairly certain they were brand new. They were young and oblivious to anyone around them. The girl kept saying things that the guy didn't agree with, but he'd bite his tongue and smile, she'd giggle. And they'd kiss.

It was disgusting. I would've made gagging sounds if I thought I could've gained their attention.

But it also occurred to me this is not the worst presentation of what grace really looks like. I've been there before and I think most of you have, too, although some of you may have to scrape the recesses of your brain to remember what it was like to:

- Be so interested in what the other person has to say you're willing to let go of any point you might have

- Bite your tongue and resist your initial instinct to scream when someone else says something that crosses your opinions on the world

- Be willing to let someone get away with being a little rude in exchange for a warm smile or a quick kiss.

Hey, I've seen some great marriages out there, but eventually all this wears off in every relationship. At some point you have to stand your ground and draw a line. It's just human nature. Grace becomes a challenge, and it's why marriages can dissolve even 20, 30, 40 years down the line ... surrender gives in to self-preservation of some kind, usually of the emotional kind.

Obviously it requires God to fuel us up with grace to sustain it. It just never looks so ... graceful, and it never comes so easy, when you're early in a relationship.

NASCAR still races on Sunday, right?

2010-04-14T17:00:00.000-07:00

Crass is as crass does.

'Everything is amazing an nobody's happy'

2010-04-13T13:37:00.001-07:00

Loneliness, transparency, and deep-fried locusts

2010-04-12T23:22:00.000-07:00

I'm relatively certain if I could walk up to 100 random strangers, attach them to a fool-proof lie detector, and asked them what their No. 1 fear is, 99 of them would answer loneliness.

I say 99 and not 100 because there's always one guy, like me, who fears boredom more, but loneliness would still rate highly.

Fear of loneliness is what drives consumerism. We are buying things to be a part of a community. That's why we dress the same, have the same haircuts. It's also why misfits are so drawn to the opposite. They don't fit in here, so they create their own community where they do fit in and revel in their bitterness towards the yuppies.

I have a theory, and it's rather urbane, but I'm fairly certain fear of loneliness is the prison that ensures our loneliness, because we are willing to set the bar low for community -- like bare existence -- so not to risk embarrassment, faux pas, annoyance of the clan leaders or whatever that would risk total exclusion from community. We'd rather live in some pain, and some in considerable pain, than to possibly suffer emotional death from exclusion by daring to suggest (and attempt) something obviously better.

It's why I think people like Glenn Beck are terrified of churches that preach social justice, because transparency, graceful accountability, and real community are at the foundation of churches like that, and if people started to get real community in their churches, it probably would unravel the very core of our financial system. They would stop needing to buy stuff to feel like they're part of something greater.

I'm not rooting for financial collapse, by the way. I like having a job and I enjoy many aspects of our American excess, some of them without shame. Seriously, I cannot imagine a world without In-and-Out Burger. I'm just saying I understand that fear and I think, if Glenn Beck were honest, he'd admit he's willing to manipulate people and violate his own conscience to prevent such a thing from happening.

I've repeated this in my head so many times, I guess I just believe it to be true, though I can't be sure. This is how I see the world, like that Sting song "Message in Bottle," where he casts out his bottle from his lonely island hoping someone finds it, and he wakes up the next morning and finds 100 million bottles from 100 million people all in the same dire situation of despair.

I'd like to say Christians have an answer to this, but we don't. We don't do community very well. I take that back. We do community, we just like to keep it exclusive. And I don't say that in broad judgment from high atop my mountain top of moral superiority. I'm the chief offender, like Paul. I'm the worst of them all. So many times I've proclaimed Christ's love for the world, then alienated myself from sinners (and other Christians!), not because I feared their influence over me, but because the didn't share my world view.

I call it the Peter Syndrome, but that's another blog post. Let's just say Christians tend to read Galatians like they're the one holding the sword handle pointing it at hypocrites. I'm the Galatian. I'm the hypocrite. Paul was writing to me, the so-called grace-filled Christian. I deserve the sharp end of that sword.

I've looked in the Bible where Jesus criticized the world for behaving like the world. You'll just have to trust me. It's not there. You have to go all Gnostic to find that kind of lie.

Why do we do this? We have this great theology of original sin and being born into an immediate need for salvation. No human escapes this. But we go to church and interact with each other as if we stopped sinning the day we said the Sinner's Prayer and, to boot, God not only absolved us of our sin but he's put us in charge of making sure it's hard to walk in the door of the church and even harder to stay in the church.

We shake our heads at how the world is going to hell in the hand basket. Our politicians? Pffft. They couldn't know Jesus. You can't know Jesus if you ever had the kind of megalomaniacal ambition to pursue high office. You're not just suspect. We've already written you off. And we voted for you.

Kids and their rap music. Men and their internet porn. Women and their Oprah worship.

Democrats!

It's all so ... messy. Christians don't like messy. We like tidy, even if it means sweeping some of that dirt under the refrigerator. Just, you know, don't ever move the refrigerator.

Jesus loves you, but, at best, we're withholding judgment until we can affirm your politics.

None of this is Christianity to me. It's American Christian culture, and I long ago started ditching it piece by piece. Most recently to go was politics, and I recently made this ridiculously bold statement to my great friend, Cristen, that I never want anyone to know me by my politics. I don't think she was impressed, but I'm trying to start a Christian revolution here, not win cheap points with my friends.

It sounds great when I say it. Shoot, it FEELS great. Liberating. I just don't know exactly how that plays out when I have to actually go vote and I haven't been paying attention because I'm boycotting the political process. Voting for Mickey Mouse again seems a little childish and irresponsible.

But it gets me back to where I'm most comfortable, and that's truly transparent. Not translucent -- I do want to be about something -- but transparent. I want to be about Jesus. I want to be about Jesus and the Gospel. I want to be about the ministry of Jesus. I want to walk so narrowly in Jesus' path that I am obscured from view and Jesus is all anyone can see.

This is a problem, though. I'm not real good at dealing with poverty and, truth be told, I'm not even sure I could eat a locust if it were breaded and deep fried and served with fancy ketchup. So I resolve to work. I make this concession. A man, in this political and cultural environment, should be gainfully employed. And he should have a car and maybe some land. And a wife who can home-school the children to keep them away from the dangers of *gasp* public school.

And you can see where Jesus is the one who actually starts to become obscured again. I'm still working on this, so bear with me. I mean, be inspired, but give me time to iron out all the details.

I've had this kind of worldview so long, I never realized how transparent I had let myself become until recently, when I started dating, and I realized being transparent from the beginning is so radical that it's off-putting. It's startling. It's frightening. It's not nearly the revolution I imagined it to be when I set out to let the world see me for all my flaws and all of God's perfection when I started this blog back in 2005.

I've been texting with my friend Becky, who is nuclear-charged full of the life of the Kingdom and shares my view of the world that transparency is the only way to sleep with a clean conscience at night. No lies. No deceptions. No worries about having to remember the lies and deceptions. No delusions. Total contentment that God is so in control that we don't even have to hide our sins or transgressions.

Like me, Becky is a bit frustrated with other Christians who don't see the benefit of this. I'm a bit older and she's somewhat new at this, so I don't want to crush her spirit, but being transparent is an open invitation to being alienated from the community. First, people will actually have the nerve to find good reasons not to like you. I hadn't considered this pitfall until I allowed people the liberty to tell me, without condemnation, what the problem was. Second, it challenges that whole community/consumer comfort zone by bringing attention to oneself, and public ostracization has been known to claim innocent victims who had simply stopped to gawk at someone so boldly, radically different.

I'm starting to figure out that transparency, by itself, is not Christ-like. It can be full of pride just like being sold out on consumerism can be. "Hey, look at me, I'm emotionally naked and not ashamed! You should feel totally comfortable around me! Look at all my flaws and celebrate my weaknesses with me! I'm a better Christian than those other Christians that shunned you!"

To my surprise, this approach is no more appealing to the world than fundamentalism.

I've been re-reading much of the New Testament since downloading the ESV onto my smartphone, because no Christian bohemian is complete without a smartphone and at least eight searchable translations. The forceful, elegant ESV does not beat around the bush with this Jesus fellow. He not only walked on water, he walked on air, and by that I mean the grace allowed him to literally walk above it all. My notes to date show Jesus:

- Never had to tell anyone he was transparent. He just was.
- Saved his anger for the self-righteous only when the self-righteous attacked him or took advantage of his people. He certainly didn't go looking for a fight and he was careful not to trip into one with a stray sarcastic parable.
- Always met those God was calling to him at their specific location, meeting their specific need, at the specific time of need, and wherever they were at emotionally. Even while he was hanging from the cross. (!!!!)
- Based his ministry on some pretty mundane stuff, namely holistic sacrifice and service to the lowest of the low. None of the apostles had iPods, which was alarming to me. I didn't notice that at first in the NIV.

In my quest to unpack all the burdensome, self-righteous Christian culture I had acquired in my 20s, I suppose I have packed a whole new bag of burdensome, self-righteous judgment of those who have somehow maintained a functional relationship with Christ while listening to the mind-dulling positive, encouraging tones of CCM and soul-robbing venom of talk radio.

I'm working on it, though. And I'm submitting it to Christ. That, I hope, is a transparency that leads to redemption. I'll even try locusts. Once. If I have to.

Stick to your guns, die lonely

2010-03-19T12:15:00.000-07:00

Michael Jones may be a very interesting man, but that doesn't make him good mating material.

All you really need to make a relationship work is to share a worldview. Anything else in common is a bonus.

While we're at it, none of my friends dare cast aspersions on Steely Dan. It's the music of nerds who are secretly making fun of everyone else. That's just charming, even though Donald Fagen increasingly looks like a vampire.

Rejected Donald Miller titles

2010-03-17T15:10:00.000-07:00

10. Red Like Afro-Cuban Salsa
9. Chartreuse Like Your Dad's Favorite Smoking Jacket
8. Green Like Toe Jam
7. Blue Like That Scary Thing In Your Refrigerator
6. Writing This Book Was Much Easier Than Getting A Real Job
5. Blurry and Gray Like My Theology
4. Too Hip For Your Church
3. Feel This Book
2. Suburbia Stole My Baby Away
1. Things You Think About But Are Terrified Someone Else In Your Church Might Find Out

Dating as a Christian adult

2010-03-16T16:15:00.000-07:00

I'm going to go down an unusual path with this post, not because I think it's vital for the entire Christian community, but because it's something I'm going through. Perhaps there's someone else out there like me who can be helped by what I've learned.

My wife passed last April, and last January I felt emotionally available to the world for the first time. Grieving is a strange process, but I felt I got off light because my marriage was entirely built on our faith. I didn't have any lingering regrets, no concern about Jess' second life beyond this world. All I had to deal with was loss. Awful, yes, but much less challenging than some others I know.

But I'm 40 and weighed down with medical bills, out of shape, and just no longer looking at the best physical years of my life. I sacrificed much of my career momentum to make things work in my marriage. Again, no regrets, but it doesn't make life any easier.

I mention that last part only because I really didn't put enough thought into that part of things when I started to make myself available again on the dating field.

Being a widower is challenging enough. It's a unique kind of baggage to carry around. A lot of women don't want to have to compete with a ghost. My marriage ended at a strong point. I still love Jess, always will. There was no break in that love, and ... well, who wants to be Plan B?

The financial stuff, the career stuff, that plays a much bigger role now than I had considered. Women my age have become more practical. There are no stars in their eyes. They've been burned -- or perhaps just almost burned -- enough to know money is an important factor to consider. Not wealth, mind you. The women I'm attracted to are reasonable people. Just some financial stability. If home ownership isn't already on the list, it's something the man should be able to acquire. You know, like a grown-up.

And it's not like something I can toss out there in the first conversation. That's the heartbreaking part. I would love it if I could! Would save some time and perhaps some broken hearts. But it's a conversation that takes place much further down the road, when feelings have developed and you start pondering life together, if only in the most simple terms.

This is not to say I'm completely out there, without a budget, without income, just throwing money around like a sailor on three-day leave. No, I have decent income, I have a good budget, and I have a plan to get out of debt. Sooner rather than later. My debt is also explainable. But if you're a 30-something career woman with great credit and no financial drama, it's a major stumbling block. A marriage isn't just an emotional and spiritual union. It's a financial agreement. And 720 credit scores have to think very hard about mingling with lesser ones because long-term quality of life is at stake. Frankly, I don't blame anyone at my age who takes this into consideration.

What really strikes me as more challenging, though, is communication. You get a very different mix of singles at my age. Everyone's lived a life of some type and have developed very strong opinions about the world. As a by-product, it becomes much more difficult to establish a common language, a common understanding. Everyone my age seems to have learned how important communication is in a relationship; if they're not divorced, they know a lot of people who are, and everyone's taken some very good notes. But they've also developed their own ideas about what type of communication is needed and how it needs to be delivered, when really that needs to be more organic and adjusted to the person with whom you're pairing.

There's this rush to establish strong communication from the beginning. Everyone's trying to address their own issues. So many are in counseling for something or another, so talking to some people, you know you're also talking to their counselor (and in a few cases, the counselors are talking right back at you through them). Just finding a common language that doesn't include pop psychology terms and Christianese can consume all the time you spend together.

I don't really have any great answers to these problems today, but I have resolved one thing: I'm still not going to wait to date. If I waited until I was where I think I needed to be, out of debt and a small bank roll of savings, it'd be two or more years before I left the house. I don't think that's healthy. And right now I'm thinking communication is either there and it's easy or perhaps I'm just not meeting the right people.

CDC's autism researcher a fraud, on the run

2010-03-11T11:07:00.000-08:00

This was alarming to read.

I've been basing my own opinion of child vaccines on the strenuous assertions of safety by the CDC. This really knocked me for a loop.

The myth of the bullet proof Christian

2010-03-11T09:19:00.000-08:00

A few years back I was stunned (and pleased) to hear a pastor and friend of mine admit from the pulpit he's not bullet proof.

He was discussing his own experiences with his heart and learned -- without falling thankfully -- that he can't throw himself into any situation and expect his strong faith to remain so strong.

This is a man that's been married for decades, loves his wife, and I've seen his walk. It's formidable. He loves the Lord.

But he knew if he put himself in the wrong position, he's just as capable of stumbling into sin as the people who come into his office to seek counsel on how to dig out of the hole of their own transgressions.

I was reminded of this as I watch countless Christians, young and old, explain why they want to be in full-time ministry as part of their audition tapes for the Great Addison Road Drummer Search on YouTube. I get the impression some of these well-intentioned people think by getting into that kind of ministry, somehow:

• Their ministry will increase more than anything they might do on the local level
• Their walk with the Lord will be stronger
• They will reap some perceived spiritual benefit
• They will be less inclined to fall into sin like those who live the mundane life of a non-rock star

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is going into any full-time ministry is an open invitation to daily challenges. A friend of mine used to call it "earning name recognition in hell," because being in full-time ministry is akin to putting a spiritual target on your back.

Just ask the members of Addison Road. The moment they went on the road last week challenges set in. And then again, but thankfully avoiding the ultimate tragedy.

And those were just physical challenges that could have led to faith erosion.

The history of visible, full-time ministry is replete with men and women with powerful ministries who fell into all kinds of sin, including philandery, sexual perversion, and divorce. Don't get me wrong here -- I'm not casting judgment on them. Not my job, not my heart.

I just think their stories should serve as a warning, because if there were ever any bullet-proof Christians, those people would be them. They served on the highest, most visible platforms and were reaching the most people.

But their stories of failure aren't the only ones. These things play out over and over again on the local level all the time, in all denominations. Experience suggests any position of authority in the Kingdom, big or small, makes every weakness that much more inviting to the enemy.

But there's no greater example of the myth of the bullet-proof faith than David. He was the King of Israel, God's chosen one, the man who wrote key passages in our Bible. How holy was he? Oh, he just sent his friend to the front lines to be killed so he could have his friend's wife.

The reality of joining a group like Addison Road is that first, it's a challenging job and you are in a touring rock band. All the temptations of indulgence in secular music are there in Christian Contemporary Music. It doesn't matter what you're singing about on stage. It's pretty common to simply become the performer on stage and a less-righteous person off it. There really is no difference.

But even more challenging is that you are constantly in the public, and it causes most people to withdraw emotionally because it can be dangerous if you allow yourself to get messy in front of the public. It can lead to one becoming less and less transparent in ALL their relationships, which seems to always lead to a fall.

Going into full-time ministry requires a deep understanding of your weaknesses, not just a recognition of your strengths. And it requires perhaps a doubled-up commitment to prayer and surrender, because the challenges are only that much greater when you put your faith out there on your shirt sleeve.

Surviving church as a single scorecard

2010-03-10T15:21:00.000-08:00

I was tipped (thanks Obie Won) to Jonathon Acuff's Stuff Christians Like blog today and stumbled over a great post entitled Surviving Church as a Single Scorecard.

My favorites:

2. Your church has a singles ministry but it’s combined with the college ministry which creates opportunities for conversations like this:

Student: “My roommate bought a microwave for our dorm room. I love being a Freshman!”

Single: “My 401K is underperforming.” = +2 points

8. When people introduce you, they say, “This is Matt, my single friend.” = +2 points

15. Whenever married friends call you at noon on a Saturday, they start the conversation by saying, “Did I just wake you up?” = +3 points

17. You’ve secretly always wanted your own cat but are afraid that ownership of a single kitten will become some sort of gateway drug to becoming “the cat lady.” = – 2 points

28. Upon hearing that you went on a first date with someone, your single friends at church stop inviting you to the single events because “you’re in a relationship already.” = +2 points

Frankly, I can't believe I didn't write that post. It even SOUNDS like something I wrote when I read it.

Around the Blogdom: Glenn Beck blogstorm

2010-03-09T14:28:00.000-08:00

Glad to see I wasn't the only one to jump on this:

Michael Hidalgo, Lead Pastor at Denver Community Church, seems to share a perspective with me.

Jeffery Joseph at Turn Off Fox -- no surprise -- provides some strong historical background on the term "social justice" while proselytizing to Christians to, well, turn off Fox.

Dr. Richard Beck at Experimental Theology gets all Biblical and stuff.

Bill Cork at Advent Hope points out the other, misguided side who borrow the term "social justice," and reminds Beck of his own Mormon history of theocratic design. Ouch.

The folks at New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good are passing the plate in hopes of raising money to counter-attack Beck.

Brian Kiley at Live Generously just decides to pray for Beck's salvation. What a radical.

Good ol' Scot McKnight of Jesus Screed goes New Testament on Beck's backside. Call the Overman Committee, I think we have ourselves a Nah-zee.

John Hummel at Between the Bits thinks Beck has revealed a Mormon's true heart. Meh. I'm not going there. I'll leave that stuff to this guy.

Still waiting to find a credible defense of Beck's statement. And waiting. And waiting. And waiting ...

Glenn Beck and social justice

2010-03-09T04:36:00.000-08:00

Few people make my skin crawl like Glenn Beck. He is caustic, irrational, and constantly making statements that require a back pedal.

The other side of this is no one is more misquoted and taken out of context than Glenn Beck. He sets himself up for it by taking a scorched earth policy that leaves no charity for his opponents. So whenever I see someone quoting Glenn Beck to set up a tirade against his point of view, I'm always wondering what the rest of the quote was or what the context was. So I write this expecting (hoping) there's more to this quote than what is presented.

Jesuit priest and Huffington Post blogger Rev. James Martin quotes Beck as saying:

I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes.

I don't know where to begin to attack this.

First, it's important to point out Beck is a Mormon and, like any one in a religious organization with an agenda to proselytize, would love nothing more than to convert everyone to his church. If I were in the same position, I wouldn't even hide my intentions.

As a Mormon, Beck should know better. His church excels at delivering social justice, or at least a reasonable proximity of it. By that, I mean Mormons are strong on charity and are probably the best example of a church that bends over backwards to assist the poor and sick. I have strong disagreements with Mormonism as a theology and faith practice, but I will give them that.

Beck's ridiculously paranoid world view can't see that, though. Everything's a conspiracy. And he misappropriates the term "social justice" because he's filtered everything through his political prism.

People, this is why it's dangerous to sell out to politics.

I would advise you to beware of churches that have no concept or theology of social justice. Not only is it the primary point of the OT prophets, the very fulfillment of social justice is found in the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Social justice is the result of the ministry of Jesus in its purest form: the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed, and all are delivered from the wages of sin. Any Evangelical church that does not teach this is teaching a lesser Gospel, a faulty one.

Beck is not the first to co-opt the term social justice. Others have missed the point for different reasons, such as Jim Wallis and the Sojourners. Wallis has the right idea for the wrong reasons. For Wallis, social justice is the Gospel, and he just has it backwards. ANYONE can care for the poor. The Kingdom has not come if the unadulterated Gospel has not been preached.

The problem with Beck's point of view is the same problem that cripples the church: We've let the world invade our church, the world's fears invade our hearts, the world's limitations skew our hope and faith and understanding of serving a big, active God in this world.

The reality is Christianity and ANY political philosophy are incompatible because the Kingdom of God suffers from none of the imperfections in this world. As Christians, we are first citizens of the Kingdom of God, and citizens of our country second. We are called to be servants of men, servants of the very people Beck condemns daily on his show. The very people Beck dismisses are the very people that need Jesus the most.

Religious confusion in Haiti

2010-03-07T23:15:00.000-08:00

This was a heartbreaking read.

Some Voodooists in Haiti showed up to pray for the dead and were pelted by rocks by by-standers, their Voodoo religious instruments urinated on.

The incident was blamed on Evangelicals, but I'm going to consider that claim a little dubious for now considering the lengths the author went to explain the real tension in that country.

Tensions have been running high since the Jan. 12 earthquake killed an estimated 200,000 people and left more than 1 million homeless. More than 150 machete-wielding men attacked a World Food Program convoy Monday on the road between Haiti's second-largest city of Cap-Haitien and Port-au-Prince. There were no injuries but Chilean peacekeepers could not prevent the men from stealing the food, UN spokesman Michel Bonnardeaux said.

Religious tension has also increased: Baptists, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Mormons and other missionaries have flocked to Haiti in droves since the earthquake to feed the homeless, treat the injured and jockey for souls. Some Voodoo practitioners have said they've converted to Christianity for fear they will lose out on aid or a belief that the earthquake was a warning from God.

Everyone's selling something, I guess. Nothing's really free, not even charity.

I confess I know absolutely nothing about being a missionary, other than it is a job one takes knowing the only gratitude is the spiritual kind. It's a great way to live a life of poverty and danger. You only have to read the New Testament to understand that. No one can lower the esteem I have for anyone who chooses that path.

That said, I wonder sometimes what our Evangelical missionaries really are selling. I don't mean that in a cynical way. Just in a curious way, especially when I read stories like this. Do missionaries challenge people to weigh the costs of taking up the Cross? Or is it the more wholesale "Sinner's prayer and a biscuit" sales pitch?

Living in Haiti must look very much like Hell on Earth, and serving there as a missionary all the same. I pray for those people who are having to make difficult decisions with food and health care with such a short supply and so much need. Surely we say, "Give it all away," but do we give our conversions first dibs on the stuff? I would guess so. I would guess that's the pecking order, because I can't imagine any other way to manage such a finite supply with so many in need. And I would guess that's why we have people living in fear of anything that might cut off their very survival.

As much as Haiti has shown the best side of us -- so willing to jump into the mess and lend a very gracious hand -- it has also shown the very worst of us. I need only to reach back a few weeks and point to an over-zealous Christian who used it as an opportunity to get around international laws.

No doubt, so many of us saw this as an opportunity to deliver the Gospel to a people where it had been culturally resisted, and I say, "Amen" to that. What I pray for though is that the desperate and urgent needs of these people are first met and that Evangelical missionaries are able to set themselves apart from the other competing missionaries as people who understand that. And perhaps Evangelicals worldwide should up the ante by providing so much aid and care than it exceeds the need. I know if my neighbor needs a loaf of bread, all he needs is to ask me. I'm not going to require him to sit through a 10-minute sermon and convert right there. My charity is just the opening salvo in a relationship I intend to continue. But first, the bread.

Haiti is devastated. This earthquake disaster is much worse than, say, Katrina, because there is no federal government to step in -- early or late -- to assist and provide order. Anarchy is the likely the rule, not the exception. It's going to take years to rebuild what little they had. So our commitment to Haiti as believers must be full-time, full-term, lest we look like just another group with something to sell.

The Vineyard and politics

2010-03-06T22:39:00.000-08:00

Politics is rarely the place I like to reside, especially on a Sunday morning. Politics are unholy to me. Pursuit of serious political power for Christians, IMO, is like Israel begging God for a king: Are we certain we want what we're asking for?

I stay away from answering those questions, but I had to perk up when I heard about Jane Norton, Republic primary candidate for one of Colorado's U.S. Senate seats against incumbent Michael Bennett.

Aside from the press packaging and comparisons to Sarah Palin, Norton appears to be a run-of-the-mill Republican who has adopted (seemingly) every party plank from start to finish. What made me curious is Norton is also a member of the Smoky Hill Vineyard in Centennial, Colo.

I'm not aware of any current Vineyard members in U.S. Congress. There could be one but I've not heard of it. Conceivably, if elected (and there is some doubt she will win the primary, much less the election), she would become the most politically powerful Vineyard member I know of. Only Bill McCartney, founder of Promise Keepers and former Colorado football coach, might've had more political influence.

I'm not really in favor of this because it causes the Vineyard to answer political questions I don't think our organization is really meant to answer. For example, here's how Linda Hirshman portrayed Norton and our organization:

Like Palin, Norton actively participates in a Pentacostal house of worship; she belongs to the Smoky Hill Vineyard Church. The pastor, Greg Thompson, says “of course” the church “is pro-life” and “believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.” The Vineyard movement has produced much writing and speaking against abortions and in favor of loving homosexuals so strongly that they'll abandon their sexual "attractions."

Have we? I was not aware of that.

One of the things that made me feel comfortable with the Vineyard was what I perceived to be an apolitical stance, unlike a certain denomination that likes to make headlines each year by trudging into the political arena with bold statements. I could never tolerate that. Politics tend to skew the Gospel message. I want an unadulterated Gospel message, one that does not require you to adopt a political view to assure salvation.

So it's surprising to me that (a) a pastor would be allowed to speak on politics for the entire movement and (b) the Vineyard has been positively identified with a political position.

I'm vaguely aware that Anaheim Vineyard was home to many pro-life rallies in the 80s, but to my knowledge that relationship is no longer there. I'm fully aware of the Vineyard's relationship to ex-gay organizations like Exodus International, part of a practice I find somewhat dubious and possibly harmful. But I don't want to get off point here. That's ministry. What the blogger above mentioned is akin to a political arm of my church affiliation, and that's discouraging if true.

Back to Norton ...

It's neither here nor there to me if she wins, and it won't have any impact that I can foresee on the Vineyard. But it did make me think what it would be like to be in that church, having someone I'm in fellowship with basically define who I am politically. Not on purpose, but that's how the media would work. I think that would be a great challenge for me and I confess, if it become a bright focus, I would face a difficult decision on how much I would want to be a part of that church.

One of my heroes, Greg Boyd, wrote an outstanding book called Myth of a Christian Nation. Before any of my Calvinist friends jump on me here, I'm still (still!) not endorsing Open Theism. But Boyd made so many strong points in favor of the Gospel I am happy to recommend that book to anyone who wants to understand my apolitical point of view.

Boyd aptly sums up the entire book in a few quotes:

The picture I get of God's kingdom is of people—tax collectors, prostitutes, fishermen—following Jesus. If we understood that our one job is to replicate the outrageous humility of Calvary, I think we'd begin to see the world in a different way. Instead of other people being our enemies, we would see them as the very people we are called to serve .... You have to put down the Cross to pick up the Sword.

And that's the challenge I face when I see my own kind entering the field of politics. Not only do I have no interest in the sword, I don't want anyone to perceive me as carrying the sword. I don't want any mixed messages concerning what I'm about.

Worst worship song ever?

2010-03-06T21:53:00.000-08:00

I've come across a lot of awful worship songs in my life, but this might just be the winner.

If most international bloggers were honest ...

2010-03-06T17:35:00.000-08:00

You know it today as Wayoutbackistan, the expansive and traverse domain that is home to a gazillion years of forgettable history and that glowing metropolis Hardohearing, gong capital of the world. But just 25 years ago it was a war-torn land known more for piracy and white-slave trade.

I mean, it's still known for piracy and white-slave trade, but the original pirates and slave traders made a lot of money and expanded into other more dangerous and lucrative businesses, like international banking. And gong making.

The root cause of that bloody civil war remains today, where the light-skinned entrenched warlords of the Booyah clan enjoy the fruits of the land while the outcast darker Doh! clan feed on the scraps. Actually, I can't personally tell a skin tone difference, but it makes for a much more dramatic narrative if I add that element.

The Booyahs haven't always been in power. The two clans were relatively in check for hundreds of years until the CIA tipped the scales by giving guns and strategic training to the Booyahs. I don't actually know that for certain, but, c'mon, it's a small country not far from the former Communist Russia run with a heavy-handed government. What are the odds I'm wrong? My stepfather's grandfather was member of the Doh! clan and I'm going to major in foreign language when I graduate from high school in three years, so you'll just have to trust me on that. I know better.

Wayoutbackistan grew from the original Doh! clans. We can trace the Doh! heritage as far back as 800 B.C., when the expanding Roman empire deemed the land too pointless to raid and the people too stupid and burdensome to bring into the fold of their culture. Roman historian Handcrampius wrote of the dull Doh! culture, leading to the first known Latin use of "persona non grata." That saying is emblazoned on the Wayoutbackistan coat of arms today in hopes that modern historians might someday find Wayoutbackistan more historically important.

Doh! clans attempted to be ranchers, but they found it much easier to raid cattle and farms of other nations. Their attempts to become farmers led to their own discovery of opium, which they used to feed the cattle.

And it was that simple, innocent way for almost 1,000 years until the Booyahs -- the military arm of the Doh! clan -- split from the Doh! clan because they grew tired of the Doh! clan leaders' constant whining and horrible body odor.

The Booyah and Doh! clans waged war against each other until the final blow, during the Battle of Armstain, in 1984. The Booyah clan rolled over the opposing armies in a massive fleet of tanks forged together by best Chinese pot metal money could buy, and the Doh! clan's tactic of throwing their bodies under the tanks to slow them down proved futile.

I wrote this because I want you to care about Wayoutbackistan the way I do: It gives me a special identity, a special cause, because without it I would just be another nerd writing about the latest Apple product. I tried that before and I couldn't get anyone to comment on my blog.

My hope is this blog leads to a better understanding of these wonderful people and someday, I might have a girlfriend.

Reports: S. Korean Internet addicts let baby starve

2010-03-06T16:34:00.000-08:00

Reports: S. Korean Internet addicts let baby starve

The writer did a great job here understating the irony. Yes, this is the world we live in.

When did Jesus say he was coming back?

*checks watch*

*taps foot impatiently*

The Christian singles mess

2010-03-05T21:48:00.000-08:00

What a great way for me to get back into the swing of things by replying to a post from my old friend Dan at Cerulean Sanctum, who is a modern day John the Baptist. By that I mean he has long hair, eats strange things, and doesn't shower often.

Dan responded to a Facebook post from fellow blogger Tim Challies about the "problem" with Christian singles today. Tim wrote:

One of the biggest problems in the church today is the failure of young adult men to value and pursue marriage.

First, I'm impressed that Tim can even spot single men in the church. They're the most ignored people in any given congregation. Dan aptly responded by pointing out that, hey, let's not leave the blame with the guys.

It was almost always the woman who broke things off in a relationship. I knew a lot of single Christian guys, and they were typically the dumpee, not the dumper. These were good guys, too. They WANTED to get married. It’s just that their girlfriends didn’t—at least not to them. So just who is putting off marriage here?

I've been a singles minister and spent possibly thousands of hours talking to single men and women online since 1996. By virtue of my own singleness, it has been the center of my personal ministry as an adult. Now, as a widow after seven years of blissful marriage, I'm getting a grasp on the complete awkward nature of being a single person at the beginning of middle age.

Are my credentials set? Good. Let me lay one on y'all:

I've never actually met a mature Christian single who didn't want to get married, didn't constantly dwell on feelings of inadequacy of being a single Christian, didn't abhor the isolation that comes with being a single Christian in virtually every congregation, didn't dread every moment when certain married Christians would come by and pass judgment -- usually passively and even unwittingly -- by NOT inviting the single people to their couples gatherings.

I don't know where Tim goes to church, but it seems to be in another universe than the one I live in. Even the immature Christians have a great burden to get married to another Christian because they are told over and over and over again by Christian culture (and often times by their own church, by way of agenda, if not outright from the pulpit) they are incomplete Christians until they are married.

No, Tim, I'm sorry. You have it wrong.

One of the biggest problems in the church today is the failure of the church to teach singles how to live a life of purposeful singleness

I agree with Dan, as well, about younger Christians -- often females -- who keep impossible checklists for the kind of mate they're looking for. And, yep, that list shrinks as life goes on.

What I feel I need to add to Dan's post is that we have ruined an entire generation of young Christians with programs designed to produce the type of behavior we prefer but fail to deliver grown-up hearts sealed with Christ. We have seemed much more concerned with tertiary issues like abstinence and not concerned enough with primary issues like teaching young people to become servants of the kingdom of God.

What's worse is we promise these kids things we can never deliver, like that perfect prince or perfect princess they're supposed to be saving their virginity for. We DEIFY marriage for them at an early age, turning it into something to be worshiped, and possibly something actually unattainable. It puts them on a mission for that person they can't live without, instead of looking for that person they can live with.

I have met good women who have gone through life terrified of men, not because they've had bad experiences with them, but because they've been so committed to the cause they took up as teenagers, they have almost no relational experience with them. I have met good men so discouraged by the constant rejection in pursuit of the thing they've been taught to pursue, they have all but lost hope and given up.

But none of them suffer from a low value of marriage. None of them have spent a day celebrating their singleness. Not in this culture. Not under the constant barrage of Focus on the Family and weekly Sunday sermons on family, marriage, raising children, etc.

And that, my friend, is a major problem.

Sneaking in the backdoor

2010-03-05T20:17:00.000-08:00

I doubt anyone's watching, but I thought I'd post an update here just to see if I can catch a blogging groove again. Jason Coker said some awfully nice things about me so I'm riding a little ego boost here.

For those that have ever read this blog, you know my wife, Jess, had been the inspiration for much of my writing. It is with great heaviness that I let those of you who don't know that she passed away last April. If you care to know more, feel free to hit me up on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/mattself) and you can go through the mounds of inches of "blogging" I did there. I don't wish to rehash that anymore. I'm in a very different place in my life, even though the news may be fresh to you here.

I've attempted several different blogs since shutting this one down in April 2006, thinking I had fulfilled whatever purpose I had in mind for this blog. All never really got past a few posts because I unintentionally abandoned the community I had built with this blog. Writing for the sake of writing has never been my thing. I missed the interaction.

I also think Jess' ailments, incredible life challenges, career instability, and ultimately her death robbed me of my passion for God blogging. It wasn't that I didn't have things to share. I just had no inspiration to share them.

Lately, I've been feeling like things have come full circle. I'm itching to write again. About all kinds of things. And I probably do need an outlet for them -- but I also need interaction, vindication, opposing views, justification, correction. I need to put my ideas out there and be challenged by all of you.

So ... hopefully my message in a bottle finds your tiny little island on the internet and we can exchange some notes.

Blessings!

Good night and God bless

2006-04-02T00:00:00.000-08:00

I purposely waited until this morning, April 2, so people would know this is not a joke.

For all intents and purposes, this will be my final post at the The Gad(d)about. As much as I have enjoyed blogging, it has become far too much of a distraction from my professional life that I must now unplug before it proves costly.

I began this blog for no good reason -- I wanted to show someone what a blog looked like. Before I knew it, I was posting regularly as somehow likeable, intelligent people such as yourself found me and encouraged me to continue.

It's unlikely someone who has never written professionally can understand this, but a writer of limited focus and creativity such as myself only has so many valuable thoughts in a day. I began to notice this at the tail end of my journalism career, as blogging became of greater writing value to me than the work I was employed to do. Here, I could write freely on topics about which I cared deeply. My energy was spent here. My professional work was a chore, and it showed.

Switching careers to real estate was something I was anxious to share here. It was primarily a move to support my family, but a tertiary benefit, I thought, was it might allow me to write a better blog. Real estate, after all, is not a creative venture.

What I found, however, is I am a poor multi-tasker. Although I staved off the temptation to post throughout the day most days, my mind was elsewhere when it should have been on my work. Furthermore, I'm discovering creativity in business is a bonus when combined with skill and effort.

This past week I was responsible for costing my small company no small amount of money and heartache. It wasn't negligence -- it was, in fact, ignorance -- but perhaps I could have salvaged some of the mess if my mind had been focused on business as I once was focused on being a professional journalist: With great desperation.

It's hard to quantify this quality of mine to people who are accustomed to receiving an assignment, doing the work, and going home. I have to be the best or I want nothing to do with it -- I'll have no motivation to do it. Right now, I am far from being the best property manager or real estate agent. It's eating at me that I am not beating people to the office, not anticipating problems before they happen, not outworking our competitors. What's worse is I haven't seemed all that concerned about my mediocre performance in the face of flagging results.

While I'm far from an abject failure to others, I'm failing my own expectations. Worse yet, I'm failing my family as the sole breadwinner by not securing some kind of stability in my job.

I need to rediscover that desperation that motivated me to climb out of the abyss I was once was in, this former functionally illiterate high school dropout that became a professional writer.

I have been working 12 to 16 hour days for two months now with ineffective results. I would like to cut back the hours and be more productive. After this rocky weekend (when the mess became all too prevalent), I am wholly convinced the distracting effects of my blog outweigh any personal benefits I receive from it.

The Gad(d)about will remain up and archived as long as BlogSpot decides to keep it up, but I will never post here again. I reserve the right to return at some future date with a different blog, but I have no timetable, and am in no position to suggest when that might be. I only know I must pursue security and stability, and to honor the primary objectives here and now which I know God has entrusted with me. Unfortunately, that is not blogging at this time.

This is not to say I'm going to disappear off the face of the earth. I value all of my blogging companions too much. I expect to make cameo appearances on more than a few blogs. But it will be part and parcel with putting this habit in place: A brief diversion when I have nothing else going on.

I love all of you so much and I appreciate the entertainment and affection you've offered to me. More importantly, so many of you have had made a personal impact on me and helped me grow in the Lord. I can think of no greater accomplishment for any kind of endeavor.

With all my hope in God,

Matthew Self, a.k.a. Gaddabout

Emerging irritation

2006-03-31T10:45:00.000-08:00

I'm not one to pick on Brian McLaren here, but he repeated something of which I am becoming increasingly intolerant. In an interview with Criswell Theological Review editor R. Alan Streett, McLaren is quoted as saying:

It appears that the church is growing rapidly where pre-modern people enter modernity, but where modern people move into a postmodern cultural milieu, the Christian faith has not yet understood or engaged the questions they’re raising.

Did the Church not grow rapidly before modernity? Where does that place the Early Church?

McLaren continues on with his missiology:

So, many of us are seeking to faithfully incarnate the gospel of Jesus Christ—the gospel of the kingdom of God available to all through Jesus—to people in our mission context.

This could just be my lack of a formal theological education, but his use of incarnate seemed unintentionally odd. Is he meaning his mission is to make the Gospel real? Is he meaning to act as the Body of Christ? Or is he saying something else.

It's not clear to me and I don't want to quibble. What I see are two distinct statements here that McLaren thinks belong together but I think they contradict each other. To combine his two seperate statements one must assume we have three things:

A pre-modern Gospel for a pre-modern people

A modern Gospel for a modern people

A post-modern Gospel for a post-modern people

I'm probably quibbling afterall, but I want to boil down McLaren's inability communicate and what I hope he's really saying. Let's set this straight, though:

The truthful, transformational Gospel message has never changed or accomodated any culture

It has, however, been presented in many different languages in many different forms to communicate to people all over the world. This is why it's important to speak plainly on the difference between communicating the Gospel and accomodating for the Gospel. One has a historical basis. The other has none.

Fellowship of the Blogs

2006-03-30T10:36:00.000-08:00

After a brief sojourn away from blogging, Dr. Mike has returned with The Lord of the Kingdom, where he digs out the richness of J.R.R. Tolkien's famed books.

I've worked on several posts in hopes of interacting with Mike's posts, but they have fallen far short of illuminating, so they've been set aside indefinitely. Instead, I offer this post as a single note of appreciation for a wonderful new blog.

Mike deftly grasps the vast depth of Tolkien's communities and characters, where existence demands heroism and honor of men born into weakness, and there is no forum for the innate talents of truly fictional, infallible creatures. Every creature has a purpose in those books. Not a word is wasted. In Tolkien's universe, mortality in this realm is a gift, and men broil with selfish passion. His message is Biblically compatible: It is our own abstract self-interest -- wrongful assumptions about our own humility and good nature -- that will be our downfall. Otherworldly evil seems little but a red herring, a distraction from our own evil nature.

Lord of the Rings is not a static equivalent of the Christian story, like Chronicles of Narnia. It aims much higher, actually, as a dynamic demonstration of man's total depravity. Mike excels in highlighting this element of Tolkien's mythology. Whereas C.S. Lewis wished to create a Gospel fervor in his text, perhaps Tolkien wanted to convince his readers of their need to hear the Gospel.

It is very rare when I am compelled to read long posts, and I freely admit my own vice in this matter: I write more than I need to. It is typically self-serving when brevity is almost always required for the vast majority of weak writers in all of the blogiverse. However, Lord of the Kingdom throws its weight around with the authority of Tolkien himself, and I strongly recommend this compelling site for your blog rolls and RSS readers.

Munsil for Guv

2006-03-30T08:48:00.000-08:00

Len Munsil, candidate for Arizona governor, has a blog. (HT: Smart Christian).

That's fine. What's disturbing to me is we went to the same J-school and shared a similar occupation at the same newspaper, seperated by only a decade. This means he's older, but probably not much smarter than me. I'm not qualified to run for dog catcher.

At least he picked the right state to run for governor. We'll elect anyone.

Tighter fuel rules for SUVs

2006-03-30T08:29:00.000-08:00

The government set tighter gas mileage rules Wednesday for pickups and sport utility vehicles, including bulky SUVs such as the Hummer H2 and Chevrolet Suburban, responding to rising concern about the supply and cost of energy from abroad. Link

I wish someone would allow me 15 minutes with the Transportation Department head. Here are the rules I would make about those vehicles. You can't buy a new one if:

You have ever driven two blocks from your house to the pharmacy for your high-blood pressure medication.

You have ever used the word "bling."

You have owned one before and never taken it off paved roads. Or parked it in the space marked "compact."

You subscribe to "People or "Us" magazine.

Canada cuts off Palestinian relations

2006-03-30T08:09:00.000-08:00

Canada is cutting aid and relations with the Palestinian Authority, Ottawa announced shortly after the Hamas government formally took power Wednesday. Link

Two things: First, Palestinians have to be relieved they will finally be able to sell of the last of those Crash Test Dummies CDs in the value bin. (Mmm-mmm-mmm-mmm). Second, has anyone ever mentioned to Hamas leaders they have the word "ham" right there in their name? That's sort of like putting bacon on a kosher bagel.

Fourth-quarter not ideal for economists

2006-03-30T08:03:00.000-08:00

The U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 1.7 percent last quarter, the slowest pace in almost three years, while an inflation measure watched by the Federal Reserve rose more than earlier reported. Link

Every time I try to understand an economist, I realize being a communications major is worth a little more than we often give it credit for.

Hearing protection for iPod

2006-03-30T07:55:00.000-08:00

Apple is releasing free software to limit how loud iPods can go. The idea is to empower parents to install the software on the music player to protect their children's hearing.

Now all they need is software that would improve your teenager's taste in music.

You are not your best news filter

2006-03-29T18:33:00.000-08:00

As much as the mainstream media is vain enough to think they know you well, it is equally vain to think you should be in total control of your news. If you are not at least presented with a daily variety of news items, you miss out on a lot of stuff you don't always think is important before it happens.

For example, many people think all politics happen in Washington. This is so untrue. Some of the best political reporting happens at city council, town council, and county commissioner meetings. This is the stuff that affects you most, is most likely to directly shrink your bank account, and is the stuff the average person ignores.

Go ahead and set up your filters to all of your nuanced preferences. Then try and find a good reason to complain when the city council raises property taxes or county commissioners pass a new stadium tax.

If you're obsessed with the next presidential election, but block out neighborhood news, you'll never know when the bar and grill down the street has altered their business plan and is close to becoming your neighborhood strip club or head shop.

Did you know a mosque with a 100-foot spire was being built on a vacant lot 300 feet from your patio door? Why has the city shut down the playground at the city park? What the heck have they been digging up the past two years at X and Y streets?

There's all kinds of local stories that are missed out when you filter your news based on predetermined priorities. That's why newsrooms weigh 40 or more stories a day for the front page. It's not an elegant or perfect process, but it does take into account a lot of things the ordinary media consumer rarely thinks about -- even though they should.

Do the important stories that impact you most always make it to the front page? No. That's a debate about out-of-touch journalists for another day. Nonetheless, there is a role for people, not computers, filtering the news for us. Everything else is supplement and personal preference.

Biblical immigration?

2006-03-29T15:47:00.000-08:00

The Church World Service displays their skills in Biblical eisogesis. Haven't seen this kind of straining over the Word since Liberation Theology.

In the beginning, all was darkness and void, and the spirit of God moved (migrated) over the face of the chaos (Genesis 1:1). To move is to migrate. The biblical story is a migration story.

Protest backlash?

2006-03-29T15:37:00.000-08:00

Time reporter Perry Bacon Jr. reports Congressmen in favor of strong immigration laws appear entrenched in light of protests.

Big shock. Wouldn't want to be the person answering congressional calls from the constituency today. The marches have brought light to the issue and likely achieved the opposite of the intent. You don't hang a Mexican national flag over the American flag if you hope to engender support from the locals.

Time to refi that ARM

2006-03-29T15:15:00.000-08:00

If you've financed with an adjustable-rate mortgage in the past three years, I urge you to consider to refinance a fixed-rate loan. The 10-year yield just hit a 21-month high, probably the best indicator loan rates are about to go up.

Basically, banks will have to raise rates to entice investors in the secondary market. That means more money out of your pocket.

The politics (and deception) of 'La Raza Unida'

2006-03-29T13:31:00.000-08:00

As usual, my former peers in the major news media have missed the real story behind the marches in the Pacific and Southwestern U.S. regions. Thousands of Latino and illegals marched under the 'La Raza' banner, and their voices will soon be co-opted by a familiar political message.

High school students are being rallied around the country on Spanish-speaking stations to march for 'La Raza' -- a Spanish term meaning race, and generally referring to those indigenous to Mexico. It is common to refer to 'La Raza' as a mestizo ancestry -- the mix of European, African and Mexican indigenous people's blood. It is an inclusive term, as inclusive as the Mexican ancestry. First used by a Mexican scholar, it was meant to describe a "a cosmic people" -- blood from around the globe. These Latino-Americans were inspired to stand up for their illegal family members, their race, and their Mexican pride.

However, the National Council of La Raza, presumably the political party organizing these rallies behind the scenes, and the political voice against such previous California and Arizona measures requiring English-only legal conduct, has a clear political agenda.

It's history in America dates to the rise of the Chicano movement in the early 70s, and it is grounded very much in the La Raza Unida politics of that era. It has helped place many of its members in high-ranking positions, such as White House counsel Alberto Gonzales.

It's agenda is not at all muddled: Zero immigration law enforcement; 100 percent American rights for illegals; equal eligibility for gov't financial assistance, particularly for health care and assisted living; advanced rights for illegals, sometimes superceding those born in this country, such as in-state tuition for illegals.

Before Sept. 11, President George Bush was their most influential ally. Before Sept. 11, we probably would have had broad-sweeping amnesty programs that all but ended the border line between Mexico and America. That was, at least, the assumption from some in NCLR, based on Bush's pre-election enticement of the Latino vote.

Post-Sept. 11, immigration has become centerpiece to national security issues and the GOP has painted a bullseye on organizations such as NCLR. Their vision is at odds with the reality of a very different America.

So now the NCLR is drumming up the masses, turning this into a racial issue, not a political one. There are tens of thousands of Mexicans living in this country convinced they are being deprived of "basic human rights" because America has a predisposition of bias against people of "La Raza." And that's what the marches were about -- racial pride.

It's doubtful more than a handful of the walkout marchers could give a 35-word explanation of the political message they are endorsing. The NCLR doesn't require them to understand, only that their very existence could be wiped out by the evil European invaders.

The truth is the brains behind NCLR do not care about American government, and they actually grew out of a challenge to the American two-party system. The original goal was to elect Chicanos to high position and to move the American political system to the left.

The issue is best dealt with not on the grounds that NCLR sets, but directly to the people at these marches. If politicans want to successfully navigate these dark waters, they will recognize the distinction between proud members of 'La Raza' and the race-baiters of 'La Raza Unida.'

'La Raza' is about family values

2006-03-29T08:45:00.000-08:00

Perhaps you've asked yourself this question recently:

"Why are there thousands of Mexican teenagers blocking the road to my work?"

The answer is basic: U.S. Congress is considering a new federal law that would make it illegal to be illegal on American soil.

Sounds fair, right? We are a nation of laws. It's what seperates us from other countries, what allows us to celebrate diversity -- because our laws have been shown to be fair and just in spite of our own attempts to undo them.

Think about this: You're 14 and your mother jumped the border so you could be born in America for immediate citizenship. You've never known another life outside of cable TV and relative comfort. Your English is as fluent as any other American teenager, but you speak just enough informal Spanish to get you arrested in Tijuana.

You're safe from this law because you are a citizen, but su madre, su tia, y su hermano are all illegals who are supporting your existence. Under the new law, you're as good as illegal, because your entire support system will be deported as soon as the school system reports you.

Now, I'm not a fool and I still believe in the law. The mother who jumped the border did nothing but flaunt the law with a loophole. While it may not seem fair, it is not unfair to return the 14-year-old American with her illegal families to her country's origin.

It's just not practical. And it's why I support amnesty over mass deportation. I just don't know how to fully justify it knowing what I know: Illegals move here and create generations of legals whose allegiance is to Mexico. I am not at all threatened by Mexican culture, but I want my fellow Americans to be as defensive of our laws, our values, our preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be as important to the naturalized as well as those who have a birthright.

I covered sports in a farming community in northern California for about 8 mos. The population there is overwhelmingly immigrant farmers, most of them illegal, and their kids were the athletes I spent a lot of time with.

There was one girl, a good athlete, student-body representative, and decent student, whom I had the opportunity to have a lengthy casual conversation with before a game. She wasn't going to college because she was "Mexican, not American." She intended to live here, but felt no obligation to live here legally. In fact, she was rather hostile to the notion of becoming American. Why? I suspect her family was more than hostile of her becoming encultured in this country, though they failed miserably in preventing her from doing that. Where they did succeed was giving her a political philosophy that is in contradiction with her social status and welfare.

I don't know how to make this right. We've failed to properly enforce our citizenship laws for so long, we've created entire subcultures who have a good argument to remain without going through the required citizenship classes to understand why this country is so worthwhile to live here.

Fix it? It's too late to fix it. The best we could do is salvage what's left.

'La Raza' no es la causa

2006-03-29T07:57:00.000-08:00

¿Quiénes son I para juzgar quién pueden residir en América y quién no tiene la derecha? Un amigo al mexicano que vive ilegal en América. Amigo, usted nunca experimentará el sueño americano en América porque usted nunca tendrá derechas que utilizar sin ciudadanía. ¿Usted desea luchar para la justicia social? Luche para tu paisanos que usted abandonó en México. Vuelva a México y usted enseña lo que usted ha aprendido aquí: Capitalismo, educación, expresión libre, y honor a los leyes y a los legisladores.

Glory al dios, juez de todos hombres y quién creó todas idiomas y todas razas.

Coming Soon: Ocean's 13

2006-03-28T08:53:00.000-08:00

George Clooney will be back for Ocean's 13.

Early sign this movie is troubled: Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta Jones are gone. Ellen Barkin -- ?!?!?! -- is in.

That's what you get for idolizing the Jolly Roger

2006-03-28T08:34:00.000-08:00

Apple's Steve Jobs, a Silicon Valley legend for once flying a Jolly Roger up the computer company's flagpole, was hi-jacked himself. By the IRS. They demanded Jobs pony up for the 10 million company shares he was awarded in 2003. So Jobs sold off about 40 percent of it, basically selling it back to the company.

It's still pennies compared to Apple's loss in Look and Feel.

IRS has nothing on the Pirates of Silicon Valley.

Why is Gnosticism popular?

2006-03-28T08:27:00.000-08:00

Mark D. Roberts continues his series on the The Da Vinci Code on Why is Gnosticism Popular Today? (HT: Smart Christian)

I'll take affirmation of selfish presuppositions for $300, Alex.

Writing for the reader

2006-03-28T08:01:00.000-08:00

I've had several complaints in the past year that the posts on this site are too long. My writing has been compared to digging a few 2K diamonds out of 1 million acre feet of mud.

Well, at least I'm not throwing my pearls to the swine.

In an attempt to be more relevant, I'm going to a experiment this next week with shorter writing. We're going for pithy, not illuminating. Let me know what you think.

The Mullet Code

2006-03-27T15:39:00.000-08:00

My father-in-law, ever the wise and patient student of the Word, has broken the code of all codes. He has uncovered a dastardly plot against humanity. And fashion.

Please join him in reviling the evildoers, those fable chasers and their "itchy ears."

Abanes writes

2006-03-26T20:23:00.000-08:00

The formidable Richard Abanes visited this site yesterday with a bone to pick with the last line of my previous post.

In objecting to the commercialization of the Christian response to the Da Vinci Code, I ended with an inflammatory remark:

You know, because we want you to know the truth and set the record straight, but not before we collect your $19.99 + tax.

This stung Mr. Abanes, the author of one of those books and many other mass publishings. He wrote in response:

It is unfortunate that you would cast aspersions on the integrity and motivation of so many men and women of with your comment

Mr. Abanes continued by justifying -- needlessly -- his right to collect a fee on his work as a journalist and Christian book author.

As a former journalist, no one needs to make an argument with me about the need to collect money on what amounts to a great deal more work than people realize. Christians have every much a right to charge for their work as non-Christians. That wasn't my point.

What I do take issue with is, in defense of our faith, we Christians think too much like this world. We think in terms of marketplace and marketing. We don't look and see if someone else is already filling a role. We see market share and a chance to capitalize on culture and fads.

That is in no way meant to impugn Mr. Abanes' character or intent for writing his book. His may be the best champion of the truth. I don't know. I've never read it. It would take me more than a few years to read all of the books on the subject. Neither do I know his intentions for writing it, and I do not write this in judgment of him or his on-going book-writing ministry. I am positive writing the book cost Mr. Abanes valuable time and money, and he should be compensated for that time. God bless him for recognizing the need for a response and attempting to address it.

As a corporate Church, however, I am certain we do not need 100 for-profit books (and more on the way) to respond to the mistruths of one book. We need one unified response: We know our history and we will not allow anyone to play fast and loose with it. That is a difficult message to get out to a resistant public, though, when there's a cover charge at the door of truth.

I think there is a place for books, but we have so much more power at our fingertips to reach a much broader audience. Where is the church-wide support for a website -- or even 100+ websites -- with the same content? Where is our open defense in magazine articles? Where are the public challenges to debate Brown (or his wife, who appears to be the sole researcher of the code) on the "facts" of his book?

My beef is not with Mr. Abanes or any of the other authors of those books. My beef is with the flabby Church and its silence beyond the marketplace.

The Da Vinci Code book industry

2006-03-24T08:02:00.000-08:00

Dan Brown is a rainmaker.

He has personally revived book sales not only with his Da Vinci Code, but for Christian bookstores everywhere who will soon have more anti-Brown and anti-Da Vinci books than they will have space to display them.

Here are some of the 100+ Christian response books already on the shelves:

Truth and Fiction in the DVC by Bart Ehrman

Cracking Da Vinci's Code by James Garlow

The Truth Behind the DVC by Richard Abanes

The Real History Behind the DVC by Sharon Newman

Breaking the DVC by Darrell L. Bock

The DVC: Fact or Fiction by Hank Hanegraaff and Paul L. Maier

Discussing the DVC: Exploring the Issues Raised by the Book and Movie by Lee Strobel and Gary Poole

The DVC Hoax by Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel

More books are undoubtedly on their way. You've heard of blogstorms? This is a bookstorm.

No one has to justify to me their right to sell a Christian book. What I find irritating is a big push to have a response to the Da Vinci Code, and I find no one taking advantage of free publishing on the Internet. If this is so important and such a wonderful opportunity to minister the Gospel, why are we trying to extract a dime before giving the information?

You know, because we want you to know the truth and set the record straight, but not before we collect your $19.99 + tax.

Update: I would be remiss if I did not point to James White's work on the subject. It's not categorical, and it's by a theologian who revels in argumentation, but it is very sound work, nonetheless.

Standing on God's (environmental) promises

2006-03-24T06:22:00.000-08:00

We say here God loves irony. We also believe God has a sense of humor.

Exhibit A is a Scientific American article that predicts up to 20 feet rise in sea levels over an undetermined time. The problem, they say, is greenhouse gases melting both polar caps at an exponential rate.

You don't have to strain to notice God's message in the accompanying photo. There's a rainbow arching over a melted glacier. In a story predicting global flooding, they include a photo of a rainbow.

We all know what that means, right?

The rainbow is a promise to not destroy all humanity and all the creatures by flood. I suppose this does not preclude flooding the American Gulf Coast, as the story predicts, but the inclusion of the photo struck me as profound.

Scientists in the story want to substantially reduce greenhouse gases the next 10 years to slow or stop polar melting. Even if we had the gumption to give up our cars in America, it would be impossible to do this globally in 10 years. Maybe in 100 years.

Furthermore, it's not clear to me if it's good science to try and prevent polar melting. It happened before without our help.

Pollution presents problems to humans, too, particularly carbon monoxide. What if polar melting is some kind of natural washing machine and cleanser? Nothing clears the air like fresh rain and snow. An influx of a lot of fresh water would replinish our water sources while dilluting contaminination.

The 2 millenium time change

2006-03-23T15:26:00.000-08:00

I see a lot of unneccessary rising blood pressure in your future. If you were upset about the 10 Commandments in the court-room controversy or the loss of the use of the word Christmas, wait until the latest politically-correct fad arrives at your doorstep.

Theologians not wishing to offend people have been using "Common Era" (CE) and "Before Common Era" (BCE) in place of "Amino Domini" (AD) and "Before Christ (BC). Now it's starting to catch in in academic circles and the media.

The liberals are changing the calendar! Run for the hills! Hide from the black helicopters!

Before firing off 20 blog posts about the decline of the modern culture, think about this. Very few people know that AD is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase, "In the year of our Lord." Maybe a few more people know for what BC is abbreviated. But we're talking a small portion of the world, and some billions don't even use our calendar. Furthermore, Dionysius probably didn't even get the year of Christ's birth right, and was actually likely born in 4 AD.

I'm not sure what we're sacrificing here other than an obscure reference in a dead language and the end of a lot of confusion.

What the heck is a Gnostic?

2006-03-23T10:10:00.000-08:00

By far, the most effective Christian heresy hunting tool is finding any kind of relation between someone's belief and Gnosticism. This trick is used by both sides to literally demonize one's beliefs without charity or, in many cases, a single moment of investigation.

The problem is you can relate pretty much any Gospel-preaching, Bible-teaching Christian sect to Gnosticism because of the leech-like belief system of the Gnostics. They have borrowed and distorted from all of Judeo-Christianity, and its roots predate Christ's birth (a fact that seems to escape many). It's important to know what Gnosticism is to distinguish what to guard against and what to recognize as cheap strawmen arguments.

Basic Gnosticism goes something like this: The earth and all of matter was not created by the One True and Living God, but a "lesser" malevolent God which, depending on which era of Gnosticism you are researching, is either the Devil or a Devil-like being. Because of this, all matter -- including our own physical bodies -- are evil. Ultimately, all physical things must be denied to achieve enlightenment and avoid eternal damnation on Judgment Day.

Any student of Greek history will note this is a very Greek philosophy, and not one necessarily originating from a Judeo-Christian ethic, per se. In Genesis, the True and Living God created man and woman in the flesh and declared them fit for fellowship with him in their physical form. This is why Gnosticism generally repudiates the entire OT as heresy and the God of the OT as the malevolent one. Post-Christ Gnostics embrace the Gospel of John as divine, ironically in spite of the book's very deliberate relationship to Genesis. Also, those Gnostics did not believe Jesus ever took a fleshly form, and was instead a pure spirit who only looked like a fleshly form.

This is the Gnosticism Paul was fighting in Colossians. As you can see, it places a legalism onto salvation that denies the freedom of salvation in Christ. It creates a performance- or achievement-based element of responsibility on the person. It denies the physical suffering Christ accepted as part of the atonement for our sins. As Paul so eloquently counters in Col. 2:9, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"

Another more fundamental element to Gnosticism is the notion its followers possess some super-secret knowledge or understanding of God not known to the average human being. So Gnosticism put a high priority on the experiential and a low priority -- better put, a deprioritization -- of religious litany. The written word was almost impossible to reconcile as divine because it was of this earth, according the Gnostics.

The picture we see here is one where liberals can attack fundamentals of Gnosticism by any embrace of legal nature: i.e. total depravity, literal interpretation of the Bible, literal adherence of the Ten Commandments, literal anything. What is ironic here is those charging legalism are more likely to be in line with the Gnostics, because the Gnostics rejected the authority of the Apostles of the Early Church, rejected correction, and rejected things (such as OT as divinely inspired) that Jesus most definitely endorsed. This is not to say conservative Evangelicals are not capable of legalism, but legalism by itself does not equate to Gnosticism. Furthermore, both Gnostics and liberals have a lesser Christology than conservatives. Paul elevated Christ as the only path to heaven, and it is the conservatives, not the liberals, who uphold that view.

On the other hand, Charismatics and Pentecostals -- two groups who are sometimes at odds with fundamental cessationists -- are cited by some fundamentalists for delving into Gnosticism because of the emphasis on experience. While I have no doubt there are a handful in this camp that could be classified as Gnostics (I'm thinking of the kind that equate their own personal "revelation" as equal to or greater than God's Word), the great whole of Charismatics and Pentecostals still affirm all the fundamental tenents of Classical Christianity. It is not enough -- not by far -- to equate the Christian experiential with Gnosticism, and to do so shows an ignorance of both.

Where we find Gnosticism most clearly stated today is not in Christianity at all (unless you still insist on allow Universalists wear that title), but in the first world popular culture. It is in broad ecumenism that embraces generalities, such as "We are God" or "God is the God within us" or "God is our inner spark" or "inner flame" or "God is the elements of nature that bind us together." It is in pop-religions such as New Ageism, Kabbalah and neo-Buddhism.

Furthermore, heresy does not begin and end with Gnosticism. There are plenty other Christ-denying beliefs out there that do not engage a Gnostic system. Scientology, for example, very clearly has a system that denies the divinity of Christ and Classical Christianity, but is neither compatible with universalism (in spite of their claims) nor does it treat the physical world in the same harsh philosophical way (although there are many similarities that could lead one to believe L. Ron Hubbard copied freely from the Gnostics).

Post-charismatic or plain old burnout?

2006-03-21T06:08:00.000-08:00

Rob MacAlpine writes about post-charismatics and the problems dealing with the Church after burnout.

MacAlpine writes as if it is a new phenomenon, but having a bird's eye view of the charismatic and pentecostal movements over 30 years, I think charismatic burnout attrition goes hand-in-hand with any church that emphasizes the gifts of the spirit. The problem is just as he states: People need a church that puts more emphasis on the fruit of the spirit. You can pray for healing until Jesus returns, but it means nothing without the transforming power of the Spirit inside of you. As a correlary, you can preach all the right doctrine, but if you do not major in the fruit of the spirit -- if you do not place your focus on the grace, love, and redeeming power of Christ -- your church members face the same dilemma.

It is nothing new to say it's easy for a Spirit-filled church to grow out of balance. There is such a foxhole mentality to defend a small portion of our theology, it becomes a point of emphasis in many churches to the neglect of the rest of Biblical teaching.

In mentioning his and his friend's departure from the Vineyard, my church affiliation, he follows by mentioning four broad reasons many people now consider themselves "post-charismatics":

1. Abuses and elitism in prophetic ministry, coupled with a “carrot and stick” approach to holiness that many find legalistic, manipulative, and repressive
2. The excesses of Word Faith teachings (health and wealth, prosperity doctrine) which clash with the emerging generations’ concern for a biblical approach to justice and ministry with the poor
3. Authoritarianism and hierarchical leadership structures that exist more to control people than to equip the saints for works of service
4. An approach to spiritual formation (discipleship) that depends on crisis events – whether at “the altar” in a church service, or in a large conference setting – but either neglects or deliberately belittles other means of spiritual maturation (ie. spiritual disciplines)

I am in no way an official spokesman for the Vineyard, but I can say the Vineyard Community of Churches as an organization is in no way defined by the above as it stands today. There would be serious corrective measures taken by leadership if any of those problems became evident. His points bear no resemblance to the Vineyard I am familiar with.

What I can't defend is the number of invdividual churches under the VCC banner the last 10 years who I know have dipped into one or more of those errant directions. It's a problem I have long blamed on the mass expansion in the late 80s and early 90s that came with two built-in church-killing issues:

Church plants by groups of people who had great intentions but no practical skills or a Biblical exposition background.

Churches from other denominations who did not buy in to the Evangelical portion of the Vineyard's theological mixture, but wanted to fly under the banner of the latest popular movement.

Some of these churches failed to weigh the wholeness of the movement's mission, how John Wimber defined Vineyard orthopraxis in 1992:

Clear, accurate, Biblical teaching

Contemporary worship in the freedom of the Holy Spirit

The gifts of the Holy Spirit in operation

An active small group ministry

Ministry to the poor, widows, orphans and those who are broken

Physical healing with emphasis on signs and wonders as seen in the book of Acts

A commitment to missions - church planting at home and world missions abroad

Unity within the whole body of Christ; a relationship with other local churches

Evangelistic outreach

Equipping the saints in areas such as discipleship, ministry, serving, giving, finances, family, etc.

So the Vineyard has had something of a fall out in the post-prophetic, post-renewal phase of the organization. The newness has worn off, and people that were attracted by the hype are less inclined to stick around because now the Vineyard's more evangelical grounding is becoming a burden. I don't know if that fall out equates to a large number of churches lost, but I know the loss is felt by most of those in leadership.

None of this bothers me on a serious level, however. I have always been among the more conservative in the Vineyard, and if we move back a little closer to the center of orthodoxy, I think it's healthy. Wimber even anticipated this and encouraged this, believing it was the normal progression for a new church organization. He only warned against becoming stale in theology and practice, advising that when the Spirit wind blows, we must be ready to follow His lead.

Your Best Life critique

2006-03-20T12:33:00.000-08:00

Don Williams, pastor of the Coast Vineyard, has written the most fundamentally sound critique of Your Best Life Now -- and Joel Osteen's flimsy theology -- I've ever read.

Williams is very charitable with a two-page summary of the book. He does no editorializing there. The third page, the critique, is a doozy of a response without a hint of menace. I'd call it a home run.

Some bloggers off target on the Code

2006-03-20T09:50:00.000-08:00

By now virtually every GodBlogger has written about or linked to some debunking of the Da Vinci Code book. It's a hot topic since best-selling fiction author Dan Brown is on trial in the UK for plagiarizing a purported work of non-fiction on the topic of Gnostic gospels.

I think it's great that we are given a chance to reinforce the historicity of our faith in the face of such malarkey, but we really need to drive home the point if we're going to do this. There's no reason to let Dan Brown off the hook for being a fiction author. He very clearly states, on a lone page at the beginning of his work, that all references to history are fact.

The original appeal of his fictional book was that it raised issues of authenticity of the Scripture. It was not at all similar to the appeal of a fiction author like Michael Crichton, who does exhaustive research, but makes it very clear when he is reporting and when he is dealing in the theoretical to make a broader point. It is very clear that Brown intended to injure the Bible's reputation under the guise of ficton, and he has done so to the greatest degree

I have personally failed in addressing his horrendous accounting of history with a friend. She's a bi-sexual who was very much on the fence with Christianity. She found this book and gave it to me last year because, "It raises some interesting issues."

Try as I might, I confessed to her I had to put it down 50 pages in because the writing was surprisingly bad. It wasn't even fluid storytelling in simple language, like John Grisham's work. I'm no Steinbeck or Hemingway, but as a professional writer, I still have standards for what I read. It was exhausting to work my way through Brown's fractured prose, never once recognizing an author's appeal to suspend my disbelief.

Lacking discernment, it never dawned on me she wanted to engage me on the real purpose of the book, which was to present a fictional history as reality. It's not a mark on my record I look forward to explaining when I stand before the eternal Judger of men.

It is the greatest of irony that Brown is now being accused of stealing his "facts" from a work of non-fiction, Holy Blood, Holy Grail. If Brown had done a single bit of research, even a quick search on Google, he would have discovered that book had been roundly discredited as bogus and a hoax, almost entirely based on certifiably false claims of French royalty by a mentally disturbed man.

Or perhaps that was the whole idea behind writing the same material under a fictional title. He gets the benefits of presenting "facts" while defending them as nothing more than entertainment. It's like implying a false truth about someone, then defending yourself against charges of slander and gossip by noting you never actually uttered an affirmative word.

Sounds clever. Like a well-known serpent.

It's important to speak plainly on this, and to not fall into the lair Brown sets. He clearly believes he has established a fool-proof out no matter how you might attack his "work." There should be no argumentation wiggle room for man who so distinctly defames God's Word, whether he is a liar or a fool.

What your teenager can't or won't tell you

2006-03-20T05:37:00.000-08:00

There's a small doorway exit to our church building's north side, and I always try to make my way through there once after-church socializing is finished to cut down on the front door's heavy traffic.

As I was passing that way yesterday, I caught a young teen boy -- probably 14 or 15 -- with his headphones on and his head down. He was dressed in modern skater garb, hair disheveled. He looked like every teenage boy in our youth group -- you know, scruffy. I'd like to think I was better kept than that, being an ex-preppie, but at that age it all comes out the same ... wrinkled and out of place.

I have a real big heart for boys between 8 and 15 because I remember how awkward that age was, so I tried to pass him a knowing smile (you know, that cool high school hallway head-jolt-and-glance that only cool jocks could exchange with any authenticity). It's sign language for, "You're in my posse." My thought was to develop a non-verbal repoire with him, because that's the best way to communicate with boys that age. It shows respect in a language they understand.

I'm a 300 lbs. man. I'm positive he saw my shadow. He insisted on keeping his head down and ignoring me.

Now, if I were older I'd probably use this moment to launch into how rude and self-absorbed teens are these days, but I know exactly what was going through that kid's head. He wasn't being obnoxious. He was avoiding eye contact. He goes to high school. You don't make eye contact in the high school jungle unless you mean to tangle. That's his understanding of the world.

It really doesn't matter what school he goes to -- big public high school in the city, little public high school in the country, tiny Christian high school in the burbs -- he has been conditioned to have his own authority challenged on a daily basis. Sometimes it's in passive ways -- "Hey you [insert insult here] ... I'm just kiddin, man" -- and sometimes it's aggressive.

Every kid learns to be afraid of the world, and that's why celebrities who flaunt power are so enticing. Today it's hip hop. In my day it was heavy metal. In my parents' day it was ... well, it was a lot of things in their day.

It's not the sin that is so enticing. You may be surprised to learn that kids who grow up in Christian homes are not so easily duped by sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Most teens in Christian homes have an intutive fear for blatant flaunting of sin. At first, anyway.

Power is the real aphrodisiac, though. Any kind of music or movie or other cultural outlet that empowers the ego, that bolsters confidence, is going to be a big hit with teens in any era and any culture. It creates a false sense of posture, to stave off the constant assault on ego they face without it. At the very least, it gives you a better chance to relate to a larger group of people that might conceal your weakness and lessen the damage.

I'm 36 now and a lot of my friends have young teenagers. For many valid and not-so-valid reasons, my friends have forgotten what it was like to be teenager, and are now (big shock) at total odds with their offspring.

I can already see these 13- and 14-year-olds start to withdraw from their parents in this power struggle. They get debased at school and stripped down at home. They're emotionally raw without any outlet, so they go into their rooms, turn the music up really loud, and hide in solitude. At least in there they are in control. At least there their reality can be manipulated to their comfort levels. Let them build up that sense of fortress for too long and breaching it becomes that first moment of serious backlash from your own teenager. Invading their room becomes invading their comfort zone. They'll deal with you in the kitchen, but not in their own personal space.

In case you're wondering, I am not arguing for some kind of touchy-feely parental model. Parents are not only in the right, I believe parents are obligated to invade their children's personal space and comfort zone. Being the parent means being the parent. There is no award for being your child's best friend. You are the authority, and if you diminish that authority out of fear of losing the respect of your child, you will lose both.

Establishing that authority is a balance. There's a difference between being authoritarian and authoritative. If you only know authoritarian style house government, plan on a couple things:

Constant resistance

Constant rebellion

Constant bailing your kids out of trouble well into their 20s, because that's what they'll come to expect.

That's not a firm rule, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb. My father had this down pat, but he gets a pass because he was committed to it. He was going to get me to heaven if it killed him. It almost did.

He would often quote Colossians 3:20 to me, which I always found ironic, since as a teenager I found little value in Scripture. Later in my life I discovered Colossians 3:21, and sort of put 3:20 in a whole new perspective for me. I actually prefer the dynamic NIV translation, because it paints a vivid picture:

Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.

In place of embitter, the literal translation is provoke. Either way, I think the wisdom here is to not discourage your child with tight reigns. You want them to have some hope of finding your approval. Another good word is exasperate. Over time, embitterment, provocation, and exasperation will lead to teens who have no reason to "honor and obey" their parents because it will appear to be a lose-lose proposition. Why try if you can never win?

Parents have an effective tool they rarely use: Disappointment. Believe me, if you have been an active part of your teen's early years, your opinion of them is of the utmost importance, regardless what they've told you. A belt to the backside may create a fearful respect, but the true authority is in the expression of disappointment. To a young teen, this can be a crushing blow that might ultimately encourage them to change their behavior on their own. This is especially useful if you have been combating the daily ego shredding sessions they receive outside of the house with some Biblical reinforcement:

Your love for them is unconditional, even though your trust of them is conditional.

God's love for them is unconditional, though his commandments are not negotiable.

They are uniquely chosen for life by God

He has a purpose for them, in this life and the next

There is peace in His power, in contrast to the turmoil and conflict in the world's power

While this life can be painful, there should be no ultimate fear when Jesus is the Lord of our life

This boy I saw, my heart goes out to him. It's just not my place to step in usurp his parent's authority. What I am planning on doing is praying for him, praying for his parents, praying for his friends, praying that he has an encounter with God so that he's not afraid to look people in the eye. That is my goal this week, to shower that boy in prayer, because God has reminded me what was going on inside of me at that age.

What this boy cannot express to his authorities and God, I hope to encourage him from a distance, with God's real power.

Who said that?

2006-03-18T20:12:00.000-08:00

Think you know where people stand? Here are some quotes I've gathered. You guess the person who said it or wrote it. (Answers below)

Quote #1
"Jack Hayford is a model of diligence, faithfulness to the Lord and enduring loyalty to a local church. It's the long haul that manifests integrity and proven character. Many have fallen in the battle. Hayford is still standing - a tribute to God's marvelous grace."

Quote #2
"It's the most rebellious thing I've ever done. Drinking beer is easy. Trashing your hotel room is easy. But being a Christian, that's a tough call. That's real rebellion"

Quote #3
"Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has."

Quote #4
"Proclamation of a faulty gospel will produce faulty or, at best, weak Christians. Such is the case all too often today. Instead of a call to the lordship of Christ and membership in his kingdom, people are hearing a gospel that emphasizes self: come to Jesus and get this or that need met, be personally fulfilled, reach your potential. This, however, is not the costly kingdom gospel that Christ proclaims: "Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it" (Mark 8:35)."

Quote #5
"The hippies of the 1960s did understand something. They were right in fighting the plastic culture, and the church should have been fighting it too... More than this, they were right in the fact that the plastic culture - modern man, the mechanistic worldview in university textbooks and in practice, the total threat of the machine, the establishment technology, the bourgeois upper middle class - is poor in its sensitivity to nature... As a utopian group, the counterculture understands something very real, both as to the culture as a culture, but also as to the poverty of modern man's concept of nature and the way the machine is eating up nature on every side."

Answers
Quote #1: John MacArthur
Quote #2: Alice Cooper
Quote #3: Martin Luther
Quote #4: John Wimber
Quote #5: Francis Schaeffer

Only Abby Knows My Pain

2006-03-17T17:07:00.000-08:00

Have you ever given advice or encouragement you wish you hadn't given? Or at least put more thought into? Giving advice and encouragement comes second nature to me, but there are times I should know better to just keep quiet.

The world is quick to come up with answers, few of them real solutions. I have a hard time not following their lead. Someone has a problem and I immediately -- in all sincerity -- begin to try and help them from easy to hard.

Most people immediately recognize my earnest intentions and accept what is good and let slide what is worthless. There's more common sense out there than we often give credit for. That I deal mostly with Christians, I can think back to grace put to practice many times by friends who have suffered through some of my more tortured recipes for a better and more satisfying life.

The problem is when I get going, either God is fully behind it and it's all good, or I'm forcing it, and it's got all the characteristics of a mess. My own personal solutions usually involve the unHoly Trinity of bad ideas: impractical, irrational, and aBiblical.

You'd think someone of my average intellect would be able to tell by now when God is using me and when I'm straining for answers that aren't there, but I still get derailed by the best of intentions. Sometimes we are simply asked to love someone and we have no other means to assist. When God has called us to be his ambassador, believe it or not, just passing on His love is often the solution. Stepping out like that, however, takes a lot of faith. We're rational, so we look for rational and practical answers, but experience has taught me I'm never so rational or practical on my own in that moment of need.

So I'm striving more discernment. I think that's a good place to start.

Quick note: Greg Boyd interview

2006-03-14T10:40:00.000-08:00

Pastor Greg Boyd, author of several prominent books on Open Theism, has agreed to do a Q&A with me for this blog. If you've ever had a question you wanted to ask about Open Theism, now is the time to speak up. Reply to this post to enter your questions.

(I'm still gone for the week. Just wanted to get the ball rolling on this)

Gone fishin'

2006-03-13T20:35:00.000-08:00

I'm taking the rest of the week off, probably not to return until at least this weekend. Too much stuff to do, and I don't need any distractions.

If this somehow dramatically impacts your daily walk with the Lord, I offer these links to keep you ~~toiling~~ ~~striving~~ looking busy until I return.

God bless!

I love you pastor, butt ...

A monument for America's favorite theologian (according to THIS wise acre)

If the Footsteps poem moves you, these shoes are for you.

This is what happens when you have too much eschatology on the brain.

This is really an overdue title match, right? The undercard should me James White vs. Dave Hunt.

This hits a little too close to home. (I know people who've had better success with car phrases. Try: "I wanna buy a Honda.")

I think I know this guy. I think he was the president of my HOA. And while we're at it, the rest of the group needed one of these for failing to heed this word. They probably, instead, were reading that blog

And if you have a higher tolerance for poking fun at health and wealth preachers, and you think junior high humor is funny like me, you'll probably find this worth watching a couple of times. Then you'll wonder if you've gone too far. Then you'll watch it a couple of more times, probably show it to your friends. Then you'll repent, because it seems too crass for someone using the Lord's name. Then you'll watch it again because you can't help yourself. But don't blame me. This guy linked to it first a couple of weeks ago. He's suspect zero.

More proof that God loves irony

2006-03-13T09:52:00.000-08:00

This is the view from my backyard. At first glance, it looks like any other backyard in east Mesa. If you look to the distance you'll see the Superstition Mountains. These are about 30 miles from my house.

Ahem.

They are covered with snow.

I had a pretty good clue Friday night we were about to end 143 days without rain in Greater Phoenix when these three things happened:

My knees started to hurt like I had broken something

Dark clouds moved in

My car temperature gauge said it was 42 degrees (and dropping) a 5 p.m.

It varied between 36 and 40 most of Saturday as a slow drizzle quenched the dry desert. However, Phoenix has an unusually high elevation for desert -- 1,100 feet above sea level -- and I live at about 2,100 feet elevation 45 miles to the east of downtown.

Snow never came. We fell just short. However, north Scottsdale got blasted. Northern Arizona is used to this stuff. Flagstaff, about 90 miles north and at about 7,100 feet above sea leavel, has a minor ski resort. Us Valley-ites, however, think it's rather novel.

Check out some of these other photos:

azcentral.com reader photos

Dust Chick

My Baby Ava

Running to Long Beach

Whine & Cheese

Closet Calvinism?

2006-03-11T18:03:00.000-08:00

My current interest in Greg Boyd has spawned no small amount of Christian helpers wishing to guide me back into orthodoxy. Dan urged me to return to Tozer, and, of course, I love Tozer. Dan's book suggestion, The Knowledge of the Holy, was on my list of companion reading to Boyd's God of the Possible.

Others have been more content to prod me by e-mail, including one genuine woman who explains to me that I'm really just a "closet Calvinist" who doesn't wish take the public lashings that comes with such a bold declaration in this age of Whateverism.

This term made me curious so I replied with guesstimates of behavior of a closet Calvinist. I hope all Calvinists approve:

Signs You Are A Closet Calvinist

You object to the hymn, "When We All Get To Heaven."

You think backsliding is only a problem for skiers.

You think Paul was too patient with the Corinthian church.

You've ever complained about the church cushioning the wooden pews.

You inexplicably start quoting Ephesians 1 at the mere mention of the movie title Free Willy.

You think an altar call should only involve a phone in the pulpit by which the pastor can wake up the slackers.

There's nothing like the smell of brimstone in the (Sunday) morning.

You've never confused Spurgeon with sturgeon. Or find it funny when others do.

You think Arminianism has something to do with expensive suits.

Greg Boyd and the Gospel

2006-03-11T17:01:00.000-08:00

Perhaps this speaks to the voluminous influence of criticism of Open Theism, but I have been very surprised by Greg Boyd strong defense of the Gospel. I expected him to be much more liberal -- perhaps an ecumenist or Romanist like some Arminians -- but that couldnt' be further from the truth.

First, there is the book he wrote with his father, Letters From A Skeptic. Boyd, a professor of theology, began in 1989 an intensive period of correspondence with his 70-year-old agnostic father. The letters proved successful, and his father was saved before passing in old age.

I kept waiting to read a review that challenged Boyd's presentation of the Gospel. I've found plenty attacking the book based on Boyd's presentation of God's foreknowledge, but those often conceding the fact that Boyd presents the Gospel in its fullness.

Second, there is his firm critique of the Jesus Seminar, which is as solid as any I've read. This is not just a defense of the Gospel, but a fluid affirmation of its polarized nature. There is a heaven, and there is a hell, and Jesus holds the keys to both kingdoms. Rock solid and surprisingly conservative.

The Pyro is back

2006-03-11T10:41:00.000-08:00

Update: This post has been re-edited for context and clarity. Changes are noted in red. Additions are noted in green.

If you thought the Pyro was burned out, Phillip Johnson has returned with a post that can only be described as "extra crispy."

This was the original recipe, baby.

PJ responds to ECM, propositional truths, and the difference between strong language and potshots.

I must say, I prefer this PJ to the one slapping backs with his buddies avoiding the limelight. He is much more dialed in when he seems frustrated. The forcefulness of his language strikes me as prophetic and true -- what a wonderful defense of propositional truths, delivered in context and with brevity. I think it's a little ironic that his critics are more likely to note his charity when he's firing back at them than when he's trying to be playful.

This comes at a good time for me as I delve into other areas of theology that, to paraphrase my concerned friend Dan, don't march under the banner of the traditional Reformation. I have offered a favorable mention of an Open Theist's explanation of evil and free will.

I have not become an Open Theist; I am just exploring to decide for myself if OT writers have moved a traditional Arminian position back towards the center. I am drawn to Greg Boyd, specifically, because the language he uses suggests an eschatological position first authored by George Eldon Ladd, who has greatly influenced me. I do this conciously aware of OT's awkard bearing on Evangelical thought, and subsequent claims of heresy by notable Evangelical thinkers such as D.A. Carson. However, I doubt the Berean's would have decried OT based on Carson's (or anyone else's) rants, so I'm going to follow the Biblical example here.

The one thing I find comforting about Greg Boyd's Open Theism is he still clings to the main and plain, and is no liberal looking for a way to secularize the Bible. He has debated an agnostic and defends the true and essential Gospel. To the best of my ability to determine some things, Boyd's OT is controversial and a challenge to traditional thought, but it falls short of the claims of heresy because I've yet to see where he's preaching a different Gospel. To quote PJ's reference to 2 John, I would not at all have a problem with receiving him in my house and greeting him.

I think it's important to know where the dividing line is, and you cannot know that without accepting the propositional truths the Bible offers. That dividing line between acceptable disagreement and debate and heresy sometimes seems like it moves on us, too. John Piper found that out after some harsh words he used to attack Greg Boyd and Open Theism. He did not change his mind on OT, but he regretted the way he delivered them and apologized to Boyd and his own congregation. I think Piper discovered a new appreciation for the relationship between Peter and Paul. Or Paul and anyone. It is a very difficult place to be in such a high position of authority, and to yet have peers in your own denomination teaching something adversarial to your own message.

The dividing line is always rooted in the Gospel and the person of Jesus. Deny any divine elements of that and you are off the Evangelical reservation. Lessen any divine element of the Gospel or the person of Jesus, and you are still off the reservation. That's how I've always put this together and how I can find much to agree on with two diverse people such as Phillip Johnson and Greg Boyd.

Furthermore, I do not believe all our disagreements have to be settled to be the unified Church or to offer a unified front to the world. We have already agreed on the principles of Evangelicalism, unified by the testimony of Jesus and his disciples, determined to carry on the ministry of Jesus. I believe there is room for strong words between us when we understand what we are really about, and we are, after all, responsible to our own individual consciences.

So hats off to PJ for an outstanding post.

Stewin' on the American melting pot

2006-03-09T08:50:00.000-08:00

Any day now, liberals are going to come down from their minarets and decide we should build a tower.

Not just any tower, not gaudy like a Trump monstrosity, not cold like your average bank, and not your average 100-story monolith. No, they'll want to build a ziggurat into the heavens to serve as an ecumenical, humanity-pleasing center of agreement to worship however you want, whenever you want.

Sort of like a non-denominational universalist ATM and faith exchange.

The point will be to prove we have finally come together in peace, or at least prove that we can, so as to show the rest of the world that tolerance of each other is not enough. No, we need to embrace other's religions so it's one big entangled ball of twine. We could call it judeochristislamahinduism.

A better title would be Whateverism. You know, because that worked so well for Babylon.

Being glib is about the only way I can speak of liberal theologians today, because I can't understand them otherwise. The amalgamation of all their work seems to arrive at the conclusion that faith is an illogical attempt to answer the problem of evil, and nothing else. They are forced to turn their faith towards humanism, that there is something actually redeemable about us, something worthy of worship.

The very idea that a theologian would think his job is to explain away the miraculous from the Bible seems to me that he should no longer be allowed the title of theologian. That person is a debunker and a moralist and nothing else. I've always had a great deal of respect for the Amazing Randy -- at least he has the intellectual honesty to not refer to himself as a theologian.

Conservative theologians fight over each other while the liberals among us rob us of our birthright. While we debate over doctrines of baptism, liberals can put publish bogus theories that damage the credibility of the Gospel authors. Where is our response? Why are we not unified as a front against this kind of blatant attack of the enemy?

Because we are often at war with the wrong things, particularly secular culture. We are asleep at the wheel in defense of God's Word. We attack pagans for acting like, well, pagans. Big shock. Meanwhile, those who cloak themselves in the shadow of the Cross are allowed to deny the divinity of Christ. We write these wolves off as misguided sheep. I say, if there is a problem with doctrines being stretched in Evangelicalism, it's because we've never properly accounted for those among us.

A new challenge

2006-03-07T15:50:00.000-08:00

I have written many posts in the past where I have a stated desire to leave my understanding of systematic theology unresolved. I do this while leaning not so blindly on the traditions of the Reformation -- as well as many contributions from more recent thinkers who may or may not have been embraced by the Evangelical establishment.

It is with this understanding that I have embraced the title "Reformed Charismatic."

Recently, a friend has enthusiastically turned me onto Greg Boyd, who -- as best I can tell -- is the strongest voice for Open Theism. I'm not threatened by that term as some are, but I've been slow to endorse any part of it. What little I've read of Boyd so far is fascinating, if only to appreciate his talent for apologetic writing.

His notion is that you can accurately express both classical motifs -- God's soveriegnty (which includes omniscience and omnipresence) and free will -- in Open Theism. So, in no small way, he believes OT resolves the most dividing theological dilemma of the Protestant church.

Even better, he believes OT best explains the problem of evil.

In questioning what he terms as "Blueprint Worldview" he redefines the traditional understanding of sovereignty:

The point is that the law of God’s providence is a moral law, not a deterministic law. To say “God regulates all things” is not to say that “God controls all things.” Rather, God’s governance is one that is consistent with “the preservation of freedom of will in all rational creatures.”|5 Hence, God’s sovereign will “regulates all things” not by controlling events but by holding creatures morally responsible.

I realize such a statement is considered heresy in some circles, but I confess this explanation satisfies my conscience much better than Calvinism's explanation of evil. His Biblical groundwork and his argumentation tops Wayne Grudem's, in my opinion. I will even admit to walking away from Systematic Theology more confounded by this particular issue than understanding it better. Grudem's explanation seemed very strained to distance from the notion of "puppets on a string" (which makes it difficult to pin the consequences of evil on ourselves), but I felt his arguments only supported that point of view.

Boyd digs deeper by bringing to the discussion Biblical argumentation that free will is expressed in some of God's created agents in this "warfare worldview":

... despite the above mentioned motif which stresses God’s sovereignty, Scripture does not support the view that there must be a divine reason behind all events. This brings us to a second and even more fundamental problem with the blueprint worldview: It is, I contend, rooted in an imbalanced reading of the Bible.

While Scripture emphasizes God’s ultimate authority over the world, it also emphasizes that agents, whom God has created, can and do resist his will. Humans and fallen angels are able to grieve his Spirit and to some extent frustrate his purposes (e.g. Gen. 6:6; Isa. 63:10; Luke 7:30; Acts 7:51; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7). Scripture refers to this myriad of other angels and humans who refuse to submit to God’s rule as a kingdom (Matt. 12:26; Col. 1:13; Rev. 11:15), and identifies the head of this rebellion as a powerful fallen angel named Satan. It is clear that God shall someday vanquish this rebel kingdom, but it is equally clear that in the meantime, he genuinely wars against it.

So I'm off on a new tangent. Expect to see more posts on this topic as I dig into Boyd's books.

From The Son to The Suns

2006-03-05T17:45:00.000-08:00

We try to be a full-service blog here, from theology to culture to sports, without crossing into abject irreverance (the above title excluded, I suppose).

So I wanted to point out my Phoenix Suns are without Amare Stoudamire, Kurt Thomas, and Brian Grant, and still managed to blow by the Dallas Mavericks today playing an old school style of basketball. Steve Nash, Boris Diaw, Shawn Marion ... these guys make basketball fun to watch. What an amazing display of skill and athleticism.

It's hard to define the Suns' style of basketball. They are not so much like the old Lakers as they are like the old Globetrotters, when Meadowlark Lemon was in his prime. They have a lot of fun on the court making difficult plays look ridiculously easy.

I've met Meadowlark before. He lives here in Phoenix. He spoke at my church. Nice man, anxious to preach the gospel. I admired his lifelong fervor to serve the Lord. And nobody could dish the rock like ML, not even Magic. He liked my drumming, and joked about it during his sermon. Called me a "funky drummer." Best compliment I've ever received. ML, you're the funkiest of the funky.

I don't really have a point here. I'm just on a post-game high and didn't have any great inpirational words. Terrific Sunday morning service followed by a big (and timely) Suns win. There haven't been days like this in a long time and I am thankful.

Stories from the frontline

2006-03-03T05:44:00.000-08:00

Dan has a great post today on stories of the miraculous told to him by missionaries returned from the field.

It probably says a lot about me that I, a professed charismatic, first read those stories with a measure of skepticism. I have seen a few miraculous things in my life -- including a story of my own -- and yet my instinct was to doubt the veracity of others.

God, forgive me, please.

I have never understood the mindset of missionaries because I have never had the desire to become one. It was once a source of great condemnation for me, but I've learned it's probably because God designed me for a entirely different type of ministry. I'm more of a guy behind the scenes -- a Barnabus -- than I am a Paul or a Peter or a Timothy.

The missionaries I do know astound me. Their perspective of the world is so different, and their passion to do what they do foreign to me. They have such great faith, and not all of them started out as charismatics. They went to their posts and, in great need, praying so fervently for miracles where their natural abilities failed, found God honoring their service to the frontline.

Dan wasn't trying to start another continuism/cessationist debate. He just wanted to point out where Christianity isn't strangled by rational dissent, people tend to see things we don't see here. The argument is effective for me because of my own experience.

When I was 13 I was cleaning the yards in my flip flops (I wasn't very bright) when my flip flop slid to the side of my foot on grass and I stepped on a rusty pitchfork. One of the prongs went clear through my foot.

Any kind of lack of faith was lost in the wash of pain and I mindlessly wobbled back to my room. I leaned on my bed in agony as I prayed a very simple prayer, something like ... "Oh God, please ..." My words were non-descript, but my the intent of my prayer was very clear. I wanted to be healed. My prayer came not from church instruction but out of great need. My prayer came not from Christian modeling, but out of the irrational instinct to seek the last resort.

At first I had a ringing in my ears. I remember this vividly. You might speculate it may have been from holding my breath, but I had shouting my prayer in the empty house over and over again. Then I felt my foot tingle and warm. Almost instantly the pain was gone.

After a couple of minutes I worked up the courage to look at my foot. There was a prong-sized hole on the bottom my foot that was not bleeding. The top of my foot was reddened, like a rash, but it had not poked through like it felt it had. The pain was gone.

The only pain I experienced was the bruising. It hurt for about three days while my foot healed. Somehow, that wound was gone in about a week. I have no scar, not other way to prove it happened. I later told my parents about this as an adult, and they were certain I had imagined this. If it happened, they reasoned, I would have had to go to the hospital. My father, knowing how rusty that pitchfork was, reasoned I would have had to get a shot to fight off infection.

But it did happen, and it's one of the few things I can remember with vivid detail. I also remember the terror of not wanting to tell my parents because I would have gotten in trouble for being so careless. We did not have health care. Going to the hospital would have probably taken food off the table at that time in our lives.

I try not to argue with cessationists. By their account, you cannot argue for the experiential with experiential evidence. I'm content to agree to disagree while we both work for the same goal.

On the other hand, cessationist arguments have no hold on me. A man with an argument has no power over a man with an experience.

Or so I'm told.

My love/hate relationship with Christian books

2006-03-02T10:57:00.000-08:00

I was mentally going through the titles of my Christian book collection when I realized many of my books were a critical response other titles in my "library." I suppose I have a natural inclination to be skeptical of one man's opinion ... perhaps because I know I have an even more natural inclination to give any single person the benefit of the doubt.

I don't read much at all these days, although every now and then I get excited for an upcoming book. Mostly, I'm weary of the process. Modern books are tedious, and they are rarely so complete as to include fair representation of an opposing view.

One rare exception is Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, where his Calvinism is always compared against other points of view from their best representations in the arguments' best representation. Some may argue, for example, Grudem's favoritism of Clark Pinnock doesn't do much justice to other equally regarded scholars outside of Calvinism, but his effort does honor to the Kingdom and is a shining example of what Christian scholarly writing should look like.

Otherwise, we have people putting out their opinion or their vision. Our nature is to turn the most prolific of these authors into icons who bear the flag for our own polarized positions.

The worst of this is the practice of proof-texting. I think it's wise to provide some Biblical support for a statement about Christianity, but proof-texting as a general practice is bad scholarship. Copious proof-texting beyond providing some kind of expository explanation in relationship to the whole passage (and it's relationship to the referenced book's Biblical history) inevitably produces eisogesis even from some of the smartest, most well-regarded authors.

Far be it from me to call for the end of Christian publishing houses. I don't have any moral objections to the income Christian authors receive from their books. But with the Internet and blogs, I see a much better form of conversation that reflects a more mature, Godly way to publish these kinds of things. It's freely accessible, and makes for a much more free exchange of ideas in an organized, civil manner.

Furthermore, if X author has the notion to put out a major criticism of Y preacher or teacher, perhaps X author will be less inclined for hyperbole if he/she knows Y preacher will be able to respond with the same kind of visibility and authority. If X author no longer has the advantage of an international publishing deal while Y preacher or teacher can't get books in major markets, the Internet serves as a nice, leveled playing field.

I'm not an idealist. I know people who abuse their power without conscience will abuse any kind of power. But at least there's a more fair way to do things.

God to bigots: "Neener neener"

2006-03-01T16:19:00.000-08:00

What a great story this is: A woman of mixed race gives birth to fraternal twins -- one black girl and one white girl.

God 1, Aryanism 0.

As if we didn't already know the score in that contest.

These two cuties -- Kian and Remee Horder -- were the product of 1-in-a-million odds. Those don't seem like very big odds given the 6 billion or so on the planet, but I'm thankful to hear of this one.

Remembering instruction in turmoil

2006-02-28T16:40:00.000-08:00

Eph 4:25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26 "In your anger do not sin"[d]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold. 28 He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.

29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

I can't count how many times I've read through the passage above and thought, "Duh." In my mind, I didn't struggle with all of this. I didn't live or work in a world of confrontation, forced to work out difficult situations in difficult relationships, or even expected to make a challenging decision without being the sole spokesperson for myself. As a single person who worked in a profession of black and white ethics, I suppose I was blind to the real challenge of keeping "the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."

Since then I've been married, been challenged by obstacles I could not clear on my own, and generally had my life turned upside down. I'm in a new career where performance is not measured in talent or effort. Abstract thought has no value until it becomes something marketable. Performance is now measured in results, achieved by some of my competitors by dubious means. In this industry, mistakes are not there for learning experiences because each mistake has a dollar value, and the cost of error is too great to be a slow learner.

Where I once saw maturity I can now see a lack of experience. I can now appreciate the real imposition of these verses for someone who's never really been confronted with having to please difficult people.

I'm not so cocky anymore.

Taking Christ to your cellphone

2006-02-28T11:14:00.000-08:00

I'm waiting for the day when Christians stop going to church, stop reading the Bible, stop even looking for that kind of spiritual food on TV. It will all be delivered to the cellphone/PDA. Perhaps it will be wet wired. And it will be written in a foreign tongue called TML (Text Message Lingo):

4 God so luvD D wrld dat he gave hs 1 n 1ly Son, dat whoever Blevz n him shll nt perish bt av eternal lyf.

Actually, this is already being done.

In case you're wondering, my favorite Flavor Aid flavor is grape.

Is the Bible Difficult?

2006-02-28T10:52:00.000-08:00

This post is for Dan, who must think I'm stealing his theological thunder by focusing on his well-featured favorites. The truth is I've just been having fun finding writings of some old wise guys.

That's wise as in spiritually and Biblically insightful. We're not talking about cotton-ball cheeks and horse heads here.

Today I offer up Chapter 6 from A.W. Tozer's Man: The Dwelling Place of God, entitled "Why People Find the Bible Difficult." Tozer writes:

The notion that the Bible is addressed to everybody has wrought confusion within and without the church. The effort to apply the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount to the unregenerate nations of the world is one example of this. Courts of law and the military powers of the earth are urged to follow the teachings of Christ, an obviously impossible thing for them to do. To quote the words of Christ as guides for policemen, judges and generals is to misunderstand those words completely and to reveal a total lack of understanding of the purposes of divine revelation. The gracious words of Christ are for the sons and daughters of grace, not for the Gentile nations whose chosen symbols are the lion, the eagle, the dragon and the bear.

Mr. Big Shot

2006-02-28T06:08:00.000-08:00

A lapse in judgment from the web editor of the Wittenburg Door has allowed my bio to be placed on their website. I now share space in the credits with true publishing titans such as Ole Anthony, Joe Bob Briggs, Becky Garrison and the great John Carney.

Someone will surely be sacked for this.

I was under the impression inclusion meant some kind of tenured professorship at an esteemed seminary (this is the readership demographic after all). Instead, I guess it means I'll be teaching Humor 101 in heaven. Graduation is mandatory. Don't forget your whoopee cushions.

Ravenhill en fuego

2006-02-27T10:45:00.000-08:00

I often see GodBloggers criticizing others about things that don't matter while calling for revival. I cannot think of another preacher who taught the Church how to seek the Lord for revival better than Leonard Ravenhill.

In this old article entitled Pentecost At Any Cost, I dare you to read it and try and not be either convicted and/or inspired:

Let us remind ourselves again that the early church "moved." In moving, something or somebody must be left behind. The modern Ananias and Sapphira will find the pace too hot and the price too high. To keep the fire of revival burning, we would have to meet together
- daily for prayer and praise. This is what the church in Acts did (Acts 2:42-46).
- daily for breaking of bread. This the early church did.
- daily for prayer. This was their pattern in the early church.
- in the harmony of the Spirit. This was the glow of the first church.

This stringent schedule would be the death of many of our flimsy and unproductive patterns of life. How easily we Christians move along in the light of the lostness of men and their gambling with the certainty of eternal destruction unless they hear and believe. Sloth has seeped into our endeavors. The mesmerism of materialism has almost completely clogged the channel of blessing. We stand condemned.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder

2006-02-24T14:08:00.000-08:00

Some of you know I have an affinity for the Jesus Movement. My father was a pastor in a northern Arizona college town in the early 70s. My first conscious moments were right smack dab in the middle of that whole thing.

So when Mark Driscoll, whom I recently deemed as a capable spokesman of my generation, wrote about the Lonnie Frisbee documentary being shown at his church, my curiosity was piqued.

At the bottom of the post Driscoll mentions concerns about Larry Norman showing up and raising ... um ... heck. They had security guards at the door. Allegedly -- and I still don't understand why -- Norman is upset with some of the content with the film.

First, I suspect rumors of Norman showing up to overturn the tables were greatly exaggerated. The man who invented CCM -- not to mention the terms "One Way" and "Left behind" -- has serious health issues these days. One of his arteries was damaged during an angiogram last year, and it's leaking. His insurance won't cover it, and his family is desperately seeking financial assistance from Solid Rock fans to allow Norman to receive the medical treatment he needs.

Norman is a featured person in the Frisbee documentary, about perhaps the single-most visible evangelist in the Jesus Freak movement. Frisbee's moral shortcomings provide a challenging contrast to his otherwise successful ministry. Norman not only speaks of Frisbee's passion in the movie, his music is prominently featured throughout. Norman recently released a CD called Frisbee, a tribute to those heady days of the new movement and the man who was at the center of it.

So speculation of any angst Norman might have about the late Frisbee, as a person, is the worst kind of conjecture.

The film, on the other hand, might be something of a challenge for someone who actually lived through it. However, Norman was an active participant in the film, gave his music to the film, knows director David DiSabatino, and has never publicly objected to the film (to my knowledge) or how he or Frisbee were portrayed.

So I'm at a loss why Norman showed up or what his objections were (or why he has a lawyer). Then again, those JFM leaders who have outlived the era seem to be magnets for weirdness. Who knows.

Best "best week ever"

2006-02-24T06:35:00.000-08:00

Maybe you're like me and decided if you're going to waste time with television, you don't want to mess around. And if you're like me, you like it when people talk about pop culture in a condescending way, to sort of offset the cooties you get from looking at the covers of magazines like People and Us.

If you're like me, you probably watch VH1's Best Week Ever, which now has a blog.

The thing I like about this show -- and its cousins, We Love the 70s, 80s, and 90s -- is it's filled with the Kurt Rambis Factor. By this, I mean the commentators are C- and D-list actors just collecting a paycheck.

If you're not familiar with NBA history, Kurt Rambis was a white guy in "Clark Kent" glasses who played for the great 80s Lakers teams. He wasn't a great player, but he was effective and he worked real hard. Fans loved him because, as he believed, most of them felt they could take him in a game of one-on-one.

I watch the Best Week Ever and think, "How can I get this job? I can do this! I can take these guys!" To prove it, I'm now going to steal topics from the Best Week Ever and offer up my own sarcastic observations compared to their sarcastic observations.

Um, don't try this at home.

The set up Jake Gyllenhaal swapped numbers with Mischa Barton at a recent party.
Their quip Strangely, they both share the number 555-5555.
My better quip It's not that Jake was trying to be seen, but he was wearing an "I'm not really a gay cowboy" t-shirt.

The set up The Killers are being sued for $16 million
Their quip Surprisingly however not by the Cure.
My better quip Jenny wanted to make sure they knew they were never friends.

The set up Roger Moore is standing up for new 007 Daniel Craig.
Their quip But who will stand up for Roger Moore?
My better quip He also stood up for three more martinis.

The set up Nicole Richie was seen holding hands with her ex-fiance, Adam Goldstein aka DJ AM.
Their quip This better work, because I'm still reeling from the failed Charlie Sheen/Denise Richards reconciliation.
My better quip They weren't really holding hands. Goldstein was propping Richie up so people could see she's still a three-dimensional figure.

Abridged Gaddabout: Cam Girls can, and do

2006-02-23T06:21:00.000-08:00

Mark Frauenfelder illuminates on Cam Girls -- teenage e-whores who know how to get what they want.

The scary thing is, knowing Southern Culture as I do, the girls mentioned are probably involed in a church youth group somewhere. This is not a matter of not teaching the right things; it's a matter of not reaching those whose parents can't or won't reach them.

Think about this Cam Girl quote if you still think it's harmless for your teenager to consume pop culture unabated:

"Britney and Christina are doing their own thing, and I think that's great. If they feel the need to show off their body to get somewhere, then so be it."

The fulfilling life

2006-02-22T14:07:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking lately about expectations and how they are more often than not a hindrance to God's rule and reign in our lives. If ever there was a challenge to God's Lordship over us, it is the earthly expectations we place in the path of believers.

I'm talking about those things which are fine if they are hopeful -- happy marriage, healthy children, long life, moderate abundance. But we, as a Church, don't leave these as hopes. We endorse them to the point they are implied mandates.

Not everyone is called to be married, have children, have perfect health, or live upper middle class lives. Frankly, these are the kinds of pursuits the NT authors often saw as distractions, and it's possibly why they spent so much time explaining the ground rules for these four things. Paul seemed to think of marriage as a concession to fleshly weakness, not an absolute path to virtue.

For those of you picking up your John Piper references, you can put them down. This is not an opus to depressed or morose living. If God has blessed you with those things, by all means, live in the blessing and be thankful.

But for those who may feel outcast from the Christian template, there we have a different kind of challenge. We are challenged to not allow bitterness in our hearts. For some, it's a minute-by-minute exercise in conscious submission to Christ.

These kinds of expectations are nothing more than discontent in its earliest stages: I must have three children to live a full life; I won't be complete until I am married; I couldn't go on living if I wasn't physically able to walk; I am a failure if I don't at least equal the lifestyle of my parents.

These are common thoughts, common expectations of life, particularly in the success-driven church. And they put the focus of contentment squarely on some kind of earthly achievement where it is nowhere promised in the Gospel.

This is why I am liking John Piper more and more:

God is most glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him.

To many who have already allowed bitter roots to grow in their hearts, this kind of word burns. At best, the bitter rumble about its trite nature. But it is truth, as simple as the Sermon on the Mount.

Putting down expectations is not easy because time creates emotional attachment, and pride stamps them with necessity. As those closest to us reinforce them, it is impossible to not take them for granted -- until something happens outside of our plans. That's often when faith is challenged the most, when we put down God's justice for our own, and those three famous words come out of our previously pious mouths:

It's not fair.

I can't think of anything more unBiblical than that phrase. No doubt, it's probably one of the most instinctive phrases we could utter, the flesh being so reliant on self-preservation, but it is nothing more than a reflection of our sinful nature.

Of course, it's much easier to reflect on all of this if you haven't been challenged. You can prepare your heart all you want, but until faith is required to be exercised, no confidence should be established about moving mountains any time soon. On the other hand, if we have put all of our hope in Christ, then these types of spiritual hurdles are never going to block us from finishing the race.

Roadside ministry

2006-02-21T21:34:00.001-08:00

I was thrilled to discover a feature on old friends, Helen and Emil Liko, this evening. Emil parks his bike on a busy road in the SE Valley (East Valley in greater Phoenix) and holds up a sign: "Free prayer."

Emil says he gets all kinds of people who pull over and don't even know why.

If you know anything about the area he ministers to, you'd realize the genius of this approach. Queen Creek used to be entirely agriculture, but they've built about 20,000 new homes since 2002. The place is a parking lot each morning and each evening because there are only two access roads out of town, and they're both one-lane rural roads that are under construction for miles and miles.

So it's not just inspired, it's tactical. And actually, it's inspiring.

I got to watch Emil and Helen grow together and fall in love in my church years ago. If I recall correctly, Helen was a nurse in war-ravaged Africa. She has a heart the size of Texas.

Anyway, just good to see people get some recognition. It was really cool to see a picture of their ministry site on the front page of azcentral.com, my old occupational haunt.

Great talk radio quote

2006-02-21T08:22:00.000-08:00

I was listening to some local AM talk show this morning. A Democrat and a Republican were accusing each other of partisan politics.

Both the pot and the kettle paused to admire two shameless hypocrites share in one single case of bromism.

I love AM radio for the news. Political chatter usually makes me run for my CD collection. However, I was stopped in my tracks by a call from a Northern Arizona University political science professor who cut through the swagger for a rare moment of AM radio clarity. To paraphrase:

I don't mean to end the discussion, gentlemen, because polarized idiocy is a gridlock designed by the Framers to keep America from jumping into every political fad. It's hard to change the law, and it should be. However, we have probably passed on some of the best solutions to some of our most complicated problems because they didn't fit in a 10-second sound byte or a 2-inch pull quote. Meanwhile, our leaders are happy to exchange clichés and platitudes as long as it discourages fresh thought and new ideas from challenging their political power base.

Ouch.

Populism is a horrible political philosophy, but it's at its best when it challenges the right and the left to move to a more reasonable center.

Gaddabout Report: Sell!

2006-02-20T15:00:00.000-08:00

Phillip Johnson updates his Spurgeon Sermon post with an ominous forecast:

And I have a lot of updating that needs to be done to my controversial bookmarks. Bear with me.

The timing of this post runs concurrently with my little jab at Calvinistas. Instinct tells me The Gad(d)about is about to be jarred from the "entertaining" category, possibly removed entirely.

Oh well. It was fun while it lasted, but being a preacher's kid, y'all had to know this run of respectability had to end at some point. Back to obscurity with me!

Smells like new car

2006-02-20T08:45:00.000-08:00

I haven't bought a new car off the lot in 16 years, so I was a little rusty when I went to the dealer yesterday.

My first thought was to do what my grandfather used to do: Stuff a few $100 in my shirt pocket and do business with the first salesman who licked the heel of my shoe. I was short a few items.

No $100 bills. No shirt pocket.

All the same, car salesmen are as obsequious as another profession which I shant mention here. I just happened to run into Big Al, who puts Chuck Swindoll quotes on prominent display above his cubicle and happens to be looking for a church.

I gave him my short sales pitch, and plan on closing the deal on a new tithing church member tomorrow night. Turns out we were both selling something yesterday.

Big Al -- a name by his own choice -- was with two other customers who he had been babysitting in financing when he broke away to help me. He ran between them and delivering keys to me as I drove a few different models of PT Cruisers. Big Al was well onto sweating his way into becoming Medium Al in the hot Arizona sun.

I've never been a vocal fan of the PT Cruisers, but the Touring Signature model I drove yesterday seemed like a sweet ride for the price. Or maybe I just haven't driven a car that wasn't somehow broken for the last umpteen years that a boat with the Dodge Neon drivetrain seems like a Cadillac. Just getting in that car and driving it around the block made me feel like a better man, legitimate, not unworthy -- not unlike the way men feel when their wives put their arms around them in any social situation.

Take my Nissan. Please. I mean, take it for example. This 2002 model 4-door Sentra came to me under the best of condition, and in three years we've put 50,000 miles on it. It shakes like a heroin addict on a week-long dry run. The acrid smell of burnt oil pours through the air vents. I'm sure it knows its owner has not been a very helpful partner. It's treated like the crazy uncle grandma keeps locked up in the basement. We're too embarassed to park it up front. We're too embarassed to take it to nice places. It sullies us somehow just getting inside of it, although it's our fault it's in its current condition.

I've often mentioned my father's old church and how the same people needed to be "saved" from the same sin every so often. They'd backslide every 6 to 8 weeks, disappear for a month, then come back to church for that salvation experience once they'd overcome their shame. I don't get that mentality as a Christian. As a degenerate car owner, it makes perfect sense.

There is something about a new car that makes every mechanically disinclined schmo like me want to become a better car owner: weekly scrubs, regular oil changes, regular maintenance. If you've ever been stuck on the side of the highway looking in despair as other people who take care of their cars drive by at warp speeds, you realize this is a brief moment of automotive salvation. You want to be regenerated, redeemed, renewed as a car owner. You're going to be a better driver and owner this time around. No more late-night trists to the drive thru for a messy burger on the way home. No more orange slushees in the back seat.

I've already started making the promises, taking the steps to walk the straight and narrow again. I'm even thinking of joining Triple AAA, and getting insurance beyond the state requirements.

I can only hope and pray, by the Blue Book, I do not stray. I do not want to be hiding in the garage in my shame three years from now because I did not keep my promise.

A culture of secrets

2006-02-18T10:34:00.000-08:00

I'm going to violate my own policy by linking to something I find wholly objectional. I'm linking to it because the notion of what I'm writing about is so perverse, I doubt anyone would believe me if I didn't.

Maybe I'm way late to get a clue on this, but capitalist ventures in Europe have expanded their quickly growing business in America: They're selling alibis so you can cheat on your spouse with more efficiency.

For a nominal fee you can buy a forged fax, fake e-mail, or even pay $90 a month for a permanent alibi with live operator assistance.

In a radio interview yesterday in Phoenix, a spokeswoman for The Alibi Network reported half of their business consists of cheating spouses. The other half, to broadly paraphrase her statement, is for moral justification.

Pardon me for casting judgment on the unbelieving world for behaving like ... unbelievers. I shouldn't be surprised, and I'm usually graceful about this in public. I know I should have no moral expectations of a world that cannot see truth beyond their own selfish pursuits. We are, after all, consumers of Internet porn and e-affairs.

And far be it from me to place myself on a moral pedestal. My heart and my flesh are as capable of sinning as anyone's. I'm not deceived that I've achieved some moral highground that I can now cast aspersions on a world and mindset that, honestly, I'm not far removed myself.

There is just an audaciousness to this kind of industry that signals to me we're entering a new age of complicity. We're at a point now where we not only close our eyes to lying, manipulation, and deceit, we're going to empower those who do.

I'm sure someone bright will show me how there's nothing new under the sun, how this is no different than something in the past. For sure, that is true in the element of sin. However, I can't think of any time where society has embraced this kind of behavior as a part of culture. Technology hasn't made us more wordly, it's just allowed wordliness to become a commodity that is easily acquired for pocket change.

The Terrorism Two-Step

2006-02-17T09:24:00.000-08:00

Somewhere between 7th and 8th grade I decided I wanted to participate in my youth, not cower in the corner waiting for the popular kids to leave.

Being the son of a fundamentalist preacher/authoritarian father, I did not enter junior high with a lot of self confidence. I was one of the few remaining kids of my generation in the early 80s whose parents firmly believed in the corrective power of the belt. I was raised to be deferent, to my peers as well as my superiors, and in junior high that is a posture that is like honey to bully bears.

In my meekness I was berated into submission by my fellow junior high classmates, and I spent much of 7th grade as an outcast. There's nothing wrong with being an outcast if for the right reasons, but I chose to be an outcast because I had neither the confidence in myself or what I believed in to walk with assurance. By repetition, I had learned if I walked with assurance without the threat of physical power, that was the recipe by which I would be pounded into ground.

There's an interesting psychology in humans who are terrorized: Every person eventually has a breaking point. For me, it was the desire to play team sports. I figured I was going be bullied no matter what, so it didn't make a difference what I did. At least I should pursue some kind of happiness ... even if there would likely be days I would be afraid to go to school.

My sudden change of mind led to the inevitable. Two bullies in a school populated by them (1,200 7th, 8th, and 9th grade suburbanites) were on my 8th grade team. They taunted me mercilessly until, all logic lost in my anger, I turned as pushed one of them to the ground.

To use the vernacular of the day, it was "on." After practice. Behind one of portable classrooms.

To this day I have no idea where I found the courage to show up to that fight. I think I was probably more afraid of what would happen if I didn't show up. To my surprise, my opponent was no stronger than me. Turns out all his posturing was just that. We rolled on the ground for an eternity, and I landed several body blows that seemed to take the edge of his cockiness.

By reputation, I didn't win that fight. Blood flowed from my nose, but only because of the heat and the physical exertion, not because of any haymaker that landed on my face. Truth is, he never landed a punch, and if it were a fairly judged wrestling match, I would have been declared the winner.

My personal bully walked off with several of his friends proudly claiming victory. But we both knew there wouldn't be another fight, and all he had left was weak verbal jabs that had much less punch than they once did. I had no interest to fight him and he had learned I was not a weakling -- he couldn't afford a rematch in which he might lose face (and a few teeth). I was no longer afraid of him.

I abhor violence. I regret the kind of vile rage I experienced that day, and the kind of bitterness that simmered in my heart for years after that incident. Even as a young adult, thinking about the experience, I wanted to reach back in time and really throw punches with the self-confidence that comes from experience.

But I put that down. I know now why he did what he did. I know he was as threatened by my presence as I was his. He had no trust of the world and could only posture as a bully to ensure his safety. Yet, if I hadn't stood up for myself, the bullying would have endured throughout my school days. It would have been endless, and maybe worse. One of my friends was put in the hospital by high school bullies like these guys.

This is what I think of when I hear people question our military presence in the Middle East. Sure, we can question the mode of operation, and critics are right to condemn inhumane treatment of prisoners. But that is not an argument against military action.

Terrorism is nothing more than bullying on a grand scale. There is an element of Islam that intends to strike fear in the world. They cannot do a full-frontal attack because they are, in fact, weak by comparison, but they can posture by steering two jumbo jets full of fuel into the World Trade Center. They expected us to cower. They expected us to crumble. They expected us to be weak. And they expected to encourage others of like mind to do the same.

Military response, which we hope was directed at the right target with enough good intel, was the proper response. When these international bullies threaten the assurance of safety in our country, we cannot back down. No response is a guarantee of future terrorism. It's an invitation to people with an 8th-grade worldview to posture some more with cowardice acts of wanton violence.

At last, the confession you've been waiting for

2006-02-17T08:00:00.000-08:00

In an article on the growing focus on Hinduism in America (and how the media confounds Hindu theology), a USA Today feature writer offers this bit at the end:

So what else is new? Hollywood has been mocking Christian culture for years.

(HT: Doc Andy)

Somewhere, Richard Belzer is shrugging his shoulders.

The article mentions two of my favorite shows, The Simpsons and the charming My Name Is Earl, as skewing the Hindu message of one god, one bazillion persons (I've lost count).

While the author barely bothers mentions the theological "blending" that goes on in Hollywood, that is exactly what goes on everyday in media. It's how media-saturated Christians can take on confused theology that combines the OT theology of "an eye for an eye" with karmic justice. Reformed Christianity clearly reserves that kind of OT justice for the Lord's day of judgment in this age of mercy, while Hinduism's karma doesn't even have a concept of justice. Karma is neutral. But blending fits nicely into our fast-food theology when TV writers have more input into our daily life than the Word.

What I like about The Simpsons is its writers are Ivy Leaguers with a clue about theology, and but for a few irritating moments of universalism, one can almost imagine these guys having reverence for authentic Christianity. Their commentaries on dead faith and phony Christian culture are usually dead-on.

Their criticism sometimes go the other way. In one episode, when Homer obliges himself to a several-million-dollar donation to PBS to get the telethon hounds off the tube, he is chased by Big Bird (among other notable mobbing PBS characters) into the church, where he is forced into requesting asylum. Rev. Lovejoy sneaks him out in the back of his car, buried underneath sacks of letters.

When the mob outside the church questions Lovejoy on the contents of his car, Lovejoy replies, "I'm just taking these children's letters to God down to the city dump." The PBS mob, which we are to presume hostile to real Christian faith, is suddenly supportive.

Pithy.

My Name Is Earl is another story. The idea of karma is prevalent as its main character, played brilliantly by Jason Lee, seeks to redeem himself by attempting to undo 200+ previous malicious acts, some of which landed him in prison. These wrongdoings are haphazardly scribbled on a makeshift napkin or small sheet of paper, and each week his intention is to cross off one of them as a wrong that's been made right.

However, I find the Earl character not very informed of his adopted belief system, and his sincere hope for spiritual redemption as refreshing. The notion that Earl's redemption quest is misguided is implied, but we are to go along for this journey out of respect for one man's desire to not be ashamed. As he fumbles through his own motivations, he somehow ends up doing God's good work. One gets the sense he will eventually conclude he can't undo his wrongs, but the transformation inside has more value than he can currently appreciate.

It's not Christianity, but I'll take 30 minutes of a charitable and just heart for my television viewing any day. It is definitely entertaining as Earl attempts to live out his simple understanding and new spiritual values in a highly cynical world.

Christians on parade

2006-02-16T09:04:00.000-08:00

My good friend Brad at Broken Messenger takes aim at political pundits who have risen to fame (if not fortune) under the guise of GodBlogging.

What Brad doesn't know is I've been savoring the juiciness of this topic since I began blogging and I kicked around ideas so long I forgot to write my tome. He captured my sentiment perfectly.

One of my great irritations in life is being stereotyped as a RIGHTWINGFUNDAMENTALISTZEALOT (trademarked by Mother Jones) as soon as I let people in on the secret that I'm one of those people. Whatever these people thought of me before, they now, by way of culture, have new assumptions about me like:

I watch TBN and Pat Robertson -- and not because I need a good laugh.

I got married by clubbing my (future) wife over the head and dragging her by the hair to the altar

I lounge around the house in a three-piece aqua blue polyester leisure suit (OK, this is a little out-dated, but we've never been known for our fashion sense)

I drive a mini-van. (This might be the most irritating).

Part of these stereotypes are based on the fact we favor political people to speak for our spiritual concerns. We, as a church, best organize when something we agree on politically is at stake. For example, the vast majority of pro life leadership is Catholic, but it is best buoyed at the ballot booth by people who identify themselves as Evangelicals.

So in the U.S., those who otherwise bear the cross of the Gospel message are best know by their ... politics.

I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say Brad and I agree on fundamental political issues. We are both fairly conservative and probably agree with much of those conservative political bloggers he lists. I probably separate myself from the tone of the message without disagreeing with the content.

Where I think we're both discouraged is the lack of the centrality of some alleged GodBloggers in the things that they write. The wrong message that the Christian Church is about politics is reinforced in silence, and it's something that needs to be addressed by the GodBlogging community. A challenge is needed for those who are at the pinnacle of traffic and who benefit from those of us who link to them because of our shared faith. They need to express their faith more -- not for us, but for the many who read them and have no faith.

On the other hand, I think there are GodBlogs that suffer because there is barely the hint of a real person in their extensive writings on theology. I don't mean to downgrade the power of God's Word, but before I want to know what you believe, I'd like to know who you are. This plays out regularly in the real world. You have to gain my trust before you gain my ear.

Christians do all sorts of interesting things besides organizing the next GOP election and starting wars in faraway countries. It would be nice to read more about the personal lives of Christians, and dare I say it might actually be beneficial to discuss challenges, difficulties, and other areas of life. There's a demand for intellectual honesty in blogs, and I think it starts with the personal disclosure that we are real people with real problems -- but who still engage the world with a message of hope.

Calvinism's dark secret

2006-02-16T00:00:00.000-08:00

Very few Calvinists are born the moment they give their lives to the Lord. The reason is there are so many hoops one must jump through, rationally, before one can arrive at a reasonable theology. And that's just getting person set up to wrap their minds around the very broad sovereignty of God.

Calvinism is a system, and I've never met an unbeliever who embraces a system. What they do embrace is the simple Gospel which tells them of God's love for them and of their sin, and of their need for Christ to redeem them.

Saving faith does not require passing a TULIP test, at least it's not spelled out that way in my Bible. Your mileage -- and your patience with me -- may vary.

I would have a difficult time with any Calvinist who would tell me otherwise, because so many Calvinists were first saved under Arminian pastors. Where would the world of Calvinism be today if not for the encouragement of free will Arminians who dared to hold an altar call? How many Calvinists would we have today if they were required to explain limited atonement before someone prayed with them to receive the grace and mercy of God?

This is not an argument for Arminianism. Not at all. However, there have been plenty of non-Calvinists such as Wesley whose earnest preaching of the simple Gospel should be accredited to them as great faith. You don't have to endorse their theology. You just have to admit that there is a benefit to having a few Arminians for the building of the Kingdom.

My pastor has a saying I think he borrowed from his seminar professor: "I don't care how much of a Calvinist you are, you're still going to preach the Gospel like you're an Arminian." The point is regardless of your theology, there's no alternative to the zeal of preaching the Gospel.

Just something to keep in mind the next time you unsheathe your sword to do battle with a semi-pelagian poopyhead.

One banner year of wasting bandwidth

2006-02-15T06:57:00.000-08:00

One lapse in judgement 365 days ago led to a year of hundreds of lost work hours and more than a few dirty looks from my wife.

One year ago today I started blogging.

It seems to be tradition to link to "best of" posts on blog anniversaries, but I'm going to resist. I don't have a "best of." Over 10,000 of you have tortured yourselves with visits to this site this past year. The damage has been done. I'm giving you a day a rest today. I'll be back tomorrow to challenge all good sense with my wit and wisdom.

God bless and thanks for dropping by!

Happy Arizona statehood day!

2006-02-14T10:08:00.000-08:00

Ninety-four years ago today Arizona became the 48th state of America. The history of this state is as expansive and unusually boring as the Sonoran Desert:

Nobody knows how Arizona got its name. Some suggest in comes from the Uto-Aztecan O'odham language, spoken by the Pima and Papago natives who spread out across the southern portion of the region. It may have been "alĭ son" or even "alĭ sona,"with the 'l' sounding like an 'r' to European invaders. The name may have also been a mistake. A town south of the Mexican border was called Arizonac. Then the Spaniards messed up Father Keno's maps and dropped the 'c.' Some insist, wrongly, the name comes from the Spanish words arida zona -- "arid zone." However, if correctly spoken, the Spanish would have called it zona arida. A lesser known myth is perpetuated by our favorite local bald man, Charles Barkley, the Paradise Valley homeowner who proclaimed it to be "Hairyzona," for the great number of hairy-back guys who run around town without shirts on. Barkley is also the same person who, when asked if he would play for a team in a state that does not honor Martin Luther King Jr. with a paid holiday, replied: "For $3 million a year I'd play for the KKK." Shame is not a useful commodity around here.

Arizona has always been the new home for the unloved. Who settled Arizona? Native tribes probably driven out of more green geography to the north and the south. Gold prospectors who failed in California and returned to Arizona where they ran out of money. Mormons looking for safety. Civil War expatriates, particularly from the South. Hordes of immigrants during Westward expansion. People from the East and the Midwest looking for work and cheap land. Illegals from Mexico. Basically, if you can't make it any place else, there's always room in Arizona.

Less than half of Arizona is desert climate. That's right, nearly 60 percent of Arizona land is some kind of mountain, ridge, or federally-protected forest. About 90 miles north of blazing hot Phoenix (and practically straight up into heaven) is the mountain town of Flagstaff. Not far from Flagstaff is Humphrey's Peak, which reaches over 12,000 feet high. Phoenix itself is a high elevation desert plateau, with downtown Phoenix resting at about 1,100 feet above sea level, and outlying north and eastern portions of the metropolis rolling upwards. Rejected state slogan: "Arizona. We're higher than you think."

Arizona is a "cowboy" state, but we're not talking about guys with six-shooters. Arizona is sort of like the American version of France. We appear to love politics only to the point that it allows us to disagree with everyone else. The state controlling party has been the GOP since 1950, but even then our heroes are usually libertarian wing nuts like Barry Goldwater and John McCain. We might be the only state that could put someone like J.D. Hayworth, a former sportscaster, into office. Hayworth is known locally as "Foghorn Leghorn." Our state sport is recalling our governors; we've had three successful recalls, and two others that ended in resignation since we achieved statehood. Most famous was Gov. Evan Mecham, who was so unpopular in the late 80s that political cartoonist Steve Benson -- grandson of then Mormon prophet Ezra Taft Benson -- drew a cartoon of Gov. Mecham holding the "Book of Moron." Mecham resigned. Benson left the church, then was excommunicated. Fun stuff.

Arizona is still largely unpopulated, but not for long. The state is the sixth largest in acreage in the U.S., but remains one of the least in terms of people living here. It's surprising to many, given this knowledge, that Arizona ranks among the top 20 state economies in the country, with more circulated annual money than Norway, Denmark, Ireland or New Zealand. Where large commercial agrobusinesses once harvested large orange and cotton crops, we now have rows and rows of red-tile roofs and three-car garages. Desert land is and will always be cheap (since you have to do few improvements), so growth industries are king in this state. Arizona has been ranked among the top 5 fastest growing states in the U.S. since WWII ended, and should remain there for at least the next century. If you don't live here yet, Census numbers suggest you will eventually. Maybe we'll give Southern California back to the Mexicans since they're all moving here, and they can keep Hollywood at no extra charge. We just want to be able to visit San Diego 10 times each summer.

We are well-churched. Four out of 5 Arizonans classify themselves as Christians, over 40 percent of those declaring themselves as Protestant. Another 1/3 of that group are Catholics, with about 5 percent declared as Mormons. However, I've discovered a growing group among us, and I expect to soon see a monument built to their god: the almighty real estate developer.

We don't really stray too far. Four of the state's five biggest cities are in the Phoenix Metro area. Phoenix is tops at about 2 million, with Tucson 90 miles to the south pushing 1 million. However, Phoenix's neighbors to the east include Mesa (~ 400,000), Gilbert (~ 200,000), and Chandler (~ 200,000). They are all connected by freeways with no open spaces between. It's just one big sprawling master-planned community, and they're still growing. What's scary is the fastest growing portion of greater Phoenix is to the west, where we're expected to see an additional three million people over the next 20 years. Someday someone's going to figure out it's really, really hot here.

Radio ruined music

2006-02-13T16:21:00.000-08:00

A long time ago my J-school professor explained to me that most people who subscribe to the Wall Street Journal do so for the sake of appearances. They have the WSJ delivered to the lawn to cover up the fact they're really reading the commuter rag or the big state paper.

He further explained this is not just a newspaper statistic, it's the mentality of the average American for nearly every media purchase they make. This is especially true of music, where payola and pay-for-play schemes have controlled the mass radio market since the advent of the rock-and-roll era.

"But payola scandals ended with Alan Freed!" you might protest. Not so. Distributors have been telling radio stations what to play, thus telling you what's "good" and "popular" right up until right now. And it will continue in the future. As a matter of fact, Sony BMG and Warner Music Group recently settled third-party payola (paying contractors to pay radio DJs to play their music) just last year.

So the truth is you haven't decided what's popular.

Not only that, but a recent study at Columbia University suggests the average person's listening habits are not always based on objective listening. They're just as likely -- and probably more likely -- to be influenced by social pressures.

Furthermore, listening habits broken down into genres are greatly influenced when you are young -- and most likely to be influenced by both repetitive radio play and social influences.

So the American music industry is controlled by the distributors, create an atmosphere of "cool" for the young, and manipulate an entire generation with very little objectivity.

My personal experience is a very small number of Americans have the capability to objectively listen to music. How could they? They've been exposed to a very tiny portion of what's out there, and you can lump everything as diverse as drum-n-bass to Jessica Simpson to college radio all into one big pile -- it's still a small fraction of the diversity of music being produced.

Americans don't grow up with an arts education unless they are pursuing an arts education. By and large, their music education is filtered through the radio, and if it's not a "whitebread" 4/4 danceable song, it's not on their music agenda. Even the rap I hear that is often put in the "funk" genre is so not funky, so far removed from the improvisational New Orleans second-line riffs that first inspired them, the artists don't even realize their heritage has been stripped down to appeal to white audiences who buy the bulk of their music.

Musicians have their own tastes. They may play in an alternative punk band, then run back to the bus to listen to Miles or Chick Corea or some world musician. What's sad is their influences are not often allowed by their heavy-handed corporate producers, because it doesn't fit into a tiny little box called "popular music."

I write this with a grievance against the music industry because I'm a musician who is fed up with accounting-based music programming. I don't expect Americans to ever embrace the complications of jazz or the intricacy of classical, but they deserve a chance to be exposed to it. Americans own the airwaves, and they don't even know their rights have been limited by the financial pressures of a music industry that lost its way 60 years ago.

My bigger concern is the art form of American instrumentation -- guitars, bass, drums, keyboards -- will eventually be lost with another century of this kind of programming. More and more, kids are being exposed to cheaper, technological driven music. That's fine. I think there's a place for that. But I also think we have a responsibility to pass on some kind of instrumental heritage, otherwise in 100 years kids will be playing sampled instruments without the most rudimentary knowledge of the instruments from which the sounds came.

For my nieces and nephews, that's a frightening future.

When plot holes attack

2006-02-12T07:20:00.000-08:00

Shrode at The Thinklings offers up three excerpts of reviews from Roger Ebert and asks what the job of a reviewer is.

In the reviews, Ebert basically challenges the notion of critics and wanna-be critics who feel it is their job to shred every single plot hole "as if they have therefore demolished the movie."

I think what Ebert is really saying here is, "If I wanted to, I could ruin every single movie you'd ever want to see, because all movies come with plot holes."

I am an Ebert fan because he's a good writer who offers insight and never prejudges a movie. He's actually written and directed a film before, and his strong grasp of theater gives him a better clue about why some movies work and some don't. He doesn't want to tell people whether they should or should not go to movie. He does want to help people decide if its a movie that might entertain them.

I also think his point is salient. To some, the enjoyment of going to movies is all about discovering every inconsistency and boasting of their findings to the crowd with whom they attended the movie. I can think of few people who are more irritating.

If a movie has done its job, it's provided you just enough credibility to suspend your disbelief. Most stories get made into movies because they are about something out of the ordinary, set apart from what usually happens. The hero is going to defeat evil and get the girl most times because for many that represents a best hope not often found in reality. That's entertaining to the average person. We are provided catharsis in the unwilling hero who stumbles his way into becoming a universal champion of our best hopes and dreams.

In this format of movie, it is unimportant how the hero found the gun at the right moment, how the heroine was strong enough to escape three giant brutes, or what 10-year-old is smart enough to crack PGP encryption in 10 seconds. (Or any other human, for that matter). If you're an American, hopefully you've developed the skill of saying to yourself, "This is no ordinary 10-year-old," and move on in rhythm as the plot unfolds. Without that skill, it's unlikely you will ever be provided escape in cinema unless you've discovered the treacherously hopeless plots of French film.

The pyschology of of the person who blows up the credibility of every plot seems pretty obvious to me: They're afraid of looking foolish. The problem, however, is most people are exceedingly willing to be fools to step into another dimension where the rules of reality are bent and the things we've come to expect -- good people suffer, evil is prevalent and often triumphant, the innocent die -- exist only long enough to dissipate into a more satisfying result. Movies give us what we aren't getting from real life, at least for about 85 minutes. This majority can barely suffer the know-it-all who can't shut up about the unlikelihood a street cop would be able to disarm a nuclear warhead, even with help from someone who might know.

The obvious exception to this rule is a plot hole so big as to disallow suspension of disbelief. For me, that was the quantum leap of skills for Neo from the end of Matrix Reloaded into Revolutions. The shift from a genetic and technological explanation of his skills to a spiritual one that went beyond mere technology -- without even providing an ounce of explanation about the spiritual rules of that universe -- ripped me out of my suspense and back into the reality of the total implausibility of the trilogy. It was disheartening, because I had found a lot of merit in the movies up until that point. There was also a more philosophical point of the inherent weakness of the human flesh -- even in our heroes -- I felt was being violated, but I don't want to belabor my point.

One other belief buster for me is when a movie character sits down behind the drums. I can rationalize in my head that directors and actors don't know much about the instrument, but they pay advisors thousands of dollars to provide expertise. Why, then, drummers' strokes are rarely matched to the sounds, or how what is considered impressive in film is usually something that could be played by any teenager with a kit, is beyond me. These are moments that turn me into a raving lunatic and I have to either walk out of the theater or turn off the TV. I imagine it's a similar experience for computer programmers who see Hackers or astrophysicists who catch any modern science fiction.

So I guess the first rule of movie watching is this: Short of the limits of our own expertise, shut up and give the movie a chance to entertain you.

And Ebert sort of established the second rule: There's no such thing as the perfectly, airtight plot.

Frondeur Friday: All music is a fine expression of worship

2006-02-10T07:58:00.000-08:00

Earlier today I criticized my organization's wrong emphasis on worship as being about lifestyle and not a life of substance.

The other side of the coin to worship is the silliness with which people argue over methodology. If worship is about the heart's cry, the heart's service, the heart's acknowledgment of God, why do we spend so much time criticizing each other over superficial things?

We previously stated God doesn't care about your singing, but it's very clear in the Word that music is a divine instrument of worship, and a practice that took place in heaven before God breathed into us our first breath as a race of people. Music helps express the yearnings of our spirit in ways where words alone fail. Music forces us to stop in our tracks, and its lyrics -- if properly composed -- impose upon us the right way to approach God while taking the focus off ourselves and reprioritizing our worries as temporary.

I know of no Christian that disagrees with this. Music has been central to the worship of God ... since perhaps at the first creation of angels.

The issue that divides so many today is the kind of music acceptable in worship of God, an issue I find so petty as to speculate ulterior motives behind the criticism:

On one side we have traditionalists, people who cling to hymns, some of those songs hundreds of years old. The lyrics tend to reflect the strong theological arguments of the Reformers, primarily words about God, and not always words to God.

On the other side we have mostly Third Wavers using modern stage instruments such as the electric guitar, electric bass, and drum set, playing very contemporary-style arrangement. These songs tend to focus more on praise and worship to God in typically simple words. While most of these songs can be founded on strong theological justification, they tend to not emblazon theological doctrines like the hymns.

What I find in the polarized among the two camps is a lot of pride and not much discernment. Theology is important, but so is intimacy between worshipper and Deity. Arguing against one or the other is to impose methodological arguments based on forced interpretations of Scripture, and to me, this violates the very intent of Christ's establishment of the Church.

Peter and Paul never led anyone in a Vineyard and Maranatha chorus, but they never sang "How Great Thou Art," either. They both seemed much more concerned with the application and practice of worship than song style and form.

New worship music is not destroying the church anymore than Rev. Carl Boberg did when he wrote O Store Gud in 1886, or when John Newton was inspired to write Amazing Grace aboard an 18th Century slave ship. That was the new worship music of its day, and it was greeted with equal suspicion by those who did not want to be pulled in by a cultural challenge. There was a time when Christians would not have been able to sing How Great Thou Art because its time signature is in twos (halftime). Up until the 17th Century, sacred music was to be written only in threes to reflect the Trinity doctrine.

Our nearly 2,000-year tradition of Christianity is not one of static worship style, but one of imposing extraBiblical restraints on song methodology to stave off cultural influence. This seems to be a strictly Christian practice, since our Jewish forefathers had no such sensibility. They borrowed from everyone in ways that did not impose upon or offend their doctrine. David, the greatest psalmist in history, borrowed heavily from the styles and instrumentation of the unbelieving tribes around him. David felt God could be worshipped with any tool, as long as the heart and mind were focused in the right direction.

And that's what it comes down to, once again. We place far too much emphasis on methodology to the point of turning it into an idol, either as traditionalists or new worship music advocates. Music is what it is, and it has zero spiritual value until our heart gives it an application.

Frondeur Friday: God does not care about your singing

2006-02-10T00:00:00.000-08:00

In case you're wondering, a frondeur was a member of the Fronde party in France which led to civil war in the 17th Century. Sometimes I look at my own organization and want to dare someone to dare me to eat cake.

(That's generally a bad idea, because I can eat a lot of cake.)

As a member of a Christian ~~denomination~~ ~~association~~ community of churches on the leading cusp of new worship music, I have a bone to pick with us.

For the last time, worship does not begin and end with an acoustic guitar or cool melody hook or goose bumps and raised hands.

Worship is about a life of service. It's a defended position of the heart. Like Gatorade, it's what inside of you -- and, as the Bible says, what produces what comes out of you.

While you're singing words like "we praise You" and "we exalt You" and "we adore You" consider how often you actually have fallen on your face and done those things. At least outside of church service.

The point of worship is to live a life of worship, not just a life of uptempo songs, because God doesn't want our tools of worship, he wants our hearts of worship. God should be the object of our worship, because he is deserving of our adoration, and we must worship him in spirit and truth.

John 4:23 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. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Does this sound like God is organizing an earthly worship band with killer horn licks? God is not a Holy Blues Brother. He really doesn't care that your latest diddy borrows from Psalms and sounds like Coldplay. God is God, and we are not, and that distinction demands to be recognized every moment of our lives.

God is seeking people with hearts of worship, circumcised in the heart, willingly to sacrifice even their bodies to the cause of the Kingdom. That is worship, and I don't care if it's expressed with an Ibanez, a Hammond B3, or a lyre.

Or by housing the homeless, or feeding the hungry, or clothing the naked, or healing the sick, or proclaiming the Kingdom has arrived in Christ.

Worship with our mouths without the worship with our hands and feet is empty worship, and God rejects that.

The hardest part of church planting

2006-02-09T15:25:00.000-08:00

Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill fame notes, on the verge of his organization's church planting boot camp, the trials of planting a new church:

One of the toughest parts of planting a church is coming up with a good name. In hindsight, my choice was not very good since for most people it conjures up images of lots of people in matching white sneakers drinking Kool Aid. So, in an effort to help young church planters find the perfect name for their church I have composed the simple chart below.

Meanwhile, Brian @ Sycamore seems like he'd be happy if he could steal the name of Driscoll's blog, Resurgence.

I can think of a lot worse blog names, Brian. Most GodBlogs should be called Regurgitation or My Brain Is Ginormous or I Threw Grace Out With The Baptismal Water or something like that ... but so much for truth in advertising. The image of a Resurgent Sycamore is an interesting one.

Back to church names ...

This reminds me of the time my father was (re)planting his last church for the Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn.) in 1978. We were moving away from the impoverished area of south Phoenix, so everyone felt it was vital we change the name from South Phoenix COG to something else. You should've seen some of the suggestions:

Holy Fire From Heaven COG (Probably wouldn't get by the building inspector)

Baseline Revival Center (A little too close to the Baseline Massage Center, 2 blocks down the street)

Blood of the Lamb COG (Yes, it's Biblical, but we didn't want to be confused with Santeria, either)

The Good Music Church COG (Not kidding, unfortunately)

Does Someone Smell Sulfur? COG

OK, I was kidding about that last one, but that's a good summary of the kind of church name suggestions you get from 150 charismatic revivalists.

I remember my father complaining about not finding a church name when I, all of 9-years-old, asked him why it was so hard. I said, "Just make the name to match what we're all about."

He rolled his eyes or something, I can't remember, but there was a pregnant pause while the tiny little wheels in my head (and they're still fairly tiny) spun until smoke came out of my ears. An idea popped into my head right before a brain fire started.

"Why don't we call it Risen Savior COG?"

You'd think I'd just given a prophetic word that Jesus was coming later that evening, because the issue was settled there in my father's car.

So there you go. My life's legacy. As you can see, I haven't had much to live for the last 27 years, having accomplished so much at an early age.

Update: I just checked and some joker changed the name to Desert Valley COG. So, Brian, it looks like Risen Savior is up for grabs if you ever rename your church. Don't ever forget who sends you at least three visitors a month in blog traffic.

The new Christian epidemic: Poor sense of humor

2006-02-08T12:05:00.000-08:00

One of the great problems in the Church for the past 2,000 years is a very poor sense of humor among those who consider themselves Christians.

Unfortunately, I have no remedy for this, but I do think it's essential that those people who are undeniably unfunny need to be informed of their sickness. It's important so the unfunny will stop telling me bad jokes and forwarding me "cute" e-mail. Here's a simple guidline ...

You might be an unfunny doofus irritating friends, family, and co-workers if ...

You've ever put your amateur Photoshop skills to the test by insetting the faces of respectable people in vaguely ironic bodies and poses.

You've ever prefaced a joke with, "I know something that will turn that frown upside down."

You've ever quoted anything from Reader's Digest or Highlights and expected innocent laughter in return.

You "get" prop comedy.

You don't understand why grown men can entertain themselves for hours with noisy bodily functions or the mention of the word "booger."

You think that little Billy from Family Circus "is a stitch."

You've ever been compelled to read out loud the dialogue in a comic strip found in your Bazooka Joe wrapper

You anxiously tune in to Jay Leno's monologue each night.

You've ever started a joke off with a "You might be" if/then statement.

If you could measure your words and consider the pain and agony of those not afflicted, I would appreciate it. At the very least, please take me off your forwarding list.

The downside of Christian counseling

2006-02-08T08:48:00.000-08:00

I've defended Christian counselors in the past because I know many good ones, and I've borrowed from them on the occasion I've worked with people one-on-one.

The primary objective in Christian counseling is to get the one receiving counsel to hear the Word -- in their minds and hearts. It's amazing to me how many people sit in church every Sunday and their pastor's words go right by them. It's like they checked their brains at the door, or maybe they spend Sunday morning sermon time to balance their checkbook, or perhaps they're still thinking about Saturday's football game.

So I do believe in Christian counseling because it's like the pulpit backstop. When it's done right, it reinforces what's being said from the pulpit, although it's usually applied in a more personal way.

I say this with great reservation because what sometimes passes for Christian counseling is nothing more than secular psychology with a few keywords. I've been listening to a counseling group on a Christian radio station in the afternoons, and I find myself becoming more and more irritated.

People call in with what they consider spiritual and theological dilemmas, when in fact they are usually looking for someone to justify their wrong decisions: Christians who've taken up cohabitation with unbelievers; people who've wrongly left their spouses and want to remarry with other Christians; authoritarian parents with unruly teenagers looking for a Biblical excuse to give up; etc.

I hear these calls and I know the first thing that needs to be addressed is their sin. It's not about judgment! It's about establishing the authority of God's word with the person. There is a graceful way of saying it without casting down condemnation on the person.

John, as a parent I understand your frustration and anger with your son. It's good that you quote Colossians 3:20 to him, but please keep in mind the next verse for yourself: Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. Your expression of anger to him is not likely helpful in the situation, and in fact it probably distorts the very message of faith and hope you wish to convey.

What often happens, instead, is an emotional probing of the caller's past, which typically leads to a suggestion to seek psychotherapy or a support group or some other lesser form of help.

Don't misunderstand me on this. There are people who need help from psychological professionals. Anyone who's ever tried to minister to someone suffering from a bi-polar disorder, MPD, or some kind reality detachment knows it's impossible to speak to someone's heart in that condition. Someone with a serious bi-polar disorder can be as sincere as possible, but often require a level of attention that's impossible to give. These are people that need professional help and why it's so critical for the Church to find and support Christian professionals in that industry who understand spiritual needs as much as they understand physical and emotional needs.

But these are not typically the kind of people who call in to shows or find their way to my doorstep. The kind of people I'm writing about are those who are afflicted by their own sinful decisions, and now they want to know how to lessen the burden. I usually take this in just a few steps:

Identify the sin and make it a distinctively central issue.

Avoid tertiary issues such as the problems of others around the person receiving ministry. It's important to get the person focused on their own issues and the decisions they need to make in light of the Word.

Show them love and charity at all turns, and never allow them to either justify their sin or think of themselves as more sinful than any other. Sin is sin, and it needs to be defined in its proper position. It's the reality of our condition, but all are born into it, and it has no power over us when we relent to the work of the Cross.

Always express to them the freedom and joy in Christ.

These particular radio hosts seem to lack the courage to speak boldly, as if the Word can somehow damage a person. I know the Word can be wrongfully used when maliciously separated from either God's judgment of sin or this era of mercy God has established, but so can partial truths and solutions that do not lead to feet of the throne.

We are of no help to the world and we have no answers for the brokenhearted when we ignore the true source of healing.

Not of this world

2006-02-06T14:38:00.000-08:00

This was taken before opening statements in a debate with the Romulans somewhere between the Alpha and Omega sectors.

No bondage to sin

2006-02-06T08:44:00.000-08:00

My blogging buddy Brad at Broken Messenger wrote with strong condemnation of wishy washiness among Christians who put forgiveness on themselves and not Christ.

While I was reading, I found myself agreeing while seeing a balancing opinion to his comments. This happens often. I agree with Brad, but see the other side of the same coin.

Brad writes:

This invasion of doctrine concerning self-forgiveness, that comes in more flavors than a Baskin & Robbins, has been growing over the last century and is now taking its toll. It is the perfect example of the marriage between narcissism and faith. How am I feeling? How am I doing? Is this faith in Jesus really taking hold within me? Do I have the strength to obey? The mantra is I, I, I, not Christ, Christ, Christ, and it's nothing less than a cover for self-exultation. Worse, we are asking advice from the very thing that is central to the problem at hand.

Indeed, forgiveness does not belong to us, but I believe "forgiving yourself" began as a short-hand for pursuing God for restoration, but it has become a diversion from the fundamental tenets of the Gospel.

We do not forgive ourselves, but God certainly intends to restore us with confidence. There is no greater example of this than Peter, who denied he knew Christ three times. By a strict examination of the Law, this is an unforgivable sin. It handicapped Peter, and his self-loathing kept him from the redeemed Christ until Christ restored him with a vote of confidence. Peter's restoration was critical to building the Church.

Charles Spurgeon once spoke powerfully of the look Christ gave Peter from the cross. Spurgeon noted this both pierced Peter's heart while "opening up a spring" in it.

And now, to conclude, it made Peter as long as he lived, ashamed to be ashamed. Peter was never ashamed after this. Who was it that stood up at Pentecost and preached? Was it not Peter? Was he not always foremost in testifying to his Lord and Master? I trust that if any of us have been falling back, and especially if we have wandered into sin, we may get such a restoration from the Lord himself, that we may become better Christians ever afterwards. I do not want you to break a bone, I pray God you never may; but if you ever do, may the heavenly Surgeon so set it that it may become thicker and stronger than before. Courage was the bone in Peter which snapped; but when it was set, it became the strongest bone in his nature, and never broke again. When the Lord sets the bones of his people, they never break any more he does his work so effectually. The man who has erred by anger becomes meek and gentle. The man who has erred by drink quits the deadly cup, and loathes it. The man who has sinned by shame becomes the bravest of the company.

I know many in the Church who live with the weight of their sins and they maintain that burden as a way of spiritual flagellation. It's a notion not unlike we find in Catholicism, where there is a penance to pay for God's forgiveness, as if it is earned. This philosophy is so Satanic, I have no qualms in calling it a lie from hell.

While we must seek Christ for forgiveness, we must also seek Christ for healing and restoration. As Brad points out, we have no authority over our sin, and to attempt to redeem ourselves is to ignore our own sinful heart. It's not only pointless and powerless, it heals nothing and restores nothing. But in Christ, we have that "heavenly Surgeon" who restores with awesome power to erase all power of brokenness.

I think Brad was speaking to those who think we are awarded freedom from the Law. I want to remind Christians we have freedom within the Law, and Christ's perfect good work for all time is both a redemption from the consequences of violating the Law and a restoration of the Law within us. That means when He forgives us, we are returned to good standing, like a felony that has been wiped from the records.

I remember my sin, and I know the enemy, who serves as our eternal prosecuting attorney, has kept long records on my sin for the day of judgment. And during that proceeding he will bring up each and every sin, and Christ will say, "No, my blood covers that. His slate is clean."

While the Word instructs to be suspect of my heart, I know I can live with confidence in Christ that I can move forward in Him, that I cannot let past transgressions keep me from seeking Him, serving His kingdom, or allowing them to keep me ashamed and living as if I am condemned.

Big bear of a Christian

2006-02-06T00:00:00.000-08:00

Danny Daniels was at my church yesterday. It was one of many regular visits that began about 10 years ago. It seems like he's a part of our church.

I've had the unique opportunity to play with Danny, who flogged me as he does most drummers. Once during a quiet lunch while he was in town, I got an earful about my previous chosen profession, journalism. The man's not shy with his opinions, and he believes worship requires a certain amount of professionalism as much as it requires musicians who are also worshippers. He also believes all journalists should be shot. Or most of them, I suppose, because he didn't shoot me.

I love the guy.

The thing about Danny is he is so endearing almost in spite of himself, and he never stops talking about the Gospel or ministry. If you get him going on politics, he can get off on a tangent, but he'll pull right back into some other point he wants to make about being a missional Christian. It's infectious. He can get anyone excited about working for the Kingdom.

Danny is a fine musician and songwriter. His raspy, dulcet baritone voice is a perfect companion to his bluesy stylings. He also plays the harmonica like he grew up in an Alabama cottonfield. I don't know where in Southern California he learned how to play like that, but it's not on my map.

With so many musicians -- even Christian musicians -- making decisions based on what's good for their bank accounts, Danny remains a man of the earth. I'm sure the man would love to have a three-record deal with some Nashville distributor and lots of marketing beef behind him, but even if he did, I'm not sure Danny would be capable of changing his man-of-the-people behavior patterns. He was put on this Earth to challenge authority. There's an element of an OT prophet in him.

Those of us in the Vineyard have come to look to Danny for what he rightly terms "Vineyard DNA," which is much simpler than the confounded theology we often hear about. It's about being real and letting God work through us in simple ways. It's about being available to talk about Jesus, and not getting wrapped up in ourselves.

Danny often kids about not being able to repeat the prayer he said when he was saved -- too many cuss words. But you get around him, with his earnest words and sincere desire to serve, and you doubt he has ever lost that newbie Christian fervor. I know I am envious of that.

If you ever meet him, though, don't ever let him make you think he's some sort of an anti-intellectual. He may use small words (by choice) and appeal to the average man, but he has plenty of insight into the Word. Once you get beyond the biker bar bluesman look and feel, you will discover Danny's a talented expositor of the Word. He can really dig into stuff and preach.

Check out Danny's schedule on his website. He's worth a visit when comes to your town.

Question for the GodBlogosphere

2006-02-05T19:37:00.000-08:00

Has anyone noticed you never see Adrian Warnock and Gary Oldman in the same room at the same time?

Eddie Haskell Christians

2006-02-05T00:00:00.000-08:00

One of the all time great modern villains is Eddie Haskell from the 50s TV show Leave It To Beaver.

What is truly evil about Haskell is his delusion that his faux concern, charity, and honor -- on constant display at the Beaver household -- actually works beyond the perfect discernment of the perfect TV mother. He wants to look good, but he doesn't actually want to put in the effort to be good.

There are plenty of Eddie Haskell Christians, but I don't want to get hung up on simple religious hypocrisy. When I think of Eddie Haskell Christians, I think of the scheming, heavy-handed ministers who have designs to spiritually fix everyone around them.

This is not to be confused with a sincere compassion you might have for those in your church, because compassion comes with a desire to assist, not control.

I know an Eddie Haskell Christian. He's a pastor of a medium-sized church. The reason why it's not a large church is because, after spending five years there, people -- especially those in leadership -- tend to leave bruised and mangled. The pastor always has some new way to improve people, like forcing them into difficult leadership positions in which they are not gifted and he has made no effort to equip them.

I can only assume this pastor is well meaning, but he thinks the ministry of God requires manipulation on his part. Manipulation defines Haskellism. He interprets his own sincerity as proof of God's authority. He attributes the immediate results of good works as proof of his divinely inspired leadership, and the ultimate undoing of these people as their personal failures, not his.

I can't claim myself as an authority on ministry, but I know enough to know that God is the one that does the fixing. He might use me to facilitate a path, but my operational tools are the Word and a truckload of grace. It's my job to be patient with those whom God has called me to minister to, as He does the work. Lord knows he's been working on me for 36 years, and I'm still a work in progress.

I don't really understand Haskellism except it appears to show a lack of faith in God, a mistrust that God isn't working fast enough or powerful enough to one's satisfaction. Furthermore, it is totally absent the fruits of the Spirit, and usually engenders bitter fruit in those who follow.

Many of those who were in leadership just five years ago at this pastor's church are now living lives outside fellowship. Some are living far beyond God's will, returning to a life of sin.

We serve a big and powerful God, and the fact He chooses to use us in His ministry should make us tremble. It's an awesome responsibility. On the other hand, He is a big and powerful God, and we would be well-served to trust that He's always on the job and it's His work alone.

I think this is why Jesus gave us simple instructions: to love God and to love each other as we love ourselves. When we stick to that, we generally fall into His will and we don't get in the way of the One who's doing all the important stuff.

Real American heroes in my backyard

2006-02-04T09:19:00.000-08:00

It's that time of year when my dad stops being a crazy busy real estate broker and goes out in his front yard to watch airplanes fly low over his house from dusk to dawn.

We live about three miles from Mesa's historical Falcon Field, which was used as a training ground for British and American airmen during WWII and was the site of the unbelievably bad war propaganda movie Thunderbirds, Soldiers of the Air.

Each January the air field puts on a WWII-era dance, and people who collect airplanes from that era fly them in from great distances. That means I usually run into these old-timers at the Wal Mart across the street or some other nearby market.

A few years ago I ended up talking to an 86-year-old WWII bomber pilot in line at the grocery store. I thanked him for kicking the wazoo out of the Nazi's for me so I didn't grow up eating stuffed sausages, drinking dark beer, or speaking strange German words like Volkswagen.

Oh. Wait.

He laughed and said he only wished he'd had that opportunity to do some personal damage. He just flew the plane and tried not to get killed.

"Hitler didn't scare me. He was a tiny little punk. I was confident, if God granted me that glorius moment to personally confront Hitler, I'd have kicked his [tookus] three ways from Sunday.

"No, the munchkin didn't scare me. It was all those people he inspired that made my knuckles white."

This man, whose name I do not remember, said he spent several years dodging bullets and flying over Hitler's backyard to drop several hundred "gifts."

I don't think those gifts were returnable.

I asked him about one of my favorite movies, Memphis Belle, and he cringed. He said the movie was too difficult to watch because the bombing scenes were a little too real for him. Bad memories. Not good for a dodgy ticker. And other than that, the movie was a bunch of malarkey. Nobody ever looked that good or that clean, he said, particularly the gunners, who were usually "uglier than sin. That's why we put them down in lower hell."

I asked him why he volunteered and he said his father pushed him into it. But it was only after he had spent a few months in service when he fully understood why he needed to be there, and he was thankful for both the opportunity to serve and that God spared him to return in compelte health.

I thanked him again, this time without the sarcasm. I admitted I had doubts my generation could have won that war, that I believed God had set aside special men and women like him for that era as a blessing to this country.

He received it with grace, but said it was not the people who won the war, but the American ideals. They preserved honor, valor, duty. He said he had faith any American generation under the current flag would respond the same way when confronted with such great threat, because patriotism always trumps politics once our comfort zones have been erased. The ideals are suited to be defended well by anyone who enjoys them, he said.

We had stood in the parking lot for seemingly hours and he had to go. We shook hands and he thanked me for taking an interest in a major part of his life.

He walked away with my gratitude and a whole new appreciation for real heroes. It was not the great deed that made him a hero, but his sacrifice, the very real act of putting his life on the line for mine.

And I am grateful.

Funky Cerulean

2006-02-04T00:34:00.000-08:00

I can't tell you who dug up this old photo of Dan, but I'm pretty sure this was during worship at one of those out-of-control charismatic services.

God blogging supergroup

2006-02-03T09:11:00.000-08:00

If you've been out of town lately, then let me introduce you to the latest GodBlog making every pastor and wanna-be theologue squeal like a school girl at an Elvis concert: Together for the Gospel.

TG4 is sort of like the Traveling Wilburys of the GodBlogosphere, a theological super group consisting of heavy hitters C.J. Mahaney, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and Lig Duncan.

Or maybe it’s more like Kansas ... you know, with four lead guitarists.

These men are fine writers and thinkers, but I must be one of the few who finds their mob blog not so fascinating. I think it's because these are also men with very high profiles, and we’re never going to read Mohler blogging to Mahaney, telling him to pull his head out of his backside. Instead, we'll probably get something like this:

"With all due respect, I've read your work and I have great admiration for your position, but I must disagree."

Yawn.

Where’s the tension? Where are the inside jokes that comes with a real mob blog?

I'm being facetious and I'm not encouraging uncivil behavior among Christians. As a reader of many blogs, however, I'm not sure why this "discussion" can't be had on four separate blogs, where they’re not beholden to a single strain of thought.

I also know how pastors talk to each other behind closed doors, and it's infinitely more entertaining than what I read on TG4.

I coulda been Mark Driscoll. Or not.

2006-02-01T18:50:00.000-08:00

I would like to welcome Mark Driscoll to blogging world. Driscoll is senior pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, one of the few truly missional, Biblical emerging churches in existence. Driscoll's an Emergent outlaw, a Calvinist among liberals, and he shoots from the hip.

I think we share a thought process.

Driscoll, who has been one my heroes for a decade and is probably the best representative of the modern church for my generation, somehow has served as the Emerging spokesperson in a technically savvy Seattle church plant without a blog. I don't know how that has happened.

I've never met the guy, but we come from similar backgrounds. Like Driscoll, I was nominated and, for a short term, participated in the Young Leader Network. My pastor nominated me, I guess at the insistence of then-AVC leader and emergent banner-waver Todd Hunter, to join. I was going to plant one of the first Vineyard emergent churches.

Emergent wasn't the term back then, circa 1994/95/96. GenX was, although I understood the short-sightedness of that term long before it became part of the popular vernacular.

So did Driscoll.

He wasn't intending on reinventing church and certainly not theology. He's old school, and the power of his language is abrasive to many in his own movement. He's sort of like a modern day Spurgeon, with a flip sense of humor. He is prone to compare less desirables in the emergent movement to some sort of bowel movement. He has many unfavorable metaphors I won't repeat here.

What he does do is place a sense of purpose right on his shirt sleeve and operates from it without deviation. He is missional, his church is missional, his church-planting organization is missional. His fervor for this kind of church is contagious. It influenced me and encouraged me to pursue church planting.

I never did plant a church, but I always wanted to help someone else plant one like Mars Hill. I guess there's a shortage of Mark Driscoll's in my area. It's sad. I wish we had more like him.

On his blog, Driscoll writes with the same kind of piercing clarity of his sermons, which have taken on a legendary status early in his life because of the Internet. They get passed around. Now, I'm told, they're available on iTunes for podcast.

I encourage you to check out his blog. He's going to become the face of the Church in the coming years, and trust me, that is a very good thing. What he lacks in ... patience, he more than makes up for in the right kind of prophetic preaching necessary for a Church that needs to shore up its foundation.

Have you marked your calendar?

2006-01-31T08:32:00.000-08:00

Only 14 days until pitchers and catchers report.

I'm no Cubs fan, but I'm thinking of dropping by to a few games just to make Phillip Johnson envy me. Their spring training site is down the street from me. If Johnson were so lucky to attend Andy Jackson's church, he could wrap up the late service and still be in his seat for a 1 p.m. Sunday game.

I don't know what it is about spring training baseball, but I almost prefer to the real season. It's baseball, I don't stress out about winning, and March weather is idyllic in Arizona. It's sort of like God's reprieve for the American sports fan.