First of all, that's an exaggeration to get your attention. Of course, Christmas in its origins is not more evil than Halloween. What I mean is that, as it is commonly practiced by many Americans, Christmas is more evil than Halloween.
What happens during Halloween? The majority of Americans celebrate by dressing up in harmless costumes and going door to door begging for candy, while a small minority celebrate by holding a seance or sacrificing their neighbor's cat to Satan in a backyard ritual. Conversely, during Christmas, a majority of Americans celebrate by giving people they don't necessarily like stuff they don't need with money they don't have--all because of some sense of cultural or traditional obligation. Debt is incurred. Feeling are hurt. Gifts are weighed in the balance and found wanting. Jesus gets ignored like a Christmas fruitcake, and so do the neediest people on the planet.
I'm not against giving at Christmas, but I am against the needless obligation of giving gifts for gifts' sake and expecting gifts in return--particularly when it is in celebration of a Gift that had no strings attached. That's why I like projects like the Advent Conspiracy and other efforts to redirect the energy of giving beyond the rather incestuous custom of inhabitants of the Western world to give gifts to each other while the rest of the world goes hungry.
And yes, the Green kids do get Christmas presents ...
18 December 2008
Why Christmas Is More Evil Than Halloween
First of all, that's an exaggeration to get your attention. Of course, Christmas in its origins is not more evil than Halloween. What I mean is that, as it is commonly practiced by many Americans, Christmas is more evil than Halloween.
What happens during Halloween? The majority of Americans celebrate by dressing up in harmless costumes and going door to door begging for candy, while a small minority celebrate by holding a seance or sacrificing their neighbor's cat to Satan in a backyard ritual. Conversely, during Christmas, a majority of Americans celebrate by giving people they don't necessarily like stuff they don't need with money they don't have--all because of some sense of cultural or traditional obligation. Debt is incurred. Feeling are hurt. Gifts are weighed in the balance and found wanting. Jesus gets ignored like a Christmas fruitcake, and so do the neediest people on the planet.
I'm not against giving at Christmas, but I am against the needless obligation of giving gifts for gifts' sake and expecting gifts in return--particularly when it is in celebration of a Gift that had no strings attached. That's why I like projects like the Advent Conspiracy and other efforts to redirect the energy of giving beyond the rather incestuous custom of inhabitants of the Western world to give gifts to each other while the rest of the world goes hungry.
And yes, the Green kids do get Christmas presents ...
What happens during Halloween? The majority of Americans celebrate by dressing up in harmless costumes and going door to door begging for candy, while a small minority celebrate by holding a seance or sacrificing their neighbor's cat to Satan in a backyard ritual. Conversely, during Christmas, a majority of Americans celebrate by giving people they don't necessarily like stuff they don't need with money they don't have--all because of some sense of cultural or traditional obligation. Debt is incurred. Feeling are hurt. Gifts are weighed in the balance and found wanting. Jesus gets ignored like a Christmas fruitcake, and so do the neediest people on the planet.
I'm not against giving at Christmas, but I am against the needless obligation of giving gifts for gifts' sake and expecting gifts in return--particularly when it is in celebration of a Gift that had no strings attached. That's why I like projects like the Advent Conspiracy and other efforts to redirect the energy of giving beyond the rather incestuous custom of inhabitants of the Western world to give gifts to each other while the rest of the world goes hungry.
And yes, the Green kids do get Christmas presents ...
03 December 2008
Todd Bentley: The Messenger Is the Message
From the biblical perspective, the medium, message and messenger are inextricably intertwined. In the Old Testament, the prophets starved themselves, cooked over dung fires, married prostitutes and walked around naked to communicate God's message to His people. In the Gospels, Jesus is referred to as the Word, the Way, the Truth--He is the message, the Word of God in human flesh. In the Pastoral Epistles, the preacher's character is what validates or nullifies the gospel he preaches, and Paul spends just as much time delineating the character of the leader as he does defining the content of the leader's message. Even in the secular world, one's character can be held up to scrutiny to determine if his or her testimony is to be believed in a court of law.
But in the church today, this is often not the case.
In a recent letter published on its Website, Fresh Fire Ministries reveals more details of Lakeland "revival" champion Todd Bentley's moral failures. While it discusses his current adulterous lifestyle now that he is no longer in ministry, the letter also reveals his behavior while he was in ministry:
"The anointing can be addictive. ... Alcohol, movies and leisure time spent with a few of the younger, more impressionable members of his staff and road-crew began to replace the hours of soaking in the presence of God in which Todd had engaged during the early days of the outpouring. ... The legal separation from Shonnah was initiated completely by Todd and he has not seen her or the children since the last week in July."
But in spite of Bentley's failings, read how Fresh Fire continues to defend of the validity of the message and the "revival" that Bentley led while he was in this state:
"What Todd has done should not only be defined by his present failure. He has raised the bar on what is possible. He has broken a barrier of sorts for all of us and made a pathway into new possibilities. This is what you partnered with - not a man but a transferable anointing and an ability to reach into a combined realm of prophetic revelation and signs and wonders manifestation! ... Having known Todd well for many years, both his amazing strengths and his areas of weakness, we can say without reservation that the move of God in Lakeland, which began at Ignited Church, was genuine. ... We have never seen, in the history of this ministry, a greater quantity and quality of the miraculous demonstration of God’s healing power. ... As the Lord began to pour out His glory in Ignited Church and in the many venues that followed, Todd’s spirit was as pure as it has ever been and he was intensely hungry for more of God’s presence. ... Todd is a champion in the Global paradigm shift from a lethargic and dunamis-deficient church to an empowered body of believers carrying out the Great Commission in a mighty demonstration of the Spirit’s power."
And, ultimately, blame for the fiasco is linked to the devil. There is never once the thought that Todd's fall was a direct judgment from God for false teaching, fake miracles, a devaluing of the Word and the deception of many who are now shipwrecked in their faith after following him.
"How many believers have become almost vicious in their attack against Todd, demonizing not only him but his ministry and everything he has ever done? What sort of spirit do you think is behind this?"
Instead, the letter closes on a note of almost embarrassing triumphalism, and no suggestion that perhaps this ministry, built by a false prophet, on bad theology, with little accountability, just needs to be shut down.
"God is waiting for us in 2009—certain to be our greatest year yet!"
But in the church today, this is often not the case.
In a recent letter published on its Website, Fresh Fire Ministries reveals more details of Lakeland "revival" champion Todd Bentley's moral failures. While it discusses his current adulterous lifestyle now that he is no longer in ministry, the letter also reveals his behavior while he was in ministry:
"The anointing can be addictive. ... Alcohol, movies and leisure time spent with a few of the younger, more impressionable members of his staff and road-crew began to replace the hours of soaking in the presence of God in which Todd had engaged during the early days of the outpouring. ... The legal separation from Shonnah was initiated completely by Todd and he has not seen her or the children since the last week in July."
But in spite of Bentley's failings, read how Fresh Fire continues to defend of the validity of the message and the "revival" that Bentley led while he was in this state:
"What Todd has done should not only be defined by his present failure. He has raised the bar on what is possible. He has broken a barrier of sorts for all of us and made a pathway into new possibilities. This is what you partnered with - not a man but a transferable anointing and an ability to reach into a combined realm of prophetic revelation and signs and wonders manifestation! ... Having known Todd well for many years, both his amazing strengths and his areas of weakness, we can say without reservation that the move of God in Lakeland, which began at Ignited Church, was genuine. ... We have never seen, in the history of this ministry, a greater quantity and quality of the miraculous demonstration of God’s healing power. ... As the Lord began to pour out His glory in Ignited Church and in the many venues that followed, Todd’s spirit was as pure as it has ever been and he was intensely hungry for more of God’s presence. ... Todd is a champion in the Global paradigm shift from a lethargic and dunamis-deficient church to an empowered body of believers carrying out the Great Commission in a mighty demonstration of the Spirit’s power."
And, ultimately, blame for the fiasco is linked to the devil. There is never once the thought that Todd's fall was a direct judgment from God for false teaching, fake miracles, a devaluing of the Word and the deception of many who are now shipwrecked in their faith after following him.
"How many believers have become almost vicious in their attack against Todd, demonizing not only him but his ministry and everything he has ever done? What sort of spirit do you think is behind this?"
Instead, the letter closes on a note of almost embarrassing triumphalism, and no suggestion that perhaps this ministry, built by a false prophet, on bad theology, with little accountability, just needs to be shut down.
"God is waiting for us in 2009—certain to be our greatest year yet!"
Todd Bentley: The Messenger Is the Message
From the biblical perspective, the medium, message and messenger are inextricably intertwined. In the Old Testament, the prophets starved themselves, cooked over dung fires, married prostitutes and walked around naked to communicate God's message to His people. In the Gospels, Jesus is referred to as the Word, the Way, the Truth--He is the message, the Word of God in human flesh. In the Pastoral Epistles, the preacher's character is what validates or nullifies the gospel he preaches, and Paul spends just as much time delineating the character of the leader as he does defining the content of the leader's message. Even in the secular world, one's character can be held up to scrutiny to determine if his or her testimony is to be believed in a court of law.
But in the church today, this is often not the case.
In a recent letter published on its Website, Fresh Fire Ministries reveals more details of Lakeland "revival" champion Todd Bentley's moral failures. While it discusses his current adulterous lifestyle now that he is no longer in ministry, the letter also reveals his behavior while he was in ministry:
"The anointing can be addictive. ... Alcohol, movies and leisure time spent with a few of the younger, more impressionable members of his staff and road-crew began to replace the hours of soaking in the presence of God in which Todd had engaged during the early days of the outpouring. ... The legal separation from Shonnah was initiated completely by Todd and he has not seen her or the children since the last week in July."
But in spite of Bentley's failings, read how Fresh Fire continues to defend of the validity of the message and the "revival" that Bentley led while he was in this state:
"What Todd has done should not only be defined by his present failure. He has raised the bar on what is possible. He has broken a barrier of sorts for all of us and made a pathway into new possibilities. This is what you partnered with - not a man but a transferable anointing and an ability to reach into a combined realm of prophetic revelation and signs and wonders manifestation! ... Having known Todd well for many years, both his amazing strengths and his areas of weakness, we can say without reservation that the move of God in Lakeland, which began at Ignited Church, was genuine. ... We have never seen, in the history of this ministry, a greater quantity and quality of the miraculous demonstration of God’s healing power. ... As the Lord began to pour out His glory in Ignited Church and in the many venues that followed, Todd’s spirit was as pure as it has ever been and he was intensely hungry for more of God’s presence. ... Todd is a champion in the Global paradigm shift from a lethargic and dunamis-deficient church to an empowered body of believers carrying out the Great Commission in a mighty demonstration of the Spirit’s power."
And, ultimately, blame for the fiasco is linked to the devil. There is never once the thought that Todd's fall was a direct judgment from God for false teaching, fake miracles, a devaluing of the Word and the deception of many who are now shipwrecked in their faith after following him.
"How many believers have become almost vicious in their attack against Todd, demonizing not only him but his ministry and everything he has ever done? What sort of spirit do you think is behind this?"
Instead, the letter closes on a note of almost embarrassing triumphalism, and no suggestion that perhaps this ministry, built by a false prophet, on bad theology, with little accountability, just needs to be shut down.
"God is waiting for us in 2009—certain to be our greatest year yet!"
But in the church today, this is often not the case.
In a recent letter published on its Website, Fresh Fire Ministries reveals more details of Lakeland "revival" champion Todd Bentley's moral failures. While it discusses his current adulterous lifestyle now that he is no longer in ministry, the letter also reveals his behavior while he was in ministry:
"The anointing can be addictive. ... Alcohol, movies and leisure time spent with a few of the younger, more impressionable members of his staff and road-crew began to replace the hours of soaking in the presence of God in which Todd had engaged during the early days of the outpouring. ... The legal separation from Shonnah was initiated completely by Todd and he has not seen her or the children since the last week in July."
But in spite of Bentley's failings, read how Fresh Fire continues to defend of the validity of the message and the "revival" that Bentley led while he was in this state:
"What Todd has done should not only be defined by his present failure. He has raised the bar on what is possible. He has broken a barrier of sorts for all of us and made a pathway into new possibilities. This is what you partnered with - not a man but a transferable anointing and an ability to reach into a combined realm of prophetic revelation and signs and wonders manifestation! ... Having known Todd well for many years, both his amazing strengths and his areas of weakness, we can say without reservation that the move of God in Lakeland, which began at Ignited Church, was genuine. ... We have never seen, in the history of this ministry, a greater quantity and quality of the miraculous demonstration of God’s healing power. ... As the Lord began to pour out His glory in Ignited Church and in the many venues that followed, Todd’s spirit was as pure as it has ever been and he was intensely hungry for more of God’s presence. ... Todd is a champion in the Global paradigm shift from a lethargic and dunamis-deficient church to an empowered body of believers carrying out the Great Commission in a mighty demonstration of the Spirit’s power."
And, ultimately, blame for the fiasco is linked to the devil. There is never once the thought that Todd's fall was a direct judgment from God for false teaching, fake miracles, a devaluing of the Word and the deception of many who are now shipwrecked in their faith after following him.
"How many believers have become almost vicious in their attack against Todd, demonizing not only him but his ministry and everything he has ever done? What sort of spirit do you think is behind this?"
Instead, the letter closes on a note of almost embarrassing triumphalism, and no suggestion that perhaps this ministry, built by a false prophet, on bad theology, with little accountability, just needs to be shut down.
"God is waiting for us in 2009—certain to be our greatest year yet!"
02 December 2008
Advent #2
The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs
and the obedience of the nations is his.
his teeth whiter than milk. - Genesis 49:9-12
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs
and the obedience of the nations is his.
He will tether his donkey to a vine,
his colt to the choicest branch;
he will wash his garments in wine,
his robes in the blood of grapes.
his teeth whiter than milk. - Genesis 49:9-12
Advent #2
The scepter will not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs
and the obedience of the nations is his.
He will tether his donkey to a vine,
his colt to the choicest branch;
he will wash his garments in wine,
his robes in the blood of grapes.
His eyes will be darker than wine,
his teeth whiter than milk. - Genesis 49:9-12
nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs
and the obedience of the nations is his.
He will tether his donkey to a vine,
his colt to the choicest branch;
he will wash his garments in wine,
his robes in the blood of grapes.
His eyes will be darker than wine,
his teeth whiter than milk. - Genesis 49:9-12
01 December 2008
Advent
And I will put enmityBetween you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel. - Genesis 3:15
Advent
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel. - Genesis 3:15
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel. - Genesis 3:15
23 November 2008
Benny Hinn's Wack Theology
One of the most intriguing (and disappointing) themes of Israel's past that biblical authors emphasize is God's people's failure to fulfill the bottom line of the Abrahamic covenant--"I will bless all nations through you." Instead, they were what we call in modern terms "a bad testimony", and the pagans they encountered are ironically portrayed as more righteous in their dealings.
A perfect example of this is Abraham's encounter with Pharaoh in Genesis 12:10-20. To make a long story short, Abraham is afraid that Pharaoh will kill him and steal his wife Sarah, so he passes her off as his sister. Pharaoh brings Sarah into his household and loads Abraham down with gifts, but soon begins to suffer God's judgment in the form of diseases and discovers Abraham's cowardly lie. Sarah is returned to Abraham and the two leave Egypt with the gifts Pharaoh had given them.
In a recent broadcast on TBN, Benny Hinn retells this story, but check out his twisted and self-serving interpretation of the account:
For Benny, this story is turned around and used as an example of how God used Abraham's trickery of Pharaoh to bless Abraham, not an example of how Abraham's cowardice brought shame on God's name. Ultimately, Benny encourages the audience that "your Pharaoh is on the way to give you that money."
A perfect example of this is Abraham's encounter with Pharaoh in Genesis 12:10-20. To make a long story short, Abraham is afraid that Pharaoh will kill him and steal his wife Sarah, so he passes her off as his sister. Pharaoh brings Sarah into his household and loads Abraham down with gifts, but soon begins to suffer God's judgment in the form of diseases and discovers Abraham's cowardly lie. Sarah is returned to Abraham and the two leave Egypt with the gifts Pharaoh had given them.
In a recent broadcast on TBN, Benny Hinn retells this story, but check out his twisted and self-serving interpretation of the account:
For Benny, this story is turned around and used as an example of how God used Abraham's trickery of Pharaoh to bless Abraham, not an example of how Abraham's cowardice brought shame on God's name. Ultimately, Benny encourages the audience that "your Pharaoh is on the way to give you that money."
Benny Hinn's Wack Theology
One of the most intriguing (and disappointing) themes of Israel's past that biblical authors emphasize is God's people's failure to fulfill the bottom line of the Abrahamic covenant--"I will bless all nations through you." Instead, they were what we call in modern terms "a bad testimony", and the pagans they encountered are ironically portrayed as more righteous in their dealings.
A perfect example of this is Abraham's encounter with Pharaoh in Genesis 12:10-20. To make a long story short, Abraham is afraid that Pharaoh will kill him and steal his wife Sarah, so he passes her off as his sister. Pharaoh brings Sarah into his household and loads Abraham down with gifts, but soon begins to suffer God's judgment in the form of diseases and discovers Abraham's cowardly lie. Sarah is returned to Abraham and the two leave Egypt with the gifts Pharaoh had given them.
In a recent broadcast on TBN, Benny Hinn retells this story, but check out his twisted and self-serving interpretation of the account. For Benny, this story is turned around and used as an example of how God used Abraham's trickery of Pharaoh to bless Abraham, not an example of how Abraham's cowardice brought shame on God's name. Ultimately, Benny encourages the audience that "your Pharaoh is on the way to give you that money."
A perfect example of this is Abraham's encounter with Pharaoh in Genesis 12:10-20. To make a long story short, Abraham is afraid that Pharaoh will kill him and steal his wife Sarah, so he passes her off as his sister. Pharaoh brings Sarah into his household and loads Abraham down with gifts, but soon begins to suffer God's judgment in the form of diseases and discovers Abraham's cowardly lie. Sarah is returned to Abraham and the two leave Egypt with the gifts Pharaoh had given them.
In a recent broadcast on TBN, Benny Hinn retells this story, but check out his twisted and self-serving interpretation of the account. For Benny, this story is turned around and used as an example of how God used Abraham's trickery of Pharaoh to bless Abraham, not an example of how Abraham's cowardice brought shame on God's name. Ultimately, Benny encourages the audience that "your Pharaoh is on the way to give you that money."
18 November 2008
Invisible
I really dislike most contemporary Christian music ... for the same reason I dislike Joel Osteen sermons: there's no content. Andrew Peterson is an exception. From the time I heard his "Holy Is the Lord" on The Gathering several years ago, I felt like I was listening to another Rich Mullins, Keith Green or Derek Webb. His latest album, Resurrection Letters II is worth a download on iTunes, and my favorite track is "Invisible God." It explores the irony that we worship a God who is inaccessible to human senses, but whose works are unavoidable.
As a kid I can remember being warned by preachers to not have idols—you know, stuff like remote-control cars, Walkmen, girlfriends, etc.--basically anything I liked more than God. But is this what the Bible means when it talks about idolatry? It may be that, of all the Ten Commandments, the admonition against idolatry is one is the most difficult to contextualize to our pomo world.
What is the first major lapse into idolatry that we see of God's people?
"When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, 'Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him.' " (Exodus 32:1)
Strangely, Moses wasn't even the one going before them. God was, in the form of a cloud by day and a fiery pillar at night. Moses was following these dramatic manifestations just as the Israelites were. But divine epiphanies weren't enough. They needed a metal cow to get them to the Promised Land.
So, idolatry is not so much about loving something more than God as it is putting trust in something in the place of God--an insurance policy to protect me from ruin, good works to earn me a place in Heaven, a preacher to tell me how to live.
What set Yahweh apart from the gods of the pagans wasn’t so much what He was, but what He wasn't. The pagans had gods that they could see, touch, smell. The Jews had an invisible God who didn’t let them draw a picture of Him and whose name they wouldn’t even speak out loud. They worshiped a God who depended entirely on His works and His words to communicate His identity.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. – Romans 1:16
Interestingly, God broke the rules several thousand years after the Exodus—and became visible for 33 short years, wrapping Himself in a very unlikely package that was overlooked by most who saw it. Nowadays, we celebrate that event by buying stuff they don't need for people we don't like with money we don't have.
But that's a post for another day ...
As a kid I can remember being warned by preachers to not have idols—you know, stuff like remote-control cars, Walkmen, girlfriends, etc.--basically anything I liked more than God. But is this what the Bible means when it talks about idolatry? It may be that, of all the Ten Commandments, the admonition against idolatry is one is the most difficult to contextualize to our pomo world.
What is the first major lapse into idolatry that we see of God's people?
"When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, 'Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him.' " (Exodus 32:1)
Strangely, Moses wasn't even the one going before them. God was, in the form of a cloud by day and a fiery pillar at night. Moses was following these dramatic manifestations just as the Israelites were. But divine epiphanies weren't enough. They needed a metal cow to get them to the Promised Land.
So, idolatry is not so much about loving something more than God as it is putting trust in something in the place of God--an insurance policy to protect me from ruin, good works to earn me a place in Heaven, a preacher to tell me how to live.
What set Yahweh apart from the gods of the pagans wasn’t so much what He was, but what He wasn't. The pagans had gods that they could see, touch, smell. The Jews had an invisible God who didn’t let them draw a picture of Him and whose name they wouldn’t even speak out loud. They worshiped a God who depended entirely on His works and His words to communicate His identity.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. – Romans 1:16
Interestingly, God broke the rules several thousand years after the Exodus—and became visible for 33 short years, wrapping Himself in a very unlikely package that was overlooked by most who saw it. Nowadays, we celebrate that event by buying stuff they don't need for people we don't like with money we don't have.
But that's a post for another day ...
Invisible
I really dislike most contemporary Christian music ... for the same reason I dislike Joel Osteen sermons: there's no content. Andrew Peterson is an exception. From the time I heard his "Holy Is the Lord" on The Gathering several years ago, I felt like I was listening to another Rich Mullins, Keith Green or Derek Webb. His latest album, Resurrection Letters II is worth a download on iTunes, and my favorite track is "Invisible God." It explores the irony that we worship a God who is inaccessible to human senses, but whose works are unavoidable.
As a kid I can remember being warned by preachers to not have idols—you know, stuff like remote-control cars, Walkmen, girlfriends, etc.--basically anything I liked more than God. But is this what the Bible means when it talks about idolatry? It may be that, of all the Ten Commandments, the admonition against idolatry is one is the most difficult to contextualize to our pomo world.
What is the first major lapse into idolatry that we see of God's people?
"When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, 'Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him.' " (Exodus 32:1)
Strangely, Moses wasn't even the one going before them. God was, in the form of a cloud by day and a fiery pillar at night. Moses was following these dramatic manifestations just as the Israelites were. But divine epiphanies weren't enough. They needed a metal cow to get them to the Promised Land.
So, idolatry is not so much about loving something more than God as it is putting trust in something in the place of God--an insurance policy to protect me from ruin, good works to earn me a place in Heaven, a preacher to tell me how to live.
What set Yahweh apart from the gods of the pagans wasn’t so much what He was, but what He wasn't. The pagans had gods that they could see, touch, smell. The Jews had an invisible God who didn’t let them draw a picture of Him and whose name they wouldn’t even speak out loud. They worshiped a God who depended entirely on His works and His words to communicate His identity.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. – Romans 1:16
Interestingly, God broke the rules several thousand years after the Exodus—and became visible for 33 short years, wrapping Himself in a very unlikely package that was overlooked by most who saw it. Nowadays, we celebrate that event by buying stuff they don't need for people we don't like with money we don't have.
But that's a post for another day ...
As a kid I can remember being warned by preachers to not have idols—you know, stuff like remote-control cars, Walkmen, girlfriends, etc.--basically anything I liked more than God. But is this what the Bible means when it talks about idolatry? It may be that, of all the Ten Commandments, the admonition against idolatry is one is the most difficult to contextualize to our pomo world.
What is the first major lapse into idolatry that we see of God's people?
"When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, 'Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him.' " (Exodus 32:1)
Strangely, Moses wasn't even the one going before them. God was, in the form of a cloud by day and a fiery pillar at night. Moses was following these dramatic manifestations just as the Israelites were. But divine epiphanies weren't enough. They needed a metal cow to get them to the Promised Land.
So, idolatry is not so much about loving something more than God as it is putting trust in something in the place of God--an insurance policy to protect me from ruin, good works to earn me a place in Heaven, a preacher to tell me how to live.
What set Yahweh apart from the gods of the pagans wasn’t so much what He was, but what He wasn't. The pagans had gods that they could see, touch, smell. The Jews had an invisible God who didn’t let them draw a picture of Him and whose name they wouldn’t even speak out loud. They worshiped a God who depended entirely on His works and His words to communicate His identity.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. – Romans 1:16
Interestingly, God broke the rules several thousand years after the Exodus—and became visible for 33 short years, wrapping Himself in a very unlikely package that was overlooked by most who saw it. Nowadays, we celebrate that event by buying stuff they don't need for people we don't like with money we don't have.
But that's a post for another day ...
12 November 2008
"Gay Mawwiage"
Because I'm too lazy to put together an actual essay on same-sex marriage, I'll just string together some general reflections on the topic that may or may not make sense:
The church has lost its leverage. Because of high rates of divorce/adultery/porn-addiction/scandal, the church has been lax in presenting a biblical model of marriage. Like the Israelites who appalled their Canaanite neighbors with their perversion and violence, it rings hollow when Christian leaders make lofty definitions of marriage to which they themselves don't seem to be able to adhere.
Marriage is about God. As a religious sacrament, the primary purpose of marriage is not to provide a context for sexual relations, to ensure the continuation of the human race, or to make sure that guys have someone on hand to keep them well groomed and fed. Marriage is primarily about God. It is a means through which we understand the Trinity and the relationship of Christ to the Church. It is a tool God uses to make us more like Him. As such, it is an agent of sanctification, a means of revelation, a model of reconciliation. Everything else is corollary.
There's no such thing as secular marriage. Therefore, marriage cannot be secular. This is not to say that a secular government may not allow couples or groups of people to enter into legal arrangements that share characteristics with marriage. Business partnerships, powers of attorney, adoption, civil unions all share some of the characteristics of marriage. But they are not marriage. Why? From a biblical perspective, marriage happens when a man and woman are joined together in a covenant relationship. It is something God does that may or may not be acknowledged by civil authorities or the church.
What business is it of theirs? If I accept the above statements, I must naturally ask why a secular civil government has any interest defining (or un-defining, for that matter) marriage. Frankly, it's none of their business, and the Florida and California ballot initiatives attempting to define marriage were intrusions of the state. It would appear that, out of fear, the church has validated this intrusion by lobbying for a constitutional definition of marriage. Granted, I understand the practical concerns, but isn't this setting a dangerous precedent?
So, what about "gay marriage"? Simultaneously, I must ask why secular gays are even interested in the sacrament of marriage--why are civil unions not enough? Just sayin' ...
The church has lost its leverage. Because of high rates of divorce/adultery/porn-addiction/scandal, the church has been lax in presenting a biblical model of marriage. Like the Israelites who appalled their Canaanite neighbors with their perversion and violence, it rings hollow when Christian leaders make lofty definitions of marriage to which they themselves don't seem to be able to adhere.
Marriage is about God. As a religious sacrament, the primary purpose of marriage is not to provide a context for sexual relations, to ensure the continuation of the human race, or to make sure that guys have someone on hand to keep them well groomed and fed. Marriage is primarily about God. It is a means through which we understand the Trinity and the relationship of Christ to the Church. It is a tool God uses to make us more like Him. As such, it is an agent of sanctification, a means of revelation, a model of reconciliation. Everything else is corollary.
There's no such thing as secular marriage. Therefore, marriage cannot be secular. This is not to say that a secular government may not allow couples or groups of people to enter into legal arrangements that share characteristics with marriage. Business partnerships, powers of attorney, adoption, civil unions all share some of the characteristics of marriage. But they are not marriage. Why? From a biblical perspective, marriage happens when a man and woman are joined together in a covenant relationship. It is something God does that may or may not be acknowledged by civil authorities or the church.
What business is it of theirs? If I accept the above statements, I must naturally ask why a secular civil government has any interest defining (or un-defining, for that matter) marriage. Frankly, it's none of their business, and the Florida and California ballot initiatives attempting to define marriage were intrusions of the state. It would appear that, out of fear, the church has validated this intrusion by lobbying for a constitutional definition of marriage. Granted, I understand the practical concerns, but isn't this setting a dangerous precedent?
So, what about "gay marriage"? Simultaneously, I must ask why secular gays are even interested in the sacrament of marriage--why are civil unions not enough? Just sayin' ...
"Gay Mawwiage"
Because I'm too lazy to put together an actual essay on same-sex marriage, I'll just string together some general reflections on the topic that may or may not make sense:
The church has lost its leverage. Because of high rates of divorce/adultery/porn-addiction/scandal, the church has been lax in presenting a biblical model of marriage. Like the Israelites who appalled their Canaanite neighbors with their perversion and violence, it rings hollow when Christian leaders make lofty definitions of marriage to which they themselves don't seem to be able to adhere.
Marriage is about God. As a religious sacrament, the primary purpose of marriage is not to provide a context for sexual relations, to ensure the continuation of the human race, or to make sure that guys have someone on hand to keep them well groomed and fed. Marriage is primarily about God. It is a means through which we understand the Trinity and the relationship of Christ to the Church. It is a tool God uses to make us more like Him. As such, it is an agent of sanctification, a means of revelation, a model of reconciliation. Everything else is corollary.
There's no such thing as secular marriage. Therefore, marriage cannot be secular. This is not to say that a secular government may not allow couples or groups of people to enter into legal arrangements that share characteristics with marriage. Business partnerships, powers of attorney, adoption, civil unions all share some of the characteristics of marriage. But they are not marriage. Why? From a biblical perspective, marriage happens when a man and woman are joined together in a covenant relationship. It is something God does that may or may not be acknowledged by civil authorities or the church.
What business is it of theirs? If I accept the above statements, I must naturally ask why a secular civil government has any interest defining (or un-defining, for that matter) marriage. Frankly, it's none of their business, and the Florida and California ballot initiatives attempting to define marriage were intrusions of the state. It would appear that, out of fear, the church has validated this intrusion by lobbying for a constitutional definition of marriage. Granted, I understand the practical concerns, but isn't this setting a dangerous precedent?
So, what about "gay marriage"? Simultaneously, I must ask why secular gays are even interested in the sacrament of marriage--why are civil unions not enough? Just sayin' ...
The church has lost its leverage. Because of high rates of divorce/adultery/porn-addiction/scandal, the church has been lax in presenting a biblical model of marriage. Like the Israelites who appalled their Canaanite neighbors with their perversion and violence, it rings hollow when Christian leaders make lofty definitions of marriage to which they themselves don't seem to be able to adhere.
Marriage is about God. As a religious sacrament, the primary purpose of marriage is not to provide a context for sexual relations, to ensure the continuation of the human race, or to make sure that guys have someone on hand to keep them well groomed and fed. Marriage is primarily about God. It is a means through which we understand the Trinity and the relationship of Christ to the Church. It is a tool God uses to make us more like Him. As such, it is an agent of sanctification, a means of revelation, a model of reconciliation. Everything else is corollary.
There's no such thing as secular marriage. Therefore, marriage cannot be secular. This is not to say that a secular government may not allow couples or groups of people to enter into legal arrangements that share characteristics with marriage. Business partnerships, powers of attorney, adoption, civil unions all share some of the characteristics of marriage. But they are not marriage. Why? From a biblical perspective, marriage happens when a man and woman are joined together in a covenant relationship. It is something God does that may or may not be acknowledged by civil authorities or the church.
What business is it of theirs? If I accept the above statements, I must naturally ask why a secular civil government has any interest defining (or un-defining, for that matter) marriage. Frankly, it's none of their business, and the Florida and California ballot initiatives attempting to define marriage were intrusions of the state. It would appear that, out of fear, the church has validated this intrusion by lobbying for a constitutional definition of marriage. Granted, I understand the practical concerns, but isn't this setting a dangerous precedent?
So, what about "gay marriage"? Simultaneously, I must ask why secular gays are even interested in the sacrament of marriage--why are civil unions not enough? Just sayin' ...
03 November 2008
The Worst Generation
My grandparents' generation has justifiably been called "the greatest generation" for the immense sacrifices they made during World War II so that their children and grandchildren--and those of Europeans--could live in a free world. Men left good-paying jobs, enlisted in the military or were drafted. Kids collected scrap metal and wore unfashionable clothing. Women worked long hours in aircraft factories.
A column by New York Times' Thomas Friedman unwittingly reveals the striking contrast in the way the beneficiaries of these sacrifices (us) have addressed the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression. "Never has one generation spent so much of its children’s wealth in such a short period of time with so little to show for it," Friedman writes.
In order to ensure a modicum of stability in our retirement and savings, in order to ensure that our way of life and consumption habits can be adequately satisfied in the present, this generation has passed on trillions of dollars of additional debt to our children and grandchildren.
"Since the last debate, John McCain and Barack Obama have unveiled broad ideas about how to restore the nation’s financial health. But they continue to suggest that this will be largely pain-free," Friedman writes. "McCain says giving everyone a tax cut will save the day; Obama tells us only the rich will have to pay to help us out of this hole. Neither is true. We are all going to have to pay ... "
A column by New York Times' Thomas Friedman unwittingly reveals the striking contrast in the way the beneficiaries of these sacrifices (us) have addressed the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression. "Never has one generation spent so much of its children’s wealth in such a short period of time with so little to show for it," Friedman writes.
In order to ensure a modicum of stability in our retirement and savings, in order to ensure that our way of life and consumption habits can be adequately satisfied in the present, this generation has passed on trillions of dollars of additional debt to our children and grandchildren.
"Since the last debate, John McCain and Barack Obama have unveiled broad ideas about how to restore the nation’s financial health. But they continue to suggest that this will be largely pain-free," Friedman writes. "McCain says giving everyone a tax cut will save the day; Obama tells us only the rich will have to pay to help us out of this hole. Neither is true. We are all going to have to pay ... "
The Worst Generation
My grandparents' generation has justifiably been called "the greatest generation" for the immense sacrifices they made during World War II so that their children and grandchildren--and those of Europeans--could live in a free world. Men left good-paying jobs, enlisted in the military or were drafted. Kids collected scrap metal and wore unfashionable clothing. Women worked long hours in aircraft factories.
A column by New York Times' Thomas Friedman unwittingly reveals the striking contrast in the way the beneficiaries of these sacrifices (us) have addressed the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression. "Never has one generation spent so much of its children’s wealth in such a short period of time with so little to show for it," Friedman writes.
In order to ensure a modicum of stability in our retirement and savings, in order to ensure that our way of life and consumption habits can be adequately satisfied in the present, this generation has passed on trillions of dollars of additional debt to our children and grandchildren.
"Since the last debate, John McCain and Barack Obama have unveiled broad ideas about how to restore the nation’s financial health. But they continue to suggest that this will be largely pain-free," Friedman writes. "McCain says giving everyone a tax cut will save the day; Obama tells us only the rich will have to pay to help us out of this hole. Neither is true. We are all going to have to pay ... "
A column by New York Times' Thomas Friedman unwittingly reveals the striking contrast in the way the beneficiaries of these sacrifices (us) have addressed the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression. "Never has one generation spent so much of its children’s wealth in such a short period of time with so little to show for it," Friedman writes.
In order to ensure a modicum of stability in our retirement and savings, in order to ensure that our way of life and consumption habits can be adequately satisfied in the present, this generation has passed on trillions of dollars of additional debt to our children and grandchildren.
"Since the last debate, John McCain and Barack Obama have unveiled broad ideas about how to restore the nation’s financial health. But they continue to suggest that this will be largely pain-free," Friedman writes. "McCain says giving everyone a tax cut will save the day; Obama tells us only the rich will have to pay to help us out of this hole. Neither is true. We are all going to have to pay ... "
31 October 2008
Would Someone Please Make a Movie About the Congo
It seems that one of the only ways to get Westerners to consider a disaster outside of their limited frames of reference is for Hollywood to make a movie about it (often after the fact, such as Hotel Rwanda or The Last King of Scotland) or to have a rock star adopt it as a cause. Then, the cause will be considered sexy, and it will become socially advantageous to bring up the cause in conversation or declare on Facebook that you stand in solidarity with the victims. Political candidates will use the cause as leverage to reinforce their credibility. Otherwise morally bankrupt celebrities will adopt the babies orphaned by the disaster and declare their outrage at the politicians who allow such injustice to be perpetrated. Greasy televangelists will take a break from their heretical tirades to raise a few dollars for the cause.
So, why has someone not embraced the Second Congo War as a cause? Where is the outrage at the world's deadliest conflict since World War II, a disaster that has claimed 5.4 million lives and dwarfs the body count of wars in nearby Rwanda and Sudan? Is anyone drawing attention to the absolute impotence of the 17,000 UN "peacekeepers" to quell the violence there? Why is it that the US government seems so quick to intervene militarily in situations in which there is a direct link to Islamic extremism or in which our access to oil could somehow be threatened, but is essentially disengaged from this conflict?
C'mon. Make a movie, someone.
So, why has someone not embraced the Second Congo War as a cause? Where is the outrage at the world's deadliest conflict since World War II, a disaster that has claimed 5.4 million lives and dwarfs the body count of wars in nearby Rwanda and Sudan? Is anyone drawing attention to the absolute impotence of the 17,000 UN "peacekeepers" to quell the violence there? Why is it that the US government seems so quick to intervene militarily in situations in which there is a direct link to Islamic extremism or in which our access to oil could somehow be threatened, but is essentially disengaged from this conflict?
C'mon. Make a movie, someone.
Would Someone Please Make a Movie About the Congo
It seems that one of the only ways to get Westerners to consider a disaster outside of their limited frames of reference is for Hollywood to make a movie about it (often after the fact, such as Hotel Rwanda or The Last King of Scotland) or to have a rock star adopt it as a cause. Then, the cause will be considered sexy, and it will become socially advantageous to bring up the cause in conversation or declare on Facebook that you stand in solidarity with the victims. Political candidates will use the cause as leverage to reinforce their credibility. Otherwise morally bankrupt celebrities will adopt the babies orphaned by the disaster and declare their outrage at the politicians who allow such injustice to be perpetrated. Greasy televangelists will take a break from their heretical tirades to raise a few dollars for the cause.
So, why has someone not embraced the Second Congo War as a cause? Where is the outrage at the world's deadliest conflict since World War II, a disaster that has claimed 5.4 million lives and dwarfs the body count of wars in nearby Rwanda and Sudan? Is anyone drawing attention to the absolute impotence of the 17,000 UN "peacekeepers" to quell the violence there? Why is it that the US government seems so quick to intervene militarily in situations in which there is a direct link to Islamic extremism or in which our access to oil could somehow be threatened, but is essentially disengaged from this conflict?
C'mon. Make a movie, someone.
So, why has someone not embraced the Second Congo War as a cause? Where is the outrage at the world's deadliest conflict since World War II, a disaster that has claimed 5.4 million lives and dwarfs the body count of wars in nearby Rwanda and Sudan? Is anyone drawing attention to the absolute impotence of the 17,000 UN "peacekeepers" to quell the violence there? Why is it that the US government seems so quick to intervene militarily in situations in which there is a direct link to Islamic extremism or in which our access to oil could somehow be threatened, but is essentially disengaged from this conflict?
C'mon. Make a movie, someone.
23 October 2008
From the Man Who Knows What Every Woman Wants ...
John Hagee, the man who, with his second wife, wrote the book What Every Woman Wants in a Man/What Every Man Wants in a Woman now has taken three weeks out of his busy schedule to write Financial Armageddon. Along with the rather disconcerting image of a burning flag, the cover of the book claims that "We are in a battle for our very survival." "Discover how oil will become the ultimate weapon of war." "Learn the four events that will cause the West to implode." "Keep your investments from funding the enemy's advance." "Why energy independence is key to survival."
... Where do I start? ...
... Where do I start? ...
From the Man Who Knows What Every Woman Wants ...
John Hagee, the man who, with his second wife, wrote the book What Every Woman Wants in a Man/What Every Man Wants in a Woman now has taken three weeks out of his busy schedule to write Financial Armageddon. Along with the rather disconcerting image of a burning flag, the cover of the book claims that "We are in a battle for our very survival." "Discover how oil will become the ultimate weapon of war." "Learn the four events that will cause the West to implode." "Keep your investments from funding the enemy's advance." "Why energy independence is key to survival."
... Where do I start? ...
... Where do I start? ...
21 October 2008
From the People Who Brought You Todd Bentley ...
I just received and e-mail from Rory and Wendy Alec, the people who brought you the Todd Bentley Show on GODTV and have since blamed Todd’s demise on witches, warlocks and critics. It was a prophetic word with “specific and powerful rhema” insight into the economic crisis and the election.
Utilizing an allegorical interpretation of Psalm 91, Wendy explained that those who have given of their substance would weather the financial storm. She supported this interpretation with a vision she says she had of oil pipelines, giant spiders and a sign with the word “Babylon” hanging over Wall Street.
Then, she gave insight into the presidential election, pointing out the media’s “Jezebelic” spirit and the need for “temperance, sober-mindedness and measured wisdom.”
Of course, it’s fairly easy to look at the remarkable nature of current events and, in the midst of them, assign them some type of apocalyptic significance. But I’m wondering why this “prophet” didn’t foresee Todd Bentley’s collapse and make a similar statement of warning—when all the signs were obvious.
Utilizing an allegorical interpretation of Psalm 91, Wendy explained that those who have given of their substance would weather the financial storm. She supported this interpretation with a vision she says she had of oil pipelines, giant spiders and a sign with the word “Babylon” hanging over Wall Street.
Then, she gave insight into the presidential election, pointing out the media’s “Jezebelic” spirit and the need for “temperance, sober-mindedness and measured wisdom.”
Of course, it’s fairly easy to look at the remarkable nature of current events and, in the midst of them, assign them some type of apocalyptic significance. But I’m wondering why this “prophet” didn’t foresee Todd Bentley’s collapse and make a similar statement of warning—when all the signs were obvious.
From the People Who Brought You Todd Bentley ...
I just received and e-mail from Rory and Wendy Alec, the people who brought you the Todd Bentley Show on GODTV and have since blamed Todd’s demise on witches, warlocks and critics. It was a prophetic word with “specific and powerful rhema” insight into the economic crisis and the election.
Utilizing an allegorical interpretation of Psalm 91, Wendy explained that those who have given of their substance would weather the financial storm. She supported this interpretation with a vision she says she had of oil pipelines, giant spiders and a sign with the word “Babylon” hanging over Wall Street.
Then, she gave insight into the presidential election, pointing out the media’s “Jezebelic” spirit and the need for “temperance, sober-mindedness and measured wisdom.”
Of course, it’s fairly easy to look at the remarkable nature of current events and, in the midst of them, assign them some type of apocalyptic significance. But I’m wondering why this “prophet” didn’t foresee Todd Bentley’s collapse and make a similar statement of warning—when all the signs were obvious.
Utilizing an allegorical interpretation of Psalm 91, Wendy explained that those who have given of their substance would weather the financial storm. She supported this interpretation with a vision she says she had of oil pipelines, giant spiders and a sign with the word “Babylon” hanging over Wall Street.
Then, she gave insight into the presidential election, pointing out the media’s “Jezebelic” spirit and the need for “temperance, sober-mindedness and measured wisdom.”
Of course, it’s fairly easy to look at the remarkable nature of current events and, in the midst of them, assign them some type of apocalyptic significance. But I’m wondering why this “prophet” didn’t foresee Todd Bentley’s collapse and make a similar statement of warning—when all the signs were obvious.
14 October 2008
Saga of a One-Issue Voter
I've admitted before that I'm a single-issue voter, since there is only one major distinguishable ideological difference between the two candidates: abortion. However, I also believe in having a consistent ethic of life, and I have read numerous articles--and heard people I respect--that make the argument that a Barack Obama administration would lead to fewer abortions. (Although one cannot help but see the ironic similarity to Thomas Jefferson's 1778 legislation that abolished the slave trade without emancipating the slaves.) Republican presidents have been unsuccessful in their attempts to limit abortions legislatively, and at the Saddleback Forum, Obama himself made the thought-provoking (if incorrect) argument that abortion rates did not go down during the Bush presidency. In order to be intellectually honest (and sleep soundly on November 4), I was compelled to follow this trail wherever it leads. All I had to go on was Obama's voting record and his speeches. Amid the encouraging statements predicting the reduction of abortions through more compassionate social programs, here's what I found:
- Obama supports the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and that are not the result of rape or incest.
- Obama opposed parental-involvement laws which would require either the notification or consent of parents before their underage daughter crosses state lines to seek an abortion.
- Obama promised that the first thing he would do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
- Obama opposed (by virtue of voting "present") the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois senate, and he condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning the practice.
- Obama opposed key provisions of the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, which was designed to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies—specifically the inclusion of coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child.
- Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an unsuccessful abortion, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability.
Things That Blow My Mind #2
Did you ever stop to consider that we as humans are able to experience only a minute fraction of Creation? Only 6,000 stars (at best) are visible to the naked eye. There are 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and the Milky Way is only one of millions of galaxies. There are distant stars being formed whose light will not reach our planet for millions of years. Depending on your view on the age of the universe, there were stars burning, planets spinning, and countless creatures prowling the earth before we even arrived on the scene.
Reflecting on the existence of 17,000 known trilobite species that skittered beneath the surface of prehistoric waters, one of my professors once remarked that God must simply enjoy creating things and watching them, that the diversity and abundance of creation is a reflection of an endlessly productive God. Does it ever occur to us that, although we have been assigned as its temporary stewards, Creation was not ultimately created for us but for God--the only one capable of enjoying its full expanse?
Reflecting on the existence of 17,000 known trilobite species that skittered beneath the surface of prehistoric waters, one of my professors once remarked that God must simply enjoy creating things and watching them, that the diversity and abundance of creation is a reflection of an endlessly productive God. Does it ever occur to us that, although we have been assigned as its temporary stewards, Creation was not ultimately created for us but for God--the only one capable of enjoying its full expanse?
Saga of a One-Issue Voter
I've admitted before that I'm a single-issue voter, since there is only one major distinguishable ideological difference between the two candidates: abortion. However, I also believe in having a consistent ethic of life, and I have read numerous articles--and heard people I respect--that make the argument that a Barack Obama administration would lead to fewer abortions. (Although one cannot help but see the ironic similarity to Thomas Jefferson's 1778 legislation that abolished the slave trade without emancipating the slaves.) Republican presidents have been unsuccessful in their attempts to limit abortions legislatively, and at the Saddleback Forum, Obama himself made the thought-provoking (if incorrect) argument that abortion rates did not go down during the Bush presidency. In order to be intellectually honest (and sleep soundly on November 4), I was compelled to follow this trail wherever it leads. All I had to go on was Obama's voting record and his speeches. Amid the encouraging statements predicting the reduction of abortions through more compassionate social programs, here's what I found:
- Obama supports the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and that are not the result of rape or incest.
- Obama opposed parental-involvement laws which would require either the notification or consent of parents before their underage daughter crosses state lines to seek an abortion.
- Obama promised that the first thing he would do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would create a federally guaranteed ''fundamental right'' to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
- Obama opposed (by virtue of voting "present") the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois senate, and he condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning the practice.
- Obama opposed key provisions of the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, which was designed to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies—specifically the inclusion of coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child.
- Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an unsuccessful abortion, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability.
Things That Blow My Mind #2
Did you ever stop to consider that we as humans are able to experience only a minute fraction of Creation? Only 6,000 stars (at best) are visible to the naked eye. There are 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and the Milky Way is only one of millions of galaxies. There are distant stars being formed whose light will not reach our planet for millions of years. Depending on your view on the age of the universe, there were stars burning, planets spinning, and countless creatures prowling the earth before we even arrived on the scene.
Reflecting on the existence of 17,000 known trilobite species that skittered beneath the surface of prehistoric waters, one of my professors once remarked that God must simply enjoy creating things and watching them, that the diversity and abundance of creation is a reflection of an endlessly productive God. Does it ever occur to us that, although we have been assigned as its temporary stewards, Creation was not ultimately created for us but for God--the only one capable of enjoying its full expanse?
Reflecting on the existence of 17,000 known trilobite species that skittered beneath the surface of prehistoric waters, one of my professors once remarked that God must simply enjoy creating things and watching them, that the diversity and abundance of creation is a reflection of an endlessly productive God. Does it ever occur to us that, although we have been assigned as its temporary stewards, Creation was not ultimately created for us but for God--the only one capable of enjoying its full expanse?
09 October 2008
A Lost Letter from the Apostle Paul
Dear Roman Friends,
As you may know, with the death of our emperor Claudius, Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus now ascends to the throne. I don't need to tell you that this development spells the end of life as we know it, both as Roman citizens and as Christians. As you know, at 16 years of age, Nero has no experience in running the empire and has given no indication that he will respect the rights of the Christian community in his realm.
While there were many reasons for us to not like his uncle Claudius--not the least of which was his lowbrow sense of humor and penchant for bloody games in the coliseum--we can thank him for the expansion of our Roman values to the barbarians in Britain and the expulsion of foreign sorcerers and druids from Rome. Simply put, this has made our job that much easier. Additionally, Claudius has exhibited notable discipline in limiting his romantic attachments exclusively to members of the opposite sex--something we cannot be sure about this young upstart who now ascends to the throne. While Claudius repealed taxes on food for those suffering from the famine, all indications are that Nero will raise taxes upwards to an onerous 4.5 percent. How will we be able to carry out our ministry in such a economically hostile environment?
I tell you all this to encourage you to contact your senators and instigate some type of uprising that might result in the installation of a more worthy candidate to this office--perhaps even one of us. As you know, the dissemination and survival of the gospel depends on an environment conducive to our cause. And a government in which we have influence and control is a government that is ultimately on our side. Perhaps one day we will have an emperor who will be one of us and will assist us in the advancement of the gospel. Perhaps one day we will no longer hide in catacombs and tombs and will be able to build great sanctuaries alongside the palaces of our emperors. Until that day comes, let us work together to establish our Lord's kingdom here on earth--in a way he never imagined.
Grace and Peace,
Paul
Note: The Apostle Paul did not write this, and it is antithetical to his theology. This is intended to be a satire, inspired by recent frantic eruptions from Christians terrified at the prospect of an Obama presidency. One column I read today actually predicted "the end of life as we know it" if Barack Obama were elected. My contention is that Christianity is a religion that has historically thrived in environments in which it is not appreciated and that the transcendant power of the gospel is subversive and countercultural--even to its own adherents. Yes, we should vote and participate in government, but as resident aliens, our citizenship is not here.
As you may know, with the death of our emperor Claudius, Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus now ascends to the throne. I don't need to tell you that this development spells the end of life as we know it, both as Roman citizens and as Christians. As you know, at 16 years of age, Nero has no experience in running the empire and has given no indication that he will respect the rights of the Christian community in his realm.
While there were many reasons for us to not like his uncle Claudius--not the least of which was his lowbrow sense of humor and penchant for bloody games in the coliseum--we can thank him for the expansion of our Roman values to the barbarians in Britain and the expulsion of foreign sorcerers and druids from Rome. Simply put, this has made our job that much easier. Additionally, Claudius has exhibited notable discipline in limiting his romantic attachments exclusively to members of the opposite sex--something we cannot be sure about this young upstart who now ascends to the throne. While Claudius repealed taxes on food for those suffering from the famine, all indications are that Nero will raise taxes upwards to an onerous 4.5 percent. How will we be able to carry out our ministry in such a economically hostile environment?
I tell you all this to encourage you to contact your senators and instigate some type of uprising that might result in the installation of a more worthy candidate to this office--perhaps even one of us. As you know, the dissemination and survival of the gospel depends on an environment conducive to our cause. And a government in which we have influence and control is a government that is ultimately on our side. Perhaps one day we will have an emperor who will be one of us and will assist us in the advancement of the gospel. Perhaps one day we will no longer hide in catacombs and tombs and will be able to build great sanctuaries alongside the palaces of our emperors. Until that day comes, let us work together to establish our Lord's kingdom here on earth--in a way he never imagined.
Grace and Peace,
Paul
Note: The Apostle Paul did not write this, and it is antithetical to his theology. This is intended to be a satire, inspired by recent frantic eruptions from Christians terrified at the prospect of an Obama presidency. One column I read today actually predicted "the end of life as we know it" if Barack Obama were elected. My contention is that Christianity is a religion that has historically thrived in environments in which it is not appreciated and that the transcendant power of the gospel is subversive and countercultural--even to its own adherents. Yes, we should vote and participate in government, but as resident aliens, our citizenship is not here.
A Lost Letter from the Apostle Paul
Dear Roman Friends,
As you may know, with the death of our emperor Claudius, Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus now ascends to the throne. I don't need to tell you that this development spells the end of life as we know it, both as Roman citizens and as Christians. As you know, at 16 years of age, Nero has no experience in running the empire and has given no indication that he will respect the rights of the Christian community in his realm.
While there were many reasons for us to not like his uncle Claudius--not the least of which was his lowbrow sense of humor and penchant for bloody games in the coliseum--we can thank him for the expansion of our Roman values to the barbarians in Britain and the expulsion of foreign sorcerers and druids from Rome. Simply put, this has made our job that much easier. Additionally, Claudius has exhibited notable discipline in limiting his romantic attachments exclusively to members of the opposite sex--something we cannot be sure about this young upstart who now ascends to the throne. While Claudius repealed taxes on food for those suffering from the famine, all indications are that Nero will raise taxes upwards to an onerous 4.5 percent. How will we be able to carry out our ministry in such a economically hostile environment?
I tell you all this to encourage you to contact your senators and instigate some type of uprising that might result in the installation of a more worthy candidate to this office--perhaps even one of us. As you know, the dissemination and survival of the gospel depends on an environment conducive to our cause. And a government in which we have influence and control is a government that is ultimately on our side. Perhaps one day we will have an emperor who will be one of us and will assist us in the advancement of the gospel. Perhaps one day we will no longer hide in catacombs and tombs and will be able to build great sanctuaries alongside the palaces of our emperors. Until that day comes, let us work together to establish our Lord's kingdom here on earth--in a way he never imagined.
Grace and Peace,
Paul
Note: The Apostle Paul did not write this, and it is antithetical to his theology. This is intended to be a satire, inspired by recent frantic eruptions from Christians terrified at the prospect of an Obama presidency. One column I read today actually predicted "the end of life as we know it" if Barack Obama were elected. My contention is that Christianity is a religion that has historically thrived in environments in which it is not appreciated and that the transcendant power of the gospel is subversive and countercultural--even to its own adherents. Yes, we should vote and participate in government, but as resident aliens, our citizenship is not here.
As you may know, with the death of our emperor Claudius, Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus now ascends to the throne. I don't need to tell you that this development spells the end of life as we know it, both as Roman citizens and as Christians. As you know, at 16 years of age, Nero has no experience in running the empire and has given no indication that he will respect the rights of the Christian community in his realm.
While there were many reasons for us to not like his uncle Claudius--not the least of which was his lowbrow sense of humor and penchant for bloody games in the coliseum--we can thank him for the expansion of our Roman values to the barbarians in Britain and the expulsion of foreign sorcerers and druids from Rome. Simply put, this has made our job that much easier. Additionally, Claudius has exhibited notable discipline in limiting his romantic attachments exclusively to members of the opposite sex--something we cannot be sure about this young upstart who now ascends to the throne. While Claudius repealed taxes on food for those suffering from the famine, all indications are that Nero will raise taxes upwards to an onerous 4.5 percent. How will we be able to carry out our ministry in such a economically hostile environment?
I tell you all this to encourage you to contact your senators and instigate some type of uprising that might result in the installation of a more worthy candidate to this office--perhaps even one of us. As you know, the dissemination and survival of the gospel depends on an environment conducive to our cause. And a government in which we have influence and control is a government that is ultimately on our side. Perhaps one day we will have an emperor who will be one of us and will assist us in the advancement of the gospel. Perhaps one day we will no longer hide in catacombs and tombs and will be able to build great sanctuaries alongside the palaces of our emperors. Until that day comes, let us work together to establish our Lord's kingdom here on earth--in a way he never imagined.
Grace and Peace,
Paul
Note: The Apostle Paul did not write this, and it is antithetical to his theology. This is intended to be a satire, inspired by recent frantic eruptions from Christians terrified at the prospect of an Obama presidency. One column I read today actually predicted "the end of life as we know it" if Barack Obama were elected. My contention is that Christianity is a religion that has historically thrived in environments in which it is not appreciated and that the transcendant power of the gospel is subversive and countercultural--even to its own adherents. Yes, we should vote and participate in government, but as resident aliens, our citizenship is not here.
07 October 2008
CG Bible Cross-Reference Graf
As much as I love scholarly interpretation tools for the Bible, I've always contended that "Joe Sixpack" with a good cross-reference Bible (preferably an NASB) would come to the same conclusions 90 percent of the time as a Ph.D. with access to a seminary library. The scriptures interpret themselves, and the image below illustrates that.
Cited by National Geographic in the Best Science Images of 2008, the computer-generated graph shows the arcs of biblical cross-references, from Genesis (on the left) to Revelation (on the right). " 'It almost looks like one monolithic volume,' said Carnegie Mellon's Chris Harrison, who--along with Christoph Romhild of North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hamburg, Germany--won an honorable mention for illustrations in the 2008 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge."
Cited by National Geographic in the Best Science Images of 2008, the computer-generated graph shows the arcs of biblical cross-references, from Genesis (on the left) to Revelation (on the right). " 'It almost looks like one monolithic volume,' said Carnegie Mellon's Chris Harrison, who--along with Christoph Romhild of North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hamburg, Germany--won an honorable mention for illustrations in the 2008 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge."
CG Bible Cross-Reference Graf
As much as I love scholarly interpretation tools for the Bible, I've always contended that "Joe Sixpack" with a good cross-reference Bible (preferably an NASB) would come to the same conclusions 90 percent of the time as a Ph.D. with access to a seminary library. The scriptures interpret themselves, and the image below illustrates that.Cited by National Geographic in the Best Science Images of 2008, the computer-generated graph shows the arcs of biblical cross-references, from Genesis (on the left) to Revelation (on the right). " 'It almost looks like one monolithic volume,' said Carnegie Mellon's Chris Harrison, who--along with Christoph Romhild of North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hamburg, Germany--won an honorable mention for illustrations in the 2008 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge."
Cited by National Geographic in the Best Science Images of 2008, the computer-generated graph shows the arcs of biblical cross-references, from Genesis (on the left) to Revelation (on the right). " 'It almost looks like one monolithic volume,' said Carnegie Mellon's Chris Harrison, who--along with Christoph Romhild of North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hamburg, Germany--won an honorable mention for illustrations in the 2008 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge."
06 October 2008
The Starfish and the Spider
My latest reading has been two important books, The Starfish and the Spider and Groundswell. Both discuss the growing phenomenon of decentralization, specifically as it relates to organizations/businesses and media. In other words, power and influence are being distributed to "the little guys" through wikis, social networking, blogging, etc. (as Groundswell points out), and the same should be happening in business, as leaders delegate idea generation, creative control and ultimately executive responsibility to their teams (as The Starfish and the Spider advocates). A similar argument was made by Dennis Bakke in Joy at Work--Dennis only allowed the executives at his multi-billion dollar company to make two decisions per year. All the rest had to be delegated to managers and team members. Of course, all this makes for good talk, and many organizations boast of decentralization. But I've discovered that actually making it happen is tough, for at least one reason: me.
"I'll just do it myself," is something I've always found myself thinking--and sometimes even saying. But, that statement is loaded with hubris (i.e. "I can do it better than anyone else"), impatience (i.e. "It will take too long for you to do it") and selfishness ("I don't want to show you how to do it, because then you'll be one step closer to stealing my job"). Ultimately, it's an attitude that harms ministries and organizations because it consolidates knowledge and skills in individuals rather than teams, it makes continuity tough during transition and it assumes that leaders are better at certain things simply because they're leaders. It's an attitude that feigns industriousness by always being busy but rarely empowering others to excel. It's an attitude that feigns responsibility by always assuming the burden of decision making, but rarely entrusting others with challenging solutions. Simply put, it's a sure-fire way to make yourself burn out and your team rust out. Either way, what a waste of resources.
The solution? Every day, I'm exploring how I can empower someone to make a decision that I would normally make, to discover a solution I would normally attempt to solve alone or begin to learn a skill that I'm not all that good at anyhow.
"I'll just do it myself," is something I've always found myself thinking--and sometimes even saying. But, that statement is loaded with hubris (i.e. "I can do it better than anyone else"), impatience (i.e. "It will take too long for you to do it") and selfishness ("I don't want to show you how to do it, because then you'll be one step closer to stealing my job"). Ultimately, it's an attitude that harms ministries and organizations because it consolidates knowledge and skills in individuals rather than teams, it makes continuity tough during transition and it assumes that leaders are better at certain things simply because they're leaders. It's an attitude that feigns industriousness by always being busy but rarely empowering others to excel. It's an attitude that feigns responsibility by always assuming the burden of decision making, but rarely entrusting others with challenging solutions. Simply put, it's a sure-fire way to make yourself burn out and your team rust out. Either way, what a waste of resources.
The solution? Every day, I'm exploring how I can empower someone to make a decision that I would normally make, to discover a solution I would normally attempt to solve alone or begin to learn a skill that I'm not all that good at anyhow.
The Starfish and the Spider
My latest reading has been two important books, The Starfish and the Spider and Groundswell. Both discuss the growing phenomenon of decentralization, specifically as it relates to organizations/businesses and media. In other words, power and influence are being distributed to "the little guys" through wikis, social networking, blogging, etc. (as Groundswell points out), and the same should be happening in business, as leaders delegate idea generation, creative control and ultimately executive responsibility to their teams (as The Starfish and the Spider advocates). A similar argument was made by Dennis Bakke in Joy at Work--Dennis only allowed the executives at his multi-billion dollar company to make two decisions per year. All the rest had to be delegated to managers and team members. Of course, all this makes for good talk, and many organizations boast of decentralization. But I've discovered that actually making it happen is tough, for at least one reason: me.
"I'll just do it myself," is something I've always found myself thinking--and sometimes even saying. But, that statement is loaded with hubris (i.e. "I can do it better than anyone else"), impatience (i.e. "It will take too long for you to do it") and selfishness ("I don't want to show you how to do it, because then you'll be one step closer to stealing my job"). Ultimately, it's an attitude that harms ministries and organizations because it consolidates knowledge and skills in individuals rather than teams, it makes continuity tough during transition and it assumes that leaders are better at certain things simply because they're leaders. It's an attitude that feigns industriousness by always being busy but rarely empowering others to excel. It's an attitude that feigns responsibility by always assuming the burden of decision making, but rarely entrusting others with challenging solutions. Simply put, it's a sure-fire way to make yourself burn out and your team rust out. Either way, what a waste of resources.
The solution? Every day, I'm exploring how I can empower someone to make a decision that I would normally make, to discover a solution I would normally attempt to solve alone or begin to learn a skill that I'm not all that good at anyhow.
"I'll just do it myself," is something I've always found myself thinking--and sometimes even saying. But, that statement is loaded with hubris (i.e. "I can do it better than anyone else"), impatience (i.e. "It will take too long for you to do it") and selfishness ("I don't want to show you how to do it, because then you'll be one step closer to stealing my job"). Ultimately, it's an attitude that harms ministries and organizations because it consolidates knowledge and skills in individuals rather than teams, it makes continuity tough during transition and it assumes that leaders are better at certain things simply because they're leaders. It's an attitude that feigns industriousness by always being busy but rarely empowering others to excel. It's an attitude that feigns responsibility by always assuming the burden of decision making, but rarely entrusting others with challenging solutions. Simply put, it's a sure-fire way to make yourself burn out and your team rust out. Either way, what a waste of resources.
The solution? Every day, I'm exploring how I can empower someone to make a decision that I would normally make, to discover a solution I would normally attempt to solve alone or begin to learn a skill that I'm not all that good at anyhow.
19 September 2008
Who Will Be the Next Mrs. Weeks?
Here's a story for the "That's Outrageous" category: "Bishop" Thomas Wesley Weeks III, former husband of televangelist Juanita Bynum, is looking for his third wife. However, he wants to make it an educational experience for the rest of us so that we'll "get a Christian perspective on dating and coping with the desire for intimacy. The Pentecostal pastor will soon release a book about the subject called Finding Yourself While In Transition." Additionally, the bishop is launching a reality Web show called "Who Will Be the Next Mrs. Weeks?" which will follow the bishop's quest for a new wife. His standards? She “can’t be ugly. She has to be easy on the eyes.”
Now, I could wax eloquent on this, but it's probably not necessary. This sort of behavior is self-evidently an embarrassment to the gospel. I had lunch with Mr. Weeks in D.C. three years ago when traveling for my previous job, and, suffice it to say, it was one of the most surreal experiences of my life. The saddest part of the story, however, is that he has an adolescent daughter from his first marriage who is likely being exposed to this circus. I pray that there are some sane people in that family who will be able to shield her from this foolishness and provide some normalcy for her life.
Now, I could wax eloquent on this, but it's probably not necessary. This sort of behavior is self-evidently an embarrassment to the gospel. I had lunch with Mr. Weeks in D.C. three years ago when traveling for my previous job, and, suffice it to say, it was one of the most surreal experiences of my life. The saddest part of the story, however, is that he has an adolescent daughter from his first marriage who is likely being exposed to this circus. I pray that there are some sane people in that family who will be able to shield her from this foolishness and provide some normalcy for her life.
Who Will Be the Next Mrs. Weeks?
Here's a story for the "That's Outrageous" category: "Bishop" Thomas Wesley Weeks III, former husband of televangelist Juanita Bynum, is looking for his third wife. However, he wants to make it an educational experience for the rest of us so that we'll "get a Christian perspective on dating and coping with the desire for intimacy. The Pentecostal pastor will soon release a book about the subject called Finding Yourself While In Transition." Additionally, the bishop is launching a reality Web show called "Who Will Be the Next Mrs. Weeks?" which will follow the bishop's quest for a new wife. His standards? She “can’t be ugly. She has to be easy on the eyes.”
Now, I could wax eloquent on this, but it's probably not necessary. This sort of behavior is self-evidently an embarrassment to the gospel. I had lunch with Mr. Weeks in D.C. three years ago when traveling for my previous job, and, suffice it to say, it was one of the most surreal experiences of my life. The saddest part of the story, however, is that he has an adolescent daughter from his first marriage who is likely being exposed to this circus. I pray that there are some sane people in that family who will be able to shield her from this foolishness and provide some normalcy for her life.
Now, I could wax eloquent on this, but it's probably not necessary. This sort of behavior is self-evidently an embarrassment to the gospel. I had lunch with Mr. Weeks in D.C. three years ago when traveling for my previous job, and, suffice it to say, it was one of the most surreal experiences of my life. The saddest part of the story, however, is that he has an adolescent daughter from his first marriage who is likely being exposed to this circus. I pray that there are some sane people in that family who will be able to shield her from this foolishness and provide some normalcy for her life.
17 September 2008
Reflections from Peru
I'm getting ready to get on a plane for home after two weeks in Peru visiting some of our teams in the mountains, the jungle and everything in between. Here are a few takeaways as I reflect on the trip:
I'm Comfortable: My first time overseas was a summer in East Africa 17 years ago. I didn't mind bathing in cold water, sitting in a taxi for 6 hours or eating strange foods. Now, I noticed that I was more easily irritated when I couldn't get e-mails on my BlackBerry, when the shower was lukewarm, when I was eating a bizarre fruit that looked and felt like a sack of frog eggs, as I was counting 57 mosquito bites on my arms sustained while waiting in line to use an ATM.
People Are the Same: Watching CNN several days ago, I observed the stark contrast of Houston's pleasure boats stacked up like firewood in the wake of hurricane Ike and the bodies of Haitians floating in flood waters like so much refuse from the same hurricane in a nation less than 400 miles off the coast of the United States. Life seems cheap in impoverished places like Haiti, and the same is true in more developed countries like Peru. But ultimately, as bearers of God's image, people are very much the same. They love their kids. They are proud of their culture. They want to earn a livable wage and provide for their families. They are afraid of dying. They are in need of God.
Our Missionaries Break Every Stereotype: The Pioneers workers serving in the villages of Peru are some of the most resourceful, intelligent, hard-working people I've met. All of them designed and built their own homes--mostly from local resources like adobe and wood. Incarnational in their approach, they are well-known and liked in the communities they serve and have increasing understanding of the culture and language. They are godly and selfless in their interactions with their neighbors, wrestling daily with the crises that the people face and sharing generously of their resources and time.
Latin America Has Unreached Peoples: This was my fourth visit to Latin America, and while it holds the stereotype of having a high concentration of evangelicals, this is primarily true of the urban centers. The isolated villages of the high Andes, the Amazon jungle and even rural parts of our close neighbor Mexico are home to people groups that have no access to the gospel. I met workers who have given up relatively comfortable lifestyles ministering in Peru's urban areas for the villages where they can live in community with the unreached. It is this approach that will ensure that the gospel invades every corner of Latin America--both through the labors of Western and Latin American believers.
Reflections from Peru
I'm getting ready to get on a plane for home after two weeks in Peru visiting some of our teams in the mountains, the jungle and everything in between. Here are a few takeaways as I reflect on the trip:
I'm Comfortable: My first time overseas was a summer in East Africa 17 years ago. I didn't mind bathing in cold water, sitting in a taxi for 6 hours or eating strange foods. Now, I noticed that I was more easily irritated when I couldn't get e-mails on my BlackBerry, when the shower was lukewarm, when I was eating a bizarre fruit that looked and felt like a sack of frog eggs, as I was counting 57 mosquito bites on my arms sustained while waiting in line to use an ATM.
People Are the Same: Watching CNN several days ago, I observed the stark contrast of Houston's pleasure boats stacked up like firewood in the wake of hurricane Ike and the bodies of Haitians floating in flood waters like so much refuse from the same hurricane in a nation less than 400 miles off the coast of the United States. Life seems cheap in impoverished places like Haiti, and the same is true in more developed countries like Peru. But ultimately, as bearers of God's image, people are very much the same. They love their kids. They are proud of their culture. They want to earn a livable wage and provide for their families. They are afraid of dying. They are in need of God.
Our Missionaries Break Every Stereotype: The Pioneers workers serving in the villages of Peru are some of the most resourceful, intelligent, hard-working people I've met. All of them designed and built their own homes--mostly from local resources like adobe and wood. Incarnational in their approach, they are well-known and liked in the communities they serve and have increasing understanding of the culture and language. They are godly and selfless in their interactions with their neighbors, wrestling daily with the crises that the people face and sharing generously of their resources and time.
Latin America Has Unreached Peoples: This was my fourth visit to Latin America, and while it holds the stereotype of having a high concentration of evangelicals, this is primarily true of the urban centers. The isolated villages of the high Andes, the Amazon jungle and even rural parts of our close neighbor Mexico are home to people groups that have no access to the gospel. I met workers who have given up relatively comfortable lifestyles ministering in Peru's urban areas for the villages where they can live in community with the unreached. It is this approach that will ensure that the gospel invades every corner of Latin America--both through the labors of Western and Latin American believers.
I'm Comfortable: My first time overseas was a summer in East Africa 17 years ago. I didn't mind bathing in cold water, sitting in a taxi for 6 hours or eating strange foods. Now, I noticed that I was more easily irritated when I couldn't get e-mails on my BlackBerry, when the shower was lukewarm, when I was eating a bizarre fruit that looked and felt like a sack of frog eggs, as I was counting 57 mosquito bites on my arms sustained while waiting in line to use an ATM.
People Are the Same: Watching CNN several days ago, I observed the stark contrast of Houston's pleasure boats stacked up like firewood in the wake of hurricane Ike and the bodies of Haitians floating in flood waters like so much refuse from the same hurricane in a nation less than 400 miles off the coast of the United States. Life seems cheap in impoverished places like Haiti, and the same is true in more developed countries like Peru. But ultimately, as bearers of God's image, people are very much the same. They love their kids. They are proud of their culture. They want to earn a livable wage and provide for their families. They are afraid of dying. They are in need of God.
Our Missionaries Break Every Stereotype: The Pioneers workers serving in the villages of Peru are some of the most resourceful, intelligent, hard-working people I've met. All of them designed and built their own homes--mostly from local resources like adobe and wood. Incarnational in their approach, they are well-known and liked in the communities they serve and have increasing understanding of the culture and language. They are godly and selfless in their interactions with their neighbors, wrestling daily with the crises that the people face and sharing generously of their resources and time.
Latin America Has Unreached Peoples: This was my fourth visit to Latin America, and while it holds the stereotype of having a high concentration of evangelicals, this is primarily true of the urban centers. The isolated villages of the high Andes, the Amazon jungle and even rural parts of our close neighbor Mexico are home to people groups that have no access to the gospel. I met workers who have given up relatively comfortable lifestyles ministering in Peru's urban areas for the villages where they can live in community with the unreached. It is this approach that will ensure that the gospel invades every corner of Latin America--both through the labors of Western and Latin American believers.
06 September 2008
16 Years Ago Today
Sixteen years ago today I met my dream woman. It was a Sunday night, my first weekend at college, and I was visiting a church in a seedy part of town. I arrived way too early, and the pastor's wife assessed the scrawny Bible college student standing in the doorway.
"What's your ministry?"
"Piano and puppets."
"We don't have any puppets tonight. Can you play the piano?"
"Sure."
Twenty minutes later I was playing a song from a chord sheet while the pastor led worship. I think the song was "Blow the Trumpet in Zion." It was a "Jewish-style" praise chorus that takes a passage about God judging the Israelites with locusts and turns it into a celebratory dance. But it was the pastor's favorite, as I would later discover.
Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a young lady walk into the sanctuary and take a seat. While the offering was being received, the pastor called her to the platform to welcome her back from summer vacation. Apparently she was a regular.
"Do you want to sing a special?" he asked her.
"Sure," she said and asked if I knew the hymn "It Is Well With My Soul."
"Yeah," I stammered, trying not to gawk. It was definitely well with my soul.
Later that evening I joined her and several other North Central students at the associate pastor's home to share a pizza. I don't remember much about that evening except the uncomfortable feeling of desperately wanting to stare but acknowledging the social unacceptability of such behavior. I remember her clothes, her shoes, her glasses, the way she took them off when she adjusted her hair and, most of all, her laugh.
And I distinctly remember saying to myself in the most matter of fact of terms, I'm going to marry her.
Needless to say, at the time the feeling was not mutual, and I had the presence of mind to refrain from expressing my intentions until a more appropriate occasion. But the occasion did come, she said "Yes," and the rest is history.
Of the many ways God reveals His endless affection for me, none is more dramatic than the gift of my wife. I can honestly say the feelings I encountered in that living room 16 years ago pale in comparison to my love for my wife today. It is a both a qualitative and a quantitative difference, and it is a result of the sum total of joy, trials, pain and pleasure that we have experienced together.
"What's your ministry?"
"Piano and puppets."
"We don't have any puppets tonight. Can you play the piano?"
"Sure."
Twenty minutes later I was playing a song from a chord sheet while the pastor led worship. I think the song was "Blow the Trumpet in Zion." It was a "Jewish-style" praise chorus that takes a passage about God judging the Israelites with locusts and turns it into a celebratory dance. But it was the pastor's favorite, as I would later discover.
Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a young lady walk into the sanctuary and take a seat. While the offering was being received, the pastor called her to the platform to welcome her back from summer vacation. Apparently she was a regular.
"Do you want to sing a special?" he asked her.
"Sure," she said and asked if I knew the hymn "It Is Well With My Soul."
"Yeah," I stammered, trying not to gawk. It was definitely well with my soul.
Later that evening I joined her and several other North Central students at the associate pastor's home to share a pizza. I don't remember much about that evening except the uncomfortable feeling of desperately wanting to stare but acknowledging the social unacceptability of such behavior. I remember her clothes, her shoes, her glasses, the way she took them off when she adjusted her hair and, most of all, her laugh.
And I distinctly remember saying to myself in the most matter of fact of terms, I'm going to marry her.
Needless to say, at the time the feeling was not mutual, and I had the presence of mind to refrain from expressing my intentions until a more appropriate occasion. But the occasion did come, she said "Yes," and the rest is history.
Of the many ways God reveals His endless affection for me, none is more dramatic than the gift of my wife. I can honestly say the feelings I encountered in that living room 16 years ago pale in comparison to my love for my wife today. It is a both a qualitative and a quantitative difference, and it is a result of the sum total of joy, trials, pain and pleasure that we have experienced together.
You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride;
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
- Song of Solomon 4:9
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
- Song of Solomon 4:9
16 Years Ago Today
Sixteen years ago today I met my dream woman. It was a Sunday night, my first weekend at college, and I was visiting a church in a seedy part of town. I arrived way too early, and the pastor's wife assessed the scrawny Bible college student standing in the doorway.
"What's your ministry?"
"Piano and puppets."
"We don't have any puppets tonight. Can you play the piano?"
"Sure."
Twenty minutes later I was playing a song from a chord sheet while the pastor led worship. I think the song was "Blow the Trumpet in Zion." It was a "Jewish-style" praise chorus that takes a passage about God judging the Israelites with locusts and turns it into a celebratory dance. But it was the pastor's favorite, as I would later discover.
Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a young lady walk into the sanctuary and take a seat. While the offering was being received, the pastor called her to the platform to welcome her back from summer vacation. Apparently she was a regular.
"Do you want to sing a special?" he asked her.
"Sure," she said and asked if I knew the hymn "It Is Well With My Soul."
"Yeah," I stammered, trying not to gawk. It was definitely well with my soul.
Later that evening I joined her and several other North Central students at the associate pastor's home to share a pizza. I don't remember much about that evening except the uncomfortable feeling of desperately wanting to stare but acknowledging the social unacceptability of such behavior. I remember her clothes, her shoes, her glasses, the way she took them off when she adjusted her hair and, most of all, her laugh.
And I distinctly remember saying to myself in the most matter of fact of terms, I'm going to marry her.
Needless to say, at the time the feeling was not mutual, and I had the presence of mind to refrain from expressing my intentions until a more appropriate occasion. But the occasion did come, she said "Yes," and the rest is history.
Of the many ways God reveals His endless affection for me, none is more dramatic than the gift of my wife. I can honestly say the feelings I encountered in that living room 16 years ago pale in comparison to my love for my wife today. It is a both a qualitative and a quantitative difference, and it is a result of the sum total of joy, trials, pain and pleasure that we have experienced together.
"What's your ministry?"
"Piano and puppets."
"We don't have any puppets tonight. Can you play the piano?"
"Sure."
Twenty minutes later I was playing a song from a chord sheet while the pastor led worship. I think the song was "Blow the Trumpet in Zion." It was a "Jewish-style" praise chorus that takes a passage about God judging the Israelites with locusts and turns it into a celebratory dance. But it was the pastor's favorite, as I would later discover.
Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a young lady walk into the sanctuary and take a seat. While the offering was being received, the pastor called her to the platform to welcome her back from summer vacation. Apparently she was a regular.
"Do you want to sing a special?" he asked her.
"Sure," she said and asked if I knew the hymn "It Is Well With My Soul."
"Yeah," I stammered, trying not to gawk. It was definitely well with my soul.
Later that evening I joined her and several other North Central students at the associate pastor's home to share a pizza. I don't remember much about that evening except the uncomfortable feeling of desperately wanting to stare but acknowledging the social unacceptability of such behavior. I remember her clothes, her shoes, her glasses, the way she took them off when she adjusted her hair and, most of all, her laugh.
And I distinctly remember saying to myself in the most matter of fact of terms, I'm going to marry her.
Needless to say, at the time the feeling was not mutual, and I had the presence of mind to refrain from expressing my intentions until a more appropriate occasion. But the occasion did come, she said "Yes," and the rest is history.
Of the many ways God reveals His endless affection for me, none is more dramatic than the gift of my wife. I can honestly say the feelings I encountered in that living room 16 years ago pale in comparison to my love for my wife today. It is a both a qualitative and a quantitative difference, and it is a result of the sum total of joy, trials, pain and pleasure that we have experienced together.
You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride;
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
- Song of Solomon 4:9
you have stolen my heart
with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
- Song of Solomon 4:9
30 August 2008
Sleeping Dogs
Sleeping Dogs
Nate loves to sleep on the floor in our room, but so does Mini. ... And she's not giving up her spot for anyone. Even her "brother".
25 August 2008
Don't Miss It!
This ad has all the elements needed to promote a great event: explosions, a dove and misspelling of the word "anointed." My glamour shot courtesy of yearbookyourself.com.Don't Miss It!
This ad has all the elements needed to promote a great event: explosions, a dove and misspelling of the word "anointed." My glamour shot courtesy of yearbookyourself.com.
24 August 2008
Things That Blow My Mind #1
The existence of "uncontacted peoples," such as the community in Brazil that was recently covered in news reports just blows my mind. How could a group of people avoid connection with the outside world for centuries? What is entailed in taking the gospel to such isolated communities? What does the gospel look like once it arrives and takes root? I hope to find answers to some of these questions next week when I visit some friends in Latin America who are strategizing how to reach uncontacted tribes in isolated jungle regions. I'll be taking a jungle plane to get there and will bring a camera, a video camera and podcast equipment to record their stories--and perhaps mobilize others to join them.
23 August 2008
Things That Blow My Mind #1
The existence of "uncontacted peoples," such as the community in Brazil that was recently covered in news reports just blows my mind. How could a group of people avoid connection with the outside world for centuries? What is entailed in taking the gospel to such isolated communities? What does the gospel look like once it arrives and takes root? I hope to find answers to some of these questions next week when I visit some friends in Latin America who are strategizing how to reach uncontacted tribes in isolated jungle regions. I'll be taking a jungle plane to get there and will bring a camera, a video camera and podcast equipment to record their stories--and perhaps mobilize others to join them.
19 August 2008
7 Strange Statements at Saddleback
More than any speech or interview so far, Saturday's Saddleback Civil Forum moderated by Rick Warren, helped solidify my vote come November. However, there were definitely a few statements that--either because of their hubris, inconsistency or outright ignorance--deserve attention. Here are my top 7:
Identifying the three wisest people in his life:
Obama: "... my grandmother ..."
What? The "typical white" one?
Explaining what to do about the 148 million orphans globally:
McCain: "Well I think we have to make adoption a lot easier in this country. "
Huh? Warren was asking about the 148 million orphans globally. We can't adopt them all.
Describing the most gut-wrenching decision he had to make:
Obama: "... opposition to the war in Iraq ... "
Huh? You weren't even a U.S. senator when the war began--and you've since voted to fund the war that you say you oppose. And based on the number of "no votes" and "presents" in your senate record, I have a hard time believing you made very many decisions at all--let alone any gut-wrenching ones.
Defining "rich":
McCain: "Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. ... I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich."
Yep. Pretty much the American dream.
Defining when a baby is entitled to human rights:
Obama: "... answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade ..."
Couldn't you at least admit that a baby is entitled to human rights once it exits the birth canal? Or is that too risky?
Defeating evil:
McCain: "If I’m President of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice."
Good luck with that ...
Explaining how he'll reduce abortions:
Obama: "... we've had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down."
Not according to the Guttmacher Institute, which contends that the abortion rate fell 9 percent between 2000 and 2005.
Identifying the three wisest people in his life:
Obama: "... my grandmother ..."
What? The "typical white" one?
Explaining what to do about the 148 million orphans globally:
McCain: "Well I think we have to make adoption a lot easier in this country. "
Huh? Warren was asking about the 148 million orphans globally. We can't adopt them all.
Describing the most gut-wrenching decision he had to make:
Obama: "... opposition to the war in Iraq ... "
Huh? You weren't even a U.S. senator when the war began--and you've since voted to fund the war that you say you oppose. And based on the number of "no votes" and "presents" in your senate record, I have a hard time believing you made very many decisions at all--let alone any gut-wrenching ones.
Defining "rich":
McCain: "Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. ... I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich."
Yep. Pretty much the American dream.
Defining when a baby is entitled to human rights:
Obama: "... answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade ..."
Couldn't you at least admit that a baby is entitled to human rights once it exits the birth canal? Or is that too risky?
Defeating evil:
McCain: "If I’m President of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice."
Good luck with that ...
Explaining how he'll reduce abortions:
Obama: "... we've had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down."
Not according to the Guttmacher Institute, which contends that the abortion rate fell 9 percent between 2000 and 2005.
7 Strange Statements at Saddleback
More than any speech or interview so far, Saturday's Saddleback Civil Forum moderated by Rick Warren, helped solidify my vote come November. However, there were definitely a few statements that--either because of their hubris, inconsistency or outright ignorance--deserve attention. Here are my top 7:
Identifying the three wisest people in his life:
Obama: "... my grandmother ..."
What? The "typical white" one?
Explaining what to do about the 148 million orphans globally:
McCain: "Well I think we have to make adoption a lot easier in this country. "
Huh? Warren was asking about the 148 million orphans globally. We can't adopt them all.
Describing the most gut-wrenching decision he had to make:
Obama: "... opposition to the war in Iraq ... "
Huh? You weren't even a U.S. senator when the war began--and you've since voted to fund the war that you say you oppose. And based on the number of "no votes" and "presents" in your senate record, I have a hard time believing you made very many decisions at all--let alone any gut-wrenching ones.
Defining "rich":
McCain: "Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. ... I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich."
Yep. Pretty much the American dream.
Defining when a baby is entitled to human rights:
Obama: "... answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade ..."
Couldn't you at least admit that a baby is entitled to human rights once it exits the birth canal? Or is that too risky?
Defeating evil:
McCain: "If I’m President of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice."
Good luck with that ...
Explaining how he'll reduce abortions:
Obama: "... we've had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down."
Not according to the Guttmacher Institute, which contends that the abortion rate fell 9 percent between 2000 and 2005.
Identifying the three wisest people in his life:
Obama: "... my grandmother ..."
What? The "typical white" one?
Explaining what to do about the 148 million orphans globally:
McCain: "Well I think we have to make adoption a lot easier in this country. "
Huh? Warren was asking about the 148 million orphans globally. We can't adopt them all.
Describing the most gut-wrenching decision he had to make:
Obama: "... opposition to the war in Iraq ... "
Huh? You weren't even a U.S. senator when the war began--and you've since voted to fund the war that you say you oppose. And based on the number of "no votes" and "presents" in your senate record, I have a hard time believing you made very many decisions at all--let alone any gut-wrenching ones.
Defining "rich":
McCain: "Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. ... I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich."
Yep. Pretty much the American dream.
Defining when a baby is entitled to human rights:
Obama: "... answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade ..."
Couldn't you at least admit that a baby is entitled to human rights once it exits the birth canal? Or is that too risky?
Defeating evil:
McCain: "If I’m President of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice."
Good luck with that ...
Explaining how he'll reduce abortions:
Obama: "... we've had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down."
Not according to the Guttmacher Institute, which contends that the abortion rate fell 9 percent between 2000 and 2005.
12 August 2008
Collateral Damage
I didn't think I'd be posting any more on the Lakeland Revival, since visiting several weeks ago. However, it has been my observation from watching--and even being involved in--several similar movements, the collateral damage of bad theology is broken relationships. Lakeland revivalist Todd Bentley has apparently filed for separation from his wife. Interestingly, this is simultaneous with a statement from Peter Wagner explaining his attempts at providing apostolic oversite for Bentley--although no mention is made of the separation. As disturbed as I was by my experience at the revival, this is a time for grieving and praying, not gloating.
Collateral Damage
I didn't think I'd be posting any more on the Lakeland Revival, since visiting several weeks ago. However, it has been my observation from watching--and even being involved in--several similar movements, the collateral damage of bad theology is broken relationships. Lakeland revivalist Todd Bentley has apparently filed for separation from his wife. Interestingly, this is simultaneous with a statement from Peter Wagner explaining his attempts at providing apostolic oversite for Bentley--although no mention is made of the separation. As disturbed as I was by my experience at the revival, this is a time for grieving and praying, not gloating.
04 August 2008
I Visited the Lakeland Revival
Friday night I visited the Lakeland "Healing Outpouring" with two friends: Jon Rising, a writer who contributed several pieces to Ministry Today when I was editor; and Simon Chan, a theologian and author from Singapore whom I had the privilege of sharing a meal with at the Azusa Street Centennial in Los Angeles.
We arrived as the music was beginning, the area in front of the stage filled with people singing and jumping at worship leader Roy Fields' direction. The boom camera swooped above, zooming in on the devotees around the stage, but avoiding the back and sides of the tent, which were more sparsely populated. The common theme of the lyrics was freedom, as Fields instructed us to "drop the chains of tradition," "shut down your minds" and "shake off religion." I assume the "tradition" to which he was referring was the 400-year-old tradition of sitting in a pew, listening to a sermon and singing from a hymnbook--not the 100-year-old tradition of shouting, clapping and dancing in the spirit under a tent.
Todd Bentley came on stage toward the end of worship and promptly lay down behind the pulpit. Back in town after a traveling hiatus, the tattooed revivalist was attired in torn jeans and a "Heavenly Devoted Son" t-shirt styled like the "Harley Davidson" logo. Before introducing Bentley, an emcee gave several testimonies: someone healed of arthritis and a man raised from the dead. No location or identifying information was given for either account.
After taking the microphone, Bentley informed us that this was a "day of acceleration" and that he would be "unlocking things in the heavenlies." The message for the evening, he said, was one that God had taught him in 30 seconds on his first trip to heaven soon after he was saved 10 years ago. He assured us that it was a "divine decree," a "prophetic activation to loose and birth some things" and that a "breakthrough anointing" would begin within the next 24 hours. The first 40 minutes of his message was a repetition of these themes--an anticipation of something that God was "getting ready" to do. This was particularly significant, as Bentley will be leaving Lakeland in several weeks--concluding 144 days of ministry there (a number which he noted was "prophetic").
The basic gist of Bentley's message was that some people are intended to receive prophecy, healing or deliverance, but that they don't experience them because they don't "know how to go into heaven and get them." Bentley explained that, not only had he learned to go into heaven and claim his "prophetic destiny", but that he had figured out how to speed up prophecies that would normally take 10 years and make them happen in 1 year.
"I have learned that there are some things that God wants to do today, but there is a delay," he explained. "So, I just go into heaven and help God along, so it doesn't take 21 days for it to happen."
The service closed with a time of worship, in which attendees mimed shooting arrows at Satan, symbolically acting out the warfare that it would take to claim their prophetic words. Then, they lined up to be anointed assembly-line fashion by Bentley with cloths dipped in buckets of oil.
The sincerity of the attendees could not be questioned. Although one could argue that they were "sign-seekers" merely chasing bizarre manifestations and exotic teachings, many had obviously come with a hungry heart to experience God. But it is likely that they will leave the Lakeland meetings with a flawed view of Him.
In Bentley's world, God is a very human character, who must be bargained with and wrestled to accommodate our expectations. The supernatural is a mystical realm that can be manipulated with the skills of modern-day shamans who understand the rules and lingo by which it operates. The mind is a dangerous hindrance to worship that must be disengaged before we can effectively interact with our Creator or understand His ways. And religion and tradition are always negative factors that hinder truly "spiritual" activities.
Simply put, it's modern-day gnosticism.
http://www.ministrytodaymag.com/blog/2008/08/it-didnt-take-long-after-lakeland.html
We arrived as the music was beginning, the area in front of the stage filled with people singing and jumping at worship leader Roy Fields' direction. The boom camera swooped above, zooming in on the devotees around the stage, but avoiding the back and sides of the tent, which were more sparsely populated. The common theme of the lyrics was freedom, as Fields instructed us to "drop the chains of tradition," "shut down your minds" and "shake off religion." I assume the "tradition" to which he was referring was the 400-year-old tradition of sitting in a pew, listening to a sermon and singing from a hymnbook--not the 100-year-old tradition of shouting, clapping and dancing in the spirit under a tent.
Todd Bentley came on stage toward the end of worship and promptly lay down behind the pulpit. Back in town after a traveling hiatus, the tattooed revivalist was attired in torn jeans and a "Heavenly Devoted Son" t-shirt styled like the "Harley Davidson" logo. Before introducing Bentley, an emcee gave several testimonies: someone healed of arthritis and a man raised from the dead. No location or identifying information was given for either account.
After taking the microphone, Bentley informed us that this was a "day of acceleration" and that he would be "unlocking things in the heavenlies." The message for the evening, he said, was one that God had taught him in 30 seconds on his first trip to heaven soon after he was saved 10 years ago. He assured us that it was a "divine decree," a "prophetic activation to loose and birth some things" and that a "breakthrough anointing" would begin within the next 24 hours. The first 40 minutes of his message was a repetition of these themes--an anticipation of something that God was "getting ready" to do. This was particularly significant, as Bentley will be leaving Lakeland in several weeks--concluding 144 days of ministry there (a number which he noted was "prophetic").
The basic gist of Bentley's message was that some people are intended to receive prophecy, healing or deliverance, but that they don't experience them because they don't "know how to go into heaven and get them." Bentley explained that, not only had he learned to go into heaven and claim his "prophetic destiny", but that he had figured out how to speed up prophecies that would normally take 10 years and make them happen in 1 year.
"I have learned that there are some things that God wants to do today, but there is a delay," he explained. "So, I just go into heaven and help God along, so it doesn't take 21 days for it to happen."
The service closed with a time of worship, in which attendees mimed shooting arrows at Satan, symbolically acting out the warfare that it would take to claim their prophetic words. Then, they lined up to be anointed assembly-line fashion by Bentley with cloths dipped in buckets of oil.
The sincerity of the attendees could not be questioned. Although one could argue that they were "sign-seekers" merely chasing bizarre manifestations and exotic teachings, many had obviously come with a hungry heart to experience God. But it is likely that they will leave the Lakeland meetings with a flawed view of Him.
In Bentley's world, God is a very human character, who must be bargained with and wrestled to accommodate our expectations. The supernatural is a mystical realm that can be manipulated with the skills of modern-day shamans who understand the rules and lingo by which it operates. The mind is a dangerous hindrance to worship that must be disengaged before we can effectively interact with our Creator or understand His ways. And religion and tradition are always negative factors that hinder truly "spiritual" activities.
Simply put, it's modern-day gnosticism.
http://www.ministrytodaymag.com/blog/2008/08/it-didnt-take-long-after-lakeland.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)