I Made a Mormon Angry

Sunday afternoon, two young Mormon missionaries stopped by as I was putting up Christmas lights outside the house. In the past, I have played ignorant and allowed them to think I was a "religious seeker" of sorts, open to listening to their views. Today, as I saw them approach from my perch on the ladder, I prayed and felt directed to take a different tack.

"What is the gospel?" I immediately asked them.

They responded with an explanation that would suggest that we share the same views, but as I drilled down, it became apparent that we are worlds apart, and my refusal to budge from the dividing line sent them away more frustrated and angry than I've ever seen an LDS missionary before: They actually told me to my face that I am an apostate, as they turned their backs and quickly walked down my driveway.

What was the dividing line?

I embrace the "heresy of the closed canon."

Final authority for the Mormon is not the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price—all of which are sacred books to them. Their final authority is the living apostles and prophets of the LDS church, who possess the right to interpret and supercede all former teachings.

In the past, I've never had an LDS missionary openly tell me this, because we've spent most of our time dithering over obscure Bible passages about baptism for the dead or the meaning of the trinity. In the end, they leave smiling, as we "agree to disagree." The problem with this verbal shadowboxing is that it avoids the key area of difference between the LDS and biblical Christianity—which is not individual interpretations of obscure Bible passages, but what holds the final authority as the Word of God.

Lest you think this encounter gave me the spiritual jollies, let me remind you that the sovereign grace of God is the only thing that separates me from these sincerely deceived young men.

I inwardly grieved and prayed for them for the rest of the day.

Obsessed With the 'New'

I recently read this article on the need for evangelical leaders to embrace the "new" because they may miss the next big thing (e.g. the Catalyst Conference, the Willow Creek phenomenon or Rob Bell's NOOMA).

Interestingly, last night I read an article in National Geographic magazine about the Hadza, hunter-gatherers whose culture has experienced little to no noticeable change in 10,000 years. This people group of 1,000 living in northwestern Tanzania is nomadic, its members carrying their few possessions in small sacks on their backs. They resist change, are non-literate and have no understanding of or interest in the outside world. As the article aptly puts it, after 10 millennia, they have left no footprint on the earth.

So, here's the question: Is our obsession with change, progress, information and novelty a Christian value or a Western value? How does an expression of Christianity that places these values in such high regard engage with a culture like the Hadza that places a high value on tradition? One could argue that the introduction of medical technology, electricity, written language and hygiene to the Hadza would greatly improve their plight. In fact, some would say that these improvements provide a perfect venue for conveying the gospel.

But what if they don't want these things, and what if our insistence that they are backward because they don't becomes a hindrance to them accepting the one Thing they do need?

Is it any different here in the land of iPhones, big screens and H1N1 vaccinations?

Farmed-Out Faith

I was recently talking to a friend who is walking through some deep waters in his marriage and family. As we were unpacking some of the issues he is facing and I was recommending some resources for him, we became mutually aware of a disturbing reality.

He has been a believer for many years and has been a part of "gospel-preaching" churches—some that even add the word "full" to their gospel. He has heard multiple sermons on tithing, on the importance of bringing your family to church, getting involved in "ministry", supporting the vision of the pastor. But he has never been exposed to any substantive, biblical teaching on the role of the father as a shepherd and pastor to his own family.

As the lights went on, my friend became angry, as he realized that many of the things he had been taught in church had not been for the purpose of empowering him to fulfill the primary role God had given him. Instead, he was being systematically programmed to orient his life and his family's life to support and to become dependent on a religious institution and to subcontract his God-given responsibility to professional clergy.

Two types of people will one day be held accountable for this travesty: first, the pastors who encouraged it for the sake of increasing their egos and ensuring the security of their careers; and second, the lazy and cowardly fathers and husbands who farmed out their responsibilities.

Don't Censor Ezekiel

In some books of the Bible, euphemisms are used to describe sex. Take, for instance, Song of Solomon's talk of gardens, pomegranates and deer. However, as I've been reading Ezekiel, I've discovered that this wild and wooly prophet takes the opposite tack, describing in sexual terms things that aren't even remotely sexual. Consider the prophet's anger at Israel's penchant to seek political and military alliances with its pagan neighbors rather than trusting in God (see Ezekiel 23).

Here's the challenge: Moving past the question of why the Holy Spirit would inspire such graphic word pictures as Ezekiel 23:20-21, how can passages that are so historically particular be applied to my life? My strategy is to move from the universal to the personal by asking a few questions of the text:

Why were the Jews' political alliances so serious an offense to God that he describes them in these terms?

How does this text point toward Israel's need for a Deliverer who will transcend their political and national interests and transform their hearts?

How does this text reflect on the tendency of the people of God to put trust in political and military machinations to achieve earthly influence?

How does this text confront my own sinful habit of seeking security in temporal strategies—whether it's IRAs, insurance policies or business plans?

Go ahead, let the text confront you. Don't censor Ezekiel!

A Prayer for Friday the 13th

Since the posts this week have been dedicated to evil and whatnot, and since it's Friday the 13th, [I'm not superstitious, so the title is merely a crass attempt to generate traffic.] I ask you this: What are you praying for your kids? I am tempted to pray that God keeps them safe, protected from all evil. In fact, Matthew 6:13, part of the Lord's Prayer, seems to encourage me in this.

"And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

Or does it? Actually, I think it could be better translated, "Deliver us from the Evil One." (I'm not sure why my beloved NASB dropped the ball on this one, and the Non-Inspired Version got it right.) If my reading is correct, it reflects Jesus' own prayer for us in John 17:15, which uses the same Greek phrase. (The NASB gets it right this time, go figure.):

"I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one."

So, I pray that Satan will keep his hands of my kids—just like Jesus prayed for us. But I also pray that, as they grow up "in the world", God will empower them to confront evil on a personal and global scale.

Never Trust a Witch

This pre-Halloween article about the dangers of celebrating the holiday somehow evaded my notice until Monday. Here are a few key takeaways, if you don't read the article:

• Most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches.

• Halloween is a counterfeit holy day that is dedicated to celebrating the demonic trinity.

• During Halloween, time-released curses are loosed.

The author's information about Halloween has apparently been gleaned from her pre-conversion experience and her more recent interaction with witches, warlocks and and other occult practitioners. My question is this: Can you trust a witch?

For example, what if a witch (former or otherwise) says, "Our coven gathers at Walgreens the week before Halloween and cast spells on the bins of candy"? This may be true, but is it true also that the candy is then cursed? If you believe this, aren't you buying into the false worldview of the witch—a non-biblical deception that suggests inanimate objects can possess spiritual power, both evil and good?

Or if a warlock professes that he believes in the demonic trinity, does that mean that such a "trinity" exists? Furthermore, are "time-released" curses something we should really be worried about? Remember, just because occult practitioners believe these things are real does not make them real.

This is not to say that there are not supernatural realities that engage the real world—I've seen them manifest themselves. However, our theology of the supernatural should come from scripture alone, not those who are in bondage to the occult.

Note: Lest you think I am unfairly criticizing the author of this article, I have met and interviewed her for articles, and I've never met someone more simultaneously sincere and reckless in her misuse of scripture. If you're interested, read my article from 2004 titled "Deliverance Malpractice," in which I interview her.

3 Myths About the Devil

Yesterday's sermon on spiritual warfare got me thinking about some of the myths about the devil that I've heard over the years.

The devil can hear you. I've often heard people recount conversations they've had with the devil—and I'm usually a bit suspicious of these claims. Although Satan is a powerful fallen angel, he is not omniscient or omnipresent. As a created being, he is limited by time and space just like you and I are. Satan may dispatch agents to observe your actions and words and report back to him, but attempting to speak to him, command him, personally debate with him, etc. is a fruitless enterprise.

Satan wants you miserable. From Satan's perspective, unhappy, troubled, impoverished people have this unsavory habit of seeking God for solace. The devil's priority is simultaneously your temporary comfort and your eternal torment. Consider this instruction from C.S. Lewis's demon, Screwtape, to his protege: "Prosperity knits a man to the World. He feels that he is 'finding his place in it,' while really it is finding its place in him. His increasing reputation, his widening circle of acquaintances, his sense of importance, the growing pressure of absorbing and agreeable work, build up in him a sense of really being at home on Earth, which is just what we want."

You have authority over Satan. While it is enjoyable to imagine us smashing the devil, it is not something that is in our capacity or authority. Scripture provides no precedent for direct battle with Satan beyond resisting him by submitting to God (James 4:7). Jesus rebuked the disciples for gloating about their success in expelling demons (Luke 10:20). Paul notes that Satan will be crushed under our feet—but that it is God who will do the crushing (Romans 16:20).

Are there other myths about the devil that you've encountered?

The Lowercase God

Christianity Today's interesting question earlier this week ("Should Christians fast during Ramadan?") got me thinking about the identity of the god Muslims worship. Is he in some fashion the same deity as the God of the Bible?

Interestingly, Jesus encountered this question in His ministry, when the Pharisees questioned his bona fides in John 8:12-59. The text fairly sizzles, as supposedly "meek and mild" Jesus turns the tables on the Pharisees, calling them sons of Satan and warning these Law-abiding Jews that they will die in their sins because they don't really know the Father.

Why? Because they didn't know Jesus.

“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus tells them. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” ... “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me."

The God of the Old Testament—the God of the Bible—is the God who revealed Himself as a Middle Eastern peasant about 2,000 years ago. He was rejected by most of His own tribe, killed by a corrupt religious establishment in league with a pagan Roman government. God raised Him from the dead.

If you can't swallow that, we don't worship the same God.

Biblical Action Figures

My homie Jeff DM-ed me about a "Leviathan" action figure he saw in a Christian bookstore, and it got me thinking about some other biblical action figures that would be great tools to teach kids Bible stories:

1. Adam and Eve. The pre-fall Adam and Eve combo offers many teachable moments for teachers and parents who wish to explore the consequences of the first family's fall into sin and expulsion from Eden.

2. Nebuchadnezzar. Like a biblical Transformers toy, the Nebuchadnezzar action figure can be converted from a noble king to a four-legged beast of the field in mere seconds.

3. Proverbs 31 Woman. This is a great alternative to Barbie, a toy which merely perpetuates feminine stereotypes. The P31 is a sensible, godly woman who balances the responsibilities of family with her entrepreneurial skills.

4. Woman/Beast Combo. For more mature children, Revelation's "whore of Babylon" comes with a ravenous, seven-headed dragon to ride. Depending on your eschatological leanings, she may be accessorized with a bishop's miter.

What other action figure ideas am I missing?

KJV-ers and the Quran

The recent story of a KJV-only church burning non-KJV Bibles got me thinking about the three main views of how God inspired holy texts:

1. Islam. God spoke through his prophet Muhammad, in Arabic, and Muhammad transcribed God's words—in Arabic. Translation of the Quran into other languages is discouraged, because the Quran is only considered truly inspired and reliable in Arabic.

2. KJV-Only. Numerous authors penned the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments in Greek and Hebrew. However, it was not until 1,500 years later that God miraculously enabled King James' clerics to compile and translate manuscripts into an English Bible that is now the only truly inspired and inerrant version available.

3. Classical Evangelical. The Holy Spirit led authors to pen 66 books in Greek and Hebrew—the original manuscripts of which are inspired, inerrant and authoritative. We no longer have any of these original documents, but the thousands of copies of these manuscripts that we do have allow us to reliably translate God's Word into any language on earth.

Now, which of these two views are most similar?

The Prodigal God

I know I'm a bit late to the game with this book, but better late than never. Tim Keller's The Prodigal God is a quick read, but it is both deep and convicting—particularly for those of us who have grown up in the church (the "older brothers" in Jesus' parable of the two sons.)

For years I've accepted the premise that Keller argues in the book: that the famous parable is at its core an indictment on the self-righteous ones who refuse to rejoice at God's extravagant and "prodigal" love for the lost. But Keller takes the argument further to expose the uncomfortable implications of the parable: that neither of the sons really love their Father and that only one is restored to fellowship in the end. If we really understand the story as Jesus intended it, it will likely offend our sense of common decency.

As Keller argues, if the gospel is like a lake, there is probably no other part of the New Testament in which the bottom of the lake can be more clearly seen than in this parable. It is a story about the devastating consequences of moralism and self-righteousness. Unless decent, upstanding "Christians" like you and me repent of our wretched tendency to think that we deserve God's love because we follow His rules, we will end up like the older brother, watching our Father celebrating with prostitutes and tax collectors while we sit outside the gates sulking—and even hating Him for it.

When They Find a Cure

My daughter was recently exposed to a "sex talk" by a well-meaning Christian fool. In the process of withholding my rage and re-educating her I once again became aware of how spiritually bankrupt the church becomes when it divorces the gospel from topics as important as sex.

The gist of the "talk" was an urban-legend style, fear-based appeal to stay out of bed, or you might end up like the girl who spent a crazy weekend with a guy, who afterward gave her an appreciation gift. When she opened the package it contained a little wood coffin, in which was a piece of paper with the words, "Welcome to the world of AIDS."

Since when is it effective to use fear of death to keep teens out of trouble? My kids want to skydive, jump their bikes over ramps and pick up snakes. They crave danger and risk. Dare I say, it's how God wired them?

This may sound harsh, but fear is the only wrench in the toolbox of biblically illiterate and immature Christians who are too lazy or ignorant to piece together an articulate biblical case for purity. But what happens when we find a cure for AIDS—and I pray we will? What happens when our advanced culture removes all the potential earthly consequences for sin—and we may?

Benny Hinn on ABC

It must have been the presence of Benny Hinn's "publicist" that caused the interviewer to pretend to ask Hinn probing questions like this one on ABC News last night:

"Are you taking advantage of people?"

Huh?! Let me rephrase that question for you—and would someone please distract the "publicist" with a platter of bear claws long enough for me to get it out?

"Mr. Hinn, after 30-plus years of ministry you have not offered proof of one verifiable miracle in your crusades. You receive a salary in excess of $500,000 per year from a secretive ministry run by family members and friends. You travel in a private jet and stay in hotel rooms worth upwards of $5,000 per night. You appear regularly on TBN and promise viewers that they will receive wealth, spiritual protection and salvation for their family members if they give you and TBN their money. Many of your donors are the poor and elderly, with limited financial resources. Trained hypnotists and illusionists who attend your crusades claim that they use the very same techniques to manipulate suggestible people in their audiences. ...

... Is there any possibility you are not taking advantage of people?"

God Is Not a Gentleman

I've often heard the phrase worked into sermons and books as a defense of free will: "God is a gentleman. He won't make you do something you don't want to do." But it has never rung true to me—beside the fact that it portrays God as a polite (and even milquetoast) suitor, not the passionate Bridegroom, dangerous Warrior and omnipotent King we find in Scripture.

I don't want a gentleman God, one who knocks once and leaves when no one answers, who encounters a funeral procession and keeps on walking lest He disturb the family, who meets a rich man and meekly suggests he give away a mere 10 percent of his worldly goods. Do you see where I'm going with this?

If God is who He says He is, He possesses the right to supersede my will and impose His own on my life, and doing so is not an act of intrusion, but of infinite grace. This is why Scripture describes conversion in terms of an infant being born, a slave being freed, a dead person being raised—all examples in which no free will is involved.

How do these dynamics interact with human choice? I'm still figuring that out, but I wonder if the concept of free will expressed in Christian circles is merely a Western invention that avoids the sometimes uncomfortable aspects of God's sovereignty and puts humans in the driver's seat where they don't belong.

3 Ways to "Engage" Culture

There has been a lot of talk lately about the importance of the church "engaging" culture. So, I offer here a brief, but helpful, primer on three ways you can engage culture this week:

Mimic It. This can be very lucrative, since Christians would prefer their hard-earned dollars go to a fellow Christian, not funding someone's porn or drinking habit. The goal is to stay hip, but also make a spiritual statement. T-shirts and mugs can really make someone think about the emptiness of their life without God. How can it be wrong, when the product we're advertising is life changing?



"Find God" in It. You may be surprised to discover that God can be found in many books, movies, TV shows and songs created by people who hate Him. He's tricky that way. To help you find Him, you will need a book or small-group study written by someone who is knowledgeable in these various cultural artifacts. It takes an expert, because sometimes He's wearing a vampire cape, or short and green He is and reverses His grammar He does.

Hate. When all else fails, it is important to inform our fallen culture that it is in fact fallen. For instance, if—by holding signs at their funerals and "weddings"—we make sure homosexuals and other sinners know where they are going, it's possible that they will stop doing those dirty things that God hates and He will like them as much as He likes us.

Racism: The Ultimate Taboo

The fact that some in Hollywood are defending child-rapist Roman Polanski reminded me of a cultural dynamic that I have been meaning to blog about. Having sex with children may have once been the "last taboo"—but not anymore. It would appear that the most socially egregious sin that one can commit these days is racism—and it is therefore the one sin we will never admit to committing.

We are misunderstood, like Joe Wilson. We are drunk, like Kanye West. We need anger management, like Michael Richards. We are doing our jobs, like the Cambridge police officers. But—get this straight—we are not racist.

How frequently we see the press conference featuring the public figure with tightly-pursed lips and loyal spouse by his side, admitting in sometimes lurid detail to all manner of criminal and immoral conduct. But have you ever seen someone stand up and openly confess this:

"The truth is, I hate black people. Racism is a dark secret in my past—a secret I thought I could conceal. I need help, and I'm getting it. Please respect my family at this difficult time. I'm so sorry for what I put them through."

Why?

Does God Cause Suffering?

Every Christian will eventually have to work through his or her theodicy (i.e. Why does a good God let bad things happen to people?). Some will swing to the side of hyper-Calvinism, which sees God as the author of all manner of evil, from the Holocaust to the hangnail. Others will see God as an eternal victim of a universe gone wrong, as He battles to wrest control from Satan, who alone is responsible for everything that can, from a human perspective, be labeled "bad."

I've been reading Henry Blackaby's Experiencing God, and he makes what appears to be an offhand statement that I thought shed profound light on the question as to whether God causes suffering. He asks, "How can we experience God's comfort if we never experience suffering?" This same question could be asked about many of the other ways we experience God:

• How can we experience God's provision, if we do not experience want?


• How can we experience God's mercy, if we are not aware of His wrath?


• How can we experience God's protection, if we live a life devoid of danger?


• How can we experience God's healing, if we never suffer illness?


• How can we experience God's freedom, if we have never known bondage?

One could argue that these instances are simply God following Satan around, redeeming all the bad things he does. But what if He sovereignly ordains some of these experiences so that we may know Him better?

Oh you'll meet the Lord in the furnace,
A long time before you meet Him in the sky.
- Rich Mullins, "Where You Are"

Different Folds

@rickwarren's Tweet on Thursday got me thinking: Some subgroups of Christians will be shocked when they see who is in heaven."I have sheep that arent of this fold"- Jesus

First, I've got nothing against Brother Rick—he once bought me mini doughnuts and a pint of milk, and told me he was a Bapticostal, thereby securing my affections. I'm not even sure exactly where he was going with the Tweet, but I know that the passage he cited has often been interpreted as an inclusivist text:

"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." - John 10:16

On a daily basis, Jesus reveals Himself personally in visions to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and animists—without the help of a missionary—and they experience radical conversion. But inclusivists believe there may be people in other religions who are saved apart from putting faith in Jesus. In other words, Jesus saves them without their knowledge.

Of course, these are not the Hitlers, Pol Pots or Idi Amins of their respective religions we're talking about here. They are the sweetly ignorant savages who have good hearts but are geographically isolated from the gospel. That would be so cool if it weren't so Pelagian.

Does the context—and the meaning—of John 10:16 really support the idea that people can be saved apart from putting conscious faith in Jesus?

Ready for Cancer?

I heard recently that a college acquaintance succumbed to cancer at 40, and I was reminded again of the blessing and the curse that is cancer.

It's entirely possible that a cancerous cell is even now lurking somewhere in my body, having received its assignment of mutation from a twisted strand of DNA gone wrong somewhere between me and Adam.

I'm not wishing for it, but I've known others who made the transition from life to Life courtesy of a bullet, a windshield or a blocked artery. So, how could I curse God for giving me three months or three years to set my house in order and say goodbye, to drain every last good word from my soul—particularly those that become trapped on the tongue when the Grim Reaper is off attending to someone else's business?

The thing worse than the physical suffering of the afflicted must be the grief of the long goodbye, the interminable boarding of the plane before it sets off for an exciting new destination, those left behind standing forlorn on the tarmac.

Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
or the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
or the wheel broken at the well. - Ecclesiastes 12:6

Who's the Boss [Revised]

So, I overreacted in my post several months ago on leadership. Some readers a bit more discerning than myself pointed this out in conversations and comments, so I thought I'd revise the post. (Note, I'm not deleting it. This blog is a living record of my learning process.)

As it turns out, what I was reacting against was probably not real biblical leadership in the church, but "savage wolves" posing as shepherds. Of course, this should come as no surprise, since Paul warned that such thugs would rise up from within the church and ravage it. But the presence of wolves does not negate the need for shepherds—it reinforces it. [And, yes, Mr. Stanley. With all due respect, we should still call them "shepherds."]

Of course, what that leadership looks like is something unusual, countercultural and crucifying to the flesh. There is no model for true New Testament church leadership apart from that found in scripture. It is not found in the business world, in the military, in the classroom or even in the Old Testament religious structure.

I wrote, "The early church had essentially no authority but the Holy Spirit as he worked in the hearts of believers." But, as friends pointed out, elders and deacons clearly had positions of authority and oversight in local fellowships, and bishops seemed to have responsibility over groups of congregations. While the ultimate accountability for spiritual growth lies in the hands of the individual, scripture does point to those who have been called to leadership in congregational life.

Note my emphasis of "congregational." I still don't see much biblical substantiation for modern denominational government beyond the local level—whether Protestant or Catholic—or the similar "apostolic" and "prophetic" spiritual pyramid schemes common in the independent charismatic/Pentecostal community.

But I'm open to change. Show me the scriptures, like you did last time ...

Music Is Not Worship

Since when did the word "worship" become synonymous with the practice of singing and playing instruments during a congregational meeting? The biblical concept of worship is much broader—something far greater than the liturgical aspects of singing, playing instruments, etc. It encompasses one's lifestyle, one's orientation toward God, one's work.

I recently saw the following video of a "worship leader" encouraging kids to remove their flip-flops and spin them around as a sign that they were on "holy ground." There are not a lot of words, but the song is catchy and basically talks about God spinning us around like a record. It's hypnotic and goes on for 10 minutes. Don't worry. If you watch the first 2 minutes, you've heard the whole song.

So, imagine my surprise when I heard the "real" song a few days ago when I was at a water park with my kids. Luckily my kids were in the wave pool, so the lyrics were drowned out. The song euphemistically (yet repeatedly) describes a sex act. Sorry, there are some things you just can't sanctify.

Marriage, Divorce and the Church

Recently, I was in a car with a few of my colleagues—all older and smarter than me—and I began making outrageous statements (as is my custom) to see if any of them would rise to the occasion and correct me as a young fool in need of some schooling. Unfortunately, no one took the bait. I'm not sure what that means, but I'm hoping that someone here will take the challenge and set me straight, if I'm in need of edjewkashun. Here are some bullet points of my thoughts on the topic of marriage and divorce—and its implications in the church:

• Marriage is something that God (not a pastor or justice of the peace) performs (Genesis 2:22; Matthew 19:6). It occurs when God seals a man and woman into a life-long, covenant relationship with the community of faith as witnesses. Governments and religious bodies may or may not recognize this union and confer on it various legal privileges or responsibilities, but their recognition (or lack thereof) in no way legitimizes (or delegitimizes) the union.


• Therefore, divorce among believers is not a legal issue, but an issue of "church discipline", as it is a breaking of a covenant within the body of Christ (Matthew 18:15-17). Reconciliation, not legal dissolution, should be the first step of dealing with it. If an offended party refuses to reconcile, or an offending party refuses to repent, there would appear to be biblical substantiation for the church body to expel that person (or both) from the covenant community and for the faithful party to separate him/herself from his/her spouse indefinitely until the sinning party repents and is restored to fellowship.

Now, maybe these statements don't seem that inflammatory or controversial, but consider the implications. I'm arguing that there is no biblical concept of "secular" marriage, since marriage is a covenant institution inextricably intertwined with its purpose as a reflection of the Trinity and the relationship of Christ and His church and as a means of advancing the gospel. Therefore, ...

• Are unbelievers really married? Apparently so, because Paul gives instructions to people who are married to unbelievers (1 Corinthians 7:14).


• Do new believers, who were previously married, need to get "re-married" or affirm their covenant in the presence of the believing community?


• Just because a couple is legally divorced, are they really divorced in God's sight, if they have not gone through church discipline?


• What would a church look like if it actually applied these principles? How long would it take before it was sued or the pastor "ridden out on a rail"? (Someone, please explain that euphemism, while you're at it.)


• On a personal note, I would like to take my Holy Ghost time machine back in church history and strangle the person whose idea it was to relinquish marriage into the hands of secular government.

Now it's your turn ...

Where's the Wackiness Start?

I've had the opportunity to meet people from many church traditions—from strict fundamentalists to self-proclaimed prophets and apostles and everything in between.

One of my favorite stories is when a well-known pastor (he called himself a "bishop") explained to me that he possessed an even greater level of "genius" than T.D. Jakes, because he was born under the same astrological sign, but that his birthday was several days before that of Jakes.

Another TV evangelist explained to me that, if one could master the proper formula, he or she could possess absolutely anything they asked for in prayer. "It works like a charm," he noted.

Someone else described how, on a trip to heaven, she had seen warehouses with aborted baby parts that were reassembled by angels and distributed to childless couples.

Several times, I've been asked whether I thought there is a common denominator among those who cling to religious fairy tales—and successfully convince others to believe them through their teaching.

There is. The common denominator is that these people do not accept the "authorial intent" of Scripture. In other words, they don't believe that the text means today the same thing the author intended it to mean to his original audience. Since there is no anchor, when they "study" Scripture, virtually any meaning can be injected into the text.

Often, odd interpretations are attributed to the Holy Spirit revealing a "deeper" or "revelatory" meaning to the reader, since the plain meaning of the text is simply too mundane. Additionally, this model of hermeneutics creates a special class of interpreter who is able to mine insights from the Scriptures that are inaccessible to the average Christian.

Someone once explained to me the concept of "sympathetic magic" that they said they had observed in deliverance ministry. I questioned them as to where in Scripture they had seen this idea. This person admitted that there was no direct reference to sympathetic magic in Scripture but said, “Everything can’t be put to Scripture. It’s got to be rhema, not logos. Napoleon sailed across the water, but you can’t find that in the Word.”

I don't think the answer to this problem is more book exposés, more theological education or more heresy hunter "ministries". This battle is fought on a local level as pastors model good Bible study methods and these methods are reproduced in families and small groups in the church. I'm thankful for every pastor that fights this fight, laboring in the gospel by properly handling the text.

The Divine Deli

A recent Newsweek article suggests that Americans are more Hindu than Christian in their worldviews. I guess this shouldn't be a surprise. Hinduism is essentially a pluralistic religion, so as the West migrates toward pluralism, its religious views will be more and more compatible with Hinduism—regardless of the fact that the average Joe knows nothing about the nuts and bolts of Hinduism and thinks "dharma" is the business venture behind the mysterious island in the TV drama, LOST.

"Stephen Prothero, religion professor at Boston University, has long framed the American propensity for 'the divine-deli-cafeteria religion' as 'very much in the spirit of Hinduism. You're not picking and choosing from different religions, because they're all the same,' he says. 'It isn't about orthodoxy. It's about whatever works. If going to yoga works, great—and if going to Catholic mass works, great. And if going to Catholic mass plus the yoga plus the Buddhist retreat works, that's great, too.'"

The problem is not that this divine deli exists—it always has. The problem is that the church has decided to sell its products at the same deli. Unfortunately, our "product" is too costly, the flavor is not always appealing to the palate and the rewards of "using" the product are often not realized until the death of the user.

The Louder You Scream

Grace is so big and so undeserved.

While I was walking the dog last night, I listened to a message on John 5, in which Jesus healed a crippled man by the pool of Bethesda. Along with the fact that Jesus performed this miracle on the Sabbath (and instructed the man to carry his bed on the Sabbath), the story highlights the absolute helplessness of the man's condition. The man did absolutely nothing to receive his healing. In fact, the man didn't even recognize that Jesus was a healer until it was "too late"—while he was busy complaining to Jesus about not having anyone to put him in the pool, Jesus healed him!

Contrast that with this little video clip, in which "Prophetess" Christina Glenn, soon to be the third wife of "Bishop" Thomas Wesley Weeks III, informs her listeners that the loudness of their screaming will determine the size of the miracle they get.

This Book Makes Me Worship

I picked up Hugh Ross's Creation as Science several years ago and haven't bothered to read it until recently. Ross is an astronomer, an evangelical and the founder of Reasons to Believe, a ministry whose mission is to "show that science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies."

If you believe in a 6,000-year-old earth and that creation occurred in seven 24-hour days, the book may challenge your worldview. (Ross effectively argues for a 13.73 billion-year-old universe that began with a God-initiated Big Bang.) He also takes on classic evolutionists, traditional creationists and IDers as well, in a tone that is both respectful to those with whom he disagrees and reverent toward Scripture.

The most amazing effect of the book, though, is that I have found myself utterly amazed at God. The profound size and age of the universe and infinitesimal conditions that are required for life on this unique planet make not believing in God a joke. Ross spends almost no time defending the existence of God—he merely lays out the facts, and it becomes obvious.

Here's just one item that will blow your mind:

"... Astronomers determine that the entire observable universe contains at least 200 billion galaxies. These galaxies contain an estimated average of 200 billion stars each. The total number of stars in these galaxies, then, is 40 billion trillion. The unobserved dwarf galaxies would contribute an estimated additional 10 billion trillion. Thus, the total number of stars in the observable universe adds up to about 50 billion trillion."

Yeah, my mind can handle that just fine, but what about this?

"One reason the universe must be so massive is that life requires it. The density of protons and neutrons determines how much of the universe's hydrogen fuses into heavier elements. With a slightly lower density (producing fewer than about 50 billion trillion observable stars), nuclear fusion would be less productive and at no time in cosmic history (either in the big bang or in stars) would elements heavier than helium be produced. Or, if the density were slightly higher (producing more than about 50 billion trillion observable stars), nuclear fusion would be so productive that only heavier-than-iron elements would exist. Either way, life-essential elements such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorous would be too scarce or nonexistent."

"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 1:20

Pastoral Affairs and God's Independence

One of the attributes of God is "independence"—not one that gets preached on too much, because it cuts across the grain of human arrogance with a vengeance. The implication of God's independence is that He doesn't need us, that we can neither add nor take away anything from His existence. Additionally, He can carry out His plan of global redemption independent of our involvement.

How does this relate to pastors having affairs?

Consider the Orlando pastor (and father of four) who carried on a 1-year-long affair with an exotic dancer, leading his wife to divorce him and start a church of her own down the road. After a three-month period of "counseling" he was back in the pulpit. You would think the "restoration" process away from church leadership would be at least as long as the affair that led to it.

Or what about the church planter who was removed from his position after being caught carrying on an illicit relationship with his married personal assistant? Now, 11 weeks later, he and his wife are divorcing (he also has small children), but a quick perusal of his Twitter feed would indicate that the primary thing on his mind is planting another church.

Many would assume that these pastors are simply power-hungry reprobates, but I have a different theory. When I read interviews with them and posts from their blogs, I think they actually believe they are indispensable to God—that the ministry they have been called to cannot be carried out without them. Simply put, God needs them. Their motives for returning to ministry are noble: They want to reach people for Jesus, and they see themselves as possessing a unique gift for doing this—sometimes even more so after they have fallen into sin. It is the activity surrounding this "indispensable" ministry for God that gives them fulfillment, because they are convinced that they play a crucial role in God's Kingdom.

I think it is this demonic codependency that leads to many being "called" into pastoral ministry who belong in a different field, and it leads many to stay in ministry long past the time they have disqualified themselves.

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things." - Acts 17:24-25

Succession or Nepotism?

I've observed an interesting trend in at least three megachurches recently: the man who grew the church to "mega" status retires and appoints his son to replace him. All of the young men are in their late 20s or early 30s and served on staff at their fathers' churches before being appointed senior pastor.

Only time will tell how this will work out, but consider that in all three instances the young men grew up in great wealth and privilege (think private jets and mansions) with the unique status of being a PK. They began preaching at an early age—often in their teens—attended Bible college or did an internship, and are now given leadership of congregations of thousands, huge staffs and budgets of tens of millions of dollars. In the process, associate pastors with greater maturity, education and experience have been passed over and are now their employees.

Am I the only one who sees a disaster in the making?

The Mind Is Slave to the Heart

In my Christian experience, I've heard much about the danger of the mind. Books have been written (think Joyce Meyer's Battlefield of the Mind), sermons have been preached and it wouldn't surprise me if demons of "book larnin'" have been cast out. The mind, it is taught, is the barrier to understanding God, accepting Him, worshiping Him.

The problem is, that even a quick perusal of scripture would indicate that the mind is not the problem—in fact, the mind is often what we are encouraged to engage in our contemplation of God, our study of His Word and remembrance of His laws. The problem is not the mind, it is the heart—specifically the unregenerate heart.

Simply put, my mind is a slave to my heart. Where my heart goes, my mind will follow.

I ignore evidence of the Creator—even as it is clear in the fingerprints of science, mathematics and astronomy—not because my mind isn't functioning, but because my heart is darkened, and this depravity of heart causes my mind to ignore the obvious. "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1).

Inversely, when my heart is transformed, my mind sees God everywhere. It becomes a tool in the hands of God for helping me to understand His Word, defend His truth, explore His world. My mind is renewed, not apart from, but because of the new heart God gives me.

Polyamory: It's Perfectly Natural

"Everyone in a relationship wrestles at some point with an eternal question: can one person really satisfy every need?" So says Newsweek's Jessica Bennett in a recent article on polyamory.

I have to agree, and with the proponents of polyamory interviewed in the article, I concur that the practice is natural. It is as natural as sailors stranded on a lifeboat for weeks plunging their faces over the side to drink their fill of saltwater. Anyone seeking satisfaction in human relationships is seeking a truly noble thing. The logic is seemingly solid: If I can find pleasure in the companionship of one person, that pleasure would be multiplied by multiplying the number of people with whom I'm enjoying that pleasure. It's a no-brainer.

The problem is that these seekers will always come up empty. They are carnivores at a salad bar. We were not created for each other. We were created for God, and we will only find satisfaction in the One for whom we were made.

“Thou hast made us for Thyself O God, and the heart of man is restless until it finds its rest in Thee.” - Augustine

I'd love to hear some of the Christian culture warriors respond to the trend of polyamory with this angle. I think it would throw the media a curveball.

Neither Protestant Nor Catholic

In this fascinating article in Christianity Today, Milton Acosta (a Latino theologian) argues that the church in Latin America is neither Protestant nor Catholic. In doing so, he offers a tempering perspective to the upbeat predictions of Philip Jenkins in The Next Christendom.

Acosta notes that, although the church there appears to be Pentecostal in many respects, it does not share the historical lineage of or even many of the core doctrines of Pentecostalism. Instead, the most prolific sector of Latin Christianity combines the hierarchical and authoritarian structure of Catholicism (with self-proclaimed apostles and prophets), indigenous shamanism (with "blowing" and "whistling" at evil spirits [a la Benny Hinn]) and traditional Pentecostalism (with speaking in tongues and prophecy).

In spite of all this religious activity, the clear gospel is not being preached, resulting in a complete lack of knowledge of the basic doctrines of the Reformation, such as sola gratia, sola scriptura or sola fide [grace alone, scripture alone, faith alone].

As you may imagine, the reason for this phenomenon may be traced to the prevalence of Enlace, the Spanish version of TBN, which ...

"has become 'a true magisterium' beyond denominational beliefs and practices. It is available in most Latin American countries. Most evangelicals turn it on several times a week. No matter what topic Enlace is dealing with, the message boils down to making "pacts" with God, wherein a person must demonstrate the seriousness of his prayer request by sending money along with it. Pastors with little or no training imitate Enlace preachers, and the effect intensifies.

"Many Enlace-style churches have reduced the message of the gospel to economic prosperity. Based on belief in evil spirits' hidden conspiracies that can only be averted by economic pacts—a contemporary version of indulgences—some of these churches end up in clear continuity with the surrounding culture of amulets, or magical ways of quickly obtaining wealth and happiness. The celebrities who represent this kind of overnight wealth are Mafia members and druglords. The final product, says Piedra, is religious consumerism."

>>For an example of the type of "Christian" shamanism TBN is exporting to Lati American and beyond, check this out.<<

Abortion, Contraceptives, Hardness of Heart

Explaining why Moses permitted divorce, Jesus said it was "because of the hardness of your hearts" (Mark 10:5). Some scholars argue that Moses allowed divorce to protect women (Deuteronomy 24). In other words, if a man kicked his wife out without divorcing her, she would not be able to remarry—leaving her destitute. Simply put, although divorce is condemned as sin in scripture, the Mosaic law provides specific instructions as to how it should be carried out.

I have mixed feelings about abortion reduction strategies—in the same way I would have had mixed feelings about slavery reduction legislation in the 1860s, partial women's suffrage in the 1910s, lynching reduction plans in the 1940s. It feels like halfhearted justice to me.

In spite of the author's obvious bias, this Slate article on a new abortion reduction bill is informative. However, there is a stumbling block in this bill that has tripped up many conservatives: contraception. The bill explicitly requires grantees to "encourage teens to delay sexual activity." But because it also requires grantees to provide "information about the risks and benefits of all contraceptives", it is anathema to conservatives. I think the concern is that teens will have more sex if they have access to contraceptives, and distributing contraceptives is an implied approval of premarital sex.

My question is this: If Moses were alive today in our postmodern secular culture ...

• ... would he approve of the distribution of contraceptives if it were proven that it resulted in fewer abortions ...


• ... would he support laws that limit access to abortion without outlawing it altogether ...


• ... would he approve of some type of non-marital legal status for homosexual couples ...


• ... would he approve of laws to govern the distribution of substances that may be abused and destroy lives and families ...

... because of the hardness of our hearts?

I don't know where I stand on these questions, and there is not much of a parallel between the theocracy of ancient Israel and the democracy of modern America. But it's worth considering how the law of God is intended to address the inevitability of human sin.

Stop Preaching Hot-Button Issues

Recently, I noticed a church Website was marketing a new preaching series on hot-button issues. Visitors could vote on topics such as drugs, divorce, eating disorders, cussing, etc. Ostensibly, the high-rated items would then be tackled by the pastor in future sermons. Of course, this model is not new. In fact, it follows the same narrative of fundamentalists of the past--although it's wrapped in much hipper packaging for today's po-mo audience suspicious of religious "do"s and "don't"s. Here's the drill:

Step 1: Observe cultural trend that is being "ignored" by the church.
Step 2: Formulate position on said cultural trend.
Step 3: Assemble unassailable barrage of proof texts and personal testimonies to tackle cultural trend.
Step 4: Market series through those church signs with the individual block letters (if you're old-timey) or the Wide World Interwebs (if you're cool).
Step 4: Preach, using above materials to sway the opinion of the listeners.

Believe me--I am as guilty of this as the next guy. When I was a youth pastor, I tried it. See two kids holding hands? It's time to teach on dating. Smell smoke? Let's polish up the ol' tobaccy sermon. Hear kids buzzing about a questionable movie? Turn in your Bibles to Psalm 101:3.

The problem with this method is its inherent arrogance. Preaching becomes about behavior modification, not exposing listeners' hearts to the scalpel of the text, allowing the Holy Spirit to do the rest. Besides, the alternative is far too boring: preach the scriptures and tackle issues when they come up in scripture. In context.

I once heard Walter Kaiser say that preaching should follow not only the content of scripture, but its contours. If I preach through books, chapters and verses, I will cover what the Holy Spirit wants me to cover, not what my agenda is, based on the perceived needs of my hearers or the culture at large.

Methland

Methland is, if anything, a masterful piece of journalism. But it's more than that, as author Nick Reding traces the connections between the rise of methamphetamine traffic and economic duress in rural America. His no-holds-barred depiction of the human destruction caused by meth addiction both turns the stomach and breaks the heart. This account about a recovering addict reveals the unmistakable spiritual dimension of meth addiction:

The bad news, said Major, was that he lacked anything in which to believe. He was working hard--at staying clean, at raising Buck, at making money. But without meth, Major found it impossible to feel, as he put it, "happy." ... Even when Major did the right thing, he couldn't quite believe in its rightness, for that thing didn't satisfy him--meth did. ... To get back to normal--that is, to begin once again to derive meaning from the humdrum facts of life--might take years. ... Major's self-admonishment that he ought to be grateful is no substitute for the neurotransmitters--and the feeling of well-being they create--that he can no longer produce. In the meantime, the gravitational pull of meth, with its pyrotechnic promise of biochemical ecstasy, could be overwhelming.

Let the Unchurched Stay That Way

It's not new, but the use of the word "unchurched" is one I find disconcerting. It is frequently used by church planters to denote the heathen, their "market" and "target audience"--in contrast to church hoppers, who are merely disgruntled with their current congregation and shopping for a new one.

Like Burger King's "Whopper virgins", these unchurched are the fresh-faced masses who have never had the privilege of hearing a truly relevant "talk" on improving their lives from a gel-haired hipster, while sipping a hot cup of Starbucks. Okay, sorry. I'm going to cut the gratuitous cynicism for a minute.

Our family has some unchurched friends, and to be honest, the last thing I want is for them to become churched. I would love it if they became followers of Christ, but I'm not sure I want them becoming churched before they become regenerated. These days, attending church can be a sure-fire way to become inoculated to the gospel. It's a great way to convince yourself that you're okay with God and he's cool with you, that He may even be pleased with your Sunday morning ritual.

Am I nitpicking, splitting hairs? Perhaps those who use the word unchurched have merely chosen a softer word than "unsaved". The problem is that becoming "churched" is not the solution, in spite of arguments to the contrary.

The formula goes like this: If we could just get them into the doors of the church, they would see that we're not that weird, that we don't use hymnbooks, we don't have pews, we don't have a portrait of George W. Bush in the foyer. We don't even have a foyer. When they see the programs we have for their children and meet other people just like them, they'll decide to stick around. Then we may drop the gospel bomb. But by then it will be too late. Their relational connection to the church will be so strong that they will not be likely to leave without extreme discomfort.

Then, my friends, they will be churched.

A "Hero's" Farewell

Yesterday, Michael Jackson was given a hero's farewell, aside from the fact that he never did anything heroic--unless you count making people feel good when they listen to his music.

Over the weekend, I read a story in the Orlando Sentinel about a real hero, a dad who was vacationing with his family several weeks ago and sacrificed his own life for his son. The man and his kids were playing on a natural rock water slide in North Carolina when the 12-year-old boy got his foot trapped in some rocks. The father leaped in, stood between his son and the raging current, attempting to dislodge his foot. He did this for 40 minutes until rescuers arrived and managed to pull his son to safety. Before rescuers were able to save the dad, he succumbed and was overwhelmed by the current--estimated to be 400 pounds of pressure bearing down on him while he was shielding his son.

Juxtapose the image of this father with the image of Michael Jackson dangling his infant son over a balcony for the paparazzi several years ago. Juxtapose this image with that of Jackson's own father, mocking him for his "big nose" and beating him brutally when he wouldn't sing up to his expectations. Yeah, this guy was no hero. He was a deeply damaged man, abused by his deranged father, who exploited his talent and robbed him and his brothers of their childhood. As this article seems to suggest, he was a spiritual seeker, but he apparently never found what he was looking for.

Most good dads would gladly throw themselves in front of a train for their kids, but it seems there are few problems in the world that can't somehow be traced to bad fathers.

Justice & Jesus Junk

The late Keith Green called it "Jesus Junk"--the WWJD pencil holders, Bible covers, figurines and platitudes on plaques, the artifacts of an insular subculture that are often found in Christian bookstores. I've often heard these trinkets poked fun at for their tackiness and irrelevance in the wider Western culture, but the problem goes way beyond aesthetics to basic justice and morality, as I discovered again today.

I was chatting with some friends working among a people group in Mexico with nearly 100,000 members--only 2 percent of whom are literate. This couple is creating literacy resources and teaching members of this tribe how to read so that they can understand the Bible--as well as get jobs and better provide for their families. This couple has contacted publishers in the US, asking permission to translate or adapt existing English resources, such as graphic Bibles, Christian books, animated videos, etc., to help teach the people to read in their own language. At every turn, they have been told "no." Copyrights. Royalties. Intellectual property.

As a subset of the Christian "product" industry, the English-language Christian book industry is a multi-billion-dollar industry that makes many people wealthy. Christian bookstores and the religion section at Barnes & Noble are loaded with books--from self-help to Christian romance to niche Bibles like the Chicken Soup for the Soul Bible.

Yet there are still languages with no Bible. There are people who don't know how to read for lack of resources in their own language. There are pastors in developing nations who lead their entire congregations with a tattered New Testament that is not even in their own language. If the American church thinks for a minute that it will not be judged for this appalling narcissism and hoarding of God's resources, it has another thing coming.

The Ronald Reagan Diaries

Today I finished The Reagan Diaries, a compilation of Ronald Reagan's diaries from his eight years in office, edited by Douglas Brinkley. Reagan is the first political figure I remember, and I remember him well, even though I was very young when he began his first term. Here are a few unexpected things I discovered in his diaries:

Reagan hated war: Although he is often portrayed as a warmonger as a result of his hard statements against communism, his diary reveals a true fear of the potential of war with the USSR and a genuine desire to do everything in his power to avoid it. However, for better or worse, he believed the best defense against Russian aggression (whether real or imagined) was a solid nuclear arsenal, in spite of what he seemed to understand was the obvious consequence if a war ever started: MAD.

Reagan was a persuader: He genuinely believed--whether dealing with Sam Donaldson, Jesse Jackson, Mikhail Gorbachev, House Speaker Tip O'Neill or his own self-described liberal children Ron and Patti--that all he needed to do was get in a room with them and he could make them understand his position. It apparently hurt him when he was accused of being a racist, warmonger or anti-environmentalist, and he would often make personal calls and set up meetings with opponents to hash out differences in a constructive manner.

He had compassion. He frequently describes his deep emotion at meeting with sick children, wounded soldiers or people who had lost family members in disasters or war. Often his efforts in promoting freedom overseas were inextricably intertwined with his frustration at the way individual people were being treated under dictatorships or in other oppressive societies. He also seemed to care for people's souls. In one interesting account, he expressed deep concern for Nancy's unbelieving father who was on his deathbed and noted that he was looking for an opportunity to ask him about his eternal condition.

He loved freedom. Like a thread throughout the entire book, Reagan's core obsession was extending freedom around the world. It was something he believed in--sometimes with a childlike naivete: Not only did he believe in it, but he assumed that it was a shared value of humanity. It informed every interaction he had with communist leaders and it animated his foreign and domestic policy.

Two Experiences

Imagine living in a backward, impoverished country run by a tin-horn dictator with a penchant for the billy club and an outright disdain for the rule of law and democracy. Imagine scratching together a life savings, paying the bribes, taxes and airfare to get your family out of said country to the land of opportunity: the United States. Once here, imagine jumping through the bureaucratic hoops of starting a business so that  you could earn an honest living and provide for your family. Anyone who accomplishes this deserves my respect--they're what make America great.

While on vacation, our family visited Ellis Island, the first American soil millions of immigrants put their feet on during the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries. I was moved by the museum and buildings and marvelled at the prejudice and fear many immigrants faced from people who themselves were only second- or third-generation immigrants. "Thank goodness things have changed," I thought to myself.

Two hours after leaving the island, we were traveling through Connecticut, when Nathan had to use the restroom. Our window of opportunity for finding him relief before catastrophe is approximately equivalent to his age--a minute for every year of his life. I veered across 4 lanes of traffic on the New England Thruway and braked in a parking lot between two gas stations. One looked too small for a toilet, so we ran to the one next door, run by what appeared to be people of South Asian descent. No luck. No toilet, so I sent him to the bushes behind the stations, only to have the owner of the first station emerge, inquiring gruffly as to Nathan's activities. I explained sheepishly, in hopes that he had once had a son and would understand.

"You could have used my bathroom," he said.

"I didn't think you had one," I replied. "Sorry."

"What kind of gas station doesn't have a bathroom?" he asked.

"The one next door," I replied.

"They're a bunch of towelhead Indians," he spat. "They should be shot."

Gaping, I shuffled Nathan into the car and drove away, later considering all of the things I should have said to the miserable New England redneck. A week later, we were enjoying a meal in an Indian restaurant in the heart of real redneck country, Charleston, South Carolina, when we struck up a conversation with the waiter, a man from Punjab.

"America is beautiful," he gushed. "In America, it doesn't matter what color you are or what social class you come from. If you work hard, nobody looks down on you."

A Storybook Romance

Maybe marriage isn't about finding the one woman or man who was chosen for you "from the foundations of the earth"--unless, of course, you're a Calvinist. Maybe it's about making a relatively uninformed, risky decision in the midst of raging hormones, complete lack of experience and astounding ignorance about what the future holds. Then, take that decision and give it time, energy, commitment, blood, sweat and tears, and you get something that rivals a storybook romance. That's what I thought of after hearing this morning's StoryCorps episode on NPR. This is three minutes worth savoring: Seymour and Marcia Gottlieb

Where Are the Feminists?

While there was much to like about President Obama's speech to the "Muslim world", it also revealed a stunning naivete in his understanding of the Islamic worldview. His predecessor George W. Bush incorrectly assumed that democracy could be planted and would take root anywhere in the world, once a tyrant was removed from power. After all, everyone believes in freedom, right? Similarily, Obama has flattened the drastic differences between the Muslim and the Western worldview--and even conflated the worldviews of Arabs and other Muslims, as though they are a monolithic people who merely need to be educated on how similar we all are. Nowhere is this simplemindedness more evident than in his comments on Islam and women. I would expect that feminists will have a response much more eloquent than mine, but here goes:

The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

Huh? Wearing a hijab is not a "right" in many parts of the Muslim world—it's what women do to avoid being stoned. The real question is whether we support a man's right to force his wife to wear a hijab.

I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal ...


This is a straw man. I'm not aware of anyone in the "West" who thinks that someone with a head covering is less equal. This ideology is inherent in the teachings of the Qur'an. The head covering is a cultural/religious expression of a man's ownership of his wife and the belief that she should be seen by no one but him.

... but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Bravo, Mr. President! This is true, but you're building your argument on a presupposition that equality and prosperity are both positive ends--even when they may stand counter to one's religious views. Westerners value prosperity over religious conformity. Be assured that this is a value that your audience does not share.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

It's ludicrous to compare the plight of women who may face job discrimination in the America with women who aren't allowed to have a job, drive a car, choose who they marry, have a say over how many children they may have or whether their husband takes additional wives. This is an insult to truly oppressed women.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity - men and women - to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Thanks, Joel Osteen--I mean, Mr. Obama. These platitudes only reinforce the inadequacy of political leaders to advance a truly effective solution to the clash of civilizations. The only real change will occur in the pockets where people of both Western and Islamic culture encounter and submit their worldviews to the radical demands of the Cross, which require that they love one another.

At What Point ... ?

Christianity Today's insightful piece on Jon & Kate + Eight incited quite a few interesting comments--from the unusual "I'm an agnostic, and thanks for admitting that this is an embarrassment to Christianity" to the usual "What business is it of yours to judge them?"

I haven't watched the show. Come to think of it, I haven't watched TV since the election ... has that HD thing started yet ... is my TV obsolete now? As for the "judging" comment, I'm surprised people are still throwing up the "don't judge me" defense. At what point does it become okay to call into question the behavior of another self-described Christian? Here are a few starting points in my book:

• When you pass yourself off as a happily married, leader of the evangelical movement and are exposed as frequenting a male prostitute and attempting to buy crystal meth.


• When you gun down an abortion doctor in the middle of a church service.


• When you serve as an usher in your church but are considered one of the top three go-to guys in the country for women who want a late-term abortion.

Or, a little closer to home ...

• When you call yourself a Christian but snap at your wife and kids at least once a week, often put your own needs before those of others, covet other people's stuff, neglect to pray when you get into a tough situation and regularly deal with lust, pride, anger, jealousy, etc.

Yes, it may become necessary for you to judge me at some point.

My North Korea Solution

Why is it the public statements by our political leaders regarding North Korea only surround the nuclear weapon that they may or may not be able to launch beyond their borders? (As patently insane as Kim Jong Il is, I'm not sure why he would do such a thing.)

Thirty years of sanctions from the UN have had no effect on this madman--most likely because he still has a steady flow of Western fast food and pirated porn coming to him through Chinese channels. The only people suffering through this debacle are the North Korean people, and Obama's and the UN's statements make it seem that we have no concern for them--as long as their "dear leader" keeps his finger off the doomsday button. Here's what I would do. It may not solve the problem--but it couldn't be any worse than the current "plan".

(Disclaimer: This is not a "spiritual plan". It is merely what governments could do to solve the problem.):

Remove all sanctions: America should do everything in its power to open up the free flow of goods and information into North Korea--even it some of it falls into the wrong hands. Many North Koreans will begin to see that that the outside world is not the apocalyptic prison camp that the "dear leader" has been brainwashing them into thinking it is.

Incentivize defection: Offer a $1 million reward to every North Korean who makes it out of the country and to an American embassy. Sure, it's expensive, but it's cheaper than war. Remember, this is not about getting North Koreans out of the country, it is about demoralizing Kim Jong Il and empowering forces within the country who would like to unseat him.

Bait and switch: Offer Kim Jong Il a free, all-expenses-paid trip to Disneyland, where he will be toasted by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Then, let him ride Space Mountain with Sean Penn. Stop the ride midcourse, arrest him and try him for crimes against humanity. While you're at it, arrest Kim Jong Il, too.

Thailand Reflections

I've been out of the Twitter/Facebook universe for the last week due to a somewhat last-minute trip to Thailand. It was great to spend a week meeting people from the mission world who are using their business and professional skills to gain ministry access to and bring economic empowerment to people in difficult parts of the world. Missions doesn't look like it used to; here are a few reflections:

• I met true tentmakers who have started sustainable businesses in the developing world that now provide them with an income, allowing them to be financially independent from the West. Yet, they still choose to maintain relationship with a mission agency for the purpose of accountability and prayer support.


• I met a pastor from an oppressive nearby country who set a goal in 2001 to plant 100 churches by 2020. He's planted 38 so far. As is the case in many such nations, he is looking for non-traditional ways to fund the ministry of national church leaders.


• Another US pastor-turned-missionary is doing just that by helping national pastors start coffee plantations to help them become economically independent in an area where drug trafficking is often the only viable income source.


• I visited an Aussie couple who were so passionate about staying in Thailand that, when their support began to wane in the troubled economy, they sold their home in Australia and started a farm, bakery and coffeeshop where they employ six Thai nationals. They raise pigs, cattle and tilapia.


• Aussies and Kiwis are fun to hang out with. Why can't I have a cool accent too?


• This was my second time in Thailand, but I had forgotten how good the food is. From the strange fruits that aren't available in the US to the curry and other typical Asian spices ... wow!

Say What You Need to Say

John Mayer (whose life is otherwise unremarkable and uncommendable) recommends it:

"Say what you need to say."

Andrew Peterson, who's become my favorite Christian musician of late notes the same problem in his song "Don't Give Up on Me":

"Got all these letters that I never did write, all this affection I kept inside my heart."

It's this unhealthy verbal constipation--for lack of a better term--that causes me to not say the words that need to be said. Encouragement. Commendation. Love. Correction. Most people probably die with unspoken words on their tongues that could have made a difference in the lives of their spouse, their children, their colleagues. Why is it that that I'm so free with the unnecessary things and so reticent to say what needs to be said?

Mother's Day

Things I learned from my mother (and am still learning to apply to my own life):

• Serve others, even when it's not comfortable and nobody notices.
• Love your spouse ... all the time.
• Invest in your children, even when they don't appreciate it.
• If you have a problem, pray about it.
• TV is for losers—read instead.
• If you're a good reader, you'll be a good writer. If you're a good writer, you can cover up your other weaknesses by communicating well.
• Don't make excuses for yourself.
• Spanking works.

Of course there are many other things my mother taught me--directly and indirectly--but these are a few that came to my mind today as I was thinking about what a good mother I have. She invested so much in her children, at the expense of her own personal comfort and career aspirations. I don't use the word "sacrifice," because I don't think she sees it that way. It is just part of who she is. And that's why I love her. Happy Mother's day, Mother!

Bastardized Prayer

Yesterday's National Day of Prayer was apparently overlooked by the Obama administration, and some evangelicals are miffed that the day did not receive the attention that previous presidents had granted it. I have no problem with the NDOP--I participated in a morning of prayer yesterday with about 50 others, and it was powerful. But, whether it be at inaugurations, party conventions or interfaith services, public prayer has begun to sound a lot like the stereotypical lady's prayer circle where gossip is shrouded in the cloak of spirituality--but this time, it's politics, not slander that are being spiritualized. Simply put, prayer is being bastardized, and I don't think that's too strong of a word.

Confronting the pharisaical public pray-ers of his day, Jesus was clear that His followers should use a different model: "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you" (Matthew 6:6).

Another thing I've been thinking about: Why would evangelicals be upset about being excluded from an interfaith prayer meeting? Unless, like Elijah (who invited the prophets of Baal to an "interfaith prayer meeting" on Mt. Carmel) they're prepared to publicly pray that Yahweh would make an open mockery of the other false gods being prayed to. That would be pretty awesome.

Thanks to Dan for getting me thinking about this.

Subversion & NASCAR

If history is any indicator, if the church wins the "culture war", it will be the beginning of our problems. As my Hebrew homeboy, Shaun, pointed out in yesterday's comments, prohibition was an example of what happens when the church wins the culture war. I might add that the only remaining evidence of prohibition's cultural impact is NASCAR, by way of stock car racing.


The culture-changing social movements of history have typically been subversive ones, circumventing mainstream politics, media, business, etc., because their adherents did not possess cultural power. Their leaders were nobodies, outcasts. Their values and ideas were discounted by the majority. They attracted rebels and misfits into an army of ordinary people who led by the sheer force of their ideals and personal commitment to living out those ideals. Think the early church--before Constantine.

But we've gotten lazy. Because of the church's failure to live out its own ideals, it's lost its attractional force as a social movement. We've attempted to shore up this influence by fighting for our rights and redressing our greivances in the courts; creating television, music and entertainment alternatives to the secular counterparts in which we have no influence; fielding and supporting political candidates that will legislate in our favor. It's not that any of these avenues are intrinsically wrong, but they are not the biblical norm.

As my boss mentioned to me at lunch today, the biblical norm is probably China, where an oppressed minority with no political power is becoming an irreversible groundswell that is impervious to persecution. Of course, this could all change if freedom comes to China, Christians gain cultural and political dominance, start publishing houses, TV stations, record labels and build a market for Thomas Kinkade paintings and WWJD bracelets. ... maybe even sponsor a stock car!

The Culture War: What If We Win?

Prophetic minister Dutch Sheets recently wrote a piece encouraging Christians to "win the culture war." Predictably, Sheets views a primary battlefield of the culture war as politics, questioning President Obama's contention that America is not a "Christian nation" and citing statements from the founding fathers that reflect their religious fervor.

(Sidenote: Not to question our founders' faith, but I picture historians 300 years from now reading campaign speeches from the 2008 election and inferring from them similar levels of evangelical enthusiasm.)

Has any Christian community ever "won" the culture war in a nation? If it did, what did it look like? Did sinners stop sinning? Did gay men start getting married ... to women? Did abortion rates decline? Did they allow/enforce prayer in schools? Did they ditch Darwin and start teaching seven-day creationism? Did the government finally give Christians the respect they deserve and start passing laws to make it more convenient to serve God?

In my opinion, nothing good has come of the "culture war," except a combative relationship between evangelicals and a broader secular culture that fears (perhaps legitimately) that a Christian minority aspires to reach the highest echelons of society, where it intends to enforce its puritanical code on an unbelieving majority.

In an interesting profile in the May Christianity Today, South Florida pastor (and grandson of Billy Graham) Tullian Tchividjian has an insightful view of the role of politics in the culture war:

"It's super important for us to understand that politics are reflective, not directive. That is, the political arena is the place where policies are made which reflect the values of our culture--the habits of heart and mind--that are being shaped by other, more strategic arenas."

More on this tomorrow, wherein I propose that the church has lost the art of subversion, the key to lasting cultural change.

Stay Alive, My Son

Simply put, you must read this book: Stay Alive, My Son, by Pin Yathay. I've never had a book elicit such visceral anger and grief. At times I was literally vibrating with rage at the author's unbearable suffering, which he recounts with the detached demeanor of one who has lost everyone dear to him.

In a nutshell, the book is Yathay's account of the Khmer Rouge's rise to power in Cambodia in the 1970s and how nearly every member of his family was systematically destroyed in the regime's maniacal plot to rid the nation of any they perceived of as a threat to their establishment of a socialist utopia.

Although Cambodia is known for the "killing fields", where 20 percent of the nation's population was exterminated, what struck me even more than the overt violence of the Khmer Rouge is the dehumanizing strategy of their worldview. In an attempt to create loyalty and dependence on the regime, people were removed from their homes, family relationships were severed, children were taken away for brainwashing, books were destroyed, education was banned, personal possessions were stolen and redistributed and every aspect of daily life was controlled—all under the guise of ensuring equality. The result, of course, was not equality, but universal poverty, starvation and social disintegration.

Read "hard" books like this. They will motivate you to pray for, give to and advocate for those who have no access to the freedoms we take for granted.

Mary Had a Little Egg?

First, this is not sacreligious to discuss. It is of interest to anyone who considers the Incarnation a pivot point in history, the moment at which the fullness of God was supernaturally compressed—like a ball of molecules at absolute zero—into two human cells with a few frail strands of human DNA and an immediate death sentence.

The question (which I hinted at several days ago) is whether Mary contributed an egg to the incarnation. I say "no," and here's why in 200 words.

Jesus was the "second Adam," created by God, with no human father or mother. Both were representatives of humanity: one, whose transgression plunged all of his descendants--with one Exception--into sin; the other, whose sinless life, death and resurrection overcame the actions of the first Adam and present a prototype for true humanity. As Athanasius compellingly argues, Jesus had to be human. I agree, but humanity is not theologically defined as sharing genetic material with a human mother or father--or Adam would not have been human.

In his genealogy of Jesus, Matthew refers to Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba as "mothers", but does not refer to Mary as Jesus' mother ("... Mary, of whom was born Jesus ..."). Of course, elsewhere in the Gospels, Mary is referred to as Jesus' mother, but Matthew's is an interesting choice of language.

If Mary contributed an egg to the incarnation, who contributed the sperm? If God did, doesn't that make Jesus a hybrid--part divine, part human?

I'm running out of words, so I'll just say this: God created a body for Jesus, and Jesus entered the world through a human woman and lived in a human family, but he shared no genetic material with the woman or the man who served as His earthly parents.

Here's the big hole in my argument: Besides the references to Mary as Jesus "mother," if I'm right, Jesus was not an actual descendent of David in the biological sense. Isn't this a problem?

The Apology Tour

President Obama's recent "apology tour" has highlighted the guilt many Americans feel for power we wield in the world. Of course, it's a bit more nuanced than Obama or his conservative critics would have us believe.

Alongside the botched military campaigns, misspent aid, and other assorted acts of hubris, our soldiers have disproportionally bled on foreign soil for others' freedoms--even when our own have not been threatened. American citizens have given billions--perhaps even trillions--of dollars in foreign aid through voluntary charity and tax dollars. Thousands of Americans have given up comfortable suburban life to serve in non-military roles in troubled parts of the world as Peace Corps members, missionaries and other NGO workers.

Interestingly, the complex and often contradictory aspects of America's relationship with the rest of the world were not adequately reflected in our president's legitimate acknowledgment of our faults. And it was particularly telling when he made these remarks in the presence of dictators and autocrats who themselves have such a low view of freedom and human life.

My recent reading (Tony Horwitz's A Voyage Long and Strange and Jon Meacham's American Lion, among others) has helped me see that, if anything, the injustices of America have been inside--not outside--our borders. Historically, our relationship to other nations has been uncharacteristically benevolent for a country of our size. (Contrast the colonial aspirations of France, Spain, Italy, Germany and the UK as they were at their apex.)

What is unconscionable is our treatment of native peoples and black slaves, and--dare I say--millions of unborn children. These qualify as systematic acts of injustice and genocide that cause recent international incidents to pale in comparison. Their impact and consequences are still being felt by the victims and the descendants of the perpetrators.

Map Your Mind

My mind is like a Louisiana swamp—full of bad ideas with several really good ones buried among the alligator droppings, cypress roots and rusting carcasses of F-150s. So, I need something to help organize my thoughts as I work through ideas, plan for the future and keep my team running without getting in the way.

I recently discovered XMind, a free mind mapping software that lets me type my thoughts in a stream-of-consciousness flow of ideas, punch the "tab" and "enter" keys and construct organic flowcharts of interrelated ideas. This could just as easily be done on a whiteboard, but I'm pretty sloppy, so typing works better.

Check it out. It will help you think better and work smarter.

Old Skool vs New Skool

Regardless of whether you agree with it or not, this ad from Westminster Seminary is good marketing. It's assertive, provocative and simple--in spite of the fact that it's totally old school in its presuppositions about what seminary is for (training pastors) and how it should be matriculated (on campus).

I was fortunate enough to attend seminary in class, and only had one electronic interchange with a professor: He wanted me to e-mail him the font I used in a research paper on whether Mary contributed an egg in the conception of Jesus. (Yes, this was my idea. No, he wasn't sold on the conclusions of my paper. And, no, I don't recommend you ask me my conclusions either.) However, my professor did like the typeface, and there's a good chance he's using my paper as an example of bad theology tastefully packaged.

I digress. Recently, friends of mine who are pursuing graduate studies through distance programs have told me that the experience is in many ways superior to their experiences in class. They have more interaction with other students and professors, the assignments are tougher and they feel more engaged with the educational process. I'm not sure what I think of this, because when it comes to education, I'm an old-school traditionalist.

Anyhow, I'm interested in hearing whether what other people think of this. For your next degree (I'm talking about education, not your ascendance in the ranks of Freemasonry) would you pursue distance or in-class education?

What I Did For Lent

I've never given up anything for Lent, although I know people who've given up coffee and chocolate and such. I guess I could have done that, but it wouldn't have improved my life that much. What I did give up had nothing to do with my diet, but it cleared my mind and heart in a way I didn't expect. I gave up recreational Web surfing, Twitter, Facebook, etc. for the 40 days leading up to Resurrection Day.

At first it was strange, as I resisted the instinctive urge to check my RSS feeds or Tweet something funny Maddie or Nathan were doing. Then, I got into the groove of being "disconnected" and started to enjoy myself.  Here's a "stream of consciousness" flow of a few items from my life during Lent:

Read Psalms (highly recommended), Ken Gire's Moments With the Savior (highly recommended and moving), Dinesh D'Souza's What's So Great About Christianity? (also very good) and Greg Mortenson's Three Cups of Tea (pretty good, but kind of discouraging)... got back into QRP Amateur Radio with the help of my friend, Kelly McClelland ... learned how to mind map, which has helped me with some major projects at work ... have achieved "email supremacy" with a "zeroed-out" inbox before I go home from work ... and have started playing more guitar/piano to help me relax.

So, the goal now is that overused word of the last few years: sustainability, through self-imposed time limits and such. Anyhow, fasting the Web isn't just for Lent. I'd highly recommend it anytime, if you want to clear your mind to focus more attention on your God, your family and your work.

Who's the Boss?

I find it interesting that the same people who would probably question the authority of the Pope have set up for themselves authority structures that rival the Catholic Church—and are often just as lacking in accountability. Lately, this crowd has been castigating Charisma editor Lee Grady for questioning the "restoration" process of evangelist Todd Bentley.

Bentley left his wife and children last August amid admissions of alcohol abuse and infidelity, married the family's nanny and is now on his way to reentering ministry under the restoration of prophetic minister Rick Joyner and associates. Lee questioned the speed and effectiveness of Bentley's restoration, calling it "greasy grace" in one of his columns. Joyner fired back in an online video, suggesting that Lee was pharisaical and questioning what ministry a "journalist" like Lee had ever built that would give him the legitimacy to criticize Joyner.

Joyner's defense consistently returned to the issue of authority—who has authority to correct, who has authority to restore, who has authority to question authority, etc. According to Joyner, only those who have big ministries and a following should have a voice in these matters--they've earned the right to speak. For Joyner, it is the clerical elite--although he calls them elders, apostles, prophets, etc.--who are in charge of the church.

I used to almost agree with this premise--that there were authorities in the church who had to be obeyed--pastors, teachers, other leaders. Now, I don't. My study of the New Testament has led me to believe that the early church had essentially no authority but the Holy Spirit as he worked in the hearts of believers. The church was flat--in contrast to the hierarchical pagan religions of the Near East at that time, and in contrast to the church as it developed in later centuries. Paul advocated mutual submission, James called for corporate correction of the erring, and for Peter it was Jesus, no mere man, who was the head of the church.

How far we've come. Now, I hear pastors instruct their sheep to faithfully attend each service, to be sure to tithe, not to question the man with the vision. I dread to think that when Jesus returns it may be to rescue his Bride from the rapacious businessmen and hirelings who have usurped His position as head of the household.

[[UPDATE: For my revised perspective on this topic, click here.]]