As Far As It Depends On You

Divorce and the Goodness of God

2012-02-09T18:57:00.000-05:00

The kind folks over at GrowthTrac published an article of mine today. It's very personal, and honestly, it was difficult to put down on paper. I hope it's of some help to people going through similar stuff.

Divorce & the Goodness of G od

Bloodlines: A Review

2011-11-10T14:04:00.000-05:00

I'm a fan of John Piper, and I don't say that lightly. Usually, I think the idea of being a fan of Christian celebrities, pastors, or authors is kind of nauseating. Christian leaders are supposed to point to Jesus, not highlight themselves. And even when they do point others to Jesus, we who watch them need to be on guard against elevating the messenger above the message.

However, when I say I'm a "fan" of Dr. Piper, what I mean is that I've learned so much from his teachings over the years that I find I can trust what he produces/says/writes to be gospel-saturated and to do the job of pointing my feeble heart back to Christ and back to the gospel. So yes, I am a fan of John Piper. Maybe that's why I was so surprised to learn that Dr. Piper was writing a book about race.

Bloodlines is about "Race, Cross, and the Christian" as the tagline on the book suggests. Spoiler Alert: On the issue of racism, Dr. Piper is against it. No shock there. But there are two things that make this book standout in my mind. First, John Piper is candidly transparent about his own racist past. He tells of his childhood in South Carolina. He writes about Lucy, the African-American maid who worked for his family when he was a boy: "Being nice to, and having strong affections for, and including in our lives is what we do for our dogs too. It doesn't say much about honor and respect and equality before God." And he shares how God slowly changed his heart in later years to the point where, at fifty years old, God led him to adopt an African-American girl. But the thing that makes me respect Dr. Piper so much is that, in this book, he shares something he didn't have to. He could've written about racism without making it personal or he could've avoided the subject altogether. No one would have thought less of him. After all, he's not known as being a civil rights leader or of focusing his ministry solely on issues of race.

The second thing that I find phenomenal about this book is that Dr. Piper avoided the temptation to which so many issue-based books in the Christian marketplace succumb. He didn't allow the issue - in this case, racism - to overshadow or to take priority away from the gospel. Make no mistake. That's what this book is about - the gospel. But the struggles surrounding race, ethnicity, and pride are spoken to directly by the gospel, so this book's message doesn't feel forced or drift into social gospel territory. This book is not about white guilt or about black social problems. The focus is not on making gray - blending black and white together - nor is it on ignoring color altogether. Instead, the red of the Savior's blood covers black and white (and every other skin color) alike.

This is a book that everyone should read, especially pastors and other church leaders. It will help each of us think biblically about race-related issues, while checking our own hearts at the same time. There is no longer a place in America where we can afford to ignore these issues. The nations are coming to our neighborhoods and our churches and our computer screens and how we respond to a shifting culture like this will determine how Jesus is presented to the world.

Bloodlines Documentary with John Piper from Crossway on Vimeo.

An Excursion, but All Shall Be Well

2011-10-16T10:12:00.001-04:00

Last week, I did not post a new, revised chapter of TJS, but I'm making up for it this week, because I've got two. Well, actually, I'm not calling one a "chapter" because I don't want to mess up the original chapter numbers. And in truth, it's different than the other chapters because it doesn't focus on a conversation that Jesus had. Instead, it's designed to answer some questions that may have arisen by reading the first couple of chapters. It's entirely new; none of it was in the original version of the book. As I hope you've noticed, this time around I'm being more intentional and treading a little deeper (though I wouldn't dare say "deep") into theological waters. This "excursion," as I've called it is an attempt to help folks navigate those waters a little better.

And then I've got Chapter Three for you. It's called "All Shall Be Well" and deals with Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman he met at Jacob's well in Sychar. I thought this was a good story to pause before, since the change in the woman's life is so vibrant. It's a good, live illustration for some of the theology that came before.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy both the excursion and the chapter, and feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks much.

An Excursion: When Election Gets Personal

Chapter Three: All Shall Be Well

(Each link will take you to my Google Docs page where you can read the chapters as PDFs. To save them, go to "File" and click "Download original.")

Previous Chapters:

Chapter Two: Green Eggs and Mammon

Chapter One: Brought to Life and Into the Story

Introduction: From One Sojourner to Another

Green Eggs and Mammon

2011-10-02T10:09:00.002-04:00

"Green Eggs and Mammon," the revised version of Chapter Two in The Jesus Sessions, is now available. It can be accessed here:

Chapter Two: Green Eggs and Mammon (This link will take you to my Google Docs page where you can read the chapter as a PDF. To save it, go to "File" and click "Download original.")

Like the first chapter and the introduction, almost all of this chapter is new. I don't intend to completely rewrite every chapter, but this time around I felt it was important to lay a lot of foundation with regard to our true state without Christ and the miracle of grace. As before, comments and critiques are appreciated. Thanks for reading.

Previous Chapters:

Chapter One: Brought to Life and Into the Story

Introduction: From One Sojourner to Another

Brought to Life and Into the Story

2011-09-25T09:42:00.003-04:00

As promised, here is the first revised chapter of my book, The Jesus Sessions. (Writing that over and over again, I'm not sure I really like that title. Any suggestions on a new one?) I welcome any comments, suggestions, corrections, etc. that you may have. As I mentioned in a previous post, my plan is to release a new, updated and revised chapter each week, and then release the whole thing as a free eBook download when it's complete. (If you missed my reasons for undertaking this project, click here.) For those of you who read the original work, I think you'll find this is almost completely different. I hope you enjoy it.

Chapter One: Brought to Life and Into the Story (This link will take you to my Google Docs page where you can read the chapter as a PDF. To save it, go to "File" and click "Download original.")

And if you missed the Introduction, it can be found here.

The King Jesus Gospel: A Review

2011-09-20T12:38:00.000-04:00

Scot McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel is one of those rare books where it's impossible to remain on the sidelines. What McKnight is proposing in this little book is that evangelicals have, for a long time, gotten the gospel wrong. Such an accusation must be considered and engaged, and it requires a response.

There was much I liked and agreed with in McKnight's analysis of the situation. He is right that Christians in the West often reduce the gospel to a plan of salvation pitch. He's also right that Jesus and the apostles preached Jesus as the gospel, rather than succumbing to a personal-need oriented appeal. McKnight rightly shows how the full, biblical gospel is the story of Israel culminating in the life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and then carrying on in the New Testament church. Very few engaged and thinking Christians will disagree with McKnight here, but he seems to exaggerate the real state of things. As I read, I kept thinking to myself, "Who are these people that would take issue with a gospel that can be traced from Genesis to Revelation? I'm sure they exist, but they can hardly be taken seriously."

I do take issue, however, with the trajectory of The King Jesus Gospel. In my opinion, it pushes justification by faith alone to the outskirts of the biblical gospel. It's still there in the scenery to be sure, but it's no longer central and it's no longer the doctrine on which the church stands or falls, to paraphrase Luther. Ironically, the very camp that would most agree with McKnight with regard to preaching a fuller, more biblical gospel - those who stand under the shadow of the Reformers - are the very ones he blames for reducing the gospel to a plan of personal salvation. He writes, "The Reformation did not deny the gospel story and it did not deny the creeds. Instead, it put everything into a new order and into a new place. Time and developments have somehow eroded the much more balanced combination of gospel culture and salvation culture in the Reformation to where today salvation culture has eclipsed the gospel culture" (72).

McKnight leans heavily on 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 as an early Christian creed and examines the other gospel summaries and sermons recorded in Scripture. No one will deny that these creeds and statements consist of factual summaries about Christ and his ministry, but that doesn't mean that deeper theology is unimportant. All of Scripture is God-breathed, and so to minimize certain parts (most of Romans and Galatians) in order to purify the early gospel is misguided. Certainly, evangelistic sermons are not normally going to delve into the inner-workings of monergistic salvation, but that doesn't mean they stand on the sidelines in our understanding of the gospel. In the end, I simply couldn't figure out how McKnight could read John or Romans or Galatians faithfully and not see justification by faith alone all over the place. There's much to commend in The King Jesus Gospel, but McKnight seems to over-correct a personal-decision-driven gospel by pushing a story-based gospel that requires no decision and no understanding of our standing before God as helpless sinners dead in our sins. The biblical gospel accounts aren't like that. Decisions are required all over the place.

One of the Few Do-Overs In Life: Updating THE JESUS SESSIONS

2011-09-18T08:56:00.005-04:00

A couple of years ago, I wrote a little book about Jesus and the gospel. It was called The Jesus Sessions. It was fun to write and it was exciting to see it come to life. However, my life has changed a bit in the years since I first began that project, and my experiences and studies have caused a shift in my thinking. Actually, as I explain in the introductory section below, the shift has been more of a reawakening. Things I included in the book back then I probably wouldn't include now. I also concede that some of the theology should have been more precise, and some things left unsaid should not have been. Lately, I've felt a nudge to go back and revisit the chapters and correct the record, so that's what I've decided to do.

Periodically, I'll be posting updated chapters on this blog. My hope is to have a new chapter ready each Sunday (though I ask for forgiveness in advance if they're not always ready on Sunday mornings). Once the project is complete, I'll post the complete eBook, which will be available as a free download from this site. For those of you who read the original book, I think you'll find that there's enough new material to make the book worth reading again. In fact, based on the work I've already done, I believe it will be a different book entirely. For those who didn't read the original book, your patience has won out; it will now be free.

As chapters are posted, I'd love your help correcting any typos or misspellings. Positive and negative feedback on the content would also be appreciated. Just comment, drop me a note on Facebook or email me. My hope is to make the final eBook the best possible project it can be.

This week, I've got the revised Introduction for you to read. It explains a bit more of my rationale in revisiting and updating The Jesus Sessions. The full text is below. However, in future weeks, chapters will likely be posted as PDF files because of their length. Thanks for reading. I hope you enjoy it.

From One Sojourner to Another

Why I’m Rewriting This Book about Jesus

_______________________

A few years ago, I had the privilege of writing a little book about Jesus. The opportunity came about in the middle of a journey I was taking. Physically, I had moved around the country quite a bit, starting in New England, and then living in the South and later the West Coast, then back to New England again. At the same time, I was plodding my way through the Master of Divinity program at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, taking the long route because I was working full-time. Both journeys left me feeling unsettled and restless.

Looking for a creative outlet, I began to teach and to write. The teaching experience was a gift given to me by the headmaster and high school principal at Christian Heritage School in Trumbull, Connecticut, my alma mater. They had a need for someone to come in and teach one special Bible course for high school students, and I was eager to leave my office job for a few hours a week to do something fun. I enjoyed my time there immensely.

The writing was simply a way for me to share my thoughts with anyone who cared to read. I blogged at first, but then wondered if I might be able to get something published. I’ll freely admit that it was likely a prideful impulse from somewhere deep inside that gave me the urge to pursue this route. Beyond my pride, though, I sincerely wanted to join in the conversation that was taking place all around me. You see, one of the drawbacks of being in seminary is that much of your life is spent reading books your professors assign, and unless you have an inordinate amount of free time at your disposal, you must forego delving into current debates and subjects that catch your attention.

It was in this environment that I wrote a little essay for an online writers’ journal popular with emergent types about the gospel that Jesus preached. In the essay, I argued that Jesus rarely presented the gospel the same way twice and that our modern evangelistic approaches, bent solely on decision making and cookie-cutter scripts, were out of step with the New Testament. My seminary classes had helped me see the discontinuity between the pages of Scripture and my own experiences, and the students in the Bible class I was teaching confirmed that this gap was real. Most had made a decision for Christ, but few could tell me what the gospel was really all about. The response to my article was both large and divided. Some expressed their like-mindedness and told me I’d hit upon something important, while others defended simple, all-purpose evangelism tactics that required nothing more than an affirmative response. Whether or not people agreed with me, it was encouraging to know that my essay had gotten people thinking.

Believing I’d found a subject worth exploring, I contemplated writing a series of blog entries on the topic. However, as I began to write, that prideful itch crept up once again and I began to scratch it, wondering if I might be able to turn the whole thing into a book. After shopping my proposal around for a few months, I found a small Christian publisher willing to take on the expense of turning my rough chapters into a paperback that someone might actually plunk down a few hard earned dollars to buy. Despite my sometimes self-serving impulses, God has been gracious. I’ve loved hearing from people who have benefited from or have been challenged by reading The Jesus Sessions. These responses have been an unexpected and unmerited blessing to me.

The other day, I picked up a copy I had kept for myself and began to thumb through it, reading paragraphs that were at the same time familiar and strange. It felt as if the words were from a book I had read many times over some years before, but a book that someone else had written. In many ways, I was a different person back then. The season of writing was a hectic one as I juggled a full-time job, seminary, a part-time teaching gig, church ministry responsibilities, and family obligations. Also, I can see now that my mind was a bit foggy at the time. I didn’t allow myself the distance required to ensure that my words would be chosen as carefully as they should have been. Exploring theological ideas is a wonderful, energizing thing, but without time for adequate reflection and extended study, putting thoughts to paper can be a reckless endeavor.

Looking back with a couple of years worth of reflective distance, there are passages in the book I wish I could change. Stylistically, I would make some alterations, but more importantly, in several places dealing with doctrine, I regret that I was not as detailed nor as specific as I should have been. I fear that some of these sections might give readers the wrong impression. In other places, I believe my exegesis left something to be desired.

Events in my life during the past couple of years have caused me to tie down my convictions more firmly on some issues that I was once comfortable leaving unfettered. I’ve now seen with my own eyes what can happen when such things are held too loosely. This past season has also brought with it a painful divorce. I am grateful that in the midst of such a dark time, God has shown me his goodness, patience, and trustworthiness in new ways. And while my intention is not to edit Melinda out of my life with this revision, there are pages where her presence now seems out of place.

Something written down on paper and then bound between two covers has the wonderful and terrifying feature of permanence. When a lifetime of work from a particular writer is studied, changes can be seen over time. What he once believed to be true in his twenties may no longer be so in his sixties. Even within the span of a few years, things can change. Sometimes an author has the chance to correct the record in a later work, but I’m sure there are lots of writers who never have such a chance. I don’t know if I’ll ever get the opportunity to write another book, but whether I do or not, I wanted to correct the record as best I could. I hope that in updating The Jesus Sessions the gospel is displayed more vividly and that God is glorified as a result.

A Word of Introduction

This book is about the gospel,[1] but more specifically it’s about people who have met Jesus and talked with him. It’s about ordinary sinners who became children of God. It’s about darkness that was confronted with light and about brokenness that was made whole. The Bible contains four narrative accounts of Jesus’ earthly life. We know them as the New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Included in these narratives are some of the conversations that people had with Jesus. Some of these folks were of little importance in the eyes of the world. Others were wealthy and powerful—the kind of people who appear to lack nothing. Rich or poor, strong or weak, proud or humble, Jesus spoke truth into their lives and pointed the way home.

I believe that one of the reasons these stories are in the Bible is so that we might see glimpses of ourselves. The Bible says that we are all poor if we are without Christ. And Jesus spent his time on earth preaching good news to the poor—people just like us. While each dialogue is unique, they are really all the same, for in each conversation, Jesus reveals himself to be life and salvation. He is the answer. He is the good news. This book is for anyone who’s ever had a life-changing conversation with Jesus. And it’s for anyone who’s ever wanted to. For those who have longed to cut through the cultural and social clutter and get at the very heart of God, my hope is that this book will help you see Jesus with fresh eyes.

[1] In the New Testament, the word gospel is found over and over again. The word literally means “good news,” but packed into that simple definition is the story of God redeeming a people for himself. This story really starts where the Bible itself starts—the beginning—but all the seeds that were planted and the promises that were made in the Old Testament find their full life and fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: A Review

2011-08-25T14:04:00.001-04:00

Bill Maher, who makes no secret of his disdain for religion, has a standard question he asks of people who say they believe the Bible: "So you believe in a talking snake then?" For many people, the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden seems a hard pill to swallow, even in Christian circles. Just take a look at Stephen Colbert's commentary of Adam and Eve:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Modern scientific theories tell us evolution played a part in the development of the human species, the human genome project seems to point to more than two human parents at the top of our family tree, and other Ancient Near Eastern creation stories have commonalities with what we read in Genesis, suggesting that perhaps Adam and Eve and the serpent and the trees and the fig leaves are all just part of a myth.

In Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?, C. John Collins, a professor at Covenant Theological Seminary, explores reasons for believing in an historical, flesh-and-blood Adam and Eve. In doing so, he looks at the biblical data, human experience, and current scientific theories about the origin of our species. But why does it matter? Many people in recent days have reasoned that it shouldn't really matter to the Christian faith. After all, what's important is Jesus, not Adam and Eve. The reasoning goes like this: whether or not the episode in the Garden really happened or not, we all know we're sinful and Jesus rescues us from sin.

The problem with this type of thinking, as Dr. Collins argues, is that removing an historical Adam and Eve from the Christian story, not only leaves the authority of Scripture on shaky ground, but it also makes the promise of God in Christ suspect. You see, we are all sinners because Adam sinned. If there was no Adam and sin is just a part of the natural order, then it's no longer an invading alien force in our world. It's part of the design and not something to be defeated. We need to be counted "in Christ" because we were first counted "in Adam," but if there was no Adam, the biblical gospel makes no sense. While surveying the Old and New Testaments, as well as intertestamental literature, Dr. Collins argues that the biblical (and non-biblical writers) believed in a literal, historical first couple, and that this belief does matter to our understanding of salvation history. "We can conclude that, while some texts do not absolutely require historical Adam and Eve for their truth value, others look like they do in fact require it" (92).

Although the biblical survey was necessary to show the unity of Scripture (and therefore the necessity of historical Adam and Eve), I was most interested in the chapter, "Can science help us pinpoint 'Adam and Eve'?" In it, Dr. Collins identifies criteria for "good" theories (those that will fit with the biblical data and common human experience) and then looks at some of the prominent theories of origin floating around. For me, the take away was that the scientific theories appear to all have some problems, and none of them are really as airtight as some popular scientists would have us believe. (I was a bit disappointed that the issue of polygenesis - the theory that many groups of homo sapiens came into existence around the same time, either through a divine act or evolution - was not confronted a bit more directly, especially in light of Acts 17:26.) At the same time, we Christians need to be realistic about the fact that Genesis is not a science textbook. Much of what we sometimes defend as a "literal reading" of Scripture is actually a traditional interpretation of the text (Please don't misunderstand me: I believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve!). As new data comes to light, we must be diligent to see how well it lines up with what the Bible actually says. There's a lot at stake:

"First... if we deny that all people have a common source that was originally good but through which sin came into the world, then the existence of sin becomes God's fault.... Second, the notions of sin as an alien invader that affects all people, and as atonement as God's way of dealing with the guilt and pollution that comes from this defiling influence, depend on the story of the original family.... Third, if we cannot insist on a common origin for all mankind, then we have given up the grounds... for affirming the common dignity of all people.... Fourth, how we relate to the story of Adam and Eve does, sooner or later, face us with what stance we will take toward Biblical authority" (133-134).

In 1925, the State of Tennessee tried John Scopes for teaching the theory of evolution in his biology classroom. The trial, commonly referred to as "The Scopes Monkey Trial" became a media sensation and the world watched to see how it would turn out. Fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians defended traditional Creationism and won the day, but the backlash of the battle had repercussions for years to come. These fundamentalists were seen as backward and ignorant and, in many cases, retreated from culture. As I read Did Adam and Eve Really Exist, I couldn't help but think of the Scopes trial. It seems, we are once again faced with an issue where leading scientific theories are in direct opposition to the teaching of the Bible. This issue is not going anywhere. A battle is about to be waged in the popular media, and how we deal with the issue of Adam and Eve will affect how the church is viewed for some time to come.

Dug Down Deep: A Review

2011-08-17T12:43:00.000-04:00

The evangelical world seems to operate on a pendulum. Trends come and go. What was once considered very important can fall by the wayside and that which was deemed secondary or even antithetical to the work of the church can be brought to the forefront. For example, I remember growing up in a church where hymns were on the way out. "Contemporary" worship was considered necessary if we were to reach the lost. In recent years, though, the beauty of these old hymn texts has been realized and there's been a resurgence of interest in keeping them a part of our traditions. Creative minds have delved deep into those abandoned hymnals, and forgotten songs have been resurrected (some with a new tune).

This same swinging back and forth has been true of doctrine. For many, studying doctrine has a negative connotation, conjuring images of theological word-battles, boring lectures, and thick books you need to read with a dictionary by your side and a couple years of Latin under your belt. Even the word "doctrine" has a musty feel to it. Some of these concerns are understandable. I remember heated debates late at night in my dorm at college. Interesting as they may have been, they usually left both parties feeling attacked (or even smug if they believe they made their case more effectively). Usually not a picture of iron sharpening iron or brothers (and sisters) in Christ building one another up.

More recently, doctrine has come under fire in the name of post-modernism. The argument goes something like this: Since we all have different experiences and perspectives, and since these shape our beliefs, how can we really know what truth is? Taking this a bit further, some have argued that there really can be no absolute truth (a tautological problem in and of itself). The end result is: Believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. No one's right and no one's wrong. Right doctrine, in a world like this, simply can't exist.

Maybe that's why the pendulum of evangelicalism is once again swinging back to seeing the importance of theology and right belief. In recent years, the young, restless, and reformed movement has been on the upsurge, and along with it has been a resurgence in studying theology. And it's not just for Bible students and seminarians anymore. Mark Driscoll (with Gerry Breshears) has a book out on doctrine, and Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology has been reduced and reformatted twice (correction - three times) to reach a wider audience. Into this world, comes Joshua Harris (who many remember from I Kissed Dating Goodbye fame. [As a side note, I once sat in the lowest level of my college library to read that book from cover to cover in one sitting because there was a girl I was interested in dating who told me, "I don't date; I only court"]).

Dug Down Deep is not a verbose, overly detailed systematic theology text though. It's actually more like a conversation that a straight-up study in theology. Harris writes with a pastoral concern for the big topics within the realm of theology (the nature of God, the nature of Scripture, the nature and work of Jesus, justification, sanctification, the Holy Spirit, and the Church). Interwoven throughout these chapters is the account of Harris' own journey in which he learned to dig down deep. The "meat" of the theology is certainly not exhaustive, nor is it oversimplified. He does a good job of providing a sensible balance for most Christians. The book is almost a work of apologetics for Christians who grew up in the evangelical church. It's as if Harris (and Driscoll and others) are writing to young Christians today and saying, "Yeah, you're right. The church has dropped the ball. We didn't get deep. We didn't give you the 'whole counsel of God' as Paul talked about (Acts 20:27). We blew it, but here's our attempt at correcting that problem. Doctrine is important, so please take this seriously."

In my opinion, Dug Down Deep would be a great book study for high school or college students. The theology presented is solid, and Harris provides support when necessary. This book will serve as an excellent conversation starter, and since it doesn't read like a textbook, I think the less-than-motivated crowd who still needs to know this stuff will benefit tremendously.

A love that will not let me go

2011-08-07T13:31:00.018-04:00

Seven years ago this month, as Melinda and I were planning our wedding ceremony, we had a small conflict over whether or not we should have a hymn be part of the ceremony. Having grown up in New England, I just assumed that a congregational hymn was part of any normal American wedding service. I discovered that to Melinda, who had grown up in California, the idea was foreign and strange. In the end, we compromised and had a classic hymn sung by good friends during part of the processional. The tune was updated for a more modern feel, but the lyrics were from 1882. The hymn we chose was "O Love That Will Not Let Me Go" by George Matheson.

I say that "we" chose it, but I suggested it. I thought it had the perfect dual message. Obviously, the love that does not let us go is God's, but I liked the idea that the refrain could also speak of the promise a bride and groom make to one another on their wedding day. A marriage has ups and downs to be sure, but the marriage of two Christians is supposed to be forever. It's supposed to be a love that never lets go of the other person.

This is not the place to discuss the details, and some of you know what's happened, but for those who don't, Melinda and I are currently going through a divorce. This is not something I ever expected or wanted. Walking through this has been a truly horrible experience and something I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy. It's thrown my life upside-down and left me feeling like a piece of trash that someone's thrown away.

I've asked God why He has allowed this to happen, but I haven't been given a satisfying answer. I've looked back on the past few months (and even years) and have asked myself if there was something I could have done to prevent this, to strengthen our marriage and avoid that which is now reality. I haven't come up with anything too compelling. I've tried to make sense of this in a million different ways and I simply can't. But it is what it is, and I have to move forward.

The truth is that, even though I know I must move forward, the divorce itself is hindering my forward momentum. I had a wonderful job at a great church in Ohio all but lined up. Melinda and I were actually scheduled to fly to Ohio and be introduced to the congregation in mid-July, but when I shared what had happened with the church's leadership, they understandably changed their minds. With no job, money running out, and a wife who no longer wanted to be married to me, I drove across the country (in a car without A/C) for three days, stopping only when I had to for food, water, gas, bathroom, and bed. I'm in Georgia now, trying to start over - trying to rebuild - but it's easier said than done.

I had "O Love That Will Not Let Me Go" as my ringtone for Melinda on my iPhone. That was one of the first things I changed after we separated. It wasn't that I thought she'd be calling me a whole lot, but I thought that if she did for some reason, the sound of that song might do me in. It's seems a cruel irony that the song that most reminds me of our relationship and of our wedding day is about a love that doesn't let go. Like I said, I picked the song primarily because I liked the thought of love that's permanent - God's love for us and the love that's shared between a married couple - but I didn't know the full story behind the song until a few years after we got married. As I thought about the song and the feelings I have associated with it, something began to change. Instead of only being a painful reminder, the song is beginning to be a reminder of something else. But before I get to that, a little about the song's origin...

George Matheson lived in Scotland during the 19th century. As a young man, he was preparing to go into the ministry, so he was studying voraciously. He was also engaged to be married to a woman he loved deeply. But because of all of his studies, his eyesight began to fail him. And during his engagement, doctors announced that there was nothing they could do; his eyesight would continue to get worse until, eventually, he would be blind. His fiancee couldn't bear the thought of being married to a blind man for the rest of her life, so she called off the wedding. George was heartbroken.

His sister took care of him for a number of years and George Matheson became a pastor, preaching to more than 1,500 weekly, despite his blindness. His sister became his best friend and her care allowed him to do what God had called him to do. It was on the eve of his sister's wedding day, in the midst of his sadness at the thought of losing her (and no doubt the reminder of his own lost wedding day), that George penned the words to "O Love That Will Not Let Me Go."

1. O Love that will not let me go
I rest my weary soul in thee;
I give thee back the life I owe,
That in thine ocean depths its flow
May richer, fuller be.

2. O light that followest all my way,
I yield my flickering torch to thee;
My heart restores its borrowed ray,
That in thy sunshine’s blaze its day
May brighter, fairer be.
3. O Joy that seekest me through pain,
I cannot close my heart to thee;
I trace the rainbow through the rain,
And feel the promise is not vain,
That morn shall tearless be.

4. O Cross that liftest up my head,
I dare not ask to fly from thee;
I lay in dust life’s glory dead,
And from the ground there blossoms red
Life that shall endless be.

Despite the pain and difficulty he endured, Matheson described his life as one of "quenchless hopefulness." Reading that statement and listening to the lyrics of his hymn, I envy his resolve. People have told me I seem to be handling my situation well, but deep down I am frustrated and hurt. It takes all of my energy and determination to see God's sovereignty and remember his goodness in all of this. I know that even though he is not the cause of my struggle, he permitted it to come into my life and that ultimately this time of suffering will be for his glory and my good - no matter how hard it is to see that right now.

The image that brings me comfort is the rainbow (stanza 3), not because rainbows are warm and fuzzy, pretty, or politically correct these days, but because of what it stands for. After the flood of Genesis, God placed a rainbow in the sky as a reminder that He would never again destroy the world by flood for the sin of mankind. A bow is a symbol of war, but instead of the bow being tightly drawn and aimed at the people of earth, a rainbow is aimed in the sky, symbolically at God Himself. After the flood, sin still needed to be dealt with, but God would take the punishment we deserved. The arrow of God's wrath would be shot at His Son. The image of the rainbow is a reminder that, no matter what hardships we're enduring, no matter what pain we're experiencing, Jesus Christ has taken upon Himself far worse - and because of our sin. The rainbow reminds me that, despite what I'm feeling at the moment, God's love will never let me go. This was proven at Calvary.

Life may never be quite the same for me, but God is always the same. And that gives me hope.

Below is a live recording of Sandra McCracken singing "O Love That Will Not Let Me Go" (you may have to wait for it to load) from Indelible Grace: The Hymn Sing - Live in Nashville.

"O Love That Will Not Let Me Go"

A Meal with Jesus: A Review

2011-06-06T13:39:00.000-04:00

I found Tim Chester's A Meal with Jesus both challenging and refreshing. The basic premise of the book is that meals can be a means of grace in action. They build true community, point to our future hope in Christ, and serve as a context for mission. Chester traces the meals of Jesus in Luke's gospel (chapters 5, 7, 9, 14, 22, and 24) to show how powerful a meal shared with friends (and even supposed enemies) can be. I say this book was refreshing because it showed how much can be said with our actions. For those of us who follow Christ, our meals can be a means of obedience to Him. They allow us to show love to others and to tell the story of what God has done for us. They also serve as a reminder of the great promises we have in Christ. Such a simple thing, but very powerful.

On the other hand, I found this book challenging because meals can be very personal and can quickly drag a person out of their comfort zone in order to meet another person where they are living. This is not easy (at least not for me). In the book, Chester describes cross-cultural meals enacted as mission. To some, this type of thing is electrifying. For others (like myself), the idea is welcome, but the reality is filled with questions and sustained efforts to avoid looking stupid or having too many awkward silences. It's much easier to hope people just come to our churches, where we feel comfortable and where it's not so intimate.

As I said, this kind of thinking is a challenge, but a good one - one in which I hope God will give me opportunities to grow. At the same time (and this is not intended to be a cop out), I wonder if Chester too easily jumps from the ancient context of hospitality through shared meals to today's world. What I mean is this: Does inviting someone over for a meal convey the same feelings and respect it did two-thousand years ago? For some, I'm sure it does, but for others, the whole scene might seem really alien, depending on how long the guests have known the hosts. Even in the span of a few decades, things have changed. Imagine attending a church for the first time and being invited to lunch at the home of someone you met for about five minutes during the meet-and-greet time of the service (this was not uncommon years ago). For some, this invitation would be a welcome door into the life of the church. For others, such an invitation would be the height of awkwardness. Maybe today's hospitality would more comfortably take place at a neutral setting or after some measure of time has passed. As I struggle to find where my own discomfort meets true cultural difference, I hope to find the place where the challenge isn't diminished entirely and where the twenty-first century realities meet the heart of Jesus.

"Everything else - creation, redemption, mission - is 'for' this: that we might eat together in the presence of God. God created the world so we might eat with him. The food we consume, the table around which we sit, and the companions gathered with us have as their end our communion with one another and with God. The Israelites were redeemed to eat with God on the mountain, and we're redeemed for the great messianic banquet that we anticipate when we eat together as a Christian community. We proclaim Christ in mission so that others might hear the invitation to join the feast.

"Creation, redemption, and mission all exist so that this meal can take place" (138).

"The Idolatry of Worry"

2011-06-01T20:09:00.000-04:00

I've got a new article up on RelevantMagazine.com. It's called "The Idolatry of Worry." Please check it out:

"The Idolatry of Worry"

Don't Hold Your Breath

2011-05-11T16:56:00.000-04:00

Eric Peters is such a great songwriter... Enjoy!

Don't Hold Your Breath by Eric Peters from Patrick Gines on Vimeo.

Desiring God, Chapters Nine & Ten

2011-05-10T18:10:00.000-04:00

The last read-along session with John Piper was last Thursday, so this post is a little late. I wanted to make sure that I didn't leave out these last two chapters though.

A couple of weeks ago, I was talking with someone about Christian books and Christian authors in general. We were talking about how many Christian writers out there just put a new spin on an old teaching and pump out a new book every year or so. One of the real tests of quality is in whether that author's work lasts. Desiring God has been around now for twenty-five years, and I can honestly say that these pages were more of a blessing to me today than they were when I first read them fifteen years ago. In fact, this time around, I got to watch a friend of mine go through Desiring God for the first time and it was a joy to see how God used John Piper's ministry in his life.

Desiring God has challenged me in many ways. Hopefully, you've seen that in the previous blog posts. One of these paradigm-shifting ideas comes in the last chapter. Piper quotes 1 Corinthians 15:19, where Paul says, "If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied" (ESV). In other words, the resurrection and our future hope makes the Christian life worth it. Because of what we believe God will do in the future, we can sacrifice everything today. Without that hope, though, we are worthy of the world's pity. If there is nothing beyond this life, we have wasted our time on this planet. The question John Piper asks after reflecting on this passage is this: Would people look at our lives and pity us? The answer for most of us (myself included) is "Probably not."In the discussion of this chapter, Piper admitted that we are not all called to suffer in the way that Paul was, but we are all called to live with a readiness to die. The question we must each ask ourselves is, "Am I ready?"

Listen to Christian radio for just a few minutes and ask yourself where the emphasis is. Is it on Christ's death? Is it on the future hope of resurrection? Is it on God's Word as a sustaining force in our lives? When I listen to Christian radio, no matter where I am, there are two main messages I hear. First, Christian radio is positive. Ironically, gritty songs about Christ's death are usually not welcome. Second, Christian radio is family friendly. Something's off when this is what defines us. Family is great. Positivity is also great. But that's not why Christ died and these things don't call us to risk it all for Christ. "We can't exalt the family above risk for Christ," Piper commented to one student who asked about the call to suffer for the Lord. I don't mean to pick on Christian radio - it's an easy target - but I wonder what the apostle Paul would think of it...

Desiring God is a classic, and a book that I would recommend to any Christian who's looking to grow deeper in their walk with Christ. I think it's funny that people talk about John Piper's concept of Christian hedonism as if it's something new or they talk about Desiring God as if it's the personal manifesto of one man. The genius of Desiring God is that it's not new at all. What is contained in its pages is drawn from the pages of Scripture itself and carefully follows along the lines of the historical Christian faith. Maybe Piper put these ideas together in a unique way, and maybe he has the gift of communication, but the legacy of Desiring God goes back much further than 1986.

Desiring God, Chapters Seven & Eight

2011-04-28T20:43:00.000-04:00

This post will be short. Rather than attempting to run through all the good stuff in these two chapters, I just want to mention one idea from Dr. Piper's chapter on marriage. I think it has the power to turn your world upside-down:

"God did not create the union of Christ and the church after the pattern of human marriage - just the reverse! He created human marriage on the pattern of Christ's relation to the church" (213).

That's it. To me, this is revolutionary stuff. I mean, think about it. God created the institution of marriage in Genesis 2 when he brought Eve to Adam and blessed their union. But even then, he was painting a picture of the ultimate union - that of Christ and the church. Marriage is not a human invention. The Bible tells us this much, but the mystery, which Paul describes in Ephesians and which John Piper writes about in Desiring God, is that marriage isn't even really an end in itself. It points to a relationship more enduring - the eternal relationship between Christ and his people.

This means that marriage is not up for redefinition. It means that any time we take our marriage vows lightly, we're dishonoring our Creator. It means that a husband's role is to be patterned after Christ's authority and love for the church. And it means that a wife's role is that of the church's. Our society tends to treat marriage in utilitarian terms. If it works, it's fine. If it doesn't, let's throw it out or change the rules. But we have no right to do this.

Marriage is a picture. It's temporary, but the image it points to is permanent. And marriage is a Creation ordinance, meaning it's for believers and unbelievers alike. How much more then should Christian marriage be an opportunity to glorify God by showing the world what it means to live sacrificially (as Christ sacrificed himself for us) and to live submissively (as we submit to his leadership)?

The Greener Grass Conspiracy: A Review

2011-04-27T21:23:00.000-04:00

Years ago, I went on my first short-term mission trip. I was shocked. But not by the poverty we encountered and not by the hospitality we received from people who had so little. The most shocking thing to me was the joy we found in the lives of the people we met. I say this was shocking because, on the surface, it was backwards. My team was from America. Every one of us would be considered filthy rich by world standards. We never went to bed hungry, always had clothes and comfortable shoes to wear, and each of us lived under a very nice roof with room to spare. And we complained a lot. These poor people we met on our trip? They smiled a lot.

The difference was not circumstances or possessions. It was not physical or financial security. It was not entertainment or fun activities. It was Christ. He alone is the only thing that will ever satisfy human hearts. He alone brings true joy. That's the focus of Stephen Altrogge's book The Greener Grass Conspiracy. Altrogge argues that there is a conspiracy to steal our joy. The world, our own flesh, and the devil have conspired to confuse us, distract us, and get us chasing after things that simply don't matter. After unmasking this "conspiracy," Altrogge tells unpacks the biblical secret of contentment: keeping our focus on Christ.

The Greener Grass Conspiracy was very readable. Altrogge has a good sense of humor and is just as comfortable quoting the Puritans as he is referencing Back to the Future. At the same time, he pulls no punches: "God owes us nothing except justice. The fires of hell would be the right destination for ungrateful, arrogant rebels like us. We've been disobedient, rebellious, hard-hearted people. We don't deserve relaxation or a nice house or hot showers or a monthly paycheck. What we deserve is hell" (71).

When it comes to the subject of contentment, there's a fine line to be navigated. On the one hand, we should be content and joyful in this life because of what Christ has done on our behalf at Calvary. On the other hand, we have not yet arrived. We still struggle with sin and we live day-to-day in a fallen, painful world. Therefore, something would be terribly wrong if we didn't have a longing for heaven. Altrogge makes this clear by pointing to the hope of life with God after this one is over. He writes, "When we're discontent, we're forgetting that heaven awaits us. Your futile house projects are a reminder that you're not home yet... You're frustration with your job is a reminder that soon you'll be able to enjoy work as you were always meant to do. The strife that now rips at your family is a reminder that the King of Peace will soon destroy all sin" (137).

The Greener Grass Conspiracy is one of those books that will challenge many people. It goes against the grain of much of our experience. Contentment is a subject that is rarely discussed in these terms, even in church. Our tendency is to empathize with people when they're discontent, but like the people we're trying to help, all too often we focus on circumstances too. This will be a book I'd happily recommend to someone struggling to recover their joy.

"I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me" (Philippians 4:12-13, ESV).

Desiring God, Chapters Five & Six

2011-04-22T23:33:00.000-04:00

"You will never know what prayer is for until you know that life is war," says John Piper. In the last few months, I've had a few people ask me about prayer. Mainly they want to know why we should pray since God is in control of the Universe. Do we really think our prayers will make any difference? I think is one of the toughest concepts to tackle. How can God tell us to pray - to ask him for the things we need - when he knows better than us what things we will need before we even need them? It doesn't seem to make sense.

John Piper calls prayer "the power of Christian hedonism," and in Chapter Six of Desiring God he shows that we bring God glory by asking him to supply our needs. Wanting God to supply our needs sounds kind of self-centered, but if we understand that it is him alone that will bring us true joy and happiness, it's really the most God-centered activity we can pursue. In prayer, we allow God to be the Giver; we allow him to serve us. And just as a servant who aids an invalid with every step deserves praise for his gracious work, so God deserves the glory when he meets our needs. So we pray and we ask. This keeps us from trying to serve God in an attempt to earn his love or acceptance. Such an attitude keeps us humble, so that when we do serve God, it is out of gratefulness for what he's already done for us.

But what about all the stuff we pray for that never seems to come. Doesn't God care? "Prayer is given to us for the sake of mission," Piper often says. It's like a war-time walkie-talkie, but we often treat it like a domestic intercom. Prayer is given to us to help us bear fruit. Prayer does change things. It's the means through which God often chooses to act in this world. On one of the most examined passages on prayer, Piper writes, "In fact, the grammar of John 15:16 implies that the reason Jesus gives them their mission is so that they will be able to enjoy the power of prayer: 'I send you to bear fruit...so that whatever you ask the father...he may give you'" (177).

If prayer is the power of Christian hedonism, the Bible is the kindling of Christian hedonism. We all know (or we should know that Scripture is desperately important to living the Christian life. In the online Table Talk discussion this week, Piper was asked if it's possible to make the Bible into an idol. Without hesitation, he said it could easily become an idol, but he offered two suggestions to help us know if we are indeed turning our love for God's Word into a substitute for God himself. First, he said we ought to ask God to let the Scriptures be a window that allows us to see him more clearly. Too often, we come to the text and we read what's on the page. We understand the context, we get "the point" of the passage, and we may even learn something, but we fail to see God more clearly as a result of our study or devotional time. We need God's help to avoid this trap. Second, Piper says, we need to be on guard if we are tempted to use our knowledge of the Bible to wage selfish or prideful debates. The Scriptures were given to point us to Christ, but it can be all too easy to believe our study makes us better than other people. This doesn't mean that we should never address false doctrine or correct a brother or sister in Christ, but when we cross the line of self-aggrandizement, we may have turned the Bible into an idol.

So what is the key to developing a passion and hunger for God's Word and for prayer? Piper says, "God holds the key. We are utterly dependent on him." I know I've experienced this reality in my own life. There are times when I don't feel like reading my Bible or spending time in prayer. It's God who grants a passion for Bible-reading and time in prayer. And we do delve into Scripture, we need to ask God to open our eyes in order to see "the grounds of joy" (as Piper puts it). These grounds are like fuel to the fire of our joy.

Rediscovering the Church Fathers: A Review

2011-04-13T21:33:00.001-04:00

Here's a quick pop quiz.

1) Who called Islam a "still-prevailing superstition of the Ishmaelites that deceives people" and "the forerunner of Antichrist"?

a) Franklin Graham
b) Glenn Beck
c) John of Damascus
d) What is an Ishmaelite and who is John of Damascus?

2) When was the following statement made: "Now, this is the perfect and consummate glory in God: not to exult in one's own righteousness, but, recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness, to be justified by faith in Christ alone."

a) During the Protestant Reformation
b) During last year's Desiring God conference
c) During the fourth century
d) In Paul's letter to the church at Rome

3) Saint Patrick first came to Ireland:

a) As a missionary
b) As a slave
c) As a young child and grew up there
d) Because they were after his lucky charms

The answers are down below if you're curious...

But you're probably thinking Who cares? And you'd be right. These questions all have to do with the early church fathers (Christians from the first five centuries or so of church history), and the truth is most evangelicals don't care about patristics. My point in this silly quiz was to show just how relevant the lives and writings of these ancient Christians are for us today. The church fathers wrote about issues that modern Christians care deeply about and they lived their lives amidst a changing world. Some were learning how to live as persecuted people and knew that to follow Christ was to run the risk of being executed. Others struggled with living authentic Christian lives when Christianity became the official state religion and was watered down.

In Rediscovering the Church Fathers, Michael A. G. Haykin, a church history professor at SBTS invites evangelicals to explore this ancient world that we often overlook. Albeit, not everything the church fathers wrote or believed is theological gold. In fact, many of them struggled to figure out exactly what orthodoxy was (and some wandered into heresy). But we have them to thank today for what we've inherited. They fought important theological battles first and we have received the blessing of their work and their faithfulness.

I mean, just look at the quote above in question # 2. That could have come from the pen of Martin Luther or John Calvin or from a multitude of reformed pastors today, but it came from a relatively unknown theologian of the [spoiler alert!] fourth century, Basil of Caesarea. Although it's popular for emergent types today to say that the issues being addressed by the Reformation were unique to that day, clearly the concepts of Sola Fide and Sola Christus (and all the other solas) were not invented by the reformers!

The book is presented as a brief survey of the early Christian world. In fact, "survey" might even be too strong a word. It's more like a sampler pack of early church history. You get some variety, but some of the best flavors are missing. (For example, there's no Didache, and there's no Augustine.) With that in mind, each chapter stands by itself (although there is some cross-referencing when themes or lives intersect). This can make the work appear more or less like a textbook at times. On the other hand, this book is a great introduction to some wonderful early Christians and could serve as a springboard for more detailed study. I was a little disappointed that there wasn't more of the actual writings from the fathers. For me, the highlights in this book were the chapters on Ignatius of Antioch, Origen, Basil of Caesarea, and Patrick. I wouldn't say this is a book for everyone, but if you like historical theology, this book might just be for you...

If you got to the end of this post, here's your reward. The answers are: 1) c. 2) c. 3) b.

Desiring God, Chapters Three & Four

2011-04-08T15:46:00.004-04:00

Besides Desiring God, one other John Piper book had a heavy influence on me when I was in college: Let the Nations Be Glad. It was assigned reading for a course on Romans and Galatians I took during my senior year. The main point of the book was that missions exists because worship doesn't. In other words, the goal of missions is not more missions. Missionary efforts will one day cease forever, but missionary work continues today because the full number of worshipers that God has ordained are not yet worshiping him and bringing glory to his name. The goal of missions is to increase worship.

At the time, this ideas was revolutionary to me. I was so used to the humanity-centered goals for missionary work, namely that if people weren't told about Christ, they would go to hell. This is, of course, true (contrary to what some folks are saying these days), but the point of missions isn't people; it's God and his glory. Chapter Three of Desiring God is all about worship. Here Piper calls it "the feast of Christian hedonism" (77), and once again argues that worship is an end in itself, and not a means to something else. He writes, "Worship is authentic when affections for God arise in the heart as an end in themselves" (92). Rather than showing disdain for displays of emotion in worship settings, Piper says that an emotional response is the most natural thing that should happen to a Christian Hedonist. He compares the joy felt and expressed in worship to the fear one might feel deep in the woods when he thinks a bear attack is imminent. There is no decision to fear that needs to be made. The fear is there before there is any debate in one's mind. No one calculates the merit of being afraid. Emotions are an end in themselves.

But doesn't this make worship man-centered in the end? During the Q & A session online, Piper answered that worship is still God-centered even when we find joy there simply because our finding joy in God is another way of saying that we are gladly reflecting back to God his own greatness.

Sounds good, right? I mean, I think every one of us would love to experience pure joy in worship as an overflow of our desiring God. But let's be honest: It doesn't always happen. Sometimes it feels like we're just going through the motions, like we're singing the words on the screen, but they're bypassing our hearts. So what do we do about this? First, Piper reminds us that worship is not limited to Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. Our whole lives should be an experience of worship. Second, he argues that oftentimes, we need simply to ask God to open our eyes to the wonder all around us. We fail to see wonder because we fail to ask God to reveal it to us. Piper actually suggests pausing every five minutes or so in order to pray. We should ask God to open up the eyes or our hearts to the wonder of his majesty all around us - in the good things and even in the bad. This will allow us to rejoice even in the midst of suffering and hardship (see Romans 5:1-5).

Piper emphasized that worship is not a matter of external practices. After all, that's what hypocrites do. They act a certain way, but what's going on in their hearts is something entirely different. Instead, worship is to be a matter of the heart. Our goal ought to be satisfaction in God, which is the spirit and place of true worship, and this heart attitude will then overflow in expressions of singing, love for others, and service to God and our fellow man. Jesus said it best when he was confronting the Pharisees of his day about their external acts of piety, quoting the prophet Isaiah: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:8-9, ESV). This is what happens when worship becomes a means to an end (attempting to please God with our religiosity or look good to other people or feel better about ourselves or even to get an emotional high).

Just talking about it makes me want to go and worship... so that's all for now.

Desiring God, Chapters One & Two

2011-03-31T22:31:00.007-04:00

So I received the 25th anniversary edition of John Piper's Desiring God a couple weeks back from the publisher. I'll be honest; I was taken in by the new, pretty cover. Don't get me wrong - I love John Piper and Desiring God has been one of the most influential books in my life since I first read it in college. You see, that's the thing: I already own the book. The tenth anniversary edition of Desiring God sits neatly on my shelf and I can reread it anytime I want. But when I was offered a free copy of the new edition in order to write a review, I gave into book lust and agreed. (It's not as bad as you think; I honestly was curious to see what Piper had revised in the last fifteen years.)

Then I had a problem. I'm already in the middle of a bunch of other books that I've never read before. Desiring God would have to wait. But then I saw a post on Facebook from one of John Piper's underlings saying that Piper himself would be doing a "read-along" of the book. Each week, he's hosting a live video Q & A session. Two chapters a week and an hour with Piper: What's not to love?

So rather than writing the typical review, I'm going to blog my impressions after each week's session. This will (obviously) take some time, but it will allow me to explore some of the depth that Desiring God has to offer. The basic concept of Christian hedonism is easy to explain, but unpacking all that the concept entails can take a while.

Desiring God is subtitled "Meditations of a Christian Hedonist," so the natural question is, "What's a Christian hedonist?" Well, since Piper himself refuses to offer a definition until the end of the book, I will refrain from trying to give one at this early stage. However, to give you a sense of what's it all about, Piper says that the chief end of man is not "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever" as the Westminster Catechism supposes. Rather, he changes one word and in doing so, challenges our traditional ways of thinking. For Piper, the reason we're here is "to glorify God by enjoying Him forever." There are not two separate goals or two things to divide our attention. Rather, the way we glorify God is by finding our true happiness in him and in him alone. Nothing else will satisfy. (To be fair, Piper is not really changing the meaning of the original answer. The original question is not "What are the chief ends of man?" as if there were more than one.)

During the live Q & A earlier today, one of the students at Bethlehem Seminary asked Piper if it's possible to be a Christian and not be a Christian hedonist. In other words, is it possible to put one's faith in Christ but still seek happiness elsewhere? Piper responded by saying that Christian hedonists are not some select group of really spiritual people within the church. Rather, every Christian is a Christian hedonist (even if they don't know what that means). To turn to Christ is to have the initial flame in one's heart that assures them Christ is the only real treasure to be had; everything else will disappoint. However, people are sinful. We waiver and chase after other things. The journey of a Christian hedonist is one that takes the believer into ever-growing joy in Christ. This should be the path of every believer, regardless of how they describe it.

Piper also described it this way: To be a Christian hedonist is to be born again. We let go of the things of this world, and our own hopes and wants and desires, and as these things fall out of our hands, we receive Christ as our treasure instead. That's what it means to be born again, and that's what it means to be a Christian hedonist.

Another student asked Dr. Piper if love for God and obedience to God should be thought of as synonymous. Mere obedience and duty can never be love. Instead, it's love that prompts us to obedience. That's why in John 14:15, Jesus can say, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (ESV). Love and obedience are certainly connected, but they're not the same thing. Our love, or delight, in God is what ought to spur us on to obedience. In this way, delight in God is not sinful or secondary. Rather, it's the very thing that brings God glory.

In Chapter Two, "Conversion: The Creation of a Christian Hedonist," Piper writes, "The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an 'extra' that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. It is not simply a way to 'enhance' your walk with the Lord. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your 'faith' cannot please God. It is not saving faith" (73). Strong words, but convicting if you're someone who's been seeking happiness elsewhere. At the same time, if you've felt guilty for seeking happiness at all, it's liberating.... and it's a good place to stop till next time.

If you're interested in checking out the live Q & A sessions, they are streamed at www.desiringgod.org/live at 12:00 noon in each time zone on Thursdays. Also, if you want a cheap copy of Desiring God to read, Desiring God Ministries is selling the paperback for just $5.

Are you a functional universalist?

2011-03-29T21:59:00.000-04:00

This is not another post about Rob Bell's Love Wins. Honestly, I don't want to talk about it anymore. I'm just tired of it. However, I wanted to repost this great video from David Platt. I think the direction he's taking the discussion is really important and pulls us back from the theological debate and into the real world again:

Do We Really Believe What We're Saying? from The Church at Brook Hills on Vimeo.

The gospel according to Rob Bell and why all dogs do not go to heaven

2011-02-27T16:51:00.002-05:00

One of the more difficult sayings of Jesus occurs in Mark Chapter Seven. Here Jesus has come to the region of Tyre and Sidon and a Gentile woman has fallen at his feet asking him to cast a demon out of her daughter. Jesus says to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs" (7:27, ESV). Ouch! This goes against everything we think we know about Jesus. He doesn't agree to help someone in need AND he calls this woman and her child "dogs"!

What's going on here? Some commentators like D. A. Carson believe Jesus is here quoting a well-known parable. That takes some of the sting out of his turn-of-phrase, but the end result is the same. He's refusing to help her daughter. It's also important to point out that what Jesus is really saying is that his mission is, first and foremost, to the people of Israel - the people who have been waiting for a messiah to come. As Mark's gospel (and the rest of the New Testament) will later show, the mission of Jesus and his disciples will extend to the rest of the nations, but for now, it's an Israel-only kind of deal.

In the end, the story has a happy ending... The woman is persistent, turning Jesus' response on it's head: "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs" (7:28). Jesus recognizes her faith and heals the woman's daughter. So here was a woman outside of the community of faith who was rewarded for having great faith. Her faith, as imperfect as it might have been, had Christ as its object and that made all the difference.

But why am I bringing this up? In the last few days, the publicity for Rob Bell's new book has come out. It's called Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. While some have argued that we need to wait until the book comes out and can be read in its entirety before drawing any conclusions, it appears Bell's going to argue for universalism, or at least that articulated faith in Jesus Christ and in his atoning work on the cross is not necessary for salvation. In the promo video for the book, Bell questions whether Ghandi, who was decidedly not a Christian, is now in hell, and in the writeup for the book by HarperOne's marketing folks, we read, "Bell addresses on of the most controversial issues of faith - the afterlife - arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering." That sure sounds like universalism to me. Essentially, universalism argues that all dogs go to heaven, no matter what, because God - the nice, loving guy that he is - is simply incapable of subjecting his creatures to eternal punishment.

However, the Bible is clear - time and time again - that there is a problem. Without Christ, we stand unjustified before God's righteous wrath, deserving eternal punishment for our rebellion. While it can be hard for some folks to logically reconcile the idea of a loving God with eternal punishment, I believe that to argue for any form of universalism is to argue against the clear teaching of Scripture. Love Wins is the title of Bell's new book, and that sounds like such a great phrase, but it's far too simplistic. Yes, love does win. It was love that sent Jesus to earth to die on behalf of sinners. But justice wins too. So does holiness. And most importantly, so does God's glory.

When Jesus looked at this poor Syro-Phoenician woman on her knees and referred to her as a dog, it was her faith that changed her story. As harsh as Jesus' conversation might sound to modern ears, the message of the Bible is not "I'm okay, you're okay." It's that we're all not okay - we're all dogs - and we're all in need of saving. The only one who can save us is Christ. How we understand the exclusivity of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ affects how we view God and how we view the human condition. Though I'm certainly not arguing for a fire-and-brimstone approach to evangelism, I do think that we need to stand on the side of truth. In the end, which is more loving - to make people feel better temporarily though they are still lost in their sin, or to speak the truth to people who need to hear the gospel message?

I honestly hope that the marketing personnel over at HarperOne are just trying to be uber-provocative and that Bell will land somewhere safely on the side of orthodoxy in his new book. But whether he does or not, I hope that thinking Christians will engage in good conversations about these issues, and that at the end of these conversations, truth will stand.

Old School Faith: Don't Call It a Comeback

2011-02-25T19:13:00.000-05:00

Sadly, one of the things we've lost in many corners of the American church is a sure sense of what we believe and how we are to live. Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that evangelicals have no idea what the gospel's all about or what the Bible says about a variety of topics. What I am saying is this: When I was growing up in a conservative Southern Baptist Church, I knew what it meant to be a Christian. Granted, some of the things I was taught to cling to I've since let go of. (For example, I wouldn't insist that an occasional drink is a sin on par with murder or that the U.N. may be secretly plotting the end of the world.) Still, many churches today have gone to the other extreme. Rather than let doctrine and practice become decisive issues, we've sought to become inclusive and tried to act relevant. And while it's good to build bridges and learn to speak the culture's language, I fear that many young evangelicals are growing without any definition of who they are.

Don't Call It a Comeback is the group effort of many young pastors and authors, and is an attempt to pass along the essentials of evangelical faith to the generation coming of age today. I really believe this book is valuable. In fact, it would be one of the first books I'd pass on to a new Christian. The first section of the book contains two chapters - the first, a look forward, and the second, a look back. Kevin DeYoung, the book's editor, writes passing on the faith to the next generation. I was actually pleasantly surprised to see such a great, but simply articulated, analysis of youth ministry. I've struggled for a long time with much of the material being passed on to youth workers by mainstream evangelical publishers. To me, a lot of the stuff seems to miss the forest for the trees. But DeYoung's analysis is spot-on. Kids need to be amazed by God, taught the truth of Scripture in a no-holds-barred manner, and shown what the Christian life looks like in practice by adults who love them. The second chapter from Collin Hansen (of Young, Restless, Reformed fame) takes a look back at the roots of evangelicalism. This chapter helps put our weird bunch into historical perspective, and serves as a good counter-punch against those who only want to point out where evangelicalism has gotten it wrong in recent years.

The rest of the book unfolds with a section on what we believe as evangelicals and a section on how we are to live. As with the chapters in the first section, each chapter in the remainder of the book is taken on by a different author. While I appreciated the effort to bring some variety into the book, this was actually a challenge. Some of the chapters are simply better written than others, so some were more enjoyable to read. One highlight was DeYoung and Eric Redmond's chapter on homosexuality. Rather than stepping back from the issue as many young evangelicals might want to (let's face it - talking about the subject puts us on the defensive and makes us uncomfortable), the authors tackle this tough subject head on, providing a brief but fairly thorough analysis of the biblical passages that usually come into play in any discussion of same-sex behavior. Not only is this important for young evangelicals to read, but I would venture that many seasoned pastors could benefit from DeYoung and Redmond's defense of orthodoxy in this area. As the authors point out, the issue of homosexuality is important, not just because there are many people struggling with same-sex attraction, but because how we handle the issue says a lot about how we will show grace to homosexuals and how we will understand the Bible's authority.

Overall, the book is highly recommended!

A Place for Weakness: A Review

2011-02-01T19:48:00.001-05:00

It seems that lately I've been choosing to read a lot of books on suffering, weakness, and brokenness. Maybe it's just the luck of the draw with some of the publishers for whom I review books. Or maybe it's because I'm looking for a job at the moment and oftentimes feel less than normal. There's something about not working that leaves a man feeling like he's not being all that he can be. I don't think it's an accident that God put the first man Adam in the Garden in order "to work it and keep it" (Genesis 2:15, ESV). Before the Fall and before marriage, there was work. It's what we were designed to do, so when we're not able to do it, we naturally feel broken.

This past weekend, I read through Michael Horton's A Place for Weakness (previously released as Too Good to Be True). On the surface, this book is about how a Christian ought to face suffering and hardship, but on a deeper level, this book is a celebration of the gospel. What I mean is this: Too often we approach the subject of suffering as if its secondary to the Christian life. We don't deny that people suffer, but we don't expect it to happen to us. We believe that if it does happen, we'll find strength from God to deal with it, so after all it won't be that bad. This allows us to push suffering and hardship to the periphery and let's us embrace a theology that sees God as merely the purveyor of good times. We don't want to see suffering in our lives as having come through God's permissive hand.

Horton beautifully weaves his own stories of hardship and uncertainty with sound teaching about God's sovereignty and with biblical stories of those who have suffered under God's providence. Never does he come up with easy or pat answers to the common questions related to suffering and evil. He writes:

"We cannot know what God has decided in his deep and mysterious hiddenness, and we can only know what God condescends to reveal to us as he cloaks his unapproachable light in humility and weakness. We cannot climb up to God, but he can descend to us. This is the gospel in a nutshell and it sustains us in suffering" (83).

We have no guarantee that we'll be able to understand, this side of eternity, why God has allowed certain difficulties into our lives. Like Job, we must affirm that both good and bad things come from the hand of God (Job 2:10). But we must also take the lesson from Job's story: God is God and we are not. We have no right to question his goodness, his justice, or his will for our lives. This of course does not look good on a T-shirt, nor is it particularly seeker sensitive. Horton, therefore, spends much of the book discussing the inadequacies of popular theology and its emphasis on health and wealth. Yes, we should ask God for healing and for his blessing, but we should not presume upon it. As one of the book's chapter titles puts it, the gospel is "good new for losers." We are a people who are called to suffer because we have a Savior who suffered.

I really enjoyed A Place for Weakness as I look forward to reading Horton's systematic theology The Christian Faith, which was just released last week. I would not recommend it to someone who is currently suffering a difficult period of life because the primary force of this book is instruction and biblical reflection. Instead, this is a book I would recommend people read before they enter such a season, as the subtitle suggests, in order to prepare for the inevitable suffering that Jesus promised would come to his followers.

Horton's words resonated in my own life as I cannot for the life of me understand why things have unfolded the way they have, how something that seemed to have God's fingerprints all over it could end up so disappointing. He's pointed me away from the situation and to the character of God, which never disappoints.

If God Is Good: A Review

2011-01-26T16:07:00.000-05:00

Why do bad things happen to good people? Actually, why do bad things happen at all? These are the questions people sometimes wonder as they think about God and our world. In fact, much of the new atheism movement is devoted to using the problem of evil to "prove" there is no God. The argument goes like this: If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, why doesn't he stop evil and suffering in this world? The conclusion is that God doesn't exist or that he's not all-powerful (he'd like to stop suffering, but just doesn't have the power), or not all-knowing (he doesn't know what will happen in the future, so he can't stop all suffering from occurring), or he's not all-good (he just doesn't give a rip what happens to us here on earth). Any way you slice it, according to this theory, any "god" that may exist (though he probably doesn't) is not the God of the Bible.

At first glance, this seems like airtight logic, but it's really not. Randy Alcorn's book If God is Good is devoted to answering the basic Seinfeld-ian question behind this argument, "What's the deal with evil and suffering?" In this volume, Alcorn takes on the atheists, addresses the biblical statements about evil, suffering, and why God allows them both. He also discusses heaven, hell, judgment, the purpose of pain, healing, and just about every side street and tangent that the subject of evil and suffering may lead to. While I enjoyed the book, that's my one complaint: It's long. Normally, length is okay, but I found it mentally difficult to stomach five-hundred pages of evil and suffering. I like Alcorn's writing and I think he's on the money with most of his arguments. It's just a lot on one topic that most people don't "enjoy." There is a smaller volume based on If God Is Good called The Goodness of God, which is probably what I would recommend for folks who don't want so much detail. (It comes in at 128 pages, so there's definitely going to be some good material left out.)

One of the chapters toward the end of the book is about the health and wealth gospel. This is a chapter I wish every Christian could read. In it, Alcorn discusses how the name-it-and-claim theology that says no true follower of Jesus needs to suffering illness, pain, or poverty is not only wrong, but it leads us to worship a false god entirely. I think this chapter is important because this type of thinking has been seeping into the church for a couple of decades now. Even in denominations and congregations that don't seem to be into the whole health and wealth scene, the spirit of this teaching is having an impact on people because knowledge of biblical doctrine has been largely set aside. In an attempt to reach the lost and to avoid divisive debate, theological instruction is virtually non-existent in many evangelical churches. This vacuum can then be filled with whatever theological trash one picks up from TBN or the Inspiration section of Barnes and Noble. Alcorn writes, "This false worldview breeds superficiality, seriously misrepresents the gospel, and sets people up to believe, when evil and suffering come to them, that God has been untrue to his promises" (378). Alcorn points out that, while it's perfectly acceptable to seek healing and blessing from God, we should remember that pain and suffering are sometimes the tools God uses to make us more like Christ. So the question really is, what do we really want from our relationship with Christ? Are we like the crowds in John Chapter six who got some bread and fish and followed Jesus because of their bellies, or do we simply want Jesus, the One that the bread and fish pointed to all along?

Where was God on Saturday?

2011-01-11T21:45:00.002-05:00

Saturday's shooting in Tucson, Arizona was another sad day in a long line of tragic and violent days in our nation's recent history. As the television news crews brought us the details and we learned more about the victims, their families, and the killer, the scene seemed eerily familiar.

Here's a list of the major mass-shootings from just the past five years:

March 29, 2009: Robert Stewart, 45, shot and killed eight people at Pinelake Health and Rehab in Carthage, N.C. before a police officer shot him and ended the rampage.
March 29, 2009: Devan Kalathat, 42, shot and killed his two children and three other relatives, then killed himself in an upscale neighborhood of Santa Clara, Calif. Kalathat's wife was critically injured.
March 10, 2009: Michael McLendon, 28, killed 10 people including his mother, four other relatives, and the wife and child of a local sheriff's deputy across two rural Alabama counties. He then killed himself.
Feb. 14, 2008: Former student Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, fatally shooting five students and wounding 18 others before committing suicide.
Dec. 5, 2007: Robert A. Hawkins, 19, opened fire with a rifle at a Von Maur store in an Omaha, Neb., mall, killing eight people before taking his own life. Five more people were wounded, two critically.
April 16, 2007: Seung-Hui Cho, 23, fatally shot 32 people in a dorm and a classroom at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, then killed himself in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history
Oct. 2, 2006: Charles Carl Roberts IV, 32, shot to death five girls at West Nickel Mines Amish School in Pennsylvania, then killed himself.1

I am grateful that we are still shocked when mass-murder and senseless violence take place. One might think that with so many events like the one in Tucson, we would become desensitized to the power of evil. But we're not. We know that what happened is unnatural. We know that things are not supposed to be this way. Nine year old girls are not supposed to die from gunshot wounds in the parking lot of a Safeway. It's just wrong.

Some people, after events like this one, will say that this kind of horrible tragedy proves there's no God, or if there is a God, He's either impotent or malicious. After all, if He really loves the world and could have stopped this, why didn't He? This is the basic premise behind a lot of atheist rhetoric, including Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem. He writes, "For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it."2

The truth is, life is messy and making sense of evil and suffering is never easy. However, Ehrman is wrong when he concludes that this is God's problem. The fact is it's his problem. Rather than being silent on the subject, the Bible says lots and lots about the current condition of our world and the existence of some pretty bad realities. Here's a quick glance at some of the things God has said on the subject:

The natural world is cursed because of the sinfulness of our first parents.
That sinfulness now infects every human heart, giving every person the capacity for unspeakable evil.
Satan and demons are real and they influence and affect life on earth.
Though God Himself never causes sin, He uses even the wicked things that people do for the ultimate good of His followers. He even uses suffering as a tool for our benefit.
There will be a day of reckoning where God will put an end to all evil and suffering.

And the Bible says much more about wickedness, sin, and affliction... but that doesn't mean it's easy to understand or that we will be able to fully understand God's ultimate purpose in allowing some tragedies to occur. I believe we will someday, but right now there are mysteries that remain hidden.

The fact is that the Bible makes better sense of events like the Tucson shooting than Ehrman or other atheists who say these things show there really isn't a God. Here's why: We all know that this what Jared Lee Loughner did was wrong. But what does "wrong" mean unless we have some objective standard to hold it up against? If there is no God and everything we are and everything we know evolved by chance and through a merciless battle of the survival of the fittest, who's to say that murder is wrong? In that world-view, right and wrong don't really exist; they're just preferences and social conventions.

But on Saturday, when the shots rang out in that parking lot, that world-view just seemed silly. We all saw how real evil is. We also recognized the contrast of the good things we know, and we can easily tell the difference. The shooting in Tucson was a horrible, unspeakable tragedy. It was ugly, brutal, and evil... and there's something in each of our hearts that tells us so. We all long for a day when evil will be done away with, and God promises that day will indeed come.

"And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:3-4, ESV).

1 "A glance at US mass shootings in recent years," The Associated Press (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/a_glance_at_us_mass_shootings.html)

2 Bart D. Ehrman, God's Problem (New York: HarperCollins, 2008), 3.

Slave: A Review

2011-01-04T20:31:00.000-05:00

In this age of vending-machine Jesus and no-commitment Christianity, it's refreshing to read a book where the author has the audacity to suggest that maybe the demands of the gospel are even less politically correct and more costly than we may have thought. That's exactly what John MacArthur suggests in Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ.

MacArthur argues that most of our English translations have gotten a major theme in the New Testament dead wrong. Instead of translating the Greek word doulos as "servant," it should really be understood to mean "slave." This means that the apostles and we ourselves are not just servants of Christ, but His slaves. And this means that our freedom from sin necessitates becoming slaves of Jesus, a thought that at first sounds like a contradiction. This slavery to Christ, though, is one of the defining metaphors of the Christian life, such that we can't simply ignore it, no matter what our English translations might say.

While I agree with MacArthur that the basic meaning of doulos is "slave," I don't believe that the translators of most English translations set out to deceive anyone (and neither does MacArthur by the way). The fact is that our modern understanding of slavery, taken largely from the the British and American slave trades that ended in the nineteenth century, shares certain characteristics with first century slavery, but the two systems were hardly the same thing. What then is a translator to do? If he renders doulos as "slave," he's liable to communicate something foreign to the text, since most modern readers would think of Roots or Amistad rather than the slavery of the Roman world. This is why our translations often translate doulos as "servant" or "bondservant."

MacArthur explains in some detail what first century Roman slavery was like, what the original hearers of the New Testament documents would've understood when they heard Jesus and the apostles' call to become slaves, and he draws out the ramifications for us today. All in all, Slave is worth reading. At times, it's illuminating. At other times, it's convicting. It's the kind of book I would recommend to someone who's not sure what the Christian life ought to look like. The concept of slavery is helpful because a slave has one job: to please the Master.

Politics According to the Bible: A Review

2010-12-27T20:20:00.001-05:00

If I had to use one word to describe Wayne Grudem's Politics According to the Bible, I would choose "resource" because that's really what it is. In much the same way that I can pick up his Systematic Theology text, find the pages where a particular issue is discussed, and quickly gain an good overview of the theological debate, I can now use Politics as a reference guide to lots of different political issues.

In the second paragraph of the preface, Grudem gives up any illusion that this book will seek any kind of middle ground: "I support political positions in this book that would be called more 'conservative' than 'liberal.' That is because of my conclusions about the Bible's teaching on the role of government and a biblical worldview" (13). I appreciate Grudem's honesty in saying this from the start (though I'm sure that most people who are familiar with Wayne Grudem would already have guessed his political leanings). It should be noted, though, that not everyone will automatically agree with Grudem's positions. But that's okay. Grudem himself reasons that one of the reasons we have freedom of speech is so that we might have the opportunity to persuade one another that our view on a particular issue is more sound than someone else's. What he presents in Politics is a conservative, consistent approach to understanding most of today's pressing issues through the lens of a biblical worldview. If nothing else, readers who don't agree with one or more of his positions will at least be able to see why Grudem believes the Bible and common sense lead him to believe he's right.

To my mind, one of the more controversial conclusions in this volume is that "the warnings about man-made global warming are based on poor scientific evidence and poor scientific method, are not proven by previous empirical data, conflict with the Bible's teachings about the nature of the earth and man's purpose on the earth, and propose solutions that would cripple the world's economies and bring immense harm to the poor" (383). Environmentalism, especially with regard to catastrophic global warming predictions, has become something that many evangelicals have grafted in to their list of important issues in recent years. It seems that everyone under the evangelical umbrella from Pat Robertson (who did a PSA with Al Sharpton about global warming) to Rick Warren has come out in favor of doing more to protect our planet from environmental disaster. Grudem, however, says this is unnecessary and even harmful. At one point, he even questions the net value of recycling (347-348). At first, his view sounds reckless, but after reading page after page of statistics related to waste, energy, deforestation, population estimates, and the scientific data about global warming, Grudem does seem to have a point (much of which is based on the work of Bjorn Lomborg). Theologically speaking, he asks, "Do we really think God has created the earth so that it would be destroyed by such morally right human activities, done in obedience to him? Do we really think God created the earth so that its climate system would careen off into catastrophe if carbon dioxide rose from 0.027% to 0.054% of the atmosphere...?" (369). That's a question for every reader to decide for himself, but I do think Grudem makes a compelling argument that environmental disaster may not really be nigh.

In general, I think this is a great project, but I see two problems with it. First, it's already out of date. As I read this book over the last couple of weeks, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" became history, our nation's nuclear supplies were reduced through a treaty with Russia, and the "Death Tax" came back (in part). Second, there were issues left untouched that I missed. In his section on economics, for example, I would love to have read a thoughtful, biblically-informed discussion of the role of corporations in society. To my mind, the way a nation treats corporations (should they be legal persons with rights and privileges or should corporate officers and stockholders have more responsibility for a corporation's actions?) is a hugely important issue and one that many people rarely think about. On the whole, though, I would highly recommend Politics According to the Bible for anyone who wants to think biblically about political issues.

Hope at Christmas

2010-12-25T22:37:00.000-05:00

The odometer on my Subaru is about to ratchet over the milestone of miles—the monumental one hundred thousand mile mark. Depending on how much driving I’ll have to do in the next few weeks, my car should join the six-figure club before the calendar’s odometer rolls over to 2011. I won’t lie. I’ll probably pull over to the side of the road and take a picture of the one with six zeros. I know; I’m a dork.

The truth is the odometer reading doesn’t matter. Nothing substantial will change just because I’ve added a new digit to my car’s mileage. The same is true of the calendar. On the other side of the Times Square ball-drop, things will probably look a lot like they do right now. The world will be pretty much the same place when we’re all living in 2011. But still, we look forward to a new year and we think of it as a clean slate or a brand new start, a new season when somehow our past mistakes will not mean as much.

And there's nothing wrong with that if the brand new year gives us the resolve to let go of the past a little bit and chase after things worth chasing. However, I do think there can be a danger with this kind of thinking. If we’re not careful, our hope will rest in the promise of a new year or a new job or a new place to live or a new relationship. Change can be good, but our hope and faith must always remain in the One who doesn’t change.

At Christmastime, we talk a lot about shepherds and angels, wise men and a murderous king. We listen to the story of a virgin mom with incredible faith, and the man who loved her despite the social stigma that came with doing so. We hear about inns with “no vacancy” signs, and about how a manger can double as a cradle in a pinch. But there’s another part of this story that we can sometimes skip over. Luke ends his infancy narrative with the account of the baby Jesus being presented at the temple. Sure, this scene takes place about forty days after Jesus’ birth (see Leviticus 12:3-4 for all the specs on Jewish purification after the birth of a male child), but I still think we should count it as a Christmas story because it helps us understand what Christmas is really all about.

While Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were at the temple, they met up with two senior citizens who were enamored with the newborn child, but this was not the everyday kind of oohing and aahing that people sometimes do when a new baby arrives. Simeon and Anna both broke down in praise to God for the new thing that he was doing in the world.

God had promised Simeon that he would not die until he saw the Messiah, and when he looked upon Jesus, he swooped Him up into his arms and said aloud to God, “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word, for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all people, a light of revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:29-32, ESV). Similarly, when Anna saw the baby, she too began praising God and talking about Jesus to “all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem” (2:38), herself having patiently waited for decades to see the Christ (see vv. 36-37).

Though only minor characters in Luke’s Gospel, Simeon and Anna had their hope set on God’s promise of redemption. They took God at His word, so they were filled with expectation rather than worry, even though at times it must have seemed like they might never see the Deliverer they eagerly longed for. Today, we stand on the other side of Christmas, but we still have the same hope. Jesus’ birth is still about God delivering His people from the bondage of sin to the freedom of new life in Christ. We celebrate the events of that first Christmas as good news because, as the angels announced, Jesus came to the world as its Savior. He came to do what we could never do on our own: He lived a perfect life of obedience to God the Father, and then He bled and died as a sacrifice for our sins, taking the punishment we rightfully deserved.

In our own lives, we can sometimes forget how good this good news really is. We get weighed down with worries about the future, we struggle with sin, and we wait for direction. But rather than looking for the next important event or stage of life to begin, we should look to Christ. It can be easy to take our eyes off of God and his promises. I’m sure that as the years passed, Simeon and Anna were tempted to give up their single-minded devotion, to let their own worries and fears drag them away, but they knew that their decisive hope could only be found in God’s goodness. So as another Christmas comes and goes, as another year clicks over on the world’s odometer, and as we wait for the next seemingly important moment of promise to come, let’s remember that hope set on anything other than Christ will ultimately disappointment.

“And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17).

Leaving our sacrifices in the hallway

2010-12-06T18:15:00.001-05:00

As some of you know, the past few months have been difficult. I found myself in a situation where I was constantly frustrated. Without getting into too much detail, let’s just say that the situation was constant and could not be fixed easily. I was treated poorly, lied to and lied about, and my ministry was maligned regularly. Worse than that, I discovered some horrible things about the church I was serving. I know – no church is perfect, but there were some serious, conscience-testing issues at stake. This situation felt like a nightmare, and it kept me up at night; I even lost my appetite. And this difficult state of affairs made other areas of my life harder to deal with, and I found myself getting upset whenever I thought about it.

Now that it’s somewhat behind me, there’s a daily struggle to see the whole experience as something that will eventually bring God glory. In my darker moments, I focus on the ugliness of the situation, and I want to proclaim the unfairness of it all to the world.

While I was in the middle of it, the part that really burned me up was that the very people who were the source of my frustration didn’t seem to feel any of that same angst. They appeared to go about their lives as if everything was simply wonderful. That bothered me, not because I wanted to hurt them, and not because I’m a better person, but because I was tired of fighting and I wanted them to see the need to address the core issues.

I’ve tried to think about times when things have been the other way around - when something I’ve done has been a source of severe frustration for someone else. I must admit that it’s more difficult to remember those times, probably because when that’s the case, the issue is someone else’s problem. We can actually take some sort of moral high ground by rationalizing that if the other person had it more together or was more spiritual, they wouldn’t get so bothered by it all. After all, it’s their problem to deal with, not ours.

The situation and that particular church are now behind me, but while I was there I had the opportunity to lead students in a discussion about the Sermon on the Mount. While I was preparing for the youth meeting, I was reading through these oft-read words from Jesus. One particular passage struck me. You know that passage about leaving your sacrifice on the altar if you remember some jerky thing you did to your brother? That’s the one.

"So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny" (Matthew 5:23-26, ESV).

I was thinking about my current situation and how I wished that other Christians took these verses to heart. I wanted someone to see how I was wronged and come talk with me about it. I wanted the guilty parties to confess that they had behaved badly and that they wanted to have our relationship restored properly. That never happened. Not even close. I think that's human nature; we are so ready to justify ourselves, we rarely think we’re the one who needs to drop our sacrifice on the temple floor and run out of the room to make amends. I know I’ve been guilty of this.

Jesus said that it would be better if we would go and reconcile with the person we’ve wronged in order to avoid the payback they might exact. All in all, sound advice. The problem is we rarely think that such payback will ever happen or that it’s deserved. After all, we are creatures who make a habit of justifying our own actions as naturally as we make it a habit to breathe. That’s when it becomes just good advice, and not something essential to the Christian faith.

This time, however, when I was reading this passage, I was shot in the face by the words that came before. Jesus had just compared anger to murder, saying “everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment” (Matthew 5:22, ESV). He goes so far as to say that anyone who calls his brother a fool will be worthy of hellfire. This seems so extreme to our modern American ears; we wouldn’t even flinch if someone called us a fool.

Then we come to our passage about leaving our sacrifices in the hallway in order to make peace with those we may have wronged. Notice that the person who would be angry - the one that Jesus just said would be in danger of condemnation - is the one who’s been wronged, and not the one did the wronging. So, there’s bad news for everyone: If you do something horrible to someone else, they may take vengeance on you, but if someone does something inexcusable to you and you get angry, you might be setting yourself up for fire and brimstone. What I think Jesus is saying here is that there’s a cycle of retribution, anger, and violence that needs to be addressed.

Jesus’ point is simple: It’s everyone’s responsibility to live at peace with everyone else, and this peace is not just a peace that simply avoids others. It’s a shalom of perfect harmony - of reconciliation and relationship. It’s the kind of thing Paul described when he wrote, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Romans 12:18, ESV).

How our behavior affects other people cannot simply be their problem. It’s our problem too. Just before Jesus began talking about all this anger and hellfire and leaving our sacrifices, He told his disciples and the listening crowds that “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20, ESV). Again, that sounds particularly harsh to modern ears, but Jesus was speaking out against the kind of “righteousness” that follows the letter of the law, but ignores the heart of God.

I certainly don’t have it all figured out, but I know that conflicts carry consequences, and they stand in stark contrast to the kingdom that Jesus brought. Every time we feel the sting of mistreatment or anger, we are thrust back into the old world, while the new world Jesus described seems just out of reach. Resolution brings peace, and peace is the order of the day in God’s new creation.

This would be the place in this blog post where I would suggest that readers take this message to heart and make peace with anyone they may have wronged and with anyone who may have wronged them. But that seems too easy, like I’m casting a stone of good intentions out the window of my glass house. So, do me a favor, and send me a note with the same good advice.

Does the Lord really need to save us from his followers?

2010-12-05T18:40:00.001-05:00

Melinda is down in Pasadena this weekend visiting a friend, so last night I watched Dan Merchant's documentary, Lord, Save Us From Your Followers, which is the companion to his book of the same title.

I think I have a love-hate relationship with the film. I appreciated much of what Merchant had to say. It's important that we hold out the gospel as a means of forgiveness to the world around us, especially when so many people seem to be saying that they believe the church only exists to cast stones of judgment. I get it, and I'm on board. We should be known primarily by our love, and there is a sense in which much of the American church needs a course correction in this regard. It's not our mission to be right; it's our mission to be Christ's body in the world.

That being said, for a good portion of the film, I was very disturbed by Merchant's assumptions. In my view, he portrayed Christians on the political right as largely full of hate, and because the documentary was comedic in nature, the line between good-spirited fun and creating unfair caricatures was blurred at times. For instance, shouldn't we make a distinction between the "God hates fags!"-shouting Fred Phelps and Dr. James Dobson? I'm not sure that an uninitiated viewer would be able to. In one part of the film, Merchant staged a game of Family Feud between conservatives and liberals, noting that the liberals seemed more in touch with what most Americans actually believed about hot-button issues, and that they were generally more informed. His point seemed to be that the church was full of ignorant bullies, and that Christians often act first and think about the issues later. It was very difficult to believe that the game wasn't rigged or at least edited creatively.

Another point he seemed to be trying to make throughout the film was that it's really important for everyone to get along in our society. I agree that Christians need to love their neighbors, and that if we're known as hate-mongers, we'll hardly get the opportunity to share the gospel with people. However, is our mission in this world really just about being the nicest darn people ever?

One big hole in this film, in my opinion was that Merchant never entertained the notion that quite possibly it is the gospel and biblical truth themselves that are offensive to some people. Instead, he focused on the people on the right who sometimes say stupid, misguided things. I'll admit I shudder when I hear people representing Christ inappropriately or saying things that are plainly unbiblical, but I believe it's unfair to say that the deep divide in this country is primarily the fault of Christians.

In the same vein, Merchant presents the argument that people largely like Jesus; it's just the church they have a problem with. In a takeoff of the scene from Blue Like Jazz, Merchant set up a confession booth at a gay pride rally in Portland, Oregon. There he confessed the sins of the church to homosexuals and asked for their forgiveness. On a side note, I loathe this idea of confession-by-proxy; it allows people to feel good without actually repenting of any personal sin. However, I did like seeing bits and pieces of the conversations Merchant had with these gays and lesbians (I think there are people in the church who need to be reminded that these are people with real stories and real emotions, created in God's image, who need forgiveness and an experience of God's love). However, the "Jesus" these people all seemed to respect was a very one-dimensional, anything goes, hippie Jesus. This "Jesus" commanded no one to die to themselves, and didn't believe in sin. He required no repentance and his kingdom is open to everyone, whether or not they've been born again. He also probably smoked a lot of weed. Obviously, this wasn't Jesus at all, and so I think that Merchant did people a real disservice by encouraging the homage they were paying to this false messiah, and he missed an opportunity to present the truth in love. This may seem hip and relevant, but there are eternal issues that hang in the balance.

The Mission of God's People: A Review

2010-12-05T18:40:00.000-05:00

"Mission" is one of those buzz-words today that causes some in the church to wake up and causes others to cringe. We talk about the importance of churches being "missional" and about being the church, rather than just doing church. One church I attended growing up had a sign as you left the parking lot that said in big, bold letters, "You are now entering your mission field!" But what exactly is the church's mission? This is the question that Christopher J. H. Wright attempts to answer in his book, The Mission of God's People (Zondervan, 2010).

One of the great strengths of this book is that it presents an overarching life-encompassing view of Christian mission. Mission is not just preaching, but is instead something the church should be about in everything it does. In fact, Wright says that it is "important to recognize that the church by its very nature is part of the gospel for its existence, for as a community of reconciled sinners from all races it demonstrates the gospel's transforming power" (43). In other words, the church is not just a means to an end (or as some today would like to think of it, a necessary evil for a good purpose). The church itself is living proof of the gospel's power. This is one of the great strengths of this volume.

Wright traces back biblical mission to the Garden of Eden and then shows how the mission of the church is really the mission of God. I think this exercise is very valuable for Christians, because so many of us tend to divorce the Old Testament from the New, and we fail to see that what God did through his call of Abraham continues today through Abraham's spiritual descendants, the church.

In the chapter on Creation care, Wright argues that God gave Adam the command to care for Creation and that he never rescinded that order, so we too should be people who care for the planet. I agree that Christians have a responsibility to be good stewards of the natural world. However, I believe that this needs some serious definition from Wright. He writes simply that we need to care for the planet and, "As we know all too well today, the accumulated effect of our carelessness for generations is causing an environmental crisis of unprecedented proportions" (55).

For the moment, let's put aside the fact that the exact nature of the environmental crisis is debated by some scientists. Let's assume things are in fact dire: What do we as Christians do about it? Do we include in our statements of faith that members of our churches must drive hybrids or that they must show evidence of recycling? Also missing from this discussion was how we balance the different aspects of the church's mission. For instance, when we have a choice to make that will benefit our planet but potentially hurt the poor in our society, do we side with the planet or our poor neighbors? I think most Christians are on board with caring for our planet. Even if one argues that certain doomsday scenarios of our environmental predicament are really outlandish, we all want clean air and water for our children and their children. Still, the question remains, how does the church engage the environment as part of its mission?

John Piper and the Prosperity Gospel

2010-10-20T00:28:00.001-04:00

This is kind of old now, but if you haven't seen this yet, this is worth a couple of minutes. It seems like there's a lot of stuff that gets labeled "Christianity" because some of the vocabulary is right. John Piper reminds us what the gospel is and what the gospel is not.

Belated Reviews: Surprised by Hope

2010-09-20T14:23:00.001-04:00

Surprised by Hope is an extremely important book for the church. I'm trying hard here not to embellish or overstate things, but it might be the most important Christian book in recent history. To put it simply, N. T. Wright challenges our assumptions about the end of history - about Christ's second coming and what's to be done with this world - which then forces us to reconsider how we've been reading the entire New Testament. The result is a massive paradigm shift with hope set before us.

Wright argues that Christians commonly misunderstand the point of Jesus' resurrection and mistake heaven, rather than a renewed heaven and earth, as the goal at the end of salvation history. The empty tomb does not merely provide evidence of an afterlife, nor does it merely affirm Jesus' divinity. Instead, Jesus' resurrection is the beginning of a new creation, one which you and I can take part in right now, and one which will be fully consummated at Jesus' glorious appearing. And Instead of the gospel providing an escape route from this doomed planet (a la the Left Behind series), the gospel is a declaration that Jesus is this world's true king and that the marred beauty and broken justice of this life will be put right in the end.

Essentially, Surprised by Hope is a more popular presentation of some of the themes presented in Wright's Christian Origins and the Question of God series. The first two sections of the book focus on what we can know about first century Jewish and Christian expectations regarding the afterlife, the end of the world, and resurrection. Also included is a biblical survey on these themes. The last section asks the question, "so now what?" It's here that Wright lays out how this shift in thinking should result in a shift in the way Christians live. And that's what makes Tom Wright such an important theologian. He's not an ivory tower academic who's become cynical or disconnected from the church. Wright writes as a pastor and as a concerned Christian. If you consider the important theologians throughout history, you'll find most of them were engaged as pastors. Theology is best done in response to the needs of the church. This was true in Paul's New Testament letters and it's true today. And I am grateful that someone like N. T. Wright is concerned about what's happening in churches today.

In Wright's own words, here's what this book is about:

First it is about the ultimate future hope held out in the Christian gospel; the hope, that is, for salvation, resurrection, eternal life, and the cluster of other things that go with them. Second, it is about the discovery of hope within the present world: about the practical ways in which hope can come alive for communities and individuals who for whatever reason may lack it. And it is about the ways in which embracing the first can and should generate and sustain the second. (From the Preface)

The Blue Parakeet: A Review

2010-08-24T14:57:00.008-04:00

So, I know this is a severely delayed blog post. Though we've now been in California for nearly a month, we just got our Internet access at home a few days ago. (Nice operation you're running there, AT&T.) I've got lots to share about our move and all of the new things going on in our lives, but that will hav to wait a few days while I figure out the best way to organize my thoughts.

In the meantime, I wanted to share my thoughts on one of the books I read during our cross-country trek, The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight. I really enjoyed the book, and I'm glad that McKnight is one of those scholars who knows how to write for a popular audience. His style makes it apparent that he really cares about the church, and about how ordinary Christians understand Scripture. Reading the book actually reminded me a lot of conversations I had with professors at college.

Essentially, the book is about how to best read Scripture. As we read the pages of the Bible, we all come across these portions that don't fit into our normal understanding of things. McKnight calls these "blue parakeets." The question is then What should we do with these blue parakeets? Being conscious of the question is the first step toward taking Bible reading seriously. For instance, have you ever noticed how we usually disregard Paul's statements regarding men and long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14), but we take Paul's instructions regarding overseers in the church (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:7-9) very literally? I think this book should be required reading alongside How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth during freshman Bible courses. Though the two books are very different, I believe they would complement one another nicely.

The second half of the book is a case study in one big blue parakeet. McKnight takes on the issue of women in church ministry. He walks the reader through what women actually did in the Old and New Testaments, and then presents a case for understanding Paul's commandments about women remaining silent in churches as a "that was for then" commandment. Though some of us will no doubt disagree with his conclusion, the exercise is valuable. In the end, I think McKnight walked a careful line, maintaining the understanding that Scripture is God's unchanging Word, while allowing for the possibility that well-established traditions regarding preferred ways of reading certain texts may be wrong. Again, the value is not necessarily found in McKnight's conclusions, but in the journey he invites us to take.

California, here we come!

2010-07-02T11:28:00.001-04:00

For some reason, people speak of "backpacking across Europe," but "driving across America." I guess that says something about the scope of the American landscape. It's so big that it can be taken in at 70 miles an hour. (It may also say something about our nation's love affair with the automobile.) There's just something about the great American road trip. When I think about such trips, I conjure images of the Griswold family and their station wagon, of specially prepared mix tapes, of diner food, and of being crammed between my sister and two cousins in the back of my dad's Toyota Corolla (James sat on the stick shift).

Many people never get the chance to drive across America, but Melinda and I have done it twice now. In fact, the first chapter of my book begins "We were traveling across the United States for the second time in six months." And honestly, I thought that would be it for our cross-country adventures. But this month, we're doing it again.

If you haven't already heard, Melinda and I are moving to Visalia, California, which is Melinda's hometown (and therefore, my hometown in-law). Several weeks ago, I accepted a position as the Director of Student Ministries at First Presbyterian Church, and I begin my new job in early August. We're really excited about this new chapter in our lives, about working with students, and about settling down a bit!

Middle School Ministry: A Review

2010-06-30T19:34:00.002-04:00

Normally, I review books on popular theology or the Christian life (and occassionally some young adult fiction), but this time around, I'm reviewing Middle School Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide to Working with Early Adolescents by Mark Oestreicher and Scott Rubin, which is decidedly more practical than the books I usually pick. However, there's a reason why I thought this review was important to post.

I've worked with middle school students on and off since 2002, and I really enjoy kids during this stage of life. But, if you've ever worked with junior high students before, you know they're a strange breed. It took me a while to figure out how to relate to the guys in my small group. Once I did, though, I really loved getting to know them and teaching them about Christ. I also didn't realize how some seemingly insignificant things I did at the time would make a lasting impact on these students' lives. In fact, I think it'd be honest to say that just about everything I learned about kids this age came from observation and interaction, but it took a long time.

The authors of Middle School Ministry are veteran youth pastors and they describe the book as really being two books in one. The first part is all about the psychological, physical, and developmental changes taking place during early adolescence. The second part contains practical strategies for doing youth ministry with this age group. As I read, I found myself agreeing with most of the conclusions that the authors made and wishing that someone had given me a similar book (this one was first published last year) when I had started working with middle school students years ago; it would have saved me from a lot of wondering, some annoyances, and many of the struggles of figuring out how to react to certain weird things that students tend to do as they navigate this important stage of life.

What I really appreciated about this book is that it went beyond the typical rhetoric that can go like this: Junior high students have B.O., so it takes a special person to work with them. Also, we need to make sure they're kept safe from worldly temptation as they begin to navigate their teen years, so youth group needs to be a safe place. Don't get me wrong; I think youth group does need to be a safe place (and I do realize junior high boys sometimes have a problem with B.O.), but youth ministry is not primarily about keeping students safe. It's about shepherding students into a growing relationship with Jesus, and showing them how to make good life choices. To do these things, we must practice incarnational ministry - meeting students where they are. Oestreicher and Rubin get this, and that's the driving passion behind this book - helping youth pastors and volunteers disciple students as part of the local church. They understand that the youth in the church are not just the church's future, but they're also a part of the church's present.

So, if you work with or are considering working with junior high students in a youth ministry setting, I recommend this book. Even if you think you know it all when it comes to youth ministry, I believe you'll get something worthwhile out of this resource.

Free this month: Forgotten God

2010-06-02T18:06:00.001-04:00

If you've never checked out ChristianAudio.com, do so! Every month, they give away a free audiobook.

This month's selection (June 2010) is Francis Chan's Forgotten God. Do yourself a favor and go get it!

ChristianAudio.com - Free Selection for June

The Hole In Our Gospel: A Review

2010-06-02T17:59:00.002-04:00

The Hole in Our Gospel by Richard Stearns is a great reminder that the mandate to care for the poor is not optional for Christians. Sometimes we fool ourselves into believing that being a Christian is simply a matter of having correct doctrine or belonging to the right church, but Stearns reminds us that faith without works is dead.

I'll be honest. While I really liked the book as a whole, there were times in the early chapters when I got irritated at the author's story. As the book is partly autobiographical, Stearns spends time describing his journey from his position as the CEO of Lenox to becoming the president of World Vision. I found it hard to relate to a multi-millionaire executive complaining about a substantial pay-cut. Yes, I'm sure that the salary of World Vision's president pales in comparison with that of the Lenox's CEO, but it struck me as inappropriate since most people in the world would love to be able to make World-Vision-president money. Stearns does go on to show how God changed his heart... Maybe others will connect with this part of his story more than me, but it struck me as a little over the top.

But please don't take that criticism too far. Overall, I think this book has the potential to do for the current generation what Ron Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger did for the previous one a couple of decades back, only more so, since Stearns writes in a more personal style (after all, much of the book is his own story, not abstract teaching). It's a message I believe the church in America desperately needs to hear.

One of the most challenging chapters is "Putting the American Dream to Death," in which Stearns asks, "How do you look at your assets (car, bank accounts, home)? What about your giftings? Are you entitled to them to do with as you please, or were they entrusted to you for a purpose-- God's purpose?" (207). These questions of entitlement vs. stewardship get at the heart of how we should be serving God with our money and cut a terminal hole in the American Dream. Like I said, it's not an easy chapter (or an easy book), but I think it's critically important for today's church.

Grace in LOST or Why the finale didn't suck

2010-05-24T19:23:00.005-04:00

Usually once or twice during each season of LOST, there was some reason that the group split. In the first season, one group of survivors wanted to follow Jack to the caves, while the rest wanted to stay on the beach in case of rescue. Later in the series, one group wanted to trust the freighter people, with some others followed Locke to the barracks. And in this last season, there were those who followed the Man in Black, while others avoided him at all cost. Last night's finale of LOST seems to have divided viewers in much the same way that the plot twists of the show divided our favorite castaways.

I'm hearing from friends and fans of the show all over the spectrum. Some loved it, some hated it, and some think the two-and-a-half-hour finale ruined the entire series. I'll be honest; I'm still processing what I watched, and I will probably need to watch the finale again, and then re-watch all six seasons in order to really make up my mind about how the series ended. There were definitely some scenes from last night's episode that I loved: Charlie and Claire being reunited, Hurley being named the protector of the island (along with Ben, his new # 2), and finally realizing the full meaning of Desmond's catch-phrase, "See you in another life, brotha'." At the same time, there were things that left me unsatisfied, and I still have questions that I now suppose will never be answered: What is the island really? Who is Annie? Who programmed the musical code for the Looking Glass station (my current guess is Daniel Faraday, since he was a musician and part of the Dharma Initiative in the 1970s)? And, most importantly, why are Apollo candy bars the only name-brand item available to Dharma recruits? And there are a myriad of other sci-fi geek questions I could ask as well, but it doesn't really matter because it's over.

Since many of the complaints I've heard about the finale have to do with the twist ending, I thought I'd offer some thoughts on why, in my opinion, the mythology propagated by the creators and writers of LOST is just about the best since the world George Lucas created with the original Star Wars trilogy, and why the series finale should be seen as a success.

1) There is grace in LOST. I love that a show this popular was about broken people being given a second chance. Yes, I realize that much of the "religion" on the show was not explicitly Christian, but many of the themes were. The island represented new life. Characters often noted how what happened before the crash of Oceanic 815 no longer mattered and that each of them was given the opportunity to be whomever they wanted to be. Even Benjamin Linus (my favorite character), who murdered Jacob, found himself redeemed in the end. The final scene of the series in the church is this second-chance grace at work again.

2) The show always made us think. Even if you hated the finale, you have to admit that each episode for the past six years had you thinking about philosophy, religion, the nature of good and evil, literature, time travel, and relationships. Thinking and discussing theories and ideas was the most fun part of LOST. It wasn't just a TV show to be watched, but something to be experienced.

3) The good guys win. LOST was, in my opinion, the epitome of post-modern television. The storyline was hardly ever linear, things were rarely black-and-white (I realize, however, that much of the symbolism was literally black and white), and truth seemed to change depending on one's perspective. Still, with all of that, the show ended with little ambiguity about who was the real "good guy." The Man in Black turned out to be truly evil, and Jack, the show's hero, was able to destroy him with the help of his friends. Then there's Hurley, the character with the greatest sense of morality, who was chosen to lead the island. Good triumphed over evil.

4) Actions have consequences. A lot of people I've heard from have commented that they didn't like that "everyone was saved" at the end. The ending seemed to echo the theology of Oprah Winfrey more than that of Christianity. Of particular note was the stained-glass window which depicted symbols of the world's major religions in the church. But the "everyone was saved" idea isn't really true. Mr. Eko, who declared boldly that he had no need of confession or repentance, was nowhere to be seen in the afterlife storyline, and Michael was shown to be trapped on the island for all of eternity because of his actions. Again, while the theology espoused on LOST doesn't represent orthodox Christianity, it's not a "live-how-you-please, God-loves-you-anyway" theology either.

5) They got all of us one last time. I remember at the end of season four when the island vanished, or last season, when the atomic bomb was detonated and the screen ominously turned to white instead of the usual black, I just didn't know what to think. I didn't see these unthinkable plot turns coming, but there they were. Last night's finale was no different. I, like so many others, wondered what the heck was really going on with the "flash-sideways," and then we found out-- it was the afterlife (not heaven, not hell, but somewhere else-- one last mystery for LOST viewers). They were all dead, but somehow connected. They woke each other up to let go of what had gone before. But we didn't see this coming, and whether you liked it or not, the producers and writers of the show got us all with one last surprise.

So, all that's to say, don't be so hard on LOST. It was great, there's much to like about the series, and I doubt if anything on TV next season will come close.

Namaste and good luck.

The obligatory post about Jennifer Knapp

2010-04-26T20:47:00.011-04:00

About two weeks ago, Jennifer Knapp admitted to Christianity Today and to Reuters that she is in a same-sex relationship, and has been for the past eight years. Of course, that got the evangelical blogosphere buzzing. Rumors had been circulating since her "disappearance" in 2001, and it appears that one of the more popular rumors was actually true.

I'll admit that when I heard the news, I was shocked. I love Jen's music (so much so, that I included one of her songs in the "soundtrack" for my book) and I just couldn't believe that someone who seemed so rock solid in the faith was now coming out of the closet. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Christians can't struggle with same-sex temptation, nor am I saying that every professing believer understands the pertinent New Testament passages in exactly the same way. Why Jennifer Knapp's "coming out" is sad to me is because I believe the Bible is clear that homosexual acts are sinful. When Jennifer (or anyone else) says that same-sex acts are not sinful and that she has no need of repentance, she is choosing to walk a path that's very different from the biblical path of following Jesus.

[Side note: Please understand what I did NOT just write.

I didn't say that God hates gay people.
I didn't say that homosexual temptation or even a homosexual orientation is sinful.
I didn't say that homosexual activity is the unforgivable sin.
I didn't say that homosexual acts are worse than other types of sin.
I didn't say that homosexuals should not be welcomed into our churches.
I didn't say that the traditional perspective on homosexuality should be a defining characteristic of American Christianity.
And I didn't say that being gay is a choice or a genetic defect.]

Let me write that again: "When Jennifer (or anyone else) says that same-sex acts are not sinful and that she has no need of repentance, she is choosing to walk a path that's very different from the biblical path of following Jesus." We all struggle with sin, but that's the important part - the struggle. Without that, we're just continually giving into sin's temptation, and that's not following Jesus. And yes, we all will stumble at some point, but that's a stumble, which is entirely different than a person diving head first into the ground and telling the world that that's just how he walks. We are all sinners, but Christians are repentant sinners.That's the big problem with homosexual sin.

In our culture, it almost necessarily demands a lifestyle choice and a restructuring of one's world-view. In most circles, it is not okay for someone to admit that they are struggling with same-sex attraction, and also admit they believe that the Bible forbids acting on those feelings, and is therefore going to live a life that doesn't fulfill those desires. That's just not laid out as an option for people, and even when it is, a life of that kind of sacrifice seems so foreign to our personal-happiness-and-instant-gratification-obsessed culture.

But this post isn't really about homosexuality or even about Jennifer Knapp (despite the title). I understand that there will be some out there who won't agree with my viewpoint. There will be others who won't believe I was firm enough in my stance. I get that, and that's okay. What this blog post is really about is the evangelical response to homosexuality. Did you see Larry King Live the other night, when Jennifer was interviewed alongside Pastor Bob Botsford and, via satellite, Ted Haggard? Botsford was brought on as the evangelical voice, someone who would espouse the traditional Christian perspective on same-sex relationships. The problem was: He failed.

Botsford resorted to using the clichéd line about God creating Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. When confronted with the need to interpret the New Testament in its original languages, as well as the debate over important biblical passages related to homosexual sin, Bob seemed unable to answer adequately. At one point, he said that God had indeed changed His mind about the sin of eating shellfish (citing Peter's rooftop smörgåsbord vision in Acts 10), but was still not cool with homosexuality. If it was just a matter of God changing His mind, then where was Peter's vision about it being okay to wear garments made out of multiple fabrics (see Leviticus 19:19)? The New Testament passages related to homosexual sin are about more than God simply keeping one of the old rules on the books. Trevin Wax wrote a great blog post about the appropriate evangelical response to homosexual sin, so I won't belabor the point. His post is here, and I encourage you to check it out. It's worth a read.

After watching Larry King last Friday, I felt really disappointed about how Bob Botsford represented the team, so to speak. I realize that he was on national TV, and that he was probably nervous, and that this is a touchy subject, and that Larry King can be a bit hostile at times. All of that's true, so I need to cut him some slack. Still, I wonder how many pastors in America are able to articulate a loving but biblical position on homosexuality. Later that night, I checked out a conservative reference work I have, Mounce's Complete Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words. It's essentially a contextual lexicon designed for word studies and arranged by the English words, instead of the Hebrew and Greek. I was curious what the entry for "homosexual" might look like, and how Bill Mounce might have treated such complex and difficult passages. To my disappointment, there was no entry for any word related to "homosexual" or "homosexuality." Then I thought about all the pastors who might go to such a resource to gain insight into the Greek words behind the hot-button passages people are sometimes afraid to touch.

Being a somewhat obnoxious and impulsive person, I sent Dr. Mounce an e-mail asking about the missing word. I received a response this afternoon. In his e-mail, he wrote, "This was an unintended omission. We stopped at words occurring ten times or more and picked a few that occurred less, but somehow missed this word group. It will be added whenever I do a second edition, and perhaps I will at least blog or get it up somewhere." Good to know it will be in a second edition, and that the omission was not due to any attempt at political correctness on either Dr. Mounce's part or Zondervan's.

In his e-mail, Dr. Mounce also wrote this: "Part of the controversy that is helpful, I think, is that it is not homosexuals, but homosexuals who practice homosexual acts, who are being addressed in these texts, just like there are people who have trouble with anger, and then there are those who have trouble with anger and give in to it. This is not a lexical issue but one of application," and this: "There is no evidence at any level that the [Greek] words mean 'homosexuals who practice multiple relationships,' thus allowing permanent homosexual relationships."

This is a delicate issue, and it's difficult to explain what the Bible says if we don't know. But knowing what the Bible says is only half the battle. We must also be careful and deliberate about how we discuss this issue. Bob Botsford had the right answer, but didn't have the details correct, and he couldn't explain clearly what he was trying to say. If this had been a political debate, I would have to say that Jennifer Knapp won, but only cause Bob Botsford articulated his beliefs about as well as George W. Bush.

The Miracle Jesus Didn't Perform

2010-04-13T18:51:00.001-04:00

Relevant's published an article I wrote a few months back. Please check it out:

The Miracle Jesus Didn't Perform

Belated Reviews: Simply Christian

2010-03-23T11:23:00.005-04:00

The other day, I caught the middle of a documentary on the Sundance Channel about a small community who had chosen to live out on a mesa in New Mexico. These people were completely off the grid: no electricity, except by generator or solar panels; no water, except what they could catch as it fell from the sky; no food, except what they could grow or might be given from a community member with a car.

By traditional standards of society, these people would be considered odd. One resident referred to the place as the world's only outdoor asylum. So what drove these people to this mesa out in the middle of nowhere? As the documentary went on, people shared their stories and explained how they ended up out there. All of the stories were sad, and though most were glad to be living in the mesa community, none of them had planned for their lives to turn out the way they had. Threaded through the stories they told were four common desires: for justice, for spirituality, for authentic relationships, and for beauty. All of the folks interviewed were looking for one or more of these things, and were convinced they couldn't be found if they were living in the general population.

Coincidentally, the day I was watching this documentary, I was also finishing up a great book: Simply Christian by N.T. Wright. One of the common statements made about the book is that it could do for our generation what C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity did for those living after World War II. I believe it. Simply Christian is a great apologetic for the Christian faith, and it speaks to the concerns of the twenty-first century the way that Lewis' book spoke to the concerns of the twentieth.

Those folks on the mesa may look strange, (I won't lie; I caught myself with some beard envy more than once), but deep down, I think they're just like all of us. We all sense a deep longing for justice in our world, for a connection to God, for honest relationships, and to be creators and partakers of lasting beauty. We may not always phrase it in these terms, but these longings, these "echoes of a voice," as Wright puts it, are common to human experience. From these four echoes, Wright tells the story of what Christians believe.

The most shocking thing is that the central element of the Christian story might come as a surprise to most Christians. Wright argues powerfully that the Christian hope is that God will someday join heaven and earth together in a New Creation. In fact, Jesus' resurrection was the first announcement and evidence that the New Creation project had begun. So, the Christian hope is not heaven (going to be with God in another, better place when we die, since this world is going to hell anyway) as many Christians believe. Instead, it's New Creation, a world remade and "put to rights," where justice is finally done, where God lives with his people, where people live with one another in authentic relationships, and where the foretaste of beauty we experience now is shown in its full and glorious splendor.

This hope of New Creation (which is the subject of the second book, Surprised by Hope, in this trilogy by Wright), ought to effect how Christians live each day. Our future is not merely an escape from this present world; our hope is instead a world renewed. There will be a measure of continuity between this world and the next, so what we do actually matters. This should effect the way we think about everything in our daily lives. I remember Stephen Colbert, while interviewing N.T. Wright on the Colbert Report, joking that when Jesus returns, He'll fix this mess we've got down here in about an afternoon. This makes any social action, caring for the poor, or personal spiritual growth kind of pointless, doesn't it? Colbert was obviously kidding around, but this seems to me to reflect the way many Christians actually live.

I think N.T. Wright's Simply Christian would be a great introduction to those new to the faith (albeit those who tend more toward the intellectual side of things). But, I also think it's a must-read for Christians who are struggling with what this life's all about, the mission of the church, and the point of the Bible. Not everything will be new, but Wright's got a lot of important things to say to the church in our day, and it's worth a listen, whether you currently live in a shack on top of a mesa in New Mexico or not.

Taking the "fun" out of fundamentalism.

2010-03-13T14:35:00.003-05:00

Some days I wish I could be a fundamentalist. I think it would just make a lot of things easier.

What do I mean by "fundamentalist"? Well, here's what I don't mean: I don't simply means someone who believes the Bible to be the infallible Word of God. I believe that wholeheartedly. And by "fundamentalist," I don't mean someone who believes in miracles or the supernatural, because again I do believe miracles and the supernatural are very real. And I don't mean an evangelical who finds his spiritual roots in the Reformation, for I too would want to be counted in that crowd.

What I mean by "fundamentalist" is someone who clings to a set of beliefs - certain interpretations of Scripture really - and who closes his mind to all others. I've often said to myself, Life would be so much easier if I could just stop thinking, stop evaluating ideas, stop learning, and stop growing. If I could just list a handful of teachers, writers, and pastors that I believe to be trustworthy, and just take what they have to say - no matter what it is - as a word of truth. I think this is why there are so many denominations. We can shop around until we find one that aligns closely with what we believe about God, the Bible, and the work of Jesus. Then, after we sign up, we can relax, only to be disturbed occasionally to snuff out a heretic from our midst.

Yup. That would be easier. I could find my team and see clearly who was not on our side. It'd be a lot easier to categorize people and ideas. It would be a lot easier to reject things I didn't understand. It would be a lot easier to come to the pages of the Bible too. No longer would it be necessary to try and understand the more difficult passages. I could simply go and check out what my team says about speaking in tongues or a Christian's role in politics or demons or caring for the poor. Yup, there'd be no more uncomfortable tension; no more wrestling with the God's Word. This kind of team mentality - this fundamentalist streak - can be seen in other spheres of life too. We've all seen someone blindly question something or blindly support it simply because of its source. We can't trust anything so-and-so says or what that network tells us. They're liberal whackos (or they're conservative nutjobs)!

But I'm not a fundamentalist. And here's why: I've seen God bust through my assumptions too many times to continue to rest on them. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying there's no such thing as absolute truth. I certainly believe there is. And please don't think I'm saying that the Bible can't really be understood just because there are so many interpretations of various passages out there. I'm not saying that either. I'm also not saying that we can't trust other people as we try to understand our world and God's Word. In fact, I think the opposite is true: the more we engage with others, the closer we come to the truth.

I've felt the sting of fundamentalism. As I wrote my book and shopped around for a publisher, I realized that it would be easier if I fit neatly onto a team. For some, I was far too liberal. For others, I was way too conservative. Even as I write this blog post, I'm trying to be conscious of my words, so as not to offend someone who might not quite understand where I'm coming from.

G. K. Chesterton once said, "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." There is wisdom in that saying, but I can also detect an unwarranted smirk of pride. The other side of that phrase might go something like this: "Only people who reject (or are blind to) real truth keep their minds open."

What I find funny is that all fundamentalist groups - whether they be staunchly Roman-Catholic, or piously Wesleyan, or proudly Reformed - all came to their place of solid ground by rejecting what had come before. Some great reformer somewhere evaluated Scripture in light of the tradition of which he was a part and said, "You know, I think there's a better way to understand this text." Some paid for their new understanding with their lives, some with some sacrifice, but all of them paid in one way or another.

I remember reading that after the first Puritan settlers came to Massachusetts (seeking the religious freedom they couldn't find in England), they began hanging Quakers in Boston Common. They had become those whom they had fled. Like them, we're all in danger of becoming fundamentalists. So my hope is to be open-minded, but not taken in by everything shiny and new. My hope is to listen to others and be respectful; to take the good, but reject the bad. I hope to value truth, regardless of where it is found. And, most importantly, my hope is to let Scripture examine and scrutinize me, rather than subject Scripture to my own systematic grid of predetermined interpretation.

The Uganda Bible Project

2010-03-01T15:18:00.001-05:00

For about $6 on Amazon.com you can buy:

A shatterproof snowman ornament for Christmas, or...

NCAA March Madness '06 for PlayStation 2, or...

the Ted Kaczynski episode of A & E's Biography on DVD.

Of course, all of these are quality, must-have items, but here's another idea for that $6....

Uganda Bible Project from Lance Briggs on Vimeo.

Our bromance with Canada

2010-02-25T19:48:00.003-05:00

Watching the Olympics from Vancouver these past couple of weeks, I found myself rooting for the Canadians (when, of course, there were no Americans in the running). There's a lot to like about Canada - hockey, Tim Horton's donuts, most comedians, and Great Lake Swimmers, just to name a few...

In honor of America's snowy sombrero (to borrow a phrase from Stephen Colbert), please enjoy Andy Osenga's loving tribute to Canada:

A Million Miles in a Thousand Years: A Review

2010-02-06T11:54:00.010-05:00

I really enjoy Donald Miller's books, and A Million Miles in a Thousand Years is no exception.

At times, it feels like it should be titled Blue Like Jazz II. Like Miller's other books, AMMIATY is a memoir laced with great thoughts about spirituality, Jesus, and life in general. Miller is honest and open about his struggles, which is why I believe so many people like his writing. Reading AMMIATY made me feel like I was watching the sequel to a movie I really enjoyed years ago and was getting to find out what happened to the main character in the years since we last saw him.

The theme that ties this book's chapters together is the idea that every life is a story, and the same elements that make a good story on screen are the ones that make good lives. As Miller worked with Steve Taylor on developing Blue Like Jazz into a screenplay, he learned a bit of what goes into making a story relatable, memorable, and generally good all around.

Early in the book Miller writes, "Nobody cries at the end of a movie about a guy who got a Volvo. But we spend years living those kinds of stories and expect life to feel meaningful. Maybe that's why we go to so many movies, because our real lives don't feel meaningful anymore" (xiii). If you think about it, I think that's the way a lot of our lives play out. We don't plan on it, but somewhere along the way, we decide to settle for comfortable lives, instead of lives of significance. That point and the insights that Miller draws from it are what make the book worth reading.

At times, however, Miller does come off a little self-indulgent. A Million Miles in a Thousand Years is essentially a collection of Donald Miller's thoughts. There were some sections where I wanted to hit the fast-forward button, as if Miller were rambling on to hear himself think. This wasn't often, but there were a few times I felt this way. [Again, this is just my feeling on it, so please forgive me if you read the book and didn't feel the same way.]

In one chapter, Miller writes that our lives are not like movies, because there will never be resolution. "I don't believe an act of man will make things on earth perfect, and I don't believe God will intervene before I die, or for that matter before you die. I believe, instead, we will go on longing for a resolution that will not come, not within life as we know it, anyway" (201). I understand what he's getting at, and there is a sense in which this eternal longing for resolution in our lives will always remain. There's always strife, death, unfulfilled desires, and needs surrounding us. The hope of the Christian life is that a resolution is coming, but it's more than that - that the resolution to the struggles and strife of this life can be found here and now in Jesus. Yes, there will still be disappointment for the Christian and there will still be difficulty and persecution... BUT the Christian life is about living in the hope of God's kingdom coming into this world.

I think this is why this chapter did not resonate with me. The idea that we should accept living without resolution seems short-sighted. I wonder what they would say if I told that to some of the folks I met in Jamaica several years ago (ahem... check out Chapter Eight of my book). I think they would laugh and tell me that I'm living in the wrong kingdom.

The Jesus Sessions is out!

2010-01-30T11:24:00.002-05:00

Hey, friends…

In case you didn’t already hear about it, I wanted to let everyone know that my book The Jesus Sessions is finally out! It’s actually been available on Amazon.com for a couple of weeks now, but I’ve been waiting to tell people because Amazon messed up the listing a bit. Mainly, they priced the book too high. They’ve fixed the pricing problem (though they’ve still got the publisher listed incorrectly), so I wanted to let everyone know that you can now buy my book! I’m really excited to finally get this project out and I can’t wait for you to read it.

Some people have asked what they can do to help. Here are some thoughts…

1) This is kind of obvious (and maybe a little obnoxious), but please buy the book. I’d love to be able to send everyone I know a free copy, but I actually have to buy them too. I’ll admit it was a little weird last week when I had to order my own work from Amazon. If you already bought the book, thank you so much! (And thanks for paying too much!)

2) If you like what you read, please consider leaving a product review on Amazon. I’ve also got a place on the book’s web site (thejesussessionsbook.com) for comments. Just e-mail me at john.thejesussessions@gmail.com or fill out the contact form on the site.

3) If you know someone you think would enjoy the book or benefit from what I’ve written, please tell them about the book (or better yet, buy them a copy).

4) If you’ve got a blog or a web site of your own, please consider posting a link to the book’s Amazon page (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Sessions-Getting-Beyond-Bumper-Sticker/dp/1439259429/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1).

5) Right now, the book is available at Amazon.com, eCampus.com, and Biggerbooks.com (and it should be available at Alibris.com and Abebooks.com sometime next week). It’s also going to be available through a couple of large, national distributors, so in theory, it could be sold in most bookstores. However, I’m most interested in getting the book sold through Christianbook.com and in Christian bookstores, so if you happen to think of it, please consider requesting that your local Christian bookstore carry the book.

6) If your church has a bookstore and would like to carry the book, please let me know. I can find out from my publisher exactly what they would need to do.

That’s basically it. I appreciate any help you can give, and I really appreciate those of you who’ve asked about the project for the last few months. I hope you enjoy the book!

Have we missed it? Part II

2010-01-29T08:00:00.004-05:00

I think we're settling for far less than God promises. I'm not talking about health and wealth, and I'm not talking about claiming some super blessing that will prove we've got more faith than someone else. I'm talking about the hope of the Christian life.

I've blogged about it before, but one of my favorite genres of film is bad Christian apocalypse. That's probably not the formal classification, but Melinda and I love to discover one of these movies playing on cable. You know which ones I mean: Left Behind, Left Behind II, Thief in the Night, and that one where Gary Busey awakes from a coma only to find he's missed the rapture and the anti-Christ is controlling people through virtual reality helmets. Awesome.

These movies are usually very predictable and cliche. Here's a clip from The Simpsons. Obviously, the Simpsons is satire, and its depiction of "Left Below" is a little over the top, but you get the idea:

Simpsons: Left Below

I realize there are lots of different opinions about the end of the world and the rapture, and my point with this post is not to debate the proper interpretation of biblical prophecy. I just find it troubling that no matter where you land on the issue, most Christians believe that our hope is heaven. And I think that's shortchanging God's plan. As N.T. Wright is fond of saying, "Heaven is wonderful, but it's not the end of the world."

The Bible points to life after death, but more than that it points to life after life after death. The final scene in Scripture is of New Jerusalem (or heaven) coming down to earth. The new heavens and the new earth will be united. The hope of the resurrection is not escaping from this world, so it can burn in hell, but for God to live with his people in the new creation.

I'm not going to pretend to know exactly how that's all going to play out. I don't know how much of this present world will continue after Christ returns. There are passages in Scripture that talk about future destruction. Some argue that it's a total destruction, while others believe God is purging sin and evil from this world, but that which glorifies God will remain. I don't know what the future holds-- if the twenty-first century will be a time of great revival across the world, or if the Church will be persecuted to a greater extent than it already is. (I'm thinking of other places in the world, not the US when I write "than it already is.")

But regardless of what one believes about the specifics of where this world is going and what God has permissibly ordained for the future, when our hope is only personal salvation and escaping this world, we are really not living out the Christian hope.

Jesus wasn't a threat to the Romans because He was preaching personal spirituality and a great home after you die. (That sounds more like something you'd see on Oprah anyway.) That's not dangerous at all. Jesus was teaching the people that this world has one true King, and that King is not Caesar. Everything in this world belongs to God, and everything in it is called to bring him glory. When that truth butts up against the powers and systems of this world, there's a conflict. The gospel is indeed good news, but it's also radical, world-changing, life-giving, and subversive.

If we really prayed that God's will would be done on earth as it is heaven (notice Jesus didn't say, "take me to heaven, where your will is already being done"), then we'd really have to think about our priorities, our values, and our everyday lives. Every decision has kingdom value, not just the one we made to accept Christ.

Billboard Jesus

2010-01-28T10:14:00.004-05:00

Relevant's published an excerpt from my book The Jesus Sessions up on relevantmagazine.com. They've titled the excerpt, "Billboard Jesus." It was taken from the first chapter of the book "The Handcrafted, Custom Gospel." By the way, the full chapter is available for free download at thejesussessionsbook.com.

Here's a link to the piece at Relevant:

"Billboard Jesus"

Enjoy!

Have we missed it? Part I

2010-01-24T13:03:00.006-05:00

A few years ago, when I was working for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, I was asked to share a brief devotion during a department meeting. These meetings were always fairly informal, and the devotions usually consisted of talking about how God had impressed some important truth through a particular passage of Scripture.

For some reason, God was causing me to see a passage in 2 Corinthians with fresh eyes. It reads, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:17-20, NIV). I'm sure I'd read the passage dozens of times, and I'm sure I'd even studied it in a college class or two. Still, for some reason, it was gripping me like few passages had done before.

The idea that there was something more to being a Christian than just waiting for heaven. Don't get me wrong -- I knew there was more to being a Christian than waiting to die; it was just that the sense of urgency with which the apostle Paul penned these words seemed to go far beyond the call to evangelism, to do good works, and to preserve culture. (That last part sometimes seems to obscure the others sometimes). The idea that Christians are indeed a new creation right now struck me. This language didn't speak only of forgiveness and fresh starts, but of creation itself - the beginning of something new. It's the kind of language that we talk about when we talk about the end of the world: God will make all things new (Revelation 21:5). But in 2 Corinthians, Paul is writing of the present - his present - nearly two thousand years ago.

The point is simply this: The new creation that will be the culmination of all things, when heaven comes down to earth and God dwells with his people, has already begun. It's as if the future has stretched back into time and God has begun this re-creative work with Jesus and his followers. It's our calling to join Jesus in this work (He has committed to us the work of reconciliation; see 2 Corinthians 5:18), and this involves much more than waiting for heaven, or even mere evangelism, or acts of service. It's a call to declare with word and with action that the future has begun to break into this world, and this future is incredible. It's where peace and justice are finally realized, where God dwells with His people, but most importantly it's where all things are put right.

It's a book!

2010-01-11T16:32:00.004-05:00

I received a package in the mail today and as I opened it, I remembered the scene at the end of the original Back to the Future, where Biff runs into the house with a box containing George McFly's first novel. Turning to Marty, George says, "Like I've always told you, you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything..."

Today, I got a physical copy of my book in the mail. It's a proof, but it's still a book.

I'm so excited.

Here are some pictures...

Can't wait for you to read it. It should only be a couple of weeks now... Stay tuned!

The Gospel According to LOST: A Review

2010-01-06T13:46:00.009-05:00

Since it's those precious few weeks between the fall and spring semesters of seminary, I'm enjoying the opportunity to read books I actually enjoy, rather than those that I'm commanded to read by my intellectual overlords. (Maybe that's a bit harsh, but you get the idea, right?) It's also those precious few weeks before the beginning of LOST. Twenty-seven days and counting till the final season begins.

Yesterday in the mail, I received The Gospel According to Lost by Chris Seay, which seemed like the perfect read for these special few days before school starts up again. The only problem is I finished the book in a matter of hours. You see, Seay combined two things I love: LOST and contemplating the mysteries of God, so it was hard to put the book down. When I watch LOST, I often find myself gleaning spiritual truths from the storylines and seeing allusions to biblical characters in my favorite losties. I have to remind myself I'm reading things into the story; LOST is not a Christian allegory. However, as I read Seay's thoughts on LOST, I felt reassured that I'm not the only one who something rare and spiritual on the Island.

[As a side note, the producers of the show may also be prepping us for continued spiritual themes during season six. Some promotional pictures were released yesterday depicting the characters in a "LOST" Supper motif, with none other than John Locke in the place of Jesus (maybe his "death" will save the others after all)]

Seay's book examines most of the main characters (though I was surprised not to read a chapter about Claire or Michael or Juliet). He notes how their spiritual lostness and their personal journeys mirror biblical themes (and sometimes biblical characters). He's clearly done his homework and knows the show well. And while the book does not delve into minutia about the numbers or why Walt is so special, it does capture the larger themes quite well. It serves as a gentle introduction for those who have not thought of LOST as more than a television show, and it was good preparation for the final episodes, as Seay does an excellent job of reminding his readers of the journeys our castaways have taken in the past five seasons. More than that, this book shares with LOST a sometimes frustrating, but always thought-stirring invitation to engage and be open to the mysterious. Seay writes, "The purpose of this book is not to erase the mystery, but to allow each of us to seek a posture that celebrates the things we do know and to embrace the mystery of things that have yet to unfold." In this way, the connection between following Jesus and LOST is most clear: Christianity is not about having all the answers; it's about following the One we trust, even when having faith is difficult and we're not sure exactly where we are.

The divine miracle light...

2009-12-15T12:14:00.005-05:00

I was just thinking the other day how the Christmas season has become the time when people around the world, who normally don't give a rip about Jesus, pay Him lip service. I don't get upset when the cashier at Wal-Mart wishes me "Season's Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas." In fact, I think I prefer it. I'd rather have people ignore Jesus all together than pretend to honor Him in the name of something as base as consumerism or corporate propaganda or Santa Claus.

Speaking of co-opting Jesus, check this out... "The Divine Miracle Light." I don't know which is more ridblasphulous (that's my truncating of "ridiculous" and "blasphemous" for when both words are called for, but they seem to want to team up to fight evil) - the fact that they call it a "divine miracle" or that they're charging $19.95. The only way it could be better is if the background changed into an image of Jesus defeating Al Qaeda as the candle burned down.

thejesussessionsbook.com

2009-12-03T13:52:00.011-05:00

The Web site for my book, The Jesus Sessions, is now active at thejesussessionsbook.com (thejesussessions.com was already taken).

The site's not quite complete; there are still no links to purchase the book, and there's only one blurb about it (from the foreword), but you can download the proof of the first chapter, and for those of you who've read the book (or portions of it) as I wrote and edited it, feel free to send a quick note via the "Contact Us" page. I'd love to know what you thought and include your blurb on the site. Enjoy!

High on Jesus?

2009-11-19T17:44:00.002-05:00

I've got a new article up on relevantmagazine.com about worship called "High on Jesus?" I hope you like it.

Book cover design

2009-11-11T07:42:00.005-05:00

I thought I'd share the cover artwork for The Jesus Sessions, designed by our friend Erika Freitas.

It's great, huh?

And here's a little update on the rest of the book production process: I just okayed the interior style proof and am now waiting to receive the full interior proof from the production folks. I wish there was some kind of crazy sedative they could give me or that scientists could cryogenically freeze me so that I'd get to skip all the waiting and just wake up in the not-too-distant future when the book is complete.

We're anticipating a release date sometime in December, but before then I'll have the book's web site up and running with a preview. Stay tuned.

In the meantime, I'd love to know what you think of Erika's awesome cover.

Wake Up The World EP

2009-11-04T15:19:00.002-05:00

JJ Heller, one of the artists featured on the "soundtrack" to my book (more on that later), has a new Christmas EP available for free or any contribution at Noisetrade.com. Please check it out:

Really? November already?

2009-11-02T18:06:00.005-05:00

Wow! Time is just flying by. I can't believe it's already November. This fall has just gotten away from me (evidenced by the lack of posting in the last several weeks). I have good excuses, though; there's a lot going on. Melinda and I were in London for two weeks in October, and I'm trying to get everything set with my book (no doubt you've surmised that it didn't release on November 1st as I originally intended).

We're also moving.

Yup - Melinda got a new job down in Redding and so it really doesn't make sense for us to be this far up the Connecticut coast. With church in Fairfield, my job in Shelton, and most of our friends down that way, it's finally time to move. We're excited about it, though it means there's a lot to do between now and December 8th, including finding another place to live. Still, it will be great to be closer to people we love and to be more active at Black Rock.

I can't believe I haven't posted anything about London yet, either. I've been trying to think of a unique or funny way to describe our trip, but my creativity's been sapped as of late. I'll just say that work was like work here, only with a slight accent. Our free time was great. We did *most* of the touristy things we wanted to do: we drank pints at the Eagle and Child in Oxford, searched out platform 9 3/4 at King's Cross station (and found it), visited the Eastern Hemisphere ever so briefly, took a ride down the Thames, and we resisted the temptation to send Derek Webb a postcard he wouldn't expect from Trafalgar Square. Plus we got to spend some time with good friends we don't get to see as often as we'd like. All in all, it was a great trip.

Looking forward, we obviously have to tackle this move. Any recommendations re: places to live (preferably a 2BR with hardwood floors in Fairfield, Trumbull, or northern Bridgeport for around $1250) or re: movers would be appreciated. I'm also excited to see The Jesus Sessions finally coming together. I've gotten a peek at the first few cover drafts and am eagerly awaiting the latest version. I've also begun inspecting the interior proof for the first few chapters. It's really starting to look like a book. I can't wait to share more in the next few weeks. I'll keep you posted.

Belated Reviews: North! Or Be Eaten

2009-09-26T13:02:00.005-04:00

DISCLOSURE: I totally get that the beauty of the Internet is that stuff happens at lightning speed. Information is available as quickly as it can be disseminated. I appreciate logging into Yahoo! or CNN.com to find the latest headlines (sometimes being updated minute by minute). It’s one of the things that causes me believe we’re living in the future. As far as I can tell, “the future” will be fully consummated once flying cars are cheap and readily available. (That appears to be the only thing standing in the way of a Jetson-like utopian society. I mean, we already have vacuuming robots, right?)

Since I don’t have the resources or the time to always be that quick and ahead of the game (and because I choose to try not to get caught up in all of the advertising hype), I’ve been reticent to post my thoughts on books, music, or movies I’ve thought were worth a few lines of text. I’m often behind the times, especially when it comes to movies. (I’ve come to the place where I no longer enjoy going to the theater. I know this will make me sound older than I actually am, but I just can’t stand people who refuse to turn off their phones, mp3 players, video games, and other portable electronic devices. Plus, seriously? $4 for popcorn?) Now, just about all of the movies I see have been out long enough to wind up on HBO or DVD. Besides that, I love buying used books, and I find no reason to assume I’ve already dredged the depths of music from the past.

Still, talking with people, I realize that there’s just so much out there, and that most people miss stuff. So maybe there is room for some belated reviews. Besides, the things I tend to write about are not usually blockbuster sensations. It’s in that spirit, that I offer this belated review of North! Or Be Eaten! by Andrew Peterson (which I actually hope will become a sensation).

NOBE is the second book in Peterson’s Wingfeather Saga series and continues the adventures of the Igiby children, who recently learned of their royal lineage. Fleeing the Fangs of Dang, they head north to the Ice Prairies of Skree. If you haven’t read the first book in the series, On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness (see my review here), you may be thinking, Wow, John’s a geek. This is probably one of those books with dragons and magic and stuff. Well, yes, it is, and it was written for children. However, I would put it in the same category as the Harry Potter series, believing adults will like these books as much as their kids (though I loathe the thought of telling people that Andrew Peterson’s books are a “Christian” equivalent to Harry Potter, a more sanitized version of fantasy <shudders>). Plus, I can’t help but see the potential for a great series of movies as I read these stories. Someday, you may see Adrian Brody starring as Artham Wingfeather. Then, you’ll feel bad about calling me a geek. Shame on you.

Like the first volume in the series, this book is all about good storytelling. There’s no agenda and there are no underlying politics. It’s simply a fun story. But that’s not to say that Andrew Peterson doesn’t say anything in the book. In fact, those moments in the story when you realize a deep, universal truth were my favorites. Thread throughout the book is the relationship between Janner and Tink Igiby. The younger of the boys, Tink, is heir to the throne of an ancient kingdom, and his older brother Janner has been sworn to protect him. There an underlying jealousy felt by Janner as he is tasked to serve his younger brother. There’s also a good deal of tension between the two boys as the dread of responsibility settles in on Tink, eating away at his spirit.

However, like I said, this book is simply fun. The serious themes are coated in humor, richly developed characters, lots of chapter-ending cliffhangers, and other surprises. In my review of OtEotDSoD, I identified the book as “bathroom-worthy” because I didn’t want to put it down, even to go # 2. While NOBE was just as much of a page-turner, I have to admit I’ve grown up a bit and see no need to resort to discussions of bathroom practices in this review. All I will say is that you should make sure you’re all set before you sit down to read. You don’t want to be interrupted when you come face to face with a Rockroach, the horrific fork factory, or a Bomnubble. If you’ve got to go to the bathroom, do it first. If you need a drink, get one. If you’re a bit peckish, get a snack. If you’re supposed to be working, quit your job. If you’re driving your car, you probably shouldn’t be reading at all. Shame on you.

Not lost in translation

2009-09-23T09:35:00.014-04:00

I like talk radio when I'm in the car. I usually flip back and forth between the local Christian station and a news network, though I often think that the format of talk radio invites a lopsided look at some of the issues. However, even when I don't agree with the host on a particular subject, I still find it entertaining.

Yesterday, I tuned in to a talk show as Robert Spencer was being interviewed about his new book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran. He mentioned that many muslims don't even know what the Koran actually says because translations from the classical Arabic are not considered to truly be the Koran. Since some Muslims are illiterate and many more don't speak Arabic, they've never really read their holy book. He told one story about a man he met who had memorized almost the entire Koran. He then told Spencer, "I hope someday to learn what it means." He wasn't joking; he had memorized the Arabic syllables, but had no idea what he was actually reciting.

I thought about my own education. Right now I'm taking the last Hebrew course of my language requirements at Gordon-Conwell. In addition to the two years of Hebrew, I took a year of Greek in college and then another two years in seminary. All of this was supposed to allow me to better understand the Bible in its original languages, though I'm not sure that a crash course in ancient languages is the best way to glean deeper meanings from the original texts.

[NOTE: If you don't care about seminary, skip below to the paragraph that begins with "Unlike the Muslim," which I've highlighted in red.] What I mean is that two years of Greek and two years of Hebrew will hardly make someone an expert, and will certainly not qualify them to simply read from the original Greek or Hebrew. What it really does is give someone the tools to delve deeper into the text. Someone with a basic understanding of the biblical languages is not subject to a translator's particular point of view or a commentator's theological bent. He or she has access to the resources necessary to really delve into the Scriptures - to pull down the books from the top shelf, so to speak. This is all a good thing, but I'm not sure we're necessarily going about it the right way. I say this, not because I'm afraid of hard work, but because I know very few pastors in ministry that actually use their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. I don't know what the answer is, though I have a couple of suggestions:

1) Focusing on vocab and basic conjugations, rather than the sampler platter of grammar currently being offered up.

2) Training with the amazing Bible software that's out there (such as Bibleworks or Logos), and using such programs as a valuable tool that eliminates the need for rote memorization, rather than ignoring them in the classroom.

Unlike the Muslim view of the Koran, we Christians see our Bible a bit more dynamically. Yes, we believe the Old and New Testaments to be inspired by God, but we also believe that human beings were involved in the writing process. It's God's Word, but Paul (or Matthew or Amos or Moses or whoever...) did not check his brain at the door when he sat down to write. There is a mystery that winds through the sixty-six books; they have a common quality as Scripture, but each text carries unique properties too. Beyond that, we believe that God has faithfully preserved the Bible as it has been copied over the centuries. Yes, it's true. There are some slight discrepancies here and there between ancient manuscripts, but on the whole, the Bible has been accurately preserved far better than any other ancient text. The message remains intact.

Beyond this, though, we believe even that our translations are somehow still the Word of God. Few laypeople take up the task of learning Hebrew or Greek, because we believe that the English Bibles we have are reliable. In fact, as Christians, we often tend to err on the other extreme when it comes to our Bibles, defending a particular translation rather than the original texts. We argue about word choice and gender-inclusiveness, but we don't argue that what we have in our own language is not actually the Bible (though some extremists do).

The Bible was meant to be translated. The New Testament writers, when quoting the Old, regularly quoted the Greek translation, rather than the Hebrew. To them, the translation was no less the Word of God than the original. Recently, I've been learning more about Hebrew poetry (in the aforementioned Hebrew class). One of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry is that there's no discernable meter. There's definitely a certain balance to the verses, and Hebrew poetry relies heavily on parallelism of content, but it doesn't rhyme and it doesn't maintain the strict rhythm of metered poetics.

Some with a modern bias might argue that the Hebrew people had not yet developed the intellect and language skills necessary to master the complexities of rhyming meter (though once one sees the other intricacies in the text, that's hard to swallow). Others might say it's merely a cultural phenomenon shared with other ancient Near Eastern people groups. That might be true, but I think there's a deeper reason. I think God ordered Hebrew poetry in such a way that it would not be lost in translation. The basic balance and the parallelism of ideas is preserved when the Psalms or other poetic passages are translated. Had Hebrew poetry rhymed, the rhymes would be lost when translated. It's as if God inspired David's words (among others') to speak to his contemporaries, as well as those in the early Christian church, but also to monks in the middle ages, and to you and I reading the text on our computer screens.

In the Muslim view, the text of the Koran was dropped from heaven - delivered to mankind perfectly - and it's our responsibility to ensure no corruption takes place. We are to conform to it, so we must learn Arabic in order to reach Allah. The Koran is waiting and we must become like it in order to understand it.

In the Christian view, however, something much more beautiful takes place: God enters into our world. He inspires fallen human beings to write His words. Then He preserves the text from being spoiled through centuries of copying. But beyond that, He designed the Bible itself to be a missionary of sorts. When it is translated, it speaks to people right where they are. Just as Jesus entered the world and spoke to us in history and in a particular time and culture, so the Bible continues to enter our world and engage us where we live.

Crazy Love: A Review

2009-09-04T10:24:00.011-04:00

I paid full price in a Floridian Books-a-million for Francis Chan's Crazy Love. Normally, I do not pay the cover price for any book. (You may choose to label me "cheap" or a "good steward of resources," depending on your perspective.) When we go on vacation, I try to plan, but for some reason I found myself in Florida with no book to read on the plane or while lying by the pool.

My first attempt to secure a book landed us in a tiny Borders Outlet. They had very few books on my wish-list, but I did pick up Anne Lamott's Grace (Eventually) for $5. After four chapters, though, I had to put it down. It was just not satisfying. While Lamott is funny and her stories are told with great style, she had yet to say anything of substance. I got the sense she was trying too hard to be cool. It was frustrating, and it just would not do for vacation reading. (I do plan to continue reading Grace (Eventually) eventually to see if the grace (or anything else) eventually does show up.)

A couple of days later on our way to the coast, Melinda spied a Books-a-million at a mall we were passing on route 520, so I quickly veered our luxurious, rented Chevy Impala off the road and into the parking lot. Melinda has been a fan of Francis Chan for years, as he was a frequent speaker at Hume Lake. She raved about him, so I was interested in reading Crazy Love, his first book. I was not disappointed.

Essentially, the book is a call for Christians to follow Jesus. His premise is simple: If you're not following Jesus, you're not really a Christian. There are no disciples in name only; there are really no lukewarm Christians. Those folks are just liars. That sounds harsh I know, but that's what the simplest reading of the New Testament reveals. Our lives should seem crazy to the rest of the world, and our perspective should be that it's truly crazy to live like rest of the world in light of eternity. To follow Christ means to follow Christ- to live like Him, love like Him, and suffer like Him. Simple yet mind-blowing, and convicting to boot.

I'm still processing the book. I have to admit there were paragraphs that made me squirm; there were challenges that I don't like to think about. My guess is that Crazy Love will be a book I recommend often and one that I go back to from time to time. Some of Chan's sentiments are echoed in my own book, so that was encouraging.

Here is a bit of the flavor of the book. On the book's web site, there are video introductions for each chapter. Here's the one for Chapter 8 (note the Subaru love):

Here's the link to the book on Amazon, and to http://www.crazylovebook.com/.

100th Post! + Rapture Alert Orange!

2009-08-20T19:09:00.009-04:00

In 1972, the Academy Award for Best Picture went to The Godfather, but I think the fine people at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences may have overlooked another movie more worthy of the honor - a lower-budget, independent film shot entirely on location in exotic Iowa. I am, of course, referring to A Thief in the Night.

In seventh grade, I didn't know any better. They just put the movie on at youth group one night; I trusted them. And I was traumatized. As the images flashed on the screen, my childhood innocence died and I knew I would never be the same.

I watched as the world plummeted into chaos as millions of people vanished off the face of the earth. I watched as the Anti-Christ rose to power and slaughtered anyone (by guillotine of course) who refused to take the Mark of the Beast. Giant locusts paralyzed anyone in their path, darkness blanketed the sky, and worldwide nuclear war broke out. And the message of the movie? God loves you!

While I can't find much support for premillenialism and a Star Trek style rapture in Scripture, I have to admit that it makes the best movie. Postmillenialism is far too optomistic, and amillenialism has no car chases or government conspiracy theories. When it comes to action and adventure, premillenial dispensationalism is the way to go. Just ask Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. So here are the top ten things I learned from A Thief in the Night:

10) The rapture will come while you're doing something that is sure to be noticed after you vanish. You might be mowing the lawn, baking a cake, or shaving, but something's going to get left on when you disappear. I'm pretty sure if I left for work tomorrow with my beard trimmer running in the bathroom sink, Melinda would call her grandmother just to make sure she wasn't left behind.

9) Even though a government issued tattoo on one's forehead is obviously the Mark of the Beast, no one, except the few come-lately Christians, will figure it out.

8) Jesus loves little children; they all get raptured. However, it would seem that Jesus doesn't believe life begins at conception. If your head hasn't crowned by the moment the time trumpet sounds - sorry, baby - you're left behind.

7) The one-world government will be principled, but stern. While they would never violate an individual's free will by forcing them to get the Mark, they will imprison you and chop your head off if you don't. Tough, but fair.

6) Elaborate end-times charts are a necessity. Without one, you won't know which lampstand or bowl just tried to kill you.

5) If you've ever bought something with a bar code on it, you've helped the Anti-Christ in his rise to power.

4) The rapture will be clothes-optional. In A Thief in the Night, the clothes vanish with the people; I guess the producers of the film wanted to make sure we knew God wasn't into the nude scene. But that's not always the case. In other movies and books, the clothes are left. Apparently, this is an issue of deep theological controversy. I'd like to think that the clothes go with you. Either way, it's another reason to always be sure to wear clean underwear.

3) The United Nations will immediately seize control of the world. Anything that brings together people from diverse backgrounds in order to try and resolve international problems and work for the common good of humanity is the brainchild of the Prince of Darkness. I get that Satan is biding his time right now. He hates the humanitarian aid programs and peace treaties, but he's got to endure it so that he can get his # 1 guy in there when the time is right.

2) Even if you believe the gospel, have a relationship with Jesus and are trusting in Him for your salvation, it all means nothing if you don't say the magic words. You've got to say the Sinner's Prayer. Jesus is hard-core this way; He really wants that deal done the right way, and almost doesn't count.

And the number 1 thing I learned from A Thief in the Night is...

1) Never trust the guy with mutton-chop sideburns. That's just common sense.

And if you have no idea what I'm talking about because you were not subjected to the emotional horror of the movie when you were a kid, I now present A Thief in the Night in 4 Minutes and 5 seconds. Enjoy.

It kind of makes me sick...

2009-08-10T11:22:00.009-04:00

At the risk of being divisive, I thought I would share a few thoughts about the health care reform debate that's taking place in our country right now. First off, let me start by saying that, regardless of where you land on the issue, I think there's some common ground that we ought to focus on before getting into the details. And that's what I'd like to do. To paraphrase something I heard Tony Campolo say earlier today on a radio show, when it comes to Christians, there should be no disagreement as to what needs to be done. We all believe in justice, in lifting up the poor, in ending racism and violence, in loving our neighbors, and in promoting peace; the only difference between those on the right and those on the left should be differences of opinion about how we're going to get these things done.

Just perusing comments on Facebook over the last few weeks shows that I have some friends who are adamantly opposed to any government intervention into the health care industry, and I have other friends who believe that the government can bring some much needed change to the system. Last week, I watched Michael Moore's Sicko for the second time. I posted something about it on Facebook, and I had a friend (I can't recall who at the moment) tell me I shouldn't believe everything I watch.

Later that same evening, I caught John Stossel's 20/20 report on socialized medicine and how it fails to work in other countries. He showed footage of long lines around city blocks - people waiting to get in to see a doctor. It was evidence that a government-run, single-payer system doesn't work. But then, he revealed that these people were actually waiting to see a dentist, not a medical doctor. Why, if the system is so bad, couldn't he find similar footage of people waiting to see a doctor? It seems clear that folks on both sides of the debate have something to prove and will tweak the facts ever-so-slightly to prove their point. After all, there's a lot at stake here.

So, as we continue the national debate over health care reform, and as the media shows us images of town hall meetings with "organized mobs" or "concerned, independent citizens" (depending on the coverage you watch) voicing their opinions on both sides of the issue, I thought it would be helpful to take stock of what we're really talking about here with a few, simple questions.

1) Are we ok with approximately 50 million people having no health coverage? Before you answer, consider this: Even though care may not be refused in an emergency room, it costs the system much more than doctor's visits. At the same time, using our emergency rooms as a "catch-all" clogs them up with patients who have no real "emergency" and it sometimes keeps people from receiving care until things are much worse than they have to be.

I can imagine that someone's objecting, "But it's not the government's role to provide for the poor!" I agree wholeheartedly, but I can find nothing in Scripture that prohibits the government from doing so. At the same time, I can find quite a few verses in which we're told that the people of God are to have a special concern for the poor. Still, I haven't heard anyone opposed to government-run health care proposing a church-run version. And besides, isn't our government supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? So, before we go thinking about the government as "them," shouldn't we remind ourselves that it's really supposed to be "us"?

2) Do we want bureaucrats making decisions about our health care? This is an objection I commonly hear to a single-payer system. And it's a good question. In all fairness, though, Obama is not currently proposing a single-payer system. While any change may eventually result in such a system, that's not on the table at this point. At the same time, I have insurance right now through Aetna, and I have to say... they're a bunch of bureaucrats. There's a ton of red tape and hoops to jump through if they don't think something is necessary. And some of their rules are just plain arbitrary, as far as health care goes (though, from a profitabilty point of view, I suppose they're not arbitrary).

3) Will health care reform fix everything? I think that anyone who believes any system is going to be perfect will be sadly mistaken. Regardless of whether the US sticks with an HMO scenario or a single-payer system (or something in between), there are going to be problems. So, as the discussion goes on, I think it's important not to focus solely on what's wrong with a proposed plan. There's always going to be something wrong. The real question is Will it meet our goals of providing more care to more people for less money in a fair and equitable way?

Granted that every health care system gets some things right and some things wrong, in this time of change, we are in a great position to learn from those who've gone before us. If there are significant problems with the British or French systems, what are they and how can they be avoided? For those who think our system is wonderful, what makes you say that? What's worth preserving?

4) What about the quality of life? What I mean is this: When we think about health care, we typically think about visiting the doctor when we're sick or injured, but that has little to do with how we live our lives every day. Shouldn't our goal be a society that promotes healthful lifestyles, not just one that pushes death out as far as possible? Shouldn't we strive for a nation with less stress, more peace, less injustice, and more solidarity? Again, I'm not saying that the government has the answer, but if we only look at the system that "fixes" things, without looking at our whole society, I think we're really just designing a better band-aid. Redesigning our health care system to be better, more equitable, and more compassionate is a good thing, but it's really just a small piece of the puzzle.

Editing is the devil...

2009-08-03T12:36:00.005-04:00

This is a long overdue update on the progress of my book. There are some exciting prospects about the marketing and packaging of the book that I'm not quite ready to share, but mainly I've spent the last month editing the book with the publisher. I also wrote another chapter, which probably saved my sanity.

I never would have thought that editing the book would be more difficult than writing it. I mean, when you edit, you have something to work with, but writing from scratch requires you to create hundreds of pages of content. What I've discovered, though, is that (for me, anyway), editing is pure work, while writing is recreational. I enjoy putting ideas down on paper. On the other hand, splicing words and phrases, checking rules of grammar and style, and double-checking Bible verse references are all tasks that lack a creative vibe, and as a result, cause my spirit to cringe. (By the way, do me a favor and resist the urge to edit this blog post; I don't have it in me to go back and double-check my spelling and grammar.)

Add to that, the fact that editing requires working with an editor, and it becomes something I really revile. Don't misunderstand me-- my editor is gracious and usually very helpful. It's just that my manuscript, which had been a purely personal endeavor, is now being adjusted, amended, and qualified by another. Maybe it's difficult to understand, but it's like putting your child on the school bus. You know that, at some point, they have to go to school and that it will probably make them a better person, but you're wary of the influence that others will have on your son or daughter.

Still, all that being said, Melinda read the updated manuscript last night and she said that the edited version is better than the original. And, hopefully, the end of the editing process is in sight. November seems ages away, but I'm sure it will be here before I realize it. I am looking forward to having everyone read The Jesus Sessions.

There has been a slight aching in my soul over the past year. At first, I thought that God was preparing Melinda and I for an adventurous season in London, but that never materialized (at least not yet). Then, I thought perhaps something special was going to happen with our church community, though it seems we're still waiting for the right "click" in that area (though we are still waiting expectantly). I think this ache has to do with the disconnect between what I know in my heart should be true of the Christian life - mine, yours, the church community in general - and the reality that we're often stuck in the mire of complacency, routine, and dry religion.

The Jesus Sessions is the beginning of a conversation that I've been having about that ache. It's a conversation that I'd like to invite you to join. My hope is that looking at what Jesus said to people - to individuals like you and me - we'll catch a glimpse of His kingdom, which may help us separate the Jesus of pop-Christianity from the Jesus revealed in Scripture. And that would be the beginning of something revolutionary.

Coming soon to Amazon.com and (hopefully) a bookstore near you...

2009-07-10T11:19:00.011-04:00

I'm excited to announce that I'm getting my first book published!

There. I've said it. I've been wanting to say something for months, but have resisted the urge because I wanted to be sure it was a done deal. But now that I've got a book contract and I'm working with an editor to fine tune the manuscript, I'm excited to let everyone know.

The book is tentatively titled The Jesus Sessions. It was birthed out of an article I wrote last year for the Burnside Writers Collective, entitled "The Magic Words Jesus Didn't Use." In the article, I wrote about three encounters Jesus had with different people in the Gospels - Nicodemus, the Rich Young Ruler, and Zacchaeus. To each, he offered a response that met the longing of their hearts, but to each he provided different instructions and a different path to peace. It occurred to me that we in the American Christian subculture often oversimplify and overpackage the Gospel. The effect is often that we miss the very heart of God; no small thing to be sure.

The responses to the Burnside article confirmed that a lot of people are troubled by this, so I began looking at other encounters that Jesus had with people during his earthly ministry, and I began writing. What resulted was a series of essays about the various aspects of the Gospel and how Christ meets people wherever they are, without formula, cliché, or altar call. As I continued to write, I found a common thread and the essays appeared more like chapters. And so, a book emerged. As it turns out, I discovered I am the greatest author in the world. Seriously.

There is no release date yet, but stay tuned. As things progress, I'll be posting updates. I'm looking forward to sharing my work with you. I hope you like it. And for those of you who've known about this little project for some time, your support has meant a lot to me.

Why the Pharisees would've liked the 4th of July

2009-07-05T14:55:00.010-04:00

So, this past weekend we celebrated the anniversary of our nation's birth - when America's founding fathers sent a colonial "up yours" to the motherland of England in the form of the Declaration of Independence. I really like the 4th of July - I like the food, the fireworks, and the fact that the holiday has yet to be commercialized to death. However, I think it's odd how most churches interact with the celebration.

It seems like Christians feel the need to commemorate the 4th, but it's not clear how the Christian faith and the birth of a nation - one that's not specifically Christian - intersect. The Declaration of Independence does have magic words that preachers cling to in order to draw out the sacredness and uniqueness of America... "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Right there, in the text of our nation's first official document was an acknowledgement of God. And that makes America special, right?

That question about God's blessing being upon America has probably been debated since 1776. And I'm sure the discussion started much earlier actually - when the first European settlers came to these shores and found beautiful landscapes, abundant resources, and religious freedom - oh, and those pesky Native Americans already living here. A quick glance at the history books will show some amazing accomplishments for a young nation. In fact, if one believes that there is a God and that He takes an interest in human affairs, it would be hard to argue that this land hasn't been blessed by God, regardless of one's specific religious orientation.

Still, it seems that in the minds of many people, America's best days are behind her. Things have gotten a bit out of whack with our economy, with our culture, and with our security. No one knows what will happen in the next several decades, but things seem a little out of control these days. That very freedom that was once proclaimed in the Declaration of 1776 seems under fire from forces both within and without of our borders.

When we arrived at church this morning, it actually slipped my mind that this was Independence Day weekend - probably because there was no rousing chorus of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA." But then, when I saw the text for the morning's sermon, 2 Chronicles 7:14, I remembered. This gem of a verse has long been a staple in the pulpits of churches when it comes to patriotic events. If you're not familiar with the reference, it says this: "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land" (NIV).

Though the original recipients of the promise were the people of Israel - a people chosen by God to be a special nation of blessing to all the nations of the world - pastors often make the quick jump in applying it to Christians in America. The idea is simple: If we acknowledge our sins and pray to God for forgiveness, God will do his part and fix the problems in our country. Oh, and there's one other thing - the "turn from their wicked ways" part; we need to stop sinning - at least stop the really blatant ones.

This all sounds very good and very spiritual, right? The problem is that we need to understand what is truly wicked in the eyes of God. Yes, I realize that all sin is wicked, and breaking one of God's commandments at even one point makes us guilty. But still, we must understand what God expects of us.

There was once another group of people who took this 2 Chronicles 7:14 promise very seriously. They got a lot of bad PR in the Gospels; they're called the Pharisees. They too were very patriotic, wanting the best for the little nation of Israel. And Israel, like America, had fallen on some hard times. Many in the nation had economic woes, but their security situation was much worse than ours - they had been conquered by the Romans and lost their national sovereignty altogether. They were, for all intents and purposes, slaves in their own land.

But the Pharisees remembered God's promise to heal their land if they would just turn back to Him. And they got busy with the task: they had laws for worship, laws for the Sabbath, laws for eating and drinking, laws for mourning, laws for giving, laws for marriage and relationships, and laws for going to the bathroom. You name it; they had a law for it. These people were very serious about being holy. Except for one important thing - the most important thing, actually: they forgot about the heart of God.

As a result, they often missed the point of their outer purity. And worse than this, they lost all sense of what it means to love one's neighbor. They instead treated their neighbors with contempt. Anyone who was not as "sinless" as they were was considered unclean, and they were blamed as the reason God had seemed to abandon them. Remember, God had promised to heal the land of Israel if the people who were called by His name would turn from their wicked ways. Yet, here were prostitutes, tax collectors, and criminals in their midst. No wonder God had not yet delivered the nation of Israel.

Jesus had some harsh words for the Pharisees of his day, and I suspect he would have some harsh words for many of us today. Every time we take the easy path of the Pharisees, instead of the loving path of the Good Samaritan, we proclaim religion, rather than the heart of God. Every time

we say that the problem with this country is the ____________ - you can fill in the blank with any group you like - we miss the example Jesus left us. He didn't avoid the tax collectors or prostitutes, and he didn't keep his distance from the poor and the diseased - those considered stricken by God. Instead, he embraced them.

If you research the history of Israel, you'll find that the Pharisees failed. They never did bring the people around to a place of "good enough" holiness, so that God would deliver them from the Romans. In fact, the nation of Israel was lost for 1,900 years, and though it's borders have been restored (to a certain degree), there is hardly lasting peace. Jesus, however, succeeded. He brought a new nation - a kingdom - that began in his ministry and continues to this day. This kindgom exists without the threats of terrorism, recession, or violence. The good news of the kingdom is that it exists without physical borders and is not dependent on the personal and external holiness of its citizens - because the kingdom of God reflects its King. If we know Christ, our hope is not in the healing of our land; it's in the citizenship that we've been given in a land that needs no healing.

Jon & Kate + 159,000,000

2009-06-24T09:21:00.015-04:00

So, here's my obligatory blog post about Jon and Kate Gosselin (of Jon & Kate + 8)'s recent divorce announcement. Over the last few days, I've read the blogs and the articles and the tweets about the couple. Some folks point out what the couple should have done. Others are focused on the marriage problems that parents of multiples often have. And some insist that the major problem was the cameras, so they discussed the responsibility Jon and Kate have to their children, as well as the responsibility TLC has not to exploit the situation further.

If I'm honest, the thing that bothers me most is that Jon and Kate confess to be believers. Anyone who watches the show has seen Bible verse T-shirts and wall decorations. Kate's latest book was published by Zondervan, a large Christian publishing house. Watching Jon & Kate + 8 even made the list over at Stuff Christians Like. The couple has freely discussed their faith on and off camera. So, while divorce is always sad, there's something in me that just says this shouldn't be when it happens to committed Christians. (And of course, I am giving Jon and Kate the benefit of the doubt; I have no personal knowledge of their relationships with God.)

So, rather than writing one more piece on what they should have done or what they should do now, I want to ask another question: What should the Church's response be? The title of this post is "Jon & Kate + 159,000,000" because that's how many people call themselves Christians in the U.S. And I wonder how the church should respond to people like the Gosselins and others struggling with marriage problems. It seems like we've got the easy part down - that divorce is a bad thing - but what are we doing to support and help the marriages of people in our congregations?

My guess is that most people would say that the church is limited in what it can do. Marriage is between one man and one woman after all. Certainly, pastors should make themselves available for marriage counseling, and many churches have small groups for married couples that can be a source of encouragement, but I'm thinking much bigger.

I believe that the local church should be revolutionary and counter-cultural, that it should be a place characterized by real community, and where life is done together. I believe churches should be the most honest and safe places in the world, where people are free to share their struggles, their challenges, their fears, and their doubts - and where people judge their own sin, not the sins of their neighbors.

I know - what I'm describing sounds like a fantasy - and if I ever found a church like that, I would ruin it by becoming a member. True, but that doesn't change the fact that the New Testament is chock full of "one another" statements. I just did a quick search on Biblegateway.com and found 36 references in Paul's letters to New Testament churches, exhorting believers to love one another, to bear one another's burdens, to encourage one another, to submit to one another, to forgive one another, and to make peace with one another (setting aside the first Pauline occurrence of "one another" in Romans 1:27 of course). That's just in Paul's writing; and that's just when the actual words "one another" are used in the ESV. There are many more similar sentiments throughout the New Testament. The point is that the church was never meant to be a one-hour-a-week commitment where we purchase religious goods and services, and it was never intended to be a place to show off just how "Christian" you really are. Instead, it was to be a place where people live life alongside one another, where people live the teachings of Jesus in direct contradiction of the world system that would tell us personal pleasure and security are the most important things. The church is supposed to be a place that causes the world to do a double-take.

Again, I don't what Jon and Kate's church situation is like, but I imagine things might be different if they had a place to go where they could be real, where people would support them if they made the difficult choice to turn off the cameras (even if that meant foregoing the big paychecks), and where people would lend a hand so that their eight children could be cared for while they worked on their relationship problems.

But this kind of support can never happen when many local churches simply mirror the larger American culture. So, my simple plea is this: Can we get real... Please?

The Way

2009-06-19T19:05:00.006-04:00

In the book of Acts, we read that the followers of Jesus who lived in Antioch were the first to be called "Christians" (Acts 11:26), and it appears that the label has stuck. Today, billions of people, hailing from just about every corner of the world, refer to themselves as Christians. But the book of Acts also uses another term to describe believers. In several places, they're called followers of "the Way" (19:9, 19:23, 22:4, 24:14, 24:22).

What's the difference? Well, initially, there wasn't much. "Christian" meant "little Christ." The label was intended as a way of mocking Jesus' followers by noting how they imitated him in word and deed. And, similarly, "the Way" was a designation of the path of true life and righteousness. Both terms were about lifestyle and action. Followers of Christ weren't considered peculiar, dangerous, or a threat to the status quo because of their beliefs, but because of what they did and said.

I just got back from a trip to Charlotte and Atlanta. I had to go to Charlotte to attend a class (Exegesis in the Elijah-Elisha Narratives if you really want to know), and I decided to tack on a few more days to my trip to visit my sister and her family just north of Atlanta. As I drove my rented Toyota Yaris down the familiar path from Charlotte to Atlanta, I was once again struck by the unique way of life in the Bible belt. The drive on I-85 is spotted with churches large and small. A sign for one had bright flames and warned that there are only two choices in life - heaven or hell. Another had a giant picture of a pastor with plastic-looking hair and freshly bleached teeth that seemed to say, "Come to my church. I promise to let you in on the secret of my bright and shiny smile."

I wonder if we'd still refer to the South as "the Bible belt" if the signs were gone and the steeples were no longer visible. There's a cheesy Christian T-shirt/bumper sticker that reads, "If you were on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" And as I drove down the highway, I thought about that question. Lots of people claim to be Christians; they wear the T-shirts, they have Jesus fish on their cars, they go to church, and they carry around giant, worn, leatherbound Bibles. And this isn't just found in the South; I pick on Dixie because the area seems to have been saturated with the American Christian subculture more than any other.

I was reading the book of James earlier. Whenever I read this letter, I am struck by the practical and convicting instructions I find. In fact, there is very little doctrine at all - at least not without being attached to ethical teaching. For someone trying to uncover what it means to live life as a Christian, the book of James draws stark lines between following the ways of the world and following the Way.

I think about my own life and the compromises I make every day. I think about the communities of faith of which I've been a part, and I wonder if anyone looking in ever thought we were following a truly different path in this life. I think about the personal and corporate decisions we make everyday regarding money and I think about James' words: "Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days" (James 5:3, ESV).

I admire folks like Shane Claiborne who have given up lots of potential comforts to identify with the poor. I think about friends who will soon travel half-way around the world to adopt a child (or two) from Africa to give him or her (or them) a better life in the suburbs of Connecticut. I wonder if I would do the same, but most of all I wonder if all the external ornaments were gone, would I be thought of as peculiar, as dangerous, as a follower of the Way?

Graduation Day

2009-06-06T10:01:00.008-04:00

So, I've been a big slacker with this blog, partially because I've been really busy, but also because there are things I'd love to write about, but can't just yet. Still, it's June now, so I thought I would post a small update of sorts.

Today is graduation at CHS. I think I've got most of the wrinkles out of my robe. Since the class I taught was for grades 9-12, only two of my students are graduating. I keep thinking to myself, They don't know what they're in for. Life's going to change so much in the next few years. I hope they enjoy the ride. I still don't know for sure if I'll be teaching there next year. The Bible curriculum has not been finalized yet, so with the exception of the final exam period I need to proctor next Thursday, this might be the last time I'm at CHS as a teacher.

I have really enjoyed the experience. Sometimes a student or two can make you crazy. And this is why I think it took so long for society to force the retirement of "the paddle." I don't believe anyone ever really thought it was an effective form of discipline; it was really just a good stress-reliever for the teacher. Handing out a detention slip will never be that satisfying.

But I digress. Teaching the Bible is about so much more than inflicting pain on children. It's about sharing the story of redemption. And that was definitely my favorite part. Some people travel to distant lands and learn exotic languages to reach an obscure people group. I drove five minutes from work to teach for forty minutes a day, four days a week. I hope my students got as much out of it as I did.

One student, yesterday, as we were walking out of the classroom, said, "Thank you, Mr. Greco. You're a good teacher. I learned a lot." He didn't have to say that, and it was somewhat like something you'd hear in an after-school, made-for-TV movie about troubled kids from the wrong side of the tracks and the one teacher who wouldn't let them give up hope (aptly played by Meredith Baxter). Anyway, it was nice to hear that.

I do hope I get the opportunity to teach again. The experience of finishing out the year is like the first

time you got to play Super Mario Bros. When you first start out, you don't know that you can break bricks or that the turtle shells can be used as a weapon. You die a couple of times trying to get the hang of it. It's fun, so when the screen reads "GAME OVER," you just want to give it another shot; you know you can do better now.

Sandra McCracken live

2009-05-15T08:40:00.004-04:00

Sandra McCracken's got the first six songs from her new live CD, Live Under Lights and Wires, up at Noisetrade.com for free (or any amount). It was recorded in the Webbs' living room in front of a small audience. I've been listening to it for the last few days and I highly recommend it.

'80 sitcom themes II

2009-05-10T14:05:00.004-04:00

So, after Melinda read my post from yesterday she started listing other TV themes she thought I should have posted instead. While I agree that the three I chose were not the definitive collection, I didn't want the post to be super long. So, for those of you who would like more, here are the honorable mentions:

It's not about you...

2009-04-25T10:41:00.010-04:00

The other day, I was driving to work on I-95 during rush hour. There's always traffic through New Haven, where 95, 91, and route 34 all come together. That small stretch along 95 is always backed up, even when it's not rush hour, as people merge and change lanes, and exit. It's the kind of highway design you can tell is really old, as if were designed for an age with fewer cars and lower highway speeds, and the designers could never imagine the kind of traffic we have today. Once you get past this small piece of highway, though, traffic generally moves pretty steadily.

Last Thursday, however, I had just gotten past that spot, and was once again regaining highway speeds, when I noticed a Mercedes coupe in my rear view mirror. The driver was an older man, probably in his sixties or seventies. As he passed me (on the right), I noticed he was wearing what looked to be a rather expensive suit. He had one hand on the steering wheel, while the other cradled his cell phone to his ear. I watched as he zigged and zagged his way between cars, using all three lanes and exit ramps when possible, never once braking nor slowing down. Other cars, however, braked and swerved a bit when he came near.

What a jerk!, I thought to myself. What gives him the right to drive that way? And where is a cop when you need one? No one on the highway honked their horn as he cut people off, made illegal lane changes, and never once signaled. I guess this kind of thing is pretty standard these days, and people have just gotten acclimated to it. As I thought about it, I realized that I do see this sort of thing in one form or another almost every day.

And it's not just on the highway either. People, myself included, regularly find ways to tell the world with their actions, I'm the only one who matters; no one else is as important as me. It's an overconfidence that really is en epidemic. It has been said that pride was the original sin, and that it is the source of all other sins, for before someone chooses to hurt another person or to disobey God, they first must decide that their own needs, wants, desires, and self-interest are the most important things in the world.

Paul wrote from a Roman prison to the Christians at Philippi, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others" (Philippians 2:3-4, TNIV). Paul is reminding these Philippian believers that they should have the same mind as Jesus, who put the interests of others above his own. He is remindin them that, as part of the kingdom of God, their ways should be markedly different from the world's. There should be no rivalry, no selfish ambition. Instead, as a sign to one another, and to the larger community, they should model the ethics of the kingdom. In this way, they would shine "like stars in the sky" (2:15).

And what is the point of all this shining? It's supposed to be contagious; it's supposed to spread like wildfire. Earlier in the letter to the Phillipian churches, Paul told how his attitude in suffering had been such a glowing example to the prison guards that they all now knew about Christ. They had

been impacted and the power of the kingdom was changing a place as miserable as a prison.

The attitude that says, "We're right," and justifies doing anything in the name of that rightness can be seen in something fairly small like rush-hour traffic or in something as large as the Holocaust. Sadly, most Germans were either Lutheran or Roman-Catholic in the days of Hitler. Most of them knew the teachings of Jesus, and they had spent their lives connected to a church community. Still, something gave them the overconfidence to stand by and watch as Jews, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the mentally disabled were exterminated.

Even today in the US, there is a debate going on about whether or not we should torture prisoners suspected of plotting acts of terrorism. Overwhelming, Christians support these "enhanced interrogation techniques," but one wonders if they should be so overconfident - so ready to support something that seems to fly in the face of Jesus' teachings.

Could it really be so simple? Could the thing that brings peace really be found in Paul's summation of kingdom ethics? "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves." Imagine a world where everyone lived by this motto. They say that a marriage can never work properly if it's just a 50/50 deal. It only works if both partners give 100%. They each must consider the needs of the other. But shouldn't this be true in every area of life? I'm certainly not saying that I always treat others well or that I never act seflishly, but I wonder if this simple instruction might do more to change our world than all of the tracts, bumper stickers, sermons, and culture-war debates combined.

For LOST fans...

2009-04-21T20:13:00.001-04:00

Been watching some old episodes of LOST lately... I saw this and thought it was kind of clever...