Switched Platforms

 Hello friends, followers and verbal pugilists: I have moved my blog to a Wordpress platform. This blog site has not been updated in some time. Please go to Godentranced.com to continue reading more current posts.

Praise Me.

We can all think of someone who is constantly telling you how great they are, or fishing for compliments, wanting people to fawn all over them. It’s not an attractive personality trait and we cringe when we see it.  (If you can’t think of someone…maybe it’s you!)

A young CS Lewis thought of God this way, annoyed by God’s constant demands for praise, especially in the Psalms. Lewis describes his discomfort, “I found a stumbling block in the demand so clamorously made by all religious people that we should ‘praise’ God; still more in the suggestion that God himself demanded it. We all despise the man who demands continued assurance of his own virtue, intelligence or delightfulness; we despise still more the crowd of people around every dictator, every millionaire, every celebrity, who gratify that demand.” (Reflections on the Psalms).

Lewis isn’t wrong; God does demand praise. It’s is everywhere in Psalm 144-150 (the reading for today). The phrase ‘Praise the Lord’ appears repeatedly throughout these chapters. Sometimes it is actually the word Hallelujah – not a command, but an interjection of praise. Other times, however, it is an imperative, a command (hallal). This command, ‘Praise the Lord’ appears twenty-five times in the Psalms alone. In addition, there are many more related commands, like ‘extol the Lord’, ‘worship the Lord’ (5x), ‘glorify Him’, and ‘sing to the Lord’ (10x).

As Lewis wrestles with this, he considers what we mean when we say God ‘deserves’ praise or a painting ‘deserves’ admiration. We certainly mean more than it is admired – people with bad taste admire ugly stuff.  Nor do we mean ‘deserves’ in the sense that some injustice has been done if the painting is not admired. What we mean, in Lewis’ words, is that “admiration is the correct, adequate or appropriate, response to it…that if we do not admire we shall be stupid, insensible, and great losers, we shall have missed something.”

Lewis eventually understood that God demands praise not out of insecurity or need, but out of a desire for his creation to enjoy the supreme goodness and beauty that is God. It is in worship that God “communicates his presence to men” and we can best appreciate the “fair beauty of the Lord.”  Lewis takes note that all enjoyment “spontaneously overflows into praise” unless stifled. This is true of a good book, a good meal, a landscape, etc. Our praise, Lewis rightly concludes, is actually the completion of our enjoyment, “its appointed consummation.”  It brings our enjoyment to its fullness.

In other words, God commands our worship because allows us to more fully enjoy Him. Let me encourage you to take time to worship and praise God this week. It can be in song – Sing to the Lord!
It can be in prayer. Probably we don’t spend enough time in praise as we pray; petitions tend to crowd out praise. It is good for you; according to Lewis “praise almost seems to be inner health made audible.”

A Liturgy for Those Flooded with Too Much Information

In a world so wired an interconnected,
our anxious hearts are pummeled by
an endless barrage of troubling news.
We are daily aware of more grief, O Lord,
than we can rightly consider,
or more suffering and scandal
than we can respond to, or more
hostility, hatred, horror, and injustice
than we can engage with compassion.

But you, Jesus, are not disquieted
by such news of cruelty and terror and war.
You are neither anxious nor overwhelmed.
You carried the full weight of the suffering
of a broken world when you hung upon
the cross, and you carry it still.

When the cacophony of universal distress
unsettles us, remind us that we are but small
and finite creatures, never designed to carry
the vast abstractions of great burdens,
for our arms are too short and our strength
is too small. Justice and mercy, healing and
redemption, are your great labors

And yes, it is your good pleasure to accomplish
such works through your people,
but you have never asked any one of us
to undertake more than your grace
will enable us to fulfill.

Guard us then from shutting down our empathy
or walling off our hearts because of the glut of
unactionable misery that floods our awareness.
You have many children in many places
around the globe. Move each of our hearts
to compassionately respond to those needs
that intersect our actual lives, that in all places
your body might be actively addressing
the pain and brokenness of this world,
each of us liberated and empowered by
your Spirit to fulfill the small part
of your redemptive work assigned to us.

Give us discernment
     in the face of troubling news reports.
Give us discernment
     to know when to pray,
     when to speak out,
     when to act,
     and when to simply
     shut off our screens
     and our devices,
     and to sit quietly
     in your presence,

casting the burdens of this world
upon the strong shoulders
of the one who
    alone
is able to bear them up.

Amen.

- "A Liturgy for Those Flooded with Too Much Information," Every Moment Holy, Vol 1, Douglas K. McKelvey.

Why are we Shocked?

Don't forget, we live in Babylon. And Babylon isn't Jerusalem - never has been, never will be (in fact, earthly Jerusalem ain't no Jerusalem either).
 
In two stages, Israel was taken into exile. First, the Northern Kingdom was conquered carried into exile to the Assyrian empire in 722BC. The Southern Kingdom of Judah help off exile for more than a century, but finally fell to the Babylonians in 586BC when Jerusalem was sacked and the temple destroyed. For roughly a generation, the people of Israel had to learn how to live as faithful Jews in Babylon. Babylon wasn't Jerusalem - there were other gods, other laws, other peoples, other priorities, and sins that were appalling in Jerusalem were celebrated in Babylon. It was in this context that men like Shadrach Meshach and Abednego, with Daniel and later Esther and uncle Mordechai (in Persia) lived faithfully and served nobly. 

As believers, we share more contextual connectedness with these exiles living in foreign lands than we do with Israelites who lived in the Promised Land. As Peter tells us, we are 'elect exiles of the Dispersion' (1 Peter 1:1). We aren't natural-born residence of this world, our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20) and we are 'strangers and aliens' or 'sojourners and exiles' in this world (1 Peter 2:11).  This is a truth we tend to forget, or maybe a truth we never fully embraced. There were times when we may have been fooled into thinking we lived in a spiritual city - a Jerusalem - because the mores and norms were superficially Judeo-Christian. But, it was a mirage only.

Let me be clear. We aren't aliens and strangers in America because of cultural decline or unfavorable court decisions. We aren't aliens and strangers because America is a post-Christian society. We are aliens because America (and England, and France, and China, and Yemen, and every other country) is Babylon. This applies to all civilizations through all time (save one). So Calvin, "For, if heaven is our homeland, what else is the earth but our place of exile."

American is no more, no less, Babylon now than it was in the 1950s or the 1770s. The US is no more, no less, Babylon than the UK or China. 

No earthly city corresponds to the heavenly Jerusalem, not even the earthly Jerusalem. All cities, all nations, all powers, are a part of the temporal, temporary, and corrupted Babylon. 

And in Babylon we reside, though only as pilgrims - exiles waiting to go home.

The picture of Babylon is negative, but not wholly so. There are still good things to enjoy and be grateful for. Here in Babylon we, like Israel in its exile, we can

Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare (Jeremiah 29:5-7, ESV).

But, we recognize these good things for what they are - temporary.

And, we recognize the city we live in for what it is - temporary and corrupted. Babylon will never be Jerusalem and we should never expect it to conduct itself like Jerusalem. We shouldn't be shocked or dismayed when sin is celebrated. Sin is the way of the world. Sometimes my social media feeds are flooded with friends expressing outrage over some new manifestation of Babylon being Babylon. Why surprised? It's what we should expect (we expect two-year-olds to get grumpy when they're tired, teenagers to be sleepy in the morning and leopards to have spots).

Expecting it, maybe we can be less shrill - as though our way of life was being threatened. It isn't, because our life is elsewhere. We reside here, but we shouldn't expect Babylon to conform to our mores and norms or be shocked or bitter when it doesn't. It won't, it never has (and when it appeared to, it was superficial at best).

On the other hand, seeking the good of the city means we grieve sin and we want those who are impacted by its devastation to experience the fullness of redemption and restoration. And working for the good of the city might mean we use the tools of the city to better the city (like Joseph, or Daniel) - working with governments to restrain the most egregious evils, to mitigate against the worst of sins effects, alleviate injustice, remedy hurt and pain. 

So, maybe a bit less whining and a bit more hoping and working would serve the evangelical church well. Just sayin.

Faith vs Decision

I was recently in a conversation with someone I respect immensely. They reported something they heard a pastor say that troubled them. Via the grapevine, it was reported that this pastor taught that his kids didn't need to be saved because they already were, by virtue of him being a pastor.

I suspect, knowing something of this pastor, it was a slight misunderstanding. I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that the pastor probably said something like "my kids don't need to become Christians, they already are," or "my kids don't need to 'make a decision' for Christ', they already trust him."  If that's what was stated, I agree.

FYI, not a picture of Caleb or any of my sons

Eight to ten years ago my son Caleb went through a "Dig Session" at church. Dig sessions at ECC are designed to help kids prepare to participate in the sacraments of baptism and communion. One of the questions the worksheet guided me to ask Caleb was something like "when did you become a Christian?"  He looked at me with wounded eyes - "Dad, I've always been a Christian."  He was right. He had never been a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Rastafarian or an atheist. He'd always been a Christian.

Oh, but someone will object, "He needs to make a decision to trust Christ!"

But does he? I asked, "are you trusting Christ to forgive your sins and are you committed to following the rest of your life" and he replied, simply and forcefully, "Yes!" Does he need to have a point where he decided to trust Jesus? I'd say no.

Let me use a favorite illustration for us evangelicals to make the point. We often say, correctly, that head knowledge is not the same as faith. You might know, so the illustration goes, that this chair will hold you. But, when you sit in it, you're exercising faith.

Ok, but in your childhood home did you decide you'd trust the Lazy-Boy. Or, did you just trust it because every day, everyone around you sat in it?  I don't ever remember deciding to trust a chair, but I do trust them (with the occasional exception of ones in my office I've tried repairing, but remain sketchy).  Many who grew up in the church with godly parents were taught of God's faithfulness, of Christ's love and kindness. They trust Jesus because they've always, as far back as they remember, trusted Jesus. If I had asked Caleb, "When did you decide to trust Jesus?" he would have said, "Dad, don't be an idiot, I've always trusted Jesus!"

Similarly, when did you decide to love your grandma?  Or, have you loved her from before you can remember. She was always in your life. She was always there and kind (I know, not all are, but I'm speaking from my experience).  Loving grandma wasn't a decision, it was and is just a fact of life from as far back as I remember.  I could have asked Caleb, "When did you start loving Jesus?" and he would have said "Ok Dad, I'm tired of this line of questioning. I have always loved Jesus."

 There are situations when the above isn't true. Someone who's never seen a chair before may need to decide to trust a chair. Someone who meets their grandmother for the first time as a teenager may need to decide how they will respond to this new person in their life.  Someone who hasn't grown up in the faith, or only nominally in the faith, may need to decide to love and trust Jesus and become a Christian (with the irresistible aide of the Holy Spirit - my inner Calvinist can't write "decide" without due clarification).

But, for those raised in the church and/or a home saturated in faith, trust in Jesus and love for him is part of the air they have breathed from the beginning. "Deciding" isn't necessarily necessary. Deciding does not equal faith.

Evangelicals, we don't want prayer in schools (or why we shouldn't)

Several months ago, sitting in the Indiana Memorial Union with my friend Adam deWeber,  two students approached us and asked if we'd do a quick survey for a class project. We agreed and were given sheets with twenty-five or so questions. One of the questions was 'do you support prayer in schools?'  I asked what they meant by that, but they said the couldn't/wouldn't explain more. As it stood, that's an impossible question for me to answer.

If you mean, should we allow students time to pray privately (emergency prayers before finals will always be needed), or to voluntarily gather in groups to pray together (i.e. See You at the Pole), then yes, I support this.

But I suspect they mean officially sanctioned prayers led by a teacher/administrator with student participation expected or encouraged. This is what most from older generations bemoan losing when Madalyn Murray O'Hair won her lawsuit and school prayers were no more (the historical timeline of prayers in public schools is more complicated than this, I know).

If it is this type of officially sanctioned prayers led by a school official, then I DO NOT WANT PRAYER IN MY KIDS' SCHOOL. That's right, I would oppose this type of prayer in our local public schools. Why? Two big reasons:

First, I don't want my kids learning how to pray in school because it isn't the job of a school official to teach my children how to pray.  It's mine and the church's responsibility. Would I get to choose who leads them in prayer in day and thus teaches them to pray? If so, I'd find a faithful Presbyterian or Evangelical to teach them (if not, then a Lutheran or Catholic could be fine). But I doubt I'll get to choose. What if it's a crazy "health-and-wealth-prosperity-gospel" teacher? What if it's a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness? What if it's some crazy liberal who prays to Mother God or something like that? What kind of prayers would be offered - vague general prayers that are innocuous and unChristian?  I'd rather my kids not pray like that. I don't want civil religion types prayers - I'd rather have no prayer.

Second, if we insist the prayers are truly Christian prayers, in the name of Christ and informed by core Christian doctrines, then what of the sizeable minorities who do not claim to be Christians. What of the Jews in our schools, the Muslims, the atheists. Should we force their children to pray to in Christ's name? What about regions where Christianity is the minority, like Hamtrack, MI or in Jewish neighborhoods in NYC?  Is it the majority that chooses what kind of prayers are offered?  What of the Christian students in these areas - should they be forced to pray to in a Muslim way?

We live in a pluralistic culture. The job of the schools is not to promote religion; they wouldn't be good at it.

J. Gresham Machen, the staunch opponent of liberalism at Princenton who went on to found Westminster Theological Seminary, likewise opposed Bible readings and prayers in school...back in  1933!

Let Justice Roll Down Like Waters

I remember hearing a talk radio host recently warn people that if their church spoke about social justice, they should leave because the church isn't Christian, it's communist. I understand that labels can mean all sorts of things, but I find it hard to be against social justice. If you're against it, are you for social injustice? The Bible does speak about social justice all the time - not necessarily in those words. In fact, maybe we should call it what the Bible calls it - righteousness.

Everyone talks about justice, Democrat and Republican, though they'll use different language to do so. Justice for the unborn. Justice for oppressed. Justice for the immigrant. Justice for those whose convictions go against the cultural tide. And all these groups deserve justice!

But, I don't hear many talking about intergenerational justice - and I think we need to start talking about that in earnest. In a 2011 statement, a group of evangelical thinkers (Evangelical for Social Action with Center for Public Justice) issued a Call for Intergenerational Justice, contending “Intergenerational justice demands that one generation must not benefit or suffer unfairly at the cost of another.”

The issue that sparked the petition was the mounting debt crisis. Unfortunately, this crisis has not gone away, though it is being ignored. The federal budget deficit was $984 billion in 2019 - a 26% increase from the year before. Our national debts is $23 trillion ($23,000,000,000,000).  Obviously, this is not sustainable. It's also unjust! To fix today's problems on tomorrow's dollar keeps snowballing...and the monstrous snowball will destroy our children's economic futures.

And I listen to debates where politicians promise new programs - free this, free that...with no viable way to pay for it - and I think we're selling our kids to the god of mammon, unwilling to sacrifice a modicum of our material prosperity today to help them in the future. Biblically, it is the parent's role to save for their children, not mortgage their children's future (2 Corinthians 12:14, and a lot of wisdom literature).

My small-government Republican friends may like this post so far. You won't if you keep reading...

As unjust as those who rack up massive debt for their children are those who use up all the earth's resources, leaving it polluted and stripped. Some will quibble over the science of climate change. Set it aside. Can we quibble over the loss of 3 billion birds in North America in the last few decades (or are bird watchers and ornithologists also just a tool of 'big solar' - ok, I'm getting a bit sarcastic)?  Shouldn't we all be able to agree that we want clean water (not like what my mom and dad lived with in PA where some of their neighbor's water was flammable)?  Shouldn't we be able to agree that we need clean air - not like people in the LA Basin suffered through a few decades ago? Shouldn't we agree that there are some places of such awe-inspiring beauty that we shouldn't befoul them with oil rigs or mines and ruin them for future generations?

Regulations (that were barely addressing the massive problems to begin with) are being rolled back to make energy cheaper, manufacturing more competitive, etc.  But it is unjust. Biblically, the land (and sea and sky) doesn't belong to us - we are stewards of it for God. And, it's a common good - not just ours to use, but everyone's, including future generations. The Bible has quite a bit to say to those who destroy the earth (i.e. Revelation 11:18, Proverbs 12:10, Deuteronomy 20:19-20).

I am sure there is a myriad of other applications of this concept of generational justice. Let's include this in our dialogue, expect it of our elected officials, and strive together to find solutions for everyone, even those who are yet to be born.

The Excellencies of Christ [and His Church]

This past week I was studying for my ACG class [topic is 'Mother Church'] and was reminded of my favorite sermon by Jonathan Edwards. No, it's not Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God (though that one is very good too). The sermon, titled 'The Excellency of Christ', is based on Revelation 5:5-6:

And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain...

Edwards points out that John is told by the angel that the Lion of the tribe of Judah can open the scroll. In his vision, it would be quite natural for him to expect to see this Lion; instead, in his vision he sees a Lamb.  Edwards reasons,

He is called a Lion….He is called a Lamb. That which I would observe from the words…There is an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in Jesus Christ. The lion and the lamb, though very diverse kinds of creatures, yet have each their peculiar excellencies.

Throughout the sermon, he helps the reader consider the diverse excellencies that meet in Jesus - the strength of the Lion, the meekness of the Lamb, the infinite majesty of God Almighty and the infinite condescension of the Suffering Servant. This leads Edwards to his application or 'uses'. First, there is an evangelistic use. He contends,

Let the consideration of this wonderful meeting of diverse excellencies in Christ induce you to accept of him, and close with him as your Savior. As all manner of excellencies meet in him, so there are concurring in him all manner of arguments and motives, to move you to choose him for your Savior, and every thing that tends to encourage poor sinners to come and put their trust in him: his fullness and all-sufficiency as a Savior gloriously appear in that variety of excellencies that has been spoken of.

In other words, what could you possibly need in a Savior that can't be found in Jesus? He is all-sufficient for every need you have.  The second use of this truth is for the Christian.

Let what has been said be improved to induce you to love the Lord Jesus Christ, and choose him for your friend and portion. As there is such an admirable meeting of diverse excellencies in Christ, so there is every thing in him to render him worthy of your love and choice, and to win and engage it. Whatsoever there is or can be desirable in a friend, is in Christ, and that to the highest degree that can be desired.

I love this sermon. It's rich, Christo-centric, stirs my affections and makes me want more of Christ. But what drew my mind from my study of ecclesiology to this sermon?  For the six weeks, I have been leading my ACG (Adult Community Group) through a study of the different images of the church in the New Testament. There are many - Paul Minear describes ninety-six images related to the church!  We haven't considered all ninety-six, but the ones we have are very diverse. The church as the Kingdom of God is an image to be held alongside the church as the Body of Christ. The church as a building is to be held alongside the church as a vine. The church as the Bride of Christ is meant to be held together with the church as a sheep pen. Diverse images for sure!

So why so much diverse imagery from the pens of the New Testament authors to describe the church? Let me plagiarize Edwards,

"There is an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in the church of Jesus Christ. The building and the vine, though very diverse kinds of images, yet have each their peculiar excellencies." 

No one image would suffice to sum up the beauty and the mystery of the Chruch. My 'use' of this truth mirrors Edwards. Let the consideration of this wonderful meeting of diverse excellencies in Christ’s church induce you to accept it (not reject or eschew it), serve it (instead of consume it), and love it, as Christ does.

Don't use Dead Christians to Score Political/Rhetorical Points

Over the past few days, I have seen a few disturbing Facebook posts about Christian's slaughtered in Nigeria and the Philippines. Of course, as a Christian and, frankly as a human, I am deeply saddened by this. But, these posts have been rhetorically dishonest and so devalue and dishonor those who have died.

The reports are not usually posted with a simple "this is sad, we should pray and remember Christians who live in hard places and have their lives taken from them." No, instead it's, "the media is falling all over themselves to report the massacre in New Zealand, but nary a word about the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria and the Philippines."  It's a rhetorical trick attempting to demonstrate that the media ("the left wing media") doesn't care about the plight of Christians. Problem is, the facts are very wrong.

First, consider what is being spread regarding the bombing in the Philippines; the following post is an example. This was posted on March 15th, shortly after the New Zealand mosque killings.

Indeed ISIS terrorists did attack two Catholic churches in the Philippines and killing at least twenty, wounding dozens. But this attacked happened in late January (not, as the post implies, in mid-March). And, the tragedy was covered by media when it actually happened, including CNN, Fox, NYTimes, BBC, Reuters and many more.


The killings in Nigeria are different, more complicated. The posts that have been circulating, often referencing a Breitbart headline, claim that Muslim militants have killed more than 120 Christians in Nigeria. Again, this is a mixture of truth and error. The numbers vary from agency to agency, but 120 is very likely. However, this is part of a larger feud between farmers and herders that is raging in Nigeria currently. Muslim nomadic herders (Fulani) have been in conflict with the ethnically Christian Adara people in Nigeria. Many on both sides have been killed. In February, Adara gunmen, in response to an attack by Fulani, targetted Fulani settlements and killed at least 130. In March, yes 120 Christians, or more, were killed as a part of this conflict. It's ugly. It is war. Which makes it categorically different than a white supremacist walking into a mosque and killing fifty, wounding more.  

The Christland shooting has received more attention than either of the other two events. I don't doubt that, but it seems completely understandable too. There is a 'first world bias' to events we read about or hear about from the media. A factory fire that kills 20 in Bangladesh won't make the news. Same fire in Chicago or Londo will. And, this kind of violence isn't expected in New Zealand, but we have become somewhat calloused to it in other parts of the country. A gangland shootout killing three or four people won't make the news if it's in Chicago or LA. If it's on the streets of Cape Cod or in Disneyland it would.

Let me be blunt, misrepresenting these horrific events to make the point that Christians are ignored by the media is dishonest. It is, in terms of the Ten Commandments, bearing false witness. And, it dishonors the dead - they aren't tools to be used in your war against the media. Shaping public opinion by using false data is, at best, manipulative. It feeds the "us vs. them" mentality that is doing so much harm in our nation and across the globe. Please stop.

Not a Political Post: Our Elected Officials Do Speak for Us, Whether We Like It or Not

This post isn't a political one, but I have noticed something over the past few years regarding how we talk about politics that I'd like to call out, partly because it's just incorrect, and partly because it has implications for how we read and understand the Scriptures.

For a long time now I've seen social media posts that read, 'He's not my President' or 'He/she/they don't speak for me'.  It's not just under the current administration that this kind of rhetoric has been common - many conservative/right wingers said the same kind of thing under the previous administration. Well, hate to break it to you, but they do - whether you like it or not. Again, this isn't a post in support of any politician or party, court decision or policy. I don't post political things (usually), and I'm not doing so here. It's just a post about reality.

The U.S. is a representative democracy - we elect representatives who represent us. They speak for us, enact laws on our behalf, appoint judges, make decisions, strike treaties, etc. I have never done any of those things, but my representatives have on my behalf. I don't always like their decisions, but they do speak for me. If Congress declares war on Canada [or the President; War Powers Resolution is iffy constitutionally], then we, including me, are at war.

It is a special expression of our western individualism [run amuck] that says things like 'PersonX doesn't speak for me' when PersonX clearly does. And this individualism makes it hard to accept a key principle of Scripture - federal headship.

Did I appoint Adam as my representative? No, I didn't have a say. Do I approve of what he did? No (but, slightly off point, I would have failed just as miserably - I do it daily).  But still Adam spoke and acted as my representative. He declared independence from his Maker, thrust himself and me into conflict with the Divine Judge/Jury/Executioner.  "But he doesn't speak for me!" Yes, yes he does.

And so does Christ. He speaks for me and all those who are 'in him'. He, as the second Adam, is our faithful and true representative who makes terms of peace for us, accomplishes the peace, and imposes a new law of love. At the same time, I am conscripted by him into an ongoing war against darkness, sin, and the devil.

Our western, individualistic presuppositions can truly make it difficult to understand texts written in the Ancient Near East, and to the degree that such presuppositions are fallen and twisted, they make it hard to understand how a holy God operates too.

[note: I will not engage political discourse in the comments, but if you have questions about the theology of this post, ask away]

Further Meditation on God's Wisdom

Yesterday I posted some thoughts related to God's wisdom as it is revealed in the story of Joseph. I kept thinking about it last night and into this morning, and am all the more in awe of God's wisdom.

In essence, I came to the the conclusion yesterday that if Joseph hadn't been sold into slavery, we're all going to hell. How did I come to this fairly startling conclusion?

Joseph being sold into slavery, though a series of convoluted machinations, places Joseph in a place of tremendous influence in Egypt, second only to Pharaoh. In this role, Joseph institutes a plan that will save thousands of lives during a seven year famine that God warns of in a dream. Among those lives saved are Jacob (Joseph's elderly father) and Joseph's brothers. These men represent the covenant community, the descendants of Abraham and Jacob that will become Israel.

If this small group of sojourners die of starvation (and they would have had Joseph not provided them grain), God's promise that Abraham's descendants would be numerous would fail. And, God's promise that Abraham's seed would be a blessing to the nations would fail too. If they die, there is no Israel; no Israel means no Messiah to bless the nations; no Messiah means we're still in our sin.

That was my thought line yesterday.

Then I started to question it and said to myself, "Surely, God would have found another way!"

But that's not right. That God is all wise means God never has to go to Plan B. He chooses the right plan - the right goal and the right means to achieve it - from the outset.

And because God is good and holy, we can be sure Plan A is a good and holy plan - a perfect goal and just means to accomplish it. Because God is all knowing, no unforeseen circumstances will arise and force him back to the drawing board. Because God is Almighty, no force can stand in his way when his plan has been determined.

Saying God is Wise means no Plan B is needed!

Job 42:1-2:
Then Job replied to the LORD:
      2 “I know that you can do all things;
         no purpose of yours can be thwarted

Isaiah 14:26-27
      This is the plan determined for the whole world;
         this is the hand stretched out over all nations.
      27 For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him?
         His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? 

God's wisdom

This morning I am studying the story of Joseph, getting ready to speak on God's wisdom for the men's group. It's such a familiar story, it's all the more striking when some new insight hits you. And that's what happened this morning.

Joseph is sold into slavery by his jealous brothers. He endures life as a slave, mistreatment by Potiphar and his wife, incarceration and more. He's been betrayed and forgotten. But God is wise.

Eventually, due to some disturbing dreams Pharaoh has (dreams play a huge role in Joseph's story), Joseph ends up in the court of Pharaoh in a incredibly influential position. Pharaoh's dream warned of a long famine that would follow on the heels of years of prosperity. In  wisdom, Joseph helps Pharaoh make ready for the years of famine by storing up grain during the years of plenty. In so doing, he is instrumental in saving the lives of countless thousands of people.

And here's where the story gets fantastic. Some of the people he saves are his own family - his scheming, treacherous brothers and his aging father.  His wisdom rescues them from starvation. That, in and of itself, makes the story really cool. But consider that Jacob (Joseph's father) and his brothers are the descendants of Abraham and Isaac. They are the covenant community. They are the people that become the nation of Israel. They are the forefathers of the Messiah.

So here it is...

If Joseph isn't sold into slavery, he doesn't find himself in Pharaoh's court preparing Egypt for famine.

If Joseph isn't sold into slavery, Jacob and his brothers die of starvation.

If Joseph isn't sold into slavery, there is no Israel.

If Joseph isn't sold into slavery, Jesus isn't born in Bethlehem as Messiah.

If Joseph isn't sold into slavery, we aren't saved by Jesus from our sins.

If Joseph isn't sold into slavery, I am going to hell for eternity.

Lets all sing with the apostle Paul:

      33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
         How unsearchable his judgments,
         and his paths beyond tracing out!
      34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord?
         Or who has been his counselor?” b
      35 “Who has ever given to God,
         that God should repay them?” c
      36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
         To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)

Finding the Right Balance in Family Bible Reading

This morning I will be sharing with the Mom's group at ECC on the topic of family Bible reading.  Our family has certainly had it's ups and downs, its trials and errors, and its successes. There have been, shamefully, periods where we've gone months without consistent Bible reading together. And, there's been other periods, more regular and more sustained, when we've read the Bible together faithfully.  During all of it, there are a few things we've tried to keep balanced.

1. Regularity vs. Legalism
We certainly want to be regular in our ingestion of God's Word together as a family. But we've not been legalistic about it either. If we miss a night or two, we don't stress about it. Last night we went to my nieces last IU game at home - it was senior night. It was awesome and went into double overtime, ending in an IU win (Karlee played extremely well). We didn't get home late and kids were tired, Caleb still had homework to do, etc.

So, we didn't do devotions last night. Doing so would have been overly burdensome. Insisting we do so would have been legalistic.

Now we have taken, at times, this libertarian approach too far and fallen out of a real habit. That's worse. But you and your family need to find the right balance.

2. Big Story vs. Little Stories
Growing up I knew all the little stories of the Bible. When we played Bible Trivia (and we did often), I was pretty good.  Christian school, Sunday school, my parents, my dad's sermons, etc., all taught the stories of Bible.

But it wasn't till much later that I could put these together in a comprehensive way - in a way that reflected an understanding of the Big Story of the Bible.

I think that trend has been reversed in my kids. They know the Grand Story...I've told it over and over again. Our church emphasizes it. We've read devotionals that teach it. But, I'm not sure they know the stories like Gideon, Ehud, the story of the rich man and Lazarus, etc.

Both are important. In fact, the Big Story is hard to tell without certain of the small stories. And the point of the small stories is easy to miss if you can't put them in the context of the Big Story. So find the right balance.

Note: using the word story with your kids...we emphasized that the Bible stories are true stories, not stories like Hansel and Gretel or Dr. Seuss. 

3. Moral Lessons vs. God's Provision of Salvation
The Bible stories teach moral lessons. David was a courageous young man. Daniel stood up for what was right. Ruth was loyal. Amen. Our kids need to hear these moral lessons and need to have good exemplars of the faith to model. And, there's biblical precedent for this - simply look at Hebrews 11 where Abraham et al are held up as models of faith leading to action.

But these stories aren't about moral lessons; in fact, Moses, Daniel, David, etc. - they're not the heroes of the stories. God is!

At one point when we were teaching through the stories of the OT, we had a little ritual. I'd tell the story, make my wise, fatherly/pastoral comments, and then end with a question, "What's the point of the story?" The kid's response was "God saves his people!" 

Teach the morals, but never lose sight of the real point of the stories!

4. Paraphrases vs. God's Word
Is it ok to use a kids Bible, or a Bible story book that paraphrases the stories, or must we read straight from the Bible?

I think both are good. And I think, again, both have Biblical precedent. When the Israelites crossed the Jordan they erected altars. They were told to so, so that when they passed by later with their children and the children's asked, "what are these?", they'd have the opportunity to tell them the story of God's deliverance. Not read it or recite it, tell it.

But certainly, we're commanded not only to read Scripture but hide it our hearts. Reading the word of God as God inspired it is incredibly important. I remember passages that I never memorized, but I've heard read over and over again. That is so important.

So tell the stories and read the Word. Do both.

5. Age appropriate vs. Challenging
It's hard, especially with several kids, to find the right balance here. What's appropriate for one is very challenging for another (or overly simplistic).  We probably lean towards the challenging. Sometimes the youngest may feel it's over his head. But, I've seen a few things happen repeatedly. One they ask questions, and conversations start that are priceless. Two, the older kids take on the role of tutor, and explain it in more simple terms. That's awesome! Three, the younger kids understand way more that I think they do. Four, months later, they'll recall something we discussed. They didn't get it at the time, but now the light bulb went on. Love it!

So we tend to the challenging, maybe not always age appropriate. But if that's all we did, it probably wouldn't work. Sometimes the conversations are more simple...and the older ones know it's not always all about them. Plus, who of us doesn't need to be reminded and dwell on the simple lessons from time to time?

We don't have all this figured out. We did. Then we had kids. My encouragement to you is to struggle through it. Find the time, make the mistakes, do your best. Find the appropriate balance in these areas and pour into your kids, showing them that the content of our faith really matters.

Christ Would be Lord of Your Emotions Too (Thoughts on Valentine's Day)

Emotions get a bad rap. I remember my dad saying things like "you can't trust your emotions." Now, I agree that you can't trust fallen emotions, but you can't trust fallen reason or the fallen will either.

But, Christ redeems us whole, not just reason, not just will, but emotions too.

And, Christ is Lord of it all. That means he commands us to think and believe, to will and to act, and to feel and emote.

I didn't realize this was controversial till I stepped in it [the proverbial 'it'] last week. Somewhere along the line, we drew a false distinction between joy and happiness, between love as an act and love as an emotion. I believe these are absolutely false distinctions.

Let me make a case briefly, using love as my example. No Christian can seriously question that we are called to love - to love God, to love neighbor, even to love our enemies. Sometimes this gets interpreted to mean that we ought to do loving things for the other, after all, love must be expressed in practical, real ways. It's not just a warm fuzzy emotion.

With this, I can partially agree. Love isn't just an emotion. It's more, but it's not less. Love must include affection.

Think about worship for a moment. What would worship be like without genuine feeling, without affection for the one we worship? Is God content to have us do loving things for him, like serve him out of duty, obey him, etc? No! We must feel something for God. We must feel love and serve and obey.  I think 1 Corinthians 13 makes this pretty clear.

13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. (ESV)

Paul speaks of loving things - worship in tongues of men and angels, giving to the poor, surrendering to martyrdom. But if these aren't done in love, read 'with genuine affection/feeling', they are nothing!
This is true of our earthly relationships too. If my wife does loving things for me - buys me Valentine's Day candy, cooks dinner, keeps my clothes clean and ironed, even shows all kinds of physical affection - but feels nothing for me, is she a loving wife? No!  Emotions are important.

The same is true of joy and happiness. We've divided the two concepts when no such division is sustainable biblically (and doesn't show up in church writings until very recently).  Too often we've contended that you can be joyful, but not happy - in other words, joy isn't an emotion. But it is!  The Bible uses words that get translated 'joy' or 'happiness' as synonyms. True, biblical joy/happiness is deep and well rooted because it's grounded in the gospel and in God, but it's still an emotion. And it's true that it's possible to be joyful/happy and grieve and be sorrowful and mourn. They aren't mutually exclusive but that doesn't mean joy isn't an emotion. Joy is an emotion, call it happiness if you will, and it should touch our faces sometimes (in smiles).  You can't be glumly joyful!

So, I don't always feel happy or feel love. I''ll admit it (and it comes as no surprise to those who know me). Is that ok?  My answer is no. It's not. Something is wrong in my faith and obedience and I should repent, seek forgiveness. If I don't feel love for my wife, I should still show love, but pray fervently that God would fix my emotions and allow me to also feel love. If I'm not happy, I ought to ask God to make me happy - not the kind that depends on my circumstances or comfort, but deeply, biblically happy in Him!

Christ commands. He is Lord. The wind and the waves obey...so should my heart! 

For more on happiness and joy, look here at this article, and also this interview with Randy Alcorn. 

Why I Cringe When I People Say America Was/Is A Christian Nation

Below is text from one of my 2010 posts. Claims that the U.S. was/is a Christian nation get repeated by the right (when arguing for traditional family values) and the left (i.e. as a Christian nation we ought to welcome refugees)...and it always make me cringe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last night I spoke to a small group of international graduate students on the topic "Is America a Christian Nation?" I asked at the outset if they had been given the impression that America was a Christian nation and they all agreed that they had.

I began by asking what it is that makes an individual a Christian. I outlined three essential things. First, an internal work of God referred to as 'regeneration' or 'being born again'. That is the work of God and the sine qua non of being a Christian - without that work, we are still dead in sin and not a part of the Kingdom. This internal change will be manifested externally in the Fruit of the Spirit, but these externals flow from (necessarily) the internal change and cannot be forced or produced simply by the will of man.

Second, Christians are defined right belief. I asked, "if I told you I was an atheist who believed in God, what would you say?" Rightly they understand that I wouldn't be a real atheist, for atheists are marked by a specific belief, namely in the nonexistence of God. Likewise, real Christians are marked by certain beliefs. John, in his first letter articulates a doctrinal test -those who are truly believers will confess Christ. Those who don't, aren't genuine believers, but antichrists. Paul articulates the importance of right belief in several places, but look specifically at Galatians 1:6-9 and his condemnation of 'another gospel'. The early creeds, accepted by Catholics and Protestants (and with minor disagreement, Orthodox believers) are a wonderful summary of what true Christians have believed for centuries.

Finally, there are certain actions that mark of genuine Christians. Again, I asked, "what makes someone a vegetarian?" Obviously, vegetarians are marked off by certain practices, more so than beliefs. They don't eat meat. So Christians are marked off by certain actions, among them is participation in the sacraments of baptism and communion. The New Testament does not allow for a category of believer that is unbaptized or non-participatory in the sacramental life of the Body of Christ (I know, the exception is the thief on the cross). Likewise, the NT doesn't allow us to conceive of believers who are not connected to the life of the church.

Having established what it means for a person to be a Christian, we moved on the discuss what it means for a nation to be Christian. First, a nation could be officially Christian in that it recognized/supported/regulated a state church. England is officially Anglican. Denmark has the Danish National Church (Lutheran). In a similar way, many states officially support Islam as the state religion (Iran, Kuwait, etc.), and several officially support Buddhism (Cambodia, Thailand, etc.).

Second, a nation could be established explicitly on Christian principles, theology, Scriptures, etc. The charter of the Plymouth Colony(Mayflower Compact) is such a document, stating,

"Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic..."

Third, a nation could be considered Christian if the vast majority of the population is Christian (but, on that, see the discussion above regarding the marks of a true Christian). So, do these apply to America?

Going back to the early 1700's, N.America was controlled by three colonizing powers: France, Great Britain, and Spain. Before the 1700's, other nations, like the Dutch, controlled some portions of N. America, but by 1700, it was those three that controlled the entire N.American continent. Two of the three were Roman Catholic, England was officially Protestant. Of the three groups of settlers (English, Spanish, and French), only one came for explicitly religious reasons. The Pilgrims (Separatists) and the Puritans settled in Massachusetts in hopes of finding freedom from (Anglican) persecution. However, not all British settlers came for religious reasons. Alongside the Dissenters (Pilgrims & Puritans) looking for freedom came good Anglicans who were motivated by the hope of a new life or financial prosperity.

Moving ahead to the time of the Revolution and the founding of the United States as a nation, many Christians look back to our Founding Fathers as pillars of Christian virtue who sought to establish a nation on the Christian principles. There is, however, good reason to question this. (I won't even raise the issue of whether or not rebellion against a sovereign is biblical, I'll just direct your attention to 1 Peter 1:13 and Romans 13:1-7). While it is absolutely true, that many pastors were supportive of the Revolution and that many of the Founding Fathers were good Christians (Patrick Henry, John Witherspoon, and Samuel Adams -who's better known for his beer than his role in founding our nation), that is certainly not the whole story. Among the founders there were quite a few Deists (and heretics). Ben Franklin denied the deity of Christ. John Adams denied the Trinity. Thomas Jefferson took scissors to his Bible and cut out all things supernatural, including the resurrection of Christ. Can such men be considered Christian? The did talk of god, but they eschewed a Christian understanding of God. They're god was sub-Christian. Thomas Paine was worse yet (or maybe better yet). He said, "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." No wonder he was referred to as the 'filthy little atheist'! Moreover, Washington, while being a regular church goer refused communion for his whole adult life. In addition, he was a Grand Master in the Masonic Lodge - something that cannot easily be reconciled with genuine Christian convictions. (Regarding the image: in the words of an author I can't remember, 'Praying doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger.' Ok, the quote is actually, 'going to church doesn't make you a Christian...' but you get the idea.)

Considering all of this, I believe we can say that Christianity was certainly influential, but not exclusively so. Maybe more important than Jesus or Moses were the Enlightenment philosphers in vogue at the time - Kant, Rousseau, etc - and their elevation of autonomous reason over revelation (ie. 'we hold these truth to be self evident').

Moreover, beyond the small circle of founders, the population at large, while certainly thinking of themselves as Christian, could be thought of as only nominally so. Belief in God can be assumed, as well as a general Judeo-Chrsitian ethic; however, it is estimated that only 10-15% of the population attended church regularly. [Interestingly, more people attend church regularly now than when this nation was born, in terms of sheer numbers and also percentage of population. So it could be argued we are more Christian now than then. I don't think most would like that argument.]

In addition, when you look at the founding documents of the United States, you don't see any gospel orientation (not even a specifically Christian orientation like in the Mayflower Compact). Certainly vague talk of God or Creator is there, but Deists could affirm that No mention of Christ or the gospel. There was never an officially sanctioned state church for the nation (though many states supported the church - Anglican or Congregational). In fact, our Constitution distances us from any form of established religion. Our leaders are not subject to any religious test (Article 6.3), and religious liberty (not just of Christians) was articulated in the 1st amendment. Interestingly, Patrick Henry understood this to be grounded in the gospel, writing,"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship." I disagree with him on the first part, but affirm the connection between the gospel and religious freedom in the second part of the quote.

It must be conceded that American's breathed Christian air. The Judeo-Christian ethic was assumed. I've even heard it said that the god atheists disbelieved in was the Christian God (not a Muslim god or Hindu god, etc). However, that is a far cry from saying we were founded on Christian principles.

So, I believe saying America is a Christian nation doesn't do justice to the historical complexities surrounding the birth or our nation. In addition, and more importantly, it doesn't do justice to the nature of genuine Christianity. This is why I cringe when I hear pastors or theologians or lay people saying it. Do we really want that baggage?

First, American civil religion isn't Christianity. Morality isn't Christianity. Christian does come with a moral system, but the moral system, which American did, by and large, embrace, isn't what is essential to Christianity.

Second, looking at the history of our nation, we cannot claim it was a Christian nation and then turn a blind eye to the atrocities we have, as a nation, committed. This is, I believe, very important to own. Slavery. The dispossession of and slaughter of Native Americans. The confinement of Japanese in internment camps. Entrenched racism. And that's the short list. No wonder people in other parts of the world hear America claiming to be a Christian nation, look at our history, and conclude they want nothing to do with Christianity.

Lastly, I think Christians should think long and hard about whether or not the idea of a Christian nation is even biblical. Can a Christian America be squared with Jesus' statements regarding the spiritual nature of his kingdom? I don't think they can be easily reconciled.

I'll conclude with a long quote from Richard Alpert in the Huffington Post:

“Speaking from the heart of the Muslim world in Turkey's Cankaya Palace in April 2009, President Barack Obama answered the question with the nuance that has come to characterize his public statements: America, he declared, is "a predominantly Christian nation" but "we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."

The President's answer seems to strike a discordant tone between reality and self-perception. On the one hand, American has no official church or religion. The United States Constitution expressly forbids a national religion. Yet on the other hand, Christianity is the religion of a substantial supermajority of the American population. According to the latest results of the Pew Research Centre's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, nearly 80 percent of Americans self-identify as Christian.

But there is no contradiction in the President's statement. America is, and indeed always has been, a nation of Christians but it is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian nation.” 

Want more. Watch this short video from Bryan Chapell, President of Covenant Theological Seminary.

The Obedience of Faith

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, 7 To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (ESV)

This morning I read Romans 1 as part of my devotional reading. One phrase from the above paragraph kept coming back to mind throughout the day - "the obedience of faith".  The NIV renders it as "the obedience that comes from faith". 

My first thought was personal. My faith, the beliefs in the truths of Scripture, my trust in Christ my King...all of this ought to lead to obedience. There is a malfunction in my faith if it isn't leading to obedience.

My second thought was church related. This was Paul's goal; it ought to be ours too. Not just acceptance of doctrines, not just faith by itself, but faith accompanied by works, trust and obedience. Not cheap grace and flimsy faith, but vital faith that produces the fruit of obedience.

Paul holds together two great doctrines we have driven a wedge between - justification and sanctification. They are different, but go together. Justification is by faith. So is sanctification. Justification precedes sanctification, but is never found all by itself.

These two doctrines go hand in hand because both are found in, and only in, union with Christ. It is by being united to Christ that we receive his righteousness and are declared 'saints' before God's bar. But, being united to Christ means his life flows through us and pushes itself out in good works, in love and in holiness. We can't be united to Christ for one, justification, and not the other.

Paul's ambition should be ours - obedience from faith for the sake of his name!

Shakespeare and Cats

Imagine with me two actors stepping onto stage to do a scene. One of these actors is dressed in a traditional Elizabethan costume - fine, clean, almost regal. The other actor, is in a Cat costume. They begin delivering their lines, and they are very clearly reading from a different script, with a different setting, different use of language, etc.

That was me. And, it is indicative of many churches and the fundamentalist church culture. We were cats on stage in a Shakespearean play. We were out of place, looked odd, talked funny. I wore shirts that said "His Pain, Your Gain." I listened to different music (Petra, Degarmo and Key, Stryper if I was in a spandex mood), read different books, spent my time in different ways (though we had a weakness for movies, so on that point there was commonality between me and my non church friends).

Looking back, there was benefit to this kind of church culture. It was clear we were to be different; we were living a different story. But it is possible that these kinds of superficial differences between the church and the wider surrounding culture can, I'm afraid, mask points of alikeness - even sinful alikeness. We may listen to different music and wear weird tshirts, but do we still love money, worship power, etc.?

Imagine a different, but similar scenario. Two actors walk onto stage, both wearing the same Elizabethan type costume. Both deliver their lines with the same accent, cadence. It takes a little while because of the similarities, but eventually you realize that they too are reading from different scripts. One is reading from Othello, the other Hamlet. Different stories, but similar in more ways than Shakepeare and Cats.

That, I feel is an appropriate illustration for much of modern evangelicalism. We're similar to the wider culture in many ways - and that is not always inappropriate. One can listen to U2, or even Megadeth on occasion and enjoy the talent of these musicians, even be edified by truths the speak of in their lyrics. I can buy some shirts from Old Navy and not all from Christian bookstores. I can read non Christian novels. I watch many of the same shows and movies (though not all) that my non-church going friends do.  Many similarities. But many very important differences.

The challenge is that these differences are not always easy to notice.  They differences are less superficial and more nuanced, not at the level of fashion or musical preferences, but of loves and priorities. For this reason, it is easy for watchers to think we're reading from the same script, at least for a while.

I think this is true for our kids too; after all, our kids are our biggest watchers. Growing up in a fundamentalist background, we knew we were 'aliens and strangers'. It's not as clear to my kids, I would suspect. The differences aren't as blaring, not as noticeable to the naked eye.

So I, and all parents of kids in evangelical or mainline churches need to be more vigilant, pointing out where the scripts for the Christian and the nonChristian diverge. Our kids need to know that they're living in a different story and a different plot line. It won't be as obvious as when you see a Cat on stage with Romeo, but it's incredibly important. So, we need to be vocal about our loves, motivations, priorities, etc. And, we need to make sure out kids have a firm grip on the central story of God and his people!

We need to do this work of reminding ourselves, and our kids we're in God's story.

Complete Reading List 2016

BOOKS 2016 (Rated out of five thumbs up)

The Theology of Augustine, Matthew Levering 👍👍👍👍
Augustine on the Christian Life, Gerald Bray 👍👍👍👍
Confessions, St. Augustine 👍👍👍👍👍
What is the Mission of the Church, Kevin DeYoung 👍👍👍👍
Being Mortal, Atul Gawande 👍👍👍👍
The Man Of Sin, Kim Riddlebarger 👍👍👍
1&2 Thessalonians, John Stott 👍👍👍
Religions Next Door, Marvin Olasky 👍👍
Christianity and Religious Pluralism, Harold Netland 👍👍👍👍
The Baptized Body, Peter Leithart 👍👍👍
Public Faith, Miroslav Volf 👍👍👍
Silence, Endo 👍👍👍👍👍
Ordinary, Michael Horton 👍👍👍👍
Silence and Beauty, Fujimura 👍👍👍
Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic Age 👍👍👍
Janson Equation, Robert Ludlum 👍👍
Blood in the Water (Destroyermen Series), Taylor Anderson 👍👍👍👍
Only One Way, DCosta, Knitter and Strange 👍👍👍
A Theology of Inclusivism, Neal Punt 👍👍👍
Who Can Be Saved, Terrance Thiessen 👍👍👍👍
Top Secret, WEB Griffin 👍👍👍👍
Hillbilly Elegy, JD Vance 👍👍👍👍
Assassination Option, WEB Griffin 👍👍
The Samauri, Endo 👍👍👍👍👍
To Change the World, James Davidson Hunter 👍👍👍👍
Introduction to the Blues, Elijah Wald 👍👍👍
How not to be Secular, James Smith 👍👍👍

My Best Reads of 2016 (Fiction)

So my 'Best of 2016' list is not the best books published in 2016, it's the best one's I read during the year. My pics this year range from fiction, to theology, to biography. I really enjoyed some good books this year.

Fiction

1. Silence and The Samurai by Endo. These two books are heartbreaking, but important. Fewer than one percent of Japan is Christian, but that was not always the case. In the fifteen and sixteen hundreds, Japan was the focus of a massive mission effort by the Catholic Church of which Francis Xavier was the pioneer. Thousands of Japansese became Christians during this time. But, it wasn't long before the church in Japan fell under relentless persecution and many fell away from the faith (though not all - there is also the history of the hidden church in Japan that continued, cut off from the larger church, and morphed in inexplicable ways).  These two novels explore the mixed motives of the missionaries, the converts, and the faithful. They wrestle with questions related to persecution and apostasy, raising questions we, in the West, out to be thinking about. The novel Silence is considered one of the great novels of the twentieth century, has inspired musicians (Symphony #3 "Silence," by MacMillan), and is a soon to be released motion picture by Martin Scorsese.

Soon I will be posting favorite Biographies, books on culture, Christian living, and theology of 2016.

I call Bulls--t!

This week I read an article that a friend posted on Facebook. I shouldn’t have, it rarely turns out well. Normally though, it doesn’t produce such rage and almost never the kind of tirade you’ll be reading if you continue.The article was so bad, it has brought me out of blogging retirement.

Sam Eaton begins his article, “12 Reasons Millennials are Over the Church,” by stating he wants to love and be excited by the church, but just can’t. Cool. I guess Jesus would be okay with that right? The church has blemishes and sin. It’s not perfect. What is there to love? At least you want to love it Sam. 

But wait, didn’t Jesus love us when we had blemishes, sin and were generally unlovable! Didn’t Christ command us to love others, though they’re flawed and sinful, just as he loved us in our wretchedness. And, doesn’t Christ love his church – yes HIS CHURCH, his Bride, warts and pimples and all. It seems to be an inescapable conclusion: if we’re Christ followers who love him, we MUST love his church, not just want to love it. And here is my real, big picture problem with Sam and his article – he is justifying a lack of love for the church, giving space for millennials (or anyone really) to feel as if their lack of love for the church is acceptable. IT IS NOT.

I know Sam doesn’t speak for all millennials. I know plenty of them who are engaged with the church, love the church, and serve her not because they’re blind to its faults, but because they know their own, and they know how they contribute to the church’s beauty and mess.

What reasons does Eaton give for not loving the church? Here they are, point by [ridiculous] point (with my thoughts interspersed).

1.      Nobody’s Listening to Us

Sam writes, “Millennials value voice and receptivity above all else.” He bemoans that the church plugs along without listening to the millennials and their concern. I have a stereotype of millennials, and unfortunately Eaton plays right into it. These comments are so self-centered and unaware, as if millennials are the first generation that wanted to be heard. He does know about the 60s, right?!  I want to say to Sam and those whom he speaks for, “Maybe the church heard your concerns and listened to your advice and didn’t take it. Maybe the institutional wisdom borne out of centuries outweighs your feelings and insights, you annoying little brat.” Ok, maybe that truth needs a little more grace seasoned in there, but he sounds like to twelve year old whose parents refuse to let him do whatever he wants and complains that no one understands him and gets him. No, we got you, but you aren’t always going to get what you want.

Eaton offers solutions. I selected a few.

• “Create regular outlets (forums, surveys, meetings) to discover the needs of young adults both inside AND outside the church.”  Hmmm. Maybe, just maybe, we have a book that tells us what millennials need, and boomers and xers and generation-whatever-comes-nexters too!  Really, we need a focus group? Dumb.
• “Invite millennials to serve on leadership teams or advisory boards where they can make a difference.” Again, this is so typically millennial it really is the low hanging fruit. I have something to say, I want to be a leader, I am ENTITLED to lead, so give me a role in leadership. Earn it? No. Give it to me!  But, maybe he has a point. No, no he doesn’t. The church I serve in has lots of millennials as deacons, small group leaders, even elders. I like that. But, I also believe these leadership roles should be guarded, ensuring people who occupy them have shown themselves to be qualified, hold sound doctrine, live upright and godly lives, etc. And, part of that would probably mean not bitchin and moaning that the church doesn’t do things my way. Sam, not been asked to serve as an elder? I think I know why!
• Hire a young adults pastor who has the desire and skill-set to connect with millennials. Ok, so there’s no millennials in the church (he has stats to prove it), but we should hire a pastor to connect with them. What percentage of churches have a budget to hire a full-time pastor to the millennials?  Very few I think. So Sam is likely talking here to about 1% of churches.

2. We’re Sick of Hearing About Values & Mission Statements

Well, on point two, we may agree. I do think the church has overdone it when it comes to adopting business models, including value and mission statements, strategic plans, etc.. Any you know what, that was in response to boomers and their generational paradigm. In a few generations, the youngins will hate hearing about ‘being authentic’ and ‘just serving’.  He writes, “We’re not impressed…with Christianese words on paper. We’re impressed with actions and service.” And there it is…the church exists to impress the millennial. That kind of thinking is often in the background; it makes it easier when it bubbles to the surface.

3. Helping the Poor Isn’t a Priority

Cough, cough, Sam-you’re-an-idiot, cough.  He urges us to “clock the number of hours the average church attender spends in ‘church-type’ activities. Bible studies, meetings, groups, social functions, book clubs, planning meetings, talking about building community, discussing a new mission statement…” and then compare it to the hours spent “serving the least of these.”  His response, “oooo, awkward.”

Jackass. (As you can tell, this point gets me pretty steamed, because it diminished the great work individual Christians and churches have been doing for centuries!) What if a good number of ‘the least of these’ are in our church activities and are being served – physically, socially, emotionally, and, oh yes, what the church is best equipped to do, serve them spiritually! 

Oh, and what about the many Christians who work in vocations where they serve, under the banner of Christ but in secular institutions, the least of these. Can we count their hours?  Like those who, in answer to a call on their lives, teach in impoverished communities, or work with foster families, or are employed by non-profits that feed the hungry. Do they and their hours count?

Oh, and what about all those Rescue Missions that care for the homeless in nearly every city. Who started those? Christians – often fundamentalist Christians!  And the Salvation Army. And Groups like World Vision, IJM…

Oh, the poorest countries. Who goes there? Lots of great organizations – Peace Corps, Red Cross, World Vision…and missionaries, sent by the church. Often the missionaries were the first to go.

Oh, and what about the work of the deacons…in most churches, aren’t they serving the needy?

4. We’re Tired of You Blaming the Culture

Ok, I don’t know what he means by ‘blaming the culture.’  I don’t know how the church blames the culture. We do point out the darkness in the culture, and hopefully celebrate light where we find it. Is this blaming? To point to violence, rampant immorality that is deemed perfectly acceptable, etc., is that blaming culture? If so, how can we “explicitly teach” how to live life differently from the culture, something you explicitly demand of the church, if we don’t point out the sin of our culture.

5.  The “You Can’t Sit With Us” Affect

He complains that there are cliques in church and suggests we seek a kind and more compassionate way to be, different from what people are used to outside.

My response…some people in your church are self-centered jerks if they say or imply that you can’t sit with them. That doesn’t mean my church is clique free. In a sense, we encourage cliques, but call them friendships. We also encourage people to be open and generous with their friendships.

And, please remember, Sam, that churches are made up of sinful people who are striving to get over themselves and their sinful tendencies, including the tendency to exclude others. You have your annoying and sinful traits too. Fixing them doesn’t happen all at one!

His solutions? They are ridiculous.

• “Create authentic communities with a shared purpose centered around service.” Ok, we’ll give that a try. Hadn’t thought of it before, but sounds good. Idiot. You do it – tell me when it’s done. We haven’t sought inauthentic communities, but sometimes they happen. They will in your generation too – maybe people will fake authenticity, then they’ll be inauthentically authentic. Awesome. And service again. What about worship…can we have a group centered around that? Or learning? If everything is serving, where do we get to learn about the one who served us!?
• “Create and train a team of CONNECT people whose purpose is to seek out the outliers on Sunday mornings or during other events.” Ok, don’t add programs. But get a team and train them? Sounds suspiciously like a program to me.
• “Stop placing blame on individuals who struggle to get connected.” He speaks here of the introverts who are overwhelmed by the risk of putting themselves out there. Ok, I’ll agree in part – it’s hard for churches to figure out how to get some connected who won’t venture out, and we may not always do it well. But at some point, you either risk or you lose out. That’s how relationships work. The church maybe ought to do better and reaching out, but that’ll only be a part of the equation.

6. Distrust & Misallocation of Resources

Part of me agrees with Eaton here – we do need to encourage frugality. And, there should be a level of transparency. But the level of transparency he calls for would be soul-crushingly oppressive to those who worked in the church. He writes, “We want pain-staking transparency. We want to see on the church homepage a document where we can track every dollar.”  Holy Crap! Well, there goes massive amounts of time and energy! For someone who wants his money to go provide “food, clean water and shelter for someone in need” this is remarkably short sighted. Do the kind of reports he wants on every church’s homepage generate themselves? No, they take time and energy from people who could be better used serving the church and those outside the church.

Part of his solution: church workers should be “asked to justify each purchase.”  Again, Holy Crap! That’s stupid. Kids need more crayons in the nursery…call a meeting to justify the purchase. The toilet is running constantly in the men’s room, call a plumber. Oh no, wait to a have a meeting to justify to the suspicious why we need to purchase a new flapper. Books for small group…justify it.

In addition, he wants staff to ask constantly, “Could these dollars be used to better serve the kingdom?” Two things: first, does he ask this of every dollar he spends, say on his pumpkin spice lattes? How many homeless people could I feed with my fufu drink purchases in a week?  Second, every staff member I know works hard to make dollars count, often contributing their own funds to make events successful, ministries run, etc. 

AND, serving the church is serving the kingdom. Doesn’t he get this!? 

7. We Want to Be Mentored, Not Preached At

Sam contends, “Preaching just doesn’t reach our generation like our parents and grandparents.” Instead, “Millennials crave relationship, to have someone walking beside them through the muck.” Ok, the sermon portion of Sunday services is now cancelled. In its place, cuddle time for the millennials. Everyone, find yourself a millennial and cuddle up.

They want mentoring?! I thought they wanted to be heard? I thought the older generation’s ways just weren’t working?  

Hey, I value relationships, advocate for intergenerational discipleship, but this is a totally false dichotomy. You need preaching  AND discipleship; you need proclamation of truth AND relationships.

You don’t value preaching. So what! Should we rewrite Paul to accommodate what you value?  “Preach the word, until it’s not connecting and some youngings don’t think it’s valuable. Then, do whatever they think is valuable. That’ll be good.”

8. We Want to Feel Valued

Oh wait, we’re back to this one again. I thought this was point one. Ok, but this time IT’S WORSE!!! For one, his whining makes no sense.

We want to be valued, he says. Churches tend to rely heavily on young adults to serve, he contends. And also, “Millennials are told by this world from the second we wake up to the second we take a sleeping pill that we aren’t good enough. We desperately need the church to tell us we are enough, exactly the way we are. No conditions or expectations.”  What? 1 + 1 = 287?  I smell on non sequitur.

And theologically, it’s bulls--t! Millennials, you aren’t enough exactly the way you are. You are a stinky, smelly bag of sin and other nastiness. And, so am I. We’ll accept you, but with “no conditions or expectations”?  We won’t do that. We can’t. If we did that, we wouldn’t be very loving and we would cease to be ‘the church’!  Being a part of the church means accepting conditions, and it comes with a lot of expectations. Thank God there’s grace, because we all fall short of meeting them. But we can’t set them aside for you or your namby-pamby friends.

9. We Want You to Talk to Us About Controversial Issues (Because No One Is)

Now here I need to recognize that I serve in a church where our motto is “we may not have all the answers, but we’re not afraid of the questions.”  I feel like all we talk about sometimes is controversial issues. So, maybe there are churches that refuse to do so.

My biggest problem with this complaint is how he wants to address it. He acknowledges a sermon series on the nitty-grittys of sex may not be appropriate in a church service with kids, “but we have to create a place where someone older is showing us a better way because these topics are the teaching millennials are starving for.”  This from the guy who said shut down the programs unless they are serving the poor. This is a program…in some churches it might be called a Young Adult Sunday School!  The whining circles back on itself to the point where you think he actually means cut every program in the church except the ones I (and my friends) need.   

10. The Public Perception

Well, here I agree. He writes, “It’s time to focus on changing the public perception of the church within the community. The neighbors, the city and the people around our church buildings should be audibly thankful the congregation is part of their neighborhood. We should be serving the crap out of them.” I would suggest a rewording though…I prefer “serving the spit out of them” – alliteration is cool.

The church does have a public perception problem, especially if you carry the label ‘evangelical’. We should work to overcome this and have a “good reputation with outsiders,” so far as it depends on us. The church has always been maligned, even when serving the bejezers out of the community and rescuing newborns from the streets. But, if we’re honest, we certainly have contributed to our own PR problems of late. 

11. Stop Talking About Us (Unless You’re Actually Going to Do Something)

He writes, “words without follow-up are far worse than ignoring us completely…We are scrutinizing every action that follows what you say (because we’re sick of being ignored and listening to broken promises).”  Here’s my promise – I won’t kowtow to your whining. I won’t jettison preaching because you don’t think it reaches you. I won’t jump on your band wagon of slander directed towards Bride of Christ. I will call you out as a wolf who’s leading sheep to turn their back on the lifeboat of the church. Promises. May God find me faithful to keeping them. 

12. You’re Failing to Adapt

Heard you loud and clear. Here we stand, we can do no other. You want us to cease to be the church, to jettison tradition (that we’re called upon to hand down from one generation to another), to devalue what God values. You are right, this generation is “terrifyingly anti-church” – at least, this generation in the West.  You place the blame ENTIRELY on the church. Admittedly, there is sin in the church – we aren’t all we are called to be. But we’re still beautiful…and still embassy of the kingdom of God. 

Maybe – no, certainly, you are to blame as well, with your "it’s all about us and feeling valued" mentality. Why must the church change…why don’t you change! 

His Conclusion

The condescending attitude of his article reaches a peak in his conclusion. He writes, “You see, church leaders, our generation just isn’t interested in playing church anymore.” So, up to now, or at least for the past generation or two, you Christians are just playing church. Now the millennials are here and we want to show you how to do it right. Sam, you’re an arrogant a--hole (and you need to hear it). 

He continues, “It’s obvious you’re not understanding the gravity of the problem at hand and aren’t nearly as alarmed as you should be about the crossroads we’re at.” Uh, no, we get it. GenXers whined too – doom and gloom (I know, I am a GenXer) and we started new churches and services just for them. And we get it, you don’t like church. More, “You’re complacent, irrelevant and approaching extinction.” Umm. No!  The church, is growing worldwide. Maybe the millennials in the U.S. aren’t around much, but that hardly amounts to a threat to extinction!

You know what, the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, I’m not afraid of a bunch of complacent, wussy whiners like you taking it down. There’s plenty of Biblical millennials who are on board with God’s mission AND the church’s role in it!  You do not speak for your generation you little brat. This is not the end. The church will endure continue its kingdom work until Christ returns.

Want to be a part of it?

Sam, we’re only a couple of years apart. I’m about 5 years too old to be a millennial. But we couldn’t be further from each other. I know I’m an asshole, and can be self-centered. Thing is, I don’t expect the church to change itself to accommodate my every whim. Where do you get this right? Oh, are you entitled to it?

I am so glad I work in the church I do because I know for a fact that Sam doesn't speak for an entire generation. There are plenty of millennials involved, working with, serving, and loving the church!  I get to see it every day. Do they see the flaws? Of course, who doesn't. But they know God's mission and that he has a church for his mission, so they're on board, striving to make it as holy, as effective, and as beautiful as they can...without pissing off everyone who's been a part of it for more than they're the past twenty years or so!

Postlude

Not surprisingly, Eaton has received a lot of backlash from ‘angry Christians’ who just don’t want to listen. Hmmm.  For someone as self-focused (listen to me, accommodate me, do it my way), it’s hard to image someone being so self-unaware at the same time. 

Why may his words have sparked anger?

Because they were an attack on the church.

Because he accused previous generations of ‘playing church’.

Because he insinuates we don’t care about the poor.

Because his words read as a threat – do it our way of we’ll kill you off.

Sam, complaining about the anger you stirred up is like a little kid playing with matches mad he burnt his finger. Sorry. Kinda.