Crash the Future

Each day has enough trouble of its own...

2009-06-14T23:37:00.006-08:00

So I've been out of the blogosphere for quite some time. I think it's been about two and a half months now. That has makes it difficult to get going again (the law of intertia and all), but alas...

The last couple of months have been extremely full and difficult ones with things going on in the church and in life in general. However, because of all the goings on I have had a large number of thoughts triggered as my mind has been going 100 mph consistently for the last few months. In fact, there was a bit of a stretch at the end where I was falling asleep around 1am and waking up by 5am each day with my mind going full speed and my prayer flying wild. It was not until this past Monday, the 8th, that it really hit me that I was now passed the crux of the past two months. This actually sunk in when I realized that for the first time in a few months I was excited to begin the week ahead of me. Thank you, Lord!

I know that I won't be able to recapture all the various thoughts that have tumbled over and over in my mind, but there was one that God continually brought back to my mind for several weeks time after time again. It's something that lodged in my mind and heart when I was reading through Matthew 6 back in March. It's a verse likely familiar to you.

"Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

I read that and it honestly makes me laugh. Each day has enough trouble of its own... including tomorrow! That's exactly why I DO worry! But Jesus indicates that God provides for my needs today. He already sees tomorrow and will provide for me as that trouble arises as well. He is the God of past, present, and future. His provision remains sufficient for today, and He will still be God tomorrow. There are things that will remain uneffected no matter how hard I wish for them to change or attempt to force them to. I waste my time and energy when I vainly struggle in body, mind, or spirit to change that over which I have no power . And in the mean time there are things God places before me to accomplish today... people to talk to... service to perform... truth to share... grace to extend... gifts to use with good stewardship. And if I waste my time worrying about the trouble tomorrow will bring, I will not be focused on that which God has given me the strength to accomplish for His kingdom today. This is a difficult lesson for me to learn, and I am definitely not convinced that I practiced it as well as I would have liked over the last couple of months. However, I can say with more confidence than before that God continues to provide exactly what is needed at the appropriate time, not a minute sooner or later. And for that I give Him the glory. And so...

"Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

Innocent of everyone's blood...

2009-03-30T10:17:00.017-08:00

I was just thinking about a project that our church is headed into and a certain set of verses came to mind. We have been working through the book of Acts in the sermon series this year and a certain verse in Acts 20 stuck out to me. It's one that has often grabbed my attention and I was reminded of it once again. In verses 26 and 27 Paul tells the Ephesians, "Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of every one's blood, for I did not shrink back from declaring to you the whole plan of God." For two reasons this is a powerful proclamation when I stop to think about it.

First, Paul seems to indicate that he is accountable for everyone. He will either be declared guilty of or innocent of their blood... of the judgement or deliverance that falls on them. Why?! Isn't it unfair?! Doesn't God judge people for their own actions?! Why would Paul, or I for that matter, be responsible for the judgement or deliverance people experience at God's hand?!

The first indication of why Paul is held accountable is found in Romans 1:14-15a "I am obligated both to Greeks and barbarians, both to the wise and the foolish. So I am eager to preach the good news..." Apparently he is under some sort of obligation to everyone that he meets. And this obligation prompts his eagerness to be a witness to the reality of Jesus' resurrection. He eagerly tells people of Jesus, because he is compelled to do so by an urgency I often forget about. This is the same obligation that God explained to the prophet Ezekiel in chapter 33. He compares Ezekiel to a watchman on a city wall with an approaching army of destruction. He says, "When you hear a word from My mouth, give them a warning from Me. If I say to the wicked: Wicked one, you will surely die, but you do not speak out to warn him about his way, that wicked person will die for his iniquity, yet I will hold you responsible for his blood. But if you warn a wicked person to turn from his way and he doesn't turn from it, he will die for his iniquity, but you will have saved your life." The striking parallel in terminology leads me to believe that Paul understood he was under the same sort of obligation that God placed on Ezekiel... the watchman.

Here's the thing... God explains that He will hold people accountable for the truth He has given them. If we truly believe we have found the only one who can deliver us, we have an obligation to share that with others. If we keep silent and judgement befalls them, we are held responsible by God... in short, their blood is on our hands. That is why Paul is eager to share the gospel with people. He sees the judgement that awaits, and so he takes the responsibility of being a watchman very seriously. He eagerly warns everyone around him of pending judgement as well as the deliverance made possible through the reality of the resurrection of Christ. Paul apparently has a firm grasp on that fact, which is a major motivator for him.

And this brings me to the second observation that I'm hit with by Paul's words in Acts 20. Paul is able to say that he is innocent of every one's blood. The indication here is not that he told every single person about the gospel, but that he did not shy away from any opportunity God opened up. Whenever the Holy Spirit provided Paul with an opportunity to witness to the reality of Christ and the deliverance He brings, Paul took full advantage of it. And I have to examine my life and ask, could I make the same declaration? Am I innocent of the blood of all people? Am I taking advantage of every opportunity God provides to point people to the reality of Jesus?

I'll just wrap this up with a video posted on Youtube by atheist comedian Penn Jillette. It's one that I first saw on J.D.'s blog a few weeks back. And it totally applies to what I've been mulling over today...

Can I trust the Bible? (part 6)

2009-03-18T14:25:00.004-08:00

After the three instances we just discussed, the remaining 37 or so variations in the New Testament consist primarily of single words in a given verse. “Did the original text read 'this' or 'that'?” They are definitely not as shocking as the three variations just addressed, which is why Ehrman does not spend much time on these additional variants. They will not really get him any additional conspiracy mileage upon which to sell his book.

He does hint at this fact when he indicates that a typical example of other variants is found in “...Rev. 1:5, where the author prays to 'the one who released us from our sins.' The word for 'released' (LUSANTI) sounds exactly like the word for 'washed' (LOUSANTI), and so it is no surprise that in a number of medieval manuscripts the author prays to the one 'who washed us from our sins.'” (p. 93) But, even in instances like Rev. 1:5 the meaning of the original text is not lost. The ideas of being washed from our sin and being released from our sin are both common biblical concepts that mirror one another. Neither variant shakes the foundations of Christian theology nor provides a different theological meaning of the passage, contrary to what Ehrman would like to imply. Yet this sort of variant, which is slight but has no effect on the message of a text, typifies the 37 remaining variations debated by scholars today. For some reason that just doesn't seem as flashy and scandalous as the “400,000 or more!” with which Ehrman started.

In my mind, this prompts a responding question, “If this is the best that a highly biased skeptic with a publicly admitted agenda and a substantial financial interest in making the Bible seem unreliable can do, then why would I question its reliability?” To the contrary, I am actually encouraged by the arguments of Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. He brings the worst accusations available against the text of the Bible, and does so in a very misleading and sensational way, and still yet, once a few clarifications are pointed out, his argument is quickly diffused. And the entire New Testament stands unchallenged in its textual authenticity and reliability except for three non-essential passages, which coincidentally are clearly marked in the footnotes of almost any Bible you pick up.

This tells us something very important: anywhere there is not a footnote indicating otherwise, scholars are certain what is written is original. That means that at least 99.5% of the copy of the New Testament in your hands is recognized to be, without a doubt, the words that were originally written 2000 years ago. That is something people like Bart Ehrman definitely do not want the public to realize for two reasons. First, it would hurt their book sales upon which they have built their professional reputations and careers. Second, it means that people, including Ehrman himself, must deal with the words of the Bible as authentic and reliable records. A person is not required to believe the Bible is telling the truth, but its claims cannot be simply brushed aside, unfaced and unanswered, because of a supposed unreliable textual past. This means that any truly honest person must wrestle with the teachings of the New Testament on their own merit, rather than simply discounting them from the start as unreliable writings with all kinds of variations such that there is no way to tell what was originally written. I wonder if that is something Bart Ehrman and most others who level nebulous accusations against the reliability of the biblical text are willing to do.

Here’s the bottom line. It would be extremely difficult for anyone with a good knowledge of the manuscript evidence to argue that the text of the Bible was unreliably transmitted. We have what was originally written by the original authors 2000 years ago.

Can I trust the Bible? (part 5)

2009-03-10T09:20:00.003-08:00

We've been looking at the particular passages Bart Ehrman attacks in his book, and I'll look at the third here briefly.

1John 5:7-8.
A few late Latin manuscripts, following verse 7, add the phrase, “...in heaven, the Father the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth...” When a 16th Century scholar named Erasmus was compiling Greek manuscripts and practicing textual criticism in the early 1500's he realized that this phrase was not in any Greek or early manuscript. So, he left the phrase out of his Greek compilation. Of course, that was scandalous to some powerful people who were used to reading the Latin copy they had. They felt Erasmus was removing a verse of Scripture, and so Erasmus promised to include it in his compilation if a single Greek manuscript could be found containing the phrase. Miracle of miracles, an “authentic” Greek manuscript was soon found, arguably with the ink still wet. True to his word, but under protest, Erasmus included the phrase in his compilation.

Today this phrase is universally recognized by scholars to be a later addition. The manuscript evidence would seem to indicate that it found its way into the Latin manuscript as a scribe jotted a note to himself in the margin of a text with which he was working. The original verses reminded him of the Trinity and he wrote a note to that effect, similar to the interactive notes people often write in the margins of books today. A few later scribes then thought the note was supposed to be included in the text, and mistakenly inserted it in their Latin texts between verses 7 and 8. (This understanding is so certain that many modern translations will only include this phrase in footnotes at the bottom of the page, not even in brackets within the context of the remaining passage.)

The fact that this phrase is not original does not undermine any major doctrine (e.g. the Trinity) in Scripture, however. For instance, the Trinity is seen in the Genesis creation narrative, where God the Father says, “Let Us create man in Our image.” The Spirit hovers over the deep. And God in the flesh comes to walk with Adam and Eve in the Garden during the cool of the day. The Trinity makes an appearance in the different narratives of Jesus' baptism, where the heavens open, the Father's voice is heard affirming the Son, and the Spirit is seen descending as a dove. Other instances like this make it apparent that the doctrine of the Trinity can be found from the Old Testament to the New. It could not be seriously argued to rest on this phrase alone.

These three instances are by far the most substantial and shocking of the 40 remaining variations at which we arrived above. But these passages are hardly the trade secrets Ehrman would like to make them out to be. To illustrate this fact, I would simply point out that most Bible translations today put these passages in brackets and include a footnote that says something to the effect of, “Early manuscripts do not contain this passage,” or, “It is uncertain that this passage is original.” So if a passage does not have that footnote, then scholars have no question about the words being what was originally written.

After the three instances we just discussed, the remaining 37 variations consist primarily of single words in a given verse. I'll give some examples of those next time.

Congrats, Isabella Kate!

2009-03-04T16:15:00.003-09:00

My uber cool brother and sister-in-law just had their second child, Isabella Kate. Connie started going into labor on Monday and Isabella Kate was born in the wee hours of the A.M. on Tuesday. Congratulations Adam, Connie, and Josiah on the new daughter/sister! Wish I could be there and get to check her out in person. Me and the rest of the Alaska crew love you guys!

By the way, if you want to check out some pictures of my cute niece, just click here.

Can I trust the Bible? (part 4)

2009-02-24T15:45:00.005-09:00

Let's take a moment to look at two of the three largest, most dramatic, most sensational instances of the 40 variations that actually exist. (I'll look at the third next time.) Conveniently Ehrman spends quite a bit of space and ink relishing in these three because they are the most sensational instances to which a person can possibly point in an attempt to undermine a person's confidence in the reliability of the text of Scripture. I'll briefly address them in their canonical order.

Mark 16:9-20.

There is debate as to whether Mark 16:9-20 is part of the original Gospel of Mark. Here is a basic rundown of the facts. All but two Greek manuscripts have verses 9-20 in them. One of those two looks as though verses 9-20 were written down and then someone erased them at a later date. There are a few later manuscripts in other languages which do not have verses 9-20. There are also a few manuscripts which place a small two sentence summary of verses 9-20 after verse 8, in place of verses 9-20. Finally a few manuscripts record all of verses 9-20 before tacking on the two sentence summary of them.

Regardless of whether you decide Mark 16:9-20 is original or not, I will simply point out one fact: unless you are trying to prove that all Christians should drink poison and handle snakes as proof of their spiritual authenticity, there is no doctrine gained or lost in this passage. (And even if you were attempting to prove this belief, Mark 16:9-20 would far from make your case.) The same basic information in the last part of Mark 16 is recorded from slightly different perspectives in the other Gospels and in the first chapter of Acts. And chances are that this passage will be in brackets with a footnote in any Bible you pick up. This is not exactly the ancient, sensational Christian conspiracy Ehrman would like to make it out to be.

John 7:53-8:12.

The woman caught in adultery is a favorite story among many believers. People love to quote the line, “He who has no sin throw the first stone.” We love to guess as to what Jesus started writing in the dirt as he knelt down. Somehow this story seems so similar to what we see elsewhere of Jesus, that it is hard to believe it may not be part of the original text. However, its position as original is highly in doubt. In summary, this story is missing in many manuscripts. In some manuscripts it is present, but with an asterisk in the margin before and after it, not too unlike the brackets and footnote you will likely find in your Bible translation if you turn to this passage. Other manuscripts place it at the very end of John, tacked on as an appendix that doesn't fit within but is too good to leave out. And to make matters more interesting this story even appears in a few manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke.

It seems highly unlikely that this story is a part of the original Gospel of John. Still yet, it rings so true to what else we see of Jesus in John that it is hard to let the story go. My personal opinion is that it is a true story of Jesus that was passed on by someone who was copying the Gospel of John. They included it as an appendix or an additional story, not unlike the bonus track on a modern CD. Some later scribes thought that it was a part of the Gospel that was unintentionally left out and added as an appendix. They then included it in the body of the Gospel and caused confusion for later scribes.

However, I must point out that whether this story is original or not, it does not add or take away from what we see of Jesus' character and teachings. Part of the reason it is so well loved by many is that it exemplifies the compassion, mercy, and teaching Jesus demonstrates elsewhere in John and in the other Gospels. Like the passage in Mark, this gains shock value for people who have not read their footnotes, but it does not actually build Ehrman's case that the validity of orthodox Christianity or the truth of Jesus' teachings are in doubt.

Happy Birthday, Mom!

2009-02-23T07:52:00.004-09:00

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MOM!

Just in case you couldn't tell, the is the day on which my most awesome mother entered the world. On this day, some years ago, my Nana Jane gave birth to her little girl. And I am EXTREMELY thankful for that day. "Sure," you say, "if she hadn't been born, then neither would you." And this is true... BUT... I'm thankful for that day for more than just that reason. My mom has been an amazing role model to me. I inherited much of my faith in Christ because of her influence in my early life. Much of my understanding of the world is based upon how she sees things. She encouraged me and pushed me along to accomplish the things I've been able to accomplish in life. And the whole time she's been praying for me, for which I am extremely thankful. (A certain dreary day filled with freezing rain in the mountains of Georgia during Ranger School come to mind.) In short, I would not be the person I am today if not for my mother's part in my life. And so... I wish you a happy birthday, Mom! I love you. And I thank God for letting me be your son.

Can I trust the Bible? (part 3)

2009-02-18T17:06:00.003-09:00

When we left off in the last blog, we were at 10,000 variants in biblical manuscripts. Read back over the variants I gave in the previous blog. These are typical variants. The first three variants simply reorder the words, “our Lord Jesus Christ.” I doubt that many people would argue that there is a difference in meaning between “our Lord Jesus Christ,” “Jesus Christ our Lord,” and, “our Lord Christ Jesus.” The fourth variant is simply a misspelling of the word “Christ,” which hardly amounts to an earth-shattering variation in the scriptural text. The overwhelming number of the 10,000 non-duplicate variants fall into this category. In fact, all but 40 of those 10,000 are variations of word order or misspelling just like the example above. So, in the literally thousands of existing manuscripts we have for the New Testament (the earliest of which dates all the way back to within 30-40 years of the Apostle John’s life), only 40 variants ever found are anything more substantial than the example I just gave.

Think about this! When we started off we had “400,000 or more!” variants according to Ehrman. After we simply remove the duplicates, the number of variants drops to under 10,000. If we then discount the obvious spelling errors and slight changes in word order, we are left with only 40 places in the New Testament where there is any debate or question about what the original text said. 40 debated variants are definitely not as spectacular, scandalous, and sensational as “400,000 or more!” So it comes as no surprise that Ehrman would conveniently leave out these clarifications which undermine the case he strives to make in his best-selling book.

Of course the next natural question is, “Well, what about those 40 remaining places? Don't they show the unreliability of the Bible? After all, even you admit that you aren't sure about the original reading in these instances.” My response to this question is simple. The remaining places where variations occur do not hurt the Christian faith, nor do they undermine my confidence in the meaning of the biblical text. I'll begin to explain this in the next blog.

Can I trust the Bible? (Part 2)

2009-02-11T15:28:00.002-09:00

From my perspective it seems as though the first question to be logically answered is that of variants. After all, why argue about contradictions in a text if we don't even know whether or not that text is originally what was written? And what would be the point of figuring out how a text was chosen to be “scripture” before we even know whether or not the version we have is the one that was really “chosen” to begin with? So, I'll start by looking at the issue of variants, which is an issue that gets a lot of play in our society.

Bart Ehrman, for example, has made a significant amount of money by selling books that play off the public's lack of knowledge about New Testament scholarship and textual criticism. In Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why he writes with the tone of someone wishing to wow the uninitiated by letting them in on the deep dark secrets of New Testament scholars. It's almost as though he wishes to create a sense that he is sharing trade secrets with the public in an effort to blow the whistle on a vast conspiracy. While this definitely makes for sensational writing and sells over 100,000 books in its first three months at the low list-price of $24.95, it is not entirely honest and is perhaps even academically fraudulent. (Just in case you didn't stop to do the math, that's $2.5 million in sales in the first three months, with countless additional copies sold in the years following.)

Let's look at an example of how this plays out. In a section where Ehrman is revealing the supposed scandal of New Testament variants he writes: “Scholars differ significantly in their estimates – some say there are 200,000 variants known, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 or more! We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all. Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms. There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” (p. 89-90)

Here is what he conveniently failed to leave out of his sensational explanation...

First of all, the reason that the number of variants is debated and uncounted is not due to the great number which baffles even the most sophisticated of computer programs. The reason is far more simple and petty. Scholars cannot agree on exactly how to count the number of variants. For instance, they debate whether two manuscripts saying “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus” count as one variant, two variants, or four variants. There is one variation between the two manuscripts, so most lay people would think it is one variant. But, it occurs in two manuscripts so by most scholars' estimation, that makes it two separate variants. But still other scholars would argue that the change involves and affects four different written words and their position and word order in the text as a whole, so obviously these should be considered as four different variants. Of course, this kind of academic debate tends to seem asinine to most lay people, and it definitely does not sell books, so Ehrman leaves it out.

It doesn't stop there, however. You see, most scholars will agree that a variant is counted any time a manuscript varies from any other manuscript in any way, and it is counted again in any manuscript where that same variation occurs. This means that most variants are actually just exact duplicates of other variants. For instance let's say one verse Paul wrote has four different versions in manuscripts we find, “I thank our Lord Jesus Christ for you,” “I thank Jesus Christ our Lord for you,” “I thank our Lord Christ Jesus for you,” and “I thank our Lord Jesus Crist for you.” Let's say we find the first version in 1500 different manuscripts. The second version is to be found in 1250 manuscripts. The third is seen in around 750 manuscripts, with the fourth in a measly 262 manuscripts. Most lay people I know would think this constitutes no more than four variants because there are only four variations, but no! In this case, for this one verse of eight words, we have roughly 3762 variants (unless you want to go the route of the scholar in the paragraph above who claims four variants for those four words, in which case it could easily be 12,000-15,000 variants for these eight words). So, the vast majority of Ehrman's “400,000 or more!” variants are disposed of if you simply discount the reduplication taking place. In fact, simply not counting the duplicate variants drops the total number to under 10,000 places where any form of variation occurs in any manuscript. This is still seemingly a high number, but we aren’t done yet, and I'll continue on that line in the next blog.

Can I trust the Bible? (Part 1)

2009-02-05T20:46:00.006-09:00

The Bible has been translated and copied so many times there’s no way we can actually know what it says. There are so many different variants we can’t know which is right. And then there are all the other books that didn’t make it into the Bible. What makes them any less right or true than the ones that made it in? The Bible wasn’t even formed until centuries after the fact. What about all the contradictions in the Bible? Why should I believe the Bible is reliable?

I have encountered these basic statements and questions in one form or another multiple times in the last few days, and even more times in the last couple of months. With all that is out there right now on other gospels, the conspiracies of the Bible, and the “scandalous” contradictions of the Bible, it is no surprise that many have these questions or ideas.

However, a point of interest I have noticed is that few people, when asked to elaborate further can give much detail or reason for these concerns. Ask a person to which contradictions he refers, and he typically has a very hard time coming up with a single one. Ask someone which variant readings are most troublesome, and she often can't give an answer. Most often it seems that people are simply throwing about a nebulous accusation which is currently en vogue while not actually having the slightest shred of evidence beyond the generic, “Everyone knows...” or “They say...” The funny thing is if you follow up with the natural question, “Who are 'They'?” You still are not likely to actually get any names beyond a catch-all “people who know” or “scholars who study those things”.

I have had some instances when a person who makes these claims can provide some basic response that shows more familiarity with the issues involved. They may be able to give an example of a seeming contradiction in Scripture or give a ballpark figure of the current number of manuscript variants. I will be the first to admit that there are some things in Scripture that are hard to figure out. And there are some issues that I am still working on. Interestingly, however, the contradictions people give or the manuscript variants don't fit anywhere in that picture for me. The vast majority of seeming contradictions can be quickly answered in a logical, plausible manner. The variants issue is not an issue when you actually spend time studying what is being found, rather than simply taking the word of certain popular professors who have a vested interest in selectively choosing and wording scholarly facts in order to create sensation and sell books to the public.

In an effort to lay some basic groundwork for people who want to know the truth of the situation, I'll address some of the most common issues or concerns raised about the reliability of the Bible in a series of blogs I'm starting here. Hopefully, this will help provide a basic foundation upon which those who wish to learn more can build. (What I will cover is not based upon my own smarts. I’m primarily standing on the shoulders of scholars much smarter and more educated than I. Two good starting points for a basic understanding of what I will hit on are Tim Keller’s Reason for God and Lee Stroebel’s The Case for the Real Jesus. For a much more scholarly and substantive book, that really is chewing on some academic meat, check out Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, by Richard Bauckham.)

Re-entry

2009-01-30T16:26:00.004-09:00

Today has been a flurry of activity. This week we moved out of our initial temporary offices and into our intermediate offices. This Sunday will be our first service back on-site since the fire, and we had to clear out of the classrooms where our temporary offices were set up and into recently cleaned offices nearer the damaged area. That happened Wednesday. Yesterday and today were spent preparing the building for Sunday. It's definitely still a construction zone, but it's much improved over the charred and sooty place it was a month and a half ago. (We've got about 75% of the building back.) With all the prep, I'm looking forward to having a day off tomorrow. But I'm looking forward, even more, to when our church comes together on Sunday for the worship service. It is going to be awesome to have us all together again at our building for communion. I expect it to be a glorious morning!

Peter Kreeft

2009-01-29T17:01:00.003-09:00

So, I've gone ahead and posted a new link in my sidebar. It's one that I've long enjoyed, but for some reason have never posted here. Peter Kreeft is a professor of philosophy at Boston College. His site includes some good basic introductory items on philosophy and the reason for belief, particularly in Christianity. He writes well, explaining philosophical arguments for God's existence in clear, everyday language. It's a fun thing to read through. Anyway, I highly recommend checking it out. I've enjoyed rereading various articles on his site, and I suspect some of you might as well.

hiatus

2009-01-23T20:54:00.006-09:00

So... I suppose I've had a bit of an unofficial hiatus. It's been a month's time since last I posted, and although I haven't kept up with the blog, it has definitely been a full month. With so much time passing since the last post, I'm a bit at a loss for what to write. My mind has been so focused on the various tasks and necessities of the ministry at the church, in this time of transition, that it's been hard to shift my mental gears.

I haven't done much reading thus far this year. I've only read a handful of books, and considering two or three of them were "scouting" potential books for premarital counseling, I won't go into those here. (I'm going to be performing my first wedding this summer, and so I'm taking a couple through premarital counseling. Fun stuff!) I've read almost the whole Book of Mormon this past month because Sarah and I have been repeatedly meeting with a few LDS missionaries. They know that I'm a pastor at the church, and we have some very honest, yet respectful conversations. And so far they keep coming back. It's been a good series of meetings, and I might take some time to reflect here on the LDS faith and how it differs from biblical Christianity (though Mormons consider themselves true Christians). But I'll leave that for a future post. For now another book comes to mind.

At the very end of the year, 2008, I read what I consider to be one of the best books ever written for the skeptic mind. Tim Keller's The Reason for God was excellent. He doesn't set out to prove the existence of God, which is a refreshing perspective for Christian apologetics. It may come as a surprise to some people that a Christian pastor may say this, but the existence of the biblical God cannot be philosophically proven. The existence of God can only be shown to be possible and, I would argue, probable. Tim Keller recognizes this and writes a book in light of that very fact. He starts out not by giving some categorical proof for the existence of God. Rather, he simply asks the skeptic to apply the same level of scrutiny to his own beliefs that he applies to religion, and Christianity in particular. If a skeptic applies the same level of skepticism to his own beliefs that he does to others, he will be forced to admit that his entire worldview is based as heavily on faith as the worldview of the "faithful" whom he mocks as unreasonable. When you "doubt your doubts" you come to the point that you realize that all "reason" is based on a decent amount of faith in something. So the question then becomes, which foundational faith is the most "reasonable". Although it cannot be absolutely proven, Christianity and the God of the Bible definitely becomes at least as "reasonable" as the other alternatives, though Keller (and I) would conclude they are actually the most probable option. Keller's book is a must-read for "believers" and "skeptics" alike. Believers who read this book may find some things which with they take issue. If you read this and encounter some things that you wonder how he could write that, consider what he says, you need not accept it. I still stand by this recommendation. On the other side, skeptics who wish to remain intellectually honest and consistent will be challenged to continue describing religion, particularly Christianity, as "unreasonable." This does not mean that they will be won over to Keller's position. It simply means that Keller makes a philosophically sound and coherent argument for the "reasonableness" of faith and the "faith" of skepticism. All in all, it's a solid book. In fact, I think it's definitely moved into one of the slots of my top ten favorites. It'll become a perrenial read, I'm sure. Anyway... check it out. I doubt you'll be disappointed.

Stinkin' Awesome!

2008-12-22T14:10:00.005-09:00

Ok, So I don't have any pictures to include in the blog currently, but I hope to soon. It has been stinkin' awesome to be a part of what's going on here the past week or so. The showing of support from the Body of Christ around the nation and even around the world has been tremendous. An arsonist attempts to burn down our building and it draws us together like never before. In the last few days we have recieved THOUSANDS of letters, cards, emails, and phone calls expressing support. It's been really cool. We're looking at posting these on a wall in our church so that people in the congregation can get an opportunity to read what others are sending us. As soon as that happens, I'll take a picture and post it on the blog. Anyway...

For those of you wondering, our church building is doing fairly well. It looks like a yard sale in portions of it, with items being sorted and salvaged as much as possible, but it's making progress. And just so you know... My print made it through the fire unscathed! WOOHOO!

Barbarian Fire

2008-12-13T14:20:00.005-09:00

Ok, so I received an early Christmas present this year. It was probably the COOLEST Christmas present I've received. It's the Joby Harris framed print "The Barbarian Revolt" you see on my wall. I say, "was," because I'm not sure whether I still have it. You see, we just had someone try to burn down our church building and my office is now no longer quite as pristine as it appears in this picture. In fact, I'm thinking that I'll probably have to replace a fair number of items in my office. I'm just not sure how many yet.

The CSI guys are still combing through a bunch of ash, snow, and nastiness to look for evidence, so we haven't been able to actually step foot in our offices yet. I did get to look in from out in the hall, and it sure wasn't pretty. Maybe I'll post some initial pictures a little later, after the investigation has died down. But for right now I should wait to share those. Anyway...

The print was an idea of my Mom and Dad's. They contacted Joby Harris and got the print from him. Sarah then had it matted and framed. It was STINKIN' AWESOME! Who knows, maybe I'll be able to hang on to it and it won't be a total loss. I hope so.

Sybil Brown - Proverbs 31

2008-12-10T20:09:00.004-09:00

My Grandmom Brown died this past Thursday. The funeral was Monday. I've been at a loss for how to write anything on the blog for the last week. Really, I've wanted to write something recognizing my Grandmom and her life. I've found myself writing a post, just to turn around and delete what I've written, and then do it all over again. It's just that my words seem to fall flat. At the same time, I can't imagine writing anything else and not recognizing this event in the life of an amazing woman whom I had the priviledge to have as a part of my family and heritage.

Here's the thing...

I'm saddened by the loss because she has been a regular part of my world for so many years, and I won't have any more opportunities to have her presence here.

I'm thankful for the deliverance because her quality of life has been a shadow of its former brilliance these past years.

I'm rejoicing because I am absolutely confident that she is experiencing a quality of life with Christ that she has never known.

At the funeral one of my uncles read Proverbs 31. And though I struggle with words to describe and pay tribute to Grandmom Brown, I can affirm that she was, and is, the Proverbs 31 woman. Read that, and that's her. She was one of the most no-nonsense ladies I've ever known. I'm pretty sure that up until the last few years she could have outworked a decent number of full-grown men I know. She loved her family and she loved her Lord, and she was dedicated to both. She truly exemplified Proverbs 31 in a very real way. And so... I can think of no better tribute to Grandmom than just sharing this with you all...

Proverbs 31, a portrait of my Grandmom Brown.

An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels.
The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain.
She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her life.

She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands.
She is like the ships of the merchant; she brings her food from afar.
She rises while it is yet night and provides food for her household and portions for her maidens.
She considers a field and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.
She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.

She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle.
She opens her hand to the poor and reaches out her hands to the needy.
She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all her household are clothed in scarlet.
She makes bed coverings for herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple.

Her husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land.
She makes linen garments and sells them; she delivers sashes to the merchant.
Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at the time to come.
She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
She looks well to the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.
Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:
"Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all."

Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates.

Passion - Kutless

2008-11-27T00:29:00.007-09:00

So, I went ahead and placed a few new items on the blog.

First, I updated my favorite book list. It has links to get some reviews and summaries and such. The one thing I would say is that "Starship Troopers" really is much more than what the title, cover, and summary would suggest. It's actually a treatise on civic duty in novel form. It's a really good book and a fast read. I would make it part of any class, high school or college, that I taught on government and civics. So in this instance the proverb, "Don't judge a book by its cover" is accurate.

Also, I placed two playlists on the sidebar. I always have music playing, even if only in my mind, and thought it might be a little fun to share some samples of the music I've enjoyed as of late. As a point of clarification... no, not all the bands are "Christian." However, they are all bands that operate from a Christian worldview. In the words of Lacey Mosley, the lead singer for Flyleaf, when she was asked if they are a 'Christian band'... "We all share the same faith. And so when we deal with the whole 'Christian band thing,' we kind of think about something P.O.D. says, like, 'If you're a Christian, it affects everything in your life. So if you're a plumber, does that make you a Christian plumber?' I don't know the answer. We're a band, it's part of who we are, so it comes out in our music, and it's the fuel for what we do. And finding faith saved my life. So I'm not ashamed of it at all. And most of our album reflects that."

MAN... I hope more bands come out with that mindset, whether they're writing praise songs or jsut some fun stuff to listen to! (Oh, and if you're interested in some other music that is a variety of mellow stuff that has a little different vibe, check out the playlist on my wife's blog. It's some good stuff, too.)

Anyway, I thought I'd also include for your reading enjoyment the lyrics from one of the songs that many of you are less likely to have heard. (It doesn't really get play on either mainstream radio - lyrics, you know - or on your average KLOVE Christian radio station - beat, you know.) It's the song "Passion" by Kutless.

Within my mind's eye
Flickering from the past
Come images that terrify and calm
A paradox in me

Nail pierced hands they run with blood
A splitting brow forced by the thorns
His face is writhing with the pain yet it's comforting to me

He chose to give it all
Jesus endured the pain
Paying a debt I owed and created a paradox in me

Nail pierced hands they run with blood
A splitting brow forced by the thorns
His face is writhing with the pain yet it's comforting to me

And in my heart I know that you're the only one
Who could of came and died, a sacrifice
As your God's only son

Nail pierced hands they run with blood
A splitting brow forced by the thorns
His face is writhing with the pain yet it's comforting to me

R&R with the Spirit

2008-11-22T12:02:00.005-09:00

Over the last 6 weeks I've been leading two different application groups for our church. The application groups have been part of a program we're doing this year at our church as we go through the book of Acts. These groups, in particular, are intended to aid people in Recognizing and Responding to the Holy Spirit. Over the 6 weeks we introduce different spiritual disciplines centered around Scripture. It's been a fun experience through which to lead two seperate groups of people. Each week we would journal and then come together to discuss things we saw in Scripture, circumstances, and conversations. As I have looked back over the last six weeks something hit me profoundly.

In the last few months (since mid-summer) God has been convicting me heavily about sharing my faith. It's as though I was regularly confronted with the need to share the gospel any time I would read Scripture. I would hear a sermon and the need to share the gospel would beat me over the head. Conversations I had with other believers would challenge me to step up in this area of my life. And that was really just the stuff that started it all.

In the last month and a half several cool but crazy things have happened in this area of my life. The end result is that I currently have several neat opportunities to talk about the gospel with various people. We just had a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses stop by. This was the third or fourth conversation we've had with these particular people. Today we were talking a bit about whether or not Jesus was God or claimed to be God. (They know I'm a pastor, but they keep coming back.) Likewise, three Mormon missionaries stopped by just a day or two ago. They'll be coming over for dinner with us in about a week and a half. They know that I'm a pastor as well, but Sarah let them know that we've love to let them practice their presentations on us, talk with them about Jesus, and discuss our faith. I think it has the potential to grow into a really cool dialogue, and who knows how God will use it. Additionally, I was emailed by a Roman Catholic gentleman in Missouri a month or so ago. He had some questions about how a "Scripture only" person would understand certain doctrines. We've since been emailing back and forth discussing various issues of Church history, doctrine, and the gospel. It's been an interesting exchange that seems likely to continue for quite some time yet. And finally, just this week I got an email from a friend of mine who is an atheist. We haven't talked about matters of God and faith in about a year, but he asked me a question, based on a recent sermon I preached, and we've been discussing it briefly the last few days. I have been VERY thankful for this last exchange, and it has also provided some food for thought.

My friend looked at Christians in general and is turned off by what he sees. In particular, he has a hard time believing that many of us actually believe that Jesus is the only way someone comes to know God. After all, he argues, how would our lives look if we really believed it? He wrote, "What would change in my life if I really believed what you say you believe? My answer would be, "Everything"... most Christians' answers, "Just enough." That pierced my heart because sadly its often true.

If I truly believe in the reality of God and Hell, and I truly believe that Jesus Christ is the only distinction between the two, then why am I sometimes hesitant to clearly share the gospel with someone. If I'm honest there's only two possible solutions. 1) I don't actually believe the truth of the gospel. or 2) I don't actually love other people. I'm just selfish and love myself, so I'm more concerned about their opinion of me than whether or not they ever truly experience life with God. Either option is rather disturbing. Option #1 means I'm a massive hypocrite. Option #2 means I'm self-absorbed and unloving. Either way, those aren't pleasant options.

I suppose the only right answer is that I'd better not try to sit on the fence. Either the gospel is true, or it's not. And if it is, then everything in my life should look different than it otherwise would. Which reminds me of a quote that I'll close with. (It's from Renovation of the Heart, by Dallas Willard, and I'm quoting from memory, so please forgive me if you know the quote and it's not worded exactly right.)

"We don't believe something merely because we say we believe it, nor do we believe something just because we believe we believe it. We believe something when we act as though it were true."

Art Appreciation

2008-11-22T11:52:00.002-09:00

A few posts back I wrote about Charlotte's appreciation for art and how it makes me wonder at God and heaven. I thought I'd take a moment and post another one of her pictures. Again... I am in awe at the way God designed us to respond to Him and His Creation. I have an artist for a daughter.

Tabasco

2008-11-16T21:57:00.004-09:00

Charlotte has been a thumb-sucker for most of her life. But now she is approaching 6 years of age, and we are determined to break this habit. The problem is that Charlotte has spent the vast majority of her life forming a certain way of coping with being tired, but this isn't the way that Sarah and I want her to be. We've tried a variety of different things to help her break this habit (e.g. putting socks over her hands and taping them in place as she falls asleep). However, nothing has worked as well as the regimen we just began... Tabasco Sauce... or as she and Liam call it Tobacco Sauce.

We have been putting this wonderful stuff on her thumbs the last few nights as she's fallen asleep, and it drives her nuts. In fact, she just told me, "This is the stupidest food in the world! Why would anybody eat this stupid stuff! Tobacco Sauce is gross!" So far it's working.

Here's the thing. I look at my daughter and I am realizing the power of habits. How we spend our time and order our lives sets down a pattern of life that is very difficult to break. As I look at my life I think of various habits that are my version of "thumb-sucking"... habits that I really need to break and replace with new ones. As I realize this I have to ask myself... what am I doing to make sure that I am forming the right sort of habits?

Recently I've been spending a bit of time studying spiritual disciplines... things like Scripture memorization, journaling, prayer, meditation, fasting, etc. These are things that will help me break negative habits that I have. They will also help me to rewire my mind and my life to build new habits more in accordance with God's desires. The more I spend time in prayer, talking to God... the more frequently I memorize Scripture... as I fast, training my body not to be ruled by needs and desires... I am training myself for dependence on God. And the thing is... I NEED that. I am definitely someone who struggles with maintaining a consistent relationship with God. And that only convinces me that I need to be breaking the lazy and negligent habits in my life, replacing them with those that will pull me closer to God. And hopefully God won't have to use Tabasco.

The day's events

2008-11-04T21:28:00.004-09:00

Today was a historic day! It will be interesting to see what God has in store for the next few years. And I cannot help but take a moment to make a few observations.

First, it speaks VOLUMES about our country that we have finally come to the point where we have our first black President-elect. MLK Jr's I Have A Dream speech comes to mind.

Second, there seems to be a disproportionate level of despondancy among some segments of American Christians and a disproportionate level of elation among other segments. In response, I would simply ask, "In what do we place our trust... a political office, or the gospel?" Just a question. (I would point out that when offered all the kingdoms of the earth Jesus declined. He seemed to think ultimate victory was not determined by political power but rather by the power of the gospel to transform hearts and lives. Additionally, I don't remember political office being listed in the armor of God. I also think I remember something in Corinthians about how the real war is not for political office, but against philosophical strongholds, arguments, and worldviews set up against the knowledge of God. I digress...)

Third, regardless of whether you are happy because "change is coming" or you're down because it's not the change you were hoping for, I would simply point out that the Bible seems to make it pretty clear that before the end things are going to get MUCH worse than they have been over the last eight years or will be in the next four years in America. With that in mind... no matter how bad it gets before the end, I simply encourage you to remember the message of Revelation... Ultimately... Jesus wins!

Anyway, I'll leave those of you who read this blog to either keep partying or to continue your mourning. Of course... maybe it's more important to continue our praying and sharing of the gospel.

Art

2008-10-29T20:26:00.004-08:00

So Charlotte took her first watercolor class on Monday afternoon and this was her first work in that class. It is a field with a tree "like we have in Alaska" (a birch tree). It's night time so the moon is out (apparently she got the moon so round by placing a piece of tape over the paper, painting, and then removing the tape.) You can see mountains in the background, past the treeline. And there's a pumpkin in the left foreground. I must say that I truly am blown away by my 5 year old daughter's painting! Sarah sat in on the class, and apparently Charlotte painted this with little to no help. So aside from the fact that I'm a proud father braggin on his daughter, why am I posting this picture?

Sarah and I had a conversation a day or two ago about heaven. And in this conversation we were discussing what things may continue in heaven. As we were talking, I came to the realization that much of the beautiful, inspirational things we humans do are actually in response to sin and death, and would therefore not be practiced in heaven. For instance, the medic who dies while treating a wounded friend and sheltering him from enemy fire with his own body... the relief worker who works day and night tending to battered refugees... the firefighters heading up the Twin Towers to save those trapped inside... the parent who goes without to ease her child's hunger... any number of things... Really, think about it, what use will heroism be in heaven? Will we really still experience self-sacrifice? So many of the things that we find inspirational in the lives of people will cease to be experienced.

Some things will likely remain.

Art.

Music.

Exploration.

Learning.

Gardening.

Things that simply revel in the beauty of God and the creation He has made! And when I look at my daughter's painting I recall her insistance that she does not want to be an artist... she IS an artist! And she wants to "make the world a more beautiful place with my art." And I look at her art and I think about her commenting on the beauty of the sunset the other night, her desire to soak up every ounce of Creation her senses will allow, her hunger to learn and understand the way the world works, the song in her heart oozing out all day long in whistles, hums, and little dances, and I think of how she just loves to get her hands dirty nurturing the little bits of Creation around her, saving tadpoles and watering plants. And when I think of all this I am actually overcome with a sense of wonder and joy at the great glory of our God! And I cannot wait for the day when we finally see the Creator face to face, and there will be no more need for heroism or sacrifice, and I can simply enjoy these simple yet profound pleasures with my daughter, rejoicing in the glory of the Creator for all time! That will be a wonderful day!

Adoption

2008-10-18T18:13:00.008-08:00

This past week Sarah and I met with a person from OCS. (For those of you familiar with my military background... no... I'm not referring to Officer Candidate School.) We wanted to find out about the Office of Children's Services' requirements and process for becoming state approved foster and adoptive parents. It's something that Sarah and I are seriously looking in to. "Why?!" you might ask. It's simple. The gospel. The fact of the matter is that adoption is one of the most powerful images Scripture uses for what happens when we are forgiven of our sins and become children of God. God takes us from a life of not belonging... of brokenness... of uncertainty... of not experiencing true love, and He brings us into His family. All of a sudden, our Father is the One who made us and we share the inheritance of the One who died for us! That is a beautiful thing! And I can think of no better way to tangibly demonstrate the good news of Jesus Christ to a watching world, particularly to a child who does not have a family to selflessly love him/her. So... that's why we'd gladly adopt.

Additionally, let's think about this for just a minute... There are hundreds, thousands of children out there who have no home and no family to love them. These kids are often the ones that people use to argue in favor of abortion. "After all," it's argued, "abortion is better than bringing a child into a life where they are unwanted or unloved by a family." So why is it that we christians often argue against abortion, but relatively few of us are actively taking in the very children we are arguing should not be aborted? Just a thought. What would it look like if we started doing this as a whole community of believers, like the early church did? One of the things the early church was KNOWN for was saving newborns who were unwanted and left out on refuse piles (the Roman version of abortion). They did this even though they were typically poor slaves themselves. Why is it that we, the most prosperous believers in the world, often say we don't have the time or resources to do the same?

Not every believer can adopt, but I suspect a whole lot more of us can than are. Sarah and I are just determined to get in on the spiritual battle raging around us in this particular arena if God will open that door for us. So, for what it's worth... if any of you who read this know of someone (pregnant teenage girl, a family with challenges they can't handle, etc.) who is looking for a home for a child, please let us know. We'd love to find out the details and see if we can help.

Why these books? 2

2008-10-14T11:13:00.004-08:00

So, why Ideas Have Consequences and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy?

Ideas Have Consequences, by Richard Weaver is probably one of the most insightful books I have read concerning the philosophy of relativism and truth. It's not an easy read, though at 187 pages it is not too long. Weaver makes you think if you're going to digest his book. He wrote the book in 1948, looked at the philosophical landscape around him, and foretold where our society would be headed in the generations to come. And the cool thing (and the sad thing) is that he was exactly right on with his predictions. He speaks about how morality will become more and more relative. Truth will be seen as subjective, changing from person to person. Words will cease to have the clear interpretation they once had. (A president questioning what "the meaning of word 'is' is," comes to mind.) And even personal property rights will give way to community authority "for the greater good of society". (Eminent Domain, anyone?) He goes on to talk about the cultural, societal, and moral impacts that this will likely have if followed to its logical conclusion. And the whole process is driven by us cutting the anchorlines of transcendental truth in the name of naturalism and the Enlightenment. He makes a strong and compelling case for a return to absolute truth and reality from a completely philosophical standpoint.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, by J.R.R. Tolkien is, in my thinking, the greatest epic of fictional literature authored in recent times. It is a beautifully intricate world of panoramic proportions. (Although the movies did fairly well, they still don't compare to the books... as is often the case in such situations.) The themes of heroism, hope, self-sacrifice, honor, virtue, good & evil, courage, friendship, humility, and all the great virtues possible in the human constitution run throughout this trilogy in a multi-layered tapestry of language and imagery. Something that I love about Tolkien's story is that it gets horrific and seemingly hopeless right before the end and the dawning of hope. This is a story that truly captures the maxim, "It's always darkest just before the dawn." And when it is all said and done, one of the characters, Samwise Gamgee, sees a long-lost companion whom he had presumed dead and gone. Upon seeing him Sam asks, "Is everything sad now going to come untrue?" That is perhaps one of the most beautiful quotes in all of literature to me because it captures the hope of the gospel in its few words. Anyway, that's why I recommend reading this trilogy.

Again, feel free to click on the links to the left if you'd like to see a little more about these books. The link will take you to reviews and information for the books on Amazon.com.

Why these books?

2008-10-09T19:17:00.007-08:00

I thought I'd take a moment and highlight why a couple of these titles in the list to the left made it onto a list of books I'd recommend. It's simple really... they rock! But maybe I should briefly explain why. So...

A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson - This book is truly a wonder. It's definitely not a one-afternoon-sit-down-and-read book. Don't get me wrong, it's very readable and accessible to the common person. However, seeing as how it's "a short history of nearly everything" it's bound to take a little time. The thing is that it doesn't focus so much on human history as it does the history of the universe. Bryson does an amazing job of bringing truly awe-inspiring aspects of Creation to life. And he documents the fascinating twists and turns of discovery that led us to the understanding we currently have of the universe.... natural laws, atoms, stars, the vastness of space, the make-up of our planet. I enjoyed science in school, but it was definitely not my favorite subject. If this had been one of my science textbooks, however, I seriously would have been tempted to pursue science as a career. Bryson makes the wonder of the world God made come alive.

Don't Waste Your Life, by John Piper - This book possibly is a one-afternoon-sit-down-and-read sort of book, but... it lit a fire under me to consistently question, "For what ultimate purpose am I living my life?" Piper prompts a self-evaluation of life and how we spend it. So often we choose to pursue good things our whole lives, but they aren't the best things that will last eternally. And when we finally come to the end of our lives, what do we have to show for it?! Because of that, Piper challenges the reader to consiously question how his life is spent. It's also part of the reason that Sarah and I have chosen our particular default career alternative. If there comes a point where God tells us that He no longer requires us to be where we are, doing what we're doing, we're getting outta here and going overseas. In fact, our default is to move to somewhere in the Muslim world to work among Islamic peoples who do not yet know the glory, majesty, and mystery of Jesus Messiah. (Don't worry, all you grandparents out there. We aren't taking the grandkids away yet.) Sarah and I feel pretty sure God has us where we're at for quite some time to come. But this is something Sarah and I periodically come back and ask, "God, do You want us still doing what we're doing, where we're doing it?"

Anyway, those are the first two books on the list, and that's why I put them there. If you want further reviews or want to buy them cheaply online, just click on the links to the left. They'll take you to the specific listings on Amazon. (Order $25 or more of books and get free shipping... I like it! ... alot!)

The Anticipation of Return

2008-10-04T23:14:00.000-08:00

My wife has been in Texas for the last several days at a convention. She’ll be getting home tomorrow evening, and I must say that I really can’t wait. It sounds silly to me as I read over those words because that is such an understatement. It’s been good to have a ton of daddy-kid time this past week, but I definitely ache to have my best friend back. I’ve been thinking about her and a couple of verses keep coming to mind. I think about how Scripture says that a husband and wife become one when they are married. I definitely sense that at times like these. Life just isn’t quite as bright and exhilarating as it is with her. She truly has become my other half. I also think of how Scripture says that creation waits and groans in anticipation of redemption and relief from the curse of sin. It anticipates and hungers for the day that it will no longer be separated from experiencing the full glory of its Creator because of Man’s sin. My desire to see my best friend again makes me wonder what it must be like for creation to be awaiting relief from sin. And I can’t help but ask myself, “Do I have this same longing and wish to see my Savior face to face?” Sometimes I think so, but to tell you the truth, all too often I get wrapped up in the hustle and bustle of the world around me and forget. Tonight I’m just praying that God will remind me of what it means to fervently desire the return of Christ with the anticipation of a spouse awaiting a reunion with his best friend.

A Cat's Favorite Snack

2008-09-29T15:49:00.006-08:00

This is a change of pace, but I can't resist...

I was hanging out with my daughter a few days ago working on some of her school work. She's been learning about animals and their habitats, among other things. So, we're reading about animals and what they eat when off the top of my head I think of a corny joke.

I look at Charlotte and ask her, with a straight face, "What's a duck's favorite snack?"
"What?" she asks curiously.
"Quackers." And she roles her eyes BIG time, turning back to her book...
"Well, what's a bear's favorite snack?" I continue.
"What?" she asks again.
"Berries!" I reply with a grin as she groans disgustedly and majorly rolls her eyes.

(Can a five year old really already think her dad is that corny and that much of a dork?! I digress...)

So, with a smirk on her face she looks back at me and asks, "Yeah, well what's a cat's favorite snack?"
Now it's my turn. "What?" I ask.
Full of dry sarcasm, she responds, "Mice," as she turns back to the book on animal habitat to keep reading, and I start rolling with laughter. At that point she finally gave me a grin and we kept on with her school work.

Yep... it's true, I officially have the world's coolest five year-old for a daughter (even though she thinks her dad is a corny dork).

Sensation and Substance

2008-09-28T00:11:00.004-08:00

We live in a microwave world, where once it was a crockpot community. It used to be that people desired more objective information with which they could make an informed assessment of an issue. Now we are pleased with soundbites and chafe at the thought of having to wade through information not presented in a catchy, simplistic, and sensational fashion. Unfortunately people on both sides of the cultural and spiritual wars going on in our country suffer from this culture of Attention Deficit Disorder.

I was thinking about this today and tonight for two reasons.

1) My recent interaction with the media has driven home the understanding that our society wants juicy gossip passed off as serious news, not serious news that isn't sensational. I mean, really, on both sides this drives me nuts. It's hard to listen to anyone with an agenda, who can't even give a nod to the other side because it is unacceptable to admit the guy in black might not be quite as darkly shaded as we'd like, and maybe our own white outfit needs a little bleach. (Maybe the reason this drives me so crazy is because I can easily slip into this trap myself if I'm not really careful) In terms of politics, this usually comes out with people on the left and the right smearing one another without acknowledging that there are any redeeming qualities or aspects there.

For instance, why is it threatening for some people to acknowledge that it is stinkin' awesome that this is an amazing time in American history? We will have, for the first time ever, either a black president or a woman VP! That is stinkin' awesome that our society has come to the point where that is not just a theoretical possibility, but is a practical reality! I don't care what your politics are, I hope we can at least agree on that. Now that's not to say that the various candidates don't vary greatly in their stances on issues. And that's not to say that I don't care who wins. I have strong feelings on that. But I can at least give a nod to both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin for the fact that they arrived in the position they did, against all odds, at this moment in history. Now if only we could get talk show hosts to stop painting the opposition in broad brush strokes and actually deal fairly and accurately with all involved. (Ever notice that each side paints the other in the worst possible light while glossing over their own candidates' faults and painting with extreme delicacy?)

2) I was reminded of some ongoing discussions I've had with different people over the last year or two. Discussions about the existence of a Universal Moral Standard, age of the earth, intelligent design, "charismatic" spiritual gifts... the list goes on. All too often in these discussions the labels start flying and the conversation ends up generating a whole lot more heat than light, very few people change their minds, and everyone goes away feeling burned. That's rather unfortunate. Again, I think that a part of the reason is that we enjoy ridiculing the opposition, and we don't ever stop to think, "You know... he might have a point there... I need to look into that."

My point is simply this... Our society wants sensation, not substance. We quickly jump to label slinging and paint others who don't agree into a box. Sadly, I can slip into this mode if I'm not careful. But... if I really am to be about the ministry of reconciliation, as Paul says, I should be doing all that I can to understand those to whom I am sent as an ambassador. I need to keep a godly, biblical perspective, but I also need to stay away from those generalizations and labels. It's much harder to fairly represent those with whom I disagree. If I acknowledge redeeming qualities in my opponent I can't just write him off without really wrestling with the substance of his argument. I actually have to work hard and dig into the context of his position and see if those negative excerpts are really what he intended to communicate. I actually have to engage my mind and work to understand instead of just coasting along screaming, "That's right!" when somebody slams the opposition. Maybe that's why Paul calls us to the service of reconciliation, not to be spectators and cheerleaders.

Reasons for Serving

2008-09-23T16:32:00.006-08:00

Occassionally in my church I have the priveledge of helping people find a place to serve that is just right for their abilities, experiences, and interests. It’s a fun thing that I get to do. It’s interesting, though, because it causes me to confront the question, “Why should I get involved?” (In case you were unsure, yes, I hear variations of this question.) Well, as a result, I’ve been asking myself the same question, and I repeatedy come back to three simple truths.

Jesus served others and said that those who wish to follow Him would do the same. In fact, He pointed out that if we wish to submit to His teaching and leadership, we should not expect to be greater than He is. (John 13) As a result, if He demonstrated the humility of service, we should do the same. It’s just a part of learning to be like Jesus.

Discipleship (following Jesus) is a personal journey, but it is not an individual journey. The vast majority of times it says, “you,” in the New Testament it is a plural “you.” While the Bible speaks to us personally, it was written to the church as a whole. God intends for us to spiritually grow in the context of community. You can’t practice service as Jesus intended if you serve only yourself.

The church is an organism, not an organization. Church is not a building. Contrary to social convention, we cannot “go to church.” Every picture of “church” in Scripture is of a living organism, it is neither an organization nor a structure. One of the most common metaphors for church is the body. (1Corinthians 12) If you are a follower of Christ, you are a part of that body. If you fail to serve in the way you were designed to serve, it impacts the rest of the body, meanwhile, you begin to suffer from spiritual atrophy. If you completely stopped using one of your arms, your whole body would have more difficulty with basic tasks, and the muscles of your arm would weaken. When you don’t serve in the way God has gifted you, you don’t develop as you should, and the body as a whole suffers.

While it is nice to have more people to assist with the ministries of our body of believers, that is not why I am excited for the journey upon which people embark in service. You see, more important than the continuation of the ministries of our particular church is a person’s progression along the path of becoming a follower of Jesus. Service is a vital part of each person’s spiritual development, and our church’s ministry team is simply one avenue for that development. I readily encourage anyone who wishes to follow Christ to get involved in an area of service in his local church. It’s just something disciples do.

Critical Thinking (part 5b)

2008-09-21T13:52:00.009-08:00

Ok… so, let me address the lengths to which some highly respected modern thinkers have gone to try to make scientific naturalism a viable option.

There is a growing population of modern scientists who believe the universe was designed by some form of intelligence. Although some of them happen to be Christian, the group is not. They make no claims about God, and many of them would be classified as agnostic. However, the scientists of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement are making some serious scientific cases for the likelihood that the material world was designed by an intelligence outside the confines of the material universe. The fact that scientists who hold a scientific naturalist worldview are feeling pressure to respond to these arguments in serious scientific journals is a good indication that the ID arguments are sound. (Contrast this to religious claims or specific creation theories which are typically ridiculed and treated with overall contempt, not refuted in serious scientific journals.) The ID movement is seen as a viable, scientific threat to the scientific naturalist worldview… one that must be answered seriously and competently. Why is ID such a threat?

According to statistics recognized by both sides there is a practically impossible chance that this universe would be as stable as it is, much less support life. When a variety of factors are taken into consideration it is something like a 1 in 10 ^1240 (10 to the 1240th power... 10 followed by 1240 zeros... I can't superscript on this blog) chance that this universe would have all the different required forces exactly as they must be to continue existence and support life. To give you an idea of how minute a chance that is; the number of estimated atoms in the entire universe is only 10 ^80 (10 to the 80th power) ; the number of seconds in 127 billion years is only 10 ^18 (10 to the 18th power). So let’s pretend the universe is 127 billion years old (most modern astronomers place it at 15 billion years, but for the sake of the illustration...) and every single second a whole new set of atoms blinks in and out of existence. Now let’s pretend we could paint one of those atoms black. The chance that you would randomly pick out the single black atom in the whole universe in the single second it exists during 127 billion years 13 times in a row is roughly equal to the chance that our universe would be as stable as it is and support life, given the laws of physics. So… which seems more likely, picking those 13 atoms back-to-back on my first 13 tries… or the existence of a non-material intelligence that made sure the universe was properly designed to succeed? I’ll go with Door #2.

So because the chances are basically impossible that we are here by chance, some scientific naturalists have made some completely unscientific claims. For instance, Stephen Gould and Richard Dawkins explain the impossibility by basically saying, “Well, we’re here, so obviously we happened to beat the odds.” (I hope I don’t need to point out that this answer is no more logical than saying, “God made me.” “Well, how do you know?” “I’m here, aren’t I?!” to prove the existence of God.) Realizing that this argument doesn’t hold much weight, men like Dawkins, Gould, and Hawkings have come up with two other theories that are vying for prominence against the ID option.

One of their options is that there may be an infinite number of universes currently in existence. These universes are completely separate and self-sustaining. As a result, we cannot scientifically test or prove their existence, even though they may be there. So if there are an infinite number of universes, one of them is bound to end up being stable. We just happen to be in that one. (Of course, this option conveniently can’t be scientifically proven and therefore contradicts their own objections to the existence of non-material intelligence, ie. God.)

The second option proposed is that there has been an infinite series of “oscillating” or “pulsating” universes. (There is a Big Bang, the universe expands, slows down, collapses on itself – the Big Crunch, and explodes again.) If this is the case, then at least one of the cycles should beat the odds we’ve mentioned. We just happen to live in a cycle that worked. The problem is that again this theory is not scientifically testable. In order to make it possibly work scientists have to throw out all the laws of physics and science, especially the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which basically says that there will be increasing loss of usable energy in a closed system. Organized energy gradually converts into an unusable, disorganized state. An example of this law in effect is a rubber ball. Throw it on the sidewalk and it will bounce high, but unless you grab it and throw it again (adding more energy from outside the ball) it will continue to lose energy and bounce less each time. According to the laws of physics the universe cannot have an infinite number of oscillations unless we admit that there is a force outside the material universe that continues to put new energy into it. (There are a variety of responses and implications involved in this whole theory that I don’t have the space to address here.) Once again scientific naturalists are forced to throw out the laws of science in order to hang on to their worldview. So is scientific naturalism really a totally “scientific” position?

Scientific naturalists are determined not to admit the possibility of a being that transcends the material, physical realm. They insist that God is a ridiculous delusion because He would lie outside the realm of science, and nothing lies outside the realm of science. And in order to make it “reasonable” to cut an “unscientific” God out of the equation they are willing to propose infinite universes outside the realm of science or to theorize processes completely contradictory to the laws of science. An intellectually honest scientific naturalist would admit that his position is, at its foundation, based on faith not science. He is determined to not admit the possibility of God and therefore, he will continue to hold to a theory that goes against scientific law rather than admit there just might be a transcendent being such as God.

I’ll admit that I can’t “prove” the existence of God, but I sure can make a strong case for the reasonableness of belief in God and the likelihood of His existence. I haven’t yet encountered the scientific naturalist who is willing to admit that he cannot prove the absence of God and that his own position involves unscientific faith. Hopefully, some day I’ll be able to have a conversation with a scientific naturalist who is at least willing to admit this. That would be a fun conversation, and I look forward to that day.

Critical Thinking (part 5a)

2008-09-17T12:03:00.003-08:00

This will be the last post I do in answer to some of the common reasons for “Why I am not a Christian…” So, following up on part 4, there are a couple of items that I’d like to mention regarding scientific naturalism. One is practical and the other is regarding the lengths to which some highly respected modern thinkers have gone to try to make scientific naturalism a viable option.

First, the practical… let’s think about justice and our justice system. I’ll approach this from a slightly different angle, so bear with me. At what point does a car cease to be the car it has always been? How many parts can you replace and still consider it to be the same car? I mean, ok, you replace the tires and the brakes. You may get a new paint job, but when does it actually become a different car than the one you bought. I mean, if you hang on to a car long enough you do body work, engine work, etc. and there comes a point where you do not actually even have a majority of original parts, much less all of them. At this point, can we actually say that we have the same car that we started out with, unless we assign some non-material essence to the car? In actuality, there comes a point where we have a different car that just happens to have some of the original parts. Now let’s apply this to people…

If matter is all there is, then there is no such thing as a mind or soul. There is a brain. There is a body. But what makes me an individual, who I am, is tied up in the cells of my body: nothing more and nothing less. If that is the case, then at what point to I cease to be the individual I once was. After all, the cells and atoms of our bodies are consistently deteriorating and being replaced by new ones. Even our brains are not, in some manner, the same ones that we had in times past; they have changed and developed through chemical processes and growth to be different than they once were. If this is the case, can we rightly punish one conglomeration of matter (body) for the actions of a previous, different conglomeration (body)? If I commit a crime, and I have no non-material essence to me as a person, then how can my future body be justifiably punished for what my current body does? After all, a massive number of cells in my current body will no longer be in existence in that future body, and there will be a massive number of new cells that took no part in the crime. Is it right to punish all equally? (Think about the implications of this in cases like Nazis who escaped prosecution for 30-40 years. How much of their “war-crime” cells still remain? Why can we hold those new cells responsible for something they had no part in?)

Even our sense of justice requires that there is some non-material essence existing within each person and which continues to exist for the duration of that person’s life. That non-material essence does not fit within a scientific naturalist worldview because it is non-physical. But this non-material essence (soul/mind) is required for justice to truly exist. It is this non-material essence which justice holds accountable for past actions, regardless of whether or not the “criminal” cells remain. Practically speaking, the scientific naturalist stands on very shaky ground in areas of justice. In fact, it seems illogical in a scientific naturalist worldview to believe in justice… legal systems, maybe, but true justice… no. I wonder how many scientific naturalists are able to consistently live with that?

Well, at this point I realize that this blog post will be way too long if I go into the next topic I mentioned at the beginning, regarding the lengths to which some highly respected modern thinkers have gone to try to make scientific naturalism a viable option. So instead, what I’ll do is post that on one final blog posting. This has ended up going a little longer than I originally planned. Hope that’s ok.

Critical Thinking (part 4)

2008-09-16T18:33:00.003-08:00

This is the next to last part of my response to common answers people give to “Why I am not a Christian…” In particular this blog will address the view that belief in God is unreasonable.

Because we are finite beings, we will never fully understand and comprehend all of reality. To do so would be to know everything as is actually is… to possess all possible knowledge… to be God. So there will be limits to the Truth that we can know on our own. However, we can test enough elements of a worldview to determine whether or not it is a True worldview… whether or not it corresponds with reality. We can test Truth claims with logic to determine whether or not they are coherent with what we know of Truth and whether or not they correspond to reality. Christianity is one worldview among many. It is also a very cohesive worldview that corresponds with reality. No other worldview is as cohesive nor does any other worldview correspond as neatly with reality. As a result, it is a highly reasonable worldview. Many people object to it, however, and consider the biblical worldview to be “unreasonable”. In my personal experience the people who make this claim often subscribe to a scientific naturalist or materialist worldview. (I am using these two terms in the philosophical sense, meaning that a person believes the natural or material world is the sum total of existence. Nothing exists on a different plane or manner of existence outside the physical realm of elements, atoms, particles, etc.) This is actually an arguably self-defeating worldview based on circular reasoning. Let me briefly explain.

The materialist says there is nothing outside of natural physical phenomenon. How does he know this? Because science (which is a method of observing the physical, material realm) has not found anything outside the physical realm. And how does he know that science can prove the existence of every existing phenomenon? Because science tests the physical realm, and nothing exists outside of natural physical phenomenon. This circular argument is the basic, boiled down position of the scientific naturalist in its simplest form.

The thing is this circular reasoning also has a drastic side-effect for logic, reason, and choices. See, if there is nothing outside matter, then actual thoughts, ideas, values, etc do not exist. If everything that exists is made of matter, then all my thoughts, emotions, values, beliefs, etc are simply a result of a chemical reaction in my physical brain. They do not have a separate existence. The thoughts I have are only a result of atoms banging around in my head and of the conditioned responses of my past. Logic and reason are no longer valid, after all, who says we don’t think logic makes sense simply because the chemicals and atoms cause us to think it does. We can’t even trust our own evaluation, knowledge, and thought processes in a scientific naturalist worldview. So, if a scientific naturalist follows his logic to its consistent and inevitable end, he can’t even trust that he really knows that he is right and nothing else exists outside of the material realm. Scientific naturalism is a self-defeating position to hold.

Next time I’ll briefly look at one or two other practical implications of scientific naturalism.

Critical Thinking (part 3)

2008-09-15T12:25:00.005-08:00

In my previous blog I mentioned that I suspect the universal Truth people often wish to deny is a moral one. This blog is intended as a brief response to that denial.

The vast majority of arguments I have encountered against a Universal Moral Standard (UMS) are actually illogical and based on how a person feels. Let me explain.

The basic arguments people often present boil down to this:
A. Situation X is personally easy for me to determine what is morally right.
B. Situation Y is personally very difficult for me to determine what is morally right.
C. Therefore, there is no absolute morality.

This is actually just a series of logical non-sequitors. They might as well say something like:
A. It’s easy for me to climb a hill.
B. It’s very difficult for me to climb a mountain like Denali.
C. Therefore, Mt. Everest doesn’t exist.

Rephrased in that situation, most people would see the faulty nature of the argument, but they are not likely willing to acknowledge the unsound nature of the argument in relation to morality. Still yet, their argument is not actually based on logic, even though they would like to believe it is. However, all they have logically done is demonstrated that some situations are difficult, because of emotion, for them to personally determine what the morally correct decision or action is. They have not logically presented a case against the existence of a UMS.

On the other hand, consider this:
A. If there is no UMS (Universal – applying equally from person to person, Moral – entailing right and wrong, Standard – a rule to be followed or broken), then
B. One person’s morality does not apply to another person (because it is not universal)
C. Therefore, one person does not have the ability or right to make a moral judgment about the actions of another person (because their morality does not apply to that other person).
D. Furthermore, no person needs to apologize for anything, and no apology should be expected (because one person cannot make a moral judgment about any action taken by another person)

The thing is that every person has an ingrained knowledge that the UMS really does exist, even though we don’t want to admit it. That’s why we get offended and demand apologies from one another. We appeal to some overarching rule, to which we are all subject, that the offending party broke. And they owe us an apology for that transgression. If someone wishes to deny the existence of a Universal Moral Standard, they cannot do so logically unless they are willing to live their life without ever again taking offense at the actions of others or expecting apologies from them. You cannot: 1) deny the reality of a UMS; 2) get offended, make moral judgments, or expect apologies; and 3) truly remain logical.

At this point, it should suffice to say that the only truly logical and reasonable people are those who acknowledge the existence of a Universal Moral Standard and are willing to admit they fall short of it at times, or those who deny the UMS but consistently live without ever taking offense or passing moral judgment, even on someone like Hitler.

PS – Notice that there is no mention of Scripture or of Christianity in this argument in favor of a Universal Moral Standard. It is simply an argument based on common knowledge, experience, and logic. Most people probably don’t want to acknowledge its existence, however, because they would then also have to acknowledge that they have violated it, and that’s the beginning of the gospel… sin. So instead they deny a Universal Moral Standard, continue to take offense at perceived moral injustice, and live under the delusion that they are “logical” and “reasonable” people.

Critical Thinking (part 2)

2008-09-14T08:05:00.003-08:00

One of the most common responses to, “Why I’m not a Christian…” is the lack of belief in a knowable, universal Truth. This is a faulty position that is actually rather prevalent in our society today. And it does no good, in our discussions with people who don’t believe in knowable, universal Truth to tell them that it exists, “because the Bible says…” Before someone can accept that the Bible is God’s record of Truth, they must first recognize that Truth exists and can be known. Now, I can’t give a full argument here for the existence and know-ability of Truth, but based on things I have learned from others I can at least provide a basic outline from which to start us thinking.

Let’s define Truth (with a capital “T”) as an accurate expression, statement, or perception that corresponds to reality, the way things really are.

So, the first question about Truth is whether or not anything even actually exists. Is there even a reality? The only other option is that everything is an illusion… nothing actually exists. However, this would be nonsensical because I could not be writing these words if nothing actually exists. Philosophically speaking, I could potentially be a figment of someone’s imagination, but then that would require a reality in which I was being imagined. The simple fact that there is any level of thought or perception in our lives indicates that some form of reality actually exists somewhere. Reality, in some form, must exist. It exists outside of me, and I am, in some way a part of that reality. So the next question about Truth would be, “Is it universal?”

Truth must be universal, and here is why… because reality exists. Reality is simply what is. It does not change from person to person. Perceptions change from person to person, but not the reality that has been perceived. Truth is simply the accurate expression or representation of reality. The simple fact that reality exists means that things are one way and not the other. When we speak about the way things are, we are either right or wrong. Our statements either match the reality that exists or they do not. There may be differing amounts of Truth in my beliefs or perceptions about reality, but there are not different Truths. By this I mean that different statements may be more or less in line with Truth, but there are not different realities by which to judge the Truth of those statements. So Truth is universal, even if our statements, beliefs, and perceptions are not always perfectly in line with it. So can Truth be known?

In short, yes, at least in part. We have already basically shown that at least some aspects of Truth are knowable in just a few short paragraphs. For starters we know that reality does exist, so Truth must likewise exist, after all it is simply the accurate expression of reality. We know that Truth is noncontradictory – two opposing claims cannot both be true… only one can accurately correspond to the way things actually are. We know that Truth is absolute or universal – it applies to all reality, regardless of person, place, or time. We know that Truth is discovered – it exists outside of us, in relation to reality, not just within our own minds, created by us (those would be perceptions). We know that Truth is descriptive – it accurately describes the reality that exists. We know that Truth is inescapable – someone cannot claim Truth does not exist without making a statement about the way reality truly is, thereby claiming Truth. That’s a short list of things that we can know about Truth, simply in a short amount of time. Given more time and effort, there are plenty more things about Truth that we can discover. So, suffice it to say at this point that Truth is knowable, even if it is not exhaustively knowable by us finite beings.

At this point we’ve briefly answered to the common objection to Christianity given above. Truth is knowable, and universal. We should expect that people can know and seek Truth. Not only that, but it is reasonable to conclude that people can find Truth. I suspect, however, that the real universal Truth people wish to deny in objecting to Christianity is moral truth. The answer to this objection is a simple one that I’ll address next.

Critical Thinking (part 1)

2008-09-12T15:21:00.000-08:00

I was just reading in Second Corinthians 11 and something struck me about it… mind you, this is not the central point of this brief passage… Paul is getting very sarcastic with the Corinthians and is having to point out what they would consider to be qualifications because they have not been using critical thinking. The basic situation is simple. People have been questioning Paul’s authority as an apostle, unthinkingly accepting the attacks against him. Paul goes ahead and answers those attacks on the same foolish grounds which people use to attack him. As he answers, the sheer weight of his argument comes cascading forth in an overwhelming summary, and Paul demonstrates quite clearly that the Corinthians have been guilty of not using critical thinking in their assessment of attacks on Paul.

Just this afternoon I read through some of the responses on the Summit Church’s website answering the question they posed, “Why I’m not a Christian…” It seemed as though there were three most common responses: 1) the hypocrisy of Christians, 2) the lack of belief in a knowable, universal Truth, and 3) the idea that belief in God is unreasonable. The first of these I fully recognize as a heart-breaking, yet often valid assessment of American Christianity as a whole. The next two, however, both demonstrate a severe lack of critical thinking, both on the part of the person attacking Christianity and on the part of Christians as a whole. The simple fact that people can make this claim in our culture and make it largely unchallenged with critical thought is a sad statement on our condition as the American Church.

All too often we in the church nowadays respond with no better answer than, “Well, the Bible says…” That answer is not sufficient if the person to whom we are speaking does not even recognize the authority of Scripture. Let me be clear, I’m not denigrating the authority of Scripture in the slightest. I am only saying that we cannot base our arguments on Scripture when someone else is arguing from a non-scriptural perspective. We need to be able to explain the reasonable nature of our beliefs.

Part of the problem is that we often have subconsciously bought into the lie that faith is “blind” or that it is, “believing in something you can’t know”. That isn’t faith at all. Biblical faith is believing in something that is unseen, but that is reasonable. “Blind faith” is just plain stupidity. Blind faith is when we have no reason to think that something may be true, but we believe it anyway. For example… blind faith is me walking into a dark room I don’t know and deciding to sit down, assuming that a chair will be there to hold me up. I have no reason to believe it, and I might be right, but there’s a decent chance I’ll be hitting the floor. Biblical faith on the other hand is walking into the room, flipping a light on, seeing a chair in which I’ve never sat, and deciding to sit down. I can’t “prove” (prior to sitting in it) that the chair will hold me up. However, I can have reasonable faith that it will, given my subconscious visual assessment of its soundness and my previous experience with chairs. This is biblical faith.

There are plenty of reasons to believe in the gospel and the truth of Scripture. It is an incredibly cohesive and cogent worldview. It is a shame if we are not doing the hard task of thinking through why we believe what we do and how we can reasonably explain that faith to someone who doesn’t recognize the authority of Scripture.

In upcoming blogs I’ll give a brief summary of some ways that Christians much wiser than I have responded to the second and third reasons listed above for not being a Christian.

PS – I’ve been noticing that this lack of critical thought is sadly lacking in our assessment of the media and the analysis of our presidential candidates. I hope that whenever we read something or hear something in the media we examine it critically, whether it’s a media source that drives us nuts, our favorite talk radio host, or anything in between.

Lesson in Integrity

2008-09-09T15:02:00.006-08:00

A few days ago Larry had an interview with CNN. His interview came at the end of a very long day and took a good two hours of Larry’s time. (The interview itself lasted about an hour.) Out of all that interview material very little made it to the air last night. In fact, the only glimpse given into Larry and Wasilla Bible Church came at the end of a much longer aired segment arguably intended to paint Sarah Palin as a fringe religious fanatic.

In the course of this interview, Larry was asked about David Brickner’s (from Jews for Jesus) sermon on August 17th. Larry explained more of the context and the intent of the controversial excerpt from the sermon, giving more clarity to what was actually communicated in it's context. Larry provided plenty of brief sound bites that answered to what Brickner actually said and meant. And then, following this explanation, the correspondent asked whether Larry would consider having David Brickner as a speaker again. Larry looked her in the eye and simply responded, “Yes… Yes, I would.” Here’s the thing that CNN conveniently left out... context. They apparently didn't want Larry's explanation of that context.

The thing that the camera doesn’t catch is the lesson in integrity that I was a witness to. Larry knew full well that he was about to answer a question that could be spun to fit the pleasure of the media, but he didn’t back down. He could have thrown David Brickner under the bus, but he didn’t. Larry knows the truth of what David said, the context, the tone, and the intent, and he didn’t turn his back on a man simply because it would save himself or our church heat in the media. Larry didn’t shy away from the truth. He answered with truth and integrity, despite the potential personal cost. (If you see this segment with Larry, note that he doesn’t respond light-heartedly. Rather he responds thoughtfully, knowing the weight of what is about to occur.) That was a powerful thing for me to witness. I pray that I will remember it throughout my life and ministry. That sort of self-sacrificial, uncompromising integrity is what I, and every other Christian, am called to live out.

Manner and Message

2008-09-07T19:01:00.004-08:00

Over the course of this past week, I’ve had a very in-depth, first-hand look at the press. It seems as though every other call to the church this week was related to someone trying to get information or wanting to express some form of opinion about Sarah Palin. The press has had, for better or worse, a large hand in that.

On the one hand, there have been a variety of writers and reporters who have reported wrong information about Larry and the church. This often happens simply because they have not taken the step of giving us a call or spending 5-10 minutes on our website to confirm the information they are preparing to report. (As an example, I think of one short article written this morning by a reporter from Reuters that had 3-4 easily corrected misstatements in as many paragraphs.) Many of these mistakes have been a result of confusion between us and another church in Wasilla. Some of the mistakes, however, have been the result of the writer having a definite agenda.

On the other hand, there have been some really neat people with whom we have interacted. They truly have been professionals interested in communicating the truth as accurately and objectively as possible. The two gentlemen from the New York Times were an example of this sort. They genuinely spent the time and effort to understand what was going on in our church, and they were careful to delineate the rumor mill from fact. That was nice.

The thing that has stuck out most to me about this process, though, is the idea of the message and the manner in which we proclaim it. You see there have been varieties of misinformation publicly presented in addition to the accurate reports. We can’t really affect the spin or lack thereof which a reporter or journalist will place on a story. All we can really control is whether or not we proclaim the truth, and the manner in which we proclaim it.

Over the last few years in seminary I had several godly men, including my father, explain the burden of the manner and the message to me. It’s a simple thing, really. There are going to be people who hate, slander, and malign us as Christians. That’s a simple fact of being a follower of Christ. After all, as Christ points out, He received this and worse, why should we expect any different if we follow Him? Our responsibility in this is simple. It’s ok if people hate us because of the message of Truth which we bear. It’s NOT ok if they hate us because we bear that Truth in an ungracious manner.

Over this past week I have been able to see my Senior Pastor, Larry, repeatedly respond in the most gracious manner possible to all types of people from around the US and the globe. And in many of those instances he was even able to be pastoral with them, listening as they shared their life stories. And he would lovingly respond with the gospel in real and personal ways. Larry challenges our church often to "extend God’s grace one conversation at a time," and that’s what he did. It was inspiring to see Larry talk with a reporter or journalist in a grace extending manner, with humility and a genuine love for that person, regardless of their personal slant. Not all of those people chose to write accurate pieces, but they went away having heard the gospel spoken in love. That is a beautiful thing. And it has provided me with a fresh and vivid example of this principle of the manner and the message.

So the question I want to keep asking myself is simple… if I face opposition and animosity, is it because of the message I bear or because of the manner in which I bear it? Lord willing it will never be because of the latter.

The ministry of reconciliation

2008-09-02T14:35:00.002-08:00

The past few days have been a little strange. With Sarah Palin being named as McCain’s running mate Wasilla has been a little less sleepy than it typically is. At the church we’ve been having reporters call regularly. I appreciate what Larry said Sunday, though, that we respect the fact that this should be a place where Sarah and Todd can come and worship as just Sarah and Todd. And in the midst of the hubbub I’ve been reading through 2Corinthians, where we are told that we are given the “ministry of reconciliation.” (2Cor. 5:19) I’ve been thinking a bit about this, and it is a good reminder of what I’m to be about.

My mission as a follower of Christ is to help reconcile people to God. I am an ambassador tasked with the responsibility to introduce people to our sovereign. That’s my job, nothing more, and nothing less.

I key in on this verse because it’s been a strange day, where it’s been difficult to buckle down and get needed ministry tasks done without having some form of interruption. So, in the midst of a world that is all abuzz, I am trying to remain focused on my primary mission. Faithfully bring people to encounter God. I pray that I will just keep doing that. And, Lord willing, I’ll be able to do just that.

No reserves. No retreats. No regrets.

2008-08-28T12:25:00.006-08:00

God’s been smackin’ me around recently about the state of affairs in the world around us right now and my role in that. In particular He’s been reminding me, through a variety of avenues, that this world is not my home. If I’m comfortable, there’s something wrong. And I need to be about the business of bringing others to freedom in Christ. Part of how God has been reminding me of this is through reading. (He’s also been doing it through some circumstances, events, and conversations.) Anyway, I thought I’d share a couple of the quotes that have grabbed my attention yet again as I’ve re-read them here recently. They capture the heart of what I am praying will be my continual outlook on life.

“Invisible kingdoms are at war for the hearts and lives of every human being who walks on the face of this earth. And times of war require barbarians who are willing to risk life itself for the freedom of others.” –Erwin McManus, The Barbarian Way

“No reserves. No retreats. No regrets.” –William Borden – By the way, if you’re wondering who this is… He was the multi-million dollar heir of the Borden family (the ones who owned Borden Dairy back in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s). He was a Yale and Princeton graduate, multi-millionaire… and he walked away from it all to pursue sharing Christ with a dying world. During college, when he decided to become a missionary, one of his close friends pointed out that it was crazy to walk away from millions of dollars to live the poor life of a missionary. In response Borden wrote, “No reserves,” in the back of his Bible. When he graduated from Yale and Princeton he was offered several premier positions in the corporate world if he would simply not go overseas. In response he wrote in his Bible, “No retreats.” When he died as a missionary in Egypt at the age of 25, the third line “No regrets,” was found written in the back of his Bible. May that be a simple six word summary of my life when all is said and done… that I came sliding into home with no reserves, no retreats, and no regrets. (The headlines announcing Borden's unusual decision and a portrait of him in college are shown below.)

I actually have gone ahead and printed out these two quotes from McManus and Borden, and placed them on the wall in front of my desk at work. That way I’m regularly reminded of this truth with which God is challenging me. Additionally I went ahead and put up the following passages,

“For though we live in the world we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. Rather, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. …For our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world powers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens.” (2Cor. 10:3-5; Eph. 6:12)

I am praying that I never forget this world is not my home. Followers of Christ are aliens in a foreign land. God desires for us to be heavenly paratroopers whom He’s dropped behind enemy lines to carry out His rescue mission. (After all, Christians aren’t just “born again,” we’re “born from above”… but that’s another blog... ooh… maybe that will be my next one.) May we not forget this and become too attached to this world and the temporary pleasures it has to offer.

Spelunking in Scripture

2008-08-28T10:44:00.004-08:00

So, I’m reading in Second Corinthians yesterday morning and one of the verses… actually two of them… stuck in my mind. I’ve been letting them tumble around in my mind all throughout the day yesterday and today. It’s kind of cool but kind of not because I had several meetings yesterday morning and early afternoon. And in the midst of those meetings a couple of times, I found these two verses coming back to me, and I had a hard time redirecting my focus back to the meeting. I wanted to just run with them and spend a sizable chunk of time meditating on them and exploring the different facets involved. I haven’t had much chance to mull it over yet, but I want to just get down some of my initial thoughts, so here we go.

In case you couldn’t tell, I’ve not been great at journaling consistently in the past, and I’m using this blog as a form of accountability to write and process through some of the things about which God is working me over.

“For every one of God’s promises is ‘Yes’ in Him [Christ]. He has also sealed us and given us the Spirit as a down payment in our hearts.” -2Cor. 1:20, 22

Jesus is the “Yes,” the fulfillment of every single promise God has ever made. As I allow that to sink in more and more, it is starting to overwhelm my capacity to understand and perceive the immensity of what is before me. It’s like going into those stinkin’ cool caves that are National Parks like Jewel Cave, Carlsbad Caverns, and, I’m guessing, Mammoth Cave. (I’ve only been in the first two of those three.) You go way underground into what feels like the heart of the Earth, never mind the fact that you’re just barely scratching the surface of the Earth’s mantle. As you go through the cave you easily lose a sense of perspective. You can walk into a room of the cave and think, “Oh, this isn’t so big,” until you start descending the stairs to the cave floor and find that you started out several stories up. And as you advance further into this room you see that it is far more expansive than you even realized at first sight. And then, you start thinking about the map of the cave complex you saw at the visitor’s center. And you realize that this is just one of thousands of rooms in this whole complex. And there’s hundreds of miles of cavern already mapped with an unknown amount that is yet to be explored because they are still charting out where it all even goes. Maybe this is just the little boy in me, but at this point I get this almost irresistible urge to run away from the group and just start exploring! I tell you …one dream I have in life is to take one of the serious spelunking tours that leave you nasty dirty and take you through some crazy passageways that are no bigger around than a carry-on suitcase and into stalagmite forests only ever seen by a few dozen people! I’d love it! But, I digress.

That’s where I’m at with this verse. Jesus is the “Yes,” the affirmation, of every promise the Father has ever made! In the Garden, when God first promises that He will send the woman’s Seed to crush the serpent and make all things right, Jesus was the fulfillment of that Promise! God promises that all the nations of the earth will be blessed through the line of Abraham… Jesus was and is that blessing! God desires a relationship with us… that was seen from the beginning when He came to walk with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening each day… and it was further affirmed by Jesus diving into the storm tossed, sinful sea of fallen creation in order to reestablish contact between God and Man… making it possible for us to be hoisted up from where we were floating face down in our own sin and instead have new life breathed into our souls! Jesus is God’s answer to all that enslaves us. Jesus is God’s “Yes” to our cry for help! Christ took on the Father’s greatest rescue mission! He, the Word, is the one who created the heavens and the earth and will someday return on the clouds of heaven to usher in a new reign of peace and to see justice done! Jesus is God’s affirmation when the hurting, broken, downtrodden, abused, neglected, poor, and oppressed cry out and scream, “God! If You are really there, how could You turn Your head?! Don’t You see?! Don’t You care?!” Jesus, Christ, Messiah, Immanuel, God with us is the Father’s answer to our every question in the uncertainty of life. We can look to Christ and that is the ultimate evidence and fulfillment of every one of God’s promises. It is all made possible through Christ.

And the Spirit is the down payment toward our full realization of these promises. God gave us the Spirit as an initial payment prior to our full realization of God’s promises in Christ. The Spirit is God’s good faith payment, reminding us of Christ and confirming that God will remain faithful to the promises that He made and that were fulfilled in Christ. The Spirit lives within us, and works to complete the good work begun in us, and will continue to work in us until the day when Christ returns or we see Him face to face. That’s why Jesus said in John 16:7 that it was better for Him to leave and have the Spirit come than for Him to stay and speak to us face to face. Jesus’ presence in our physical world and His death and resurrection made the fulfillment of God’s promises possible. But the Spirit is the initial payment and proof of God’s overall intent to have complete, unhindered communion with us. As long as Jesus was here in the flesh we would not receive the down payment of the Spirit indwelling within us. God reestablished physical communion with Christ, then spiritual communion with the Spirit, and there will be a day when we finally realize full communion with God in both body and soul!

These are the things rattling around in my head. And now… at this point... I hope you don’t mind if I run away from our little group and start exploring this cavern!

The example of faithful experience

2008-08-24T18:48:00.006-08:00

Today was a special day. I seriously doubt that I can do justice to it with a simple blog, but I can't really let it go unnoticed. Today was the day that our church celebrated our pastor's 30 years of faithful service to God in this congregation and community. In August 1978 (just a month and a half after I was born, I might add) Larry started pastoring our church. At that time it was a small church plant in TINY town Alaska. Today it is one of the largest congregations in the Mat-Su. And the reason for its growth is a simple thing... God has been at work.

You see, Larry isn't exactly a flashy pastor. He isn't the most entertaining or emotional preacher I've ever heard. But he is one of the most faithful pastors I've ever known. I am in awe of Larry's faithful service and am appreciative for the opportunity I have to be a recipient of his wisdom and guidance. Let me explain, at least in part...

In seminary I was told that a pastor should ideally spend an hour in preparation each week for every minute of sermon he preaches on Sunday. Now that's an ideal, and I doubt most preachers get to spend that sort of time in preparation, but it gives an idea of the time that goes into preparing to preach. Additionally, I know from experience that preaching is extremely mentally, emotionally, and spiritually draining. I've given plenty of briefings during my time in the military. I've spoken to various crowds and conventions, but nothing compares to the effort and energy required to get up in front of a congregation, bearing the responsibility to teach God's Word. There is a weight of responsiblity there that far exceeds even the sense of responsiblity I experienced planning and executing training and combat missions in the Army. And week-in, week-out Larry's been doing this for as long as I've been alive!

I am convinced that very few people, except those who have made this rare benchmark, fully grasp the amount of stamina and the faithful pursuit of a single goal that is involved in the faithful pastoring exemplified by Larry. A guy named Steven Furtick was talking about just this sort of thing, and this is a paraphrase of what he said... You may have some young preacher come in and preach at your church and think, "Man! That kid can preach!" And maybe he actually dishes up one fine spiritual meal of a sermon... But what you fail to realize is that the young kid has had weeks or even months to prepare for that half hour. On the other hand, the pastor who is faithfully serving up a solid meal every single week hasn't had that same benefit of time. Not only that, but often times that young kid hasn't had nearly as much on his plate pulling him away from sermon preparation as that older pastor. When you start to realize that, it brings a new perspective to things. And then, when you consider that for the first 15-20 years of his service Larry was the only pastor on staff... I don't have words for the admiration and respect I have for that.

Now, you may say it's not too hard to come up with something to preach on for a half hour each week, but let me just point out one or two things. Everyone who spoke today mentioned a single common element... that Larry consistently dug into Scripture and clearly and faithfully preached it every single week. Now let's just say that he only preached 45 Sundays a year and that he took almost 2 full months off each of those 30 years... he's still preached 1350 biblically sound sermons! I mean, if Larry were an NCAA basketball coach, he'd be the winningest active coach by a good 400 wins! The big difference is that the winningest coaches don't have to live with integrity on and off the court (just look at Bobby Knight) whereas pastors like Larry do! And we hold up guys like Coach K. or Dean Smith as role models when their records don't mean nearly as much. It makes me all the more thankful for the faithful pastor under whom I get to learn.

Anyway, for what this little blog is worth... Thanks, Larry, for your years of running hard after God! I pray that I might one day be able to look back and see a similar record of service to our Lord in my own life.

The example of passionate youth

2008-08-23T22:07:00.019-08:00

I just received a CD full of pictures from a week-long rafting trip I had with our current high school sophomores this past summer. This trip was extremely awesome for a few reasons, one of which I'd like to share.

I started out the trip with these students by gathering us together and praying before pulling out from the church parking lot. Among the things that I prayed for was challenges... that God would give us challenges to try us and to grow us in our faith. Yeah... there's the addage, "Be careful what you pray for..." Well, let me just say there's some truth to that addage.

We were going rafting down the Gulkana River, a remote, wilderness river in the interior of Alaska. (Only way in and out is by river or by helicopter.) A couple of days into the trip one of the girls sarted getting sick with flu-like symptoms. After she had been sick for two days and she hadn't gotten any better we started to suspect that there might be something else going on. She started suffering abdominal pain and so we decided to evacuate her. We ended up evacuating her back to the urgent care facility at Glennallen, the nearest town (really just a crossroads with a one or two stores, gas stations, and a medical center), with a couple of the leaders. She was then air evacced to Anchorage. Of course, after we had evacuated her, the rest of us still out on the river didn't know what her status was.

Fast forward 24 hours...

We had journeyed on down the river and found our next camp site. Shortly after we got our camp set up we got hit by a pretty crazy storm front. For about 10-15 minutes we had massive rain, hail, and probably 60 mph winds. (The winds were strong enough to grab our 16 ft. whitewater rafts and flip them end over end... fortunately their bow lines were firmly tied down.) Most of us spent the time holding on to some form of equipment or shelter, keeping it from flying away. When we came out the other side of the storm it was still drizzling and our camp was a mess. (Notice the pictures below of another leader and I working on straightening bent tent poles and duct-taping back together the poles that are broken.)

Needless to say we spent some time repairing the damaged equipment to make it through the night. But then we got an even greater blow.

I got news via our satellite phone that the student we evacuated was in critical condition. Her appendix had burst and the doctors were saying she had a 50% chance. Getting that news threw our group into a bit of a tailspin. The next hour was largely spent with students in small groups of 2 or 3... or just completely by themselves. Everyone was just processing the fact that one of them was in a struggle for life itself, when she had seemed perfectly normal just a few days prior. After about an hour or so, however, I got to witness something so amazing that it is actually bringing tears to my eyes as I write this.

A couple of students decided to grab a guitar that they brought and start singing praises to God. Other students gathered around and I got to witness an impromptu, completely student-led praise and worship service on the bank of a wilderness river in Alaska, as the rain was still coming down and our camp was a wreck. I pulled away from the group for a bit and sat at a distance thanking God for the growth of these students as I listened to them singing songs like "Blessed Be Your Name" and "Grace Like Rain." Faced with this situation they chose to respond with worship and admiration for the God of the Universe!

Not long after that the clouds began to break.

We ate dinner and these students decided that they would cut the rest of their trip short. They wanted to get in and visit their friend in the hospital. And after dinner they all pitched in and helped clean the dishes, soaking wet, shivering, and still singing praises to our God. It was stinkin' awesome!

I think of that and I'm encouraged. I look back over history and notice that the vast majority of Great Awakenings and revivals have been led by youth. Young people have been the vehicle through which God seems to most often move. And I know that me and a few others have been praying for the students of our church this past year, that they would be the beginning of a new spiritual awakening, right here in our own community. That God would move mightily and transform the lives and even the culture of youth in the Mat-Su! And ultimately I pray that the awakening would spread beyond the youth culture and that God would cause it to bring revival to our church and new life to the community around us. I pray that it will truly be hard to go to hell from the Mat-Su because people will be so confronted with the gospel in word and deed that they cannot help but know the truth of it in their hearts! But... anyway, I'd better stop there, because otherwise I could really get on a soapbox and keep going. Suffice it to say that I will be continuing to pray daily for these youth... that God will work in and through them in a mighty, undeniable way. If you happen to read his and care to join me, I'd love to have you coming before the throne of grace alongside of me. And we'll beg for God to pour out His Spirit on our lives, youth, and community together. I can't wait to see what God does with our youth in our community!

Oh, and by the way, the young lady who was evacuated was in the hospital for about three weeks, but she's fine now. Praise the Lord!

The wonder of Creation

2008-08-23T14:05:00.005-08:00

Last night we were at a training retreat for youth leaders at our church. It was held at a beautiful B&B in Big Lake, Alaska. The evening was gorgeous, and I had to sit in wonder at God's creation. In particular the thing that struck me was Denali. I think this is the first time that I've had a clear view of the mountain this summer. (It's been a cold, wet one.) And I was once again reminded, as the sun was sinking low on the horizon, at the immensity of our Creator. I mean, as an example, the picture below was taken on the bank of Big Lake, roughly 200-250 miles away from Denali. (That's like seeing a mountain in Asheville, NC from Raleigh or a mountain in Portland from Seattle.) The God that created Denali, and our world as a whole, is so far beyond what I can truly grasp, it's humbling. And so, I enjoyed taking a few minutes to gaze at Denali and sit in wonder at my Creator and Savior.

Manly-men and me-monkeys

2008-08-21T21:45:00.006-08:00

I found myself thinking back over Genesis this morning… in particular the third chapter.

After writing up my first posting for this blog last night, I guess my mind was simply working through why it is that the image of Barbarian Way or that we are Wild at Heart resounds so strongly with Christian men in America today, including myself. As I was thinking through this I thought about a tendency I have seen among men in American culture. This tendency also provides the fuel for other books like Raising a Modern-day Knight and Why Men Hate Going to Church. The tendency about which I am speaking is of course the tendency of men not stepping up to be men as God designed us to be. Basically, I’m talking about men being a bunch of passive me-monkeys.

(“me-monkey” - fool who is too focused on himself and doesn’t even realize it - see right for appropriate mental image you should be calling to mind)

Now lest I be accused of being full of old-fashioned, chauvinistic machismo and bravado, making a general statement blown totally out of proportion, let me just call to mind a couple of common scenes and points of reference.

-Depending on what stats you read, a marriage has roughly a 50/50 chance of lasting nowadays. I know it takes two to tango, but you gotta figure that means at least 1 in 4 marriages break up because a man isn’t stepping up to be what he’s supposed to be. (And I suspect even more than half of divorces would be averted if the man in the marriage would get his act together.)

-There’s the stereotype of the dad coming home from work, grabbing the paper, sitting down in front of the TV and zoning out for a sizable chunk of the evening because he “just needs to unwind.” I know it’s just a stereotype, but there’s a reason that stereotypes develop. They're common enough that they stick.

-Look at your typical church congregation in America. 9 times out of 10 I guarantee you’ll see more ladies there than men. You’ll also see more single moms and single ladies heading there than you will single dads or single men. Additionally, look at the volunteer rosters of your church. I’ll bet that there’s a really good chance the ladies outnumber the men.

-Check out our prisons, men drastically outnumber women, especially among more violent criminals.

-Ask a teenage or twenty-something guy you know, “What does it mean to be a real man?” There’s better than even chances they wouldn’t know what to tell you or even where to start. And the thing is that most middle age guys aren’t any better. Just look at the whole middle-age crisis thing. It’s fueled by a guy achieving a certain level of success that he thought would somehow bring him significance and worth, only to find it futile, spurring on a renewed quest to prove that he really is a man.

And these are just a few of the things I could point to that tell me there are plenty of boys and guys out there, but there are very few real men.

I know… there are lots of cultural, spiritual, emotional, environmental, yada, yada, yada factors that contribute to this. I willingly acknowledge that. BUT… I would also point out that each of these things has at least one common factor that I’m thinking of right now. Each of these would be corrected if you had a man stepping up to be what God meant men to be. Each of these situations involve men who are passive toward God's intent for their lives. They’re content sitting back and letting someone else do the hard work God has for them. They’re more focused, selfishly, on what they think will make them happy at the moment, rather than being the protectors, providers, and leaders God intended. And it all starts back in Genesis 3.

See, Adam and Eve were in the Garden. Adam was the one God told about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God didn’t tell Eve; she wasn’t even made yet. God gave ADAM the responsibility to make sure that things were taken care of in this area. (Check out Genesis 2:15-25 if you haven’t noticed this before.) So what was up with Adam when the serpent came to tempt Eve? Why didn’t he help? Where was he at? I’ll tell you. He wasn’t gone. He was right there beside her, but he wussed out and didn’t do a thing! He should have opened up a can on the snake… or died trying, but he sat back and watched the game instead! And so Eve eats the fruit then turns and hands some to Adam, “who was with her.” (Gen. 3:6) And if you’ll notice, their eyes weren’t opened when Eve ate from the fruit. They were opened when Adam ate. That’s why Rom. 5:12 tells us that sin entered the world through one man. God had given Adam, not Eve, the responsibility of leadership. And when the moment of testing came, he wimped out. And since that day we men have struggled with the same sin… the sin of being a wuss when it comes to areas where we need to stand strong.

Hear me in this. I’m not saying that if men want to be godly we’ll all go around flexing our pects, driving fast cars, and talking two octaves lower. That’s an artificial compensation for the fact that we don’t really know how to be a man, or we’re too lazy and intimidated by what it would actually take to be a real man. Instead, what if we just took the simple step of taking responsibility for ourselves and for those around us, even at the expense of our own interests? What would it look like if we actually followed the guidance of Ephesians 5:25 and we loved our wives like Christ loved His people, for whom He died? What would it look like if we came home from work each day, manned up, and played with the kids, listened and talked to the wife, and kept the TV off? What if we realized that the next generation of young men and warriors are in Sunday School, wanting to learn what it means to be a man... and all too often they find themselves surrounded only by godly women with no men in sight? What would happen in our community if real men started making sure justice was done, taking care of the needy, mentoring young men without a real man for a father, and actively rebuilding a sense of chivalry and respect for all women?

I don’t know. Call me crazy, chauvinist (ladies), boring (men), whatever. It really doesn’t matter what you think of me in this regard. All I know is that I’m going to teach my son, Liam Gabriel, to live up to his name... Guardian – Valorous warrior of God. And with God’s grace I pray that he will one day be a real man who serves the Lord of Hosts (The Commander of the Heavenly Armies) instead of passively sitting back watching the battle of life in this world pass him by.

Why "Crash the Future"?

2008-08-20T22:54:00.016-08:00

So, you may be asking why the title of this blog is "Crash the Future." Well, it's an analogy from a book which I enjoyed, The Barbarian Way, by Erwin McManus. He is discussing the names given to groups of animals and centers in on what a group of rhinos is called, and the significance of this name. He explains:

"My favorite of all is the group designation for rhinos. You see, rhinos run at thirty miles an hour, which is pretty fast when you consider how much weight they're pulling. They're actually faster than squirrels, which can run at up to twenty-six miles an hour. And even then, who's going to live in dread of a charging squirrel? (Sorry - that was a bit off the point.) Running at thirty miles an hour is faster than a used Pinto will go. Just one problem with this phenomenon. Rhinos can only see thirty feet in front of them. Can you imagine something that large moving in concert as a group, plowing ahead at thirty miles an hour with no idea what's at thirty-one feet? You would think that they would be far too timid to pick up full steam, that their inability to see far enough ahead would paralyze them to immobility. But with that horn pointing the way, rhinos run forward full steam ahead without apprehension, which leads us to their name.

"Rhinos moving together at full speed are known as a crash. Even when they're just hanging around enjoying the watershed, they're called a crash because of their potential. You've got to love that. I think that's what we're supposed to be. That's what happens when we become barbarians and shake free of domestication and civility. The church becomes a crash. We become an unstoppable force. We don't have to pretend we know the future. Who cares that we can only see thirty feet ahead? Whatever's at thirty-one feet needs to care that we're coming and better get out of the way.

"We need to move together as God's people, a barbarian tribe, and become the human version of the rhino crash. The future is uncertain, but we need to move toward it with confidence. There's a future to be created, a humanity to be liberated. We need to stop wasting our time and stop being afraid of what we cannot see and do not know. We need to move forward full force because of what we do know."

This analogy reminds me of Philippians 3:13-14, where Paul says that he has forgotten everything that is behind and strives for what is ahead, God's promised prize in Christ. Paul is like that rhino crash. It doesn't matter what's at 31 feet. All he knows is that he's headed after Christ and he's not going to let anything get between him and the goal of knowing Christ to the fullest. I hope and pray that I might be able to live in the same way. My desire is that I will be a part of a human crash, tumbling headlong down the path God has laid before us, not giving any heed to what lies behind or what is to either side.

I intend to use this blog to chart at least a part of that journey. I'd be lying if I said I know what is at 31 feet, but I am confident that whatever God has in store will be beyond my wildest expectations. And so I intend to run full speed ahead and say with Paul that, "My goal is to know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, assuming that I will somehow reach the resurrection from among the dead." If you're reading this blog, I hope that you'll choose to do the same, running headlong down whatever path God lays before you.

By the way, the two pictures in this posting are also posted on my sidebar. They're original artwork by Joby Harris from McManus' book. One is entitled "The Barbarian Revolt." It contains the Lion of Judah, a horde of barbarians storming the spiritual realm as His mane. (It's inspired by Matt. 11:12 - "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.") The background is that of a Greek manuscript... the gospel of Christ. The other picture is entitled "The Barbarian Invasion". It illustrates a heavenly warrior confidently standing firm. A compass is emblazoned on his heart, providing consistent God-ward direction, with the silhouettes of two white rhino heads in the background.

I love these pictures, I'd love to have full-size prints of them in my office someday, but for now they'll just have to remain on this blog.