Monthly Archives: March 2011

Unknown's avatar

Barry Bonds is not the only user

by
Baseball season is upon us now, and that means a few things. First of all, I have a chance to repeat as the champ in fantasy baseball. Secondly, the Tampa Bay Rays will get to see whether Manny Ramirez will hit like Manny Ramirez or act like Manny Ramirez (that is one dude to whom you don’t want to say, “Just be yourself”). And thirdly, since games are starting up, it would be nice to see the Barry Bonds perjury trial not take center stage.
While its not been a media circus, on some levels this trial is quite comical. Former teammates have testified about his use, while the most incriminating man in this case, his trainer, would rather spend time in jail than testify. Even former mistresses have testified that Bonds’ testicles had shrunk over time. It’s fairly obvious that the unlikeable lad’s head literally grew; that kind of growth doesn’t happen with weights and protein supplements.  Here are a few of my takes on this trial.
1.) A need for truth
People don’t like to be lied to. The Feds really don’t like to be lied to. While Dr. House’s “everybody lies” philosophy of life is unfortunately very accurate, people still want some sort of ultimate arbiter, or at least a final accountability to actual tell the truth. That and the fact that he is perhaps baseball’s most unlikeable player ever (or at least top 5) will, in my estimation, leave many people pulling against him. 
2.) We’re all users.
Baseball really enabled this whole steroid era to flourish, and not simply by limiting drug testing. MLB promoted these new found home-run heroes because THEY put people in the seats. And people knew they were on roids, but people didn’t care. Baseball had use for rhoid freaks like Bonds and Mark McGuire. Fans had use for them as well. But now there is no use for Barry Bonds, and we no longer need him.
I find it funny how much I profited and enjoyed watching these home-run legends, and watching them chase such home-run single season and all time records. But now for some reason I feel cheated. Yet at the time, I didn’t want them to change. It’s not just that “chicks dig the long ball” as the commercial claimed, but guys did as well.
Martin Ban of ChristChurch Santa Fe gave a challenging, as well as fascinating sermon called “Sloth and Anger” on the connection between these two “deadly sins.” In his application, he questioned whether or not we really want people to stop being angry or slothful. Parents can use slothful children so that they feel needed. Folks use angry people to have someone tough to follow, and let them do the dirty work. Ban argues that we often don’t want people to change, because we benefit from them. We use them, and to call people to change will be hard because we’re good at using people.

I think this is what most fans did with Bond’s during the steroid era. We didn’t want him to change because we would no longer benefit from him. But after hearing Ban’s sermon, I’m beginning to think this happens in my life with more than just baseball. 

Unknown's avatar

Going deep

by
I know I’ve said, and I know I’ve heard the expression, “I would like this book/sermon/study to go ‘deeper.'” What that really means varies from person to person. One time I actually asked a pastor I respect what “going deep” really means? He responded like this: “It’s giving someone a fresh perspective on the passage that they’ve not heard before.” I don’t disagree that this is a good thing. But what does, or rather should, going “deep” or “deeper” really mean? Trevin Wax on his blog Kingdom People poses this question and considers an answer from a “gospel-centered” perspective.
It’s interesting you bring up discipleship materials. There are always people asking for “deeper Bible study” or for a “deeper walk” with Christ. But what people mean by “depth” is not often clear. Some people think in terms of information. They want to know more facts, whether they come from history or theology. Information dump. Others think “deep” means a practical tidbit for my life tomorrow. They think in terms of immediate application. But this can turn the Bible into a self-help manual.
The gospel-centered movement has the opportunity to redefine what “depth” means. We shouldn’t see depth as “more info” or “life insights” but gospel-centrality. Going deep means we immerse ourselves in the truth that Jesus Christ bled and died to save helpless sinners like you and me. We’ve got to see the depth of our sin and the depth of God’s grace in such a way that it is clear we can do nothing to make ourselves more acceptable to God. Depth means going deeper into the gospel until it confronts the idols of our hearts.

I love it when studies/sermons to go deep into background and history (though I have a feeling most people don’t). But this snippet is a good reminder to go deeper into my personal history and background to see my deeper need for Jesus. See your sin, and see your Savior. Just make sure you realize the latter is bigger, much bigger than the former.

Unknown's avatar

My take on Radical

by
A number of folks recommended David Platt’s book Radical: Taking back your faith from the American Dream. Someone finally bought it for me, so I decided to read and see what all the rage was about.
Here’s my take on the book as a whole.
Positives:
Challenging. The book is flat-out challenging because Jesus is flat-out challenging. The Jesus of the bible doesn’t really square with the Americanized version of Jesus who exists to give you a happy marriage, good kids, and a great smile. In fact he tells you to love Him more than your family (which is ironically the only way to actually love your family instead of making an idol out of them), and if you don’t, you can’t be his disciple (Luke 14:26). Easy there….Platt pulls no punches because Jesus pulls no punches. Not really sure what that saying means. But it is safe to say that Jesus is a thrower of punches, and the American Dream is often its recipient.
Giving up? Platt does a great job, particularly toward the close of the book, in emphasizing that giving up our lives is not really giving up anything. I love the example of Jon Patton he employs. When someone questions his leaving Scotland to head to a cannibalistic island, he says something to the effect of, “Whether worms eat me or people eat me makes no difference to me. We’ll still get a new body at the resurrection.” You don’t lose out. That’s a huge motivator because whether it’s going to bed early, not having the coolest stuff, or not being able to full a childhood dream, we tend to be scared of missing out. We don’t have to be. How cool is that?
Word and Deed. I also appreciated Platt’s emphasis on word and deed ministry. Neither was sacrificed upon the altar of the other. It is important to feed folks, provide clean water, eradicate diseases when possible. To ignore such things is not much different than the person who leaves the gospel tract that looks like money AS a tip. Not good.
Platt’s both/and approach to ministry in a local and foreign context. While he didn’t seem to be in favor of domestic church planting-and I am highly in favor of that-I still thought he recognized the importance of both contexts. Definitely an emphasis on the foreign, but I need to hear that drum beaten often.
Community. Platt does not tell people to go guns blazing by themselves. They have to be part of a church community, and even better when they are involved in a small group community which studies the word AND actually does ministry together.
Things I might do or say differently
I hesitate to call these negatives, so I didn’t. But there are a few of my concerns.
1.) Kevin DeYoung has a review here. I wouldn’t call it a great review that I totally agree with, because I don’t. I definitely disagree with some of it. But it is another perspective. And he has a point in that it is necessary to ground our sanctification (this radical crazy selfless life poured out for Jesus) in our justification (our perfect status obtained already by Jesus’ live poured out for us). At some points, the reader can get lost in living radically without having the proper grounding and motivation. 
Platt’s respsone to DeYoung shows he is on the same page. And I don’t think you need to say before every point, “Because Jesus has saved you, you are now free to live like this, and are forgiven when you don’t.” I really don’t. But perhaps he could have sprinkled it in the book a little more, rather than including the truth of justification, and then moving on. I told my teachers in our teacher training time, that they don’t have to say “Because Jesus died for you and freed you from this idol, you can now live like this…” every time they make an application. But our tendency is to forget the gospel truth, and just apply. The problem is that we can sometimes leave Jesus, who is the author and sustainer of our faith, behind.
2.) Radical obedience to Jesus doesn’t ONLY mean giving up way more than the tithe and going foreign, or going deeper locally. The gospel frees us to be generous to give more than the tithe, and frees us to walk across the street and get to know neighbors or go to India.
But a radical life also looks like someone honoring God with their work, working at it with all their heart (Col 3:23). Work, while a common American idol, is still a good thing and we don’t need all Christians to give up their work and head overseas. Some are called to that, but some are not. Both can be just as radical, or at least as faithful to Jesus. 
Americans find their identity in work. They find their identity in hobbies, family, income, homes, etc…But these things need to be redeemed and the gospel light shed upon them. Work isn’t evil and I fear that perhaps some folks may leave the book thinking it is, or is a lesser calling.
With those things said, I would still recommend Radical. Our pendulums need to be swung on this direction and we need Platt’s voice, mainly because he echoes Jesus heart for the poor, needy, and broken. And Samuel Rutheford’s take on the cross gives us hope that we can follow Jesus where he leads. Check this out: “Those who can take that crabbed tree handsomely upon their back, and fasten it on cannily, shall find it such a burden as wings unto a bird or sails to a ship.” The cross is freedom.
A Sequel?

Some things for a Radical sequel, or if I were writing a book with similar title would be as follows. This is not the part where I say, “He should have added this or that.” Platt’s book was the right length. Books that are too long are ineffective for mass communication in my opinion. This is just my heart on what a radical life looks like.

1.) Commitment to corporate worship. When sports take you away from corporate worship, you don’t give in. I can’t wait (yeah right!) to deal with this because Connar loves anything that has to do with a ball. Perhaps not skipping church on Sundays in order to play soccer, basketball, or baseball might ruin a chance at a college scholarship? But to me it would be worth it if Connar loves Jesus and wants to worship with his church family when he goes off to college. Skipping church when kids are young FOR SPORTS, will lead our kids to believe church is unnecessary.

2.) Commitment to deep community. People with busy lives actually committing to come together, study the word, pray, fellowship, have fun, and actually minister together in some form of small group. It is very difficult to live out the plethora of “one another” commands found in the scripture outside some sort of regular and intentional small group.

3.) Commitment to outward facing community. How radical would it be to not just study the bible but to actually apply and live out the gospel together in your community? We don’t simply need more bible studies in the church but small groups of people committed to the gospel, one another, and their communities. The days of sitting on the couch and only studying the bible need serious evaluation. While these makes us feel good about ourselves, these miss 1/2 of what James 1:27 calls “true religion.” Whether as individuals or as a group, such a small group bible study has to encourage or offer outward expressions of faith in the community.


To me these things are just as radical. But they are also just as normal and consistent with a life of following Jesus.

Unknown's avatar

Facebook community of young and old: ammended

by
My cousin once told me, “I don’t have accept facebook friend requests for people over 30.” I asked about myself, and she said, “Sorry, even you!” I laughed, and later realized that she’ll have to “up” the age restriction to 40 in several years when she turns 30.

It’s a shame, but this type of facebook age discrimination takes place in the covenant community called the church. I can remember one of my former youth explaining, “I don’t want that old guy looking at my pictures. That’s creepy.” Perhaps it is. I can’t get in the mind of a teenage girl-nor do I necessarily want to be there! But what about older ladies? Should that be creepy too?

Earlier this week, one of my ex-“friends” on facebook posted something a bit concerning (my comments got me de-friended). It was the standard youth self-centered myopic comments I’ve come to know and but not so much love, yet expect. But what was beautiful was an older “friend” in her 70’s who offered a simple regret and disappointment at such a post. The day before she even questioned a related post, explaining that the life of a teenager isn’t as bad as teenager’s think. Easier said, or written, than done. 

Whether or not any of these concerns were or will be taken to heart is hard to tell. Yet I think its a beautiful thing for teenagers to have more adults involved in their lives than only their parents and some sort of youth pastor. It takes a whole covenant community, and it is a beautiful to see the older taking an interest in the younger. 

Now facebook involvement is hardly a substitute for real community. But perhaps it is a start, and can be a place where the young and old BEGIN to do life together, sojourning along this difficult path we call the Christian life. 

Unknown's avatar

Not over thinking transforming culture: part II

by
This is a continued reflection on Tony Dungy’s prison trip with Michael Vick and Dan Patrick. While Paul questions what “fellowship can light have with darkness,” when it comes to a yolk-esque relationship like marriage (II Cor 6:14), does that mean He never uses non-believers in building His Kingdom? Has he ever done it in the past? Should we expect him to do it in the future and should we ever partner with non-believers when it comes to common justice issues in our communities?
When Solomon builds the Temple, he employs pagan labor and pagan goods (I Kings 5). In fact, the Sidonians are simply more skilled than the Jews in knowing how to cut timber. Then later comes the Persian King Cyrus, who actually orders the Temple be rebuilt and helps fund it by returning the originally confiscated Temple items taken by Nebucadnezzar (Ezra 1). In addition, their Babylonian and Persian neighbors reached into their pockets to give them all kinds of goods like gold and cattle (though I use “pockets” proverbially with the latter). We’re not talking post cards or things sentimental trinkets to remember their time in Babylon. These gifts made a difference.
God’s ultimate goal was not a building to “house” his special presence and glory. The end picture in Revelation is one of His glory and His will filling up the whole Earth, perfectly and completely as it is in Heaven. God accomplishes this through the preaching of the gospel. 
Sometimes unbelievers are hostile to it, and sometimes, they actually play a part in its promotion. At the end of Acts 27, and beginning of Acts 28, you see protection, provision, and hospitality shown to Paul and Luke by an unbelieving soldier and townsfolk.
So if God used unbelievers to partner (although granted it’s not the same sense of “koinonia”) with them through protection and provision, there’s no reason such folks can’t be used to assist in the proclamation of the gospel and the blessing of our cities. I don’t think God has since ruled out using unbelievers alongside believers to bring about His will on Earth as it is in Heaven. 
That’s why I think that Dungy using Michael Vick (professing believer) who’s done hard time, and Dan Patrick (not sure of his faith profession) simply because the inmates listen to his show and has credibility was a good idea. 
The most impacting thing the Glazer family (Tampa Bay Buccaneers owners) have ever done was to hire Tony Dungy back in 1996. And perhaps the next greatest impact for the city of Tampa was to fire him six years later (after a 9-7 season and first round play-off loss). Not because the team won the super bowl the next year with Jon “Chucky” Gruden, but because God raised up Dungy with the Indianapolis Colts only to give him a further platform to come back and bless the city.  
How God uses unbelievers always amazes me and often shatters our separatist paradigms.
Unknown's avatar

Not over thinking transforming culture

by
One struggle for Christians is the tension of how exactly they are to relate to their surrounding culture. They are not to simply embody the surrounding values of their non-believing neighbors-which often happens so subtlely that many of us don’t realize it. Yet we aren’t to separate from it either. And still, a neutrality or ambivalence isn’t even a possibility. Check out this Keller quote from his article “Church and Culture” I found on church planter Joe Holland’s blog.
“To say ‘we must never try to change the culture’ is simply an over-reaction. No one
can live in the world neutrally. Culture is living out what we truly worship, and everyone is
worshipping something. Simply to work and live in the world, without sealing our faith off from our work, will transform culture.”
There are a few similar and related cultural models based upon the portrait of living FOR your city in Jeremiah 29. Exiles are to pray for and bless their pagan city, “For in its welfare, you will find your welfare.”
But I think this is the most simple and succinct Jer 29 based model I’ve seen. I’ve read a number of books like Culture Making, and Christ and Culture:Revisited. And I have benefited from them and don’t regret reading and engaging with them. However, simply living out your faith and loving your neighbors, co-workers, and friends is the simplest and perhaps most effective way to transform the culture.
 
Here’s a great example of Tony Dungy living out his faith and inviting others, even unbelievers to join him in visiting a Florida jail. I originally heard about this on the Dan Patrick radio show, because Tony doesn’t often self-promote. Dan was actually very excited to come alongside Tony and Michael Vick.

I don’t know what kind of gospel centered conversations Tony and Dan have had behind the scene. I imagine that those things have come or will come up over time. But for the time being, Dungy is simply living out his faith and sharing his life with others. What ends this will have for the culture of Tampa is not Tony’s job, burden, or responsibility. What means God delights to use is his (and ours) calling, joy, and privilege.

Unknown's avatar

Bashir interviewed: Redeemer, search for truth, and asking questions

by
On one of the blogs I follow, I found this recent interview with Martin Bashir, after he had already interviewed Rob Bell. Apparently he had been given much flack for his candor and desire to get to the bottom of Bell’s question behind the question: aren’t you just trying to make a palatable Christianity more than really seeking what the bible and the Church have to say about the issue of Hell?
If you have about 25 minutes, be sure to check out this interview. In it Martin Bashir explains he is a believer and actually goes to Redeemer in New York City with Tim Keller. I assumed he wasn’t because I was playing the law of averages. Glad I was wrong.
Anyhow, in addition to discussing the poor historiography and scriptural manipulation in Bell’s book Love Wins (quoting a letter from Luther, but ignoring the scope of the letter; quoting a verse in the bible, yet ignoring the next verse or two which gives the context and actually contradicts his point), he gives several fascinating and challenging insights.
1.) The church should be take the lead in diligently seeking what is true regardless whether that claim  is found in scripture, politics, or pastors promoting books. The truth can’t be left out in pastoring, parenting, or politicking. 
2.) Any truth that is not open to being challenged or questioned is not a truth worth following. How true. Bashir was born into a Pakistani Muslim family and remembers one time questioning the prophet Muhuammad. He was told he dare not even ask or think such a question. Bashir thought and you’re supposed to follow someone whom you can’t even question?
I would hope that we don’t embrace this attitude in the church. The church is a place where we are to “have mercy on those who doubt (Jude 22)” and not be afraid of questions. 
If we don’t allow our young and our old to ask questions in our families or our covenant community, they will ask them somewhere else. Yet Jesus isn’t afraid for people to question his uniqueness among other religions. I rather think he welcomes it because he knows that the scriptures shout of his unique glory. I don’t think Jesus is afraid to tackle questions on whether or not He exists. Because He does, he’s not afraid for folks to ask such questions. Jesus can take that one as well.
The church is a place where seekers, those asking questions, and those struggling with doubts can co-exist with those who have been granted faith (Eph 2:8-9) or simply granted greater measures of faith (Rom 12:3).
Unknown's avatar

Don’t believe in a "spiritual" Jesus

by
I’ve been working my way through Matthew for my devotional time, supplementing it with David Platt’s Radical. This morning I came across the passage where Jesus feeds the 4000. Of course this is not to be confused with the time when Jesus fed the 5000; and it is not that eye witnesses interviewed by gospel writers pulled a Roger Clemens and “mis-remembered” the same activity as liberal folk will say. This event actually has a different emphasis. 
You’ve probably heard it said, “Why care about taking care of physical needs, when the eternal soul is what counts?” Sounds spiritual, doesn’t it? We should care about where people spend eternity, and not about whether or not they live in poverty or have enough to eat for only a temporary period of time, right? While it may sound “spiritual” to the evangelical mind, it is, like my Cuban high school physics teacher taught us to say: “a bunch of bunk!” 
Jesus never thought like this, so we can’t either. Check this out.
“Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, “I have compassion on the crowd because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. And I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way.” Matthew 15:32
When Jesus emphasizes the soul over material possession, it is never in relation to the poor and needy, but in connection to the rich and extravagant (Luke 12:19-20).
Why didn’t Jesus say, “It doesn’t matter if they faint or die of hunger, because they now have a chance to go to heaven since they’ve heard the gospel?” Because that kind of thinking is bunk. He cared not only that they not die, but that they not faint for lack of food. He cared about more than their souls, but their physical needs. 

Fortunately missionaries in Japan don’t believe in this western, comfortably concocted, “spiritual” Jesus, but instead believe and follow the Jesus of the bible. Let’s never forget that Jesus cares about people not fainting as well as people not spending eternity with Him.

Unknown's avatar

Are there truly bad fans?

by
I have certain teams at the college and pro-level which I ALWAYS root against. The reason is in large part because their fans are, what I deem, obnoxious. My wife has always challenged my reasoning and questioned even the hope of objectivity in this matter. Is she right? Is there real objectivity in determining which fans are truly more obnoxious, or worse: which ones are most evil? Do some fans simply seem more obnoxious or belligerent, or are they essentially more obnoxious and belligerent?
Well GQ magazine, the bastion of objectivity, believes that some fans collectively are actually worse than others. Philly Eagle fan came in at #1 with Phillies fan at a close #2. My West VA readership might be interested to know their beloved Mountaineer Nation came in at #3. You can read why they get such a rating here.

If you read some of the other one’s I will warn you that it is GQ reporting WHY they gave such ratings, so there may be some offensive material (largely because they are repeating what they’ve heard). But most of the stereotypes are pretty clever, funny, and spot on.

All in all, there may be more objectivity to whether a team really has “bad” fans than one would at first think. I would have ranked Red Sox fan a little higher (he came in at #6, though I realize I’m a somewhat biased Ray’s fan), but in the end I still think they did a good job. 
If you think GQ missed the boat, comment with some of what you think are the worst fans.
Unknown's avatar

Peterson and the "modern" slave trade

by
 Some times football players say stupid things. Not that I don’t-my stupid words could fill a book. Its just that my “book” isn’t nearly as public or as heavily trafficked. Here are some words that might go beyond stupid: Minnesota running back Adrian Peterson compares the NFL to modern day slavery. Check it out below or read the whole thing here.

“It’s modern-day slavery, you know?” Peterson said. “People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money . . . the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money.”
Really. I know that the owners are really greedy. I know the players are as well. But slavery? Hmmm…..International Justice Mission, international sex slave trade, Islamic fundamentalism, cults which enslave little girls, and the NFL? Not sure that last one fits.
Of course Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall agrees and tweets:

@AdrianPeterson is correct in his anology of this game. It is a lot deeper than most people understand.  Anyone with knowledge of the slave trade and the NFL could say that these two parallel eachother.”

 
Finally the voice of reason comes with injured Green Bay’s Ryan Grant, realizing the ludicrosity of such comments.
“I have to totally disagree with Adrian Peterson’s comparison to this situation being Modern day slavery. . . false,” Packers running back Ryan Grant wrote on Twitter.  “Their is unfortunately actually still slavery existing in our world.. Literal modern day slavery.. That was a very misinformed statement.  I understand what point he was trying to make.. I just feel like he should have been advised a little differently.”
The very interesting thing to me is that Adrian Peterson is actually going to Africa where slavery and much worse things still exist. “Modern day” slavery of the NFL might not look as civilized as NFL slavery.
He and some other former Oklahoma Sooners like Bucs DT Gerald McCoy are going to Uganda and Rwanda this summer. I doubt real slavery impacted, genocidally depleted families and rape victims will feel too sorry for their “slavery.” I just hope the Rwandans don’t follow Peterson on Twitter.