Author Archives: geoffsnook77

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.
Unknown's avatar

Bell Interview and Salvific Stinginess

by
There has been much buzz about Rob Bell’s book Love Wins, which apparently, according to a number of reviewers, depicts some sort of universal salvation. Many people have already written about it, so many that I don’t know if I’ll even purchase the book (which I had originally planned on doing out of curiosity and making an informed decision myself). 
This interview below is worth the price of admission for sure. Martin Bashir continues to allege that Bell is simply trying to present a picture of the gospel that won’t offend people. Bashir finds that offensive, and reasons that it doesn’t matter what you do with Jesus in this life. I doubt that Bashir himself believes the gospel, but even he can smell a ‘sell job’ from a mile away. He continues to try to get a squeamish Rob Bell to admit he’s just trying to placate people, and deal with some evangelicalism induced, repressed childhood memories. Priceless.
Yet there’s still another response from the Rob Bell responders that surprised me in both positive and negative ways.
Richard Muow, president of Fuller Seminary, speaks positively about the book. He is not a universalist and claims Bell isn’t either. Other folks seem to have a different take. Maybe I’ll have to read it after all……
But on the very positive side, Muow cautioned Christians away from not simply picturing Hell too empty but also from picturing it fuller than it may be. This line is beautiful.
Why don’t folks who criticize Rob Bell for wanting to let too many people in also go after people like that who want to keep too many people out? Why are we rougher on salvific generosity than on salvific stinginess?
 
Theologically conservative folks might need to be careful about “salvific stinginess.” Or in other words, slicing the pie of who’s in and who’s not, too thin. Jesus says that only he can save, and Paul gives a list of folks, like greedy or swindlers, who won’t inherit the Kingdom of Heaven without repentance (I Cor 6:10). But people don’t have “saved” tags on them. Revelation reminds us that the one who “conquers” (Rev 2:7) or remains faithful to the end will taste the fruit of a new Heaven and Earth.

The best we can do is make educated guesses based upon Christ and the fruit of His Spirit. It’s probably best to speak in terms of levels of confidence instead of being dogmatic when dealing with people who claim Christ, demonstrate some fruit, and persevere until the end.

Unknown's avatar

Jeffersonian and Geoffersonian thoughts

by
I remember one summer eating at Panera with an early morning men’s bible study. It was part of a brief three week internship when I lived in Richmond waiting to get married (Jacob had to live 14 years near in-laws; I just had three weeks-so that wasn’t too bad). One guy talked about how he was learning of Thomas Jefferson’s faith and then referred to him as a “Christian.”
I can’t remember the discussion that ensued other than some follow up questions to such a ridiculous claim. In case you’re not aware, Thomas Jefferson literally cut out the parts of the bible which didn’t run counter to his own deistic theology (he left the miracles, among other things-God was the divine clockmaker and played a hand’s off role) and rationalism. He was not a Christian by any respectable definition I’ve heard. 
Check out this article where folks are trying to restore the Jefferson bible called the “Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazereth.” The exhibit includes this book of excerpted pages, as well as the bibles from which he cut them out. Sad, but very interesting.
Well at least he was consistent and thorough with his rational “faith” commitment. Jefferson’s beliefs would be fairly easy to address because you could simply go to his personal bible and see what was or wasn’t there. That would be one easy way. Gosh that would be intimidating because he was a smart dude.
I don’t know how cutting out pieces of the bible would have been received in his time. But today that probably wouldn’t fly so much in the church or even in alternative faith communities. 
Since our bibles are usually all in one piece with verses in tact, is there another way to discern whether or not we or others actually believe the content (commands, promises, doctrine, truth, overall story) on those pages? Yep, our lives, our behavior. When I look at my life, or any life for that matter, it will tell me exactly what I believe. How I spend my money, how I treat my kids, what I say driving down the street, are all affected by what I believe or don’t believe.
The amount that my life changes is the amount that I truly believe the gospel. If I’m declared righteous in God’s sight-even though righteousness in this earthly community depends upon behavior/performance and my kids’ behavior/performance-and my needs will be taken care of, and so will my real enemies, I will be generous with my money, love my kids more (but not need them), and pray for my enemies. 
Is that what my life always looks like? Hmmm…..

Just because we don’t cut stuff out doesn’t mean that we’re SO different than Mr. Jefferson. Admitting that we don’t believe as much as we say we believe is really the key to changing our behaviors.

Unknown's avatar

Tsunami thoughts: A God who grieves

by
I just watched some crazy video last night of the Tsunami’s devastation in Japan as cars were moved to and fro like driftwood. The power of water, something which seems so, well, not hard (I know that sounds very scientific) never fails to bedazzle me. How destructive it can be. And then I’m also amazed at some of the survival stories, such as this one, where a man is seen sitting on a piece of roof, having floated 9-10 miles out to sea before being rescued. Unfortunately his wife didn’t make it.
There is time for theodicy (defending the existence of God amidst such evil), but obviously not now. The time is to mourn and pray and trust that the waters of the ocean will have washed away any spiritual apathy toward the gospel in Japan and everywhere.
Yet I have found one very helpful theological truth when wading through the mess of such natural disasters and “man-made” disasters like 911. While I hold firmly to the fact that God ordains all that comes to pass, that doesn’t mean that He sits unmoved by all things. For instance, at one point He was “grieved” that He had made man, and Saul king (Gen 6:6; I Sam 15:11). 
It doesn’t mean that he regretted it. I think it shows that God can ordain things which grieve Him. Scripture doesn’t say that God grieved while Jesus was on the cross, but does it really need to? God clearly ordained that Jesus bear the cross for our sins, but do you think His experience was the same as when Jesus was baptized and He said, “This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased? (Matt 3:17)”
In addition, our own experience reminds us that we too can “ordain” things which grieve us. For instance, the way a Father chooses to discipline His son. That grieves me, but I still planned for it happen and didn’t regret it.
We cannot fully comprehend the extent of God’s emotional frame as He exists both in and outside time as we know it. We can only know such emotions/thoughts are perfect, the way Jesus’ were perfect: he was righteously angry, and righteously joyful. 
In the end, we don’t have a weak God, but a powerful one who still grieves with the broken.

We have a God who can grieve, even in the midst of what He has ordained. And that’s unique. And that’s helpful too.

Unknown's avatar

From the Fan’s perspective

by

Just a day ago, the NFL talks between owners and union officially came to an impasse. The owners are going with a lockout and the union has de-certified. Much of the bickering back and forth has been extremely confusing for anyone without a law degree, at least on one level. On another level it is as simple as “each side wants more money.” Of course there are different nuances like protection for players, an 18 game season, shorter off-season routines, and the like. But in the end its hard to deny that money doesn’t have the most to do with it (love’s sure got nothing to do with it).

And so for the average fan like myself, I see two angry factions fighting over some things I just don’t get: the issues, the terms, and of course the ludicrous amount of money. Both sides look like a bunch of yahoos.

I wonder if that’s what non-believers think when they see opposing parties in the Church blasting each other over spiritual issues they just don’t get. I’m not saying that some issues aren’t worth fighting over like breaches of orthodox doctrine. And I know that the natural mind isn’t going to “get” why some truths are so important because those truths are only “spiritually discerned (I Cor 2:14).”

There will inevitably be some confusion or condescension from unbelievers amidst fierce church debate. Yet I wonder if unbelievers often see our back-and-forth as not much different than owners and players squabbling over issues and money which they just can’t understand.

Perhaps we will have more sympathy for the unbeliever if we can see our public debates from the “fans” perspective. Maybe it will make us be more gracious to one another?