I was listening to my sermon introduction from Sunday yesterday and something stood out. I would like to clarify something, particularly in light of my “Holy Spirit Trump Card” post. I truly did feel led by the Spirit to preach on the specific parable of the unmerciful servant. Allow me to explain myself.

Since I’m not going verse by verse through a particular book in the bible like I normally do, I’ve been preaching through the parables. So I’ve limited myself to choosing from those parables. Since I’m not going to re-preach the same parable, and there are several similar parables, that leaves a select number to choose from. Within that pool, I looked at a few parables but kept finding myself strangely drawn to the parable of the unmerciful servant. So I said that I “felt led” by the Spirit to preach that passage. I believe that God was leading me to preach that passage. I didn’t just open up the bible, close my eyes, and see where my finger landed.

The reason I feel the need to explain myself is because “feeling led” is WAY different than saying, “God told me to say this to you, and you cannot question it!” I’m not a prophet, and I don’t think you’re one either. However if you say, “I feel led,” then we can talk. Maybe you’re right, maybe not; that’s why we have community. Maybe the Spirit didn’t lead me to this passage specifically. But I certainly didn’t want to preach on this difficult passage and pleaded with God for wisdom, and that he would not allow any personal hidden agenda to get in the way. And since he plainly states in James 1 that he gives wisdom generously to those who ask, I’ll believe He led me to this passage. Of course with the full awareness that I can be mistaken. Yet its no different than all of us being led each day to figure out when to speak, when to shut up, when to share the actual content of gospel, when to just listen, when to hug, when to speak boldly, etc…

Regardless, God’s word is useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness. So if I were wrong, certainly there would be no harm, no foul.

Someone really liked my unconventional methods for interrogation/torture for terrorists. Just read the “Slightly cruel but certainly unusual post.” Only for terrorists mind you, not for Yankees or Red Sox fans-though that is tempting. And he suggested I run for president; I assumed of the U.S., since I’m a citizen here. Have been since birth.

Well, apparently word has spread quickly and now it looks like it might not be a simple McCain vs. Obama race. Now it’s a three-way race with “Henderson” smack dab in the middle of it. A news channel 3 out of New York has already run a special report. Click on the picture below to check it out. I’ve got work to do for sure.

One thing that people remember most easily from a sermon is an illustration. So if a preacher can give a good illustration, he can be more confident that the truth will be more ‘accessible’ to the hearer throughout the week. Obviously the HS is the one who will convict and apply, but the pastor is called to be a ‘workman’ and has the responsibility to illustrate and apply the truth-not simply explain what the passage means (that’s the first part).

One preacher who uses them as well as anyone to communicate deep biblical truth is Jean Larroux, pastor of Lagniappe Pres. His stories connect you to him, and then he points you to really deep and challenging truths. A good illustration connects the hearer with the preacher. From there he can more effectively lead him/her to drink more deeply from Christ. And since Jesus, the prophets, and Paul all made use of illustration (for teaching, correcting, rebuking, training in righteousness), Jean is in good company.

And you know you’re a gifted preacher when folks can do fine with only the audio. A lot of communication is non-verbal, but I don’t feel like I’m missing that much by not being present. And since Jean didn’t preach when we visited Lagniappe on our mission trip last year, I don’t know what I’m missing (since I’ve never had a visual).

Amy and I have really been ‘enjoying’ (being challenged as well as encouraged) his sermon series on The Lord’s Prayer. I-pods are great. He’s called this payer the hardest prayer you’ll ever pray. And so far he’s “backed it up” from the passage. This one is on “Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven” but you can also click here to find more with their podcast. I often use these sermons for my devotional time on Mondays.

As a Bucs fan, its nice to see Brett Favre not go back to Green Bay. As a football fan, it would be sad to see him leave. In case you haven’t heard (and that would mean that you don’t care-in which case this little parenthetical and entire sentence would be mute so I’ll stop typing), Favre retired back in March, but now is saying that he was ‘pressured’ for a decision to retire. I guess by pressure, Favre meant that they wouldn’t let him wait until training camp to give them a decision! Of course the Packers say something entirely different. Is one side lying? Did one or both parties misunderstand each other? Happens a lot, but I really don’t care about it in this case.

Favre is free to un-retire. That’s his prerogative. And because of all that he’s done for the Packers, they probably ought to release him. But the question of why he is choosing to un-retire is the subject of my thoughts this lovely morning.

I’m no mind or heart reader, so I’ll not accuse the lad of anything specific, but rather try to speak in ‘generals.’ I don’t want him talking to Gretta van Susteren-yes he went on her show yesterday-about me.

For anyone who is an athlete, at least a football player, the training is year round. And for someone who is 38 years old, Favre has probably played football for 30 years. Probably close to 16 at the professional level. When you do something that people praise you for, for that long, you will become tempted to be defined by it. It’s WHO you are. It’s WHO you have been. When you quit, you’re not a football player anymore. I think that’s why its so hard for some folks to quit. So they often play for a different team at the end of their careers and end up not doing anyone any favors.

But its really kind of sad. Not so much for their legacy, but (again I’m just saying this could be the case for some; after all its the tendency of the human heart) because folks are easily enslaved to this definition. It’s their identity. How can I be someone else? Someone who is not a football player?

Now some folks can become coaches, but they will NEVER be able to define themselves anymore by the title of “Football player.” And so the search is on for a new definition, a new identity.

It happens with all of us. The mother who has finished raising her kids (and has done well), the man approaching retirement, the athlete forced to retire early due to injury. Few identities will stand the test of time (such as athlete, mother, employee, pastor, etc…) and all fall short as idols. Our only secure identity is that of child of God. We can’t be taken out of His hands, so that’s a pretty safe one to stick with.

Some folks have problems with torture being used to get important info out of terrorists. I haven’t given it a ton of thought, so I won’t really take a stab at defending a particular side.

When we think of cruel and unusual punishment, does that then give our government the right to use punishment if something is unusual but not cruel? Can something be unusual but not cruel? And would we be open to trying something that is slightly cruel but certainly unusual? Here’s what I’m thinking.

I don’t know how successful our present torture tactics are-not to mention I’m sure they’re cruel, and perhaps unusual. But I have another idea that might be cruel enough-but not too cruel-and perhaps effective.

What if terrorists were forced to watch really bad movies? What if they were forced to watch Mama Mia, the musical based on Abba’s hits? I can’t think of any more painful way to spend 2 hours. Or what about Kevin Costner’s Waterworld, Shaq’s Kazaam (yes, the same Shaq)? Or Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez’s smash hit Gigli? Or From Justin to Kelly? Or Paris Hilton’s The Hottie and the Nottie?

Perhaps both parties could rally around this approach. But of course then there might be disagreement on which movies to show. But I bet watching hours of terrible movies like the aforementioned could really shake some security secrets loose. If I’ve missed any movies that are bad enough to be helpful, please comment.

There have been a lot of things associated with our economy lately: lower home values, higher gas prices, and lower divorce rates. Could a bad economy actually help marriages? The latter initially surprised me and the subject of a brief spot on The Today Show: divorce rates in certain places were in fact down. In Dade County they were down something like 19%. Is the love in the air? Have people begun to take wedding vows more seriously? Not really, but maybe inadvertently.

The most likely explanation is the housing market. Since a divorce would require the selling of assets, and the house is the most valuable asset, and since that value has drastically decreased, people are holding off on divorce.

Perhaps many of these marriages will continue on miserably until the economy picks up. And then they can cash in. But one psychologist did admit that the slow housing market might be helping marriages in some cases. Some folks are actually seeking counseling to save their marriages. Instead of trying get out quickly, many are now not responding so hastily. They may be willing to put more worth into their marriages since their other main source of worth isn’t worth as much. Some may end up salvaging their marriages. Who knows?

While their motivation for giving marriages another chance has sprung largely from monetary reasons, that’s still a start. God in His providence may work things into our world, even into our economy, for the good of His children, and even for the good of those outside His Church. After all, he does display goodness, although in different degrees, to both. Remember that the rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous. So does the economy.

Someone the other day told me, “The Holy Spirit told me to say this.” Not an exact quote but close enough. Now it is clear that no one can by the Spirit of Christ say something bad about Christ as well (I Cor 12). So that includes those strange folks that say “Jesus told me to kill that my kids.” Obviously the heard incorrectly.

But what if someone tells me “The Holy Spirit told me such and such,” and that such and such is not contrary to scripture, well then do I have to accept what he/she said as from Mt. Sinai?

I don’t think so. Many people like to play the H.S. card and assume it with such authority as “thus saith the Lord!” I have actually heard that one before as though he had as much authority as Jeremiah or Jesus. I never came back to that meeting again. But how do I know that person really did hear? Better yet, how do they know?

The bible is 100% certainly God’s Word. I know for 100% certainty that lust, adultery, murder, slander is not God’s will or plan for my life. The Holy Spirit confirms that in my daily life. He convicts me of sin. That’s one way in which the Spirit speaks.

However I think a lot of times, people just think or feel something, and that thought or feeling automatically becomes God speaking authoritatively and clearly to them. But I wonder how folks can always be so certain. Could they not have misunderstood? Could it have been indigestion? Could it have simply been something that they just really wanted to do? I think that’s the case more often than not.

I would recommend adopting more of a “feeling led” mentality. I can be mistaken on what I think I feel led to do. You can be correct, and you can be mistaken as well. And that’s OK. We’ve been given the certainty of God’s Word, and the HS to understand and apply it to our lives. And a community to help confirm those applications. So don’t feel bad if you don’t believe the next person that tells you “God told me this or that.” Maybe He did, but maybe He didn’t. The latter is always a possibility.

A woman at my church gave me a Christianity Today article the other day because it had an interview with Tim Keller. And she knows I’m quite a fan. Below is a quote from that article.

“C.S. Lewis said not to believe in Christianity because it’s relevant or exciting or personally satisfying. Believe because its true. And if its true, it eventually will be relevant, exciting, and personally satisfying. To be a Christian is going to be very hard. So unless you come to it simply because it’s really the truth, you really won’t live the Christian life, and you won’t get to the excitement, the relevance, and all that other stuff.”

If we don’t come to Christ because he is truly the Savior of the world, the one who has/is/will bring about restoration of the entire cosmos, but instead to make us feel good, we will not make it through trials. I’m reminded on the parable of the seed and the sower (the seed with shallow roots who received the message with joy but pulled away because of trial). Personal satisfaction and joy can be lost during periods of our Christian walk. Sometimes all we have to fall back on is the truth. I would imagine we’ve all experienced that.

But on the other hand, to see Jesus as only true and not relevant, exciting, and personally satisfying is also a danger (Keller and Lewis are not saying this, mind you, they are just arguing the order). Lately I’ve been reading through the book of John and have seen Jesus revealing himself as the true fulfillment of our desire to worship something. When he approaches the woman at the well in chapter 4, he explains to her that he is “living water” and that “she will never thirst” if he gives her a drink.

It seems pretty clear from John 4 that Jesus is personally satisfying, and that as a result of being satisfied in Him, she will not continue to have a ton of husbands and lovers. For she will be able to worship in Spirit and in Truth.

I think its another one of those BOTH/AND things. Jesus has to be true. And we have to receive him as the truth without waiting for any emotional response. But glorifying Him and enjoying Him forever is the chief end of man (Westminster Shorter Catechism Q#1). Therefore we must call people in the church and outside of not to neglect the normative (truth) or the existential (experiential) components of our rich faith. I’m going to try to present both realities side by side, still understanding that the truth will eventually produce joy and deep satisfaction (if it doesn’t at the time of reception).

I really don’t want to be ‘that guy.’ The guy who lives out his competitive spirit through his kids. No one likes ‘that guy.’ No one wants to be ‘that guy.’ No one expects to be ‘that guy.’ Yet I wonder if I’m not heading toward a nasty collision of becoming ‘that guy.’

I can already see the seeds of ‘that guy’ in my own heart. Let me explain. For most guys, everything is a competition. Everything is a race. Yes, even their child’s growth. While Connar is 30% in head circumference (I’ve given up hope for this one since I have such a small head), he is in the 90% in height and close to it in weight. And that makes me a little too excited. I want him to beat everyone.

I was even glad that Connar weighed a few pounds more than my neighbor’s kid despite being 6 weeks younger. And I continue to hope he can ‘beat’ other older kids. But I’m realizing that the distance between pride over his growth and putting pressure on him to beat other kids in fishing, baseball, or pranks is not so great. Not so great at all.

I’m not that far from becoming ‘that guy.’ It will only be by God’s grace that I don’t become ‘that guy.’ However, I still have the responsibility to actively repent (from my insecurity-its alright to lose) and believe (that Christ has already fully accepted me despite my insufficiency-he’s made me ‘man enough.’) Now I’m off for another late night Connar feeding. Let’s see if I he can make a PR (personal record) and sleep longer than 4 hours….

On Thursday night, our family went to a really nice steak house in Tampa called Bern’s Steak House. Its an expensive and upscale joint. Even the waiters have to work themselves up from the bottom to make it that ‘high.’ And I’m sure they do quite well.

Anyhow, our waiter was from the Philadelphia area, and I asked him if he was a Philly fan. He told me since he’d been down here 20 years, he pulls for the Rays. So we got talking about the great game on Wed night. The comeback. The drama. The excitement.

Another gentlemen from an adjacent table took notice. He chimed in with his thoughts on the game and Rays. Soon we were all coming together in bringing forth our praises of our beloved Rays. Each had a slightly different experience and angle. Yet we were all in unified in our praise.

To me that’s worship. Different folks with different backgrounds coming together with different experiences, and slighlty different reasons for thanksgiving. Yet all come with a unified understanding that God has granted us access to His throne of glory through the blood of Christ. Skipping out on Sunday worship is like enjoying a great baseball team like the Rays, and yet not being able to share with anyone, “Did you see that amazing 6 run seventh inning against the Red Sox?”

BTW-I Just saw this article from the St. Pete times. In case you needed some more reasons to hate the Red Sox, click here for some fodder. It was in the St. Pete Times today.