Last night while watching the Colts dismantle the Jaguars, Amy and I heard a sustained honking/”car-alarmish” sound. As I turned the corner around the back of my house, I first felt a little fear: I’ve seen too many movies where if the person just didn’t round the corner out of curiosity, he would haven not been killed.

But I had to take my chances, after all, this was real life. I noticed some lighting reflected on the side of my neighbor’s house. So I expected something bright. Well I got it.

There was the large, jacked up, pimped out, technicolored dream Oldsmo-Buick with tall flames spewing forth. Because the car was so high, the trees almost caught the blaze. Eventually fire trucks came out and doused the flames.

Apparently yesterday, very early in the morning, someone was shot inside that house. The victim described it as a home invasion, but the cops questioned the veracity of this account. Regardless, the car fire all but proves that something else was going on. But we’ll leave that to the authorities, and I’ll try not to connect the dots.

This ought to shed some light into the differences of men/women, or perhaps just Amy and myself. I was concerned primarily about property values: what would this do to an already unsellable neighborhood?

Amy was concerned about safety: is the area safe? Are we more likely to get hurt in this neighborhood? We talked about it for a little bit and concluded with this.

Car fires actually do happen in all kinds of neighborhoods (my parents’ a few weeks ago/my friend’s a year ago), as do break-ins and home invasions. On the 48 Hour Mystery specials, all the murders take place in upper class neighborhoods.

In the end, we can’t protect ourselves sufficiently to prevent any worry or ‘concern.’ But God can protect us sufficiently, wherever we are. We believe, or at least try our hardest to believe in a Sovereign God who doesn’t succumb to circumstances, statistics, or trends.

“Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.” Psalm 115:3

He will protect us in the end and bring us safely into His heavenly Kingdom no matter what (II Tim 4:18). I’m just glad Amy and I can see He is “our God (meaning He is in covenant relationship with us).” That should provide sufficient security, and help out my concerns about property values!

If you’d like to read the Bradenton Herald Article about this event, click here!

While reading Mark Driscoll’s book The Radical Reformission: I came across one of the better explanations/illustrations of why we have 4 different (but true and reliable) gospel accounts.

First of all (not in the book), regardless of how similar or different the gospel accounts look, there will ALWAYS be a problem for skeptics. The fact that the synoptic gospels are so similar is actually known as the “synoptic problem.” How did they get so similar? Well obviously they just copied each other-such is the argument. So for them to be even more similar would could actually make them less believable!

But of course there are some differences, and these differences are often used by some to discount their reliability (perhaps even the same people). However, the differences actually prove that there were numbers of different eye witness accounts; not just one who was the main ‘lead.’

Driscoll provides a solid illustration here. Imagine the different gospel writers to be 4 different news sources. CBS, NBC, ABC news affiliates correspond to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But then you have different news sources with more unique perspectives, think of CNN or Fox News. This would represent John’s gospel.

News always comes from a biased perspective (regardless of what Fox News thinks), and so the writers presented their accounts, including, and excluding certain details (based upon their Holy Spirit inspired purposes)-you can’t record everything. That which is included is intentional; the same goes for that which is excluded.

So we need not be worried about the gospels being too similar or too different. They are just as God intended them to be. Arguments one way or another ought not to dissuade us. Only by God granting faith can they be accepted as true and reliable; but it is also good to be able to express the evidences when evidences do exist-both to ourselves and others.

While I was out fishing today with a friend from church, I had a run in with some large sea animals. I was paddling in from deeper water while trolling a jig behind me. All of a sudden a large swirl/splash/gush of water suddenly erupts less than a foot from the left side of my kayak. Then an explosion on my right, then left….

My heart beat like a hunted rabbit. The explosions continued for about 5 seconds as I yelled out in sheer terror. The kayak rocked back and forth; it was as though I were being depth charged.

After everything calmed down, I signaled to my friend that I was OK. But about 15 minutes later, it happened again. One explosion, then another, and another. I had escaped the onslaught once again.

The second time was not nearly as frightening because I knew what was happening. I paddled directly in front of a pod of large manatees, just before the 2nd set of explosions. So I just held on for dear life, hoping they wouldn’t tip my kayak over (they’ve been known to do it.)

But it was far less scary, now that I knew it wasn’t a bunch of sharks or over-friendly porpoises. That did make a difference. Knowing exactly what I was facing changed everything. The next time I face those explosions, my heart shall be better prepared.

Unknown things scare me more than anything. But I guess I have to take comfort in realizing that while they are unknown to me, they are not unknown to God.

I probably should have said something positive before I gave my critique of Pastor Joel. So really this should be Part I, but as it is it’s, Part III. Just think of the Star Wars movies, and how the more recent one’s are technically, Star Wars I-III. So its the same type of thing; they just made a lot more money, and had a slightly larger following. Anyhow, I did find some things commendable with Joel Osteen and his CBS interview. Here they are.

1.) On his broadcasts, he doesn’t regularly ask for money from the viewers. He admitted that broadcasts obviously cost money, but still has not become one of those TV preachers/speakers/evangelists/whatever-you-call-them who is always saying, “Now go to the phones. Just make that payment, or buy this prayer blanket, and ‘sow that seed,’ and all kinds of good stuff will happen to you.” You don’t get that with Pastor Joel, at least that I could tell. I didn’t get the feeling he is a charlatan. What you see is what you get.

2.) When asked about some of the lives he’s affected, he began weeping, overwhelmed that God would use him to help people. And it would seem there is a genuine desire to help people, not simply benefit from them.

3.) Finally, he did admit that suffering was part of life, and God helps you amidst the suffering. Though prosperity (healthy, wealthy, and wise) is thrust to the forefront, he did at least mention suffering, and said, “We do talk about that as well.”

4.) At the conclusion of his normal broadcast (at least the one’s I’ve seen) he does instruct people to find a church near them. A lot of people listen to Pastor Joel, so hopefully they listen to him and find a bible believing church with which to connect.

Finding something commendable can be hard sometimes, but I do believe it is necessary. Paul did this both with non Christians (Acts 17) and with Christians. Look at what Paul writes to the church at Corinth (I Cor 1:4-5) which was divisive, often drunk, adulterous, and arrogant

I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge–

Destructing is easy (and important as well-I Cor 10:5), but constructing and building up can be much harder. And it is just as biblical.

Would James (the writer of the book in the bible of the same name/Jesus’ brother) and Joel Osteen be, like, best friends, even BFF? I mean after all, neither really use the name of Jesus much if any (the name Jesus isn’t even found in the book of James at all). Joel uses it some.

They are are both extremely practical. Joel tries to get people to be better fathers, husbands, etc..(which is a good thing) and James tells people to act like fathers and husbands to those who have neither (1:27).

For both, faith is to be practically displayed in life. If you have faith, then you need to display it. If you have wisdom, show it by your good deeds (3:13).

But I do find several major distinctions. James reminds us that we aren’t guaranteed tomorrow (4:13). Those rich who oppress the poor will be judged (5:1-ff), and the material possessions do not last, in fact they are already fading (5:3). So James seems to not be in favor of the prosperity/ health and wealth gospel.

Next, while James never mentions Jesus by name, he certainly mentions Jesus’ words and person throughout his letter (borrowing from the Sermon on the Mount, as well as mentioning The Lord’s Return). So Jesus is still the basis and motivation for the practical expression of faith.

Christianity is distinct from other religions. The practical ‘doing’ and expression of one’s faith is based upon what Christ has already done for you. The motivation to be better fathers and husbands is based upon the work Christ has done on your behalf. And when Christ starts that work, he continues to perfect it in you (our practical expression and deeds) until He’s done.

But, if you leave this part out, you just have someone telling you to do the right thing, and then you can get favor with God and good stuff. Really cool stuff. But that is not Christianity.
One might wonder how acquainted Joel is with James. I think they should hang out some time, and get to know each other.

I love the DVR feature. I love to use it to record things on CBS, mostly the shows with some sort of time measurement like 48 hours Mystery, or 60 minutes.

Amy and I watched a segment of 60 minutes a few days ago that dealt with the popularity of mega preacher (I guess that’s what you call a preacher of a mega church) Joel Osteen. After all, he’s filling out basketball arenas and has a viewing audience of over 7 million.

Why is he so popular? Part of it deals with the fact that he really doesn’t deal with sin. Osteen said something to the effect of, “People already know how bad they are, I don’t need to beat them down.”

I often need to be reminded that I am that bad, that I desperately need the gospel. That makes me love Jesus a ton more, and live a lot more humbly than if I thought I were good. Believe me. Am I the only one that needs to hear the bad news, so that I can make sense and rejoice over the good news?

Another telling sign was when the reporter asked about his self help book, “There really is no mention of God or Jesus Christ in here. It could just be Dr. Phil or Oprah.”

The response was, “Well much of what they say is found in scripture.” Sure Oprah does great work in needy areas in Africa (good stuff too), but her be-true-to-yourself ethos is entirely anti-scriptural. Just watch her show. Amy fills me in.

There was another little clip where Osteen was signing books. A man comes up and says, “I’m a Jew, and my wife is a Roman Catholic, and we love listening to you.” That might make me a little concerned that Jesus, a huge stumbling block, might not be getting the ‘pub’ in your messages.

1 Corinthians 1:23 “….but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.”

I (as a preacher about 8-10 times a year) would be a little concerned if a Jew said that he loved my preaching and messages. It would certainly make me question whether I was actually preaching Christ and Him crucified or simply telling people to be good. Every religion tells people to be good. Christianity says you’ll never be good enough, Jesus has to be good in your place. And that offends. For some the message is sweet; for others the message stinks like a paper mill.

If you want to watch the special, click here

I’m glad that people are smarter than I am. When talking to a friend today, and explaining that I don’t like the fact that non-gmail people can’t comment on my blog, he mentioned that there could be a setting I simply needed to adjust (as opposed to getting a whole new site). I don’t know why I never thought of that. Well, I kind of do. I don’t think of those type things-things related to technology. Anyhow, you can now post comments, because I adjusted that setting. I trust you’ll do a good job. Just click on ‘comments.’ Thanks for your time. Peace.

I just met with a fellow PCA pastor for lunch today at Applebee’s. Aside from getting off at the wrong exit, everything went quite well. I was reminded once again today why faith is not supposed to be a private thing.

We were able to share our own weaknesses, confess our own sins, and speak of our own ecclesiastical frustrations. I left feeling refreshed. A brother whom I look up to greatly is a fellow struggler. How freeing.

Without relationships like these, life can become much harder than it needs to be. If you don’t have any relationships where you talk about your faith, life, struggles, joys (below the surface, meaning more than football-which we did talk about, albeit last), I would encourage you to seek them out.

We are meant to walk through life with these kinds of relationships. Any sort of deep relationship, whether you want to call it mentoring, accountability, or close friend is absolutely priceless. And for some reason priceless means good. I never really figured that out.

They do exist in the church today, but they need to be sought out. Please don’t be afraid to seek them out. You’ll not regret it.

For those unable to get the Bradenton Herald, here is my every-other-month article. It deals with the American fallacy of a private faith. Oprah might not like it very much. Feel free to forward it to her if you have her email. Click here to read it. For the first time, they actually used my title. They got wise.

Last night I had a meeting planned which was very well unattended. I actually had to conduct an interview with a third person listening on speaker phone so that we could have a quorum. That was kind of cool in some way though. O technology.

Some responded and told me of their inability to make it. May their children rise up and call them ‘blessed.’ One, due to some cyber-black hole (that’s the only thing I can think of) didn’t even get three emails I sent, which were confirmed to be ‘sent.’ But several others just didn’t respond at all.

I’ve been thinking about something lately, and I don’t have anyone in mind personally (please believe me-I’m not mad at you; if I were I would tell you in person, not via email or blog!), so please don’t take offense. Thanks for your belief. I trust you believe me, so don’t let me down.

Here’s my scenario. Let’s just suppose Jesus began his ministry in our day and age, a day of technology with cell phones and emails. 2000 years ago Jesus might have been one of the busiest people on the planet, with people constantly vying for his time (some with good intentions and some with bad). I truly believe he would still have found a way to get some solitude in prayer, which can easily be done by waking up early-and that he did. Really kind of a no-brainer.

But what about emails and phone calls? Would Jesus have returned emails (since his inbox would have probably been full)? Would he have returned them promptly? Would he have returned phone calls? Perhaps he would have returned them by order of importance-how they coincided with his mission? He was a man on a mission. The gospel of John describes him quite often as being ‘sent’.

I do know that when he was on the way to Jerusalem to be tried and killed (ultimate plan), he still made time for people even when the disciples ignored those calling out in the streets to be healed. His mission included people, even ‘little people’ (but I’m not referring to, but neither am I precluding those short on stature). The disciples thought they were totally on board with His mission, but we see them missing the picture some times.

So I can see the disciples not returning phone calls or emails, but would the Lord Jesus take the time to call people back promptly? Certainly there are different levels of urgency in phone calls and emails, but I think Jesus would probably have been pretty good at it since he loved people so much. And we are to put interests of others before ourselves (Phil 2:4) based upon the pattern of Christ.

Just my thoughts, but of course I think they’re right! But I know I could be wrong. Nevertheless, I think putting others’ interests ahead of our own probably means we need to respond more rather than respond less to emails and phone calls. As I’m writing this I feel convicted to respond to someone who sent me a message a while ago-a message I don’t want to respond to! But alas, I shall now.