Tag Archives: Uncategorized

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?

Unknown's avatar

There may be no crying in baseball but basketball is a different story

by
While there may be “no crying in baseball” according to Tom Hanks in A League of Their Own, there certainly is in the NBA. And I’m not talking about the prevalent whining to officials which characterizes the league and its stars. And it’s not just Michael Jordan making Kwame Brown cry in practice. The latest display of tears came from the much hyped Miami Heat locker room the other day. After their 4th loss in a row, and a tough one at that to the Chicago Bulls, the coach reported that there a “couple of guys crying in the locker room.”
Here are a few of my takes on “crying in basketball”
1.) The difference in crying in the NBA and college is not tears, but where you shed them. Crying in the NBA occurs in the locker room or at practice. But the college kids aren’t afraid to shed a few tears during NCAA tournament losses, and sometimes even in victories. When people get older, or more “professional,” they get better at hiding their tears. Unfortunately, this is often the case in our Christian lives. As we get older, we get better at hiding our hurt and need before others, even to the point where younger Christians might get the impression that such folks have “arrived.” Not good. God gives us  proverbial “locker rooms” (family, close friends, small groups, etc…) to cry, but we should never hide our brokenness so much that we give the appearance of having it all together.
2.) I wonder if Coach Eric Spoelstra had the individual criers, or even the team’s best interest in mind when he admitted grown men were crying over a loss. Spoelstra simply tried to let the media know that the players really did care about losing, and weren’t satisfied with the current state of affairs. However, what he did was create a stormy speculation game of “who was crying” and open his team up to further unnecessary disrespect. Revealing your own need and weakness shows that you are secure in Christ, and that he came to die for people like you (I Tim 1:15). There is much beauty in brokenness.  Revealing others brokenness without their approval is a different story. We’re better at that one.
3.) Should a Christian ball player cry after a loss? I don’t know. Tim Tebow did. Sometimes I get too involved into sports, whether watching football or playing church softball, so I’m not approaching this from high ground looking down on others who cry. Perhaps tears are acceptable for athletes in the moment of defeat? After all, their failure or success is seen by millions. But for fans or players, losses in sports can’t be allowed to linger. Jesus enabled Paul to be content whether well fed or hungry; Christ, who can do all things not only calls us to contentment, but empowers our contentment in all situations (Phil 4:12-13). So if crying is acceptable hours after defeat, I don’t think it’s acceptable days after a tough loss. 


Unknown's avatar

I just don’t feel connected to this church…..

by
I’m aware that sometimes churches are incredibly unfriendly. I’ve been to ones like that. Sometimes churches make it hard to “break in,” and feel very clique-ish. I get that too. And I know Redeemer isn’t perfect, in any aspect of our ministry, so we can certainly get better in providing community (though I think we do a pretty good job). Expecting perfection in the church now is a little on the premature side. That comes when Rev 21 happens.
But just as often, if not more so, the issue lies not with the church, but with the tentative way many people “seek” community and connection within a local church. People often passively approach community, expecting the experience of deep fellowship to happen overnight, and for it to simply fall into their lap without a lick of personal initiative. 
Check out this blogpost parodying a couple passively “seeking” community and not finding it. It’s kind of funny, but also very spot on to the American consumer culture in the evangelical church today. Our tendency is to work hard at marriage, raising children, improving job performance, continuing education, but we often expect community to simply come to us. It’s not something we feel like working at. Yet the truth of the matter is, I think it’s impossible to experience real gospel community without regularly seeking it out and applying the gospel when you’re frustrated.
Unknown's avatar

Some praise for BYU?

by
I got tired of Florida fans (especially those within my own family!) ragging me for former FSU Coach Bobby Bowden’s “forgiving” and giving “second chance” to wayward players doing things like, well, breaking the law. Mostly because they were right. In the end, FSU’s standards amounted to either a simple desire to win with the best players, or an enabling spirit which leaves college students unaccountable and only reinforces their behavior. Neither is loving.
But if you’re like me, you also have to wonder what the deal is with BYU dismissing star center Brandon Davies from their team. We don’t know anything, and its really none of our business. Yet most folks aware of the situation are intrigued because the reason for his dismissal comes down to a “violation of the honor code.” An honor code in some colleges like Presbyterian College will include things like “no cheating” or “plagiarism.”And violations often lead to dismissal from the college.
But a Mormon honor code, since it is not informed by THE gospel, but ANOTHER gospel, is naturally going to include violations which differ greatly from biblical standards. Some of them differ from not only the law of Christ and the United States, but that of common sense or “night owls.” Here’s a list of honor code commitments from BYU’s honor code office website. You can find answers to your burning questions like “how do I get a beard exception” at the website as well.
Be honest
Live a chaste and virtuous life
Obey the law and all campus policies
Use clean language
Respect others
Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, and substance abuse
Participate regularly in church services
Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards
Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code 
Now if this lad violated the law or substance abuse, I applaud BYU. That would be a rare display of concern for integrity, even at the cost of winning. BYU has only two losses and could get a number 1 seed in the NCAA tournament. This dismissal could end up costing them a national championship.
But of course, if he were dismissed because of a cuss word or a trip to Starbucks, then, wow. I have a hard time imagining that was the case but I don’t want to slander the school or the lad. Yet in some strange way, I think I would applaud such punishment for “minor” violations. At least they are consistent. 

When a group of folks add anything to the gospel, whether it be the Book of Mormon, political affiliation, or even an unhealthy family dynamic (the unwritten rules that have to be embraced to be accepted), it will inevitably lead to rules taught by men and a concomitant slavery to them. That much will consistently be true in every situation where the gospel is subverted.

Sad for the lad, but maybe their rejection will lead to God’s approval for him in Christ, who offers us not only a new record but a new freedom.

Unknown's avatar

Hell’s Bells and and the Curse of the Irish: ammended

by
Redeemer has been going through Revelation and is actually now, finally sniffing the very end of the story of redemption. Our most recent passage and its sermon focus on the victory of Jesus in triumphal judgment, punishing the wicked by subjecting them all to a fiery place of torment. The Beast of the Sea (earthly governments) and The Beast of the Earth (false religions) may seem to triumph now, but the opposite will some day be their fate. Still today, it does seem the Beast of the Earth is plenty active here in America.
It’s certainly an apropos sermon in light of a new book out by a controversial, but very popular pastor Rob Bell on Hell called Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the fate of everyone who ever lived, where he allegedly questions whether Hell will have any folks in it. Apparently God’s love is too great; this was the same thing my bible teacher tried to make us believe at Jesuit High School. By God’s grace it didn’t seem consistent with God then, and it still doesn’t now.
Not that everything Bell has written is to be tossed, but we ought to be aware of some new stuff that appears to give folks a picture of Hell they’ve always wanted. Don’t worry about it!

I’ll check out his book in time, so for now, I’ll just point to the spirit of a “judgmentless” Christ which folks really like fine quite unoffensive.

However, John Dominic Crossan’s theology seems to me a super clear picture of someone in line with the Beast of the Earth. While Bell questions some important doctrine, the Irishmen Crossan goes a lot farther, denying the resurrection, and even the need for forgiveness. Check out this article to see someone who has one foot in academia but who tries to bring his message to the masses. CNN does a great job in being “fair and balanced” by not elevating Crossan as a hero or martyr, but also including another point of view from conservative New Testament scholar Ben Witherington.
Here a few snippets from that article and my takes:
“If you believe in a God that uses violence to “save” humanity, you’ll start believing that violence is permissible in certain circumstances, such as suicide bombing or invading other countries to spread democracy, Crossan says.”
The message of the cross and Revelation is just the opposite. God will be the one to finally bring justice. He paid for the sins of believers so we don’t need to judge others. And he will make people who don’t trust Jesus pay for their sins in Hell. Therefore we don’t need to revolt, nor do we need to pass laws which put sinners to death. Unfortunately Crossan is right in that Christianity has been used as the motivation to invade and spread democracy. But that has been a misinterpretation and misapplication of the cross.
“When we started out, people thought we were out on the left wing,” he says. “Now, I’m talking in about 30 churches a year. … A lot of this is becoming mainstream.”
Wow. Not good. Looks like Crossan and the Doobie Brothers are truly “taking it to the streets.”
Unknown's avatar

Demons and flu season

by
The other day I found myself watching a special on Hell on the History channel. On most History channel shows, or specials on other channels, they almost always draw from the same pool. Elaine Pagels, known for her expertise on the gnostic gospels, usually swims in such pools. With the exception of the deeply southern, southern Baptist 4th generation preacher, the other “scholars” (some looked a bit too young to be too scholarly) most seemed to adopt Pagel’s condescending attitude that the bible is simply an ancient text which tries to explain everything away by demonology. 
Of course, if you can look at the bible intellectually as an ancient irrelevant text, it makes it a ton easier to ignore the personal claims Christ makes on all mankind. 
But there is a problem with Elaine’s accusation; it’s just don’t find it accurate. Demons gave people some “fits,” in the N.T., but the gospel writers don’t blame everything on demons.
Matthew’s worldview included the presence and oppressive activity of demons, but certainly did not connect evil “evil” with demonic influence. Chapter 8 gives us a rather balanced picture of demons and just good old fashioned sickness. The Roman centurion is in need of Jesus to heal his daughter. So Jesus says OK, and simply states “be healed.” There were no demons to get rid of. Then in the next verse (8:14), Jesus visits Peter’s mother-in-law who had a fever. Not a demon induced fever, but simply a fever. He touches her and she’s good to go. No demonic activity recorded in either case.
Then the demons come out.
“Matthew 8:16 That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick.”
Yes, Jesus did toss out many a demon who oppressed folks. But he also healed those who were sick, and it seems like there’s a distinction made here.
I think the gospel writers have a clearer picture of demons than we do. They didn’t blame their flu season solely on demons and we shouldn’t either. But they also didn’t ignore the fact that there is still a spiritual battle going on, which we often forget. Perhaps the fierceness of the battle or oppression is depends upon geography and gospel breakthrough, but it is nevertheless real (and at times can get physical as it did with Job). 
Just a good reminder that both extremes seem to miss the properly balanced biblical worldview.
Unknown's avatar

Stuff your sorry’s in a sack?

by
Many moons ago, during Seinfeld’s infamous chronologically backwards episode, George blurted out the expression, “You can stick your sorry’s in a sack.” It wasn’t an expression then, at which time he was chided, and it never really caught on. But sometimes, “sticking our sorry’s in a sack” is actually more loving than saying “sorry” during those times, albeit rare, when it really isn’t our fault.
Much of church leadership, probably due to a lack of deep belief in the gospel, fails to apologize when necessary. But at times, I’ve found myself, actually apologizing on those rare occasions when its not totally my fault. Why?
Again, let me state that the pastor should be the lead repenter in the church and the guys the lead repenters in their homes. But at other times, when the fault lies very clearly with another, we should stick our sorry’s in a sack.
Here’s a few reasons why its so important.
1.) Truthful and Loving. If it is not truly your fault, and you had no part to play, then the offender needs to have the opportunity to confess. It’s not very loving to him/her if you don’t afford him such opportunity. Few issues are black and white, and often what is necessary is for both parties to confess. But if you confess that it is entirely your fault (when it isn’t), then you are neither being truthful or loving.
2.) Self-Protection. We have all kinds of ways to protect ourselves from getting hurt. All kinds. One way to protect yourself from a harsh reaction when someone else is in the wrong, (or mostly in the wrong), is to take complete blame. This isn’t a problem simply for the co-dependents out there. While this complete apology approach actually disarms the offender, and makes him or her a bit more civil, it is often done simply out of self-protection. You can easily avoid a necessary argument (which often leaves one uncomfortable) or discussion by simply taking all the blame. It seems like a humble posture, but it often is a form of dishonest manipulation to protect oneself from getting hurt in an argument or disagreement.

Don’t stop saying sorry, but simply examine why you do so.

Unknown's avatar

Mission Shift Essay #3 and Geoff Henderson Response

by
This is my final post in the MissionShift series: “takes” on the book of the same name, which comprises 3 main essays, and a plethora of responses.
Ralph Winter, a dear brother in Christ (not to me, but I’m sure to plenty of folks), who is now with the Lord, contributed the third main essay in the book titled “The Future of Evangelical Mission.” Like the other essays, he wisely chronicled the history of missions in the last several centuries in order to offer a critique of how to move forward in the 21st century.
While I did find the terms First Inheritance Evangelicalism and Second Evangelicalism a bit confusing, Winter at the least, reminds us that many folks after 1700 were committed to the proclamation of the gospel as well as numerous social reforms, eradication of diseases, and concern for higher education. Some critique his break-up into such terms as overly simplistic. But because this was ultimately a didactic tool to remind us that evangelicals once truly concerned themselves which such “kingdom issues, I had no problem with this reductionism.
Ultimately, I find Winter wise to aim evangelicals today to concern themselves with what he calls “defeating the works of the devil.” And in the responses from the rest of the responders, what I’m picking up from them is a disagreement on primacy. So is there a primacy to defeating the works of the devil or a primacy to proclamation of the gospel?
Here are a few thoughts:
1.) Location, Location, Location: Most of us write about these issues from nice cushy lifestyles without experiencing the reality of Malaria, AIDS, or other prominent socially debilitating diseases or oppressive structures. As a result, we tend to think, proclamation AND then be concerned about the other stuff, which isn’t as eternally “important.” But were we placed in such living conditions, and had literal concerns for clean water, would we not see both proclamation and social activity as being necessarily concurrent? I think so. Our location tends to affect more than our reading of Revelation (Americans read it mostly in a future sense b/c we don’t see the battle as heated on Earth now as many of our brothers/sisters in other countries), but our missiology as well.
2) Winter’s states his desire that missionaries one day will not have to hide their “real purpose,” but that their “Real purpose will be to identify and destroy all forms of evil, both human and microbiological, and will thus be explainable without religious jargon.” I like this goal, as it includes both proclamation and social transformation taking place at the same time. The extent to which such “works of the devil” will be eradicated before Jesus returns is as debatable as politics, but I think this lofty goal comes from Jesus’ own life. Yet the real and more relevant question regards primacy. Few folks question this goal. But shouldn’t we convert folks, start churches, and then let those churches decide what to do? Or shouldn’t individuals who feel convicted, not simply the church as church (a question that D.A. Carson raises in Christ and Culture: Revisited), decide how they want to attack such issues?
3.) Same time. Again, from the life of Jesus, and the Spirit of Jesus in James 1:27: “looking after widows and orphans in distress” we have plenty of good examples of how to relate to the world in word and deed. James doesn’t want us to simply preach the gospel to those in distress but to take care of those in distress. If that means working toward the eradication of disease, doing relief or development, then we shouldn’t necessarily do one before the other, but the same time.
4.) I don’t totally agree with Winter’s necessary result, or even completely, his purpose of “defeating the works of Satan.” The gospel will be given greater credibility for sure if we can through the works of missionaries, teamed with scientists, end Malaria. But we need to be careful about the assumption of such ends. Jesus says folks will see our “good works” and glorify God. And Jesus fed the 5000 because he wanted to show love. And his miracles, as did those of the apostles done in his name, validated the message. But they did not prove his message and immediately cause conversion.
When Lazarus was raised from the grave, some Jews believed in Him, but others didn’t and instead told the Pharisees, who in turn wanted to kill Jesus. (John 11). It validated the message and messenger; some believed Him while others sought there was enough substance to him and his message that they needed to eliminate him. Again, when Paul told the crippled man to walk, while he “continued to preach the gospel”-I might add-in Lystra, people thought he was Hermes and Barnabas was Zeus (Acts 14). Defeating the works of Satan did not necessarily lead to conversion.
Whether it is what we call a miraculous cure or scientific cure, this Kingdom work will never by itself produce conversions. It never has and never will. But such Kingdom work does validate the messenger and message by revealing a real love for neighbor as well as presenting a God who cares about us even now, not just our eternal state. And it does open the door for conversation, particularly amidst rational, racial, socio-economic barriers (or just plain years of animosity against Christianity) which often preclude serious dialog.

In the end, I do hope that evangelical missions has an eye to concurrent proclamation and deed. Not because it will necessarily produce the most “salvations,” but because it is most biblically faithful to our Savior and Master and Commander, Jesus.

Unknown's avatar

Should Vick have talked with POprah?

by
Micheal Vick was scheduled to be interviewed by Oprah later this month. But this week he decided to cancel that appearance, reportedly being encouraged to do so by his team the Philadelphia Eagles.
Was this cancellation really a good idea for Vick? Perhaps the other guests, which would have been pro-dog and anti-forgiveness for sure, could have made things quite uncomfortable for Mr. Vick. But it all would depend upon which side Oprah took. If she were to say that Vick needed to continue to atone for his sins, or could never atone for his sins, then that would not be good for Michael. However, if she were to say that he served his time and people need to stop “hating on” him, and pronounce him “forgiven,” he would be in the clear.
Oprah has been called the “high priestess of American spirituality.” I would also call her a sort of pope; she has that kind of power. If she declares you absolved from your sins, you’re good to go. If that was not her decision, then Vick did the right thing and should stay away. 
Unfortunately Oprah (although sometimes she uses her power for communal good) has a sort of a functional papal power. So much so that you could even call her “POprah.” I would at least know who you were talking about.
Fortunately there is one who can declare us absolved from sin, regardless of popular or personal opinion. He has the right to do this not by an assent to power, but by his descent from power to the lowly place of the cross (Phil 2:6-8). Then God the Father raised Him up, so that at His name, everyone should bow and confess He is Lord (2:9-11). No need for any sort of pope, functional or actual. Jesus gets the final vote.
Unknown's avatar

Why did the disciples follow Jesus?

by
Most people have no problem with Jesus choosing His disciples. That doesn’t seem to conflict with the desire to remain somewhat autonomous, having God not trample all over their free will. After all, the disciples could have decided not to follow Him, right? 
Well the Calvinist is going to say, no because God truly “called” them (all but one) before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). Yet he would not deny that the disciples also chose to follow Him, as they, and we, aren’t robots. What I would argue for is the primacy and enabling of God’s choosing. God chooses first, regenerates our hearts, and then we gladly and freely choose. This is called “effectual calling” and is explained clearly with the lyrics in the hymn “Love Constraining to Obedience:” now freely chosen in the Son, I now freely choose His ways.
The Arminian is going to say, Jesus chose His disciples (that can’t be argued), but that they still had the freedom to choose; there was no necessary effectual work of the Spirit required. God won’t make anyone love or follow Him.
However, as I’m reading through Matthew, you have to wonder how in the world the disciples actually followed Jesus, especially given how much they really did know about whom they would leave their livelihoods. It is clear, even after the cross, the disciples didn’t really “get it.” That was of course the case until the Spirit had been given to dwell in them to teach them the things they didn’t understand (John 14:26).
But in reading the gospels, you see all kinds of glimpses into the hearts of the disciples which deal with this question: who in the world are we following? Check this one out, which takes place after Jesus calms the ominous storm.
And the men marveled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?”-Matthew 8:27

They believed Jesus was somebody, but who they believed Jesus to be at the very beginning of His ministry is anyone’s guess. Even after he performed miracles, they still didn’t really know who this guy was. They knew he was special, and Peter seems to have a decent grasp in Matthew 16 and John 6, but at this point in their spiritual journey, they obviously didn’t realize he could control even the weather.

Why in the world did they follow him, for whom they knew so little about? Because they weren’t just called in the 20’s AD, but before the foundation of the world. That’s my guess.