TRUE FASTING

I have often been asked about the value of fasting in the Christian's life. I read this today from Isaiah 58 and found a very clear answer—from the OT!

⁶ "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
⁷ Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
⁸ Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness will go before you,
and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.
⁹ Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.

"If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
¹⁰ and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.
¹¹ The LORD will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.
¹² Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins
and will raise up the age-old foundations;
you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls,
Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.

It is obvious from the chapter that God is critical of Israel's legalistic fasting. The nation had exchanged the 'weightier matters of the Law' for religious 'function.' One would think that the religious leaders of Jesus' day, well versed in the Law and Prophets would remember this passage, but they did not. They too had substituted the most important for the outward show.

It is always easier to go through religious motions than practice true religion. What was true in the 8^th century before Christ and during His ministry is no less true today. I have a feeling if the prophet were preaching Sunday he would preach the same message.

There's nothing wrong with fasting, but believers need to be reminded of this passage in Isaiah concerning 'true fasting.'

Mark Fragment

More details are emerging from Daniel Wallace concerning a fragment of Mark's Gospel, which he claims can be dated first century. If so, it would be a great find! It would be the earliest Greek mss extant. There's also news about fragments from Paul's letters and an exciting find about a sermon from Hebrews. The work being done by Wallace and his crew in Dallas is outstanding!

REV 13

I know I haven't written in months but I've been busy. I am going to write much more often I hope. With that out of the way, I have been doing an in-depth study of Revelation for several weeks. The symbolism in the book is difficult no doubt. But I've always been amazed at how interpreters like to pick and choose what is symbolic and what is not. For example, 666 must be literally a number tattooed on the hand or forehead and the 144,000 must be 12,000 exactly from each tribe of Israel—no more and no less. Those same interpreters have no problem believing the "Woman" of chapter 12 is symbolic, though there is disagreement on who she is. The fact of the matter is good hermeneutics demand that the interpreter be consistent. If Revelation is apocalyptic (it is a mixed genre of course but no doubt mostly apocalyptic), then passages must be treated that way.

A great example is Rev 11:1-2. John is told to "measure the Temple. There are those who believe this means that John is to measure what will be the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. However, the genre of Revelation must determine interpretation. The Temple John is to measure must be symbolic, but of what? This morning I was reading chapter 13, John's vision of the "Sea Beast," and the "Earth Beast." In v. 6 the Sea Beast blasphemes God name and "His dwelling place, the ones who dwell in heaven." The two phrases in quotation marks are in apposition. The Sea Beast blasphemes God's dwelling place "which is" the ones who dwell in heaven. It is obvious that John is writing about not a place but people. There is no doubt that God is in Heaven, but as the Scriptures teach, He is omnipresent—He is everywhere all the time. But the NT particularly teaches that God indwells His people. Christians are the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the special place where God resides in these days. Thus while Rev 11 leaves the question of the Temple open, chapter 13 sheds light on the imagery. Rev 11:1-2 then is a vision of God's protection of His people during the relatively short time in which the Gentiles will 'trample the city' [11:2]—or will persecute but not annihilate God's people.

To borrow from Robert Stein, genre determines the rules of the game. One cannot pick and choose how to treat the images of Revelation. They are ALL apocalyptic and must be treated that way.

It’s Over

I usually listen to the George Klein show on Elvis radio on Friday afternoons on Sirius/XM Radio. Each week GK has some great interviews, and I always love them. Today he interviewed Jimmie Rodgers who recorded songs like "Honeycomb" and "Kisses Sweeter than Wine." If you click on the link I've provided above you'll learn a lot about one of the truly unique singers/songwriters of the 50s and 60s. My favorite song by Rodgers is "It's Over." I remember my dad had the '45 and I played it over and over again. Elvis recorded the song in the 60s too. He also featured the song in his "Aloha" special in 1973. Jimmie said that he wrote the song in New York after he spoke with a girl there who had just broken up with her boyfriend (I think they were engaged actually). He got up in the middle of the night and wrote the song.

He didn't say when, but Elvis one day called Jimmie up and asked if he could record the song. Obviously he gave Elvis his permission (who wouldn't!) There is no telling how many albums, CDs, DVDs, etc that "Aloha" has sold since 1973!! Good decision for sure!!

Anyway, I've heard several versions of this song. Rodgers' is of course excellent. The Elvis version is very powerful.

I really enjoyed heard the back story of one of my favorite all time songs! By the way, Jimmie Rodgers has had a lot of challenges in life. Some of those he discussed in the interview too. I particularly appreciated his Christian testimony. He mentioned that with all the challenges he has faced God has blessed him.

New Chapel

I'm so pleased to hear that the new chapel at Southwestern Seminary is named after Dr. J.W. "Jack" MacGorman. I have written several times in the past of Dr. MacGorman's influence on me. I had the privilege of being his last graduate assistant before his retirement in 2001. At 90, Dr. MacGorman still attends chapel and works in his office at SWBTS. The wonderful conference center is named after him too. His influence has been far-reaching and only God knows its full extent.

There is a neat live webcam that shows the progress of the chapel construction. It is going to be some kind of building. The dedication is scheduled for Dec 1 and the fall graduation is going to be there.

Warning from Church of England

Is this the church in America's future?

The Church of England's quickly aging congregations means the denomination will be almost extinct in 2020 unless something is done to attract young people back to the church. "The perfect storm we can see arriving fast on the horizon is the ageing congregations," said the Rev. Dr. Patrick Richmond, a Synod member from Norwich. "2020 apparently is when our congregations start falling through the floor because of natural wastage, that is people dying... Another 10 years on, some extrapolations put the Church of England as no longer functionally extant at all." According to the UK Telegraph, other Synod members compared the church's direction to a company's "perfectly and impeccably manage[d] into failure."

[This from Religion Today Summary…Crosswalk.com]

Best Thing You Can Do

JFK called on Americans in the 60s of the 20th century to ask what you could do for your country. What is the best thing you could do? The Apostle Paul, in the 60s of the 1st century wrote: “Therefore I exhort first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” [1 Timothy 2:1-2 NKJV]. The best thing you can do for your country is pray, especially for your leaders.

I find that we probably criticize more and pray less for our leaders. Paul taught that the opposite should be true. How should we pray for our leaders? I ran across an article written by Richard Land just prior to President Obama’s inauguration that gives some good guidelines on how to effectively pray for him as well as all other government leaders on every level. I adapted it for my Sunday message yesterday. I used the president as the primary example, but these guidelines could be used for the governor, mayor, etc.

 Pray for the safety of President Obama and his family
 Pray that he and other national leaders will look to God for His wisdom
 Pray that Christ would be glorified in the decisions made in the White House and in every level of government [national, state, local]
 Pray for policies and laws to be passed that will encourage moral behavior and justice for all Americans, especially the most vulnerable of us [unborn, children, the elderly, even the 'stranger']
 Pray that our leaders display exemplary character, good decision making, and will work together for the common good

But it’s not enough for the church to pray the above. Paul goes on to call on Christians to pray for the salvation of all people. He reminds us in verses 3-6 of 1Timothy 2 that God wants all people to be saved and sent His Son Jesus to die for all people. Our nation is not going to change with just good political decisions. Real change won’t happen until the hearts of Americans change. True change doesn’t happen without Christ.

I believe the real change America needs won’t happen from the White House, the Capitol, or the chambers of the Supreme Court. The real change America needs will happen at the altar and in the prayer closet as we cry out to God on behalf of our leaders and as we pray for the salvation of all people.

Praying this way is ‘good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior’ [1 Timothy 2:3].

Critiquing Bell

Reading a recent edition of Christianity Today, I came across a quote from Eugene Peterson (The Message), who endorses Rob Bell's, Love Wins. According to Peterson, "There's very little Christ, very little Jesus, in these people who are fighting Rob Bell." What? I have read more than a dozen reviews of Bell's book, and quite frankly I've not seen an un-Christian attitude. All I've read are great concerns about Bell's belief about hell. None of the reviews I've read were unkind but they were 'critical.' [Since I've not read everyone's views on Bell's book I would never deny that there are criticisms that are less than Christ-like.]

Has critique now become un-Christ like? Then we would have to condemn Jesus Himself. Remember his scathing denunciation of Jewish religious leaders in Matthew 23? Let's see, He called them hypocrites, sons of hell, fools, blind guides, and like white washed tombs, "full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness" [v. 27].

What about standing up for biblical teaching? Is that un-Christ like? In Matthew 15 Jesus and His disciples were criticized by the religious leaders for not washing their hands when they eat bread [v. 2]. He turns the criticism around: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded saying, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"—Then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition [vv. 3-6]. Jesus obviously stood strong for the Ten Commandments, once again calling the religious leaders hypocrites for placing their traditions over the Word of God.

I have not read a review of Bell from reputable scholars/writers that has had the word hypocrite in it. The reviews were softer than the words Jesus used in Matthew 15 or 23. If Peterson wants to endorse a less than orthodox view of hell he has the right to do so. However, he should not cast those who don't as less than Christian.

UMC Problem

The United Methodists have a real problem as reported by the AP:

The Associated Press reports that the tide may be turning in the United Methodist Church on the issue of same-sex marriages. Hundreds of pastors from areas including Illinois, Minnesota, New York and New England have signed statements in recent weeks asserting their willingness to defy church rules that forbid officiating at such ceremonies. Many do so anyway, but have mostly kept silent on their conduct. However, church officials have taken several violators to task in church court. The Rev. Amy DeLong of Oscela in western Wisconsin faces a three-day trial on two charges: violating a church prohibition on the ordination of "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" and marrying a lesbian couple. She defends her actions by saying it is "incumbent on me not to perpetuate [the church's] unjust laws."

Hopefully the denomination will stay strong on this issue and deal with rogue pastors. Baptists beware! [Just a muse from a country preacher!!]

View of Preaching

This is a very fine column for preachers. You need to read it.

GOP Debate

I taped the GOP debate and watched this morning with my coffee. I'm just a regular guy (a simple country preacher) but here's my take on each candidate in bullet point form.

• Herman Cain—people liked him for a week or so. He is flamboyant and I like his fire. He has never been in government and while that may be what we need it won't be what we get.
  
• Rick Santorum—I liked him more than I thought I would. He had thoughtful responses and as I've read other's reviews he seems to have helped himself a bit.
  
• Ron Paul—I think this is his 15^th run for the White House. A Libertarian is a good critic of government (and we need that) but cannot run it. Government needs to stay out of a lot but not everything. We need a lot less regulation but not 'no' regulation.
  
• Newt Gingrich—really I think he did the best job answering the questions. I think the short answer format was good for him, but I doubt he can be nominated.
  
• Michelle Bachmann—I came in wanting to know more about her. I like her a lot, and while she didn't 'wow' me, she didn't turn me off either. Can she win the nomination? Stranger things have happened, but I really want to think of her as a VP candidate, depending on who wins.
  
• Tim Pawlenty—I really liked his economic plan when he introduced it, reading it in some detail. I could understand it and it makes sense. I watched his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox Sunday and liked how he critiqued Rominey care and coined the term "ObmaneyCare." But when he had a chance to hit Rominey on the issue he backed away. I was disappointed. I really like Pawlenty; we'll see.
  
• Mitt Rominey—the clear cut front runner and winner of the debate (winner in the sense that he did nothing to hurt himself and no one else tried to hurt him). I HATE that he will not just say his Mass health-care plan is a dyna-whoppin failure.
  

  
   

Can I just say I hated the format? I did. It was cool and for CNN I thought the thing was fair. But the cool wore off on me pretty quickly. Also sometimes it takes more than 30 seconds to answer a question. Of course, that's just the musing of a country preacher. John King did a credible job handling the debate. It is way too early to know who will wind up the nominee, and there's no way we can write off anybody at this point. There are still some wild cards like Palin and Perry. Everybody I see and read says Palin won't run; they've NEVER been wrong have they? As far as Perry is concerned, he is a social conservative with a record of creating jobs in Texas. I was not a big fan when I lived there. I thought he was a "W" wannabe, but he's grown on me. He will have money to run if he decides to do so; after all, he's a Texas governor.

 

Here's the answer to THE most important question of the evening: Elvis or Johnny Cash? Of course it is Elvis!

 

That is my humble but accurate opinion.

The Church Confronting Culture

How does the church confront culture? I think we can look at Acts 19, Paul's ministry in Ephesus and see how. Luke tells us about those who practiced magic turning away from that practice and how the idol souvenir business was threatened by people who turned to Christ, eventually causing a riot in the city.

What did Paul do to confront culture? Simply, he preached the Gospel, allowed God's Word to do its work, and then transformed lives transformed culture. As I studied the chapter recently I particularly liked what Darrel Bock had to say:

Transformation of individuals affects the culture at large, making it so nervous that it reacts to stop the progress. Luke does not speak of a campaign against others but of the presence of effective internal reform. What affects the commerce of idolatry in Ephesus is apparently not a program to stamp out magic but the change of lifestyle among believers, which entails separating themselves from such practices.

The church too often goes about this in the wrong way. God does expect His church to confront culture. It must do so, not through organized protests against sin, but through the organized preaching of the Gospel. When lives change through repentance and faith, the culture will change for the glory of God.

 

When Pastor's Bleed

I was recently given Gordon MacDonald's book, Who Stole My Church, by one of our members to read. It is a different church growth type book; it is fiction, albeit based on experience. It deals with the other side of the coin—how does the senior generation feel about all the changes in what can be termed the 'traditional' church? This entry is not about the book but about one section of it: Gordon's reaction to the departure of several people in the church after approval of a name change in a business meeting. I and any other pastor could relate to what he writes about those who leave after a dispute or for any other reason.

Are there any words that a pastor dreads more than 'leaving the church?' There must be, but I can't think of them right now. Leaving! I tend to associate the word with defeat or failure—mine . . . Some are going to ask, Why the fuss over fifteen people (the number of folks who left after that decision). The truth is, speaking as a pastor, you give your heart to the people of a congregation if this work is indeed a calling. You invest in them, think about them constantly, try to find ways to build Christ into their lives. You exalt in their spiritual development. You share their difficult moments. And you rejoice when good things happen to them.

He continues: If you really do give away your heart, then when people leave, they take a piece of it with them. I have known more than a few pastors who have given their hearts away piece by piece until one day there was nothing more to give. It's not unusual for some pastors to reach a point where they can no longer manage the disappointments of people leaving or just hanging around and making trouble. Something dies within them, and they either quit or begin to treat their work as a regular job in which a person counts the days until retirement. (I would add that when this happens a pastor often becomes very cynical instead of hopeful and full of faith.)

To be honest, sometimes there are people who leave the church and you feel relieved. They demand a disproportionate amount of attention, or they generate a chronic kind of complaining. You finally come to the conclusion that this is not a happy experience for them or for you. They have to be released to find a place where they'll find a better fit.

But to be fair, the fifteen or so who left us after we changed our name were very good people. And that's why I took every one of their 'leavings' personally. [Who Stole My Church, 162-163].

MacDonald has eloquently shared what makes pastors bleed. It's not fighting the Devil; we know God will give us victory. It's not standing for truth; we see that as our calling. It is the leaving of the saints. Every time it happens, no matter whom or what the reason, it hurts and we bleed.

After all, contrary to popular opinion, pastors are just people too.

 

Friends and Tough Times

The Anthony Weiner situation has been all over the news and there's no use commenting on the specifics. However, one story on the Fox news website yesterday caught my eye. The headline was, "Senate Leader Throws Weiner Under the Bus." Senator Harry Reid said he would not help Weiner, and if the Congressman asked him for advice he would have none to give--"Call somebody else." I don't know whether or not Harry Reid has any kind of relationship with the Congressman at all, but one thing I know--in tough times you really find out who your friends are and who they are not.

Fox reported: "Rep. Weiner has received very little public support since divulging on Monday that he had sent lewd pictures to and engaged in sexually-explicit messaging with at least six women, though his mentor and former boss, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, is standing by his side.

'I am deeply pained and saddened by today's news. By fully explaining himself, apologizing to all he hurt and taking full responsibility for his wrongful actions, Anthony did the right thing. He remains a talented and committed public servant, and I pray he and his family can get through these difficult times,' Schumer said in a statement released by his office Monday night."

Senator Schumer is obviously a real friend. A real friend will feel the pain, be in the ditch with you, and offer real help. A real friend won't throw you to the wolves. Real friends are there even when you really mess things up. In fact, that's when they are needed the most and are appreciated the most. You do find out who your friends are when the dark moments of life hit. Unfortunately you find out some you thought were friends will make the ditch deeper for you.

Who would be with you if you found yourself in the ditch? They are the true friends; and you probably don't have many of them. That's ok. Even one friend who will stand with you in the darkest times is a blessing from God.

"A friend loves at all times and a brother is born in adversity" [Prov 17:17].

The New NIV

Here we go again. The 2011 NIV is being criticized for its inclusive language. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [CBMW] is taking the translation committee to task for inaccurate gender language. More than 2700 of the problems critics identified in the controversial TNIV remain in the NIV 2011, and because of those problems the CBMW cannot recommend the revised translation.

As Baptist Press reports correctly, the debate centers on translation philosophy: Is it permissible to make the English translation inclusive when the intent and application of the verse are also inclusive? My answer to that question would be yes. A translation, especially a dynamic equivalent, can certainly do that. Is it wrong to ensure communication? I would say no as long as there is no violence to the intent of the Greek or Hebrew text. Do people speak in gender inclusive ways today? Yes. I even preach that way and have for years. I seldom use the masculine pronoun exclusively and have urged my students to do the same thing. We must communicate. We can without destroying the integrity of God's message. Overall then I believe the criticisms of CBMW are unwarranted. I understand their concerns of course and share in their desire to ensure biblical family values, but making the English text more gender inclusive is helpful and maybe even necessary.

There are two verses in Paul's writings that are especially criticized by CBMW. The first is 1 Timothy 2:12. The 2011 NIV renders the verse, "I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." The criticism is over 'assume authority' over against 'have authority,' found in the 1984 version. CBMW charges that the change will allow those who embrace women pastors and elders to argue that women are not assuming authority but have been given it by others. To be honest those who claim that women can serve as pastors and/or elders use the same argument with 'have authority.' One will not be convinced either way using the new translation. Doesn't the word 'assume' imply initiation of some kind? BDAG translates the word as 'to assume a stance of independent authority.' That definition seems to imply initiation. I'm not sure that the 2011 NIV needed to change the translation of v. 12 [I don't think I would have], but neither do I think the translation committee has violated the intent of Paul's writing.

Then there's Romans 16:7. This is the famous (or infamous) Junia verse. The 2011 NIV reads: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." The 1984 NIV translated Junia as Junias, a male name and textually very doubtful. The controversy here concerns a preposition translated 'among,' which gives the impression that Junia was an apostle. Other versions, such as the ESV would translate the preposition as, 'well known to the apostles,' eliminating the possibility of a female apostle. The difficulty with the ESV and translations like it (including HCSB) is while that use of the preposition is possible it is not the ordinary use of it and unlikely. The most probable translation is that of the 2011 NIV. For those who do not wish to believe that a woman could be an apostle, it is common knowledge that the word in Greek more generally means 'messenger.' Perhaps Paul had in mind the more common and not the technical use of the term. We simply do not know, but I would rather grapple with the use of apostolos in this verse than do some translation gymnastics with the preposition. Interpretations like the ESV or HCSB seem to me to be more a product of one's ecclesiological presuppositions rather than a good translation of the Greek text.

Our presuppositions are hard to get out of the way when we interpret the biblical text. For example, the fact that I'm a Southern Baptist who affirms our denomination's doctrinal statement will lead me to see verses like 1 Timothy 2:12 and Romans 16:7 in a certain way. Good hermeneutics, however, call for as objective look at the text as possible. We must allow the texts to say what they say. We can grapple with and even argue about the meanings. But let's translate them correctly. In the two cases above, the 2011 NIV does a decent job. I would give it a "C+" on 1 Timothy 2:12 but an "A" on Romans 16:7.

Let's get back to the overall philosophical problem here. How do we translate God's Word? Language usages change. We all know that, and that's why the KJV is a problem for so many people. No one I preach to on Sunday uses "thee" or "thou." Translations must change as well. Good translations will communicate the unchanging Word of God so it can be understood by as many people as possible. You may not agree with gender inclusive language, but the fact remains that it is the way people communicate in 2011. Shouldn't a Bible translation show that as long as there is no violence done to the Greek or Hebrew texts? Can that be done? The answer to both questions is yes. More gender inclusive language does not have to undermine the authority of Scripture. I think that CBMW is reaching out too far in its overall criticism of the 2011 NIV.

A Generation of "Marthas"

Yesterday was Graduate Sunday at Fairview, an annual celebration of those who are finally getting released from the tyranny of high school and college. To be honest, it doesn't make for the most powerful worship service; people are primarily interested in seeing their 'little darlings' in their caps and gowns. I get that so not a major complaint [maybe a minor one though]. In my message yesterday, I focused on Luke 10:25-11:13, a series of admonitions from Jesus concerning our most important relationships: with others and with God.

In the middle of the message, I tackled an important issue. Luke 10:38-42 is the story of Jesus in the home of Mary and Martha. Martha is distracted, busy with supper preparations, while Mary is sitting at the feet of Jesus. Martha thinks Mary is doing nothing; Jesus says she is doing the best thing. It occurred to me as I studied last week that we are raising the most distracted generation in the history of America. They are a generation of "Marthas." With all the social media, activities, etc. that our youth are involved with and in, it is doubtful they know how to 'be still' and focus on much of anything, much less 'be still' and hear and God. Yet, to be a fruitful follower of Christ, that is exactly what one has to do. Jesus said sitting at His feet and hearing from Him is the best thing.

I don't blame the kids for being Marthas, however. Mostly I blame me and other parents with me. From the time our graduates were born, we decided for some reason that it was vital to their well-being that every second of their lives had to be used up in an endless barrage of activities—from karate to soccer to dance lessons to baseball to football, etc etc etc etc. We 'throw' church in too, of course. But church activities are only part of and not necessarily the most vital part of a child's week. If a baseball tournament or a dance recital is found to be at the same time as a church activity, most of the time the church activity is skipped. We have also purchased the cell phones and computers and pretty much given our kids unrestricted use of them [before I'm criticized I know there are exceptions to these general statements—but not many]. Our kids are Marthas because we have allowed them to be. They are Marthas because we are too. We parents don't really know how to be still either. We have the mistaken notion that stillness leads to staleness or worse yet paralysis.

Parents are not the only culprits. The church is also to blame. Most churches can be described as Martha churches. By that I mean places where there is a whirlwind of activities and very little 'being still' time. I wonder what would happen in the average Baptist church, including the one I serve, if a decision was made to stop all the activities other than basic discipleship and worship? What if I stood in the pulpit Sunday and proclaimed, "We're going to learn to be still and listen to Jesus?" My experience tells me exactly what would happen. There would be a rebellion in the church. Many would start looking for other churches that provide the activities parents especially perceive are necessary to keep everybody busy and happy [as if busyness results in happiness]. Youth and children's ministers would be particularly criticized because it is believed that they are on staff simply to plan and pull off activities.

It is always easier to get people to respond to an activity, but difficult indeed to get people to even attend a prayer meeting. Do you see a problem here? How can Martha churches help Martha parents who desperately need to help Martha children? They cannot.

Yet Jesus tells us that the most important thing is to sit at His feet and hear from Him (in Word and in prayer). That is the best thing that cannot be taken away. Perhaps churches need to reassess their multitude of activities and focus more on teaching people the importance of the 'best thing.' Churches can and should teach the spiritual disciplines. I would argue that is the church's primary responsibility.

We parents need to look at our own lives. How can we teach our children something we don't know how to do?

Here is the thought that is burdening me: What will happen to the church in the years ahead if the most distracted generation stays that way? I believe this is an important issue; the future vitality of the church is at stake.

 

Judgment Day

The rapture is supposed to be today according to Harold Camping. I'm watching Fox News as I write this and one of their headlines is about the prediction. My brother called last night and asked (only half joking), Is the world going to end tomorrow?

Let's get this out of the way. First, I'm not a pre-trib rapture guy, but if you are, you believe the rapture of the church could happen at any time. Could this be the day of the rapture? A dispensationalist will say yes. No responsible dispensationalist, however, will ever predict the day. Will anyone be able to figure the day based on so-called evidence found either in or out of the Bible? NO!

If anyone ever gives you a date--STOP LISTENING IMMEDIATELY! The guy simply does not know what he's talking about.

The words of Jesus: "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority" [Acts 1:7]. Only God knows the day He wraps up history. Will it happen? Yes. The date is in the mind of God not in the mind of Harold Camping. By the way, he's already been wrong once. Originally he predicted the rapture would take place back in 1994.

It's shame we give this guy a hearing at all.

Importance of Preaching

In the end, the church will not be judged by its Lord for the quality of its music but for the faithfulness of its preaching. The preacher will be judged for his preaching, and the congregation will be judged for its hearing--and for the preaching it demanded [Al Mohler, He Is Not Silent, 74].

Should I Dance Today?

It was at 4:30 this morning that I flipped on Fox News and found out that Osama bin Laden was dead, killed by Navy Seals. My first reaction was of elation, extremely happy and satisfied that justice had finally been served upon the mastermind of 9/11. I thought, Well I wish it hadn't taken ten years! It wasn't but a few minutes afterward, however, that the thought occurred to me—where is Bin Laden now?—separated from God for eternity. Should I be happy about that? Thus, there is an ethical dilemma for the Christian today.

There is dancing in the streets of America. At Ground Zero, the White House, West Point, the Naval Academy, and in countless other American locations last night and into the wee hours of the morning there was joy at the death of the hated terrorist. I've seen the video of the various places, including the Phillies home ball park during last night's baseball game, of singing and chants of "USA, USA, USA". But should the Christian dance? Should the Christian sing? Should the Christian be joyful?

I've done a lot of thinking about this today and here are my conclusions. First, I understand the jubilation. Bin Laden planned a terror attack that affected and still affects so many. I saw a man interviewed this morning whose son died in one of the Twin Towers—he still feels the pain. I understand his joy today because some justice has come. Bin Laden is the symbol of terrorism that we've fought so hard against for a decade. So I get the jubilation. As an American I too want justice. Plus, I'm proud of our troops, the work they do, the sacrifices they make, and the undeniable bravery and heroism they display daily to keep us free from any more 9/11s.

But is my primary loyalty to America? Who is to be Lord of my life? It is not any American. It is Jesus Christ. I must ask then, how would He expect me to react? I don't have to look very far: "You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" [Matthew 5:43-45]. As Jesus hung on the cross, he prayed, "Father forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing" [Luke 23:34].

Can I leave out Paul's teachings? "Friends, do not avenge yourselves; instead, leave room for His wrath. For it is written: Vengeance belongs to Me; I will repay, says the Lord. But if your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink…Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good" [Romans 12:19-21].

Both Jesus and Paul seem to indicate that I should not be dancing today.

Is God pleased today about the death of Bin Laden? Let's remember that "God so loved the world," [John 3:16]. Jesus died for Bin Laden just as He died for me. God does 'not want anyone to perish but all to come to repentance' [2 Peter 3:9]. God's heart breaks when any human being lives his life in rejection of His Son's sacrifice. God's heart breaks for any human being spending eternity separated from Him. Yet God always allows us to make our own decisions about what we will do or not do with His Son Jesus. We must all eternally live with that decision, including Bin Laden.

I am an American. But I am a Christian first. Thus while some part of me is greatly relieved that justice has been done (as far as this life is concerned), I must be burdened that there is eternal justice that is much more important—and that justice will be done as well. No doubt--it is a dilemma. I am torn. But I have reached a conclusion:

Whether it is Bin Laden or my neighbor down the road, I should not dance in the street when someone dies.

Spring Training

Earlier this month I finally did something I had wanted to do for 20 years--go to Florida and take in some spring training baseball. Andrew and I hit three places: Lakeland and Tigertown, Braves camp the Wide World of Sports complex, and Kissimmee for the Houston Astros.

Overall it was a great time. The weather made me wonder why in the world I had left Florida over a decade ago. That was stupid! Anyway, it was a super week. Spring training crowds are certainly laid back as are the games, but still it is baseball so who cares.

Best Atmosphere--Tigertown--we had a great Sunday afternoon there.

Most boring crowd--Kissimmee--It was a Tuesday afternoon I guess. I thought I was at an AARP convention.

Best Complex--Braves at ESPN Wide World of Sports--that is an awesome facility. Don't eat at the ESPN Sports Grill, though--not too good. All three places we went to were great though.

Best Food--Hands down it was Tigertown at Lakeland. The BBQ nachos are to die for!

Biggest Surprise--the sea of Cardinal Red at the Wednesday afternoon Braves/Cards game. That was awesome!

I was disappointed that the prices for concessions, tickets, etc. are way too high. I thought I was back at the Ballpark at Arlington paying way too much money for hot dogs and bottled waters. That was a surprise really. Tickets can be had cheaper for seats at a regular season game. When I paid the same money for a bleacher seat than for a nice regular seat at the Braves' complex I was a bit put out. So I definately spent more money than expected.

Was it worth it? Absolutely! I hope to do it again--heading next time to southern Florida or to Tampa and that side of Florida's Grapefruit League. Andrew wants Arizona to check out the Rangers. So we may try the Cactus League.