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.

How Satan Attacks the Church

When the church begins to push forward you can bet Satan will push back. The important thing for a church is to be able to discern Satan's activities. Fortunately, while he is certainly cunning and even powerful, Satan is not particularly creative. He has pretty much used the same tactics for 2000 years against the church. Note Acts 5 and 6.

First, Satan uses hypocrisy against the church. Ananias and his wife Sapphira were hypocrites. They pretended to give all the proceeds from a parcel of land while only really giving part. There are 'pretenders' in every church, of course. A true hypocrite is not a Christian, but of course, we all are tempted with hypocritical behavior. The key to combating hypocrisy is humility [Matthew 23:11-12].

Second, Satan uses persecution against the church. That hardly ever works. The Jewish religious leaders bring the apostles before them as Acts 5 unfolds and warn them, even beat them. The apostles stand strong and the word of God goes out even more powerfully. Persecution cannot stop the church because Christians know they are involved in something bigger than themselves--the mission of God. They also know there is something better ahead--heaven. "Kill us, torture us, condemn us, grind us to dust...The more you mow down, the more we grow; the seed is the blood of Christians" [Tertullian].

Third, Satan uses inner conflict against the church. This is his most effective way, I think, of attack. Acts 6:1-7 tells us of the inner conflict brewing as Hellenistic Christians murmur against the Hebraic believers. Inner conflict distracts a church from its mission, making it inward focused. It always leaves believers discouraged and drains the church of spiritual vitality. The apostles were wise to Satan's tactics and met the conflict biblically, prayerfully, humbly, and quickly. The result of dealing with inner conflict in a godly manner was the expansion of the church.

Paul wrote in Ephesians 6 that Christians are to stand against the tactics of the devil using the full armor of God [Eph 6:11-18]. When the church recognizes Satan's attacks and uses the resources God has given, the mission will go forward and the church will be victorious!

Borg and Crossan's Bible

The Upstate received a visit from two Jesus Seminar scholars over the weekend. The Anderson School of Theology for Laypersons (whatever that is) hosted Marcus Borg and J.D. Crossan. Both scholars touted their version of the historical Jesus and pretty much discounted any kind of 'literal reading of the Bible.' Some quotes from our local newspaper:

"Sometimes the Bible is wrong. Get over it" [Crossan].

"The passages about women remaining silent in church, they're wrong" [Borg]. By the way, he said the same about homosexuality.

"The empty tomb is irrelevant. Jesus is a living reality that can be experienced today" [Borg].

Quoting the paper (Greenville News): "A literalist approach to the Bible often leaves Christians debating the veracity of a given miracle, so that they miss the point of the story, said Crossan." The example Crossan gives is of the feeding of the 5000. To him, the point of the story is not whether it really happened but that "God owns the world and everyone gets a fair share--no one is left behind." Wow! That is a Bultmannian approach to a miracle if I ever heard one. It is Crossan, who has missed the point. Point one--it did happen. All four Gospels say so. There is good reason to believe in the veracity of the event (see Craig Blomberg's Historical Reliability of the Gospels). Point two--the 'point' of the miracle is to call attention to the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh, not that everyone gets his fair share. The miracles are Christological and evangelistic in their nature--not just a call to compassion to ensure that everyone is treated fairly.

But keep in mind the Jesus of Crossan and Borg is little more than a compassionate sage. He is certainly not the God/Man who died for sins and was raised from the dead [one of their major presuppositions is that miracles cannot happen]. Crossan's Jesus is a Jewish peasant and radical advocate of egalitarianism. Borg's is a mystic who showed way too much compassion for others to demand moral purity from them.

The Jesus of these two men certainly is not the Lord to whom one must submit. Really this is the issue. If Jesus is as these two men portray him, why not just live as you please?

It's a shame that alot of folks in the Anderson area gave them the time of day. It's even more shameful that many walked away amazed at their scholarship and embraced their "Jesus."

New IMB President

Baptist Press reports today that Tom Eliff is the nominee for IMB President. Eliff is a 'safe' choice for the position in my estimation. The only question I have is that he is already 66 years old. It seems to me in a few short years we'll have to go through all this again. I wonder if we'll be looking at one missions board by then, doing both home and international work? We'll see.

It is just difficult to imagine that it took the search team 16 months to wind up here,but my prayers will be with him.

The Ideal Preacher

I don't remember if I've ever shared this or not:

After hundreds of fruitless years, a model minister has been found to suit everyone. It is guaranteed that he will please all the people in any church.
• He preaches only 20 minutes, but thoroughly expounds the Word.
• He condemns sin, but never hurts anyone's feelings.
• He works from 8am to 10pm doing every type of work from preaching to janitorial
• He makes $100 per week, wears good clothes, buys good books, has a nice family, drives a nice car, and gives $50 per week to the church.
• He stands ready to give to any good cause.
• His family is completely model in deportment, dress, and attitude.
• He is 26 years old and has been preaching for 30 years.
• He is tall, short, thin, handsome, has one brown eye and one blue eye, hair parted just right.
• He has a burning desire to work with teens and spends all his time with old folks.
• He smiles all the time with a straight face because he has a sense of humor that keeps him seriously dedicated to his work.
• He makes 15 calls a day on church members, spends all his time winning the lost, and is never out of the office.

[Darrell Robinson, Total Church Life].

Well there you go!

The Dangerous 'Church Roll'

Anyone who has heard me preach over the last year plus and have read a few other blog posts in that time know that I am deeply concerned over the fact that we have confused the church membership roll with the Lamb's Book of Life. In other words, most believe that if someone is on the church roll they must be saved--no matter if they live with no regard to God or His will.

I was reading again today an article written by Craig Blomberg several years ago, "Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?" (JETS 35 June 1992: 159-172). I'm thinking of writing my own article about what Jesus teaches about rewards, but that notwithstanding, the last paragraph of this article hit me and I think it deserves to hit others:

God assures salvation only to those who presently believe in Jesus as Son of God (1 John 5:13). Claims of commitment, long since abandoned, may not be salvaged by any appeal to a category of 'carnal Christian,' though Paul does use the term . . . The greatest danger of the doctrine of degrees of reward in heaven is that it has misled many people into thinking that the very nominal professions that they or their friends have at one time made will be sufficient to save them, even if they fail to receive as high a status in heaven as they might have (of course Blomberg disagrees with that belief). This is in no way to argue for a works-righteousness. It is merely to remind us of the consistent theme that true, saving faith does over time lead to visible transformations in lifestyle and to growth in holiness . . . Without such evidence that God's Spirit has truly taken up residence and begun to work within a person, Biblical Christianity is absent.

Well said. To depend on some kind of 'profession' of faith without perseverance in the faith is to depend upon something other than biblical faith. Depending on the church roll is a dangerous thing, and it might be well for churches and individuals to realize that.

Back In Church

Here is David Jeremiah's daily devotion today--I thought I would share it.

Monday, January 31
Back in Church
So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.
Acts 16:5
Recommended Reading
Acts 16:1-5


There's a new effort to persuade people to get "Back to Church." It's an annual Sunday targeting those who once attended church but who no longer come. Most participating churches showed an uptick in attendance, and the effort is gaining momentum.
We're for anything that gets people back to church. But how much better to never drop out to begin with! Many churchgoers run into trouble after missing a week or two--perhaps due to work schedules, sickness, travel disruptions, or sheer laziness. The devil takes advantage of these lapses. We find we like sleeping in on Sundays, taking the day off, reading the paper, going to the park, and catching up on our work. The next thing we know, we ourselves are the mission field, needing someone to persuade us to get "back in church."
The church is a community of faith where we share our joys and sorrows. Much joy comes from giving and receiving love, rendering worship, and serving Christ. We should never need to get back in church. Instead we should back the church with our love, appreciation, energy, and faithfulness.


It was a shabby church house, the preacher was plain, the organ wheezy, and the music off key. But there was something that reminded one of the Upper Room.
Vance Havner, about his boyhood church

Super Bowl Week

Super Bowl week is here and I think everyone agrees we have a great match up. I've always liked both teams. I suppose I'm going to lean toward the Steelers, although I won't be broken up if the Packers take the win. I am rather tired of Fox making Aaron Rodgers the second-coming of Joe Montana, but he may very well have a great game, especially since it's indoors. We all saw what he did to Atlanta under a dome. Admittedly the Steelers are NOT the Falcons.

My old stomping grounds of Tarrant County is sports rich over the last several months and I'm a bit jealous that I've not been there. The World Series, the Rose Bowl champ TCU Horn Frogs, and now the Super Bowl. Not bad at all!

The Challenger 25 Years Later

I didn’t realize it until I was watching Fox News this morning that this is the 25th anniversary of the Challenger disaster. There are some events in life that happen and you always remember where you were. I was a reporter for KARN in Little Rock, a news/talk station. Each morning I would help out with morning-drive and then I’d be off to cover some ‘event.’ That day I had covered the re-election announcement of the Pulaski County Sheriff. I hate I can’t remember his name [seems like it was Carroll Gravett), but I always felt sorry for him. His announcement got buried!

I had just got back into the newsroom when Neal Gladner, KARN news director, saw me and said, “Steve, the Challenger just blew up. Go to the mall and get some reaction.” So I headed to University Mall in Little Rock, not that far away from the station. I hate reaction stories, but what do you do? Where am I going to get reaction to something that happened only a few minutes before? I went to Sears, found the TV section of the store, and just as I thought—several people were standing in front of the televisions watching in disbelief. As I recall I got some good reaction sound bites. I went back to the station, put the reaction story together, and went home. Although I worked 4am-noon each day and took an afternoon nap to catch up on some sleep, I stayed up during the day, glued to the TV like everyone else as I watched the coverage of the disaster. I’ll never forget President Reagan’s speech to the nation particularly.

One of the things I’ve missed about being in the news business all these years later is a day like that one.

Southwestern and Association Controversy

Southwestern Seminary and Tarrant Baptist Association are in a squabble that involves the Association's offices on James Avenue on Seminary property. TBA's Executive Board met yesterday to discuss the issue as reported in Baptist Press. I served in Tarrant Association for a number of years, so I'm particularly interested in the story. I hope that this can be dealt with in a 'win-win' way.

It seems (at least from news reports)SWBTS is upset that Broadway Baptist Church is still a member of TBA, and they also seem to be upset that the association does not help students and faculty find places of ministry within the association.

Let's take these one at a time. The seminary has a right to be upset with TBA about Broadway, who has cut ties with the SBC and BGCT over its homosexuality stance. The statement about that in the BP story from Al Merideth, TBA moderator and pastor of Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, seems a bit weak. Of course, I don't know what action, if any, TBA plans or has planned to deal with Broadway.

However, the seminary seems to be stretching a bit in its criticism of TBA with regard to students and faculty. The association has little to do with whom churches call and use in their pulpits. I have had little help from associations with that in the past. Plus there are many SWBTS students (I was one for example) who serve in TBA churches in a number of capacities.

One of the major problems I see with the latter issue is the continuing "political" differences between the seminary and a good many of TBA churches affiliated with the BGCT (moderate Baptists). Churches affiliated with the BGCT are not going to use many seminary students and faculty because of the perceived differences in theology, ethical stances, stance on women in ministry, etc. TBA really can't do anything about that.

I pray that the controversy between the two groups can be dealt with keeping the two great commandments in mind. I would urge you to read the BP story to get some handle on it.

The Church God Will Bless

In the 25 years that I've served in Baptist churches, one of my greatest frustrations has been reading books and going to conferences about the church. Of course it is obvious that the church is not making the inroads into culture that we'd like, and most pastors I know are desperate to see God work in their churches, but I've been frustrated at all the so-called "new ideas" that I've been encouraged to embrace in the past quarter-century. In no particular order, here are just a few:

• The Traditional Church—this was the model most Baptist churches followed when I began ministry
• The Seeker Church
• The Purpose Driven Church
• The Missional Church
• The Transformational Church
• The Simple Church
• The Emergent Church

I've been asked in books, conferences, and pastor 'get-togethers', Is your church pastor driven, deacon driven, or elder driven? Is your church Kingdom centered? Is your church a cooperating Baptist church? Is your church a Sunday School or small group church? Is it traditional, blended, or contemporary? Are you Calvinistic, or non-Calvinistic? Is your church one-site or multi-site? The list could go on [I haven't even mentioned the conferences/books that deal with various generations], but you get the idea. I've heard people say with each one of these—If you follow this model God will bless.

I've almost stopped reading the books, and I have stopped going to conferences altogether. The Bible is the right place to give me the church model that God will bless. There are several passages that do that. One that I dealt with recently is Hebrews 10:19-39, particularly verses 19-25: 19 Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness to enter the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way He has opened for us through the curtain (that is, His flesh), 21 and since we have a great high priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled ⌊clean⌋ from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. 23 Let us hold on to the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us be concerned about one another in order to promote love and good works, 25 not staying away from our ⌊worship⌋ meetings, as some habitually do, but encouraging each other, and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

Three "let us" exhortations clearly show what kind of church God will bless. First, He will bless a church that confidently worships Him [vv. 19-22]. We have confidence because of the new and living way Jesus provided for us by His blood. We must draw near with a sincere heart, and if we do so, God will bless. By the way, a church can confidently worship Him no matter the so-called 'style.' To tout any one music style as better for worship is simply unbiblical. Second, He will bless a church that has an unwavering hope [v. 23]. Our hope is simply the expectation that God will fulfill every promise He has made to His children and that we will enjoy our full inheritance. It is hope that causes us to look at circumstances with an eternal perspective, living today with the end in mind. God will always bless that. Third, He will bless a church that shows a deep concern for one another [vv. 24-25]. A church where love is found is always a church God will bless. We cultivate a deep concern by worshiping together and encouraging one another.

Much more could be said about these verses. But God has not made it difficult for us. He has not given us a to-do list that is beyond our ability. We don't need a new paradigm; we simply need to follow the biblical mandate for the church. Follow Hebrews 10:19-25 and God will bless. Follow the principles of this passage and we will reach the people God has for us. We will disciple the people God allows us to reach. We will reach every generation. We will reach every people group.

Jesus and the Land

For years I have been telling my hermeneutics students that we are not OT saints; thus we must sift any OT passage through the NT to finds its application to the church. Gary Burge shows how this is done in his recent book, Jesus and the Land [Baker 2010]. The primary topic is found in the books' subtitle: The New Testament Challenge to 'Holy Land' Theology. The work is a thoughtful, responsible, and thoroughly biblical response to Christian Zionism.

Burge's divides his book into eight chapters. He begins with a brief look what the OT teaches about the land. He emphasizes several times the land is rightly called holy because it belongs to a holy God. When Israel failed to be righteous, they lost the land. Even God himself became an exile because 'the ruin of his land means that he cannot enjoy it either' [8]. After the exile, retaining the land was interpreted as embracing a strictly religious life. Between the testaments the land, as it was throughout the OT, was central to Jewish identity. Life in the land was contingent on upholding the righteousness expected by God.

Chapter 2, "Diaspora Judaism and the land," is an interesting discussion of how the land was viewed by Jews outside of Palestine. Burge shows that for Diaspora Jews, the promise of land was reinterpreted. For Philo, the land was reinterpreted as the knowledge and wisdom of God. Josephus reinterpreted the promise to Abraham as Israel's greatness rather than land. Burge insists that redefinition deeply influences Christian thinking in the NT.

In Chapter 3, Burge deals with how Jesus viewed the land. The land was a volatile topic in Jesus' world, and He would have been well aware of that. Burge notes that it is interesting that Jesus did not speak much about the land. In fact, it is instructive that Jesus' primary ministry is not in Judea but in Galilee. His primary message, the Kingdom of God, is not linked at all with territorial aspirations, and although it is first preached to the Jews, Jesus offered the Kingdom to those outside of the land as well. Jesus respects the uniqueness of Israel's location in the land, but He expresses no overt affirmation of first-century territory al theologies. Statements like, "The meek will inherit the earth (land)" shows a surprising reversal; those who fight to possess the land will in fact be trumped by the meek. Passages such as The Magnificant are important to Burge's argument.

I found Burge's discussion of "The Fourth Gospel and the Land" fascinating and persuasive. In John, it is obvious that the Jewish festivals are fulfilled in Jesus. So is the land. Jesus is the recipient of the land [John 1:51]. Divine space is no longer located in a place but in a person. Most profound is Jesus' statement, "I am the vine," in John 15. As Burge writes, "The crux for John 15 is that Jesus is changing the place of rootedness for Israel…God's vineyard, the land of Israel, now has one vine: Jesus" [54]. He summarizes: "The hand as holy territory therefore should now recede from the concerns of God's people" [56].

Burge's look at the rest of the NT results in essentially the same conclusion. Here are a few of his statements:

• Acts: "…the praxis of the Church betrays its theological commitments: Christians will find in Christ what Judaism had sought in the land" [59].
  
• Acts: "Therefore the Land of Promise was the source of Christianity's legacy but no longer its goal. The political concerns of the land were a part of Christianity's history, but no longer formed its mission. The new mission would be the restoration of the world, not the restoration of Jerusalem and the land" [61].
  
• Paul: "Jerusalem and its Temple are places that enjoy historic respect but cannot claim a universal or lasting theological significance" [74].
  
• For Paul "Christian theology had no room for 'holy places' outside of the Holy One who is Christ . . . Paul would have seen as aberrant any Christian territorialism wed to first-century politics" [94].
  
• Beyond Paul: "There is no discussion of Judea or Jerusalem as the site of ultimate commitment, affection, or veneration" [96].
  

  
   

While one can disagree with Burge's preterist approach to Revelation, I do agree that hope in the NT's final book is not found in the old Jerusalem, which is essentially evil, but in the new Jerusalem that will take up where the old city had failed. Hope is the new heaven and the new earth that 'reorders creation as it ought to be' [107].

 

In the final chapter, Burge provides an outstanding and insightful critique of modern Zionism. Primarily for Burge, Zionists do not think Christianly about the topic. I would tell my students, they fail to sift the OT concept of land through the NT. The primary point that Burge makes throughout the book and emphasizes in his conclusion is that "Ownership of the land is not a Christian question. The New Testament instead asks if we know the landowner himself, or, in a different framework, whether the land owns us" [127].

 

I would urge anyone interested in the Christian response to "Holy Land Theology" or Zionism, to read Burge's book. It is an example of proper hermeneutics done taking the One who fulfills the Law and the Prophets into full account.

Arizona and Rhetoric

I have been saddened greatly by what has happened in Arizona. It is horrible and I am in much prayer for families who lost loved ones and for those recovering. With that said I am even more horrified by the debate whether military metaphors and particularly radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin are to blame. The guy who shot Congresswoman Gafford and others in Tucson is a psychopath and political rhetoric, military metaphors, and Rush have nothing to do with it. I heard one commentator say in the last few days that military/gun metaphors should be banned from political speech. I heard the sheriff in Arizona say that the angry political climate is to blame (which he blames on Sarah Palin) for the shooting. Well of course that is a major over reaction at the least and nonsensical. Banning any kind of rhetoric will never stop what happened last weekend in Arizona no more than taking the "N" word out of Huckleberry Finn will stop racism.

Elvis Top 20

Elvis Top 20


Today would have been Elvis’ 76th birthday. I decided to sit down and compile my Elvis Top 20.
1. Suspicious Minds
2. Burning Love
3. Steamroller Blues
4. Heartbreak Hotel
5. His Latest Flame
6. Devil in Disguise
7. Viva Las Vegas
8. Hurt
9. Kentucky Rain
10. Just Pretend
11. It’s Midnight
12. Are You Lonesome Tonight
13. American Trilogy
14. See See Rider
15. Love Me
16. All Shook Up
17. Fool
18. It’s Now or Never
19. Always on My Mind
20. The Wonder of You

Most of these were pretty easy. There are several others that could go on the list. Some surprises perhaps would be songs like Just Pretend and It’s Midnight. Just Pretend was from what I think is the best Elvis Album, “That’s the Way It Is.” I bought the album when it first came out in 1970 and was instantly my favorite. Many of course believe Elvis’ sessions at American Studios are his best material. Can’t argue with that from a pure commercial success standpoint. I just disagree. No accounting for taste I know. It’s Midnight I believe is one Elvis’ underrated performances. Just a plain good song sung with lots of feeling.

I still believe Elvis’ birthday should be a national holiday. When will someone listen! 