Who Is Being Represented?

Today in my area there is an election.  Our ballot will be rather brief - there will be a couple of questions regarding our local fire district, and then an election for two members of a seven-person school board.

What should the main criteria be for voting for one person over another?  Of course, in any given election that will depend on many things - what the office is, what the current issues are, etc.  I actually ran for school board a couple of times, many years ago (I lost, by the way, but that’s a different story).  One of the things that was important for me as a candidate, and is still important to me today in evaluating candidates, is the idea that the parents are ultimately responsible for a child’s education.  That may mean that the parents choose to homeschool the child, but it doesn’t have to.  Being responsible for something doesn’t mean one has to do it all.  There are other options, such as private school, and of course, public school.  But whichever option is chosen, the parents are not giving up their responsibility, but instead are choosing the most appropriate tools to carry out their responsibility.  Whichever choice is made, the parents should still be very aware of what is being taught and learned, should know the child’s strengths and weaknesses, should be ready to advocate for the child.  Too many parents abdicate much of their responsibility in their child’s life.

We choose school board members to represent us in making the major decisions of running a school district.  But who is the “us” they should represent?  Should they represent the children?  Many people think so.  And their opinion is seemingly confirmed by the amount of child neglect and child abuse at the hands of their parents.  Teachers are often frustrated by the unresponsiveness they get when trying to reach out to many children’s parents.  Someone has to advocate for the children.

Others say school board members should represent the community, or perhaps more specifically, the voters.  In both this option and the previous one, you run into the issue of having elected officials who think that they know what is best for the children, over and above the parents.  And we have been seeing that play out.  There have been schools that have distributed contraceptives to students and facilitated abortions for students.  The concern that some schools are indoctrinating students in regard to sexual orientation and gender identity issues has recently led Florida to pass a law that seeks to protect parental rights by prohibiting the teaching of these concepts to young children.

For Christians, the Bible instructs parents that they have a primary duty to teach their children.  These instructions are mostly concerned about teaching them about God and following Him.  But the overall implication of Scripture is that the parents are the assigned stewards of one (or more) of God’s children.  God does not give that assignment to anyone else.  It is not the village’s responsibility, not government’s, only the parents’.

Parents, understand your responsibility in the life of your child, and be involved.  And choose school board members who will best represent your position as steward of your child.

Not Everything Some Would Have It Be

 There is conflict within the Southern Baptist Convention.  For many who are likely to read this, this is probably not new information.  If that statement does come as a surprise to you, you may not be interested enough to read the rest of this.

There are undeniably (at least) two groups within the tent of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Defining these groups, however, seems to be complicated.  Some see it as conservatives versus those drifting toward liberalism.  Others see it as conservatives versus fundamentalists, or at least those who are “more” conservative.  Some say that conservative and liberal are too political to use as terms, while others say that politics is exactly what this is about.

Those who are in the category that some would label “liberal” deny that there is liberalism within the Southern Baptist Convention.  Their contention is that the Baptist Faith and Message, the document that binds Southern Baptists together, does not allow for liberalism, that everyone who adheres to it as their statement of faith is necessarily conservative.  Let me give reasons why I don’t believe that to be true.

The BF&M is not comprehensive in regard to all sins.  In June of 2021, Ed Litton was elected president of the SBC.  Shortly thereafter, it was noticed that many of his sermons were word-for-word copies of other preachers’ sermons.  The discussion of this would occupy another post.  But nothing was ever really done about this.  And one of the reasons offered up as to why nothing was done was that he had not done anything that violated the BF&M.  That seems to be true, but there are multiple things that are not listed within the BF&M.  What if the SBC president were violent? Or a slanderer?  What if he knew about an accusation of sexual impropriety by a staff member and did nothing about it?  Would we really do nothing about any of these things that could be shown to violate Scripture, simply because they weren’t on a list in the BF&M?

The BF&M is not comprehensive in regard to the times.  When the BF&M 1963 came out, the seismic Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision permitting abortion was still ten years down the road.  When the BF&M was updated in 2000, one of the changes made was the inclusion of defending the unborn.  Any edition of the BF&M will be doing good to cover those issues that we have seen in the past or are dealing with in the present, but will generally not be able to keep up with the twists of the future.  In 2000, it would not have been imaginable that same-sex marriage would be legal, but within 15 years it was.  And now, just six or seven years after that, we are dealing with ethical issues we couldn’t have guessed then.  If one believed that sexual identity and gender identity were two completely different things, and that a person could biologically be a male, but “really” be a woman, they could potentially still affirm the BF&M.

The Bible is easy to twist.  One can sincerely affirm the BF&M, swearing a belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, but then point to a Scripture text and say, “That doesn’t mean what you think it means” or “That was for the cultural situation during which it was written, it doesn’t apply to us now.”

The BF&M is easy to twist.  During the Conservative Resurgence, it became evident that the BF&M from 1963 needed to be revised.  One of the main reasons for that was that the way it was worded allowed those who didn’t believe the Bible was the inerrant, infallible Word of God to understand the words of the statement in a way different than most Southern Baptists and affirm the BF&M without alarming their conscience.  So the SBC sought to make it more clear.  But just as Scripture itself can be warped to say what God would never convey, the BF&M is perhaps even more easily manipulated.

The BF&M is easy to ignore.  As an example of this, the BF&M 2000 clearly states “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”  Yet we have churches in our convention where one or more women are listed with a title that includes the word “pastor.”  Some try to twist the BF&M by saying that the statement comes from a time when having multiple pastors was more unusual, and that it is specifically referring to the head pastor/teacher of a church.  The problem with that is that while one could make a good Biblical case for having multiple pastors for a single congregation, one couldn’t make a case that the requirements for some pastors were different than others.  They are all pastors, so they all must conform to I Timothy 3.  Meanwhile, nothing has been done about many of these churches with a female pastor on staff.  The issue is just being ignored.

I think the Baptist Faith and Message is a good document, a well-crafted statement of faith.  But it clearly cannot be the only keeper of the gate for who or what should be considered conservative, because it is simply too easy to maneuver around.  An update is likely in order, but even that will not clip all the deviations from Scripture that people will find a way to grasp while still affirming the revision.

When God Gives the Order

I recently watched the movie 1917.  The storyline runs somewhat similar to Saving Private Ryan, to which it has been compared favorably.  It’s a different war with different uniforms and different accents, but the setting is the same continent and the dangers are similar.  I think it’s a good movie, worth watching at least once.  I’m going to describe a particular climactic scene late in the movie, so if you haven’t watched the movie yet, and think you might want to, I would suggest you stop reading this and come back after you’ve had the chance to watch it.

I don’t want to give away all of the story, so those who have seen the movie will notice that I am leaving lots of things out.  The scene I want to talk about is when the young British lance corporal (and you will have to forgive me, I know virtually nothing about military rank except that Sergeant Carter was higher in rank than Private Pyle and also that Sergeant Carter was lower in rank than Colonel Hogan) finally arrived at the destination of his mission.  He was to deliver a vital message to the commander of the 2nd battalion, a Colonel Mackenzie.  Colonel Mackenzie is only on for this one short scene, and as soon as I saw him, I thought, “Is that Benedict Cumberbatch?” and kept staring at him until I assured myself it was.  Anyway, Mackenzie was leading the 2nd battalion on an advance against the enemy, and Lance Corporal Schofield’s message was that they should stop the advance and pull back because the Germans had been luring them into this as a trap.

Mackenzie responds to Schofield first by questioning who he was.  Schofield didn’t outrank him.  What right did he have to even be standing there with them, let alone trying to tell them they were wrong?  His second response was that he has tried following the commands from higher-up before, many times, and has never seen any progress.  With his plan, they are beginning to see progress, unlike previous attempts where they have got started only to be called back.  But finally, he agrees to read the letter sent from the general, and the authority of the message and its sender are enough to force Mackenzie to relent.

So, what is it about this scene that has prompted me to write?  Immediately after watching it, the thought occurred to me - that’s how I do, that’s how we all do, when God interrupts our plans.  We make our plans, and some of those plans are rotten, tainted by sin, and will lead to disaster for us.  So God sends someone to try to talk us out of those plans, and we respond by saying, “Who are you?  You can’t judge me!”  Maybe that someone is our own conscience that we push away.  But God keeps trying.  And we tell God, “I’ve tried it Your way, and that doesn’t work.”  We look at the progress we’ve made with our plans, and think that is more of an indicator of future success than God’s old, timid plans.  And sometimes, we will finally see what God’s Word has to say about it.

So when God pushes back on your plans, how do you respond?  Are you really going to tell God that you’re smarter than Him?  Instead, see what God has to say about it in His Word.  Common sayings like “God wants me to be happy” or “I really feel God is calling me to this” or “Love is love” have no validity at all if they contradict with Scripture.  What they become at that point is a means of allowing you to directly disobey God.  That is what all sin is - directly disobeying our commander, an act of treason.

SBC 2021 (Part 3): Moore or Less

 A few weeks ago, I got sucked in to watching the current reboot of the old game show “To Tell the Truth.”  In one round, one of the three panelists trying to persuade the celebrities that he was the person being described told in the reveal that he used to work as an undercover law enforcement operative.  It had been a matter of life and death for him to know who was lying and who was telling the truth.  Then they went to the next round, but after the celebrities made their guesses, they brought back the undercover guy to get his guess and what clues gave away the imposters.  I was fascinated as he was right on the money.

Dr. Russell Moore has been the head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) since 2013.  Dr. Moore tends to be a polarizing figure in SBC life - many people are fans and many others are definitely not.  Last month, he announced that he would be resigning from the ERLC.  Within days of this announcement and within only a couple of weeks of the SBC’s annual meeting, two letters written by Moore were “leaked.”  These letters were both highly critical of some other SBC leaders, one of which is a current candidate for the SBC presidency.  Those that Moore is accusing in his letters, primarily Mike Stone, have responded with flat denials.  Others have come along to corroborate Moore’s version.  This was then followed by those who expressed affirmation of Stone’s narrative as well as his character.

So who is telling the truth?  Honestly, I have no idea.  I wish I had the skills of the law enforcement operative.

There are those that have pointed out that the accusatory letter puts Moore in a precarious spot.  Moore makes allegations that Stone and others are actively working to cover up sexual abuse within the SBC.  If his accusations are true, then besides what he may have said internally within the ERLC, he would effectively be complicit in the cover-up.  In the months that this has supposedly been an issue, rather than standing up against evil deeds or making the issue publicly known, he sat on it and looked for his next job.  And if the accusations are not true, well, obviously that’s not an ethical position either.

So why was the letter released, then?  If you ignore the conundrum it puts Moore in, it actually carries a couple of big benefits for Moore.  First, for those inclined to be fans, he looks like a hero, championing the cause of the sexually abused.  This is a great way for him to enter into his next position, writing for Christianity Today.  And second, he gets to stick it to his political enemies on his way out the door.

SBC 2021 (Part 2): Race to Win

 The history of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) includes many accomplishments for the Kingdom of God.  But it also contains several things which stand in stark contrast to those accomplishments.  Chief among those stains on the SBC is the issue of racism.  Founded in a split over the question of slavery in the mid 1800’s, the SBC has time and again wrestled with the issue of race.  The SBC has officially apologized for its history with slavery and racism, yet forms of racism continue to rise up within the convention.

The SBC in general is anxious to shake off any hint of racism.  This is why, I believe, Resolution 9 was adopted at the annual meeting in 2019.  Resolution 9 was entitled “On Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality,” concepts that most of the people in attendance had very likely never heard of.  But they saw that this resolution seemed to have to do with fighting against racism, so it would be wrong to vote against it.  In the time since then, CRT has exploded, not just in Southern Baptist discussions, but in various avenues of public policy.  And many see the concepts of CRT to be anti-Biblical, and the wrong way to address racism.

However, there are those that see pushing back against CRT as a form of racism, an attempt to shut down what might be a useful tool in the fight against racism.

Dealing with Resolution 9 and with CRT in general will be delicate matters.  One wrong move can be all the impetus some need to leave the SBC, as intentions will be assumed instead of understood.

SBC 2021 (Part 1): Gender Again

The annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is taking place this week in Nashville, and it looks to be a very active business meeting.  COVID prevented last year’s meeting, so we have two years’ worth of concerns, much of which has been unproductively battered around on social media, to try to settle in one way or another.  And the stakes may be high, as the votes may send one group or another out from under the SBC tent.

So what are the issues that loom darkly over the SBC?  There are several, and I’ll try to give some thoughts on the big ones.

Back in the late 1970’s, the SBC went through something called the Conservative Resurgence.  Recognizing that some leaders were moving the convention in a more liberal theological direction, an effort was begun and eventually accomplished to move things back to the right.  One of the liberal positions pushed back by the Conservative Resurgence was the idea of ordination of women.  In 2000, the SBC adopted a revision to its statement of beliefs known as the Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M), and one of the changes to that document was the statement that “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”  This statement is based on multiple passages, such as I Timothy 3:2 and I Timothy 2:12.  While the BF&M doesn’t specifically mention it, the latter text would also disqualify women from preaching or teaching to an audience that included men, such as a Sunday morning service.

Since the last annual meeting, it has been observed that there are multiple church plants that were invested in by the North American Mission Board (NAMB) that have women listed on their websites with a title of “pastor” or “co-pastor.”  Is NAMB not paying attention to the churches they are helping to start, or do they know and not care, or worse, desire to see this despite its contradiction to the BF&M?

One of the most prominent women teachers in Southern Baptist life has been Beth Moore.  Her beginnings are noble - a woman digging into Scripture to teach God’s truth to other women.  Along the way, some significant issues came up, and one of those was that she began to allow her audiences to include both male and female.  There were even times when she was asked to speak for the Sunday morning worship time.  While not technically violating the BF&M, it violated the underlying Scripture.  Just a few months ago, she had heard enough of people telling her she shouldn’t do that and took herself out of the SBC.

A little over a month ago, a megachurch within the SBC had what they called an “historic night” by ordaining three women as pastors.  The chuch is Saddleback Church in California, and its lead pastor is Rick Warren.

How the convention will respond to this issue is crucial - it will either be stopped or it will expand markedly.  There is no chance that it will stay at only what we see today.  This is a battle that we have already fought.  It seems strange to need to be fighting it again.

After Easter

 After Jesus was resurrected, hundreds of people saw firsthand evidence of it, and thousands more heard sufficient evidence of it, and believed in Jesus.  But many, many people did not believe, despite the evidence being available if they wanted to pursue it.  They chose not to pursue the evidence, and some immediately devised a story to contradict the evidence, claiming that the disciples had stolen the body.  Why would they do that?  Because they didn’t want anything to do with Jesus, even if He did exactly what He said He was going to do and even if He was exactly who He said He was.

Besides being a preacher, I am also an apologist.  And as an apologist, I see that the argument for Jesus’ resurrection is incredibly strong.  It is tempting to think, “If I keep presenting this information, with more evidence and more passionately, people will see the truth of it and come to Christ.”  But as I’ve been thinking about it, the issue isn’t apologetics.  It would change nothing to build a stronger case or present it more urgently.  People aren’t rejecting the truth of the argument.  Like the Pharisees on the day after Jesus was resurrected, they are rejecting Jesus.  The truth is irrelevant.  The cost of accepting the truth is the issue.

Jesus (of course) understood this.  He was a terrible salesman.  He urged people to count the cost, and made sure everyone understood there was no riding the fence.

It’s the day after Easter.  What will you do with Jesus?

I've Been Shot!

 It’s been a LONG time since I last wrote a blog post.  In fact, just a few days over ten years.  TEN years.  What all has happened in that ten years?  Lots of stuff.  The birth of my third child.  Graduation from seminary.

But for the past year, the big news has been COVID.  It has impacted so much - church, school, going out to eat, going to the grocery store.  For a little while we were using disinfecting wipes to pump our gas.

There is probably lots I could say about this pandemic.  And I may come back and say some of that.  But I’ll start off with this:  one week ago I got my shot.

My reaction was pretty mild.  That night I had chills, and the next day I had a bit of a headache and body aches, and was pretty exhausted.  But that was about it.  I’ve been a little extra tired all week, but I’m not sure I can blame that on the shot.

I thought a bit about the shot before getting it.  I wasn’t in any particular rush to get it, but at the same time, I wasn’t particularly afraid of getting it.

I don't consider myself very high risk.  I'm not around a lot of people most of the time.  And I'm in pretty good health - although COVID doesn't always make sense, occasionally sending young and healthy people to the hospital or worse, and occasionally having only the mildest of symptoms to those who don’t fall into the “young and healthy” category.   But thinking in terms of obvious risk, there are others who I would have loved to give my place in line because they are obviously more at risk than I am.  But it doesn't work that way.  So I took my place and got my shot.

I’m not concerned about the shot’s safety.  There was concern about how quickly the vaccines were developed.  But what we have is not just a result of one year's work, but of many years of studying similar viruses.  Also, Operation Warp Speed provided a lot of money to work with that is normally not available for this kind of thing, which allowed among other things more testing to be done simultaneously.  There is no reason to believe there is any sort of microchip in the vaccine shots.  Finally, based on what I've read, I had no reason to expect to have an allergic reaction to the vaccine, although some might need to be concerned about that.  In short, I think the shot is reasonably safe.

I'm not concerned about the shot ethically.  This gets sticky, and all the more so with the Johnson & Johnson shot that I had.  The main issue here is in the use of embryotic cells from aborted babies to develop and test the various vaccines.  It is frustrating that this kind of ethical question has to be raised at all, because there are options that do not involve the same ethical dilemma.  But all three of the current vaccines did use embryotic cells to various degrees.  Therefore, we have to concern ourselves with the question of is it morally right to utilize something that was created by the death of a baby?  This article can deal with the whole issue better than I can (ERLC | Explainer: COVID-19 raises concern about abortive fetal cells in medicine), but the TL;DR (that stands for “too long; didn’t read”) answer is that it is similar to receiving an organ donation from someone who was murdered.  Morally, we are not complicit in that murder.

I'm not concerned about the shot as a Christian.  I don't think getting the shot makes me a better Christian or more loving than someone who may choose not to get the shot.  Nor do I think it makes me a worse Christian, one who doesn't trust God enough (that would actually be presumption, along the lines of Jesus throwing Himself off the pinnacle of the temple because He trusts God to take care of Him).  And, I need to say this because I have seen it too many times, the shot is NOT the Mark of the Beast.  Nothing about this shot is preventing anyone from buying or selling.  But even if that comes up, if some crazy law comes along that you can’t enter Walmart without showing your vaccination card, that still does not make this the Mark of the Beast, because there is nothing about anyone or anything being worshipped involved with getting this shot.  You can get the shot and say, “Praise Jesus.”  

I do think the shot will allow me to see some things return to a more normal way sooner.  Things like seeing extended family, hugging folks at church, and grabbing lunch with someone.  Those days can’t come soon enough.

I Just Had to Write

Wow. It has been about two and a half years since I have written anything on my blog. It's been so long, I had forgotten how to log in. Well, there is a reason for that. I'll have to explain sometime. But right now I have a fire lit under me and I just have to blog.

I am a relatively active user of Facebook. Although I try to be careful of the things I post, I enjoy making a witty comment about my world or the world, for all the world to see. And I have Facebook friends of all stripes, and I don't think I have ever defriended anyone, even when I found some of their postings to be personally offensive.

I saw a link to an article with a purposefully provocative title, "Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus". So I just had to read it. And after reading it, I just had to write. I would normally labor over my blog post a little more than I am this one. I may come back to it later for that. Right now, I just want to get it out there. Here is my response to this article.

Wow - I don't know where to start with this article. As an overarching comment, I would say that Jesus' teachings applied to individuals, not governments. Governments have responsibilities and capabilities that individuals do not, and vice versa.

The first accusation this article levels against evangelical Christians has to do with Jesus' teachings about mercy. It is not the government's job to show mercy, but to bear the sword, as Paul states (as he gives the principle of Jesus' pronouncement that Pilate had the power to crucify Him because God gave him that power). It is in the context of a government that shows some semblance of justice that the mercy of an individual can be demonstrated. Biblical Christians must demand justice for evil from their government (i.e. Amos 5:15), even as they show love and mercy and forgiveness to evildoers.

The second accusation has to do with Jesus' teachings about peace. Again, there is the intertwining of government and individual responsibilities. But there is also a misunderstanding about peace. But Jesus said there would be. He said, "My peace is not like the world's peace" and "Don't think that I have come to bring peace into the world. I have not come to bring peace but a sword." Jesus did come to bring peace, but it is a peace between a sinful individual and the Holy God. As for Jesus being completely non-violent, take a look at Luke 22:36 - he instructs us to buy a sword. Our Founding Fathers knew it was important to be able to be armed, and codified it as the Second Amendment. And as for the government, it has a responsibility to protect us from those who would kill us. We can't just say "Let's not fight" if the other side isn't willing to say the same thing. This is not war-mongering, this is protecting the people under its care.

The third accusation has to do with Jesus' teachings about money. In this section, there is an outright lie that Jesus condemned the rich. He did warn in very strong terms that riches have a way of making us not dependent on God, and thus it is very hard for a rich man to put his trust in God and thus go to Heaven. But keep in mind, Abraham, Job, David, and Solomon were all blessed by God with riches (among other things). This is the same God in both testaments. And God did not give governments the responsibility to be generous as he did individuals. If I give my money to the poor, it is charity. If the government takes my money and gives it to the poor, it is theft. By taking my money from me, the government robs me of an opportunity to be generous. And remember that the Bible also says he that doesn't work doesn't eat.

But even though this article completely misunderstands Christianity and the teachings of Jesus, there is a point that Biblical Christians are not perfect followers of God's commands. But they are not complete failures either. Southern Baptists were one of the biggest groups giving help of all sorts (clearing debris, feeding, providing showers, etc.) after Hurricane Katrina. We have been responding in very significant ways to some of the world's biggest crises, like the earthquakes in Haiti and Japan.

So social scientists say evangelical Christians are failing, but they are looking at our results with the wrong answer sheet. And that's to be expected. If they really understood what Christianity was all about, they would be one.

Lessons on a Train

10/27/2008

Son,

I'm missing you while I'm out of town for a few days for the Missouri Baptist Convention. I got up early this morning so I could ride a train to St. Louis. I know you would have really liked to have been on the train with me. It seems like you have always liked trains. I was reminded of a few things, a few life lessons, while making my trip.

First of all, I was amazed by how cheap I was able to travel by train from Lee’s Summit to St. Louis. It was definitely cheaper than if I had driven, even with the cheaper gas prices. How is possible for it to be so cheap? Because there are many people on the train. It makes me think about how God wants us to work together, like when He says that “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor” (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12). And then when He talks about how we’re all supposed to work together in the church, when He compares the church to the body: “For as the body is one and has many parts, and all the parts of that body, though many, are one body – so also is Christ” (I Corinthians 12:12-31). God can accomplish much through the church. But that only works if they are all Christians and there is unity. If we were all trying to go different directions on the train, it really wouldn’t have worked very well.

It is a chilly fall day today, but we rode past a golf course, and sure enough there were some golfers out there (some in stocking hats). You know I don’t do much golfing, but when I do, I prefer it to be a nice sunny day, not too hot and not too cold. I guess golfing must be important to these folks out there on the fairway today. If it’s important, you stick with it no matter what the weather. That’s why Paul said to Timothy, “Preach the Word! Be ready in season and out of season” (II Timothy 4:2). God’s Word is the important thing. Don’t ever forget or minimize how important God’s Word is.

Along the way, we had to stop from time to time to let a freight train go by. I think there were also times when a freight train had to wait for us to get by. Everybody has to wait. Sometimes it’s hard to wait. But if nobody waited, we would have crashed into the freight train. And then we would definitely be waiting. Jesus says the ones who want to be first will end up being last (Mark 10:31) and Paul reminds us to put others ahead of ourselves (Philippians 2:3).

There was a lot of pretty scenery today. There were wonderful woods with creeks winding through them. There were fields of recently harvested corn and what looked to me like ready to be harvested beans. And there were several towns that we rode past, some of which I would describe as “struggling.” But I would imagine that they have been that way, doing what they’re doing, for so long that they don’t think of it as struggling anymore. It’s just the way life is. And maybe they’ve grown to be content with what they have. There’s a lot of financial worries out there these days, but God wants us to be content with whatever He gives us, like Paul learned to be (Philippians 4:11-13).

One thing I noticed that struck my attention was a basketball court, a slab of concrete and goals at either end. From the brief and distant look I got of it, it looked like it was probably built 30 or 40 years ago, and was suffering from neglect. It was set off a little ways from a row of houses. I’m sure some of those houses must have been homes to families with children old enough to enjoy a good game of basketball. But no one was taking care of this place. I’ve not been very good at teaching you to take care of your stuff. But God has given you some very important stuff, too (and I believe He is going to give you other very important stuff in the future as well). And I hope you will not let those things become neglected and forgotten. Paul reminded Timothy to “do not neglect the gift that is in you” but encouraged him to focus on this gift from God and use it (I Timothy 4:14-16).

The scenery was nice, but I was really hoping for some pretty fall foliage. I didn’t notice much for quite a while. There were various shades of green, and then some dull oranges and browns, but no vibrant reds and oranges and yellows. And then, very late in the trip, this glorious clifftop full of reds appeared. So be patient; wait for God’s beauty. If you settle for what comes along at the first, you may miss what God has coming up. God “is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think” (Ephesians 3:20-21).

There were all sorts of people on this train ride with me to St. Louis. There were young people, old people, families, people like me traveling alone. There were young men who should have been old enough to know that the seat of their pants belongs on the part of the body that hits the seat. Sometimes, people that are different can make us uncomfortable, for no other reason than just because they are different. When we all get to Heaven, the Bible tells us that there will be people from every group there (Revelation 7:9). So I guess we need to get started now trying to move past that uncomfortableness to getting to know more about these different people.

At one station that we pulled into to let people off, I noticed families reunited – adult children helping their parents with their things, grandchildren rushing to give their grandparents a hug. The joy of those reunions displayed on their faces makes me think about how exciting it is going to be when we are reunited with those who have gone to Heaven before us, that we have been missing while we were still on earth (I Thessalonians 4:13-18).

There was one little boy, maybe three years old, who was so excited to be riding on a train. He made me think of you, of how excited you used to be about trains when you were younger like him, and how you are a little less interested in them now that you are older. I know you are not saved yet, but I pray that someday you will be. And it is quite likely that sometime after you become a Christian, that being a Christian will not seem like such an exciting thing to you. People often tend to grow in their relationship to God in spurts – there is a time of drifting away from God that reaches a point where we are pulled back to Him. I wish you would always have a very close relationship with God, or that you would always have a relationship with God that was growing closer. But that probably won’t be the case. Like you have drifted from your interest in trains, you will probably drift away from God some. When that happens, I hope you will be able to quickly recognize it, and pray as David did for God to “restore to me the joy of Your salvation” (Psalm 51:12).

The train was way too bouncy to do any reading, and I couldn’t find a comfortable position to sleep in. Sometimes when God won’t let you sleep, and works to keep you from getting distracted, He may be trying to teach you a lesson. Or reminding you of a few.

I love you, Son.

-Dad

P.S. Whenever someone tells you that it should just be about a mile and it should be an easy walk, don’t believe them. "For many deceivers have gone out into the world..." (II John 1:7)

Joseph, Part 4: One Missing Character

Tonight is opening night, and this is my last post concerning the musical "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor® Dreamcoat." I think I have saved the most stunning criticism for last.

There is one prominent character from the story of Joseph that is missing from this musical adaptation. Obviously, Joseph is there, his eleven brothers, and his father Jacob. There is Potiphar and his wife, the butler and baker Joseph met in prison, and the mighty Pharaoh. That's everybody, isn't it? No, there is one other character that is mentioned more than 30 times in the Bible between Genesis chapters 37 and 50. But who this one could be...

Amazingly, all mention of God is completely extracted from this telling of the story of Joseph. It wasn't God who gave Joseph the dreams, it was Joseph who dreamed big. It wasn't God who interpreted his cellmates' dreams (Genesis 40:8) or Pharaoh's dream (Genesis 41:16), it was a knack that Joseph had. It wasn't God who put Joseph in Second-in-Command in Egypt (Genesis 45:9), Joseph got a "lucky break." It wasn't God who was working all these things for good (Genesis 50:20), it was Joseph thinking it wanting it feeling it.

Who would have thought it was possible to tell the story of Joseph without any mention of God? But when you do, it changes the nature and moral of the story. Instead of a story of God's providence and protection through even the most difficult of times, it becomes a story of personal perseverance focused on a dream. You see, it is not the same story.

We see this happening at Christmas, with anything having to do with Christianity forcibly removed from schools, stores, television, etc. I know, it's the opposite end of the calendar to bring up Christmas, but it is important to tie many events together to see the pattern of what is going on around us. You remember the stores that tried to ban "Merry Christmas" from their greetings and the word "Christmas" from their advertisements. It's all right to say "Happy Holidays" and talk about Santa Claus and giving gifts. That's all good stuff, but it is not the same story as God sending His Son as a gift to us.

There are also lots of things going on to strip this country of any ties not just to Christianity, but to the Judeo-Christian God. Atheist Michael Newdow continues to pursue removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and removing "In God We Trust" from our money. Last year, for the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the first settlement in America at Jamestown, Virginia, the guides were instructed to leave out all references to Christianity as a part of their description of the site's history. Obviously, there are many more stories like this I could bring up, but that should be enough to make the point.

It is very sad that the mention of God is being systematically removed from all around us. And I think we should work to stop attempts like those of Michael Newdow. But we need to remember, the job of passing on the notion of God is not the government's, it is not Wal-Mart's, it is not Jamestown's. It is yours and mine. We need to be reminding each other and our children of God's role in the Bible stories, of His role in our country's history, and of His role in our lives.

May it never be a crime for anyone to say, "God bless America!"

Joseph, Part 3: Not Just Any Will Do

Preparing for a community theatre production takes a lot of time, so it's hard to do that, keep up with work and home, and still blog every once in a while. But there are several things about the musical "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor® Dreamcoat" that have been bugging me that I just have to write about. This is the third issue I am taking up. I think there will just be one more after this.

One of the songs from the show is called "Any Dream Will Do." I've been trying to figure out what it means, particularly by its title line that is repeated many times throughout the song. The best I can figure is that the authors are trying to say that it doesn't really matter what your motivation is, what is important is that you are moving forward. Another song, called "Go Go Go Joseph," encourages Joseph as he goes through his many difficulties to hang in there and not give up.

I think these two songs really represent the message of the show. And that message is, it doesn't really matter what drives you, it just matters that you are driven and don't give up. So, assuming that Joseph was driven to keep going based on these dreams of stars and golden sheaves, it didn't matter, according to the musical, that the dreams were from God, or if they were pagan words of encouragement.

So what we see is that there are two related philosophies being promoted. First of all, "Any Dream Will Do" in particular pushes the idea of pluralism, that Christianity, Eastern philosophy, New Age religion, Islam, etc., are all equally valid. It doesn't really matter which one you pick, just take one. For instance, this article points out the the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament, and the Qur'an all share the same principles of loving one God and loving our neighbors. The differences, they go on to say, are theological, as if to imply that somehow theology is to some degree insignificant. And that thought establishes the close relationship between pluralism and this next idea.

The second philosophy that lurks around in these songs is that of pragmatism, that the important thing is not how you get to the end, the important thing is getting to a good end. Within the larger context, we see pragmatism stressed when people compare religions. As in the previous article, they will say there is no difference between the peace-loving devout Muslim and the peace-loving devout Christian. But even within the smaller context of Protestant Christianity, we see how doctrine, how truth, is being cast aside go with what "works." Here is a web site with several resources that point out some of the things churches are doing and what the problem might be with those things. John MacArthur in particular has some important things to say about pragmatism.

The Biblical story of Joseph is really not a story about Joseph following his dreams through rough times to eventual glory, but about Joseph following God. It mattered where the dreams came from; not just any dream would do. Joseph's story is an inspiration not because of all the wealth, fame, power, etc., he gained at the end, but because of how he followed God throughout and didn't abandon God when it didn't seem like God was "working." Joseph is a story of well-placed and consistent faith. I certainly don't wish for the trials of Joseph, but whatever comes, may I live a life of faith like Joseph's.

Joseph, Part 2: Wrong Wing

Happy Independence Day!

We've got several months before we get to the presidential election, but less than a week before opening night of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor® Dreamcoat."

I don't know if it is just me, but election cycles seem to get longer and longer. Now that we are finally down to the two party candidates (no offense to those running for president but not in the two major political parties), I would kind of hope for a lull. But we still hear about them every day, things like how left-wing Barack H. Obama is (or may not be according to this article or this one, or this interview discussing whether Obama and Hillary represent two left wings of the liberal party), and how (disappointingly) not right-wing John McCain is (as evidenced by this reluctant show of support or this article from early this year and even a surprising quote from his own mother found in this article).

Left-wing and right-wing get used a lot as synonyms for liberal and conservative. But do they mean the same thing? What do left-wing and right-wing mean?

My answer right now is, I don't completely know (I've noticed that others have tried to think about this as well). The dictionary I checked said that left-wing means something along the lines of "being of the liberal party, or of the liberal portion of a party," and likewise for right-wing. So that makes them sound like synonyms. But others, like this article that is only partially available for free on the Internet, make the case that there is a distinct difference between "liberal" and "left wing".

So what does this have to do with the musical "Joseph?" In the beginning of the second act, while Joseph is in a prison cell in Egypt, a new character comes to the stage. It is Pharaoh, the King, and presented as the Egyptian Elvis. The Narrator describes Pharaoh as "a powerful man with the ancient world in the palm of his hand." Further, "No one had rights or a vote but the King. In fact you might say he was fairly right wing."

Wait a minute. Think about some of the totalitarian governments in recent history. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro. All of these are socialistic, the liberal economic policy. So would it not be at least as accurate to say Pharaoh was "fairly left wing?"

I'm not at all happy that my children are merrily getting it hammered into their heads that "right wing" equals dictatorial. I suggested to the director that we sing "right wing" half the nights and "left wing" the other half. That way we could be equal opportunity offenders. I was overruled.

Joseph, Part 1: You Can Believe What You Read

I don't think I've gotten very personal in any of my posts yet, meaning I haven't said much about myself beyond what I think about a particular issue. So this post will be a little different in that regard.

I have two great children, a ten-year-old daughter and a seven-year-old son, and the three of us are all preparing for a community theatre production of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor® Dreamcoat." As a preacher (and the dad of an actor or two) as well as an actor, I try to consider not just how "fun" a show is, but what messages it sends. "Joseph" is definitely a fun show that tells the events of Joseph's life reasonably close to what is recorded in the Bible. But I do have some areas of contention, which I am going to write about as a series of posts.

This first concern is a line that is not in our musical score, so our production won't be including it. But it was in the 1992 Canadian Cast Recording soundtrack featuring Donny Osmond as Joseph. The line is spoken by Potiphar as an aside as the Narrator and he describe himself and his wife. The Narrator sings, "Potiphar was cool and so fine," and Potiphar continues, "But my wife would never toe the line." The Narrator points out that, "It's all there in chapter thirty-nine of Genesis," to which Potiphar speaks, "Don't believe everything you read, dear."

So, obviously, as one who believes that the Bible is what it claims to be - the Word of God and truthful throughout - I have a little problem with this statement. Some would argue that the Bible contains the Word of God, and thus Potiphar's statement would be valid. Others would contend that the Bible is just a book written by people trying to understand God or their world and no different, no more accurate, than any other book ever written, and from their perspective Potiphar's statement would also be correct. But that is not what the Bible says about itself. Even as the Bible grows from the first five books of Moses to including the prophets, the books of wisdom, etc., it is consistently referred to as the Word of God, with all the unquestionable authority that implies. This web page does a pretty good job of defending whether the Bible lives up to that description of being the Word of God, saying many of the things I would bring out plus others I didn't know.

I understand that this little aside by Potiphar may be a reflection of Potiphar's character more than an attempt to make a statement. But I think it very much does make a statement, very lightly so it will not immediately offend. And that is just the kind of statement we have to watch out for - lightly, even humorously made, stuck innocently in the middle of a fun little song our children enjoy singing.

How Wrong Can You Be?

There will always be things that we just can't know about God until we reach eternity. There will also be things that we are going to understand incorrectly. There are wonderful, intelligent Christians that if I were ever in doubt about some theological matter, I would completely trust their analysis of it, but with whom I disagree on certain issues. What I'm saying is, every person who claims to be a Christian is going to be wrong about Christianity to some degree.

So my question is, how wrong can you be and still be all right? A speaker at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) (man, these guys can provide lots of material) General Assembly in Memphis says we can talk about Christ without necessarily seeing him as the incarnate God, according to this Baptist Press article. If one doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ, that is not the Jesus of the New Testament, the Jesus that the Apostles preached, the Jesus that orthodox Christianity has proclaimed from its beginnings. The speaker insists that this Christ is still Savior, but a non-divine Jesus is not the Jesus who can save people's souls and give people life.

Jesus Himself lets us know that not everyone who claims to be a Christian, not everyone who call Jesus "Lord," are actual Christians. In fact, in Matthew 7:21-23 He describes the Christian ministry work these people perform, and yet will be completely rejected from the Kingdom of Heaven. They call Jesus "Lord," they prophesy in Jesus' name, they cast out demons in Jesus' name, they do miracles in Jesus' name, and yet Jesus' accusation of them is apparently that they do not do the will of the Father. How can this be? These people who are turned away seem completely surprised. I would suggest that perhaps one reason is because they had made up their own "God" and "Jesus" with characteristics and commands they were comfortable with, so that when they were confronted with the real Jesus, He says He never knew them.

I am working on a sermon series called "The Danger of Almost God" based on Exodus 32. While Moses is up on the mountain receiving instruction from the Lord, the children of Israel build a gold calf. Notice in verse 5 that in the presence of this calf they are having a festival to the Lord, and also in verse 8 that they are attributing to this calf their rescue from Egypt. Some in our day might defend the Israelites, saying they were worshipping God as best as they understood Him. But this is a case where "almost" isn't good enough at all, for God's response in verse 10 is a desire to destroy Israel, and in verse 35 He instead sent a plague on them.

How wrong can you be about God or Jesus and still be recognized by Jesus in the Kingdom of Heaven? Let us cling to the revelation He has given us about Himself in His Word. Anything else is playing with fire.

The Illogical Is Becoming Conventional

I realize that I let the Southern Baptist Convention in Indianapolis slip by without a single comment. In fact, I've let a lot of stuff slip by without a peep. I am planning some posts that will explain why I haven't been able to jump up on my little Internet soapbox and say anything. So be watching for those.

This past week, there was another gathering of people who call themselves Baptists. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF) met in Memphis, where they made some pretty outlandish statements. Take a look at this one, for example, in a Baptist Press article. One speaker claims that some passages of Scripture "embody the Spirit of Jesus" more than others. Maybe I'll come back to that one, because that is big enough to go on about for quite some time. But as this same speaker considers the "spirit" of Galatians 3:28, he came to the illogical conclusion that, "if we were not going to ordain women, we were going to have to stop baptizing girls."

Egalitarians, those who believe that there are absolutely no differences aside from genitalia between the genders, almost always start their argument off with Galatians 3:28. They rip it from its context to make it say much more than it does. Its context is a discussion of salvation, and the verse makes the point that everyone, not just Jewish males, but every person, has a need for salvation in Christ, and are saved in exactly the same way, not by works but by faith in Christ Jesus. The verse mentions three areas of distinction - race, status, and gender. Nothing about any of those makes any difference in a person's need for or means of salvation. But those three areas of distinction do still exist. The Jews do seem to still have their own part to play in events that have been prophesied, and by Jesus' command were to be preached the Gospel first. Paul did not use this concept to try to keep the slave Onesimus from going back to his master Philemon, and there will always be those who are workers and those who are their masters or leaders. Likewise, there continues to be differences between the genders that go beyond the physical.

One of those areas of difference has to do with preaching and pastoring. The CBF speaker fails to recognize that God does not use everyone He saves in the same way. And even if he does recognize that some are called or gifted for this or that, he does not recognize that God considers gender in His calling. But the Scriptures that list the qualifications for pastors (or elders) of a church are very specific that the pastor be a "man of one woman." The qualification goes one way; it does not turn around and say "or a woman of one man."

There is more that could be said about that, but stepping away from the pastoral position, what about just preaching? First Timothy 2:11 instructs that the way the church is supposed to work is that women are not supposed to teach or to take authority over the men. That can be extremely offensive to some people. And so they try to explain it away by saying Paul was reacting to a problem with women who lacked proper training or understanding, or it was a cultural thing, that's just how things were done. But the problem with all these attempts to explain this verse into saying something other than exactly what it says is that the rest of the verse gives Paul's explanation for giving this instruction. It comes out of how God created things from the very beginning. There was an order in how and why God created man and woman.

Some will ask, "Can't God call a woman to preach?" as if to imply that if we say He can't, we are saying something is impossible for God, and thus they are attempting to set a trap. Contrary to what we sometimes say, there are wrong questions. Perhaps you've heard the question, Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it? That's a wrong question because it is illogical. The question of "Can God call a woman to preach?" is similar to "Can God tempt a person to sin?" God cannot tempt a person to sin, because it goes against His nature. Likewise, God cannot call a woman to preach within the local church context because it goes against His own Word. But God can and does definitely gift women to teach, and call them to teach, and that calling and that giftedness definitely should be exercised within the Biblical parameters God has given. Without really getting into the subject of God's "calling," our subjective sense of God's calling is limited by what He tells us forthrightly in His Word. If we sense God calling us into something that contradicts His Word, we either misunderstood what the message is or who it was from.

For more about this topic, you can see the articles "God's High Calling for Women, Part 3" (check out the other three parts, too) by John MacArthur or "Women Preachers" by Robert Lewis Dabney. Also, be sure to read the article "Able to Teach and Complementarian?" by Kim Pennington.

Note: I have dealt with only the I Timothy passage in this post, but this doctrine is not built on this single Scripture. The articles I have referred discuss other Biblical texts regarding this issue.

From Greatest Pastime to Greatest Pursuit

You won't find me writing about sports very often on here. This will be one of those rare times, this time because it involves a friend and a brother in Christ. His name is Byron Shores. He gets out there and contends hard for the Kansas City Royals, although he won't be knocking out the new scoreboard with a grand slam home run and he won't be making any game-saving catch. What he will be doing is encouraging the fans to root loud and hard for the Royals as their mascot, Sluggerrr. And, as this article points out, just as he strives for a win for the Royals, he also contends for wins for the King.

For the next several days (until the next issue is posted), the front page should have a picture of Sluggerrr. Unfortunately, there is no picture of Byron. It makes me think of the verse to "Good Ol' Boys" that is not played as part of the theme song to the show "Dukes of Hazzard." Waylon Jennings sings, "I'm a good ol' boy, you know my mama loves me. But she don't understand they keep a-showin' my hands and not my face on TV." Unlike some of us who could use a big costume, Byron is actually not all that ugly.

For more pictures and information about Sluggerrr, you can check out his MySpace page.

Trying to Show a Little Intelligence

Well, the month of May is just almost over, and I need to write at least one post about something more substantive than gasoline.

Imagine a newspaper that covered one particular issue, and for a while it only covered one side of this issue. Then the proponents of the other side began to feel like this situation was a little unfair, and the newspaper and the proponents of the first side acknowledged that maybe they should let the other side get a say in. Time passes, and eventually the newspaper is only covering the second side. So the first side begins to feel like this situation is a little unfair, but when it raises its concerns to the newspaper and the second side, they both laugh in the first side's face.

That's the situation that Ben Stein's documentary film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" presents - that both science and education have shut the door on non-Darwinian theories of origins or even criticism of the Darwinian theory of evolution. That doesn't sound like what science or education would do, you say. But both science and education are stuck defending Darwinism, because there are really only two possibilities for how we all got here. Either we came to be as the most recent in a very long and, frankly, unbelievable series of natural occurrences, or some more powerful, more intelligent designer created us and put us here. Neither science nor education can tolerate a designer operating above nature. But the funny thing is, Darwinian evolution requires more "magical" thinking (more "faith"?) than intelligent design - starting with the violation of the law of biogenesis, which states that life only arises from existing life.

Congratulations to Ben Stein on this film that opened on April 18. Box Office Mojo lists it as the twelfth highest grossing documentary. And at least in part as a result of this film, six states (including Missouri) have introduced "academic freedom bills."

Gas Price Break, Part 2

Gas prices are on the minds of a lot of people, I suspect. And there doesn't seem to be much we can do about them, despite the encouragement of those e-mails that suggest a one-day "boycott" from buying gas or a boycott of certain brands of gas. But the fact that the price of a gallon of gas does have such a direct (as well as indirect) impact on so many of us has caused many churches to think about ways to use gasoline as something of an attention-getter, as I pointed out in my last post. But here is a different approach that seems to be a little more Christ-honoring.

I Could Use the Gas Price Break, But...

First of all, gas prices are RIDICULOUS! That pretty much goes without saying. And I know it is affecting many of us quite seriously - it almost costs more to drive to work than we'll make once we get there. So, I guess it is only natural that churches would want to try to help some of the people affected. But I'm thinking this is probably not the way to go about it.

It seems to me that publicity is not something that is completely off-limits for churches. A yellowish-colored pages advertisement in the phone book, a web page, or a listing in the local newspaper - those would all be excellent ways to let people know that you exist, where you're at, and maybe a little bit about you. But isn't the church's only "marketing gimmick," the only way we are given to add to a church's membership, by presenting the Gospel, which is very likely going to be seen not as compelling but as offensive?