Considering Churches and Sex

This story from the Odd News is certainly odd.  A Florida church is in trouble for a 3-week series about “great sex.”  No, the problem is not the denomination, or some stuffy members upset about such a scandalous thing.

The problem in this case is the “risk management” department of the local school board.  The controversy revolves around the 25,000 mailers sent to homes in the target area of the church.

Mark Langdorf, the director of risk management, says the mailers generated complaints, were not appropriate for elementary school children and shouldn’t be used to advertise the sermon in the school.

This implies a few things, which really aren’t true.

First, that the mailers were geared for, and sent to, children.  Elementary school children to be precise.  I seriously doubt they were sent to elementary school children.

Second, that elementary school children don’t hear about sex from … the school.  Yes, there could be some hypocrisy at work here.  It is okay for the kids to hear about sex, including certain deviations from normalcy portrayed as normal.  But not okay for a church to instruct adults about God’s good plan for sex within the confines and freedom of marriage.

Churches should be teaching people about sex- not just the when not to part.  A certain famous pastor has been attacking another certain famous pastor for doing just that using the Song of Solomon which last I checked was in the Bible, and about …. sex (among other things).  Most churches don’t have elementary age school children in the service for the sermon however.  So, I’m not sure how this would ‘damage’ the children who attend the school (which is the risk the risk management board should be assessing, though they might need to look at their own curriculum).  Nor should it damage the children who attend the church.

This is an off-hours, voluntary event that is not contiguous with normal school hours or any other school event.  So what is the problem here?  I just don’t understand how this could even be an issue.  But I guess it shows that the world is even more inconsistent when it comes to sex than the church is.

Read Full Post »

Considering My New Box o’ Books

With a slight let up in work, I can get to work on the new box of books that just arrived from the Westminster Theological Seminary Bookstore.  Here’s what I got:

• Doing Things Right in Matters of the Heart by John Ensor.  I thought this was a book on sanctification.  Oppps, it is about marriage.  I suspect I’ll still benefit from reading it.
• Concerning the True Care of Souls by Martin Bucer.  I’m really looking forward to this.
• Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson.  I find all of his books helpful.  I’m interested to see how he develops Niehbur’s work and applies it to the present.
• The Courage to be Protestant by David Wells.  I shamefully confess it has been nearly a decade since I’ve read one of his books.  This will change that.
• The Heart of Prayer by Jerram Barrs.  Really looking forward to this one too.

Read Full Post »

Considering Satan

On Nightline, there was a Face Off regarding the reality of Satan.  Mark Driscoll was one of the participants.  Mark did a great job integrating the reality of the Evil One with a presentation of the gospel.  He offered hope in the midst of our personal and societal struggles.

And then there was Deepok Chopra gave a bunch of ying & yang psycho-babble (quoting Freud, but in line with Jung’s work) about how “healthy people don’t need the devil.”   Bishop Pearson forsakes his calling based on a false stereo-type.  Nice.  Another “bishop” denying the teaching of Scripture.  I guess we solve the problem of evil by just not thinking about it.

Both of argue against the belief in the devil on the basis of wars- religious wars.  just because some nuts believe you can drop the bomb on the devil to destroy him does not make this a reason to deny personal evil.  It is a Straw Man argument, fallacious to the core.  The devil is not material, can’t be bombed, shot or drugged out of existence.  Only Jesus destroys the work of the devil (Hebrews 2, I think), which Pearson forgot to mention when saying Jesus would not be pleased by all that bomb dropping.  I’m pretty sure Jesus isn’t pleased with those who think dropping bombs (or flying planes into sky scrappers) is the way to defeat The Great Satan.  Now, legitimate governments bearing the sword against those who pose a threat against those they are charged to protect (Romans 13) is another story.  But the ultimate solution is only Christ and Him crucified to destroy, among other things, the hate in our hearts and the evils that flow from that.

Read Full Post »

Considering We Own The Night

We Own the Night takes place in drug plagued late 80’s New York City.  It is the story of a father and his two sons.  To say there are dad issues in this movie is quite the understatement.  I was reminded of the story of the Prodigal Son(s).  Joaquin Phoenix plays Bobby, the son of the Police Chief (played by Robert Duvall) who takes the last name of his late mother.  He avoids the Police Department and ends up running a night club.  He also avoids his family since he is a big disappointment to his father.  He finds a substitute in the club owner, a Russian who imports fur.  He is like family to the Russian and his family.  The man’s wife tries to fatten him up and treats him like the son she never had.

Mark Wahlberg plays the obedient, trusted son Joseph.  He joined the Police Department and has risen to the rank of Captain.  He is angry at his brother for leaving home and the family business.  Bobby is angry at him for messing up the good thing he thinks he has going, and the condemnation he feels.

Tensions heighten because Joe is the head of the new drug task force.  He and his father inform Bobby that the owner’s nephew is a Russian mobster dealing drugs out of the club.  Soon Bobby will have to choose between his real family and the family he thinks he loves- the one that tolerates and supports his very indulgent lifestyle.

What emerges is an average cop drama with a fantastic performance by Joaquin.  Not all that happens makes sense, particularly during the car chase.  The ending seems a bit under-whelming as well.  The most interesting aspect of the movie was the family relationships as Bobby comes home seeking redemption.  Like Jesus’ story of the Prodigal, the ‘stay-at-home’ brother resents the welcome home the licentious brother receives.  Only time reveals Joseph’s true motivations for the “righteous” life he led.  Funny how we just can’t escape Christ’s teaching, no matter how hard we try.

The movie starts off with more Eva Mendes than I needed to see, and some topless dancers.  After about 5 minutes the nudity is done.  Being a crime drama, there is plenty of bad language.  Though there is plenty of action, it is not graphic- except for a fight in an apartment.

Unfortunately this movie has had much better competition in this genre (American Gangster, The Departed).  We Own the Night doesn’t own the genre, but makes a respectable showing.

Read Full Post »

Considering A New Kind of Christian

On the right, where he doesn't want to be!

Feeling quite behind the times, I borrowed a friend’s copy of A New Kind of Christian.  I have been unable to get to it the last few weeks.  It was as if I just didn’t have the mental energy.  Oddly, I was able to make some significant headway today on the plane and relaxing in the backyard.

I am sympathetic to the concerns often raised by members of the emergent church movement.  I don’t often like their answers to the problems.  As I read Brian McLaren’s book, I experienced that same strange conflux of thoughts.

As I read the book I would be considered one of the modernist Christians McLaren is trying to ‘convert’.  I guess I feel like a non-Christian would feel when reading one of those poorly written novels intending to convert you to Christianity.  Not completely- I’m not angry with McLaren though I take exception with some of his conclusions.  Thus far anyway.

McLaren does point out that the extremes in popular American Christianity are problematic.  He comes off a bit reductionistic to me.  He does this by neglecting the good things that those modernistic American Christians have contributed to society.  He thinks we should do more than we preach- showing the gospel with our actions.  Yes, and many do this.  Many American evangelicals reach out to the poor and oppressed.  They are often very generous.  And it seems less than generous to ignore this in his gentle diatribe against enculturated modern Christians a.k.a. organized religion or the institutional church.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Summer Sale

WTS Books is having a summer sale until 7/30, so you had better hurry up!  They offer flat rate shipping and books are 50% off, so now is the time to buy!  I just wish I had a book allowance to enjoy this great opportunity 😦  However, if enough of you, my fair readers, visit via my blog I’ll get a good gift certificate!

Here are some Cavman recommendations-

• Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for us in Justification edited by Scott Oliphint.  I haven’t read it, but would love to.  The title would suggest that our union with Christ, as well as imputation, is in view.
• Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson.  Haven’t read it either, but it is on my wish list at WTS Books.  I wonder if he ends up where I did on this.
• The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative by Christopher Wright.  Haven’t read it, but looks like I should.  I’ll be adding it to my wish list.
• Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation by Graeme Goldsworthy.  I really enjoyed According to Plan, and want to read this.  Do you note a theme here?
• Genesis by Bruce Waltke.  Okay, I don’t have it.  He is an excellent scholar so if you are ever thinking of preaching or teaching on Genesis- buy this!
• Breaking the Idols of Your Heart: How to Navigate the Temptations of Life by Dan Allender and Tremper Longman.  I read this in its previous incarnation- Bold Purpose.  It is a great, challenging book.
• What Jesus Demands from the World by John Piper.  Not an easy read, nor a short one.  But a worthwhile one.
• Twelve Challenges Churches Face by Mark Dever.  Not too familiar with this one, but it looks like one worth reading.

Read Full Post »

Considering The Dark Knight

The hype on this movie was big.  And, quite frankly, The Dark Knight delivers.  Christopher Nolan, as writer, producer and director, has taken this series to a place no one ever dream Batman could go.  It exceeded my high expectations.

Think of the first go round.  In my opinion, the 1st and 3rd movies were the best ones.  Batman Returns was ruined by all the sexual talk of the Penguin.  It was just plain dark and dreary.  Val Kilmer was smart not to retun for the 4th installment which saw a retun of the campy feel of the TV show. 

Nolan restarted the series with the decidedly dark Batman Begins.  In The Dark Knight the story continues faster, louder and more dangerous.  In terms of continuity, most of the original cast returns.  There is a cameo by Scarecrow at the beginning, and Bruce Wayne still longs for childhood friend Rachel Dawes.  Batman and Lt. Gordon are close to shutting down the mob with the help of new DA Harvey Dent.  Bruce sees the day that he can retire the mask and Gotham can have a respectable hero in Dent.

This is when all Hades breaks lose in the person of the Joker.  He has been hired, he actually extorted them, to end the threat by putting an end to Batman.

The Joker is utterly diabolical; something of an anti-christ figure who unleashes chaos and destruction on Gotham.  Unlike the other villians, he has no origins we know about.  He appears mysteriously.  We never know who he really is, or why he is the way he is.  He even tells different stories about why he has the nasty smile-shaped scar on his face.  He does not have the usual motives- money or power.  He wants to destroy people, to test them and reveal that they can become evil if pushed to the edge.  He is the devil while Batman plays the role of Job in this theodicy without a God.

The Joker wants to corrupt Batman, and then Dent, not through seduction but through heartbreak.  He figures that if he pushes the right button they will reject their code of ethic.  He is downright scary.  Heath Ledger turns in a fantastic performance, somehow channeling both Caesar Romero and Jack Nicholson yet giving him a completely unique personality.  His bent personality is matched by his bent body.  His head often hangs.  His perspective is just as bent.

Batman is not a true vigilante.  He tries to bring criminals to justice, rather than mete out justic himself.  And he displays an unusual respect for the dignity of human life.  He does not shoot criminals, or apprehend them using guns.  The guns he uses are typically used against inanimate objects.  He uses strength, technology and craftiness to defeat his opponents.  Sorry, this all dawned on me this morning.

 This version has many more explosions and gun shots, in addition to the hand-to-hand (the real meaning of mano a mano) combat.  The Joker is a violent psychopath who murders plenty of people.  He has no respect for human life.  He sees it all as a game between himself and Batman (the unstoppable force meets the immovable object).  Nolan creates an exciting, thoughtful story filled with one memorable character in the Joker, and a very hideous character in Two Face- the ‘converted’ Harvey Dent who was driven mad by Joker’s insideous plan.  He gives in to the notion of chaos and chance ruling the universe.

But Batman stands in contrast as the man who doesn’t forsake his ideals in the midst of terror.  Though tempted, he refuses to destroy even Joker.  But in the process, he becomes a scapegoat.  He bears the sins of Two Face to preserve Harvey Dent’s reputation lest the Joker win and the people lose hope.  Batman becomes something of a messianic figure to the Joker’s devil.

All this in one action-packed adventure story.  Chris Nolan has outdone himself- making more than a great super-hero movie, but a great movie, period.  This tale of good and evil is worth watching repeatedly.  Just not for kids.

Read Full Post »

Considering American Gangster

I expected more from American Gangster.  It stars two first-rate actors, and personal favorites, in Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe.  It is directed by Ridley Scott.  The acting and direction were very good.  The story was interesting too.  So, I’m not quite sure why I’m not content, or as content, with this movie.  Perhaps my expectations were too high.  Perhaps it was that the story takes place over such a long period of time, but offers no time line to better understand its development.  And I thought it would have more action.

It is the story of 2 men whose lives intersect, and are very similar.  Denzel plays Frank Lucas, a body guard for a Harlem mob boss.  He watches his boss, and after his death decides to step into his shoes as the neighborhood’s beneficent dictator.  He must remove some competition, and convince the Italians that he is their equal.  His is a story of dogged determination and perseverence.  He had a good head for business, but decided to use his abilities for evil instead of good.  But he justifies it based on the good he does for his family (whom he’s brought up from NC to work for him) and the community.

Russell Crowe is Ritchie Roberts, a clean cop who also displays dogged determination and perseverence.  As head of a drug task force, he hunts Lucas for years.  In the meantime, he passes his bar exam.  He cares about his son, but has trouble relationally.  He’s a womanizer, so his wife left him.  One of the subplots is the fight for custody of his son.  Since he refuses to take any bribe money or steal evidence, he drives a beat up junker through most of the movie.  It is his conflict with his wife that opens up one of the most amazing lines of dialogue.

“Don’t punish me for being honest.  Don’t take my boy.”

“You don’t take money for one reason: to buy being dishonest about everything else. … You think you’re going to heaven because you’re honest, but you’re not.  You’re going to the same hell as the crooked cops you can’t stand!”

Wow!  What an apt description of how self-righteousness functions in our lives.  We narrow God’s law down to a few things- in this case being a clean cop.  As long as we do that- we are righteous in our own eyes.  We neglect the rest of God’s commands which would condemn us, and use the ones we keep to condemn others.  He blinds himself to just how messed up he really is, and feels a martyr for suffering for his one area of obedience.  This is a great window into our souls!

Those crooked cops stand between the men for years.  Lucas hates the fact that he has to pay them off.  In another great line of thought I couldn’t find again to copy- he compares their love of money to an addict.  The crooked cops (and the hangers on in his life) can’t get enough- they are just as addicted.  Another great window to our souls!  They also hinder Roberts’ efforts to bring Lucas down.  When Roberts get the goods on Lucas, he uses him to bring them down.

The movie ends with Lucas getting out of prison to be met by Roberts who is now his lawyer.  Oh, the irony of it all.  Roberts is essentially on the take as a defense attorney, but probably sees himself as defending men from the crooked cops.  He, too, is now addicted to money.

American Gangster is what you’d expect of a gangster movie- plenty of bad language, shocking violence and a bit of nudity.  But as a morality play, it does offer us some insight into human behavior.  As a morality play, it doesn’t offer us insight into how to change and be free of our self-centeredness and addictions.

Read Full Post »

The Dark Side of Sports

The defamation suit filed by Roger Clemens against Brian McNamee has resulted in some unintended consequences for the Rocket.  Lots of allegations against him regarding his personal life (which his suit claimed pointed to his sterling character).  You could see this coming, but it is still sad whether the allegations are true or not.  Roger issued a Giambi-like apology while denying the allegations.  My, that was helpful.  Either he has the worst lawyer ever, or he is the worst client ever.  This rivals the Seinfeld episodes with Kramer’s fast-talking lawyer to whom he never listened.

But another story caught my eye.  It took place in Nashua, NH.  This would be the small New England city in which I grew up.  It involved fans of the Red Sox and a Yankees fan.  And what unfolded was a pathetic testimony to how some people take this thing way too seriously.

I am an avid Red Sox fan.  I’ll admit I’ve had a few lively dialogues while attending games in Tampa (actually the Rays play in St. Pete which is an additional 45 minutes away).  Mostly that was challenging outrageous claims on omniscience on the part of Rays fans.  I once asked a guy if he was God since he seemed to know so much about the motivation of a man he never met.

The Yankees are our “arch enemy”.  I saw some ugly events as a child in Fenway sitting in the right field seats in the late 70’s.  Reggie Jackson was verbally abused continuously.  Yankees’ fans were also attacked verbally and with beverages.  I do not condone any of those actions, but detest them.  Some of my best friends are Yankees’ fans.  We have a playful rivalry, not one that is life and death.  I’ve even watched them play one another, in the playoffs, with some of my Yankee fan friends.

But, in Nashua things got ugly after a fist fight between 2 women (what are we coming to?).  One stomped off to her car and the crowd noticed the Yankees’ bumper sticker.  The taunts began.  [for the record, you may not like the Yankees, but they certainly do not stink or any related term.]  She responded by driving straight for the crowd.  Admittedly she had been drinking and her decision-making process somewhat impaired.  Theirs undoubtedly was too.  For she thought they’d move; and they thought she’d stop.  But she ran into the crowd killing a man.

Sports is no reason to kill a person.  Yet this happens all over the world, not just in Nashua, NH.  We will never be able to coexist as long as we gain our identity in someone or something other than Christ.  We will protect our idols, even if we have to kill.  This, folks, is who we are- all too often.

Read Full Post »

Considering Iron Man

I was not a big comic book fan.  But I usually enjoy movies based on comic books.  I suppose too much is lost emotionally with drawings rather in motion pictures.  I’m thinking more of the shifting emotions.  Or I am a snob.

I’m not a big Iron Man fan, nor was I anticipating the movie.  Robert Downy Jr.?  Not even remotely a draw for me.  But Jon Faverau (Mikey from Swingers, director of Elf) is the director (as well as pulling a cameo as Tony Stark’s driver) and the trailers made it look interesting.  The initial reviews have been pretty good.  So I plunked down my $6.50 and enjoyed a matinee.

I’m glad I did.  As the first in what the producers hope is a series, this movie introduced the character and set the stage for all that is to come.  Robert Downy Jr. was a good casting move for this movie.  You buy into him as Tony Stark- a womanizing, smart-mouthed man prone to the excesses that his incredible wealth affords him.  His family has been in the defense industry since World War II.  He is an engineering genius.  His parents died while he was a teen.  His father’s friend Obediah ran the business until Tony joined him when he turned 21.

You really don’t like Tony.  He’s arrogant and a user of people.  But all of that changes when he is captured by terrorists in Afghanistan.  The religious aspects are complete ignored.  What the movie focuses on is that they are using weapons manufactured by his company!  Despite patriotic intentions, his weapons systems are being used by aggressors not just for defense.  Stuck in the cave for 3 months he has an epiphany.

But he’s trapped in a cave.  He is recovering from heart surgery after shrapenal from one of his weapons injures him in the attack.  The also-imprisoned doctor uses a magnet to keep the remaining shrapenal from going into his heart.  There he must build his latest weapons system for the warlord.  Instead, Tony makes a technological discovery and also creates a metal suit with weapons to make his way to freedom.

He succeeds in escaping and decides to develop his original design.  Back home people don’t understand the change in mindset that has overtaken him.  It is a picture of repentance (without the religious component).  His whole reason for living, and how he lives, changes.  He is, essentially, a new man.  He tries to right the wrongs of his past.  Unfortunately for him, there is a betrayer who tries to destoy him.

There aren’t as many battle scenes as I’d like, but they fit the story line.  The focus is on character development.  Tony comes face-to-face with his personal emptiness, confessing to his personal assistant (played well by Gwyneth Paltrow): “You are all I have.”  Due to her attentiveness to his compulsive nature, he is all she has too.  A very different looking Jeff Bridges plays Obediah.  He looks like he’s put on some muscle (thicker, but not fat), grew a goatee and shaved his head.

The ending was not as good as the rest of the movie.  It was a letdown in some ways.  But this was a good summer blockbuster.  But it is not mindless.  It has themes of repentance, redemption, betrayal, sacrifice etc.  He can only survive because of a power outside of himself.  Not quite a new heart, but pretty intriguing.  The ‘new’ Tony Stark uses his wealth and genius to help the poor and oppressed, not for his own excess.  These are things that a Christian can affirm, and should be doing.  But the ‘old’ Tony will pose some uncomfortable moments for parents (no nudity, but some implied sexual immorality).  In the context you see that his sin does not satisfy. 

Overall, Jon Faverau did a good job with the pacing of the movie.  There was enough humor to keep it from being too serious.  Much of this takes place while he builds the high tech suit at his home workshop.  The soundtrack also had lots of hard rock, but Black Sabbath’s Iron Man doesn’t show up until the credits.  The soundtrack fit the movie, and that’s what you are looking for in a soundtrack.

This is the first good movie of the summer blockbuster season.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Institutional Church

Yesterday I listened to an interview with Frank Viola and George Barna about their book Pagan Christianity?.  I keep thinking of the former pitcher for the Red Sox.  You have to really have your head in the sand to not notice all the books critical of the “institutional church”.  This is a phrase that was used ad infintinum during the 70-minute interview.  Never defined. 

Here’s my beef with the beef against the institutional church.  Actually I have a few beefs.

1. Overgeneralization.  Yes, many of the criticisms are true of many churches.  But none of the criticisms is true of all churches.  So you end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Yes, for instance, many churches are all about buildings (I could tell you stories, baby).  But not all are.  And that includes some big, famous congregations.  For instance, Redeemer PCA in NYC does not have a building.  They continue to rent facilities.  

But sometimes owning your facility is a good thing.  Rent was one of the problems we ran into in our restart.  If we had put our money into a new facility on a visible piece of land we might have done better.  I don’t know, and never will.  But buildings alone are not the issue- but the attitude about buildings.

2. Lack of Personal Responsibility.  They blame the church, not themselves.  Yes, there are some dysfunctional churches, and churches that enable spiritual slackers.  But most churches I’ve been associated with want people to grow and be involved.  Most people who are not engaged are not engaged because they don’t want to be engaged.  Those people fail to take personal initiative to build relationships with others, allow others into their lives, go to small groups and the list goes on.  It is easy to make the “institutional church” the scapegoat. 

The larger the church the more effort you may have to put into getting to know people.  But I’ve been in churches of over 1,000 and been able to make friends and build relationships that lasted longer than my time there.  Am I special?  No!  I recognized my personal responsibility instead of expecting everyone to initiate contact with me.  Most churches nearly beg people to be involved, they aren’t wanting to have a congregation of spectators.

Read Full Post »

Considering Abortion Art

Yes, your eyes are not deceiving you.  CavWife (CW) ran across this story today.  It comes from the Yale Daily News and is about a Yale art school senior.  It is sad, distressing and disgusting.

Her senior project is “a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.”

She says she did not design this for shock value or scandalize anyone.  Self-deceived or clueless, I’m not sure.  But any reasonable adult would realize that this would shock people.

Personally, I cannot believe someone would even consider doing this.  Art should make us think, but to the betterment of our souls.  It should not de-humanize us.  Due to our depravity, it is far too easy for us to show the ugly side of life.  But it requires far more work to show beauty, dignity and honor.  So, when we give our depravity free rein, it reveals the worst in us instead of the best in us.

Sinclair Ferguson touches on this sad reality.

Only by seeing our sin do we come to see the need for and wonder of grace. But exposing sin is not the same thing as unveiling and applying grace. We must be familiar with and exponents of its multifaceted power, and know how to apply it to a variety of spiritual conditions. Truth to tell, exposing sin is easier than applying grace; for, alas, we are more intimate with the former than we sometimes are with the latter. Therein lies our weakness.

    Sadly, both bad art and bad preaching fall into this trap.  Both express only our depravity, and neglect our dignity.  Both settle for sin rather than grasp for grace.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Ruins

I’m not talking about the movie.  I’m talking about the ruins left behind by ‘progressive’ ideas.  Two blog posts by Al Mohler illustrate.

One of Ronald Reagan’s greatest regrets, so I’ve heard, is signing the “No Fault Divorce” law as Governor of California.  A man who grew up a few blocks from the “Brady” house in California decided to check in with his friends from high school to see how the rapid increase in divorce among their parents affected them.  His Newsweek article shares some of the shocking stories.  The author is only 2 years older than me.  Although divorce was not quite as common in southern New Hampshire, I know I felt some of those fears as a child.

Despite his experiences, Mr. Jefferson states that he’d marry his partner if allowed to by law.  This leads us to the next topic Dr. Mohler addresses.  Many ‘progressives’ have a “not my kid” mentality about homosexuality.  These are people who willing and warmly embrace homosexuals (actually, many Christians do too), so they are not “homophobes”.  But they are conflicted when it comes to their own children.  And apparently their kids have caught on.  Homosexuals in Christian families report having an easier time telling their parents.  These of course are probably families that understand the gospel and practice unconditional love.  Why do I say this?  A family that “gets” the gospel understands that all of us are corrupt and prone toward evil.  Some of us just pursue “respectable” evils like gluttony, gossip and greed to name but a few.  You don’t have to approve or like your kids’ choices, but you are to love them like you love yourself. 

The ruins of ‘progressive’ thought (which exalts personal freedom over mutual obligation and personal responsibility) are broken families and uncertain kids.  Not only are kids uncertain if their parents will stay together, but if their parents will continue to love them if they knew the truth about them.  Afterall, isn’t that why some/many of their parents are divorcing- they couldn’t handle the truth about one another.  Obviously, sometimes it is one spouse’s unwillingness to change destructive behavior.  But this still undermines a child’s relational foundation.

My hope is not in “conservative values”.  I’m not into moralism though I have conservative values.  My hope is in the gospel, the power of God to save everyone who believes.  We can be saved not only penalty of sin, but the power of sin.  Communities that “get” the gospel will provide the relational stability necessary for children to grow up able to love others.

Read Full Post »

Considering Race Relations

I was watching part of In the Heat of the Night today.  No, not the TV show with Carroll O’Conner.  The classic movie with Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger.  I love it when Virgil responds to Gillespie’s denigrating question about his name through nearly clutched teeth, “They call me Mr. Tibbs!”

There is one important scene where Tibbs confronts Mr. Endicott.  He is the rich guy who pretty much runs the town, and was trying to stop the new factory from coming into town.  He viewed himself as a caretaker for the helpless black man.  He realizes they have come to question him about the murder of the Chicago businessman and slaps Virgil in the face.  He promptly strikes him back.

Endicott is shocked that Chief Gillespie does nothing.  Tibbs and Gillespie head to the car.  Gillespie realizes that Tibbs really ought to leave town now.  Tibbs asks for 2 more days to take that fat cat out of his house on the hill.

The light goes on for Gillespie.  “You’re just like we are, ain’t you?”  The light when on for me too, for I hadn’t noticed that exchange before.

Tibbs looked down on white people just as much as white people looked down on him.  This seems to be the big obstacle in the whole discussion of race in America.  We seem reluctant to admit that many blacks look down on whites as much as many whites look down on blacks.  This is what shocked so many people about Rev. Wright’s sermons.  This was not Chris Rock, who we expect to be outrageous.  But here was a pastor, a respected pastor in his community and denomination, speaking to a (mostly) black audience and saying many of the things white people are afraid to hear- many blacks really don’t like or trust us.  And Obama just minimized it.

The obstacles are on BOTH sides of the fence.  And we’ll never make any real progress unless we address this on both sides.  In some ways Rev. Wright’s numerous comments (reality check, it is not an isolated slip of the tongue) deflate my hopes for racial reconciliation.  On the other hands, it reminds me how necessary it us for us to proclaim, believe and live out the gospel.  Sadly Rev. Wright felt content to play the victim rather than address the sins of the people under his care (which seems more the role of a sermon than the sins of those ‘out there’.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Imagination

Sometimes I think Hollywood thinks we have no imagination.  This would explain their apparent need to show us everything rather than letting our imagination take its course.

Latest case in point: The Take.  In promoting the movie, leading actress Rosie Perez was talking about how awkward it was to do the movie’s sex scene.  She has been in sex scenes before, such as in Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing.  What made this one awkward was her close relationship with John Leguizamo.  “I respect him so much and he respects me so much. I know his wife, he knew my husband and introduced me to my boyfriend. It was very awkward. Like brother and sister having to do a sex scene.”

What is unusual about this scene is that the characters are married.  Yes, Hollywood realized that married people have sex … with their spouses.  At least in most places.  But … we don’t need to see it.  I haven’t seen the movie (obviously since it has yet to be released) and don’t know if there is nudity or how graphic it may be.  But the fact that it was awkward indicates we probably ought to feel awkward, at the least, to watch it.  Which leads me to ask, “Why is it in there?”  I doubt it furthers the plot line.

If Hollywood believed in imagination, all they need to do is suggest they are about to enjoy the marriage bed.  A close embrace, a few lingering kisses, a word or two as they find a horizontal space.  Cut to next scene.

They no longer believe in imagination when they feel the need to show very graphic violence (unless that graphic violence is the point, like in Saving Private Ryan).  I am so thankful that Braveheart did not show William Wallace being drawn and quartered.  It is a brutal, ugly and vile way to kill someone.

What happens when we don’t leave things to the imagination is that we risk scarring the soul.  We see things we are not supposed to see apart from the proper context and we risk hardening our hearts.  With a generation of kids and young adults lacking relational connection, such exposure to sex can sow the seeds of or feed a sexual addiction.  Nor do we want hearts hardened by violence; hearts that revel in it rather than lament it.  Such hearts lose sight of the conflict between good and evil and glory in the gore.

As people made in God’s image, we do have the power of imagination.  It can be used for good, or evil.  When some act like we lack such power it increases the probability that we will use it for evil: to replay sexual or revenge fantasies in our minds as we continue to harden our hearts.  Respecting the imagination is much more difficult than feeding the fleshly desires.  Sadly, the art produced by our culture seems to have largely forgotten that. 

Read Full Post »

Considering the Stepford God

I have been making my way through The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Tim Keller since Saturday.  I’m only through part 1 in which he looks at the objections commonly raised against Christianity.  Keller utilizes a kindly Van Tillian approach.  Greg Bahnsen, for instance, would often use a scorched-earth, win at all costs, type of approach that made many Christians rejoice, but left unbelievers feeling totally minimized and victimized.  Keller models a kind hearted manner, one which is willing to acknowledge where those he disagrees with have a valid point.  He also models a method of gently showing them their own “defeater beliefs”, beliefs that are just as unproveable as those they criticize (self-defeating) or that borrow intellectual or moral capital from Christianity (or at least theism).

The chapters are relatively brief, but have plenty of footnotes.  One interesting thing he often does is bring in the ideas of other unbelievers to undermine the ideas of the most scathing skeptics.  Keller’s goal is always engagement to lovingly persuade.  He wants people to examine their own beliefs (especially their presuppositions) and see if they measure up the criteria of proof they demand of ours.  His goal is not to pummel people into submission.

Toward the end of the section a light bulb went on.  I felt like saying, “Steve, you fool.”  Tim Keller talks about a Stepford God who will never say anything that upsets your intellectual or moral applecart.  It is built on an idea found earlier:

“For sake of argument, let’s imagine that Christianity is not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God.  If that were the case we would expect that it would contradict and offend every human culture at some point, because human cultures are ever-changing and imperfect.  If Christianity were the truth it would have to be offending and correcting our thinking at some place.”

In thinking about culture and Christianity before, I noticed that our cultural discomfort points to the cultural idols.  What I mean is that when a Christian is uncomfortable with an aspect of culture if often points to an idol of that culture.  For instance, I am uncomfortable with sexual immorality (I pretty much endorsed it before becoming a Christian), and it points to how our culture has made an idol or savior of sexual immorality.  Freedom is said to be found in freedom of sexual expression.

In talking to someone about Christianity, their discomfort with a particular biblical teaching (or their misunderstanding of it) reveals their idols (this was the lightbulb moment).  God is not a Stepford God, affirming all their progressive and civilized notions.  Rather, He insults them and they are truly offended.  Rather than face the fact that they might have wrong notions, they argue that the Bible is wrong, misguide, archaic and out-dated.  John Frame, in his more technical Apologetics to the Glory of God, calls this the flight from accountabilty.

These flights from accountability show where that person is seeking life.  For example, some people really find complementarianism (male headship) offensive and somehow demeaning to woman (when used to abuse and dehumanize women it is evil).   They have revealed that they seek life in the modern notion of ‘equality’ not just of essence but of function.  So when God talks about authority figures, which impinges on our functional equality, they become angry.

We should not do battle on that particular issue, but deal with what Keller calls the “deep end of the pool”.  We are not trying to convert them to a particular belief of Christianity, but to Christ Himself.  Should they be so converted, they may begin to realize that they have been enslaved to falsehood.  But we can contextualize our discussion by affirming the fact that God made men & women together in His image.  Both have dignity!  We have met them halfway as far as truth is concerned.  Now let’s look at the Creator and how He seeks to restore what we have destroyed by our rebellion.

Tim Keller consistently models this approach.  More Christians need to read this book, perhaps we might more consistently ensure that the Cross is the offense they find, not a peripheral view or how we try to whack them over the heads as verbal opponents.  And if we cannot do that (yes, we are sinners) perhaps offering them the book would be helpful.

Update: Joshua Harris also liked the Stepford God idea.

Read Full Post »

Considering Spam & Ministry

Let the classic Monty Python song begin.  But this post is about e-mails, not spiced pseudo-ham.

I’m just not sure what to think about this particular bit of spam e-mail.  The subject was : A Vegas-Style Church Leadership Event- Real. Raw. Practical.

I couldn’t resist, the flesh is so weak!  I confess that the Pharisaical spirit can find residence in me from time to time.  Perhaps it has returned from the dry, arid places to find me again.  But I struggle with the concept of “uncensored grace”.  Even more, I struggle with every church that grows thinking they have the model for church growth.  But I get ahead of myself.

The email messes up my post.  So here is the link for Pursuit.  Take a peek (no inappropriate content that I could find).  Check out their statement of faith.  Notice anything missing????

I’ve gotten into discussions, to no avail, about intentionally using provocative combinations of words that are theological oxymorons.  They end up, in my opinion, conveying false ideas about the truth.

It doesn’t help that I’m currently reading about revival and revivalism.  Revivalism focuses on the external and what man does.  The American church has been greatly influenced by revivalism (as opposed to biblical revival) and this produces a seemingly endless stream of the strange, distracting and disconcerting.

What do you think, has the Pharisaical spirit arrived or should we be concerned with such approaches to ministry?  I don’t think every ministry has to be the same, but shouldn’t there be bounds beyond which we are unnecessarily capitulating to culture?  Are Jesus and the Apostles crying out “Way to go!” or “In the name of all that is holy, STOP!”?

Read Full Post »

Considering Pagan Christianity

No, I have not yet read this one.  Lots of people are.  I see it on people’s blogs.  Some rave about it, and others are less enthralled.  Peter Jones has a good critical review of Pagan Christianity at Reformation 21.  What seems to be the problem with the book?

First, Peter mentions that the book does not seek to explain paganism proper.  Viola seems to use it merely to describe a non-Christian influence that is to blame for everything he doesn’t like about the “modern” church in the West.

 “This unexamined term is used as a whip to drive out of the present temple all the money-changers and their godless activities. In addition to “dressing up for church” and Sunday School (“swelling the cranium” 199), such pagan activities include: the notion of a “personal savior” (190); the liturgy (even the hymn-prayer-hymn sandwich); the sermon, the ordained, salaried ministry or “pastoral office” (136); robes; youth pastors; elder directed communities; baptism; the Lord’s supper (“a strange pagan-like rite”197); taking an offering and tithing; denominations; Bible Colleges and seminaries; instruments; hymns and church buildings, and choirs. For its all-knowing pretentiousness, one statement is mind-boggling. (Alas, it characterizes so many of Viola’s generalizations.) Dismissing the place of the sermon in Christian worship, Viola reveals: “…the truth is that the contemporary sermon preached every week…is often impractical…[and] has little power to equip God’s people for spiritual service and functioning” (98-99). He also “knows” that “the Sunday morning service is shamefully boring” (76). How does he know? If these judgments have Barna polling data to support them, they are not mentioned!”

Second, Viola’s book is yet another that traces all the problems to the church back to Constantine making Christianity a legitimate religion.  Okay, it isn’t quite that reductionistic.  But it sounds like all those books that only talk about what is wrong with America (similar to Obama following the stichk of many college professors).  It flattens out reality.  I went through that phase briefly after the Iran-Contra scandal (I was disillusioned by the end of Reagan’s 2nd term).  What happens is you only see what is wrong, and don’t acknowledge what is right.  Yes, Americans have done some horrendous things.  But we hardly have a market on that.  And Americans have done some fantastic things (and are currently doing them in places like Africa).

Read Full Post »

Considering the Dangers of Environmentalism

The push is on to get you to buy and use compact flourescent bulbs.  They do use less energy.  But it is reductionistic to have that as the one criteria.  As one who worked in the men’s department of a store as a teenager, they make colors appear differently than they do in natural light.  Not a huge concern, but here is one that should be a huge concern.

“Compact fluorescent lamps contain small amounts of toxic mercury that can vaporize when the bulbs break, creating a potential health risk for infants, young children, and pregnant women. If a lamp does break, follow these cleanup procedures:

Keep people and pets away. Open windows, and leave the area for 15 minutes before beginning the cleanup.

Do not use a vacuum cleaner, even on a carpet. This will spread the mercury vapor and dust and potentially contaminate the vacuum.

Wear rubber gloves.

Carefully remove the larger pieces and place them in a secure closed container, preferably a glass jar with a metal screw top lid and seal like a canning jar.

Next, scoop up the smaller pieces and dust using two stiff pieces of paper such as index cards or playing cards.

Pick up fine particles with duct tape, packing tape, or masking tape, and then use a wet wipe or damp paper towel.

Put all waste into the glass container, including all material used in the cleanup. Remove the container from your home and call your local solid waste district or municipality for disposal instructions.

Continue ventilating the room for several hours.

Wash your hands and face.

As a precaution, consider discarding throw rugs or the area of carpet where the breakage occurred, particularly if the rug is in an area frequented by infants, small children or pregnant women. Otherwise, open windows during the next several times you vacuum the carpet to provide good ventilation. SOURCES: Maine Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management; Mercury Policy Project  Article copyrighted by the Globe Newspaper Company.

The bottom line: these things are dangerous for your health and the environment.  Some states do not permit you to put intact bulbs in the trash because they can obviously break, and spill mercury (imagine hundreds and thousands of these breaking in your local landfill).  Which is a greater threat to us, carbon gases or mercury?  Pick your poison.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Big Time

My post on Bond, Bourne & Bauer has been picked up, with some editing, by Gender Blog. It is put together by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Lend them some support, and me too!  They do call me an “avid Red Sox fan”.  Guilty as charged, though I need to see if this hinders me in the Great Race.  I’m grateful for their affirmation.

Read Full Post »