Light-work

Now Where Did I Put That Rapture?

In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, we encounter Paul's description of an event which has come to be called "The Rapture." The verses in Thessalonians are fairly straightforward in their description of a reunion in which the saints, both the living and "those who have fallen asleep," will meet the Lord "in the air" at His coming. The controversy surrounding this event has more to do with where to put it in a prophetic framework.

Among those who believe that the present age will culminate in a time of great turmoil ("The Great Tribulation") that is concluded by the return of Jesus to establish His Kingdom on earth ("The Millennial Kingdom"), the possible options are noted above. [A] represents the pre-tribulation view, that the rapture will be a relatively quiet event in which saints mysteriously disappear from the earth to meet the Lord in the air. [B] denotes the view that the rapture will occur in the middle of the tribulation. [C] positions the rapture at the end of the tribulation. Some prefer to label [C] the "pre-wrath rapture" because they believe it will be synchronized with an intense outpouring of divine wrath: The saints will hit to the skies right as all hell breaks loose on the earth.

Hal Lindsey's book, "The Late Great Planet Earth," popularized the pre-trib view as did the "Left Behind" series by Jenkins/LaHaye. This view has a compelling natural appeal. If I had to pick a view that I like best, this would be it. Descriptions of the tribulation are sobering, even frightening. View [A] proposes that the saints can avoid all the trauma of living through the Tribulation and go immediately into the presence of the Lord. No pain, all gain! What an encouraging prospect!!

Alas, liking view [A] does not make it true. So we must weigh the merits of each option to get at the truth. Three Views on the Rapture was published in 1996, is currently available from Amazon, and closely examines all three positions. The scholars who represent each view (Feinberg, Archer, and Moo) are not light-weights, so waxing dogmatic about whatever view we espouse is unjustified. Don't get cocky, kid!

Here are a few preliminary thoughts to assist you in your quest for the truth. First, let's make some observations about the nature of the Rapture based upon its description in 1 Thess. 4:13-18.

1. The key question that prompted this section is, "Have the dead somehow missed out?"
2. The terms, "shout," "voice of the archangel," "trumpet of God," all suggest that this is a very public event with a lot of fanfare.
3. There is evidence (albeit disputed) that the word translated "to meet" is a formal expression used of a delegation that receives an arriving magistrate. The other two places where this term is used in the New Testament (Matt. 25:6; Acts 28:15) show some correspondence to this idea.
4. Paul's key point is that death makes no difference in one's participation in the "coming of the Lord."
5. Paul's intention was for the believers to use this information as the basis of mutual encouragement.

Whatever view one takes, it must align with these observations. So, when the pre-trib view posits a secret rapture, the equivalent of an alien abduction en masse, there are questions about how well this fits with observation two. For the post trib view, I have to ask: How it is encouraging to be sentenced to seven of the worst years earth has ever known, even if those who survive till the end will be rescued before the final curtain falls?

Forgotten God in Seven Sentences

I recommend Forgotten God: Reversing Our Tragic Neglect of the Holy Spirit, by Francis Chan. Chan wagers, “I bet you’d agree that a group of talented, charismatic leaders can draw a crowd. Find the right creative team, musicians, and speakers, and you can grow any church. It doesn’t even have to be a Christian church. ...My point is that a growing and energetic gathering is not necessarily evidence of the Holy Spirit’s work” (p. 141).

I suspect Pastor Chan would agree when I say I am interested in seeing a church that defies explanation, a church where God’s presence and power are obvious, a church where resources that look like a brown-bag lunch are used of God to feed 5,000.

Here is my executive book summary in seven sentences. (Granted they are not all simple sentences - but what do you expect for a book report that is only seven sentences long!)

1. Those who see the Spirit through Jesus’ eyes understand that the indwelling Spirit’s ministry is more advantageous to God’s people than if Jesus had personally remained present on earth after His resurrection.
2. The desire to be led by the Spirit is diminished when we fear what men think, or what the Spirit may ask of us, more than we fear disappointing Him.
3. The Holy Spirit is not a second or third class member of the trinity - He is a distinct person who is no less deity than the Father or the Son.
4. Some desire to be led by the Spirit for the wrong reasons - the right motive is a surpassing desire to be more like Jesus.
5. Our lives can become so comfortable, or so distracted, that we fail to enjoy the intimacy with God that is produced by the Spirit.
6. The ministry of the Holy Spirit does not eliminate the need for us to do our part and work at our salvation.
7. When we build churches in the strength of the Spirit, not merely by our own efforts, we experience church that defies explanation.

I appreciate the overall message of the book. Evangelical, Bible teaching pastors (like me) need to listen to what the author is saying. But the book reads like a transcribed sermon series that makes seven key points, and leaves out a lot of biblical truth that could help make this book more "practice-able."

Here are two suggestions. It would have been helpful to have a chapter that discusses two lists: Observable characteristics of the Spirit’s presence / observable characteristics of His absence. This chapter could help us to self-diagnose the nature and extent of our "tragic neglect." Another chapter could build off statement six and answer these questions, “What, specifically, is my role? What should I do or think that affects the degree to which the Spirit works in and through me and my church?”

Bottom line: This is a good primer that makes a great case for a book that goes beyond it. Francis Chan is telling us things we need to know. But we need to know more if we are going to "reverse our tragic neglect of the Holy Spirit."

Crockettcare vs. Obamacare, Part 2 of 2

Who ya' gonna call when you need health care relief FAST. Yea, that's the "King of the Wild Frontier" on the left and he has a totally different take on how to tackle the problem. If you have got the context from the previous post, then read on for the rest of the story. (Note: This is longer than my usual post, but you'll be glad to have read it.) The "narrator" continues:

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."

He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."

I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and – "

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

He laughingly replied:

"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."

"If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"My name is Bunce."

"Not Horatio Bunce?"

"Yes."

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."

We shook hands and parted.

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.

In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."

He came upon the stand and said:

"Fellow citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, Sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Crockettcare vs. Obamacare, Part 1 of 2

There are times, rare mind you, when a forwarded email from well-meaning friends is a sockdolager ("something outstanding or exceptional, a decisive answer"). But I received one a few weeks ago. It was an excerpt from The Life of Colonel David Crockett written by Edward S. Ellis and published in 1884. The excerpt consisted of the majority of chapter XIII, titled, "A Sensible and Timely View of a Certain Constitutional Question." I was taken aback by the relevance of this chapter to our current debate over health care, so much so that I questioned its genuineness. Surely something so pointed and clear to a current issue could not have been written 125 years ago!

So I sought a copy of the book to satisfy myself that I wasn't being scammed by another internet masquerade. In 2004, University Press of the Pacific in Honolulu issued a reprint of the original which I was able to procure from those amazing book purveyors at Amazon. Sure enough, chapter XIII lines up with the email version.

There is no record of the "Not Yours to Give" speech delivered by Crockett: Neither the Register of Speeches nor the Congressional Globe have transcripts of speeches made on the House floor. However, Crockett's vote and personal actions in reference to a similar bill (in April, 1828) are consistent with the position espoused in this speech. The author, Edward Ellis, introduces this chapter as the recollections of an unnamed "narrator" whose business affairs brought him to Washington. The narrator recounts his observations of Crockett on the House floor and a personal exchange a few days later. Here is part one of this account.

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Agog Over Gog and Magog

Epicenter, the book and companion DVD by Joel C. Rosenberg, allows us a peek behind the curtain. The author explores and explains the connections to prophesy, history, and current events informing the plot lines of his best selling political thrillers. Here's a link to Joel Rosenberg's blog, if you want to learn more about his thinking. He was also a guest on Glenn Beck yesterday marketing his latest, Inside the Revolution.

In 2000, Mr. Rosenberg observed an alliance forming between Russia and Iran. This unprecedented development prompted him to retrieve a book he had read almost ten years earlier, The Coming Peace in the Middle East, by Tim LaHaye. According to Rosenberg, Coming Peace described "a coming period of security and prosperity in Israel, followed by the rise of a military alliance between Russia, Iran, and a group of other Islamic countries that would target Israel and drive the world to the brink of the apocalypse in what Ezekiel described as 'the last days'" (Epicenter, p. 24). Dr. LaHaye found the basis for this understanding in his interpretation of the "prophesy against Gog," found in Ezekiel 38-39. Mr. Rosenberg was intrigued; "If the rebirth and re-population of Israel described in Ezekiel 36 and 37 were coming true in my lifetime, was it not at least remotely possible that the peace and prosperity - and future war and divine rescue - described in chapters 38 and 39 could soon come true as well?" (p. 29).

This view that Ezekiel 38-39 is describing "the next big thing" on a prophetic time-table informs Mr. Rosenberg's writings. Is this the right spot in time to connect this prophesy? It's a great question that we will speak to in tomorrow's post. But first let's make a few preliminary observations.

The pinpoint accuracy of biblical prophecy does not become obvious until after the fact. Here is a great case in point from the Light-Work Resource Collection. From our vantage point in history, Daniel 9:1-21 is breath-taking as you line up each verse with a four century time-line of middle eastern history. But for those living in the 4^th or 5^th century BC, they could only speculate about how each new development might play out according to Daniel's predictions. This is the speculative challenge Mr. Rosenberg faces. He has written novels "about how the Ezekiel scenario could unfold" (p. 29). How Ezekiel 38 and 39 are actually fulfilled  might be much different. But IF they were fulfilled "next," his scenario's are plausible.

Prophesy rarely provides time markers that allow us to discern WHEN a particular event will occur. Prophesy tells us WHAT will happen, but generally leaves us in the dark about WHEN. This is a function of prophesy's purpose: It is not intended to equip us to become "junior prophets" who predict the dates of future events. Prophesy invites us to get ready for what will happen without knowing exactly when. And it encourages us that God is in control when events unfold just as predicted.

Before checking tomorrow's post, read Ezekiel 38-39. Make some summary observations about WHAT will happen and we'll compare notes tomorrow.

PM Netanyahu and "the Joker"

Last night, I watched the DVD, Epicenter, that is based on the book by the same name written by Joel Rosenberg. I especially found the segments from an interview of Benjamin Netanyahu to be informative and compelling. Mr. Netanyahu became the Prime Minister of Israel on March 31 and has a clear and settled understanding of Iran's intentions. The video clip from Glenn Beck is several years old but will allow you to listen first hand to this articulate and engaging leader without a teleprompter.

In his Mr. Netanyahu's view, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seeks to hasten the arrival of the Islamic Messiah by creating havoc and chaos. The destruction of Israel (little Satan) and America (the Great Satan) are vital to his plans. The acquisition of both nuclear weapons and an effective missile delivery system will dramatically improve his ability to achieve these ends.

Make no mistake - Ahmadinejad is crazy enough to relish the chance to use nukes. He is the living embodiment of "the Joker" as depicted by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. We are crazy if we think he is interested in a "sensible" resolution. I am glad that Israel has a leader who understands the threat and sees the need to take action. When Mr. Netanyahu does, he will probably be portrayed in the press as the crazy one. What a joke!

Ferdinand de Lesseps and Infectious Optimism

Everything David McCullough has written is worth reading. One of my favorites is The Path Between the Seas, the fascinating account of the creation of the Panama Canal. His almost 700 page volume is divided into three "books," each devoted to a major phase of the project. The first book chronicles the failed attempt by the French to build the canal, a debacle spanning the years 1870 and 1894.

The dominant figure in book one is Ferdinand de Lesseps. Ferdinand was a diplomat and optimist who seemed the perfect man for the job. He had employed his formidable skills to great effect in the successful completion of the Suez Canal. The Panama Canal seemed the logical next step, albeit this challenge was of far greater scale.

I find this statement from Wikipedia ironic: "He attempted to repeat this success [Suez] with an effort to build a lock-less version of the Panama Canal during the 1880s, but the project was finally completed by the United States in 1914, once developments in medicine had been made which combatted the serious problems of malaria and yellow fever in the area." The statement makes it seem that the US merely picked up where Ferdinand left off, once somebody figured out how to fight malaria and yellow fever. Read the book to get it right - de Lesseps had moved some dirt, but his plan was flawed. The chief impediment to French success was de Lesseps own unassailable optimism. Although neither an engineer nor banker, Ferdinand was CONVINCED that only a sea level canal would do, even though his engineering staff knew this represented an impossible challenge.

Here is an extended quote from McCullough that captures the problem:

"The important point is that de Lesseps, once again, would get exactly what he wanted; he would follow his own lead and they would nod in agreement and go along with him as willingly as his stock-holders had, raising no serious objections about anything, which must be viewed as another testament to his powers of persuasion, rather than any lack of perception on their part. Unmistakably these were men of eminence and ability. ...Yet none was willing, or bold enough perhaps, to challenge de Lesseps' judgment or to take seriously the inevitable cost of a sea- level canal. Later it would be charged that de Lesseps never listened to his engineers. But in fact it was the other way around; it was they who were listening to him" (p. 137)

McCullough quotes the Illustrated London News which observed, "Perhaps no other man ever possessed to such a marvelous extent the power of communicating to other minds the faith and the fervor which animated his own" (p. 137). De Lesseps, in his own words, enjoyed "the privilege of being believed without having to prove what one affirms" (p. 239). McCullough notes, "His was the faith that the mountains could be moved by technology. He had the nonscientific, nontechnical man's faith that science and technology would 'find a way'" (p. 239).

What Ferdinand described as the investment opportunity of a lifetime was eventually demonstrated a fiasco. Those who believed this great optimist and invested in his project incurred staggering loses. They were taken in by a convincing communicator with a positive message and a unbridled confidence in what men can accomplish.

The incessant attempts to raise capital for a flawed project, the astounding amount of time, money, and manpower expended without return, the dogged enthusiasm for what bright minds can achieve, it all sounds eerily familiar to those dwelling in land of the bailout. When the dust settles on the current economic crisis, will we recognize the ghost of de Lesseps?

When men who knew better remained silent before unassailable optimism, when blind faith in the ability of man held sway, when men acted on the strength of another's belief despite their personal misgivings, disaster was waiting in the wings. Do not underestimate the power of men to be convinced of what defies their better judgment. Do not doubt the inevitability of disaster when they do.

Instead of Boring People With The Truth

J Budziszewski (representing "professor theophilus") has written an engaging book for the collegiate who wants to secure a bachelors degree without losing his commitment to Christ. Ask Me Anything 2 is an account of "the conversational adventures of Professor M. E. Theophilus, holder of the PMS (Pre-Modern Studies) Chair in the School of Antinomianism at Post Everything University."

Anyone using the time tested "fly on the wall" learning strategy will find himself profitably listening-in on the Professor. For example, how often does Lactantius come up for discussion among YOUR circle of friends? He is the early Christian apologist who said this:

Religion cannot be imposed by force. The matter must be carried on by words rather than blows, that the will may be affected. Let them unsheath the weapon of their intellect; if their system is true, let it be asserted. For we do not entice, as they say; but we teach, we prove, we show.  ...For nothing is so much a matter of free-will as religion; in which, if the mind of the worshipper is disinclined to it, religion is at once taken away, and ceases to exist.

This book is a little quirky in its approach. But I like it! The fact that something is the truth does not justify using it to bore people. Ask me Anything 2 is a gurgling mountain stream of conversation laced with glimmering nuggets of truth. It is both interesting and will do you good.

Prayer That Packs a Punch

This verse ought to take your breath away:  “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). The speaker is Jesus and He is making a stunning offer. He, the Lord of the Universe, will put "whatever you wish" on His personal to-do list. You don't get a better prayer guarantee than this.

So what's the catch? It's captured in two conditional clauses that precede the promise: (1) "If you abide in me," and (2) "[if] My words abide in you." The promise is only relevant to those who meet these two prerequisites: They must be living "in Jesus" and His words must be living in them. Jesus is describing someone whose entire approach to life is defined by a devotion to Jesus and His Word.

The reward ("Jesus will do whatever you wish") is too great for us to ignore the prerequisite. So how, exactly, can we meet it? Here is one practical step: Learn how to pray "Word driven prayers." These are prayers that are informed by what the Bible says. They are NOT a mere dressing up of personal desires in Bible lingo. They ARE prayers which use the Bible to identify Jesus' desires and then declare, "That's what I want. too." In John 15:7, Jesus is describing the power of prayer when a man's (or woman's) heart beats in unison with His.

I have prepared a little booklet called "Only by the Hand of God," which gives you some examples of these kinds of prayers. Click here to download a copy. It uses Scripture to identify the things that matter to Jesus and express those desires in simple prayers tailored to different situations. This is NOT a prayer book - but an illustration of a kind of praying that occurs when the Word abides in us and leaks out in our prayers, the kinds of prayers of which Jesus says, "Now that's a prayer I want to answer."

Is God the Linchpin of our Message?

Lisa Miller raises questions about the ministry of Joel and Victoria Osteen in "What's God Got to Do With It?", a "Belief Watch" piece in the Oct. 20 issue of Newsweek. Ms. Miller is struck by the irony of the Osteen's considerable popularity compared to their lack of spiritual stature. She views them as spiritual midgets with a thin theology offering platitudes of inane comfort.

On the eve of Victoria Osteen's book release, I find the question - "What's God Got to Do With it? - more than a little provocative. Victoria told Newsweek that religion "is about appreciating what God's given us. He's given us this life, and he wants us to live it to the fullest." If I boil this mantra down to it's core, it would be little more than "live it up!" Lisa Miller rightly questions how essential God is to such a message? Is what we preach a message that falls apart without God? If not, it is unworthy of Him and a dubious candidate for men's allegiance.

Here is good news that robustly depends upon God: Man has a problem (sin) that he cannot fix. God alone has provided the solution (shed blood of His Son) but one He will not force upon any man. So God invites each one to claim for himself the saving grace that is offered in Jesus. Factor God out of such an equation and man is left striving for what doesn't exist. Put God back in the picture and you have the miraculous answer to an otherwise impossible problem. God is in the center of such an accomplishment and His success is occasion for all-out praise and worship.

"Live your life to the fullest" seems like much ado about me. God is little more than a bit player in such a production - so who do you think will get the applause? Hooray for me! To Lisa Miller's question I would answer,"God is not honored by a message that is, at it's core, a celebration of me."

Purpose Driven Pricetag

I have been reading The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren. "Living a purpose-driven life" is Warren short-hand for living your life for the glory of God. This is my third reading and I would still retain this on my short list of books everyone should read. Pastor Warren has a marvelous gift for capturing truth in simple, memorable language. Many sentences rise to the level of proverbs for their pithiness.

Although chock-full of terse wisdom, there are some pages missing. One of those places is in chapter three, particularly pages 30-35. This is the section where Rick explains the "five great benefits of living a purpose-driven life."

1. It gives meaning to your life.
2. It simplifies your life.
3. It focuses your life.
4. It motivates your life.
5. It prepares you for eternity.

Let's take a cue from Paul Harvey and hear "the rest of the story." I am not taking away from what Warren has said, simply highlighting what he hasn't said that I think you NEED TO KNOW. Warren's five are all positives. Where are the negatives? Living for God's glory can be costly. And I don't think we do anyone a service unless we compare the benefits with the costs.

Jesus plainly talked about the cost! He declared, “Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it” (Luke 14:27-28). Jesus did not just highlight the advantages of being His disciple and then hide the implications. He stated the matter plainly and asked men to make an honest assessment of their willingness to embrace those costs. He wants men to decide that it is "worth it" to live for Him. So let's add to Warren's list of benefits a companion list of the disadvantages of purpose-driven living.

Here's my list of three significant costs to purpose driven living. (There are probably some more, these are three that immediately came to mind.)

1. It increases your inner struggle.
2. It provokes opposition from others.
3. It leads to exhaustion.
   

First, "living your life for the glory of God" (or alternatively, living for Jesus) can increase personal stress. Living for yourself is not that complicated. When self desires - do what self wants - easy-peasy. But when you add "pleasing God" to the equation, you have complicated your life. Now you must figure out what someone else wants (God), discern where your personal desires are at odds with what God wants, and then do what is required. You can thus find yourself caught in some sort of schizophrenic tug-of-war, opposing the things your inner man desires.

No wonder Paul calls living for Jesus a "faith-fight" (1 Tim. 1:18; 6:12, 2 Tim. 4:7) and a struggle against dark forces (Eph. 6:12). His words drip with both agony and ardor in Romans 7:14-25 where his soul gasps for a reprieve from the spiritual warfare being waged within. Living a purpose-driven life introduces a whole new level of challenge to the inner man. Let's not kid anyone about the reality and intensity of this inner struggle.

Second, living for Jesus also makes some relationships pure misery. Jesus made this fact and the reason for it clear when He declared, “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you” (John 15:19). To live for Jesus is to declare the bankruptcy of living on the world's terms. And that does not sit well with some. Know this - there will be recrimination and reprisals directed at those who live for Jesus. “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20).

Third, purpose-driven living alters the experience of time's passage. This is, for me, one of the most profound costs. When we decide to live for Jesus, we enter into a race against time. We are instructed to make the most of opportunities (Col. 4:5); make the most of our time (Eph. 5:16); number our days (Ps. 90:12). The window of opportunity to win those do not know Jesus will close when we die, so our love for Jesus drives us in ministry to others. Ours is not a dilemma of choosing between something good and something bad. It is the exhaustion that attends choosing to do every possible good while there is still time. This is purpose driven exhaustion.

Don't hear me discouraging anyone from living for Jesus. Quite the contrary, I think that living for Jesus is the highest and best use of a man's life. I say this not because living for Him is all benefit and no cost. I say this because the costs, great as they are, are transcended by the value of knowing and serving Him. I am not alone in this opinion. The Apostle Paul was no stranger to the costs of living for Jesus. Even so he reckons this: I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us (Rom. 8:18). Do I hear an "Amen?"

"Idol Gives Back" and What God Giveth

According to E!, last weeks TV extravaganza, "Idol Gives Back," raised over 60 million dollars for domestic and foreign aid! Although that only represents about three dollars per viewer, it's definitely NOT chump change. It represents a measurable improvement from just thinking about shoes!

That being said, it's time for a little Light-work perspective. Reading publications from the World Bank does not normally thrill me, but Kirk Hamilton and his team have a word of wisdom for everyone who wants to help those in need. It's captured in the pages (188 of them) of the book, Where is the Wealth of Nations: Measuring Capital for the 21st Century, published in 2006. Okay, so the title doesn't exactly shout New York Times best seller. (It doesn't read like one, either.) So why all the L-W hubbub?

You can read the book to find out; or you can get the Reader's Digest version in the article and interview of the author by Ronald Bailey at Reason Magazine - highly recommended! Or, I can give you the quick and easy summary right now. (It leaves out a lot of really good stuff, but will get right to a key point.) Mr. Hamilton (good name for an economist!) proposes that the wealth of nations is found in three forms - natural capital, produced capital, and "intangible capital." Natural capital is represented by cropland, forests, oil reserves, and mineral deposits - the things you would label "natural resources" on a map from geography class. Produced capital represents machinery and structures, the things men build from natural resources.

Intangible capital, explains Mr. Hamilton, "includes human capital, the skills and know-how embodied in the labor force. It encompasses social capital, that is, the degree of trust among people in a society and their ability to work together for common purposes. It also includes those governance elements that boost the productivity of the economy. For example, if an economy has a very efficient judicial system, clear property rights, and an effective government, the result will be a higher total wealth" (p. 87). Effective governance can be measured by "voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption" (p. 92).

Using this three-fold grid, the wealth of 120 countries is measured in Where is the Wealth? The startling conclusion is that intangible capital, not rocks and minerals, is what makes a country wealthy. A country blessed with great natural resources but without regard for property rights will be much worse off than a country with comparatively modest natural resources but well-established respect for property rights. Makes sense - who would commit to farming or mining if your land (and investment) could be easily and capriciously taken away?

This book affirms a change in the World Bank's approach: Fifty years ago, it was all about infra-structure (dams, roads, buildings), as if the presence of such improvements would magically usher in peace and prosperity. Hasn't happened. Hamilton's study explains why: These projects will produce negligible long-term improvement in poor countries unless education, the strength of communities, and the effectiveness of government is addressed.

So what does this have to do with "Idol Gives Back?" Our efforts to help the poor must go beyond merely addressing their need for food and shelter. Our investment in immediate needs must be transcended by a commitment to give people skills and know-how, raise up an efficient and equitable justice system, and restore trust among a society of people.

This is not a quick and easy solution. Hamilton recalls, "If you think of some of the most important institutions we have in the Anglo-Saxon world-things like the beginnings of rule of law and control of the power of the elites-the roots go back to the Magna Carta. The roots of English Common Law go back even farther than that." The prosperity we enjoy has deep roots in our history.

But we will make no lasting change unless we mine the good from that history and find ways to export it to poorer nations. Many poorer countries are glad to receive our cash. Unless they are willing to embrace the institutions which produce intangible capital, even though that means embracing aspects of a culture they disdain, they will remain poor. Their need for "Idol Gives Back" will never go away.

The World Bank has helped me appreciate one of God's good gifts. The Mosaic Law outlines how to create immense reserves of "intangible capital." Family based education, a society built on mutual trust and respect, and an efficient and fair justice system - it's all there. Mr. Hamilton's under-appreciated work affirms what the Psalmist has known all along: The Mosaic Law comes from a God who understands what is needed for the good of a people to be promoted. Where is the Wealth confirms what Psalm 119 long ago declared: I have rejoiced in the way of Your testimonies, As much as in all riches (Vs. 14); I rejoice at Your word, As one who finds great spoil (Vs. 162). When God gave Israel the Law, He gave them something far more valuable than material wealth, He gave them the intangible capital by which to TRULY PROSPER.

May I Puke for You?

I am serious! I was walking through Wal-Mart last week and saw Eckhart Tolle's latest, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose. This is the book that is creating quite a stir - check out a previous post for some background. I stared at the thing on the display rack and then decided, "How can I NOT buy this, in light of Proverbs 18:13?"

Solomon declares: He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him (Prov. 18:13). There is lots of criticism flying around associated with this book and Oprah's self-appointment as an evangelist for its message. The criticism may well be justified. But for me to pile on without having obtained a clear first-hand report of what he is teaching would be foolish and shameful.

When we violate the Prov. 18:13 principle, it bugs the stew out of those proposing alternatives to Jesus. They catch our invective and ask, "Well, have you read it?" When we say, "No," it DOESN'T MATTER whether our criticisms are valid, or whether our logic is sound, or whether we are even RIGHT! All the other is hearing is a prime example of speaking out of ignorance. Our criticisms may be valid, but our credibility just went out the window.

So I made my purchase and will not give an answer until I have heard what the man has to say. That being said, I am also willing to wade in on your behalf. What I have read so far lets me know that this offer is no small thing! (I am already feeling a little woozy.)  When I post the results here at light-work, I will attempt to pull together first hand evidence from the book that allows you to hear what Mr. Tolle has to say. THEN, you can give an answer based on what the author actually says.

The Peaceful Religion

After September 11, President Bush declared that Islam is a religion of peace. Is this a fair assessment? Over the last several years, I have read a number of books in search of an answer. Three are now on my "essential reading" list. Each book fills in a different gap, so you need to read all three. Understanding the Koran, by Mateen Elass, is a great primer for Christians who want to become familiar with what the Koran teaches. The Koran and the Bible agree on some significant points; and they differ in some drastic ways. If you don't know which is which, get this book. Dr. Elass was raised in Saudi Arabia and holds degrees from Stanford University, Fuller Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from the University of Durham in England. Because the book has both a subject and Koran index, it is also a very helpful reference tool.

Read Understanding the Koran first, then follow it up with Islam in Context by Peter G. Riddell and Peter Cotterell. Our current struggle with Islam centers on how it interacts with the non-Muslim world. So how have Muslims engaged with non-Muslim culture in their past. Islam in Context is fascinating and illuminating with its answers to these questions: When did Islam begin, what were the circumstances from which it was born, how did it expand, and what corresponding challenges and influences did it face?  Dr. Riddell (Ph.D., Australian National University) is director of the Centre for Islamic Studies and Muslim-Christian Relations at London Bible College. Dr. Cotterell (Ph.D., London University) is a lecturer at the Centre for Islamic Studies. This is one of those books that I couldn't stop reading; with each page I found myself saying, "I never knew this!"

The third volume needed to round out your study is Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Michael Rydelnik. Why does "peace in the Middle East" seem so illusive? Why is peace that important? Much of what you hear through public news sources is incomplete or distorted. This book is the best I have found to explain what is really going on. Prepare to be shocked! The author is a professor of Jewish Studies at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.

If you have any Muslim friends, your ability to have conversations about spiritual things will be severely hobbled without the information in these three volumes. If you are a home-schooling parent of high school age students, maybe you could do a history unit on the Middle East and read these three books. As Islam exercises an increasing influence on world affairs, your children need to understand what they will be dealing with.

Narnia for Atheists? Pt. 2 of 2

The brouhaha over the movie, The Golden Compass, is more about the trilogy written by Philip Pullman titled His Dark Materials.  Several elements to the story in the third volume, The Amber Spyglass, will be starkly out of step with a biblically defined theism.  The two main characters, Lyra and Will, fulfill their destiny "to help all the ghosts out of the land of the dead forever" (p. 309).  As this is accomplished and the dead escape, Lyra explains, "All the particles that make you up will loosen and float apart ...you'll be out in the open, part of everything alive again" (p. 319).  So Lyra "saves" the dead by assisting them to dissolve into the cosmic consciousness.

The "bad guy" who's power is broken when Lyra and Will work their magic in the land of the dead is  called "the Authority" and the "ancient of days."  At one point in the story, angels reveal a great secret to an African king who recounts, "It shocked some of us, too, to learn that the Authority is not the creator.  There may have been a creator, or there may not:  we don't know.  All we know is that at some point the Authority took charge" (p. 210).  Near the book's end, Lyra and Will extricate the ancient of days from a crystal litter only to watch him loosen and dissolve.  Here is what follows:  "Only a few moments later he had vanished completely, and their last impression was of those eyes, blinking in wonder, and a sigh of the most profound and exhausted relief" (pp. 410-411).  Perhaps the author is suggesting that the Authority was actually relieved to resign his position of supremacy and grateful to Will and Lyra for assisting him to join the cosmic consciousness.

Mr. Pullman's trilogy does not depict the God, hell, and salvation I know about.  So, how then should we respond?  There's plenty of internet invective out there calling us to avoid the movie like the plaque.  That advice should be heeded by anyone who is going to simply take the family to the movie, buy the books, and devour them unchecked.  But are the only two alternatives "avoid it" and "swallow it?"  How about "examine it" or "refute it?"

We are sheltering kids when we should be equipping them!  The best response to this trilogy is to train your children to discern and evaluate different viewpoints and competing truth claims.  I have every confidence that the truth about God, hell, and salvation are not in jeopardy.  But, men's right belief in these things is always at risk when they are ill-prepared to defend them.

Don't let your heresy meters go berserk when I say this, but we need to contemplate what life would be like without God.  This is precisely what "the Preacher" does in the book of Ecclesiastes.  "Life under the sun," which is life-with-God-factored-out-of-the-equation, is therein manipulated like a Rubik's Cube and examined from every angle.  The beauty of life with God in the center is made more evident by measuring its opposite.   Solomon would tell us, "The best way to appreciate what you have in God is to take some time to think like an atheist!" 

This might not work for small children.  But if your children are older, what if you were to draw them into an examination of the world-view represented in the trilogy?  Could their interest be piqued toward preparing a reasonable defense?  Could they come up with good reasons for a Christian theism?  We need not cower because some men profess to prefer a world without God.  But it ought to sober us that men who know better can't convincingly explain why.  Why not use The Golden Compass as a provocation to make your family members (and yourself) an exception?

Narnia for Atheists? Pt. 1 of 2

In December, the first of the three books in the trilogy, "His Dark Materials," will show itself on the big screen.  The movie trailer shows high production values, acclaimed acting, and an epic scale that transcends worlds - the stuff of Harry Potter, Narnia, and Middle-Earth.  The book, "The Golden Compass," on which the movie is based, is the creation of Philip Pullman and this first installment looks like a holiday blockbuster in the making.  Alas, there is a brouhaha afoot.

Bill Donahue at the Catholic League has a few words for you, It's a ploy to market atheism to kids!  He sees the softening of the film's more offensive elements as a means to cancel parent's objections and get kids to buy the book.  He warns that this is a descent down a path that, by volume three, has the readers celebrating the defeat of the church and the death of God.  That doesn't sound too good.

Philip Pullman's religious views are not in the same catalog as C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien and should make us wary.  Here's what he says on his website:  "I don't know whether there's a God or not. Nobody does, no matter what they say. I think it's perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing God into it, but I don't know everything, and there may well be a God somewhere, hiding away.  Actually, if he is keeping out of sight, it's because he's ashamed of his followers and all the cruelty and ignorance they're responsible for promoting in his name. If I were him, I'd want nothing to do with them."

This summer I read all three books in the trilogy.  I did not then know a movie was coming.  But the popularity of the books suggested my need to "stay in tune" with what's affecting people.  I am not decrying Mr. Pullman's right to write what he chooses.  But parents have a right and responsibility to  choose what serves the best interests of their children.  In my next post, allow me to spare you the trouble of reading (and buying) the books, share with you a few excerpts, and help you make a wise choice.

Fractures in the Franchise

During our recent extended vacation, we attended church #3 on the 2006 CR list of most influential churches.  (By the way, notice that former Collierville Bible Church youth pastor, Tim Lundy, is leading church #26 on the list - way to go, Tim!) We also attended several other mega-churches that are following the paradigm pioneered by churches like Willow and Saddleback, the trend setters emulated by thousands of contemporary churches across the globe.  Because so many churches draw from this model, it is significant that an important Willow insider like Greg Hawkins has uncovered a disturbing truth.  Hawkin's report, according to Bill Hybels, is a shocker and capable of producing sleepless nights for pastors, including himself.

I applaud Willow Creek for being willing to ask tough questions of themselves.  The book which captures insights from the study, titled Reveal, Where are You?, promises to send shock-waves of paradigm shift throughout the franchise.  I find Reveal interesting as an explanation for the numbers of mega-church refugees who come to Collierville Bible Church longing to go deeper with God.  I wonder if it will also become for thousands of churches the "next big thing."

What Church is Emerging? Pt. 1 of 5

What is the emergent church movement about?  A great place to start is in the writings of Brian McLaren, a key figure in this movement.  For Mr. McLaren, an important doctrinal distinctive of the movement is found in its critique of the "exclusivity of Christ."  He has written an article entitled A Reading of John 14:6 which was considered for inclusion in his book, The Secret Message of Jesus, and which provides his closely reasoned treatment of John 14:6.  This is the passage where Jesus declares, "No one comes to the Father, but through Me."  I will be posting a few comments on this article late next week.  Between now and then, look over his article and make some notes.  I will look forward to your comments.