Light-work

Dead Guru Thinks Jesus "Gets" Hinduism

Evangelical Christians are considered the purveyors of a Politically Incorrect Gospel (PIG). This Gospel views John 14:6 as a clear claim by Jesus to be the exclusive way of salvation. Considerable pressure has been applied on those viewed as PIG mongers to repent of their intolerant ways and embrace an inclusivism that celebrates, "All religions merely represent different paths to the same place."

Rabi R. Maharaj was born the son of a great Yogi. He sought to follow his father in the pursuit of enlightenment. Despite being a promising young guru, his search for truth and disillusionment with Hinduism provoked an intense inner struggle. The struggle ended when he renounced his religious heritage and embraced Jesus Christ. Rabi Maharaj, the guru, died in that moment. His amazing story is chronicled in the autobiography, "Death of a Guru." It should be required reading for anyone planning a trip to India.

Chapter seventeen recounts the reaction of Rabi's mother to her son's decision. A poignant paragraph therein speaks to the PIG issue:

Philosophically it seems right to many people to claim that Hinduism accepts all religions and that everyone is going to the same place but by different roads. Those who plead for mutual tolerance and the syncretism of all religions fail to realize that there are grave differences which affect one's life. Such basic realities cannot be dismissed by ecumenical agreements. Mother was committed to the Hindu philosophy that there is only one Reality - Brahman - and that the law of karma demands future payment for past sins. The rest of us [Rabi and other family members who came to Christ] were convinced that good and evil and different, and that the Creator is not the same as his creation. We had come to know the forgiveness that Jesus brings, and we no longer believed in reincarnation. Between these opposite beliefs there was no possible meeting ground, no compromise without denying all meaning to language and ideas.[Emphasis mine]

Here is a former guru declaring that both Hinduism and Jesus teach what "tolerant man" refuses to admit: One must choose between Jesus and Hinduism - they cannot both be right.

Not Your Grandma's World

A profound demographic shift is transforming the western world. Birth control (with great dependance on abortion) was supposed to solve the problem of global over-population. Instead, it has doomed our grand children to live in a culture increasingly dominated by Islamic influence. This video is a clear and concise summary of what is happening. How does its insight into our future affect what you do today?

Who's Got Your Number?

Sometime in the future a very powerful smart idol will "encourage" allegiance to a charismatic world leader. Most folks will receive this encouragement as an offer that cannot be refused. A few will see past the hocus-pocus, declining to join the fan club despite the cost: These are the overcomers who are victorious over the beast (the antichrist) and his image - see previous post for more info.

But there is a third facet to their victory. In Revelation 15:2, we learn that they are also victorious over "the number of his name." Now how do you achieve victory over a number? To answer that question let's consider Revelation 13:16-18, which declares: And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six (Rev. 13:16-18).

Lots of energy has been consumed in attempting to make a positive ID on the number "666." It seems warranted because of the exhortation to "calculate" this number and the tantalizing prospect that someone who solves this high-stakes Sudoku puzzle "gets it," he understands. So there has been no small amount of speculation about what it represents. I won't go into all the proposals; they are myriad.

I am of the opinion (and it is just an opinion) that solving the 666 puzzle will be impossible until we pass a certain juncture in future events. Once we pass that juncture, anyone with a biblically informed understanding will "get it" quite easily. There is a biblical precedent for this idea. On the night in which He was betrayed, Jesus explained, “But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them” (John 16:4). Jesus predicted future events knowing full well that his disciples couldn't possibly anticipate how they would be fulfilled. However, He did not provide this information so that they could predict what would happen in the future but recognize what was happening for what it was once it had occurred. His prophecy was not about prediction but recognition!

I think that the "triple six" number system will be immediately recognized (by overcomers) for what it is when it actually appears. The saints will experience an "aha" moment when they are blinded by the obviousness of what they see. But, today, in the season when "666" is not manifest, every attempt to predict what to look for is a subjective stab in the dark.

What we can say right now and with certainty is this: The possession of this number is a requirement for market participation. The beast "provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name" (Rev. 13:17). Can you imagine having to survive in our modern world without buying and selling? I don't care how "off the grid" you live, buying and selling is still critical to your existence. Someday in the future, without a "beast mark" issued in the form of a name or number, you will be on your own.

So why would anyone refuse such a number. According to Revelation 14:9, receipt of a "beast mark" is a clear declaration of loyalty to this coming charismatic world leader and a declaration of opposition toward God: “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb” (Rev. 14:9-10). Anyone with the spiritual eyesight to see the issues clearly would realize that "taking a number" is a choice to keep the pantry stocked at the cost of incurring God's wrath! This is a no-brainer!

The "third victory" of the overcomer is a refusal to align himself with the antichrist even though it means his exclusion from the marketplace. When the time comes and when everyone around him thinks having a triple six makes perfect sense, he will KNOW this is a course defined by perfect stupidity. When told to "take a number," he will respond without hesitation, "Take a hike!"

Ain't No Scary Idol Gonna Break Me!

In a previous post, I talked about how modern technology could solve the age-old problem of dumb idols. Until now, a man might dress up a tree, call it his god, and start consulting it for guidance. There's just one problem, his idol is dumb! In the future, perhaps the near future, the "right hand man" of a charismatic world leader, will solve this problem by inventing the ultimate smart idol.

Here's a preview of his accomplishment. I have inserted in square brackets some descriptions that will help you sort out who's who. "And he [the right hand man] deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast [the charismatic Jesus hater], telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast [the charismatic Jesus hater] who had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him [the right hand man] to give breath to the image of the beast [living representation of the Jesus hater], so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed" (Rev. 13:14-15).

Talk about a scary idol. This one doesn't just LOOK menacing, it IS menacing! It is sentient and  intelligent. It speaks! It is capable of using these endowments to discriminate between supporters and opponents of the charismatic Jesus hater AND can effect the execution of those opponents. Needless to say, most folks will "get religion" from an encounter with this bad boy. The religion they will be "getting" is fawning allegiance to the Jesus hater.

It is this understanding which helps us make sense of Revelation 15:2: "And I saw something like a sea of glass mixed with fire, and those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, holding harps of God" (Rev. 15:2). There will a group of people who successfully oppose the living image's attempt to intimidate them. I have said it before, and will say it again: The overcomer has within him the power to discern that giving allegiance to the Jesus hater is the stupidest thing a man could do. The overcomer will be able to see through all the hype and PR that everyone else has bought into. He will stand firm in that conviction, even when a talking idol utters very real threats like, "Off with his head!"

It will be worth it: "And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" (Rev. 20:4).

When Moral High Ground is the Pits!

As I am listening to President Obama's "100 Days Press Conference," I am struck by his response to a water-boarding question. He believes this "enhanced interrogation technique" is torture and wants nothing to do with it. He expressed a commitment to "hold true to our ideals" even when doing so makes it harder to fight terrorism.

Will the President better protect our nation by seizing this moral high ground? Will he inspire those who hate us to admit the error of their ways? I can hear them now: "We've made a horrible mistake! Sure, we have not been above some righteous beheading now and then. But the great Satan has disdained interrogation techniques we consider comparatively tame. How he shames us with his obvious moral superiority! How wrong of us to think he is our enemy when he should be esteemed as our teacher."

My purpose in this moment is not to evaluate interrogation techniques or how shifting the line of demarcation between what we will and won't do will influence our national security. My attention was fixed on the glaring incongruity between what he considers "above his pay grade" and what he deems his moral obligation. The President wants to be able to sleep well at night in the knowledge that no one has been intentionally subjected to the fear of drowning on his watch. Yet, he is apparently capable of sleeping soundly while millions silently scream, their lives snuffed out by those who swear, "Primum non nocere."

The Declaration of Independence that captures our "ideals" names "life" as an unalienable right granted all men by their Creator. I am not closed to a debate about what constitutes torture. But spare me the tortured morality devoid of moral sensitivity to the greatest crime against humanity of our age. How disgusting to hear someone crowing about his scruples over scaring people when he so cavalierly dismisses the slaughter of the innocents. I think I'm going to puke.

Idols are Dumb!

In the book of Revelation, we are introduced to a future form of idolatry. Some of the predictions in John's apocalyptic vision make sense to the modern mind. But idol worship? Surely thoughtful men with an appreciation for science are beyond the appeal of idolatry. Idols are for superstitious souls who imagine misfortune as a sign the gods are angry. How is it that idolatry could make a big comeback in man's future?

Let's be clear about two things. First, the spirit of idolatry is found in self-worship. Isaiah got to the heart of the matter:

    Their land has also been filled with idols;
    They worship the work of their hands,
    That which their fingers have made (Isa. 2:8).

All idolatry is a form of self admiration in which one praises himself by praising his work. A man's accomplishment could be as simple as a stone image or something vastly more sophisticated. But regardless of an idol's form, idol worship is always self-worship.

Second, all idols have a down-side. They can't talk! The OT prophet Habakkuk found the fact that idols are dumb more than a little amusing:

"What profit is the idol when its maker has carved it, or an image, a teacher of falsehood? For its maker trusts in his own handiwork when he fashions speechless idols. Woe to him who says to a piece of wood, ‘Awake!’ To a mute stone, ‘Arise!’ And that is your teacher? Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all inside it. But the Lord is in His holy temple. Let all the earth be silent before Him” (Hab. 2:18-20).

Men should be quiet and listen when God talks! But idols don't, so men have to do all the talking. This is definitely the downside to idolatry - a man ends up muttering to himself. The appeal of idolatry (self-praise) would surely go up if idols weren't mute. This is precisely what makes the "new idolatry" of Revelation an amazing innovation. Get ready for "idolatry reinvented." More tomorrow!

Can Obama Learn A Lesson Fit For A King?

The Wall Street Journal is tracking Obama's First 100 Days. Their handy "track-o-matic" is a nice touch and highlights major developments for each day in the countdown. Alas, there is no associated story with a Presidential quote like this: “For my first official act in office, I will spend the next 15 days making a complete handwritten copy of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. My entire cabinet of advisers will serve as witnesses during the process. I will then begin each day in office with the reading and study of the books I have copied.” This may sound like a speech from the twilight zone, but there was a time and place where it made perfect sense.

God spoke through His servant Moses, declaring the highest and best use for a monarch's first days in office. Here is what God outlined for each newly installed king of Israel: “Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, in order that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (Deuteronomy 17:18-20).

The worst thing that could happen to a king was to become proud, to let the power and prerogatives of his position go to his head. Reading, studying, and meditating on a handwritten copy of God’s Word was a great antidote for this workplace hazard. Making this part of his daily regimen would remind the king to lead the people in a way that served God's interests. It would help him remember that he answers to God.

Does it seem like President Obama would welcome a coronation? Let him learn what God says about the proper priorities of kings. Let him reaffirm his accountability to the God of the Bible for his performance as President. A good place to start would be in reading and meditating on the Word. Let him discover therein how to boost his approval ratings in the eyes of the only One whose opinion matters. Alas, we are now two thirds of the way through the first one hundred days, and the President's actions present scant evidence for a sense of accountability to the God of the Bible.

What about you? Would you like to live like a king? Start a journal in which you write out the Bible verses God is using to teach you, keep that journal ready at hand, and use it as the basis of daily study and refection. Your ability to obey God, to resist pride, and to be a constructive influence on those around you will all go up.  Writing, reading, and applying God’s Word is a great way to live like a king, the kind of which the King of kings approves.

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.

Is it a good idea to be good for goodness sake?

Are you sick of all the positive thinking blather frothed up in motivational posters? If so, you might have the right stuff to do some Christmas shopping at Despair, Inc. The sample above captures their take on the whole inspirational poster scene:

AT DESPAIR, INC., we believe motivational products create unrealistic expectations, raising hopes only to dash them. That's why we created our soul-crushingly depressing Demotivators® designs, so you can skip the delusions that motivational products induce and head straight for the disappointments that follow!

There is optimism and then there is blind optimism - and I appreciate Despair's attempts to put the latter in it's place. It is comforting to know that at least someone can see through a positive outlook that lacks a foundation in fact.

Alas, the latest unChristmas campaign sponsored by the American Humanist Association doesn't seem to be headed in the same direction as Despair. This is the organization that is using a controversial campaign of bus signs to create some buzz and identify prospects. (See the sample at right - "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake.")

Who are these guys? Click this link to get it in context, but here's what they have to say about themselves: 

Many people imagine that the only way to be good in this world is through belief in a god. But is that really necessary? Must we be bound by moral dictates set down in “sacred” texts written hundreds, if not thousands of years ago? Must we accept the authority and judgments of “spiritual” leaders and religious hierarchy? Does religious faith offer the only lens through which to judge life’s events?

The answer to these questions is no! There is another way for us to approach life. We can have ethics and values that aren't set in stone. Our ideals and principles can evolve over time to reflect our ever-changing and increasingly complex world. Yet, we can be confident of the decisions that we make, not because someone told us what to do but because we relied on our own careful reasoning and emotional reflection. We can live a life that accepts and appreciates the world as it is, without needing to see supernatural explanations behind every event. This is a positive and uplifting way to live.

Okay, L-W crowd, what's your assessment? Is this an attempt to gin up a sunny outlook without the sun? Is this the kind of fluff that Despair, Inc., would lampoon? Are the above two paragraphs populated by straw men? Is this a viable candidate for a "positive and uplifting way to live?" Some of you have been reading Light-Work for too long without comment. It's time to weigh in and test your reflexes. How would you respond to someone who espouses this view? Just in case you're procrastinating with this project, here's another motivating poster from Despair, Inc.

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."

Obama, McCain, and A Defining Issue

Last night I watched the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency. Here's a link to a summary on the event found at Marketwatch. I found the two interviews of Obama and McCain (one hour each) very helpful. Since they were both asked the same questions, the format allowed for easy comparison.

Abortion is a defining issue. So I was very interested in the answers of the two candidates to this question: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Here is Obama's response: "Whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective, or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade." He added, "I am pro-choice, not because I'm pro-abortion, but because I don't think women make these decisions casually."

My take on Obama's position is that he doesn't feel qualified as a scientist or theologian to articulate an opinion about when a baby gets human rights. His response is essentially an "I don't know." His second statement is more than a little unsettling. He seems to be saying that we should allow women the right to choose abortion because they don't make that choice lightly. Would this kind of logic serve our society well as it pertains to other activities? I am not trying to be ridiculous here, just trying to get at his logic. Would we respect the rights of one man to murder another because the murderer agonized over the decision to pull the trigger?

McCain's response to the same question was neither similarly nuanced nor hesitant. Warren: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" McCain: "At the moment of conception." McCain added, "I have a twenty-five year pro-life record . . . and as President of the United States, I will be a pro-life President and this presidency will have pro-life policies."

I like the sound of that. His record suggests it is more than just sound.

Much Ado Over Gabriel's Revelation

Time reported this week that a first century BC tablet, according to an Israeli scholar, "announces the raising of a Jewish messiah after three days in the grave." Dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation," you can check out the full article on the three foot high tablet by clicking here. Reporters David Van Biema and Tim McGirk seem to think this tablet constitutes another piece of vital evidence debunking the authenticity of the resurrection of Jesus.

Let's assume for the moment that the reported translation of the tablet is correct - this is no small assumption, by the way. How damaging is this revelation? Biema and McGirk think it is serious: "This undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection: the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday."

I find it hard not to smirk at the logic of this. Suppose someone living before Jesus did indeed pen a literary work that mentions a third day resurrection. Does this have any value as a denial of later historical events as reported by dozens of corroborating witnesses? Let me illustrate the logic of this: On 9/11 many eye-witnesses observed two planes flying into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. What would you think of someone's claim that it is all an invention, a contrivance, and offers as proof a book (that predates 9/11) in which events that are eerily similar are described? He proposes that the idea was suggested to people through the book and that's where they came up with idea. It didn't really happen.

Would you find such an argument convincing? Me neither. If you have already concluded that the resurrection is an invention, if you can make a statement like this - "this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day" - then I suppose Biema and McGirk's spin on Gabriel's Revelation might seem compelling. I'm not buying it.

Dangerous Christians

This picture (taken this morning) may look innocent enough - but don't be fooled. According to opinions expressed in the Memphis Commercial Appeal, this could be evidence of a hijacking in progress.

So what's the story behind the picture? About eight years ago, several churches in Collierville came up with the idea of participating in the National Day of Prayer by sponsoring a "Prayer Station" in the Walmart parking lot. It was enough of a success to warrant doing it again, and every year since. This year, the Hobby Lobby parking lot became the place (from 10 AM till 8 PM) where intercessors pray for an hour with members of other area churches.

So, where's the controversy? It seems to be a kerfuffle over the same old issues. Some don't like it that the National Day of Prayer Task Force led by Shirley Dobson has "hijacked" the event by promoting prayer events led by Christians. Others don't like it when government officials issue proclamations calling for prayer. Sheesh! To me, it all seems pretty reasonable. Government leaders, including the Mayor of Collierville, have announced, "We could really use some prayer."  And Christians have obliged, "We would be happy to pray."

Prayer doesn't just happen - It takes effort. You would think even curmudgeons would be grateful that somebody is willing to do some serious praying. Not so! If you dare to think that prayer makes a difference when it's directed to someone who can MAKE A DIFFERENCE, then your prayer is considered "explicit religious discrimination." Put whatever label on it you want, I still plan to keep praying "in Jesus name." It is good when those who share this allegiance assemble in a parking lot to ask for God's blessing. That they would do so is cause for celebration even when some think hand-wringing is in order.

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.

Internet Based Bai-Bai

For the last thirty years, we have supported R & S. R is a fellow Talbot Alum; he and his wife, S, live in Taiwan and minister in another big country. In their last prayer letter, R summarized a recent television commercial airing in “Central City.” To understand the “product,” he gave some background on the practice of bai-bai (pronounced “bye-bye”):

When people go to a brick and mortar temple in Taiwan, their prayer ritual goes through several steps:

• As they hold their incense sticks, [worshipers] pray to their favorite deity, sitting there carved and silent.
• Then, they can step closer to the altar and pick up several kidney-shaped blocks. These are thrown down on the ground and, depending upon the way they land, the answer is either yes or no.
• Lastly, there is a large cup with carved, long sticks in it. These are loosely held and shaken until one stick appears to stand out from the others.
• The stick is picked out and it has a number carved or printed on it which corresponds to fortunes that are available off to the side in a cupboard in dozens of numbered pigeonholes.
• Once the fortune is given and the desired answer is secured, the “worshiper” then goes home happy with the answer, satisfied their religious duty has been performed and life is going to work out after all.

Here is what R saw in the commercial. A mother and daughter are admiring the latest cell phone. Phones are not the featured product, but an internet service for your cell, a “virtual temple worship service for every occasion.” Here’s R’s summary of the benefits of using this internet based bai-bai .

• No need to hack your way through traffic! And why pay the fees to buy the incense and other paraphernalia at the temple to do your worship? You already have it right here at your fingertips.
• Just hit a couple of buttons on your phone and bingo - there’s the incense!
• Hit another, and boom! You’ve thrown the blocks. Yes or no? If you don’t like the answer, try again!
• Push another sequence of buttons, and behold! There’s your fortune for the week.

I couldn’t agree more with R’s summary: Hi-tech meets the world of smoke and shadows! Now people can be spiritually misled through the virtual world at their fingertips, too. Satan is a master of disguise and now he’s in the middle of our 21st century gadgetry, ready to snare whoever is looking for his form of “guidance,” whether in person or through the web. Not much different from some of our own websites, is it?

Thank God, He leads our feet on level ground and on paths of righteousness for His sake - no need for special software! Just plug into His Word on a daily basis, and we receive all the guidance we need.

Amen, Brother! Preach it!

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.

Does Pain Produce X-Ray Vision?

Superman had it.  So do other super-heroes.  Some super weapons have it, too, like the "rail gun" in the Arnold classic, "Eraser."  It's X-ray vision and it seems very cool.  But isn't that just the stuff of comic books and movies?  Not!  X-ray vision is real!  I have actually experienced it, and it is way better than the comics.

Here's how it works.  I can read a passage from the Bible and not see anything special.  I am sure there is special stuff in there, I'm just not seeing it.  Then, I get immersed in pain.  Not the hit your thumb with a hammer stuff, but the emotional pain of rejection, unjust criticism, being misrepresented, and getting in way over my head.  When I am in anguish of heart, I can return to the same passage and verse after verse leaps off the page like it was blinking neon.  Where did this come from?  Why didn't I see it before?  Answer:  Pain produces X-ray vision!

Now don't get me wrong.  I am not going to tell you that I LIKE pain.  But I will tell you that I LOVE what it produces, the ability to look through the words on a page and see something God wants to show me.  I am not alone in this perspective.  Here's what the Psalmist says:  "It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I may learn Your statutes" (Ps. 119:71).  The Bible comes alive when we are afflicted.  So whenever I am in pain - I grab my Bible and spy out what God is saying before my X-ray vision wears off!

What Church is Emerging? Pt. 5 of 5

Pascal once said, "Every man is almost always led to believe not through proof, but through that which is attractive."  There is disagreement about whether this is as it should be - Pascal himself considered beauty a "base" path to belief.  But I think his statement captures the dynamic behind the emergent church movement.  The evangelical church has been accused, and I think to some extent justly, of championing confessional purity while neglecting genuine heart/life change.  The emergent church seems a reaction to those who are perceived as saying they have all the answers but whose unchanged lives betray their words.  I do not disagree with this critique.

The solution to this condition is something about which we disagree.  For the emergent church, the solution is found in swinging the pendulum from truth to heart/life.  For me, the solution lies in recognizing the importance and inextricability of both.  We may not have all the answers, but we do have answers, answers to the most important of questions.  We must boldly and clearly proclaim those answers.  But, the authenticity of our message is damaged when the lives of its champions are singularly unattractive.  When the truth is delivered with pride and arrogance; when the lives of those extolling its virtues are plain and unbecoming; in short, where the beauty of the truth cannot be seen, we have become a liability to another's belief.  The truth still must be believed, but now it must be believed in spite of us, rather than because of us.

I witness in the emergent church a shot across the bow, a warning:  Unless we show the beauty of the truth - the freedom, joy, and grace of the transformed life made possible by Jesus and Jesus alone - then we will eventually have nothing to say.  We will reside in a great Christian rest home, mumbling to ourselves what outsiders view as inane prattle.  We may have something worth hearing, but we will not have earned the right to be heard.

So here's my bottom line!  I am propelled all the more to learn from God's Word in my heart and in my mind!  I want Proverbs 22:17-21 to define my approach to the Bible.  Incline your ear and hear the words of the wise, and apply your mind to my knowledge; For it will be pleasant if you keep them within you, that they may be ready on your lips.  So that your trust may be in the Lord, I have taught you today, even you.  Have I not written to you excellent things of counsels and knowledge, to make you know the certainty of the words of truth that you may correctly answer to him who sent you?  I want my behavior to commend to all men the Jesus for whom I live.  I want that life in Jesus to be informed by principles from God's Word which have become my own heartbeat, the fuel for bold and winsome faith, and the words by which to impart life to others.

What Church is Emerging? Pt. 4 of 5

Okay, let's get to the heart of the matter.  Is Brian McLaren's Exposition of John 14:6 sound?  There is one interpretive issue and one theological issue that require comment.

First, McLaren proposes that when Jesus says "no one comes to the Father, but through Me," the "no one" to which Jesus refers are the eleven disciples reclining at table with Him (pp. 9-10).  He believes that this is the meaning which best fits the context.  There are two problems with this view:  (1) Jesus did not use a second person construction in 14:6.  He says "no one comes" not "none of you come."  The fact that He does not use "you" in John 14:6 tells us that He is making a statement that is applicable to a broader audience.  It is relevant to the eleven, but also to a larger circle of which they are but a part.

(Here's an optional note for those with an interest in the original language:  In Greek, a verb is inflected according to person and number and a subject pronoun is thereby embedded in the verb.  The addition of a subject noun or pronoun, especially in an initial position, identifies and/or emphasizes the subject.  If Jesus intended to refer to the disciples, He would do so using a verb form that is inflected with a second person ending and, for emphasis, would place a second person pronoun in an emphatic initial position - See the very next verse where the verb form has been inflected to the second person because Jesus is making a statement that is relevant to the eleven.)   

(2) Jesus himself identifies this larger circle.  In the prayer found in John 17 (which is part of a single literary and narrative unit that spans chapters 13-17), Jesus indicates that His thoughts on this evening have not only been on the eleven but "those also who believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20).  It seems clear to me that when Jesus says "no one comes to the Father, but through Me," He is making a general statement.  The breadth of its applicability perfectly fits with Jesus' concern for all believers expressed later on this very night.

Does this conclusion run rough-shod over McLaren's contextual considerations?  I don't think so.  McLaren is using "context" to limit the applicability of Jesus' statement to only those physically present at the time it was uttered.  I would simply note that (1) Jesus sometimes answers a question by citing a principle that has relevance to more than the specific occasion or audience that raised the question.  Sometimes the answer Jesus gives is bigger than the question.  (2) Further, John, the writer of this gospel, informs us that he is intentionally selecting narrative material that pertains to believers in general. 

Simply put, "no one" in John 14:6 means no one!  Here's an example.  If a child says to his assembled playmates, "no one may come into my tree-house," his meaning is clear.  He is not limiting his exclusion to only those present.  He wants no one, including but not limited to present company, to stay out of his tree-house.

Now let's consider the second issue, the theological one.  McLaren suggests that the traditional view of John 14:6 is at odds with 14:9 which he considers the "dynamic core" of this passage.  He says of verse 9:  "Here the irony becomes nearly unbearable (to me), as we contrast this statement with the conventional interpretation of verse 6" (p. 11).  He is saying that 14:6 cannot possibly be about "exclusion" when 14:9 is such a clear declaration of a "theology of inclusion."  (This term is not his, but I think it captures the idea.)  So this objection to the traditional view of John 14:6 is more theological - it is based upon a doctrine which McLaren finds outside of 14:6 which limits how it should be understood.  In all fairness, "Scripture interprets Scripture" is a recognized principle of biblical interpretation.  Is it applicable here? 

McLaren believes that "Jesus way has been compassion, healing, acceptance, forgiveness, inclusion, and love from beginning to end" (p. 11).  I do not disagree that Jesus' earthly ministry was the perfect personification of love.  But for McLaren, a "theology of inclusion" and the "exclusivity of Christ" are mutually exclusive.  They are like two roads headed in opposite directions.

Scripture finds no contradiction between the fact of Jesus' proactive love and His exclusivity as mediator.  Note the interplay and complementarity of these two themes in 1 Tim. 2:4-5:  "[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."  Theme One:  God earnestly seeks the salvation of all men.  Theme Two:  Jesus alone is the mediator who can reconcile all men to God.

So, this looks like a case where McLaren is seeing a conflict that Scripture does not!  Indeed, a passage like 1 Tim. 2:4-5 provides a reasonable explanation for the ardency of Jesus' unprejudiced pursuit of all men.  He is the sole and sufficient solution to their greatest problem!

Bottom line:  I remain convinced that John 14:6 is a simple and clear declaration of the need for all men to come to Jesus as their Savior.

What Church is Emerging? Pt. 3 of 5

In his article, entitled A Reading of John 14:6, Brian McLaren presents an alternative view on a biblical passage often used to affirm the "exclusivity of Christ."  This article concerns something significant. 

What does it mean to be an "evangelical Christian?"  Here's my basic two-part definition:  An evangelical Christian (1) believes that salvation from sin is only found in a personal relationship with Jesus as his Savior and (2) is committed to making this good news known to all men.  If Brian McLaren's analysis of John 14:6 is sound, then a key passage that has been much used to support the evangelical position has been taken from the table.  This is not small potatoes!

I agree with Mr. McLaren that a consideration of context is critical to the process of biblical interpretation (pp. 3-4).  But I think this appreciation for context must have more nuance to it by recognizing the interplay between authorial intent and context.  In John 20:30-31, John expressly declares his intentions:  "Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." John is doing more than simply recounting a series of events.  He has selected material which can be used for maximum effect, that those reading his account may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

I agree that it is valuable to ask, what did Jesus' words mean to the disciples?  I would add that it is also valuable and necessary to ask, what did John intend his readers (us included) to understand from his account? Remember that John is writing as an elder statesman of the 1st century church, one in a great position to help men understand things taught by Jesus but not originally grasped by his disciples, himself included!  Bottom line:  We ought to be open to the possibility that Jesus' answer is bigger, more far-reaching, than the question which prompted it.  The author of the Gospel of John tells us that is precisely his purpose.

On page 10, McLaren summarizes John 14:6:  "Guys, its not about knowing information, techniques, directions, and or instructions:  its about knowing me, trusting me!"  I agree unequivocally about the centrality of knowing Jesus!  It does not matter what a man knows - if he doesn't know Jesus, he doesn't know what matters!  That being said, pages 9-10 could easily be construed by some (McLaren, too?) to suggest that knowing Jesus and knowing about Jesus oppose each other.  How is it possible to know Jesus without knowing some information about Jesus?  In John 20:30-31, John expressly identifies some information about Jesus that must be believed, namely, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.  So, I think it more balanced to say that knowing Jesus is like a lens that does not oppose information, techniques, directions, and instructions, but which makes all of them come into their proper focus with Him in the center.

What Church is Emerging? Pt. 2 of 5

In his article, entitled A Reading of John 14:6, Brian McLaren presents an alternative view on a biblical passage often used to affirm the "exclusivity of Christ."  The emerging church movement has been profoundly shaped by Mr. McLaren's thinking, so understanding an article in which he speaks to a distinctive of this movement should be doubly beneficial.

Let me start by noting several points I agree with.   First, the editor (Tony Jones) suggests that this article be used to "thoughtfully and deeply engage the biblical content" (p. 1).  I couldn't agree more.  Look at the reviews of Mr. McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy on Amazon.com.  There are plenty and they fall into two extremes.  Strident rejections, on the one hand, and ringing endorsements, on the other - not much biblical interaction.  So, I have picked an article that is a close reasoning of a biblical passage, a passage that concerns an important evangelical distinctive, and plan to take up the challenge to "engage the biblical content."  Right on, Tony!

On pages 2-3 of his article, Mr. McLaren talks about "a kind of multiple choice examination" in which one agrees or disagrees with the idea titled the "exclusivity of Christ."  Although McLaren doesn't return to this topic at the end of his article, he seems to be saying (by its end) that there is a third choice, "you don't need to know the answer to this question."  Balance demands that we acknowledge that there are times when Jesus proposes just such a third choice.  For example, in Acts 1:6, the disciples ask a question which solicits a yes-or-no response.  Jesus' answer in Acts 1:7 is a "that-is-not-a-question-for-which-you-need-an-answer" kind of response.  So, I agree that it's within the realm of possibility for Jesus to be doing something similar in John 14:6.

On pages 11 and 15, McLaren rightly emphasizes the compassionate nature of Jesus' ministry.  His mission, by His own account, was to "seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).  But note that those whom Jesus seeks are "lost."  "Lost" sounds like a problem.  And sometimes, people feel condemned when they are told they have a problem.  So, I agree that reaching out to tax-gatherers and prostitutes conforms to Jesus' mission and is His invitation for us to minister without prejudice.  This does not seem to eliminate the possibility of rejection or condemnation to be felt by those who are unwilling or unable to admit that they are "lost."

I can definitely agree with Mr. McLaren (page 13) that we must honestly admit we don't have all the answers.  However, admitting I don't have all the answers doesn't mean I don't have answers, answers to the really important questions.  The author specifically identifies this question as one without answers:  "Who is in and who is out."  And I agree that this is not MY question to answer.  It is the Lord's:  "the Lord knows those who are His" (2 Tim. 2:19).  This doesn't mean that the question of "who is in and who is out" is irrelevant to me, however.   Assurance of my salvation and that of others is worth pursuing, even though, I must agree, in the final analysis, Jesus is the One who will decide who is in and who is out.

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.

Dan's 100+ Winning Streak!

This guy is having an amazing streak of luck.  He sits at a blackjack table in Vegas and has beat the house 75 straight times.  Needless to say, his pile of chips is HUGE and growing.  He is definitely getting noticed (especially by casino management) but just keeps raking it in.  After 100 straight winning hands, he pushes back from the table and calmly demurs, "That's all for now."

No one is this lucky!  There has got to be something going on here to account for such an incredible feat of defying the odds.  This is precisely the conundrum men face when it comes to Daniel 11.  You remember Daniel (the guy who was invited to the Lion's Club for dinner).  He was a prominent figure in the Chaldean and Medo-Persian empires of the sixth century BC.  He was also an amazing prophet. 

Late in his career, he described a series of future events with amazing specificity.  In the first third of chapter 11, he outlines a sequence of 60 key events that will occur in the Middle East between his day and the second century BC.  In the next third of the chapter, he details 40 key features of events that will occur in the reign of a leader who can be identified as Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 BC).  I have attached two documents that show in two columns what Daniel said would happen(left column) and a brief summary (in the right column) of what actually happened.  Taken together, these prophecies and their historical counterparts blaze a prophetic winning streak that is 100 events long.  Here - check 'em out:

Download daniel_11_part_one.pdf
Download daniel_11_part_two.pdf

So, what's going on here?  How is it possible for someone living in 534 BC to predict with such precision an extended sequence of events spanning over 300 years?  Is something fishy going on here?  Or could it be that Daniel actually has a hot-line to God?

Eat More Beef!

Heading East toward Amarillo on Highway 40, we weren't expecting this!  An attention grabbing bossy wooing the famished to gorge themselves.  Draped on the cow's ample flanks are emblazoned the words, "Free 72 Oz. Steak."  The big fella is the PR invention of The Big Texan Steak Ranch, RJ "Bob" Lee's legendary Amarillo attraction where over 40,000 have tried, and 8,000 have succeeded.  Those whose names are enrolled on the "Wall of Fame" have eaten the required salad, shrimp cocktail, baked potato, dinner roll, and, yes, a four and half pound slab of beef in less than 60 minutes.

As a marketing strategy, I can't fault The Big Texan.  They got my attention with their bodacious bovine.  But I wonder, does something not seem a little skewed here?  Is there anyone out there who would champion the benefits (health or otherwise) of such a rapacious act of consumption?  What, exactly, has someone gained by "winning" this challenge?

The apostle Paul enjoins his prodigy Timothy to fight the good fight.  His words suggest that there is nothing good served by fighting well the bad fight, the fight that isn’t worth fighting.  His words call us to be selective about hills we are going to die on, the places where we are going to make our stand, the goals toward which we will strive.  A HS football coach once told me, “Winners never quit and quitters never win.”  I don’t question Coach B's counsel, but I also know that the winner in a contest worth fighting refuses to dissipate his energies in lesser pursuits.

So today, I purpose to fight the good fight!  I will seek to apply my best efforts to the things most worth doing and avoid the lure of "winning" at what doesn't matter.    

I Like Seeing

How weird is it to take an elevator to a cave?  That's what I did at Blanchard Springs Caverns in Arkansas.  You descend 200' and emerge in the "Cathedral Room" where lights have been installed.  (Yes, it was rough spelunking with elevators and installed lighting.)  At one point on the tour they kill the lights.  And that's when "total darkness" becomes more than just a figure of speech.  I waved my hand in front of my face with zero visual cue to what was happening!  You could feel the group's swelling anxiety.  The lights remained off only briefly, but, when they came back on, no one was pleading - "Please, oh please, we want to spend more time in the dark!"  We liked seeing!

I built the house we now live in in my spare time.  (I confess that I chose this of my own freewill - what was I thinking?  More on this debacle in a later post.)  Much of this "spare time" was at night.  So, in order to be able to see what I was doing, I installed lights in the trees.  When the job site was lit up, I was able to get things done.

That's what lightwork is about.  Think of it as a place where we can talk about how light from the Bible gives us the illumination we need to live, to be effective, to get things done.  When I think about what I want to accomplish as a person, a father, a husband, and a pastor, I like seeing!  How about you?   Let's  put some light on life and get productive!