Light-work

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.

Pretty Good Downloads

Are you struggling to remember where you put things?  Me too!  I have been including links to some helpful light-work resources in various posts.  But, to get to them, you have to go rooting through the pile of posts.  I say "Bah!" to snuffling through the clutter.  Check out our new resource center.  (Yes, the list of offerings is pretty humble right now - but it will grow.)  Just below the disclaimer to the far right is a link to a new page of "Pretty Good Downloads."  Think of it as your personal portfolio of "one-click-away" biblical wisdom and kiss clutter goodbye.

3rd World Oasis in the Backyard

Maria Randall looks like Jesus!  At least she does to a posse of children who have already experienced more rejection that some folks feel in a lifetime.  Maria is the director of social services at Hope House, a day care center for children infected or affected by HIV / Aids. 

Although Hope House daycare is for children six weeks to six years old, it is much more than a typical day-care center.  A GED diploma program for adults, play therapy for children, and adult support groups are just three of 16 different programs they provide, all of them centered on helping those who are shunned by society because of HIV / Aids .

Although Hope House now consists of three adjacent homes in midtown Memphis, TN, the number of children who can participate is limited to about 35.  Sometimes, circumstances don't play by the rules.  Maria recounts, "I heard from one parent who intended to put her HIV baby in the trash, so how could I not immediately bring that baby to Hope House?  That's the kind of heart-wrenching situations that challenge the limits of what we think we can do."

HIV / Aids is the modern day equivalent to leprosy.  Because of the social stigma associated with the disease, mothers and children experience the brunt of rejection.  Their loved ones will refuse to touch them, throw away glasses from which they have drunk, and exclude them from family get-togethers.  These ingredients are added to a recipe that is already bitter with poverty, drugs, and violence.  "One of our children heard a gun shot in the night," Maria recalls.  "When she left her house in the morning to come to Hope House in our van, here was the body of a dead man in her yard."

Hope House is an oasis, perhaps the one place where love, stability, and safety are experienced by children whose circumstances have much in common with a third world country.  For Maria, who is committed to Jesus Christ as her Savior, this is just the right place to be.  She explains, "I came here for a job, but somewhere along the way it became my passion.  When I go home, I feel good because I have given dignity, respect, and love to people without regard for who they are and where they have been.  I think this is the kind of thing Jesus would do, loving and serving those for whom society has no place."

Way to go, Hope House.  Way to go, Maria!  Thanks for giving these children and their families a glimpse of Jesus' love.

Is Jer. 29:11 YOUR Promise? Pt. 1 of 4

I love it when someone asks what I've been dying to answer.  Bravo, JG!  She wants to know if we can "claim" Jeremiah 29:11.  The verse says:  "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.'"  Is God promising you and me, today, in this verse, to insulate us from calamity?  Is He declaring in Jeremiah 29:11 that only what promotes our welfare lies ahead?

It all depends on what the meaning of "you" is.  (Where have I heard something like that before?)  Since the Bible was written for our benefit, it's natural to understand  "you" to mean "us" - If "you" includes us, then surely we can claim this promise.  But if "you" does not, then what? 

This is a really good question with far-reaching implications.  It is not just about this often quoted promise but the methodology by which we interpret and apply passages from the Bible.  So, I would like to provide an answer that is bigger than the question. 

The first thing we need to do is understand something of the process by which our lives are transformed by the truth.  I call it "the growth chain."  I have put together a chart to the left that I hope you will find helpful.  I have also prepared a PDF file of the "growth chain" that you can download if you want a hard copy.

The first six elements of the growth chain we often take for granted.  1)  God spoke to men in the past.  For example, He spoke to Moses from a burning bush.  2) We wouldn't know what God said, had not Moses and other writers recorded the message.  3) Neither would we have access to this message had not men made copies of the writer's originals, 4) copies that were assembled into collections called the Old and New Testaments.  5) The original text has been preserved in these copies and 6) can be identified by evaluating variances among manuscripts.

The next three steps are where most of us jump in.  7) At step seven, "interpretation," we seek the intended meaning for the original text.  The term "hermeneutics" is associated with this process of determining what the human author sought to communicate to his original audience.  8) The next step, "application," asks the question, "What are the ways in which the message to the original audience has implications for those who are outside that circle?"  9) To complete the growth chain, it remains for us to act on the application, to translate the application into changes in how we think, what we say, and what we do?

I realize that this is an extremely compressed summary.  (I went to four years of graduate school to unpack this little chart!)  But the key insight you need to take away is this:  You should not attempt to apply a passage until you first interpret that passage.  So, our first assignment in Jeremiah 29:11 is to determine exactly what Jeremiah was communicating to his original audience - let's do the work of interpretation.  THEN, we'll ask about how this message has implications for US.

I will tell you straight out that it drives me a little crazy when the above sequence is violated.  You CANNOT apply what you have not first interpreted.  So let's see if we can't avoid some craziness and do it right!  We'll pick this up again later next week starting with interpretation.

Improving Your Prayer Response Rate

What if I told you there is a way to dramatically boost the "response rate" to your prayers.  Someone might protest that "all prayers are created equal."  But, the undeniable fact is they're not.

One of the reasons some prayers are of lower quality is our natural obtuseness - we don't know what to pray for (Rom. 8:26).  The Holy Spirit is kind enough to compensate for this limitation but there is something WE can do, too.  Jesus taught, "If you ask Me anything in my name, I will do it" (John 14:14).  Does this mean we just pipe up and say "in Jesus name, amen" at the end of a prayer?  NOT!  The phrase "in Jesus name" is about asking for the things that Jesus would ask for.  To pray in Jesus name means to give Jesus the pleasure of hearing us ask for the things that He most wants to give us.

Way too much prayer is like a visit with Santa Claus where we rattle off our wish list.  Jesus would reply, "I want to give you what would be way better than the stuff on your list."  One of the best ways to know what Jesus has in mind is to use Scripture as a window into His heart for us.

Here's an example of how this could work.  Ephesians 6 describes the saint's armor, a piece-by-piece description of what every armed and dangerous saint needs in enemy territory.  Take what the Bible teaches about each component, frame requests accordingly, and you can declare your desire for things that make Him say, "Finally, someone is asking for the things I know he needs."  Go ahead, check this out!  It is a  prayer informed by Scripture, a prayer that reflects Jesus' knowledge of what we should do and how He can help, and one that asks for the kind of help Jesus would be pleased to provide for saints on the front lines.

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."

The Addictive Power of Anger, Pt. 2 of 2

Okay, so James 1:20 says anger doesn't produce the good stuff.  What does it produce?  Let's first distinguish between the source (the one who gets angry) and the recipients (the ones toward whom an angry outburst is directed).  We can then ask two different questions:  What does anger produce in the one who gets angry?  And, what does anger produce in those on the receiving end?

Let's talk about the latter group and analyze a situation where the one who is angry (call him Ace) is using anger to compel another to do what is right.  (I will volunteer to be that other.)  Knowing that true righteousness is a matter of the heart, we can make this connection.  When I am the brunt of Ace's anger, he can force me toward compliance, an outward conformity to his wishes.  But at the same time that I comply outwardly, my heart is reinforced to resist.  It reasons, "Ace is out-of-control.  He wants ME to exercise self-control and do what is right, but he's out-of-control.  He is asking me to do what he refuses to do.  No way!"  Bottom line:  Ace's anger might force me to comply on the surface, but at the heart level, gives me a formidable reason to resist doing what is right.  In this, Ace becomes a negative reflection of a heavenly Father whose character and actions give me every reason to do what is right.

What is produced in the one who gets angry?  Besides the obvious (anger breeds more anger), how does Ace's anger work as an accelerant for unrighteousness?  Understanding the phrase, "the anger of man," in James 1:20 is critical.  James is not talking about the anger of God, nor zeal for the things of God like that observed in Jesus' cleansing of the Temple.  He is talking about "man-anger," the passion that arises from the frustration of a personal agenda.  One of Jesus' most stinging rebukes of Peter was this:  "You are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's" (Matt. 16:23).  Peter's judgment was clouded; he became a willing accomplice to the unrighteous one, Satan.  "Man-anger" creates just such an unholy alliance.

(For language buffs, the word translated "of man" in James 1:20 is not the same word translated "man's" in Matt 16:23.  The meanings in both passages are similar, however.  Note that the word in James is without an article which puts emphasis on the quality of the term, hence "man-like anger."  Also of note is the contrast between anger of man and righteousness of God.  "Man-anger doesn't produce God-righteousness" would be the idea.  Man-anger might produce man-righteousness, that is righteousness in the eyes of men, but not God-righteousness which is the genuine article.)

The "anger of man" gets results, alright, the kind of results Satan would be pleased with.  So what's a man prone to anger to do?  (1) Write James 1:20 on a card.  (2) On the flip side write this:  "The temptation to become angry in order to "get results" is a trap!  I will only succeed in making it HARDER for those around me to  do what is right.  And, I will be duped into serving as my enemy's accomplice."  (3) Then whenever your blood is starting to boil because you're not getting the respect you deserve, or things aren't going your way, or your plans are being resisted, flash out your card and f-o-c-u-s on its truth.  (4)  Repeat after me:  "What I want" does not matter.  "What God wants" does.  The ONLY WAY to promote what God wants is by refusing to "GET RESULTS" with anger.

FJF - They're Back!

Last Friday, the "Free Java Friday" (FJF) team was back in action serving coffee and cocoa to the community.  (About half of the team is pictured to the left.)  The drive-up kiosk was open from 7-9 AM on the CBC main campus, and a walk-up station was located at the main crosswalk for Crosswinds Elementary before school.  A quality product, friendly service, and ready smiles - they offer it for free with "no strings attached."  Next Friday, teams will be covering the same locations in the morning plus adding "pre-game" coffee and cocoa service in the evening - There will be two FJF kiosks near the entrance to the Collierville High School football game. 

But you gotta ask, "What is the point of serving coffee and cocoa FOR FREE to people from the community?"  This is not about fund-raising.  Although the labor is all volunteer, there are costs for materials.  Since no donations are accepted, we are "losing" money on this ministry.  It's also not about marketing our ministry.  There are no signs for Collierville Bible Church and volunteers are not using this as a way to leverage conversations toward church attendance.  (We do give people an info card on the church if they ask, but that's not the goal.)

It IS about demonstrating the love of Christ in a practical way.  God's love is not something deserved; it's not something that can be earned.  So FJF is about demonstrating in a very practical and basic way what that kind of unmerited love looks like.  FJF is also about engaging our community through conversation.  Too often, the church becomes isolated and ingrown.  We like the fact that something as simple as a free cup of "Raspberry Truffle Cocoa with Whip Cream" can give us an opportunity to chat and get acquainted with our neighbors.  We love learning about people, their lives, and the challenges they're facing.  We think that this is what Jesus did well and we like the way that FJF allows us to follow in his footsteps and cultivate opportunities to minister beyond the walls of our church.

The Addictive Power of Anger, Pt. 1 of 2

Ace struggles with anger and wants help.  He is not alone.  I remember an incident when the children (we have three) were much younger and I totally lost it.  I don't recall what the issue was, but I do remember being totally frustrated by the fact that all my calm and reasonable appeals for action were being completely ignored.  So I put on my angry face (scary!) and started using my angry voice (very loud) and was amazed.  I was getting impressive results.  I had everyone's attention (How could they ignore this louder and scarier me?) and all their energies were focused on compliance.

In this moment I felt the drug-like power of anger.  In my mind, I was "in control."  I was simply using a mode (angry mode) that more effectively motivated others to action.  It would be easy to rationalize a recurring resort to anger, especially when the ends seemed noble and biblically appropriate.  A question asserted itself:  If the goal is for my kids to do what is right, isn't an angry outburst warranted when lessor means are ineffective?  This question exposes one of the compelling attractions of anger.  It gets results!

Yes, anger gets results, but what kind of results?  James 1:20 declares, "For the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God."  Translation:  Anger may get results, but it does not result in righteousness!  I say again:  Whatever anger is producing, it is NOT righteousness.  Now this begs the question:  What  exactly DOES it produce?  Find out next week in part 2.

Answers for Angry Aces

Yesterday, I met with "Ace."  He agreed to be a lab rat for a noble experiment.  Yes, "Ace" is not his real name.  Yes, he is a real person.  He had enough courage and humility to declare, "I have a problem with anger and I need help."  So, I proposed the following:  "Ace, you could help me understand the struggles and thinking of the angry man.  I could use what I learn from you to do a series of posts which provide biblical principles, applications, and projects for you and other Angry Aces."

Ace agreed and we'll all benefit.  Here's how it will work.  I have created a new category titled "anger."  Every so often (after a meeting with Ace), I will post a relevant comment.  If you are a regular reader, you'll catch 'em as they come.  But you can also go to the little "category cloud" to the right and click on the word "anger."  It will show you all the posts for Angry Aces.  A year from now, there should be 10-15 posts that could benefit anyone who is struggling with anger.

Even if you don't struggle with anger, you can direct those who do to these posts at light-work.  It's like having a biblical counselor in your purse or hip pocket.  Kinda cool!

Kudos to Ace for his willingness to do this.  I also want to commend him for his ability to say, "I have a problem and I need help."  It is rare for a man to achieve true change who cannot say these words.  But for the man who can, he has already made the first and most important step toward conquering his problem.

Praying for Egg (On My Face)

Okay, so in yesterday's post I told you about putting it on the altar.  I had given counsel that was a warning, counsel that was rejected.  The depth of my pain at having my words dismissed betrayed my need to give something to God.  So I declared to Him:  "I relinquish all claim upon the good opinion of men."  The result was great peace and encouragement.  But there's a rub.

I don't remember who first said it (my apologies), but "the beauty of being a pessimist is you can't lose.  You're either proven right or your expectations are exceeded."  Unfortunately, giving pessimistic counsel doesn't work that way when people's view of Jesus is on the line.  The counsel I gave was fueled by a desire for things to turn out in a way that makes Jesus look good.  That desire hasn't changed, even though the situation is now very different.  A path has been taken which I thought there were good reasons to avoid.  If things work out badly, I might be vindicated, but Jesus' cause would lose.  So, it is time to work in defiance of my prediction.  For Jesus' sake, I want my warning to seem unjustified.  That's what I am praying - I want Jesus to look good, even if I don't.

The Power of Being a Nobody!

I want to know that I matter.  It is painful to hear that I don't.  Here's the details.  A big decision was calling for action even though the way forward was not obvious.  My counsel had been requested by those in the center of the situation.  Then, kaboom!  Hardly had my words been offered before they were summarily dismissed.

The enemy can easily exploit moments when my ego has been bruised.  It had been and he was.  Here is some of what he was whispering.  "Don't they know you have been a Christian for over 50 years!  Don't they respect the fact that you have been a pastor for over 30 years?  Have you not been a steady source of good and biblical counsel?  Don't they respect you enough to even consider the possibility your words might promote their good?"

To cut through the enemy's chatter, I turned to a passage that has become my compass in such storms.  "But to me it is a very small thing that I should be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself.  I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.  Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God" (1 Cor. 4:3-5).

Seen in its proper light, the acuteness of my pain was the measure of my desire to be respected, valued, and affirmed BY MEN.  I was hurting precisely because I had forgotten 1 Cor. 4:3.  I had forgotten that another's opinion of me doesn't matter.  MY opinion of me doesn't matter.  Others are not qualified.  I am not even qualified to make an accurate assessment of my worth.  But the Lord is more than qualified and He will make His assessment known at the proper time.

So, here's what I did.  I got on my knees and gave to God an offering.  I declared:  "I relinquish all claim upon the good opinion of others.  I give it up as an offering to You.  I am choosing to leave how I am regarded by others with You.  I will live for Your pleasure.  I will live for Your good opinion, alone!"  Upon praying that prayer, and continuing to walk in its light, something amazing has happened.  A great weight has fallen from my shoulders.  Boldness and joy have taken its place.  There is power, there is freedom, there is peace in living for Him, for Him alone!

Is baptism for the dead a live option?

KS wants a comment from Bible Answerman!  I came across a practice I didn't remember seeing before in 1 Corinthians.  Paul is making the case for the resurrection.  As he bolsters his argument, he mentions that it would be no good to be baptized for the dead if there were no resurrection.  Hmmm.  Is he promoting or condoning this practice, or just appealing to applied logic in this misguided practice.  In the text, I can't detect any criticism on Paul's part.  Help?

Great question!  This passage reads:  "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?  If the dead are not raised at all, why are they baptized for them? (1 Cor. 15:29).  This is a tough verse to sort out, to be sure - Gordon Fee cites a dissertation (in CBQ) by B. M. Foschini that mentions 40 different explanations.  Could be interpretive quicksand so let's find some safe ground.  We will first identify what we do know, before speculating about what we don't!

1. The terms, "baptized," "for," and "the dead," are fairly straight-forward in their meaning.  They most naturally refer to being baptized on behalf of others, perhaps believers who died prior to being baptized.  Whatever the phrase refers to, it was something currently being practiced by some in Corinth.
2. KS is right that the context of 1 Cor. 15:29 is one in which Paul is marshaling evidence for the resurrection.
3. This verse marks a transition to a different class of "evidence" for the resurrection, "practices which only make sense in the light of a sure resurrection."  Verses 30-32, for example, make the point that putting one's life at risk for the cause of the gospel is absurd unless there is a resurrection.  This does not constitute "proof" of the resurrection, per se, but behavior which can only be accounted for by a hope of resurrection.
4. Although Paul does not explicitly condemn the practice of which he speaks ("baptism for the dead"), he does put some distance between it and himself - he says "what will those do" - NOT "what will we do."  The contrast between "those" and "we" is even more striking for the fact that Paul uses "we" in verse 30.  Makes you wonder who this "third party" might be!
5. An important third party is expressly identified in 15:12 as "some among you [who] say that there is no resurrection of the dead."  These are the ones whose negative influence seems to be the catalyst for Paul's lengthy defense of the resurrection of the dead that is the focus of 1 Corinthians 15.

The biggest objection to a straightforward reading of 1 Cor. 15:29 (see point 1 above) is this:  How could Paul mention vicarious baptism without condemning it?  Clearly, he would condemn it.  So why didn't he?  Here is a reasonable and viable explanation.  I cannot say with absolute certainty that this is the explanation for Paul's argument, but it shows that a reasonable explanation is possible.  Suppose the third party mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:12 (who deny the resurrection of the dead) is the same third party mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:29 (who practice vicarious baptism).  What a compelling argument Paul has then constructed!  He is able to find powerful evidence for the resurrection of the dead among those who deny it.  Why condemn the practice of baptism for the dead when he can cite it as "behavior which can only be accounted for by a hope of resurrection" (see point 3 above)?   

So, KS, here's my basic answer:  In 1 Cor. 15:29, Paul mentions the practice of vicarious baptism (this is the plain meaning of the terms involved), but not because he approves of or endorses the practice.  He mentions it because it is a prime example of the hypocrisy of those whose denial of the resurrection of the dead is betrayed by a practice of baptism that assumes the dead will live again.  Paul is saying:  "Even those who deny the resurrection of the dead don't believe their denials!  So, why should we?"  I couldn't agree more!!

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.

Deliverance for Parents Who Pray Like Bozo

I am very impressed with my unimpressive prayer life!   But at least I know I'm a prayer bozo!  And I want to change.  So one of the ways I have worked to improve my prayer life is by using Scripture to inform my petitions.  Here's an example you can check out.  I have two grown sons with whom I believe Jesus would be pleased.  I used this verse-set to inform my prayers for them all through their teen years and I do not lack for evidence that God has answered these prayers!  I think prayers informed by a verse set like this are way better than the "please-bless-Johnnie" generalities the Lord usually hears.

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.

The Gathering Economic Storm - Pt. 2

If you are economically clueless, you are ripe for a future shock. Here's a quick self-test to check your economic IQ.  True/false? 

1. All modern currencies (like the American "Federal Reserve Note") have intrinsic value. 
2. Federal Reserve Notes, from an accounting standpoint, are assets. 
3. Inflation is created by price increases. 
4. Inflation is unavoidable. 
5. Government is the primary defense against runaway inflation.

If you answered "false" to all of the above, we're on the same page!  If not, here's a quick commentary.

1. Modern currencies are "fiat" currencies and have virtually no intrinsic value.   (I read somewhere that it costs about four cents in material and production costs to produce a Federal Reserve Note, regardless of its denomination.  So, I guess you can say it has some value as a piece or paper.)
2. Federal Reserve Notes are NOTES.  They well fit the description of a liability, according to the definition of the International Accounting Standards Board.  Unfortunately, the only way in which you can receive "payment" for this note is by receiving another Federal Reserve Note.  (The loan will never be repaid with something of value, it will simply be "repaid" with a new note.)   It is true that because these "notes" are legal tender, you can currently buy stuff with them from willing sellers.  But you cannot get intrinsically valuable goods like gold or silver from the government as a "payoff" for your "notes."
3. Inflation is CAUSED by an increase in the supply of money in relation to goods.  When governments expand the money supply, which is facilitated by the acceptance (among the public) and increase (by government sponsored printing presses) of fiat currencies, they cause inflation.  The RESULT is that prices go up.   My first new car cost $2,500 in the late sixties.  Today in 2007, an equivalent vehicle would cost about $25,000.  This metric suggests that there are ten times as many dollars in circulation today as there were in 1967.
   
4. History demonstrates that in periods where money has intrinsic worth, price inflation (and deflation) ebbs and flows according to supply and demand factors that attach to each class of goods.  A relentless and universal increase in prices for all classes of goods and services, our modern experience of inflation, is the norm when fiat currencies proliferate.
   
5. From a historical standpoint, governments have been the primary cause of runaway inflation.  Notably, a number of governments have collapsed from hyper-inflationary forces they themselves unleashed.

If you didn't do too well on the quiz, I'm not trying to make you feel badly.  I would simply suggest you do some study.  If you understand the big picture (the five points above are just the tip of the iceberg!), I think you will conclude that the economic foundations of our culture are NOT SOUND.  Should a global crisis arise, we could easily think that a "whole new approach" to buying and selling is needed.  The solution might be a beast!  Are you ready?

The Gathering Economic Storm - Pt. 1

What does the Bible says about where history is headed?  The answer is not disconnected from global economic issues.  For years, I have been using David Morgan's site, silver-investor, as a critical resource for my economic education.  Yes, David Morgan is an authority on silver and related issues, and his web-site is for "serious silver investors."  But, the "precious metals news" section of his home page provides links (updated daily) to a mother-lode of FREE economic information, even if you don't care about silver mines and dollars.  Did I mention it was FREE!

The future we see in the book of Revelation is filled with profound economic implications.  For example, the charismatic world leader described as "the beast," will establish a universal global economic system by which faithful followers of Jesus are locked out of market participation.  Their inability to buy and sell will adversely affect their "quality of life," perhaps even their ability to survive.  Are current economic events conspiring to prepare for such an end?

Churches On the Map or In the Field

There is a disturbing and insidious trend afoot and it's time for some whistle-blowing.  I received another report today for the file, "What Churches Want."  This one went into group one - Churches searching for a dynamic preacher who makes the congregation look good.  Group two is much smaller:  Congregations interested in leaders whose greatness is measured by service.   

I have a friend who was rejected by a group one church.  It makes me sad because he's a good man and a quality shepherd.  Doesn't it seem like churches are seeking someone who can put them on the map, instead of laborers who know how to get dirty doing the work of harvest? 

There are ten primary passages in the New Testament that leave little doubt about the kind of man needed by the One who said:  "I will build My church."  The verses tell us everything that Jesus considers mission critical to identifying good shepherds.  (I have attached, for your reference, the section from my Shepherdology course-notes which identifies these "top ten" - 10 Key Shepherdology Passages.) Adding to Jesus' list or substituting other qualities only makes sense if you're planning to build something other than Jesus' church.  Stick to what the Bible clearly says and you can accomplish what Jesus expressly wants!  He is not interested in getting churches on the map, He wants leaders who can help get His people in the field!

God's Stained Glass Sunsets

It's bad enough to be sleeping in church.  It's especially bad when you're the preacher!  Yea, that was me, but I have a very reasonable explanation.  We were staying overnight at the "Old Church House" in Oakland, TN.  James and Louis Maddox have converted the Oakland Methodist Church building (originally built in 1927) into a fantastic bed and breakfast.  Our bedroom was once part of the chapel and included three stunning stained glass windows that soared to the 12' ceilings.  During the day, ordinary sunlight was transformed into something truly extraordinary.  

As evening neared, we enjoyed another work of art in which the artist's medium was light.  This was one of those rare sunsets in which the whole sky was ablaze with glory.  The clouds were just in the right place to first be cast in yellows and golds, then oranges and reds, and finish with blues and violets.

The sunset was God's grand stained glass window.  His was not a static display but an animated work of art as clouds moved and changed shape, as one color was replaced by another, and as the crimson disk of our sun deepened in color and grew in size before its departure.  This was not a picture, but a light show.  I thank the Producer for a great performance from all His troupe.  It reminds me that God is interested in making things beautiful.  Even me!  Even you!