Abstinence of Evidence

"Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions." (Jesus in Matthew 7:20, NLT)

"So now I am giving you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other. Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples.” (Jesus in John 13:34-35, NLT, emphasis obviously mine)

Believe it or not, unassailable doctrine, large churches, observance of strict moral codes, etc., are not the best indicators that we're followers of Jesus, although they may sometimes come along for the ride. But it doesn't get much simpler than this: our love for one another will prove to the world that we are Jesus' disciples.

Is it possible that followers of Christ tend to live under the impression -- and teach and imply -- that our abstinence from such-and-such "evil" will prove to the world that we're indeed Jesus' disciples? Certainly there are codes of conduct that are taught to the believer in Scripture, and often those things begin with "do not." I'm not saying or implying otherwise.

The problem, though, may be that we're so concerned with the "do not" parts that we tend to forget the "do" parts. Consider the fact that Jesus did not make any of these statements:

• "If you do not associate with sinners, you will prove to the world that you are my disciples."
• "If you do not use foul speech, this will prove to the world that you are my disciples."
• "Your abstinence from alcohol will prove to the world that you are my disciples."
• "If you do not support businesses that act in a way that is contrary to Scriptural principles, the world will know that you are my disciples."
• "If you do not gossip, it will be obvious to the world that you are my disciples."

Some of those things are fine (unless they're accompanied by legalism, at which point they're tainted), but according to Jesus, none are the most solid evidence that we are His disciples. In fact, our reliance on "do not" rules can have a tremendous negative effect. (Dave Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons' eye-opening 2007 book, unChristian, is a great place to start in learning about this, and I highly recommend it.)

One of my favorite quotes about the Church is one made by a man known as Julian the Apostate, emperor of Rome from 361-363. He wrote in a letter to Arsacius, the high priest in Galatia, "These impious Galileans [Christians] not only feed their own poor, but ours also; welcoming them into their agapae, they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes." It wasn't that this early group of believers stood up for their religious rights, abstained from certain foods and drinks, or didn't associate with pagans. It was direct outward evidence of their love for other people (which blossomed out of their love for Jesus) that was evidence that they were followers of The Way.

For the sake of Jesus Christ, let us become a generation of believers that is known for what it does rather than what it does not do.

(This post was originally made quite some time ago; you've just read a re-post. But that's okay. It was free!)

Read more »

Reactionary Christianity

Did you see the news in late August when the American Atheists organization put up some billboards for the Democratic National Convention? Fox News reported on it, then the advertising company was bombarded with "a national outpouring of 'vitriol, threats and hate speech against our staff, volunteers and Adams Outdoor Advertising,'" (according to a spokesperson for American Atheists).

Fox News' original story is here and the post-billboard story from the Bradenton Herald is here.

As a result of the outpouring of negative feedback, whether or not it was as ugly as the American Atheists spokesperson described (I wouldn't be surprised if it was), the advertising company and the atheist organization decided to take the signs down.

In other words, Christians "won."

Or did we?

In the original Fox News article, a pastor from Christian Life Center said, "Of course it’s not appropriate, it’s never appropriate to insult another person, it’s never appropriate to disrespect another person."

I have nothing disparaging to say about that pastor because I realize that there's little context within which I can weigh that statement. Taking it at face value, though, the first thing I thought of when I read his statement was what Jesus said in Matthew 5:11-12. "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (NLT) Now, Jesus didn't give specifics on how to react, but the implication is that we're not to retaliate. In verses 38-40 He says not to resist an evil person and if something slaps us on the right cheek, we should offer the other one, too.

I believe reactionary "Christianity" messed up again. Although the deluge of responses surely wasn't made strictly by the Christian community, we can safely say that they will get "credit" for it. Here are some questions I have about this set of events:

1. What does this incident tell non-believers about Christians and by extension, about Jesus?
2. What would have been a better response, if any, from the Christian community?
3. If I'm wrong about all this, what am I missing or misunderstanding?

The FoxNews.com and American Atheists logos above are the property of their respective owners.

Read more »

Rewriting Jesus

The more I see and hear the news, the more I think many Christians must be using Bibles that have certain passages rewritten to accommodate their own personal or political worldviews and preferences:

Matthew 10:18 has got to be one of those passages: "You will stand trial before governors and kings because you are more righteous than other people. But this will be your opportunity to stand up for your rights."

And then there's Matthew 10:22-23. "And all nations will hate you because they are depraved. But everyone who fights to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one town, stay there and don't back down. I tell you the truth, the Son of Man will return before you have reached all the states of America."

Our actions, or the actions of many of those who do things in the name of "Christian values" tend to reflect a set of pseudo-Biblical principles that are often patriotic or self-focused more than they are Christ-exalting.

Here's what Jesus actually said in those two passages:

"You will stand trial before governors and kings because you are my followers. But this will be your opportunity to tell the rulers and other unbelievers about me." - Matthew 10:18 (NLT)

"And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one town, flee to the next. I tell you the truth, the Son of Man will return before you have reached all the towns of Israel." - Matthew 10:22-23 (NLT)

Sometimes I wonder what "Jesus" we're following.

Read more »

Reader Response to "To Whom Would Jesus Contribute?"

A reader at Revelife.com (which occasionally reposts things I write here) sent me a message with a wonderfully thought-out and graciously-worded rebuttal to my post "To Whom Would Jesus Contribute?" I wanted to share it with you. He punches me in the teeth at the end, and I'll bet the same fist will punch you.

My post had expressed frustration with the two main presidential candidates' campaigns and their use of massive, massive contributions they'd received as of the end of March (I might throw a tantrum if I looked at the amounts today). I opined that that campaign money -- being used for television ads, cross-country trips, smear campaigns, etc. -- would be better used giving someone a hot meal or clean water.

The reply below comes courtesy (and with the permission) of AnyasFriendMe. You may find that what he says makes more sense than what I wrote. I encourage you to read the second part of my ramblings, "When Necessary, Use Money," though, at some point. It may express my conclusions better than the first post.

Here's the response (I put a number of phrases in bold for emphasis):

Hmm... it's hard to put big numbers in perspective. Given that there are some 313 million people in America, even if Obama spends a billion, see http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-usa-campaign-spending-idUSTRE77T3ZX20110830 -- that works out to about $3 per person. I'm sure many non-profits spend that much money mailing and phoning their average supporters to get them to support their campaigns, since it takes money to get people to act. It's sort of a necessary overhead. It adds up to a lot of money because there are lots of people in our country.

Well, is it worth it? That's hard to say. Obama and Romney each advocate numerous policies that they might be able to implement. Many policies have impacts of many billions of dollars. If there have been 50 or so million abortions since Roe vs. Wade, and if an additional billion dollars would have changed elections that would have changed who the Supreme Court Justices were, then for a pro-lifer the question would be, "Is it worth about $20 to stop an abortion?"

From this perspective spending a billion dollars to stop 50 million deaths could be considered pocket change.

Or in other terms that may be easier to relate to: outlawing abortion could save two babies every minute in America. For those who don't care for a pro-life argument, feel free to switch it. For example, money spent to elect a candidate who was concerned about global warming (or whatever your pet issue is) might save the lives of many people.

There are a billion plus people who need clean water. I'm not sure how many wells would be needed to save as many people, but I'm guessing it would be a lot, and I doubt that it would be cheap to provide them all with clean water.

In short, there are a lot of uncertainties, but there are big bucks spent on politics because politicians have a lot of influence on a lot of big issues that have big impacts on many people. Do we get our priorities perfect? Of course not.But it may be possible that many Christians have spent too little money supporting candidates that shared their concerns.

Then again, how many of us invest time praying for our leaders? Hmm... could that have an influence on the decisions that they make? Maybe asking how we spend our money isn't the only or even the best way to change the world. Maybe we need to ask how we spend our prayer time.

Read more »

Would Jesus Contribute?

I read an article at Yahoo! News today. In it President Obama was painted as being concerned that his campaign for re-election might be outspent by Mitt Romney's. The president noted, "And if things continue as they have so far, I'll be the first sitting president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign." That would certainly be embarrassing.

The article also notes, "[President Obama's] campaign, the Democratic National Committee and their joint accounts reported more than $173 million cash on hand at the end of May, $61 million more than rival Mitt Romney and Republicans." At the end of May. A full month ago. At that time, according to the article, Obama's campaign claimed $173 million and Romney's apparently $112 million. That's $285 million that people and organizations have donated to have their favorite candidate elected or re-elected. That doesn't include third-party candidates' coffers.

Just for grins, I had a look at the website of Huntsville's Downtown Rescue Mission and saw this quote: "To feed everyone at the Downtown Rescue Mission for one year: approximately $385,000. 'He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the Lord, and He will repay him for his good deed.' - Proverbs 19:17."

Since I am an absolute math wizard, I popped up my calculator and quickly determined that presidential campaign funds raised so far could pay for about 740 years' worth of meals at our local Rescue Mission.

But who cares? We certainly have more pressing concerns than this.

For more laughs, I went to The Water Project's website to see how their donations were coming along. In Africa or India, each shallow well costs the group about $6,500 to dig and maintain. For a deep, well-maintained one it's more like $30,000. That's a lot of money whenever a missionary comes to meet with your church and asks for donations, isn't it?! And they usually talk way too long. According to Water Is Life, one child dies every 15 seconds due to a lack of water.

But mercifully, that doesn't impact us in America and has little bearing on the election process, if any.

By the way, my calculator told me that about 9,500 wells -- the expensive ones -- could be dug with the money that both major parties had raised for their candidates by the end of May.

You can rationalize all you like, and you can offer explanations as to why our priorities are the way they are. Tell me that in order to make good things happen we have to have the right man in office. Tell me that the government isn't supposed to cure all social ills. Agreed. Isn't the Church supposed to be the example in that arena? 

Something here is very, very screwed up.

"One nation under God." Remember how the religious people got horribly and vocally bent out of shape when a key politician said that America wasn't a Christian nation? You can honestly look at the numbers above and tell me that we are?

Out of the things I talked about above, to which would Jesus contribute? And would He contribute something other than money?

Read more »

Just Another Colton Dixon Post

"American Idol". I believe the show's name is unfortunately pretty accurate. The good thing is that it reminds me of how easy it can be for us to be consumed by something or someone other than Christ, and helps me to guard against that.

That said, I thoroughly enjoy watching "American Idol" early in the season. I've found that there's not much middle ground at that point. Viewers of the show either feel sorry for the idol wannabes or they take tremendous pleasure in the painfully off-key voices and the "he-didn't-really-just-do-that-did-he?" shenanigans of people who ought not be on national television. I fall into the second category and when that part is over I don't usually care to watch anymore. You know, when the good singers start.

This year, though, as my wife and daughter watched it, I would stop in the room to listen to Colton Dixon. Even if he'd had a terrible personality I'd have still appreciated his haircut and his vocal ability, but he wound up, apparently like most in the group of finalists, seeming to have a great personality.

I had to smile when he decided to sing his "favorite worship song" on one show. I reasoned that he would be the new Tim Tebow. Not that the first Tebow is old or anything, but we Christians like our publicly-adored, media-spotlighted figures. We point to them and say to the world, "See?! In yo' face! He's a Christian, just like me and he's way better than any of those dumb ol' secular singers (or football players or actors or inventors or authors or mimes or fountain pen repair people, as the case may be). I have to admit, I was kinda in that group with Colton Dixon on American Idol, which is pretty unusual for me, so I was actually quite deflated when he was eliminated from the show last night.

Dixon is apparently an honest-to-goodness, unashamed believer. Not because he sang a "worship song," but the way he lost last night was a great indicator of it. His closing comments contained an apology for flippantly dismissing the judges' counsel the previous night, stating that he would take what they said and learn from it. His closing song was a repeat of Lifehouse's "Everything" -- his favorite worship song. Only this time he was very deliberate in addressing the song to God. I'm sure the collective Christian community in America that watches "Idol" (wow, that phrase sounds really stupid) was cheering him on.

In an interview with HollywoodLife.com there were even more and direct indications of where he stands:

HL – "With your final song you kind of fell to your knees and sat there for a minute before you started, what were you thinking?"

CD – "It’s funny, I have been trying too hard to get a standing ovation from the judges that I didn’t need, I didn’t need it for confidence or anything like that, and during that song I wasn’t singing for them or my family or anyone in the audience or anyone at home, that song was between me and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We had a cool moment on stage for sure, but I wanted to end it the way I started it and told myself I would do this competition and I’m glad I got the opportunity."

Millions of "Idol"-watching Christians (zounds, there's another idiotic-sounding phrase) are probably bummed this morning. I totally get it. But the thing to do rather than waiting for Tebow/Dixon Version 3 (a terrible tendency of the average American Christian) is for you yourself to become the next follower of Christ that others will cheer on because you're bringing honor and glory to God.

Why is it our habit to try to use a figurehead or public personality to vicariously live out our own walk with Christ?

Enough musing. I'm just ready for the new Colton Dixon album to come out. Matter of fact, I think I'm going to pre-buy it at Amazon.com or iTunes whenever it becomes available. Dude rocked.

Read more »

This ΙΧΘΥΣ Unit Has a Bad Motivator

I apologize, but this post contains no Star Wars allusions other than the title.

Photo via radio.foxnews.com

On a heads-up via a tweet from my friend Jay, I read an article from WAFF TV -- the story of Lauderdale County, AL high schools being challenged regarding prayers over the PA system to open football games each Friday. Simply stated, "The Freedom from Religion Foundation called the prayers over loudspeakers illegal."

Now that a challenge to a traditional public prayer has been made, it seems to set the stage for Christians to respond or react. I commented on our reactions to these kinds of situations at this blog a few days ago. In fairness, it can be difficult to determine the most Christ-honoring way of responding or reacting to a person or group that acts in opposition to something we value.

Read more »

A Sign of the Times

While searching to see if my place of employment would be cloed due to ice on the roads, I read this news story at a local TV station's website: Local Religious Leaders Respond to Atheist Bilboard. It's also been reported on by other local media outlets.

I'd not heard about the billboard before reading the article, but the sign reads, "You KNOW they're all SCAMS," and depicts symbols from a variety of religious faiths, also showing a date for a "Southeast Regional Atheist Meet." Several religious leaders were interviewed and they shared a variety of thoughts and observations.

Is any response warranted from the Christian community? (This is the only group to which I can speak because I belong to it.)

I've noticed a growing sentiment among both atheists and Christians, from personal conversations to local and national news stories. It's interesting to me that each group believes that the other has gained serious traction in both government and in the media; enough to be alarming. The same kinds of stories and situations my Christian friends see as evidence of bias or even persecution have been cited by atheist friends as indicators that religion has a large -- and problematic -- influence on our culture.

Very interesting.

Above image © Copyright 2000 - 2011 WorldNow and WAFF, a Raycom Media station. All Rights Reserved.

Read more »

woman upset by theater mix-up

Yesterday a friend turned me onto Lark News, a Christian satire site that is probably not for everyone. If you think you might be offended by satire, don't visit the site, but instead enjoy today's pre-screened material below. The following "news story" is unfortunately extremely close to real life. In fact, for all I know it could actually happen.

LANCASTER, Pa. — Maria Holsapple thought she was attending performances at the local community theater, but after twelve weeks, she was angered to learn she had been attending Oak Grove Center, a 3,000-member church."

"I would never willingly go into an evangelical church," says Holsapple, a practicing Catholic.

She came after Oak Grove mailed her "tickets" to upcoming "drama presentations." She enjoyed the "mini-concert, the play and the motivational speech they threw in at the end," she says.

"It worked well as performance art," she says. "I was convinced it was a groundbreaking new theater company."

But when neighbors remarked that they had seen her at church, Holsapple called Oak Grove and discovered it was a house of worship.

"The pastor quoted Jesus, but he quoted Socrates, too, and Britney Spears," she says. "How was I to know?"

If you're one of those who's growing more and more alarmed at what we're doing to the name of Christ and to the witness, love, obedience, and life that should exemplify the Church, I recommend that you acquire and read two books: God's The Bible and Frank Viola's Reimagining Church. The former is absolutely essential; it is the vehicle by which we can know our Creator and honor Him out of love (and much, much more!). The latter addresses some current cultural issues and will give you fresh hope that purity and holiness can be restored to the Church and that it can be free from bondage to cultural fads as well as tradition.

Read more »

5 effective strategies for spiritual growth for one low price!

This may be my longest post ever. I'm just sayin'...

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 speaks about not dismissing prophecies -- if they hold water and measure up to the standard of the Word, then don't scoff at them: "Do not stifle the Holy Spirit. Do not scoff at prophecies, but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good. Stay away from every kind of evil." (NLT) Similarly, in Acts 17:11 we read about a group called the Bereans in a very positive light: "And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth." (NLT, emphasis mine) So these nobody "laypeople" were searching the Bible to see if the "heavy-hitters" were actually teaching the truth?! How impertinent! But they did, and it was good for them to do it.

In that spirit, this post is not in the interest of bashing someone who's using his gifts to help and spiritually and numerically grow the Church. It will, however, show that I am not convinced that this is healthy, and to be honest, I believe it runs directly counter to many major principles that are communicated plainly in the Word of God -- the Book that this organization and many others claim to be supporting.

I received an e-mail (one of many I get) from an organization that sells its intellectual property and its products in the interest of helping worship leaders to "grow" their "worship ministry" teams. I guess it's fine if someone wants to pay to learn these things. We sell everything else God-related: Bibles, Bible studies, niche devotional books, studies (not to mention breath mints, jewelry, etc.), and the list goes on.

In fantasyland, it would be cool if we sold them simply to cover the cost of the paper and the hours that people had to pour into them. I'm rambling now, and I don't know if I want to fight that battle, to tell the truth, but it makes me scratch my head to think of the implications of having created profit centers that are "selling" spiritual growth. Sure, it's better that the resources be used on this than on pornography or on blatantly worldly things, but does that justify everything that we do?

Back to the e-mail... These kinds of sales pitches usually include at least one bullet item that references spiritual growth, so they're covered if someone tries to claim they're all about physical/numeric growth. ("Hey, we're all about spiritual growth! Check out that bullet point.")

Side note: In the world of PR, if you use numbered lists ("The 5 Keys to Success," "30 Proven Methods of Getting Away with Picking Your Nose in Public," etc.), you're more likely to get someone to buy into what you're saying, or at least do more follow-up than if you didn't use a numbered list. Those things always jump out at me and surely taint even the legitimate lists for me, even though this first chunk doesn't have too many. There's good use of exciting-sounding verbs here, too. "Maximize," "capture," and "empower" were immediately noticeable.

To be sure, there's some good stuff here; it's not all negative (in this statement I'm being serious). You can grow your team, stave off burnout, and even grow closer to Christ in the process, all for only around $90 (that's with a $10 saving for getting the download version). In this exciting e-mail offer:

You can expect to learn...

• How to exponentially grow the number of people serving on your worship team and ensure that you're never short on volunteers again!
• How to create a thriving auditions strategy that honors God and empowers volunteers to serve in their area of greatest gifting.
• 5 foundations of an Effective Audition Strategy that you MUST have in order to maximize your team.
• How to develop seasons for your team so that current members are never "burned out" and new members are always joining.
• The powerful affect that a BIG Day of auditions has on your team.
• How to set God-sized goals that help you maximize how many people will join your team. [Eh? Should God not be the one setting those goals if they're His size?]
• How to develop an auditions timeline so that you can properly plan and promote it to your church.
• How to capture over 40% of your audition sign-ups through a 30 minute pre-audition reception.
• How to lead an actual audition, including what to say and do during the audition.
• Actual scripts for how to follow-up with those who have auditioned.
• How to say "No" to someone who auditions in a way that connects them to another area of your worship ministry.
• How to deepen the commitment of your worship team to Christ, the church and the team through an easy to navigate leadership development process. [Saved the best bullet point for last?]
• And much more!

No, there really is more! Reading the whole e-mail, I saw the opportunity to prayerfully consider joining a network of worship leaders. It requires a 10-month commitment at a couple of hundred bucks a month (to be fair, this includes lodging and air fare, so it seems reasonable), and offers these benefits, for example:

This additional purchase/commitment "will follow the outline of the 7 Leadership Challenges for Worship Pastors...  The 7 Leadership challenges include the Personal, Pastor, Planning, People, Provision, Professionalism, and Production challenges."

And the following part really got to me. If you join this network, one of the benefits is "A private weekend meeting with [the personality around whom all this is centered], exclusively for [program] participants where you will get to go behind the scenes at a [name of church] service – a $1500 value!" What?!? Spending a weekend behind the scenes at a mega-church's weekend services (with what must be a high-profile worship leader) is a $1,500 value? Are you kidding me??

All of this (not just the weekend with the famous guy at super-church, but the whole package) makes me think of Thesis #82 from Martin Luther's epic, reform-inducing 95 theses posted on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany in 1517: "Cur Papa non evacuat purgatorium propter sanctissimam charitatem et summam animarum necessitatem ut causam omnium iustissimam, Si infinitas animas redimit propter pecuniam funestissimam ad structuram Basilice ut causam levissimam?"

In case you don't read Latin, it's been translated this way: "Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church [St. Peter's Basilica]? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

Luther had a non-Biblical belief in a place called purgatory. In those days people thought that they could pay a certain amount of money to go toward the building of the new, awesome mega-church building, and in turn a soul would be delivered from purgatory. Looking at motivations rather than destinations (and I understand that he was off on the purgatory bit), Luther simply asked, "Why wouldn't the pope do that for free if he could do it at all?"

In the same vein, why wouldn't someone want to give these gifts I've been talking about (not spiritual gifts, but things like team-building lessons, help with challenges, how to avoid burnout, and -- of course -- how to grow in Christ) freely for the edification and building up of the Church?

Go ahead and give me real-world "but Dean..." replies. Worship pastors need to eat, too? Cool -- I mean, if I have to eat and all, then surely it's okay to sell this gift that God gave me freely. We've built up a culture -- within the church and without -- that sees all this as normal.

I'm asking you now to question the legitimacy of what we've come to think of as "normal."

What if it's not "normal" the way God sees "normal"? What if God actually doesn't think of all this as glorifying to Him? You won't really have to dig too far into the Word to see that this is more than a strong possibility.

At this point I probably need some of you to reel me in. I really do feel like I'm overreacting in some areas. Note that I pulled every name and corporate reference out of this post, because although I'm livid, I don't want to attack a person. And it's possible that I'm off-base somewhere (which is why I ask you to reel me in). Call me crazy, but for some reason this all seems like someone is trying to sell the power of (or gifts from) God for profit. I can't help thinking of this passage:

When Simon saw that the Spirit was given when the apostles laid their hands on people, he offered them money to buy this power. “Let me have this power, too,” he exclaimed, “so that when I lay my hands on people, they will receive the Holy Spirit!”


But Peter replied, “May your money be destroyed with you for thinking God’s gift can be bought! You can have no part in this, for your heart is not right with God. Repent of your wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive your evil thoughts, for I can see that you are full of bitter jealousy and are held captive by sin."
Acts 8:18-23 (NLT)

Read more »

please remove me from your distribution list?

Wow, I feel awful. It's not my fault that I'm in this situation, either. See, I was added to the distribution list of someone who didn't ask my permission. Honestly, that doesn't offend me. Sure, it violates the "you shouldn't do that with e-mail" principle, but it's not a terribly big deal. But I'd like to unsubscribe, just because I get volumes of e-mail from friends and family that keep me occupied quite well. As a result, I wind up deleting almost every e-mail from the distribution list I'm talking about; not because I dislike the person or their efforts, but I suppose I'm obsessive about my inbox and would simply prefer that those mails not show up.

The problem is, this person's e-mails are Christ-centered, grammatically correct, non-offensive, and for an amazingly good cause. The other problem is that there is no "unsubscribe" link because it's a manual e-mail list that a real, live person is maintaining. This means that in order to unsubscribe I'm going to have to e-mail an individual whose work and ministry I respect and essentially say, "Hey, man. I really think what you're doing is splendid, but I don't want to hear about it anymore -- leave me and my inbox alone."

In the long run, this person needs to stop adding people to the list without permission, because frankly, when we violate the protocols of chivalrous e-mail sending, we're going to get someone mad at some point -- probably sooner rather than later. And if we add people without permission and our e-mail blasts are about Jesus...? That's an extra bad thing, because if the recipient doesn't know Christ we're giving them an open door to start to resent and bad-mouth "inconsiderate Christians."

All this to say that I think too much about stuff. I should probably just e-mail and say, "Please remove me from your e-mail distribution list." And in the grand scheme of things, it won't hurt me to just keep on receiving the e-mails. I just thought about unsubscribing and all the stuff above hit me.

If I personally know you, it's not your e-mail list that I'm talking about, so no worries, right?

Read more »

the aclu doesn't need a christmas card

For my friends and family who've forwarded me the e-mail suggesting that all Christians send a Christmas card to the ACLU, I honestly, totally, completely love you guys, but please, don't send a Christmas card to the ACLU. In the e-mail we read this gem: "Make sure [the card] says 'Merry Christmas' on it. [Below is] the address, just don't be rude or crude. (It's not the Christian way, you know.)" Wow. This statement obliterates any validity the e-mail may have had to start with. Note the sarcasm attached to the parenthetical statement.

This is like going to a store, having the clerk be rude to you, you getting indignant (because you're paying them for what they're doing for you, they are not allowed to have a bad day, and you're entitled to a good one), and closing the conversation by saying with dripping sarcasm, "God bless you." This just doesn't jive with any attitude we're supposed to have according to the Word of God.

If your enemies are hungry, give them food to eat.
If they are thirsty, give them water to drink.
Proverbs 25:21-22 (NLT)

"What blessings await you when people hate you and exclude you and mock you and curse you as evil because you follow the Son of Man. When that happens, be happy! Yes, leap for joy! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, their ancestors treated the ancient prophets that same way...

“But to you who are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. Give to anyone who asks; and when things are taken away from you, don’t try to get them back. Do to others as you would like them to do to you."
Jesus in Luke 6:22-23, 27-31 (NLT)

The argument against mine is going to be the one that says that Christians must not take opposition lying down. I would counter by saying that while that statement is true to some degree, I don't see a New Testament example of anyone trying to remold a government by storm. (Remember, the apostles were puzzled that Jesus never did this.) However, I do see plenty of men speaking out against the corruption of the religious leaders. I also see them saying that we must not be a part of the world's system and in some cases they speak candidly to secular governing officials, but I generally see a pronounced difference in tone: harsh to religious people who claim to love God, and gently but directly to secular leaders who do not claim allegiance to God.

I cannot read the Bible and gather from it that we are supposed to offer venemous sarcasm as a way to "help the Holy Spirit" convict anyone. Rather, I see where we're supposed to directly and lovingly speak truth. If you're going to contact the ACLU, do it in something that speaks truth that 1) they'll actually read, and 2) by its sincere loving tone proves to them that you are not stooping to angry mockery.

I'm rather glad that Jesus didn't stand up for His rights as Creator of the Universe. Is there any application for us to take away from that, or is was it all different for Jesus because He was the Son of God, with a specific purpose for the redemption of man? If the latter is true, then why is the Bible littered with statements that reinforce "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." (Matthew 5:5)

I argue that we've adopted the world's system when we are pushy, aggressive, self-assertive, and do all we can to make sure that our God-given rights are not taken away. I don't read in the Word where we will always be guaranteed the right to worship or assemble. Rather, I see where it's guaranteed that we'll suffer, be punished, beaten, thrown into prison, etc. In none of this are we told, "When this happens, stand up for yourself!" For me, this attitude immediately brings things like the Crusades to mind for me -- events that the atheist world still sees as "evidence" that all religion is bad.

He was oppressed and treated harshly,
yet he never said a word.
He was led like a lamb to the slaughter.
And as a sheep is silent before the shearers,
he did not open his mouth.
Unjustly condemned,
he was led away.
No one cared that he died without descendants,
that his life was cut short in midstream.
But he was struck down
for the rebellion of my people.
Isaiah 53:78 (NLT)

I look forward to responses, because I have many Godly, well-reasoned friends who completely disagree with me on this and who will back up their position with Scripture, which is about the only thing I'll listen to because I'm stubborn.

Just don't be rude or crude. (It's not the Christian way, you know.)  :-)

Read more »

giving free stuff away on black friday

I'm going for a more raw, gritty, in-your-face post title today. I figure that will bring in the readers in droves.

I'm not sure why today is called "Black Friday". (By the way, Tony, it's acceptable in British writing to put the punctuation outside of the quotation marks. I lost sleep over that after your tweet the other day because I'd forgotten why I started doing that. I am henceforth pretending I'm a Briton.) So anyway, I'm not sure why they call today "Black Friday". If it were called "White Friday" would there be any accusations of racism? And is it called "Black Friday" because it's a dark day for the people who decide that it's worth battling the massive crowds to save a few percent on an item? I'm curious. Not curious enough to Google it, though. I'm fairly contented not knowing for sure.

Our Jr. High "Guy" at Wall Highway, Josh Harris, coordinated an event that several of us enjoyed this morning. At 4:00 AM we left the Wall Highway campus, taking boxes of donuts (the ones in a pre-packaged tubes of six) and things, along with two of those big tailgate cooler-looking dealios filled with hot chocolate. We arrived at Best Buy around 4:15. I thought the line (as seen in the photo) was long, and then I talked with someone who let me know that the line went around the corner, and had extended around the corner as of 3:30 AM (probably earlier -- that was when they'd arrived).

Our intrepid band of Christ followers, armed with food and hot drinks, began to hand out these things to the people standing in line. Several people were obviously shocked that we were giving this stuff away. A few refused it until I said, "It's free," with a smile. Their faces immediately brightened and their eyes widened. We had the opportunity to tell people that we were doing this because we love Jesus Christ and just wanted to serve other people.

It was a small; one that lasted about 15 minutes. Josh had set aside junk food rations for about 100 people.

At one point I walked nearer the end of the line to give out donuts, and as I was coming back around the building, there was a man walking toward me next to the line, holding up the tube of donuts I'd given him less than a minute before, saying, "$10.00! $10.00!" I said, "Man, don't do that," and turning to the people in line, with a smile said, "I just gave him those things for free." People started to laugh. He smiled and looked at me and said, "Hey, I was just kidding," and walked back to his place in line. In retrospect, it may have seemed like I was saying that we'd done something good. In reality, I just didn't appreciate him wanting to rip people off.

That was our experience this morning. Getting up at 3:00 wasn't as tough as I'd anticipated, and being able to go back to sleep from about 6:30 until 10:00 made for a great, lazy day.

Hope your Thanksgiving was fantastic, and may you always set aside a time of daily thanksgiving to your Creator!

Read more »

stem cell research - an ethical dispute

This is a guest post, and an unusual one, at that. I'll be right back to the more "normal" topics (there's at least one coming up that will tackle some heavy issues concerning the Church and worship) very soon.

The following is a research paper written by friend and commenter Ted. I read it a couple of weeks ago and was so intrigued that I could have been so woefully off-base on the facts of this issue that even though it's a far cry from typical EGBDF fare, I asked him if I could post it. He readily agreed. I'm a musician, not a scientist, and I'm interested in your thoughts.

Just to annoy you, I removed the footnotes for the sake of formatting. He did provide them and I'll be happy to post them or e-mail them to you if you'd like. Just to annoy Ted, I put some key phrases in bold.


Stem Cell research is a tinderbox waiting for the slightest spark to ignite another ethical divide across America, conservatives versus liberals, Republicans versus Democrats, ‘intelligent design’ versus evolution, and Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice. What is it about Stem Cell research that has everyone up in arms? The ethical dispute concerning stem cell research centers on the definition of life; if we are a product of ‘intelligent design’ then all life is sacred, but if we evolved, should we not use every means available to improve our lives? To understand this ethical dilemma we must define what stems cells are. In an article by stemcellresearchfacts.com entitled “Adult versus Embryonic Stem Cells”, we find this definition:

A stem cell is essentially a “blank” cell, capable of becoming another more differentiated cell type in the body, such as a skin cell, a muscle cell, or a nerve cell. Microscopic in size, stem cells are big news in medical and science circles because they can be used to replace or even heal damaged tissues and cells in the body. They can serve as a built-in repair system for the human body, replenishing other cells as long as a person is still alive.

There are two major classifications of stem cells, embryonic and adult. PhD Kane, a veterinarian, explains, “Adult -- stem cells are obtained from a variety of tissues, including bone marrow, adipose tissue, muscle, cartilage, trabecular bone and tendon”. PhD Kane has used stem cell therapy to treat soft tissue and tendon injuries on horses for several years with encouraging results. What makes this treatment promising is the capacity of stem cells to differentiate into specialized cell types. “Adult stem cell treatments have been successfully used for many years” to treat leukemia and related bone/blood cancers through bone marrow transplants. Additionally, this kind of treatment has about a zero percent chance of rejection because the donor and recipient are one in the same. “Embryonic stem cells are obtained by harvesting living embryos which are generally 5-7 days old. The removal of embryonic stem cells invariably results in the destruction of the embryo”; which is the main cause for the controversy. Steven Ertelt states, “Embryonic stem cell research has never cured or helped any patients to this point. Only the use of adult stem cells and treatments derived from them have cured or reduced the effects of any diseases or conditions afflicting patients”. Another major disadvantage with embryonic stem cells is that have a tendency to cause tumors and have a high rejection rate.

The use of embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the embryo, a potential human life, which fuels this ethical debate. Additionally, embryonic stem cell research is commonly associated with abortion and many of the issues tied to it. Since the Roe versus Wade case of 1973, there is a great ethical divide across America – Pro Life versus Pro Choice. Creationism and Darwinism are also associated with embryonic stem cell research, because one’s belief in either Intelligent Design or evolution determines his understanding of life. Political ideologies and agendas add more dissention to this debate; topics such as separation of church and state, liberalism versus conservatism, gay rights, and health care are often referred to when stem cell research is mentioned. Time Magazine correspondent Karen Tumulty wrote the following:

The politics of stem-cell research, just like the science of it, is turning out to be far more complicated than either side would like you to think. From the press releases, fund-raising appeals and victory cries that were going up in the hours after President George W. Bush used his veto for the first time, it may have looked as though the Democrats had finally found their golden issue--and a social one at that. "With one stroke of his pen," declared Democratic chairman Howard Dean, "President Bush has once again denied hope to millions of Americans and their families who suffer from diabetes, spinal-cord injuries and Alzheimer's."

In actuality President Bush’s veto only “banned the use of federal funding to support research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 2001, it is not illegal”. There is no law or regulation against destroying human embryos for research purposes. Anyone using private funds is free to conduct embryonic stem cell research. According to Howard Dean, any attempt to deny funding for embryonic stem cell research is denying hope to millions of Americans. The following statement from the National Review is a perfect example of how political agendas are more important than finding a possible cure:

On Nov. 20, scientists announced that they had discovered a way to create stem cells with the same potential as embryonic stem cells--but instead of destroying embryos, they had done it by "reprogramming" adult cells. Supporters of the embryo-destructive research, especially Democrats, started to carp. The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said that it would take years for scientists to figure out how to keep the new methods from causing tumors. Instead, it took less than two weeks. Eventually, the naysayers are going to have to face the fact that we have had some good news.

The exploitation of women to donate their eggs is big business on many campuses nationwide. Political pressures to develop a viable embryonic stem cell treatment are endangering women. A recent headline in USA Today, “Egg Donor Business Booms on Campus”, depicts how research facilities target women to donate their eggs. Jim Hopkins states, “potential risks, including nausea and diarrhea, from a condition known as "ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome”, and there is a ‘remote’ chance of death”.

Public confusion, political ideologies and agendas, along with media sensationalism continue to distort the issues over stem cell research. Politicians and the media rarely disseminate between embryonic and adult stem cell research during any discussion or debate; this technique adds confusion and distorts the truth. “Most types of stem cell research are morally acceptable and laudable. Only research using embryonic stem cells raises insuperable moral objections”.

The only way to eliminate the confusion is to eliminate the double-talk. Stem cell research is not, and should not be used as a platform to promote anyone’s ideologies. Research and examine the facts; ask medical professionals and doctors for information; then and only then can one develop an informed and conscientious opinion.

Read more »

Spoiling it for the Rest of Us?

The following comes from one of Commenter Leroy's questions in his Sunday School lesson yesterday. It summarizes my stance in a shorter and more pointed way than I could -- I always use way, way too many words -- so I wanted to share it.

What are some organizations that are anti-Christian? (Go ahead; say them aloud, even if you're in a cubicle and people will think you've lost it. Leroy named some that I've deleted.)

Christ-followers need to respond completely different than we are known for responding. A small vocal group of Christian zealots have spoiled it for the rest of us. Nothing is wrong with being zealous for Christ, nothing. But our typical reaction is to respond back with anger and aggravation.

Remember, non-Christians do not and cannot think like we do. We have to use the fruits of the Spirit to respond in a way that will bring glory to Christ, not cause people to call us a bunch of hate-mongers. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them or pacify them. It means we show the love of Christ in our response.

Live wisely among those who are not believers, and make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be gracious and attractive so that you will have the right response for everyone.

- Colossians 4:5-6 (NLT)

Read more »

The Rich and the Poor

I'm interested in knowing if you feel that this passage directly relates to how people dress in present-day meetings of the Church. Bear in mind that it was written in a time when the wealthy class was separated from the poor by a wide margin. There were no textile mills that churned out expensive-looking clothing at reasonable prices. If you were poor, you typically dressed in a "poor" way.

My dear brothers and sisters, how can you claim to have faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ if you favor some people over others?

For example, suppose someone comes into your meeting dressed in fancy clothes and expensive jewelry, and another comes in who is poor and dressed in dirty clothes. If you give special attention and a good seat to the rich person, but you say to the poor one, “You can stand over there, or else sit on the floor”—well, doesn’t this discrimination show that your judgments are guided by evil motives?

Listen to me, dear brothers and sisters. Hasn’t God chosen the poor in this world to be rich in faith? Aren’t they the ones who will inherit the Kingdom he promised to those who love him? But you dishonor the poor! Isn’t it the rich who oppress you and drag you into court? Aren’t they the ones who slander Jesus Christ, whose noble name you bear?

Yes indeed, it is good when you obey the royal law as found in the Scriptures: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you favor some people over others, you are committing a sin. You are guilty of breaking the law.

James 2:1-9 (NLT)

There are plenty of passages that speak more directly to the issue of how we dress when we meet. I've heard this one referred to moderately often, and I'd like to know what you -- as opposed to John MacArthur or Matthew Henry or other commentary authors -- believe this passage is getting at.

Read more »

Take Action!

June 19, 2009 - Senate to Legalize Hunger and Poverty

The Obama administration has signaled that it plans to secure passage of S.12008, the "Hunger Allowance" bill, this week. The House has already passed and the Senate is expected to vote this week on legislation that would create a new class of people based on the the individual's "actual or perceived hunger or poverty level." Even more troubling is that S.12008 could create special protections for those who are poor or starving. Democrats voted down an amendment to the bill that would have removed "can't even buy off the McValue menu" from the definition of "starving."

"If a mother hears that her grown child can't afford food, and she doesn't give him money or a gift card to a supermarket, she can now be gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class," said Rep. Joe Palooka, R-Texas.

For years, NFN and other pro-family groups have issued warnings about federal Hunger and Poverty legislation. The reality is that the purpose of this bill is to silence those who speak out against hunger. If the legislation passes, pastors could be prosecuted under the federal inducement statute for preaching the biblical view of eradicating poverty and hunger. For example, a person could commit an act of charity toward a homeless individual and blame it on the pastor's sermon. Similar laws have been used to prosecute religious speech in the U.S. at the state level and abroad.

The Senate is poised to pass S. 1209, the "Hunger Allowance" bill, unless there are an overwhelming number of phone calls today.

Take Action!

Click here to get the direct telephone number for your two senators, along with suggested talking points for your call. Call your senators today to demand politely, but firmly, that they vote against S.12008. Congress has refused to define the terms "hunger" and "poverty," which means that all income levels are protected.

Pastors, it is time to take a stand. Share this information with your members, and ask them to call.

Of course, this is a totally fabricated post. Don't call, because there's no such pending legislation. I'm not even sure this post totally makes sense -- I took an actual alert and simply changed the key phrases. I thought it would be telling to parody a typical alarm regarding an issue that is spoken about ad nauseum in the Bible but doesn't seem to get a whole lot of national religious press. Interested in your thoughts.

Read more »

Whatever You Do Today...

People will look at you and me today and very likely stereotype us based upon how we dress, talk, act, and react. This is a fantastic opportunity to contribute to a great (new?) stereotype for followers of Christ!

You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is beneficial. Don’t be concerned for your own good but for the good of others.

So you may eat any meat that is sold in the marketplace without raising questions of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

If someone who isn’t a believer asks you home for dinner, accept the invitation if you want to. Eat whatever is offered to you without raising questions of conscience. (But suppose someone tells you, “This meat was offered to an idol.” Don’t eat it, out of consideration for the conscience of the one who told you. It might not be a matter of conscience for you, but it is for the other person.) For why should my freedom be limited by what someone else thinks? If I can thank God for the food and enjoy it, why should I be condemned for eating it?

So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Don’t give offense to Jews or Gentiles or the church of God. I, too, try to please everyone in everything I do. I don’t just do what is best for me; I do what is best for others so that many may be saved.

- 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 (NLT)

Read more »

What if Most Christians are Wrong?

The darker side of my humor enjoys the cartoon depicted by Gary Larsen in which an enormous pile of bodies is mounting next to a building where a person is poised on the edge, ready to leap. The caption reads, “If everybody jumped off the Empire State Building, after a while it wouldn’t hurt so bad.”

...from the first paragraph of an older post by a guy I follow on Twitter, named Brandon Cox (or @brandonacox, if you tweet). I've come to enjoy the wide variety of updates he sends. Today he sent a link to a blog he'd posted, and at the bottom of that post was the title of another blog post that piqued my interest: "What If Most Christians Are Wrong?"

So for my post today I refer you to Brandon's: What If Most Christians Are Wrong?

I don't completely agree with some of his observations, but in spite of slight disagreement, I'm right on the same page with Brandon Cox's sentiments. The post made me rethink some things I consider to be sacred cows in the Church.

For instance, when I think of "traditionalism", I think of uptight people in suits (no offense to anyone there; I wear suits sometimes) who don't want a podium or flag moved for a Sunday service. However, Cox essentially points out that today's young, hipster church-types have essentially created a new traditionalism: Abercrombie & Fitch clothes, "pseudo-Christian/gothic tattoos", etc. He doesn't mention the essential thick plastic-frame glasses. (And I was relieved that my favorite clothes are from Rue 21, with an occasional Aeropostale shirt thrown in.)

It's a fantastic post. It made me think about my own life. When I was a punk teenager I didn't like "conformist." So what did I do? I conformed to another crowd -- the black trenchcoat-wearing long-haired one (I liked this crowd, by the way; I wasn't doing it just to be non-conformist).

I'm interested in your feedback. If you give the post a read and only have time for one comment, though, be certain it's at Brandon's blog. Then if you have time, come back here and leave one.

Read more »

Prayer in Schools - Sickness or Symptom?

My 10-year-old daughter received an e-mail with a poem lamenting the absence of prayer in schools and talking about the general state of the nation today where its outlook on God is concerned. You've probably received an e-mail like it. After she read it, I asked if I could talk to her about it. My perspective is a little different from that of many people (shocker, I know). I offered my daughter a parallel that I hoped would help her to see it in a different way.

My story came before the wave of medical caution had begun to spread through the United States and began to impact our local community (many schools closed last week and remain closed today in an effort to prevent the spread of the H1N1 virus).

Here's my analogy: when a child is sick, often she'll be taken to the doctor. Once the doctor has gone through a battery of tests to determine what exactly the sickness is, he'll offer his diagnosis and recommended treatment. Say the symptoms are fever, chills, sore throat, fatigue, and cough, and the doctor determines that it's the common form of the flu. The doctor's medical expertise is going to give him the wisdom to prescribe something to attack and destroy the virus. While he may give something to treat the symptoms, too, it's likely that he won't send the patient away and treat only the chills, recommending that she bundle up with a heavy blanket.

This is what I believe we're prone to do with issues like prayer in public schools. I've heard many, many people say that America entered into moral decline when prayer was legislated out of public schools. While I have no great argument that this moral decline happened to coincide with the removal of prayer, this wasn't a cause/effect situation.

The standard logic seems to be that if we could somehow get prayer and the legal mention of the name "Jesus Christ" legislated back into the school system (or at least allowed again), things would begin to look up again and all eyes would begin to turn back to God. In reality, the removal of prayer from public schools was a reflection of the spiritual condition of the leadership in (and the population of) the United States of America.

This idea that the removal of prayer from schools was a catalyst rather than an effect causes many Christians to take a leap into attacking politicians, parties, and political philosophies. It necessarily becomes a battle of religion vs. politics, and the reality of a personal relationship with Christ -- the very thing that could give the situation hope -- is left as an "Oh, by the way" issue at best. It's as if we're trying to convert a political party, and our method of "conversion" seems to be more like a bloody crusade than Godliness, prayer, and meekness.

1 Timothy 2:1-4 (NLT) says this:
I urge you, first of all, to pray for all people. Ask God to help them; intercede on their behalf, and give thanks for them. Pray this way for kings and all who are in authority so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity. This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth.

I desperately want America to become a Christian nation. It isn't one. The "conversion" of America will not happen by bludgeoning politicians with a Jesus stick or a forced movement of the "religious right". It can only come as individual hearts are changed and hearts and eyes are turned to Christ. It can be started and helped along by Christ-following men and women serving God in positions of political influence. But neither morality nor Godliness can be legislated.

To be clear, I'm not advocating that we shy away from all political issues. We cannot sit idly and allow state-sanctioned, legalized abortion to continue, for instance (and this is not the only issue). But for Christians who are content to simply hurl stones at people in political office and expect it to somehow turn hearts to God, look for yourself to see if this kind of activity is supported Biblically. If it is, keep it up. If it's not, stop it. God has a purpose for you -- a particular way He wants you to participate in seeing His will accomplished here and now, and in the future -- and I'd contend that it's not found in that sort of action (or inaction).

Read more »