Multi-site churches interview

This past weekend, I was featured on a radio show talking about multi-site churches. First, here’s the link: Up for Debate Radio.

Why did I end up on a program with a guy from 9Marks, given that they’re famous and, well, I’m not? It came from this blog post that I wrote on SBCVoices.com about 6 years ago. I’ll reprint my part below.

What was interesting about this was that I wrote the blog post to help spur the debate, not really thinking positively about multi-site churches. I still think the better way, and the more Bible-driven way, is individual, interconnected local churches. That is, there ought to be a real, live person preaching/teaching in front of real, live people. Otherwise, the temptation to celebrity or unaccountable pastors is too great.

That does not mean, though, that I don’t think there is a value in a multi-campus ministry. here are two thoughts on that, both stemming from the ministry in Almyra that I have just moved from.

First, pastors don’t always stay in one place. Maybe we should, but we do see Timothy and Titus going as sent, and so forth. What becomes of a smaller membership church when their pastor leaves? (Realize that even if a pastor stays put for 40 years, he’s going to die or retire.) There is confusion, lack of leadership, and so forth. If a church served by one pastor was part of a network involving multiple locations and multiple pastors, the departure of one would be softened by allowing another trusted individual in the network to fill the gap for a time. This would also allow for extended mentoring for new ministers that is just not possible in the current Baptist system. The difference between “Youth Minister in Church of 200” and “Pastor of Church of 75” is too great.

Second, pastors do not possess all the skills needed in a church. Out in the rural areas, we’re well aware that a small church has nearly every problem that a large church does. We just only have one of them. One person with PTSD. One person with drug problems. One child with special needs. One couple needing marriage counseling. And we’re frequently far outside the effective radius of referring these folks to the “big city” for more help. We just don’t have the connections to the right counselors or therapists.

Yet being a connected campus of a larger church would allow a smaller church to meet those needs with Biblical guidance far better. One counseling-equipped minister could be known by multiple congregations, one special-needs specialist could help equip multiple groups. And so forth.

I think it is far easier to do multi-site badly, even hideously, than it is to do it well. And it is too often done to safeguard egos and make more money—after all, preaching to 2,000 pays more than 200—and there is no excuse for that.

Overall, though, I think there may be something more appropriate about using smaller, distributed facilities than building megachurches. But that may just be me.

 

Here’s my half of the old post. It was a debate post, and I had the “pro” side. In the six years since I wrote this, the model has spread more in the US than I imagined would happen.

Multi-Site Churches: Why They Are A Good Thing

I have found the recent decade or so of discussion and emphasis on church planting in Baptist life a fascinating one.  I thought that we Baptists had a natural church planting system.  When you get mad, you start another church.  This has created, especially in the South, Baptist churches on every corner. 

Is this a good thing?  I’m coming to the conclusion that perhaps it’s not.  Why?  Well, for any decision in the church today, we cannot simply choose based on our preferences.  As Baptists, we claim that our churches are driven by Scripture, not solely by human ideas.  So, let’s examine what solutions Scripture offers us.

First, we do not see in the Biblical record evidence that there existed multiple churches in one city.  Peter or Paul traveled, preached, but only established one church in the places they visited.  The epistles of the New Testament are addressed to the church at Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, and the like.  So, we see that, Biblically, there are no cases of multi-church cities.

Second, we do see in the Biblical record that, Paul especially, but Barnabas also (Acts 15:36-41) felt a continued responsibility for the churches they started.  What became the second missionary journey actually started out as a church checkup trip.  Paul continues impacting the churches he started through his letters and through his dispatch of leaders like Timothy and Titus.

Finally, we have the example of Old Testament Judaism.  Although the exile led to the development of local synagogues, the initial structure of worship involved the central sanctuary of the Tabernacle and then the Temple.  While the Levites were spread throughout Israel, worship was centralized, first at Shiloh and later at Jerusalem. (Deuteronomy 18:1-8; 1 Samuel  1; 2 Samuel 6)

What does this mean for us?  After all, we have neither apostles nor Levites; we do not live in the Roman Empire.  How do we use these ideas in our days?  I see these Biblical examples as supporting the use of multi-site churches. 

A multi-site church is, essentially, a church that chooses to meet in multiple locations, generally, at the same time.  Preaching and sometimes music are simulcast or video delivered to the locations where the preacher is not.  Sometimes this setup is established in a church planting situation, sometimes it comes out of the intentional choice of existing churches.  While this setup has not spread like wildfire in America, it is becoming more known and more often, at the least, considered.

How do these Biblical examples support this idea? In these ways:

0.      The early church recognized the need for a central point of authority and direction for all believers.  This is best visible in Acts 15, but is also noticeable in the epistles of Paul.  After all, what do you think he’s doing when he writes to the Corinthians about church order? He is, while preaching elsewhere, trying to direct the affairs of another church.  There, we see that being on the scene is not crucial to knowing God’s intention for the situation.

0.      The utilization of one complete church in each city or basic area supported by the gifts and giving of its members.  Again, we see Paul write the Romans that there are many types of gifts (Romans 12:3-8) that should work together and 1 Corinthians 12 is our classic example of how the body operates through its diversity of parts, just as the Body of Christ ought.  By developing one church, without boundaries, that church would have the completed body at work.

0.      Various church teachers and leaders have differing specialties.  Some are gifted with marriage enrichment, some with various age groups, some with financial teaching, and others with parenting teaching.  Rather than developing a church on this side of town being strong with youth, and the church on that side good with senior adults, and thus dividing the body by age, the whole body can benefit from the skills and talents of all available teachers in the area.

0.      A word is due about the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20 and the command to make disciples of “all the nations.”  Unfortunately, within America, we still retain a highly segregated approach to our church activities and services.  A multi-site church should not, in ideal, focus only on one neighborhood or cultural group.  

0.      A word is also due about finding Biblically qualified leadership.  A debate could be had over the instruction that an “elder” be “the husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2.  Assuming it means non-divorced, our culture is leading to a rapid decline in the available pool of Biblically qualified elders.  Add to this the additional qualifications of managing a household well, being able to teach, and being self-controlled, and it’s actually remarkable that we can find enough pastors to fill the pulpits we have now.  By developing multi-site churches, the need to find excellent Biblically qualified leadership increases, but the number of positions to fill decreases, making it more feasible to fill those roles.

0.      A final word should be said about the pragmatics of the situation.  How many church buildings and administrative structures do we need to support?  While there are different costs related to the multi-site church, more study would be needed to determine whether this is a help or a drawback, it certainly bears consideration.  While there is no Scripture that flat denies using a multi-site church, there are certainly Biblical considerations of stewardship that matter here.

In all, I do not see a Biblical reason to avoid the multi-site church, and believe it is a good option as we go forward, seeking to spread the Gospel throughout the world.

For Frank: Is Captain America a Christ figure?

In the modern era of American Christianity, we have a habit of trying to shoehorn an image of Jesus into every container we find. Mocking this, a blogger of ill-repute named Frank Turk has emerged from his hiatus long enough to poke Internet-based Christianity about Captain America and Jesus. While there were several efforts to line up Jesus with Superman last year, there have been no major efforts to align Captain America (Steve Rogers) with the Lord.

I am not the comic book junkie that my Inter-friend Frank is, so I cannot address the comic book Cap. I am familiar with him from the recent explosion of movies from Marvel Movie Studios, including Captain America: The First Avenger and The Avengers, as well as the affiliated other films. As an aside, the Marvel/Avengers series has filled the gap abandoned by Star Wars when Lucas decided to justify Darth Vader as simply a maladjusted loving husband who made a few errors.

Back on track, the question that has been posed is this: How does Captain America compare with Jesus? Should we find a comparison? I expect that more than a few preachers will find those comparisons and make them this Sunday as we try desperately to be cool for all the folks who reject God’s plan of continual fellowship with believers.

I have found a few parallels, but unfortunately I find that Captain America, awesome as he is, is not Jesus. Nor is he a good stand-in or stunt double for the Lord Almighty. Here’s why:

First: Steve Rogers begins as a great heart with no power. That reason alone should stop the comparison points. Despite being a compassionate, self-sacrificing man, Rogers begins his journey without the power to act on his heart for righteousness. By comparison, Jesus comes in with life in the first place, with all power over Creation (John 1:1-4 suits that issue). Compare this to the Lord, who rather than needing to take on power, Jesus came with all power and retains it through this day (Matthew 28:18-20).

Second: Captain America trusts others. Take the scene in The Avengers when Tony Stark and Bruce Banner confront Steve about their doubts regarding SHIELD’s behavior. Rogers, to this point, has trusted Nick Fury without doubt. Nick Fury? As Stark points out, “his secrets have secrets.” Rogers trusts, because he expects others to be honest like he is. Compare this to Jesus, who had no such trust issues, as we see in John 2:24-25, that He knew what was truly in people.

Third: Steve Rogers fails at points. Take the first film and the battle on the train. Rogers’ has lost his best friend in that battle because he could not save him. (SPOILER) We know from Captain America: The Winter Soldier that Bucky is not dead, but is his fate not worse? Rogers has a friend and a follower in Bucky Barnes and he loses him, body and soul, to the forces of evil. Compare this to Jesus who did not lose one from those who were His (John 17:12).

Fourth: Captain America’s primary weapon is reflecting the enemy’s power back at him. That’s a little long, but it’s the second use of Cap’s shield. Generally speaking, you see him deflecting shots, explosions, or other rays of doom back at the sender. It’s effective, mind you but when you see Cap with a weapon, it’s no different than any other weapon on the field. Compare this to the Rider on the White Horse who brings His own weapon, the Word of God, wielded perfectly and effectively (Revelation 19:11-15). Jesus equips His people with His weapon rather than equipping Himself with whatever everyone else uses.

Fifth: Steve Rogers struggles to find his purpose. Across three movies with Cap, it takes him some time to know what he should do. He’s conflicted in his origin story; he struggles with how things work in the action gathering; and then he has to find his place in the second Cap film. He’s uncertain what he should be doing, other than to do what’s right. Compare this to Jesus’ prayer that He came for a purpose (John 12:27); that He should be about His Father’s business (Luke 2:49); that He came to give His life and to serve (Mark 10:45).

With all that, though, there is one major parallel between Steve Rogers and the Lord that I see. They both love imperfect spouses. Rogers is passionate about Lady Liberty, the beautiful image of the United States as the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, a place which does right in all things. Even with the flaws, the changes, Rogers does not suggest destroying America to create a different nation. He wants to see her come right, to turn toward the greatness that he saw so many give their lives for in the years gone by.

Compare this, though, to Jesus and Cap pales a bit. Jesus loves His bride, the Church. Loves us through the failures and shortcomings, loves us though we are not what we ought to be. Loves us, shown in His death for us. Loves us, and is working to make us without spot or blemish. Jesus does not want to see His bride go back to greatness but to progress in holiness.

Captain America is a great guy. Little would have helped Loki in Thor: The Dark World like trying to be like Cap rather than just look like him. And I’d rather my kids grow up to like a hero who defends with a shield instead of a narcissistic rich guy with a nice suit.

Yet Jesus is so much more. Our goal as Christians is not to be like a great hero but to be transformed into the image and likeness of Christ. We get good entertainment from good films.

We draw our life’s purpose from God’s Word.

Clear the Old

I want to encourage you to take a look at 1 Samuel 12 for a moment. If you need the story so far, Samuel has been leading the people. He has anointed Saul as the first king, and is now fading away into semi-retirement. Well, he’ll pop up and anoint David in a few chapters, but at this point he’s backing away.

Samuel stands in front of the assembled people of Israel and asks few basic questions. They summarize in this manner: “Anybody got any issues with me? Bring it up now.”

Really. Read 1 Samuel 12:3 and think about it. His questions are about whether or not he has personally misused his position for his own gain or to the discredit of the office itself.

Historically, this is the transition from the period of the Judges of Israel into the United Monarchy. Imagine America shifting from the government of the Articles of Confederation into the Constitutional Era or Rome becoming the Republic through the Twelve Tables of the Law from despotism. It’s a critical juncture for the people

But Samuel has a personal concern at this point. He wants to know if he has done what he should. A few things of note for this personally:

1. Samuel knows whether or not he has been right before God. That is a personal matter and one that he should have sought out before God first and foremost. He was the instrument of announcing God’s judgment on the previous priest, Eli, and so he would have expected a rebuke from God had he been wrong before God.

2. Samuel knows whether or not he thinks he has done right before the people. He does not stand before them hoping they won’t remember what he has done wrong or hoping they will give him a pass for the wrongs he knows he committed. He stands there in full belief that he has done what was right in all cases.

These two ideas are crucial foundations. We cannot blunder through life knowing that God does not approve of our actions, nor that our own conscience does not approve, and ask others to validate us. Validation of that sort is disastrous—it is akin to the passengers of the Titanic thinking a hurried pace through the North Atlantic was a great idea. They neither knew the danger nor were in a position to fix any problems that arose. Yet right up until the iceberg, the information shows the crowd was fully in favor of the pace and cared not a whit for the lack of binoculars.

However, knowing his conscience is clear before God and himself, Samuel does not rest on this. He knows that he could just be blinded to errors or ignorant of sins.

So he submits himself to the people.

The same people who have told him that his sons were lousy. The same people who rejected his advice not to ask God for a king. The same people that he has rebuked, corrected, taught, and judged for years.

He asks these people if he has done any of them wrong, and then waits for the answer. He wants to know, before he departs, whether or not anyone holds a marker against him.

Is there a lesson here? I should say so.

First is this: It is not weakness to seek feedback from the people you lead. Seriously, those who lead but are afraid to ask “Have I done any wrong?” harm themselves and those they lead. Samuel is not weak for asking.

Second is this: I see an overall value in making sure all the old baggage is clear before something new starts. It’s the beginning of a year, a time for new beginnings. So consider what needs to clear out from last year. What wrongs need to be made right?

Mind you, stay focused on what you can do. You may have been the one wronged, but you will get no traction on the year waiting on someone else to come make it right. Try and determine if you can move forward—do what must be done for healing. Seek justice as appropriately guided by the Word of God, but do not be paralyzed by victimhood.

However, if you were the one who did the wronging—which is more often more of us, anyway, see what you can do about making it right. Perhaps you can restore those whom you have harmed. Perhaps you cannot, but you can work to right similar wrongs.

Whatever it may be, let the new year be one of clearing out old wrongs. Most of us are not Samuel: were we to stand before the people among whom we live our life and ask “Anybody got a problem?” we would have plenty of responses. Try to clear those out this year.

May 11: Book Recommends and Random Thoughts

I cleaned and semi-organized my office this week and have a final to get ready for, so I just do not have a fully developed Completely Through the Bible post for today. Sorry about that, really, but these things happen. I do have some various things to bring up this week:

1. Book Recommendation: I've finished reading A Geography of Time: On Tempo, Culture, and The Pace of Life by Robert Levine. While I'm sure that people with access to social psychology research or with different experiences in the same cultures he mentions will find some faults, overall it was a good read. It is certainly from a secular science perspective: he rates one culture's sense of time as being "just their thing" as being like another culture's honor killings as being "just their thing."

That is a peek behind the curtain of how life works if your only ethical base is local culture rather than a transcendent morality. However, the benefits of considering how geography and culture impact the sense of time makes the book worth your time if you ever intend to be away from where you've always lived.

2. There was much ado this week about the drop in unemployment. One part of the media focused on the drop in unemployment percentage while another part focused on the drop in people looking for work. If the same number of people were looking for work now that were looking three years ago, unemployment would be above 11%.

It's possible this is a good thing, that so many have left the workforce. Maybe some families have found they can reduce wage earners, live simpler, have better relationships, and be fine. Maybe the economy has improved for others where they do not need the added income. It's also possible that this bodes ill for nation, because we are going to have some serious issues ever getting back on track.

3. Book Recommendation #2: This is one of those business/leadership books that are frequent to the market. It's called Standout and it's by Marcus Buckingham. One of the benefits of this book is that each purchase gives you an access code to take an online assessment to see where you fit in the "strengths measure" that the book discusses.

Essentially the point of the book is this: find what you are good at and strive to improve that, rather than burning out trying to do what you are bad at. There is acknowledgement that we're not all perfectly free to do that at work, but you can work towards it. He also recognizes that this is about skills/talents not about moral attributes. If you are weak in the honesty department, you still have to work to correct that.

Think of a baseball analogy: if a pitcher is a great fastball/slider pitcher but a lousy curveball pitcher, what should he throw most of the time? What about to a great hitter? He should throw his best pitches, the fastball and the slider. If he has time, work on the curveball, the changeup or sinkerball, but focus on improving those pitches that he is already good with.

However, if he balks every time there is a runner on second, he has to fix that first. That weakness cannot be ignored, but the lack of a sinkerball can be.

If you're curious about this, you might as well buy the book—the test costs as much as the book if you just buy it. According to this system, I'm an Equalizer/Pioneer. The Pioneer part does seem odd and I'll be exploring that.

4. I was going to say something about politics, but I just can't. I need to finish digging a moat and stockpiling survival supplies.

5. Out of curiosity: if someone (or some business) does something crazy, evil, or just stupid to get attention because the individual or the business is just empty and useless, why enable them by making it a news headline? If you give an alcoholic a keg of beer, you're doing a wrong thing. If you give someone who needs to find their self-esteem somewhere other than national news coverage more national news coverage, are you not doing the same thing?

Je ne suis pas un espion

Don't worry, the rest of the post is in English!

Last night, I took a look at my Google Reader subscriptions. They were quite numerous. Google Reader is a program that allows the user to gather RSS feeds in one place to read them. Blogs, news services, and other websites that generate different content on a regular basis often use RSS feeds to distribute the content. It's also convenient for readers. You click 'subscribe' and you get a reader inbox full of new stuff. It beats checking all those websites every day.

Except I had nearly 100 subscriptions. Never mind how many actual posts were there, I had nearly 100 subscriptions. Add to this checking a couple of news sites every day for local and non-local news and there was just a huge flow of information. Then there's checking links that get posted on Facebook, Twitter, or emailed to me, and I have been living in the full-out information age.

This morning, though, it hit me. And it hit me in French, which is pretty rare these days. Je ne suis pas un espion. I don't know if it was coming back from a movie or a book. The words mean, as I recall and Google Translate verifies, "I am not a spy."

I know this reassures those of you who had your doubts. Now, let me make the first point:

While we live in the "information age" guess what? I did not need all that I was trying to process. I do enjoy reading blogs, news, and all the other stuff that trickles through. I just don't need it. Honestly, how many different controversies do you have to be aware of?

So, I trimmed it out. I eliminated 75% of the blogs I follow. I'm in the process of trimming my twitter follows (if I can sort out their new layout) and creating a list that keeps me from getting distracted by it.

What does this have to do with spying?

Well, spies are out there to gather information. Without information, trouble befalls them.

Yet I can live without it. Not all information, certainly. I am not advocating Fortress Doug not be troubled by things like "ideas" or "facts." Just that I can live without a lot of what I've spent my time on. There are things to concentrate effort on.

Even if I get blindsided because I did not see coming that some other preacher some other place did some thing or said some thing that was wrong. I may not be prepared for bumping into him in a Wal-mart in Wisconsin, but the odds are pretty rare that it will matter.

Basically, this whole rant is to point this out: be careful with information overload. More sometimes is not better. Sometimes it's just more. Really.

So, cut a few things out. Delete a few podcast subscriptions, cut your Netflix by one DVD a month (or ditch it entirely and go AMAZON PRIME)!

Less time worrying over things that you cannot affect and more time building the relationships you need to survive. That's a better thing.

Even if you are a spy. But I'm not one.

Probably.

Quick hits week ending 11/12/11

Note: yes, there are very serious things in this world. No, this blog post itself will not address those things. Read real news.

1. Colons are an important part of linguistic health. Make sure yours is in the right place. For example, the tweet that said "Lessons from Hezekiah: 7 things you need to know" was a valid sentence. The one that said "Lessons from Hezekiah 7: Things you need to know" does not reflect anything Bible-related.

2. The SEC is expanding to 14 teams. At this point, our knowledge of geography is failing us because the apparent plan is to put Missouri in the "East" division. This being despite the fact that Missouri lies to the west of every SEC school except Arkansas, LSU, and Hog-fodder. Here's my suggestion: move Alabama and Auburn to the East Division. Put Vanderbilt in the West Division along with the new schools. True, West will be Arkansas or LSU for a long, long time---but that will give the East some real football.

3. Friend Anthony posted a tweet this week that stated: Whenever someone starts a sentence with "It's a fine line between…" 9 times out of 10 it's really not.

With all due deference to one who studies at the feet of the esteemed faculty of Southern Seminary, here's my responses:

A. It's a fine line between sushi and bait.

B. It's a fine line between clearing a yellow light and getting mailed a ticket by a traffic camera.

C. It's a fine line between a BIC G2 .38 and a Bic G2 .5 (ink pens.)

D. It's fine line on the thermostat between comfortable and "The preacher's out to freeze us!"

And, since it's a fine line between full humor and beating a dead horse, moving on….

4. It's nearly Christmas. Order stuff from Despair.com early to avoid optimism later.

5. I wonder about odd things at times. Like Friday when we talked about the Baptism of Jesus with the kids at lunch. My mind immediately jumped to Jesus walking on water later on. I was picturing John looking up and saying "Look, if we're going to do this, You've got to come down in the water!" That may not be a good joke, but there it is.

6. On that same discussion, my 8-year-old is apparently as clear on the Trinity as some great theologians and famous preachers: 3 persons, 1 God, no, you can't fully explain it but that doesn't make it not true. Plus, they all exist at the same time. 10-year-old thought modalism, the belief that God changed into Jesus who changed into the Spirit was funny. Kids make good theologians sometimes. We should let them.

7. It's now November and the GOP candidate race now features yet another different face at the top. Here's the facts: we start this nonsense too early and nobody knows yet who they would vote for so it's silly. Back up the primaries to April-May-June, conventions in July-August, then campaign. If a candidate has a record to run on, then there really is adequate time to look at that record. If they don't have one, then that's obvious too (plus, that's proven no bar to election). Spare us.

7a. Or, at the least, let's only do it this early if both parties are having primary challenges. Even if it's a nut, can we get a Democrat to challenge President Obama? Maybe 1 or 2 viable Democrats and an army of loonies on the side? That's 3 real candidates and then a bunch of people vying for Cabinet posts. Except the 1 nut who is going to be Ambassador to Hashima Island.

8. Book mention of the week: I read a lot, and you patiently skim the reviews I write. There's other good books or worthwhile books, so each week I'll mention 1 or 2 here. First book mention: Christian America? edited by Daryl Cornett. It provides four fundamental views on the impact of Christianity on the founding of the United States, from the full-out Christian view to the eclectic/secular view. Each view is written by one of its own proponents, and the other three contributors provide rebuttals to the method and opinion of the others. It is well worth your time and rises, on the whole, above the fighting rhetoric of many works on both sides of this issue.

But, please, read the whole book. Some will get incensed by one view and put it down and miss the value here: a generally well-rounded discussion.

That's all folks. Enjoy your Saturday, and may the Bulldogs rise to meet the Tide and the impossible happen for the Hilltoppers! Woo! PIG SOOIE!!

More importantly: Battle of the Ravine Saturday, 1 pm. Ouachita has a perfect conference record in the Great American Conference and can get on the path to a D-II National Championship with a win. They'll have to win this thing called playoffs to win it, which none of you BCS/SEC people understand for football, but that's ok. GO REAL TIGERS!

Veteran's Day 2011

Today is Veteran's Day. That it's both 11/11/11 in the US and 11/11/11 in Europe is entirely coincidental.

What is Veteran's Day? It started as Armistice Day celebrating the end of the War to End All Wars. Then, the next War came along. And then a few more that weren't quite so big but just as dangerous for those who fought in them and left widows and orphans and childless parents just as much.

So, what was a day to remember those who fought one war has since become a remembrance for the veterans of all the wars fought since 1775. (Lexington and Concord happened in 1775 and we mark those as the American Revolution. The country's a tad older than we claim.)

It is a good time also to think about where we are as a country. To consider what we've got and how we got it.

We live in a country with some seriously divided politics. Lots of people are more than a little concerned that the President of the United States is more than just a bad President. They're concerned that he will ultimately undermine the freedom and liberty that we've had for over two centuries.

Other people are holding long-term protests that started because of the excessive power held by the wealthy in this country. It's hard to say if that's still the focus, but that was the starting point.

Here's the rub: most of the first group? We own guns. A few own lots of guns. The second group? In many cases, like in Little Rock, the police negotiated with them to relocate their protest after a few days because of the law.

Now, there's some kooks in the first group that have planned and attempted wrong-headed things with their weaponry. And some kooks in the second that have done damage and are really just anarchists in disguise.

But in the long run, the first group is waiting until November 2012 and January 2013 to have a new President. Rather than organizing militias on the square as our Founding Fathers did, we're looking at the varied candidates and seeking to get the votes to correct what we see as the wrong direction.

The second group is, really, out for the same thing. They want the people they support, that they elected to stand for the principles that were claimed in the election. And the governments that they protest? They've negotiated, conversed, and only had isolated incidents of excessive (but still non-lethal) force. True, there have been places that the whole protest has gone crazy and government response has been more forceful, but in general: the NYPD hasn't cleared Zuccotti Park with machine guns and bayonets.

And it is because of the veterans that have fought from Lexington and Concord down through the ages, the ones who stand guard at the DMZ in Korea, the ones who seek the enemy in Afghanistan, and the ones who put the supply lines together from bases here at home. From the Rangers at Pointe du Hoc to Merrill's Marauders, to the 54th Massachusetts and to the Marines that stormed Tripoli, the Berlin Airlifters and the Navy SEALs, Minutemen and Minuteman Missile troops.

Because of these men and women, from draftees to volunteers, A1Cs to Fleet Admirals with Lance Corporals and Captains between, we get to fuss and fume in this country. We complain about the cost of running water or the stagnation in Congress or that it's too hard to be a millionaire or that the 99-week unemployment has run out.

And darn few of us go to prison for it. Mostly it takes actually doing something damaging to go to prison. Fewer still are killed for it. We actually have "Riot Police" in America that deploy with big shields and tear gas and sticks. Other countries? They put their army in the street with tanks and machine guns.

Their so-called presidents cause opposition leaders to disappear. Their peaceful gatherings are not negotiated with but gunned down.

So, from the Tea Party to the Occupy Wherevers, from the GOP to the Democrats, from the Libertarians to the Constitution Party, from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to the Theocracy Movement, let's try something today:

Set it aside. Thank a veteran. Thank a lot of veterans. Think about what they have lived and died to put in front of us all: the freedom to disagree and to guide a nation peacefully. And let's do it. We are capable of finding a way.

After all, if a group of odd-assorted riflemen in Massachusetts (who has guns in MA now?) can release freedom, if it can defended from enemies foreign and domestic, and if it's worth cheering the hope of freedom around the world, should we not be striving to make it work here?

Let's do this. Blood was spilled, lives were lived that we could. Do we dare spit on the opportunity we've been handed?

I dare not.

Quick hits w/e 11/5/11

Quick hits w/e 11/5/11

1. Economy: Unemployment is down some. That's good news for the people who found jobs. Still at 9%, with a decent but unquantifiable chunk either underemployed or that have given up, and with gas locked above $3 and milk higher, it's not going to change much. People that have just enough to buy food aren't buying much else. Black Friday worries me this year: how many fights are we going to have over discounted junk this time?

2. Food: How is vinegar “bottled at peak freshness?” Really? Vinegar is fresh? And what's with the expiration date on sour cream? What does it do, turn fresh?

3. News: Only in America do you get these headlines on the same page: “Pastor to defy ban on prayer at schools” and “City to ban naked dining.” What a country! (Apologies to Yaakov Smirnoff). Yep, we have banned both naked dining and prayer. Although, to be honest, I can still pray calmly at home or silently in public and gladly know that naked people won't be at the Cracker Barrel. Still, a little odd there.

4. Sports: today's LSU-Bama game has more hype than a presidential campaign. Which makes it a nice distraction from the nonsense that is the presidential campaign. Anyone think it will somehow not live up to it? LSU's bus breaks down on the way to Tuscaloosa or something odd that delays it?

5. More Sports: There are other games besides Tigers v. Elephants. Pigs v. Chickens is on at the same time. I'll take Pigs, assuming the second half goes as planned.

6. Wondering: why would it be appropriate for a school to fully explain Hanukkah but not Christmas? They're both religious, aren't they?

7. Books and business: Thomas Nelson is going to be purchased by the same parent company that owns Zondervan. And this is the same company that published under its own name, HarperCollins, Rob Bell's Love Wins. There could be some interesting inter-departmental meetings at this one, folks. Second to that, allegedly HarperCollins refused to publish Metaxas' biography of Bonhoeffer due to perceived factual issues, but then Nelson published it. So, what happens now?

8. On a related note: Nelson's Booksneeze is really the premier of wide-open free books for bloggers programs. I hope that doesn't end, because HarperCollins (and Zondervan) have a tendency to be more stingy.

9. Ann menu planned for the next two months. This is good. I now have to make the “sneak bad-for-me snacks” plan fit into the schedule!

10. Soybeans into soy sauce is not a process I'm interested in doing. It looks, well, disgusting.

11. There's a combine in front of my house right now. I love the country.

12. There are peas sprouting in my garden, and winter-hardy carrots as well. If this works, I won't be buying vegetables for another couple of months!

13. I changed blog layouts, but I don't know if I like it or not. Mainly because I rarely look at it. Let me know if you just absolutely hate it, ok?

Quick-hits w/e October 29, 2011

1. I own an Amazon Kindle, and love it, but I've realized something: Kindles are not high-tech books. They're fancy scrolls. Well-designed for back and forth, linear activity, but not for jumping about to various places. Apparently, we need to develop the "Kindle Codex" for that. In the meantime, would Bible developers make one for the Kindle Touch that has the old-school jump tabs on the side? Like the thumb-index Bibles for quick changes? Thanks.

2. Saw this week that Vice-President Biden is considering running in 2016. Can we please finish the 2012 election, that started last year, first? Thanks. Also, given what happened last time a VP ran: start training Florida vote counters now. And Florida voters: punch the whole chad out, ok? Thanks.

3. It is time for a mercy rule in College Football and in the NFL for all teams playing against the Colts. After a team is up by 4 touchdowns (28 points), the 22 named starters for that team must sit out. The 11 defensive starters can return if the score becomes tied. The 11 offensive starters can return if their team falls behind. Or when Peyton Manning comes back.

4. Baseball note: umpires make bad calls. This is a fact of life. When the World Series is at stake, replay might be helpful. Even if you just tell them to huddle up, debate it, and sneak a peak at the big screen. It will not slow the pace down too much. That play in Game 3? I could see it was wrong as it was happening. An umpire has two eyes. This umpire was looking at the base, the runner's feet, and the fielder's feet. He was listening for the ball to hit the glove. That's standard happenings, right there---but he could not also watch for the throw, the arm, and the tag. It's not physically possible. Get the man some help.

5. Additional baseball note: shorten the season. Start April 15. World Series ends by October 10—starts October 1. To be a new "Mr. October" you have to play in the Series. Figure out how many games you can play in the middle of those dates. More people will watch them.

6. Economics news: we're all going to die. Or at the very least, we're going to sue ourselves into distress. Apparently, something happened in the stock market when Del Monte did something with their stock, and now they're being sued class-action style. Who's got the wealth in this country? The shady lawyers. Not the honest ones. Those three are as broke as the rest of us.

7. For all the politicians, both D, R, L, and G: grasp this concept, ok? Then don't do it.

What is your Christian Experience?

For some non-work paperwork that I’ve been working on today, I am having to write out the answer to this question: What is your past Christian Experience? That’s gotten my thinking. A lot.

Why? There’s a couple of things involved in my mind.

Number 1: It’s a hard-simple question in general. I can tell you about being raised in a believing family, about becoming a believer in Christ myself, and that I’ve grown (hopefully) in faith since then. But at the same time, there’s much more to “Christian Experience” than just the date on a baptism certificate. There are the ways that I’ve grown, stumbled, and gotten back up. The influences that have been there along the way.

And what are the current influences? How has this shaped me or that event affected me? It’s a remarkable mass of situations to put together. And then to reduce to a page or two---that’s the rub!

Number 2: I’ve had to do this before. Many times for different reasons---and I’m sitting here wondering what the comparison would be between prior answers and the one I’ll get written today. How have I changed over the years in my own perception of what “Christian experience” means? What is different about that? When I went to seminary, all I wrote out was my testimony of salvation and baptism. Yet those brief moments do not an instant Christian make: there is more to life than that.

The idea of your own Christian experience should have grown as you’ve grown in faith. It’s not static: both your own testimony should record growth, but also how you see it should mature as well. If it all reads like cut and paste from a testimony book, it’s probably not what it should be. It would be well worth your time to stop and consider the question. You may not be as articulate as others, but it’s your own story---be able to put it together and share it.

 

Doug

Saturday Sports Rant: Saves

This week, Mariano Rivera broke the Major League Baseball record for saves in a career. Now, you might wonder just what in the world a save is in baseball. Thinking about this record, I wonder about it as well.

Now, this isn't just about my distaste for the New York Yankees. While my loathing of the Bronx Bombers would be legendary if more people knew about it and it lasted longer, this is about a stat that hovers around 50% meaningless in baseball reality.

Let's look at the definition of a "save" (MLB rules on the web, section 10.19): a pitcher that did not start but finishes a game, pitches at least 1/3 of an inning (gets 1 out), and enters under one of these conditions:

1. A lead of 3 or fewer runs
2. The tying run is on base, at bat, or on deck
3. He pitches at least 3 innings.

So, a pitcher can come into a game after another pitcher has pitched the first eight innings, the offense has provided him a 3-run lead, and as long as he doesn't screw it up and throw a few home run balls, he gets a save.

Really. It's a stat that is awarded as often for just not blowing what your team is on the verge of accomplishing as it is for anything else. Yet now most baseball teams have a specialist in getting saves: he's called a closer.

Here's what happens: the team selects one of their relief pitchers to be the closer. He then almost exclusively pitches in situations that will result in him adding a save to his statistics. If the team is losing, he doesn't pitch. If the team is winning by too much, he doesn't pitch.

Now, I understand the need for someone who can come in calm-headed and straighten out a tense situation. That's valid. However, when you look at baseball history, there's barely a mention of "closer" until the late 70s, and not much until the late 80s. Then, the talk picks up in the 90s through now. Once upon a time in baseball land, pitchers pitched the whole game (they batted too, you American League wimps!) unless something happened to make them leave.

These days, a pitcher goes 6 or 7 innings and then he's done. Give it to the closer. Or to the poor guy that goes in when things are considered beyond fixing.

Where did all this insanity come from? Some, like baseball historians, will link it to Goose Gossage and others. I am not a baseball historian. I blame it on Charlie Sheen.

Why, you ask?

Ever see Major League? The movie, with Sheen, Berenger, and a host of other people….Corbin Bernsen, I think was in it as well. It's a movie that predates Florida baseball teams. The owner of the Cleveland Indians was trying to make the team so bad that no one came, so she could move it to Florida.

Anyway, Sheen plays a good-looking, edgy, pitcher. He's got the looks, the bad-boy attitude, and no baseball stamina. A few innings a night is all he's got. So he becomes the closer. It glamorized the role, and now every team's got to have a closer. That whole "come on the field to rock music" that happens with a lot of closers? Started with Sheen in the movie. Not with baseball necessity.

So, what do I think about this?

Time to dial back the madness. Only award saves that are truly earned: pitcher comes in with the winning run at the plate or on base and it doesn't score. Add that more than 50% of the outs must be by strikeout.  Why?

Not because I dislike Charlie Sheen. Hot Shots remains one of the greatest lousy movies on the face of the earth. Navy Seals was ridiculous enough to keep the world confused about whether SEALS were even real for a few more years. He's been great at being the pretty-boy pain in the neck for years.

What I dislike is how baseball has allowed a low-grade movie to change the face of the game. The stats are padded, the reality of the games as a team effort is downplayed. You read the closing line of a game and you see: winning pitcher, home runs, and save. What about the teamwork that made it happen?

What about the 2B/SS combo that turned 4 double-plays to make it possible? The bunts, the sacrifice fly balls? It's not about the guy on the mound, it's about the nine on the field.

That's my sports rant for the day. Congrats to Rivera for setting a record for a stat that hasn't mattered for the majority of the history of the game. Now, you want to talk about his postseason ERA? That's impressive….

Severability

This is going to sound a bit like a rant and may really need to be edited, but you're going to get the full-force of what I have to say. Even if that includes a few errors in spelling and grammar.

The big word you see as the post title is a term from contract law. It also appears in general legislation. From a legal perspective, as far as I understand (though you might check with Howell Scott) what this word means is this: some agreements and laws are setup that if part A is deemed bad, part B still applies.

An example would be when Congress passes a Frankenstein law, one that has merged unrelated issues, they add a "severability" clause. That way, just because the extra paycheck for Congress gets ruled unconstitutional, the extra taxes can still stay. Or a contract will have a clause that is deemed illegal, but the rest of the contract stays in force. You could make the future interest payments on a mortgage illegal, but the severability means you still owe the principal.

I think it's time we draw the principle of severability into American Christian life. (Note: there is a decent gap between pure Biblical Christianity and Christianity as expressed in American culture. We'll deal with that another day.) It's time for us to assert the need (and the right) to sever certain things in theology.

For example:

One of the big debates in Baptist life right now is connected to the theology of salvation. The issue is over how much of a free-will mankind has in their salvation and how much is God's sovereign election. The catch-phrases are "Calvinism" and "Arminianism."

Calvinism strongly stresses God's sovereign election while not denying man's responsibility to respond. Arminianism strongly stresses man's freedom to respond while acknowledging God's omnipotence (All-powerfulness). The terms come from two theologians from about 5 centuries ago, Calvin and Arminius.

When this argument comes up, usually someone that is strongly against Calvinism will jump from the issue to the parts of Calvin's theology that are no good. (Like burning heretics, merging church and state, for Baptists, infant Baptism.) Calvinists will highlight the tendency in Arminius to ignore eternal security and leanings toward legalism. (Or antinomianism, depending…)

There are more modern examples: there have been good advocates of homeschooling, discipleship, and church renewal. Some of them have then said other really dumb things: there's one who wrote a book showing support for slavery in the American South, several who are way too far in the "fathers are the heads of households" direction (guess what? I'm ok with my wife being responsible for some stuff all on her own. I think it's Biblical as well.)

Then there are those who have evolved their beliefs over time. At one point, a professor at New Orleans Seminary was a staunch proponent of Biblical Inerrancy (the belief that the Bible contains no errors). Now, he leans towards open theism (the belief that sometimes God doesn't know stuff). You've got some of the various doofuses (doofi? is that the proper plural for doofus?) with TV shows and TV networks. They have moments they are right. Then they have extended epochs of dumb.

It's time to acknowledge that there's some severability here:

Time to separate that just because someone's been right once doesn't guarantee they're right now.

Time to separate that just because one idea was good does not mean the next one is.

Time to separate that just because an individual has a TV show he's not a true spokesperson.

However, we can't expect those who attack Christianity to allow this if we don't do it. If we Christians continue to be circle-the-wagons fanboys for our celebrities, we will always be subject to these problems.

We have to be more discerning. We have to continue to re-evaluate and return to Scripture for our answers. We cannot keep giving a free pass to the people we like and hope that they always get it right.

We also need to be willing to give credit where it's due: the idea may be good even if the source is bad. Grab and use the good. Hold on to the good, discard the bad.

And when you're evaluating people: don't assume one blog post makes them an expert. Or that liking one blog post or reading one book is a lifetime endorsement. I like Tolkien's writings: that doesn't make me a Catholic. I like JC Ryle. I'm not Anglican. There's some Presbyterians I like, but I pastor a congregational church and don't intend to change it.

In all, weigh it, consider it---but be willing to sever the bad and discard it.

If only I had known.

How many times do we start sentences that way? "If only I had known…."

It's a phrase of a regret, a phrase that excuses us because of our lack of omniscience.

There are certainly valid times for these if only statements. There are plenty of things in life out of our control: other drivers, foreign countries, and water quality in Almyra, Arkansas.

This isn't about those things. While I am fan of a few self-help, inspirational writers, I do not buy into the idea that we can control our entire life. You can't. Sometimes, stuff happens to us that is completely beyond our control. We do have control over our reaction, but not over everything. That's another post.

I'm thinking about the actions we have control over. The other morning, as I was loosening up for my morning workout, I thought about the increased energy I've lately since I've been working out five or six days a week. I thought about how much better I feel having lost 15 pounds so far. The looser fit of my clothes, the ability to run short distances. The lack of knee pain, the increased cardiovascular strength---all of these benefits.

And my first thought was?

"If only I had known I would feel this good, I would have been exercising for the last 10 years!"

Except I did know. I knew the benefits of exercising and eating right, of drinking more water than Coke. How did I know?

1. Expert testimony: I have not seen a doctor in the last 10 years that hasn't told me to drop a few pounds. They've told me to eat a less, exercise a little more, and drink more water. I have had an abundance of expert testimony about the benefits. I've just ignored it.

2. Non-expert testimony: the personal experiences of others! I have friends that have testified to the benefits of exercise and proper diet. They've lost weight, loved life more, and had more energy. They have all told me how much better I would feel with a regular regimen. Yet I didn't listen.

3. Personal observation: I've seen it in the lives of others. Whether in seeing what a trip to boot camp has done for a friend or two or just seeing how people improve their life. But did I copy that? Nope.

4. Personal experience: I've flirted with the exercise idea. I've even dated it, perhaps, but I've never made a commitment to healthier living. I've always wanted to keep seeing double bacon cheeseburgers on the side. I could go for a week or two, but I couldn't make it stick.

5. External demands: there are tasks I've wanted to tackle in life, but have weighed too much or been too out of condition to do them. I've lost out on opportunities because of lack of exercise. I chose to let those things go.

So, I've been without a real excuse. Here are five reasons I did know…

But I chose. I made the decision to take easy way, to not choose what I knew would be better.

What about other decisions in life? To take the job, to get the training, to marry the girl….where do we know better but still choose the worse?

Take action. Make the choice now. Don't blame ignorance when you know better.

Good Eats, the Space Shuttle, and Me

Sorry for the later post today. I was working on it last night and other things demanded my attention.

I haven't had cable for a couple of years now, but last I did, I became a fan of the Food Network. In fact, what got me watching Food was two shows, really: Iron Chef America and Good Eats. Now, spare me the eye-roll at the unrealistic nature of Iron Chef. It's probably more real than its critics think but less real than it appears. Anyway, it's TV: entertaining and fun. Star Trek is fake, too, and I still like it. Plus, Michael Symon will always have a special place in my heart as a chef since he used halloumi in one episode.

However, Good Eats was the main hook. We started watching that show when we caught a snippet one night of a disheveled looking fellow in a bathrobe muttering about breakfast. This fellow went on to look a little less disheveled and cooked pancakes. We tried the recipe, it was good, and we became Alton Brown fans. In fact, though I had loved to cook before this, watching Brown and his show convinced me that I could cook and cook well, and challenged me to expand in kitchen skills.

A part of me even hoped that, someday, I might manage to become credible enough to take over Good Eats when the inimitable Mr. Brown decided to retire. Maybe I could host Good Eats: Generation 2 or something like that. After all, my jokes are as good as his!

Alas, this past spring it was announced that Good Eats is over. There are three one-hour specials this year, but the show is now headed to permanent re-run status. I'll be scouring the Internet for DVDs or Blu-Rays of it, that's for certain. My dream, though, of cooking with Alton Brown had to come to an end.

Meanwhile, we're all aware of the end of the Space Shuttle program in NASA. I could bemoan the death of the US Space Program in general, but I hold out hope that we'll realize the benefits and re-up our commitment to science and exploration. The whole conspiracy I perceive in that deserves its own post, so comment if you want to read that one.

It's just that, when I was a kid, I wanted to be an astronaut. Wanted to be one so bad that I actually considered joining the Navy, as more Naval Aviators went on to be astronauts than Air Force pilots did. I still remember the depression I felt January 28, 1986. I remember attending Grissom Elementary before then. I remember vividly (perhaps my clearest memory from all of elementary school) the day the Louisiana Teacher-in-Space participant spoke at our school. She had a heat-shield tile. She had a real NASA Astronaut jacket and she let me wear it! All day! (She almost forgot it when she left.)

I wanted to go up in a Space Shuttle. I imagined that the movie Space Camp could actually happen. I went to Space Camp. It didn't. My group did design the best Space Station, though. To this day, though I love Almyra (except the mosquitoes), my dream pastorate is still First Baptist Church, Lunar Rock (or Chaplain on the International Space Station).

Yet with the end of the Space Shuttle program, that dream, already mostly dead since I went to seminary instead of engineering school, is now completely dead. There's no miracle to bring that one back.

Both of these dreams have gone for me. In a way, it's kind of sad. These were ideas, both simple, like a cooking show, and complex, like space, that inspired me to be better at something. The reality? I will likely never cook well enough to get a show. I won't even get Bobby Flay to challenge me on Throwdown (partly because I can't see opening a restaurant). I was never quite disciplined enough to make the astronaut corps.

But those dreams challenged me to get better. They challenged me to grow. For that I'm thankful, and will continue to strengthen myself in those areas. My challenge from this?

1. Learn to grow from the things around me. It's important.

2. Don't let the death of a perceived end-goal be the death of effort.

3. Strive to be the challenge someone else wants to be. Whether it's to cook better, study harder, preach better, or just in life: be an open example that's available for others to follow.

Doug

Don’t be a Nimrod!

Genesis 10:8–12 (NASB95) :

⁸ Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. ⁹ He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” ¹⁰ The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. ¹¹ From that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, ¹² and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.

 

A few observations here about Nimrod:

1. He was, apparently, good at certain things. Certain extra-Biblical sources put him in charge of the Tower of Babel, and the text itself gives you the idea that he was quite the city organizer.

Not only that, he’s quite the hunter. The name of Nimrod is one of the first names to become “proverbial:” people use him as an example for succeeding generations. His hunting is legendary.

2. As with all legends, Nimrod’s fame exceeds his evidence. Taking Mosaic authorship for granted, Genesis is the closest writing to Nimrod’s time, and it’s at least 1000 years later than Nimrod’s life. Everything else about him comes even later.

So, Nimrod gets credit for a great many things. First of all, as mentioned, he gets credit for at least originating the Tower and City of Babel. Some scholars accredit him as fully building these cities and even structuring the fundamentals of empire in those areas.

One or two sources even give Nimrod credit for helping hunt out and destroy the remaining great beasts that threaten mankind. They go on to tie Nimrod to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now, I’m a young-earth creationist and think that dinosaurs are a bit of a problem---there’s some reasonable answers, but I’m not super clear on them. However, picturing Nimrod hunting a T-Rex is more than I can pull up.

3. There’s even more read into Nimrod’s motivations. He’s blamed for atheism, polytheism, idolatry, and other bad philosophical/theological stuff. He’s just generally considered bad.

Now, I’m not going to try and rehabilitate Nimrod’s reputation. I have two reputations to be concerned with: the reputation of the Lord Jesus Christ and my own. The goal? Not destroy the former one because the latter is inadequate.

Instead, I want to consider Nimrod’s life and my own. Nimrod left behind a reputation as one who accomplished things, but no record of his faith, commitment, or life as a worshiper. Nothing except cities built and hunting effectiveness.

If he were an American, we’d praise him as a manly-man: strong, perhaps ruthless, prosperous and outdoorsy.We’d ask him to speak at our church men’s events, perhaps. After all, he’s a Bible character!

But what did he really leave behind?

A legacy of ambiguity. Earthly results that haven’t lasted---or is Ninevah’s economy really rocking these days? Oh, it’s not really there anymore, is it?

All of the great legacy we think we may leave on this earth, all of the good that we do, the bad that we do, the things we build, the wild animals we hunt down and kill, guess what?

It amounts to nothing. History remembers even the great ones vaguely and imperfectly. What was most important to Nimrod? Maybe he made cave paintings or developed risotto. Maybe he long-jumped 32 feet. We don’t know, do we?

So, what do we do? Despair? Give up?

No. We focus on what’s in front of us. We do what we know needs to be done right. Be faithful in the little things, attempt the great things, and do it all to please God and not man. Why? Because God will remember. Man won’t. God is eternal and limitless, but man? We’re not. We’ll forget. Our grandchildren’s grandchildren won’t remember our names or what we did. But our children will know now that we spent time stressing about our legacy that we could have spent reading to them.

Learn this lesson from Nimrod: let your legacy be small but unambiguous. Strive to be clear about who you are: a follower of Christ in all things. Even if you’re never a mighty hunter or a founder of great cities and empires…whatever you do,

Don’t be a Nimrod.

Genesis 10

One of the bigger challenges I have in preaching is text selection. Many good preachers will tell you the way to solve that is by simply preaching a series that goes through books of the Bible. That’s one of the ways that I try to copy good preachers so that I might be mistaken for one.

The good results from preaching through a block of Scripture include, at the least, these things: 1. This helps the congregation and the pastor develop a clear understanding of what is in the Bible, a solid Biblical theology. We find ourselves looking consistently at the text; 2. This keeps the pastor from jumping about, pouncing on whatever he wants to preach; 3. The pastor can preach the hard issues without singling someone out: if this week’s text is naturally the next block in the book, then I’m not singling you out: I’m just preaching what’s right there.

An additional benefit is this: not spending huge amounts of every sermon to cover background matters. The setting, style, and authorship of Biblical passages are important. However, it’s not something that 10-15 minutes of every sermon should be spent on. So, rather than belaboring the point that Moses or Paul or whomever wrote this text, you can hit that hard once and occasionally. The preacher also has to get past his own pet topics, and this is good.

There are minor problems, sometimes. Occasionally, it gets monotonous to stay in the same book for a long time. Right now it’s this: I’m preaching through Genesis. Which is a great book. The foundations of all critical theology are found in Genesis: sin, redemption, God at work in the world after the seventh day (as in: yes, He rested, but no, He didn’t retire). That God both judges sin and graciously delivers from judgment. It’s all there. Even the concept of eventual redemption of all the earth and permanent vanquishing of sin is there.

So, preaching through Genesis is a good thing.  This week, though, we’re at Genesis 10. Go ahead, go read it…

This chapter is the opening for the entire field of ethnology, but it’s not very heavy on theology. Essentially, what you have here is where the descendants of the survivors of the Flood ended up. It’s chronologically compacted---this could have taken place over several centuries, you just don’t know. About the only real reference to God in the whole chapter is about Nimrod being “a mighty hunter before the Lord” in Genesis 10:9.

What do you do with that? Some interpreters take Nimrod as being an evil fellow, one who sets up rebellion against God. He gets blamed in some literature as the mastermind of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). Except that there’s no definite Biblical evidence of that. He’s considered the ancestor of the Assyrians, but that’s about it for definite relations. So, how can he be an example of who we ought not be? Just some issues there.

Meanwhile, some of my fellow young-earth creationists try to make more of Genesis 10:25 than I think is there. The days of Peleg, when the earth (ground, land) is divided aren’t going to match up with the break up of the Pangaea super-continent. That event is too far past to connect into the Genesis genealogies. You’re better off to see the existing continental structure as the result of flood run-off, but I digress.

So, in all, this week’s question is: what to preach? All of Scripture is valuable and useful. The goal, the effort is to find what is actually there. It would be terribly easy to add what I want here and preach about something that I want to preach about. However, doing that isn’t preaching. It’s speaking---maybe motivational speaking. Maybe even good speaking.

Yet preaching is something entirely different. Typically, one seeks a speaker that has accomplished what they speak on: success, wealth, overcoming, and so forth. They talk from their perspective, from their expertise. I spend a decent chunk of my learning effort reading and listening to speakers (Scott McKain and Michael Hyatt come to mind first, they’re both quite good) because there’s help there.

A preacher, though, and the sermon do not come solely from expertise and experience. They are not found in seeking someone who has attained and will share how they got there. A sermon comes from someone just as fragile and frail as the person hearing it. The sermon originates in the Word of God. The preacher’s experience and ‘expertise’ (read that as: time spent in focused study) come under the text and cannot supplant what’s actually there.

So, to preach I have to take what is there and present it. Present in a manner that makes sense, is consistent with the text, and doesn’t bore you so badly you can’t stand it. So, back to Genesis 10---and hopefully by next Monday, there will be a sermon podcast to listen to that shows success!

Prayer meeting

Last Friday I had the honor and pleasure of being asked to speak to a local workplace’s prayer meeting. There’s really only one thing that's more encouraging to a preacher/speaker than being asked to speak somewhere for the first time, and that’s being asked to come back and do it again! Hopefully, after they’ve run through all the other preachers in town, they’ll have me again :)

I thought I’d share here what we talked about in terms of prayer. Here it is:

L: Language: we often think we have to use a specialized language for prayer, but it’s really not the case. As 1 Samuel 16:7 reminds us, God looks at the heart. While I think we should speak respectfully to the Almighty God of the Universe, there’s also no reason to fancy-up our speech. He understands us.

I: Inability: I have encountered many people in ministry years that worried that they weren’t praying right. Guess what? We generally aren’t praying right. However, it doesn’t matter. Romans 8:26-27 points out that when we are unable to pray, God still comprehends. If we expect prayer to be a formula, we’re missing a major point: prayer is about communicating with God. He works in accordance with His will, His grace, and His goodness. There is no “magic” to prayer that guarantees anything and we would do well to trust that our praying efforts, though imperfect, are received with grace.

P: Persistence: we cannot give up. There are parables, such as Luke 11:5-9, that remind us of the need to never give up in prayer. We need to realize that part of what happens when we pray is that we commit ourselves to being used by God in obedience.

S: Service: 1 Peter 3:7 speaks to the idea that husbands cannot expect their prayers to be heard if they are treating their wives badly. That in itself is the source of plenty of contemplation. The point I want to draw from it is this: if we are not living lives that reflect a desire to serve others in Christian love, then praying for them isn’t much good either. Let our lives match our prayers.

No time like the present

It’s been a bit of a strange summer around here. I’ve been in and out, dealing with various tasks and just the general stuff of life. The end result is that I’ve gotten behind on a lot of tasks that I want to do, just because the need to do has been a little strong.

Then there’s been a general struggle to just focus and get stuff done. There’s a part of me that thrives a little too much on being busy and I’m actually more able to focus when there is limited time. When school let out for the summer, a huge block of my time became free….and then my own self-discipline broke down.

Which is really what it comes down to, isn’t it? Most of what troubles us starts with us. There are notable exceptions to that, but that’s really where I sit right now. I’ve got several issues spinning at once, and they come down to a lack of personal discipline.

I want to note something crucial, though, that’s often left out of self-discipline discussions. This is not about control. The reality is that much of what goes on in the world around us is completely out of our control. I cannot control the weather, the behavior of others, or the US Government (honestly, it seems like 537 complete idiots up there). What I have the ability to do is discipline myself. This starts with the following things:

1. I must discipline my thoughts. I am, frequently, easily distracted. It has actually taken me over four hours to write this blog post, because I’m attempting to do three other things. That’s not good. My mind keeps jumping to other tasks. If I cannot discipline my thoughts to stay focused, I won’t get things accomplished.

2. I must discipline my body. By this I do not mean any form of self-abuse or harmful actions. This is what I mean: the human body works better when properly fed, properly exercised, and properly rested. If I train my body to respond to these things, I do better. When I sleep and get up and different times every day, when I do nothing physically, then I do worse. Consistency makes an amazing differences. And yes, deviations happen. Recovery, though, is a good thing.

3. I must discipline my desires. Honestly, I want stuff. A quick tour through my Amazon.com wish list would probably disturb you. I want success, I want fame and fortune….and on and on and on. What I have to learn is to pick what I truly desire and cast aside the rest. One of the authors I greatly appreciate is Andy Andrews, and his statement was to “discipline for what you want, not what you don’t want” (or something like that, I don’t exactly remember). The point was this: figure out what you want and do what is necessary to achieve. Don’t do what won’t get you there.

So, this is where I am right now. I have certain goals, and I am spending a little effort to reinforce those goals.

There are “being” goals: being a good husband, a good father (definitions to come some other day).

There are “doing” goals: doing my work as a pastor well, doing my writing well.

There are “finishing” goals: finish my formal education, lose 50 pounds, finish a few other projects.

 

So, where to from here? Well, to be honest, I’m headed to a birthday party for a four-year-old. However, the coming weeks will bring more effort to be focused on what I’m supposed to be doing. Hopefully that means a bit more activity here. It also means striving to keep up: the past 4 days of high-intensity exercise turned into a habit; the half-pound a day of weight loss; working on early to bed and early to rise---healthy and wise will hopefully follow.

 

See y’all later…

Doug

Write it out

“Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. ” (Deuteronomy 17:18, NASB95)

This verse drew my attention this morning. First of all, there's the obvious question of how America would be different if you made every elected federal official write out a copy of the Constitution (with Amendments) before they were allowed to do anything. That would shake a few up on all sides of politics. And if you made the IRS Commissioner hand-copy the Tax Code before enforcing it, it would never get enforced!

Yet modern American is neither modern Israel, restored Israel, or Biblical Israel. So, what do we make of a verse like this?

1. The first thought is still a valid one. The idea presented is that the king should not rule without knowing the foundational law of the land. In Israel's case that law was the Pentateuch (whatever you think of modern Israel, that was then, now is different). In America's case that law is the Constitution. It is reasonable that a good many elected officials may not know the finest details of every law, but they ought to know the Constitution.

2. That builds into this one: America is not ruled by Congress and the President. America is ruled by the people who invest power into Congress, the President, and the States. So guess what? We ought to know the fundamentals of our Constitution and that ought to bear on our actions in selecting people for those offices. We ought to understand things like separation of powers, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the rest of it.

3. Israel, though, was not only a political entity. It was also a spiritual community. The king was not the top spiritual leader in most cases, but he was still one of the spiritual leaders. A large set of problems in churches would be resolved if everyone aspiring to lead in church had to take the time to re-copy even something as short as the Sermon on the Mount. The hand-copying would cement in our minds God's Word. This would be good.

4. This wouldn't hurt to be part of what we do as church members, one and and all. If you read that verse again, you'll see the king was to copy it in the presence of the Levitical priests. That was to be certain that he took no shortcuts or made no mistakes. 1 Peter speaks of all the community of faith as a kingdom of priests, and other Scriptures point to the joint responsibility of the church as a whole to ensure the church stays on track spiritually.

Except that the most common examples of a congregation exercising control are times when just the opposite happens. Whether it's electing a megalomaniac as pastor, running off a willing servant of the Lord from being pastor, or voting to close membership to someone over race, churches tend to do things that are just blatantly anti-Scriptural. If we knew the Word, we wouldn't do a lot of these things.

Let's make sure we learn the Word. Because if we learn it, we'll do it.

How's the garden?

I was asked the other day how our gardening project was going. The answer will probably not surprise some of you…

It's a mess. Between apparently not planting some seeds deep enough and all the standing water, I have plants growing in places they ought not be growing. The week we were gone, grass and weeds sprouted, grew, and multiplied. So, I look out and see corn, grass, and various stuff.

The truth is that inexperience led to inadequate preparation and now I've got a 40 foot long, 12 foot wide plot of chaos in my yard. The corn is sprouting tassels, the watermelon, cantaloupes, and what I think are bell peppers are flowering, and I assume the carrots are forming. Except it's not well-maintained, and it's going to be hard to harvest.

Add in that any water I put on the garden is going to divide between what I want and what I don't want, I'm not fertilizing for just that same reason, and I can't quite get in there to attempt to fix any issues, and it's becoming questionable if this garden is any use.

In fact, Ann and I are debating whether or not the best course of action at this point is just to mow it down and try again next year. For now, we're letting it grow, checking its progress, and watching for snakes in it. All in all, it proves that we are really city people trying to figure out how to live in the country.

Now, the great powers that be of Baptist life would revoke my ordination if I didn't attempt to make a point with this. It's just too easy of an illustration.

Ready?

1. Churches are like gardens. They are gardens in which disciples grow. It is possible for disciples to grow in the wild, but in general, disciples grow best in gardens. It takes a certain amount of clearing to prepare a garden, a certain preparation. It also takes preparation to prepare a church to grow. Here's what happens:

A. Church one starts without any preparation, any real doctrinal clarity, any real plan. Over the first several years of existence it produces as many non-fruit-bearing plants as fruit bearers. The fruit is worth the effort, but a large portion of effort goes down dead ends. Eventually, the weeds are weeded out, the soil is clear and the church grows well.

B. Church two starts with some preparation. The result is a slower start, a lot more effort, and the exclusion of somethings that might be good. Over the first several years of existence it produces fruit bearers but a constant vigilance is necessary to keep out weeds and grass and unnecessary plants.

Either way, there's a lot of work involved and the potential for failure of the plot as a whole. That doesn't mean there's no useful fruit, just that there's no fruitful future.

2. Churches are like gardens. They are gardens in which disciples grow. My garden, in theory, will produce: corn, peppers, cantaloupes, watermelon, broccoli, carrots, and squash. Oh, and garlic too. My garden grows with a diversity of crop. Churches ought to recognize themselves the same way. Churches are like gardens, not like farms. My friends are farmers. They grow rice, soybeans, and corn. The goal is produce lots of similar fruit. In fact, lots of identical fruit: the rice should all be same.

Now, that's good and profitable. But that's not an image of the church: mechanically planted, identically treated, and uniformly appearing. Churches ought to contain a wide variety of the fruit of God's people. The only uniform characteristic of what a "church" is is this: followers of Christ committed to obedience. Some people are more like carrots, some are corny, and some might just be garlic. However, the goal is to see each one grow and produce to the fullest of its ability.

If we expect churches to be farms, we're going to be sorely disappointed.

3. Churches are like gardens. They are gardens in which disciples grow. Certain types of disciples grow better in other soils. New gardens have to begin with seeds from old gardens. There's a time for transplanting, a time for seed scattering.

It can never be about making one garden biggest and greatest among all the gardens. Our goal is to plant, tend, and bear fruit---wherever we are and wherever the providence of God directs us to go.

Doug