My low-grade conversational fever

I didn't used to recognize it as often as I do now. Perhaps it is age, or the additional speed of life that I've encountered since our latest move, or maybe I'm just now coming to realize the reality of my condition. Whatever the case, it has started getting to me. And I guess I'm wondering if I'm the only one. I think I've been running a low-grade conversational fever.

Speaking in medical terms, some maladies bring with them a low-grade fever. Its not so hot that you actually notice it, but it's there anyway. It doesn't stop you from getting out of bed or going to work. It just drains you. Like leaving your car lights on, over time a low-grade fever just draws down your battery, incrementally, until one day you can't start your car. A fever like this leaves you feeling empty, and you don't know why!

I often have the feeling that something is wrong, even when it isn't. Ever experience that? I'll be walking out to the car for my grueling 3 minute commute home after work, and a wave of anxiety will wash over me. It's not heavy, or even disconcerting, but its there, and I have to tell myself that nothing's wrong. But, throughout the night, and then the next day, it'll be there, right on the "desktop" of my mind. A feeling of apprehension mixed with anticipation seasoned with a pinch of dread. And like a low-grade fever, it just seems to be there, without explanation.

Well, I think I've stumbled upon an answer.

As a pastor, it seems I am always communicating. I am telling, or teaching, or answering or responding or defending or proposing or presenting or ... You get the idea. In other words, I am always involved in conversations, waiting for the response, responding to the criticism, answering the theological, biblical or practical question, defending a position or program, or any of a number of other actual conversational transactions. And when these are face to face, everyone knows when the conversation is over. We get out of the chairs, shake hands, exchange pleasantries, and put a mental period in place. And while we know that future conversations will take place in order for the problems to be solved - or whatever - for the time being, its over, done, complete. I can turn my mind's energy to other things. And that's quite freeing!

But here's the problem: Increasingly my "conversations" are of the variety that are never completed. Because so many of my conversations these days happen via twitter, text, email, or on Facebook, I find myself perpetually in the middle of 30-40 conversations! And here's what that does: I am always in a state of suspended readiness, wondering how and when and even if, my conversational partners are going to respond! How did they take my latest text, email, post or tweet? Did my explanation of why we're doing what we're doing make sense? Did it appease the cranky guy who thinks I'm a legalist? Was my answer to the chronological problems of 1 Samuel clear? Is Jeff going to get back to me in time to solve the dilemma? What I find is that, like some of my stereo components, I am never "off" but only in a state of "standby". It appears that my mind is semi-consciously keeping track of all these conversations, and even during my "off" hours, I maintain this low-grade, fever-like readiness that makes me notice every time my Blackberry message light blinks. And even when I turn the phone off, and get after the business of relaxing, the fever is there. I guess my mind knows that somewhere "out there", there are 30 or more people who have my thoughts in their hands, and are responding to them in ways that I can't know yet. I don't feel it consciously, but during those seconds in every hour that I feel the apprehension mixed with anticipation seasoned with dread, I now chalk it up to the fact that I'm standing in the middle of an electronically connected crowd expecting that at any minute they might all start talking to me at once.

It didn't used to be this way. In the days when we wrote letters to friends - with pens, on paper, with envelopes and stamps, via the postal service - we had the enjoyable knowledge that it would take days for the letter to be delivered, and days for our friends to respond. In other words, we could forget about the conversation without guilt knowing that it couldn't possibly be continuing for a couple weeks. We were free from the responsibility of either an immediate reply or consistent readiness to carry on the conversation. We didn't know how freeing that was!

But, it does no good to long for the "good ole days." In fact, today we have many more communicative advantages, and even with the price I pay emotionally, I wouldn't trade these days for those. However, I do have to get more emotionally fit if I'm going to play the game.

So, what to do? Actually, now that I've figured it out, I think I'll be fine. Perhaps I need only rely on one of my well-known weaknesses. It seems through my life that I have demonstrated an uncanny ability to tune folks out. My wife insists that I have a carefully nurtured sense of selective listening. So, I just have to train my mind to stop "listening" to all the conversations I'm in electronically. I'll have to develop the ability to ignore my IPartners the way I sometimes do those I'm standing near! Funny how a weakness I've worked hard to overcome seems to be the strength I need now. But, it'll have to do until I can start dealing with my low-grade, conversational fever with that IAspirin I've been working on.

Hope this helps,

David

Leadership and Freedom

As a senior pastor, one of my main tasks is leading, and more precisely, envisioning the future and preparing our congregation to make the most of it. And, over the years I have come to see as a commonly occurring obstacle the idea that somehow planning, the setting of objectives, and the expectation of accomplishment via accountability takes away from God's overall control of the church. "We can never expect the sovereign God to fit Himself into our plans" is one way those opposed to planning frame the issue. At other times, they just say things like "God's going to do His will, and we'd be better off just waiting on Him." Now, all this sounds both theologically astute and even pious, but I think this thinking is ultimately based on several faulty suppositions.

In the Bible I see God creating leadership as a concept, and installing leaders as a vital part of His plan. There is no question that leaders are to lead, and do so with the constant conviction that they are themselves responsible to the Leader, Jesus Christ. I could note all the places in the Bible where plans were made and carried out, even places where God did the planning! But I want to focus on just one event: the failed leadership of Aaron in offering the people the Golden Calf.

If you remember your OT history, Exodus 32 finds the people quite confused as to the welfare of Moses. After all, he left to climb the mountain, and meet with God. They all knew that one misstep would mean his demise given that God was an awesome and holy God. He had been gone 40 days and, as the text tells us "we do not know what has become of him." Notice what has happened. With Moses away, the people now begin to act as though there are no boundaries. They move outside the plan, and turn their backs on their mission. Maybe some spurred them on by saying "you know, Moses is trying to put God in a box, and maybe God doesn't want to be constrained! Maybe we better start thinking outside the box." Their "freedom" from direct oversight has not left them in a better position, but rather the lack of daily direction has brought confusion and despair. They lack clarity as to their responsibilities, and this lack of clarity causes a vacuum that they are driven to fill.

They go to Aaron, the "second" in command, seeking in their own way to fill the vacuum. At this point, Aaron has a choice: abdicate his position of leadership and follow those he is supposed to lead in order to maintain peace; or take up the responsibility of leadership, provide a plan that aligns with what he knows about God and has experienced from God's hand since leaving Egypt. He chooses the former, and that made all the difference. He chooses to placate rather than lead.

Can't you hear the discussions he had with himself? "I could stand up for God as I know Him to be, but that might mean angering the people, and perhaps, losing them to chaos and full-scale rebellion! On the other hand, maybe all they're really looking for is a "visible hand rail" to guide them further in their knowledge of the One True God. I'll make them a visible god, and just call it The Lord! What a great solution. A little error to make the truth more appetizing and accessible! After all, we don't want to put God in a box!"

The text tells us later that in actuality, Aaron had let the people get out of control: "Now when Moses saw that the people were out of control - for Aaron had let them get out of control to be a derision among their enemies - then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said 'Whoever is for the Lord, come to me!'" (Exodus 32:25, 26). He hadn't really given them freedom! He hadn't taken God out of the box, but rather, he had led the people into a box of idolatry and judgment by failing to understand that God has already defined Himself in such a way that He inhabits a "box" of His own making, and all who try to re-define Him will find themselves face to face with His wrath.

What's the principle here? Leadership is essential to control. A lack of leadership does not lead to freedom but to chaos. When people are out of control, they are contributing to their own destruction. It is the responsibility of leadership to know the mission and define the direction in which those who seek to accomplish the mission will travel. It is also the responsibility of leadership to stay on the path even when it gets tough, even when some people clamor for an easier, more personally fulfilling mission. It is the responsibility of leadership to lead, humbly and with radical dependence upon their Leader, and - to quote Winston - "never, never, never give up!" We need more Moses and no Aaron; more courage and conviction, and no compromise; more dependence upon God and no determination to keep the clamoring masses pacified; more commitment to the mission of Christ, and no wasted energy trying to pacify the self-centered; simply, we need more leadership, and more clarity, and no more fear except the fear of somehow squandering the privilege we have to extend the Kingdom of Christ in our day.

Hope this helps,


David

God: Speaking and Guiding

"Maybe that was just God speaking to you!" Hearing these words I felt my heart start to pump faster, and my cool, collected interior begin to fester with some real theological emotion. Gladly, I didn't do anything I would later have to apologize for, nor did I engage in a conversation with this well-meaning but theologically simple brother in Christ. But, I've encountered far too many Christ-followers in the past year who use this kind of language, and apparently are quite unaware of its dangerous overtones.

Let me state my thesis: God speaks through Scripture; He guides through impressions, perceptions, sensitivities, circumstances, and other things meant to return our minds to the truths of Scripture that we know to be true, and follow them. They - speaking and guiding - are not the same. The Bible is clear that "speaking" is revelatory, while "guiding" is illuminating. The first gives truth; the second shines the light on it.

When He speaks, it is revelation of new and necessary information; when He guides, it is the Spirit using already revealed information to bring out hearts into conformity with revealed truth. When He speaks He is giving us new truth; when He guides, He is using previously revealed truth to harness our wills to obey. You may think the difference is trivial but I can assure you, in the history of revelation and religious experience, it is not. It is vital that we understand the difference, respect that difference, and contend earnestly for the fact that revelation has ended; God is not today adding to the Bible; He is not giving new and necessary information. Rather, He is guiding us to live our lives within the already revealed truth principles and guidelines of Scripture.

In the Bible, when God 'speaks' it is seen as direct revelation. Over 3800 times, the OT prophets preface their declarations with "Thus saith the Lord". God spoke to them, and they repeated it to their audiences. Yes, God speaks! And when He does, it is always understood to be His very voice. The prophet did not have to decide if it was God or not. God's speaking came with its own internal verification. Secondly, that which was spoken was immediately considered as authoritative, and the unquestioned standard for obedient living. Yet, today it is not the same when people say "God spoke to me". They often wonder if it was God; and they most often spend time testing it to see if it really fits into their understanding. Most likely, when folks today say "God is speaking to me" they are actually being really sloppy in their language without knowing the consequences. They most likely are simply referring to an ongoing sense that God is at work in their lives, shaping their decisions, their desires, and their overall direction. This is good! But, it isn't the same as the direct, revelatory work of God described biblically as God "speaking."

What's the harm you might ask? Aren't you just straining at a gnat David? Well, I might just as well respond that I ain't about to swallow a gnat either! But, actually, this is so much bigger than a little gnat. Its an elephant. Here's why:

If we continue to confuse revelation with guidance, we have no choice but to concoct some theology that allows for on-going revelation. We have no defense against those who would add to the Bible the "revelations" of their leaders. They heard the voice of God! God spoke to them! Worse, we have no defense against those who naturally come to place higher priority on the ongoing "voice" of God speaking to them through songs and poems and the wind and ... whatever! ... than on the voice of God speaking through Scripture. After all, Scripture is so old, and hard to understand, and takes too much work! When I sit on my porch at sunset, and hum my favorite praise song, its just so much easier - and personally comforting - to "hear God's voice." Worse still is that we have fundamentally redefined revelation as that which we are able to extract from God through means rather than what He alone initiates, and ends. Apparently, if I supply the music and the time and the quiet place, God is obliged to speak. Lastly, and by far the worst, by unknowingly believing that revelation is continuing, we have no assurance to say that the Bible is sufficient, or even authoritative. How do we know that someone, somewhere, hasn't had a direct revelation from God that supersedes what we have in the New Testament? Maybe God is giving a Newer Testament right now somewhere! In fact, if God spoke to you last night, I sure hope you wrote it down.

So, what do we do? Here's what I believe: Revelation has ended. God has spoken through His prophets and Apostles, and has preserved their written record. This is the "standard" and "treasure" Paul calls upon Timothy to "retain" and "guard" (see: 2 Timothy 1:13,14). This is the Bible. Through the Bible God continues to speak! The Bible is God's Word, His "voice" to us today. The Bible knows nothing of a secondary level of "speaking" or revelation. He doesn't have casual conversations which leave the person warmed, but wondering; when He speaks it is absolutely and undeniably Him, and unquestionably understandable and authoritative. That's what the Bible is, and why we need to protect it from anything that would lead people to believe that, like the World Book Encyclopedia, the Bible is incomplete, and needs yearly updates, and further material from God. Either the Bible is the "final rule and authority for faith and practice" as our doctrinal statements declare, or it isn't. And if you think that you need further revelation from God to live your life, and make your decisions, then in your mind, it isn't! And you better start apologizing to the Roman Catholic Church for sola Scriptura.

Secondly, God still guides. He made the mind and the heart. He has put His Spirit - the 3rd person of the Godhead - as a permanent resident in our hearts. The Spirit uses circumstances, impressions, memory, sensitivities, teaching, reading, meditation, and a whole host of other disciplines and mechanisms to continually illumine our minds to the truths already revealed in Scripture. Jesus Himself said that the Spirit would guide us into all truth by bringing to our minds what God had already revealed (see: John 15:12-15 in context). The Spirit is the agent of illumination, opening our eyes and hearts to understand the truth of God as revealed in Scripture. Guidance is great, because properly understood, we know that we must work hard to grow in grace and knowledge so as to understand more and more what God desire of us, what His good and perfect will is for us. When we try to downsize our personal responsibility in the process of guidance by thinking God will just emotionally or mentally "fax" us the answers we want, we do ourselves, and the theology of revelation a great disservice.

One last word: Peter, the great leader of the 12, and apostle to the Jews, was one of the 3 guys who accompanied Jesus up the mountain. Peter saw the veil of Jesus' humanity drawn back, giving him a glimpse of the glory of God (as did Moses on Mt. Sinai: see: Exodus 33,34). Peter also heard the direct voice of God, along with James and John, on that mountain. Late in his life, as he was nearing death, Peter wrote some letters to instruct his fellow Christ-followers on how they should continue once he was gone. Where should they turn for their authority? Should they look for another apostle? Should they expect God to "speak" directly to them? Peter answered their questions in a poetically worded passage found in 2 Peter 1:16-21. Peter explains that what he and the other apostles taught was not based on myth or fable; rather, they were eyewitnesses to the reality of Jesus Christ. Hadn't they been on the mountain? Hadn't they heard the audible voice of God? Yes! And then he makes this amazing, and clarifying statement: "But we have an even surer prophetic word" or possibly "And so we have the prophetic word made more sure". What does he mean? What could be 'more sure' than the audible voice of God? The answer is, of course, the Scripture, which was produced cooperatively as the Holy Spirit superintended the human authors so that what they wrote down what God was speaking. Get this: More sure, more reliable than even the voice of God you might think you hear in the shower is the written, preserved Word of God, the Bible.

So, help me out. Let's stop saying that God spoke to us. Let's stop giving the impression through sloppy language that we're the recipients of direct revelation. In so many ways, such talk actually appears to be self-promoting, especially to those Christ-followers who wonder why God isn't conversing with them. Let's admit that God speaks through Scripture, and then dedicate ourselves to the hard work of knowing the Bible. And as we do, God's Spirit will use what God has spoken to purify, guide, conform, transform, and mature us, by His grace, and for His glory.

Hope this helps,

David

Time, Certainty, and Social Constructs

Over my vacation I immersed myself in authors and works relating to the issues and substances of postmodernism. This "label" is itself a topic of great controversy with many suggesting that we are, in reality, entering what might better be thought of as "hypermodernism" since at the core, many postmodern (hereafter "pomo") ideas are actually being put forward in purely modern ways, such as books that follow the "modern" paradigm of evidence-argument-conclusion. However, since it is always more cool to use the newest idea-scheme, I'll go with the flow for now.

One of the primary cries of pomo adherents is that absolute truth is actually a fiction, mass produced by what are called "social constructs." These constructs are those elements of society that dictate the values and cultural mores by which things are critiqued as good and bad, valuable or worthless, laudable or worthy of ridicule, and on and on. The natural turn happens when these venerable constructs - having set themselves up as the dictators of the social conscience - are seen to be themselves bad, and worthy of ridicule. Regardless of your views, you'll have to agree that this has happened in our time at an alarming rate of consistency.

Examples abound. Some of the more noticeable constructs are medicine, education, politics, science, and of course, religion. Take medicine. Forty years ago, it was common to believe that progress in medical research would clear the field of the notorious diseases that plagued us. So high was our confidence in this field, that we granted them almost divine status. Even 25 years ago, when you went to the doctor, you left ready to believe what he said, and do what he prescribed. Medicine promised better living through prescriptions, surgeries, and of course, research. But, today we find that America is in worse health, battling diseases and syndromes and conditions we'd never heard of before. Pomo theory tells us that medicine - this monolithic social construct to which we had delegated our health and well-being - was nothing more than an arrogant, power-hungry construct that told us half-truths in order to gain our monetary and intellectual support.

This same story might be told in the field of education (we'll educate the masses and show them how to get along), science (we'll land on the moon, and usher in the age of scientific certainty, and modern convenience), politics (we'll get the right people elected and trust them to rid the country of poverty, racism, disease, and injustice), and of course, religion (follow our way of life and there will be peace on earth).

In all of these realms, we can see that no construct lived up to its promises. We have racial divides still; we have all the modern conveniences, yet no time for family, and the complexities of life are worse than before; our economy is broken, and the politics of factions and competition is worse now than ever; and lastly, our religious institutions are seen to be the source of some of the worst hypocrisy and unrighteous behavior among its leaders, and "culture" wars in the name of religion continue to erode the public trust that God really exists or cares.

I believe all this started in the wake of the Viet Nam War. As our soldiers returned home, they found a nation that no longer trusted in the political/military leadership. We had seen through the promises of peace and stability in that region, and had come to believe that our soldiers and nation were merely ponds in a bigger game. Our distrust in the policical/military leadership fanned the flame of general unrest and distrust in all the organizational social constructs we now saw were dictating "truth" to us. At first, we just became cynical. We stopped believing in the promises of the social constructs, and just wallowed in cynicism, mockery, and despair. But, along the way, we moved from contempt to outright anger, and finally to rebellion. We started looking at the constructs, not merely as institutions that were run by flawed people, but as intentionally designed to push their view of "truth" on us. We considered that what they were, and what they were trying to do to us was unjust, and that, in reality, they didn't have the truth at all. In fact, what they called "truth" was just their construction of it, and should be rejected as a power play.

Today, the pomos are trying hard to shove aside all social constructs. They have followed the above path of "logic" to conclude that there really is no "absolute truth". Their favorite reasoning is that, since nothing can be known perfectly, nothing can be known certainly. Thus, we are asked to replace flawed certainty, with complete ambiguity. All of pomo philosophy flows from this.

Of course, pomo theory cannot stand. It is self-refuting. The statement that there is no absolute truth is put forth as a statement of absolute truth! But, given that pomo ambiguity allows us to hold to opposing truth claims at the same time (turns out something can be both A and NOT A at the same time!), it is not likely that logic will win the hearts of those committed to the pomo ideals.

So, I'd like to propose that there is a fatal flaw in the pomo realm, and it is that most of the pomos I know wear watches. They also have Blackberrys that hold their daily schedules, filled with appointments at specific times. So, given this, I'd like to ask them why they trust "time" when, as Chicago taught us many years ago no one "really knows what time it is."

It is true that you and I can never know, even less express, exactly what time it is. Time is the greatest social construct, simply because society invents it, and says what it is. Somewhere in Greenwich there is an atomic clock, that sets the standard. But, of course, the clock doesn't set it, the guy who sets the clock sets it! And everyone else in the world has it "dictated" to them what time it is. What's more it is impossible to say that my wristwatch matches the atomic clock perfectly. Turns out I can never know what time it is perfectly, and neither can anyone else, including those pomos who insist that you can't ever know anything for sure. Yet, they set appointments for 1:00 pm, just like we all do. And, when they run late, they still call to make sure that the potential new client doesn't think they're flaking out. See what's happening? They are, by their actions, saying that "time" is real, and it matters, and 10 or 15 minutes can make all the difference. Even though we can't know the time perfectly, we still live with the certainty of it as the fundamental backbone of our society.

There are so many other fallacies in the pomo viewpoint that could be easily demonstrated. To dismiss medicine, education, science, and religion because they have not been perfect certainly builds a standard that the pomos won't want for themselves, and it is only by very selective history that these institutions can be so easily written off as destructive overall. But the greatest flaw of pomo thought is that it is primarily destructive rather than constructive. It offers many appropriate critiques of the modern way, while offering little in constructive solutions to the problems of the world. What's more, if and when pomo thinkers begin to provide their answers, they will be hard pressed to develop, design, and communicate them in ways that are not, in themselves, modern. They will write books, provide formulas, use evidence and argument, and largely try to get us to believe that they are not just the latest social construct that is trying to dictate truth on how to live better lives and build a better world.

At the end of the days of my vacation, having read so much of the pomo literature, it was so pleasant to retreat to the sure Word we have from God in the Bible. It occurred to me time after time that the foundation for my confidence, my well-being both now and eternally, isn't grounded in any social construct, even though I believe they exist and can have a beneficial place in society. As the hymn writer J. Wilbur Chapman wrote "Men may fail me, foes assail me; He my Savior makes me whole". The great answer to the modern failures, and the postmodern angst, is the pre-modern message of the Gospel: "Come unto me all you who labor, and are laden down, and I will give you rest." And that's no social construct; that's the Word of God ... eternally true.


Hope this helps,

David

It's a Miracle

In the past few weeks I've heard about quite a few miracles. From last minute 3-point baskets by the Lakers, walk-off home runs, and holed chip shots, to the birth of a baby, the garnering of new employment and even that fact that a teen remembered to put out the garbage cans. But what I find most interesting is that - technically speaking! - none of these are really miraculous, at least by my definition. And since that begs the question of just who gets to define what a "miracle" is, I'll step out on the limb and assert that a miracle is more than just an amazing thing that happens. It is an amazing thing that can't happen, ever, within the bounds of natural law.

I know what you're thinking. You're remembering that time you looked up "miracle" in the dictionary and found that it has a whole range of meanings, including anything that was both spectacular and welcomed, and rare. In this case, a basket, a golf shot, or the birth of a grandchild could well qualify. Okay, I'll agree that within the wide range of semantic meaning of the English word "miracle" all of these might find a home. But, I want to posit that Webster and all the other dictionary makers are not really prescribing what ought to be the meanings of words; they are merely describing the ways in which English words are commonly used and understood. And that's why I'm blogging on this. As a theologian, I want to push back against the evolving use of the word "miracle." Here's why:

In the Bible, a "miracle" is always used to validate an individual as God's appointed messenger or spokesman. That's what Peter meant in Acts 2:22 when he stated that Jesus was "attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst." Notice, miracles are God's doing, for His own purpose.

When we decide to use "miracle" to describe that which is less than "miraculous" we are actually diluting the power of the true miracles that God has done to display His grandeur and glory. If Kobe Bryant can do the miraculous, then God must not be so hot!

So, I'm calling for those who are Christ-followers to consider using "miracle" and "miraculous" to describe only those things that fit the original criteria: an amazing and welcomed occurrence that goes contrary to commonly understood natural law. It isn't simply an amazing basket, or golf shot, or even the spectacular birth of a baby. All of those things can be explained through the processes of natural law. (Note: This is NOT to say that God doesn't have a hand in things like the birth of a baby, or even a holed chip shot. God often works through natural laws.) But, when He works in a way that is actually contrary to natural law - like walking on water, or healing a leper, or raising a man who has been dead three days - that is what we call a miracle. And, I think we should reserve the word "miracle" for that which is truly "miraculous."

And so again I know what you're thinking. "David, is this really worth the blog time?" Probably not, but now that I've written it, I'll welcome your comments. Maybe my idea here will have some legs, and radically re-shape the Christian vocabulary in our world. Now that would be a miracle!

Hope this helps,

David

Common Grace, Common Courtesy, and Righteous Restraint

Please forgive the rather ostentatious title for this blog post. It's high sounding, probably a bit arrogant in its intention, and certainly was decided upon in haste. That's because I'm writing while upset, which is usually not good. But, I need to get something off my chest.

It really bothers me when Christians get together and an Obama bashing breaks out. I've even heard folks us Bible verses to support their dishonoring and downright discourteous diatribes. And, to make matters worse, they often draw a direct line between being a Christ-follower and being a Republican, and even more, suggest that as a good Christian, we should be intent on winning back the White House.

Now please understand. I consider myself a politico, an observant citizen with strong opinions, and not one to let error masquerade as truth. I believe it is fit and proper for Americans - including Christ-followers! - to discuss political topics, current events, and to be persuasive in the marketplace of political ideas and actions. But, I think it is unacceptable to layer political labels over Christianity in an attempt to enlist God as a member of the party. I believe the behavior of that group of believers that took such joy in ripping President Obama is wrong for the following reasons:

1) God is not a Republican. In truth, He isn't a Democrat either, or a member of any other political party, organization, or think tank. He is not a proponent of any earthly ideology. He is the King of All, and never stands for election to that position. Further, God's kingdom work has never been slowed down by the political actions of man. Communism in China drove the church underground, and the house church movement was responsible for a stronger, more vibrant and holy church. And while we much more desire freedom, the truth is that persecution has always grown the church both deeply and broadly.

Given that God is a king, and not a political figure, the main job of the church must be kingdom living, not politics. We are all about the transformation of individual lives through the Gospel. I am not saying politics and kingdom living are mutually exclusive, but clearly the second has far greater priority. Let me be more clear about their relationship.

There is a great need, certainly, for some Christ-followers to be "salt and light" in the political realm. We should pray for talented, knowledgeable, and able Christian men and women to enter the political fray (and pray equally that dim-witted believers will stay out!). They provide a "dam building" service to society in that they are putting up dams to stop the steady onslaught of sin, perversion, and pride that is manufactured daily in the hearts of lost mankind. Any thoughts they may have of turning the tide, of creating a Christian utopia or anything even close are certainly misguided; yet, their importance in holding back the tide of wickedness should not be missed.

On the other hand, the job of all Christ-followers is that of a rescue swimmer. You might remember that movie where Kevin Costner is an aging Coast Guard rescue swimmer charged with training a new young recruit. In that movie, I think he depicts what Christ-followers are to be in real life: we jump into the raging storm, into the sea of unbelief where we once were drowning without hope, and we swim as fast as we can, for as long as we can, and rescue as many as we can. This is Gospel work. It is not merely an attempt to stop wickedness, but actually is an enterprise intent on rescuing souls out of the stormy sea of sin, and placing them safely in the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

So, there are dam builders, and rescue swimmers. My greatest anger is reserved for those who get so caught up in political critique that they begin to act as though building dams, and getting the right guys to do the building, is how a true Christ-follower will be known. "Let's get out the vote, and let's use our resources to elect the right dam builder!" Now, again, let me be clear. There is some value in the building of dams. But the kingdom of God has never been about dams; it is about lives being rescued from the flood of sin and judgment.

I so remember the years when Christians lived in the White House. If you count President Jimmy Carter - a professed Southern Baptist evangelical - and include the President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush Sr. presidencies, you have around 16 years where the occupants of the highest office in the land were professing Christ-followers. And many good things happened! But if we are honest, we have to say that those "good things" were primarily economic. No moral tide was turned; the wickedness was only abated, and then only for a short time. Within the first 30 days of President Clinton's presidency, he took back almost all of the moral victories won, through executive order. I remember thinking that millions and millions of dollars, countless man-hours, and enormous amounts of dialogue among Christ-followers had been spent on political initiatives, and in a few short weeks, it had pretty much all been swept away. We had stopped the flow for a time, but not for long.

And, even worse in my opinion, was the fact that, during those years when so many joined the "moral majority" and became inflamed with our new evangelical political power, someone crept into the church and stole the Gospel. American evangelicalism emerged from that period with a "gospel" of self-help, "free-will theism", a compromised concept of sin and judgment, a deified view of man, and a whole new way of "doing church" that placed ultimate priority on making church big and sexy - "seeker driven" - rather than Gospel-driven, Scripture-based, God-honoring, and Christ-exalting. We got caught up with power, fame, position, and "relevance" (which is newspeak for wearing the trappings of common culture), and forgot that following Christ was all about His glory, and our humility, His grace and our great need, His power and our brokenness. Politics brought us power and position, while the Gospel called us to forsake our pride to find His strength in our weakness.

I would be willing to bet that most of those Christ-followers who pummel President Obama have never had their unbelieving neighbors over for dinner, never put an arm around them in a painful situation, and have never, ever, ever shared the Gospel with them. It has been my experience that those most enraged politically are usually the ones least engaged evangelistically.

2) Christ-followers answer to a higher ethic. This is the second reason why subjecting President Obama to public ridicule is so wrong for a Christ-follower. We just don't act that way because, as citizens of heaven, we live by a higher standard. We do not approach earthly problems in earthly ways. We are charged to carry out the ethic of heaven, and that ethic is clear in the Bible.

We can start in the Old Testament, with a great example from the life of David. (You can read all about it in 1 Samuel 24). David has been anointed as king of Israel, but the reigning king of Israel - Saul - is still on the throne. And Saul is intent on killing David.

Put this in modern political terms. Say Saul is the President. Everyone knows he is a wicked man. He has turned away from following God, and God has promised to take the kingdom away and give it to David. We know David; he's a "man after God's own heart." This is the classic confrontation between good and evil; between God's king, and man's king. Saul isn't too keen on giving up his position so he is chasing all over the wilderness looking for David. He wants to kill him, and end the threat to his administration. In 1 Samuel 24, David and his merry men are hiding in the far recesses of a big cave. Saul, unknowingly, decides to spend some time in the mouth of the cave. This is David's chance. God has delivered his enemy - the guy who is trying to kill him! - into David's hand. But David does not follow the urging of his men. Rather than take Saul's life, David sneaks up to Saul and cuts a souvenir swatch from his coat. Why? David explains that, even though this is a wicked man, and a man from whom God is taking the kingdom, he is still "the Lord's anointed." That is, he is the one God has on the throne. Do you get the point? David honored Saul, not because he agreed with Saul's actions or beliefs, but because he honored God who had put Saul in the honored position of king.

The same is true of President Obama, even though we are not Israel, and he is not a king. Romans 13 is clear that governments owe their very existence to God, and they play an important role in His government of the universe. Governments, like law enforcement, and a host of other institutions, are vehicles whereby God holds back the wickedness of mankind in order to allow for ordered society to exist. The doctrine of common grace teaches us that President Obama holds a high and honored position before God, and we are to treat him accordingly. Peter advances this idea as well in 1 Peter 2:17 when he calls upon the severely mistreated Christ-followers of his day to "honor the King." Paul does the same thing in instructing Pastor Timothy that the Ephesian believers should offer up "entreaties, prayers, petitions and thanksgivings" even for the kings and those in authority over them who were responsible for their ill treatment in society (1 Timothy 2:1ff).

Here's the deal: Christ-followers are not at liberty to launch at our elected leaders. We must ALWAYS treat them with honor and respect. We answer to a heavenly ethic.

Lastly, let me add that it is also fundamentally wrong politically to do what that group of Christ-followers did in publicly mocking and disparaging President Obama. From what I have heard, most conservative Obama bashers consider themselves the best kind of Americans. They spout that they are "true" Americans, intent on carrying out the true ideals of our country. Here's my problem: Why then do they not recognize that President Obama is the choice of the people of America? Our system of governance allows the people to vote, and they did, and President Obama won. If they want a different outcome next time, they should channel their energies into constructive ideas and strategies. The losing side lost because the voting public considered its ways and words to be inferior to those of President Obama and his advisers. Losers should get better, not bitter. It does no one any good just to spout off insults. We may not agree with all that he says and does. On the other hand, we ought to be at least educated and courteous enough to acknowledge where we do agree, and not offer only mockings, cynical critiques, and hurtful diatribes when our disagreements arise. To do so will only reinforce what the majority of American voters already think: that conservative Christians don't offer ideas that work because they are too busy critiquing and condemning everyone. That's what they think, and our best opportunity to change their minds comes when we love and live the Gospel.

Hope this helps,

David

Simple Reminders

Lots of people are losing their jobs, their retirement nest eggs, and their nerve. Questions haunt us all about the future, about the economy, about the preservation of righteousness in a broken world. If you take your cues from talk radio, we're in deep trouble in almost ever sector of life, without clear solutions, and the biggest problem is that only the show hosts actually know anything. But, if you look around, you'll find reminders that God is still intimate in our world, in the news, in our lives.

When Job finished his journey from righteousness to self-righteousness, and began to call God out, God responded with some of the greatest questions of all time (check it out beginning in Job 38). "Where were you, Job, when I created the sun and stars, and told the light just where to begin and end?" "Where were you when I gave the young donkeys their lives, and their food, and ordered their way?" Okay, so these are just my paraphrases but you get the point: the reminders of God's perpetual presence in history and in our lives are all around us. And while the sun, and the stars, and the animals, and all the other divinely crafted pieces of nature are huge reminders, I also find immense joy in the simple reminders He sends my way, reminders that are always there in grand numbers but seem hidden behind the clouds of my own anxiety, concern, and doubt.

Today a good friend got a job, and a good one at that. After more than a year of consistent, diligent, and prayerful hunting, Phil landed a position that will feed his family, benefit society, and be the right kind of challenge for his skills and passions. Phil got a job, and God is real, and really involved in it all.

In two days, I'll pack up my wife and a few essentials and wind my way up to Sonoma on a 3-day quest for beauty, rest, and great gourmet. It'll be so good because God, in His mercy, has made our marriage so good. Three days of unhurried time together will be yet another reminder of God's love, care, and providential provision for us together. We found a marriage almost 32 years ago, and made it ours, while giving it to Him. And the fact that our marriage works so well remains one of the great reminders that God continues to surround us with His sovereignty, regardless of stockmarket loss, the price of gasoline, or the unemployment rate.

Phil found a job. Cherylyn loves me. Simple reminders that life, with all of its tragedy and uncertainty, is truly good, to those who love God, and have been called to share His purposes. Look around. Your simple reminders are there too.

Hope this helps,

David

The Sad and Silly Saga of Secondary Separation

In some corners of the ecclesiastical world, there still remains a belief that we are to act like Old Testament Israel in regard to the peoples of the world. By that I refer to the way some demand that Christ-followers remain "separate" from the world. As Israel was told to stay away from the idolatrous peoples that surrounded them (when they weren't told to actually go and kill them all!), so also some who march to the fundamentalist beat consider it a high and holy privilege to distance themselves from having meaningful, caring friendships with unbelievers. After all, God commanded Israel to "come out from among them and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing", right? My problem with all this is that all too often this attitude of separation becomes the default relationship setting with believers as well, especially with those with whom we disagree.

I remember growing up in that world. I remember that when Billy Graham came to town, we couldn't go. I also remember that after he left, we couldn't be friends with those that did go. Looking back on it, that was really weird, and even wrong. But back to the Old Testament ...

It is perfectly clear that in the OT, God did instruct the Israelites not to settle with, or fraternize with, the foreign nations that surrounded them. And if those in the nations wanted to come to God, they had to come to Israel. Ruth, Rahab, Uriah, and a host of other foreigners did just that, and found refuge under the wings of Yahweh. It has always been curious to me that God never sent Israel door-to-door in Philistia! Rather, He demanded that His people live separate from the nations, distanced from the idolatrous peoples of the world, safe in the corral that was the Law.

But, on a mountain in Galilee, the resurrected Lord Christ changed all that. He declared that there had been a radical change in the management authority of the world. "All power has been given to me in heaven and in earth" He told them. "Therefore - since I now have wrested power and authority from the Evil One whom I defeated on the cross (see: Hebrews 2:14,15) - go into all the world, and as you go, don't be isolated anymore, but make disciples of the peoples of the world, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey the Word! And fear not, I'll be with you every step of the way!" (Hegg paraphrase of Matthew 18:18-20).

Certainly, this was the great "unpacking" of the "salt and light" principles Jesus had taught on another mountain a few years before (see: Matthew 5:13-16). Go, have vital contact with those in the world, so as to preserve and save them. Just be careful that in your contact, you don't compromise! Unsalty salt is useless! Two mountains, same command: Get involved with those in your world!

We know that this is what Jesus was saying simply because many of the Jewish disciples had trouble with it. It seemed quite opposite to what they had grown up with. Didn't the nations need to come to Israel to get to God? Didn't they need to keep the law, and get circumcised, yada yada yada? Paul had to battle that, and even Peter had to admit that this was a bit of a change (see his reaction to God's command that he go take the Gospel to a Roman Centurion in Acts 10!). And Peter had a hard time staying with the program, as demonstrated in his conflict with Paul in Galatians 2:1-11. Paul had to get in Peter's face and show him that the Gospel wasn't about separation anymore. Paul confronted Peter because the way he was living (not wanting to eat a meal with Gentiles, even though they were believers!) was an affront to the Gospel. Keep that in mind.

There is yet another text from the pen of Paul that we have to factor in before I try to wrap all this together and make my point. In Ephesians 4, Paul stresses that the responsibility of every believer is to "preserve the unity of the Body in the bond of peace." Two things are clear:

1) The Body here is the universal, invisible, true company of Christ-followers in whom the Spirit dwells, and to whom the Almighty is a Father. There is only one Body here described, and its pretty big!

2) The unity of that Body has already been established; it needn't be created; rather, the call is to preserve the unity that has been established by God Himself as the Spirit has "baptised" each individual Christ-follower into that Body. It is apparent that the unity of the Body has to be preserved because there are so many ways that it can be stretched and torn! All kinds of wicked forces are trying to rend the unity we have in Christ. Our call is to stand firm, preserving that unity. Unfortunately, some are working against us from the inside.

So, here's the deal. Anyone who is "in Christ" is in the Body. And I am called upon to try to preserve that unity. I am not free to "separate" in terms of loving relationship and warm, Christian friendship from those in the Body with whom I may have differences and even doctrinal disagreements. I am called to handle my differences differently! It is only when someone claiming to be in the Body displays, through their rejection of a core theological doctrine (eg. the Deity of Christ), or their pursuit of habitual sin, that they are not truly "of us" that we are called upon to "put them out", to reduce our relationship with them to the level of an unbeliever.

So, as believers we are no longer to be "separation" driven. Not from the sinners in the world, and not from those in the Body of Christ with whom we differ. The New Covenant change all that. Now, our list of friends is not complete until it includes someone who needs Jesus. And our relationships with unbelievers must be real, authentic, caring for the whole person. And while their eternal destiny is our highest concern, we must also care about them in the here and now, and extend real Gospel love and truth, wrapped in genuine Gospel living.

And all that must also inform the way we relate to other believers. Unless the very fiber of the Gospel itself is at stake, we are called to preserve the unity of the Body. But, at times, I find that love for self and team trump love for the whole Body of Christ. We evangelicals have just enough of that old fundamentalist toxin in us to conjure up civil wars all too often.

I am heartsick today because I have just left a long coffee with a good friend who is on the receiving end of something I also watched unfold as a kid growing up. Back then it was called "secondary separation" although in truth, it should have been called "primary disobedience to the Word." It went like this: "We disagree with Billy Graham, and so we are 'separating' from any association with him" (Note: in the fundamentalist lexicon this goes under the heading of "primary separation"). "And since you supported Billy Graham, we're 'separating' from you - even though you agree with us about almost everything else, including the Deity of Christ, and all the other biggies - because you didn't separate from Billy like we did!" (Note: in the fundamentalist lexicon this is called "secondary separation"). Do you see the problem? A secondary difference (over something other than the core truths of God) has been allowed to sever primary unity! Can you see that this is exactly what Paul's exhortation in Ephesians 4:1ff was meant to deter?

We are currently seeing a revival of secondary separation in our circle. If you like one theologian, you aren't allowed to appreciate another. And if you like that preacher, you're going to be in trouble with another. And so on, and so on, and so on.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that there are many theologians and preachers in our world today that are wrong, dead wrong, on the Gospel, on the Trinity, on many of the biggies. And I have no trouble naming names (coughosteen)and warning everyone to "examine everything according to the plumb line of Scripture." I'll also admit that there are some who do stupid things, and embarrass the rest of us, while remaining true to the core beliefs we all share. It's here that we encounter, all too often,
those intramural squabbles with those of like precious faith that are being fueled way beyond what is helpful. Should it ever be that these pride-fueled skirmishes are allowed to fracture the Body of Christ? Are we right to choose sides over things less than the Gospel, and its core ingredients? Never!

Where differences arise, they should be handled privately, winsomely, honestly. Where agreement isn't reached, others should be called in to help. And where disagreement is still an issue, commit yourselves to passionate prayer and continued discussion for as long as it takes. Get to know each other. Realize that you may never agree on every point, but if you are in the Body of Christ, you must preserve its unity even at the expense of publicly winning the argument. There are many things that are more important than you proving your view is right. Chief among them is the testimony of Christ's unified Body before a watching world.

I sure wish some Paul would get in Peter's face and remind him that the Gospel is about how God unites enemies, and not about how it divides friends.

Hope this helps,

David