I’m Baaaack

Let’s get back to it!

By Special Invitation of the President...

On January 16, 2013, President Obama held a news conference announcing actions he was taking (via executive orders) and that he was urging Congress to pass laws directly tied to the issue of gun control in response to the series of abominable acts taken against citizens of our country in the public square.  In that address, the president issued an invitation (perhaps, better said, it was a call to action) to pastors to speak up for what is right. Undoubtedly, what he meant by "what is right" must be interpreted as "what I am saying is right."  As I understand his invitation, it was not meant to be applied to me as a private citizen, but rather as a leader of spiritual communities that make up a significant piece of the fabric of our country.  In other words, he wasn't asking me to be a vocal citizen.  Rather, he wants me to take up his banner and fly it in the name of spiritual truth.

Inherent in his words, if they can be taken at face value, is his recognition that there is such a thing as spiritual truth and that there are individuals outside of the political sphere of life who carry a measure of referred authority as representatives of that realm.  As one who has been divinely called and who holds the office of pastor in a local spiritual community, I am answering the President's call.  This posting is given, then, not as a private citizen but as a pastor, duly acknowledged by the President as having valuable input in the service of "what is right."

Consequently, I offer this clarification.  This posting is in no way to be taken as a political statement.  I will not offer my opinion on gun control.  It is, instead, offered from my calling as a pastor;  it is prophetic.  Sometimes it is difficult to draw a sharp distinction between "political" and "prophetic."  That's because they overlap.  By definition, the prophetic voice has one foot in the public square and one in the spiritual community. God is intimately involved in and concerned with the public square.  But the origin of the pastor's prophetic voice is not politically-birthed;  it is birthed in the heart of God.  A cursory look at the prophets of the Old Testament - especially the minor prophets - reveals to us that God cares about how we conduct ourselves in the private and public spheres of our lives.  When He deems appropriate, He sees to it that His voice is heard through those individuals He has ordained as spokespersons. So, I accept the president's invitation to weigh in on "what is right," but I reject any suggestion that I do so as an extension of his agenda, party, or voice.

With that in mind, this is what I believe is "right" and that with which the spiritual communities of America must grapple.  It is hypocritical for us (whether as private citizens or publicly elected officials) to dangle competing ideals before others and claim that both are true, equal, and mutually compatible.  I speak of the smokescreen of taking action (not limited to the current issue) for the good and safety of our children while simultaneously insuring that the murder of unborn children through medical means continues unabated.  Prophetically speaking, God holds us accountable for this (I know that many Christians prefer to verbalize, "God will hold us accountable."  I would argue that a studied examination of American life these days reveals judgment already taking place.)  Somehow, I don't suspect that this was what President Obama had in mind when he asked us, as pastors, to speak up.  As pastors, can we stand for one side when it comes to the issue of the value of human life and its sanctity and not stand for the same thing when it comes to the unborn?  Logically, spiritually, and prophetically, the answer is "no!"  Yet, that seems to be what we're being asked to do here.  If the issue is about the safety of our children or the citizens of our country, the whole issue must be on the table.  This is not about gun control.  It is about the value of human life.  It just so happens that God has quite a bit to say about life, and about the right treatment of children and the underprivileged of our society.  On that topic, I am with our president:  "Let's be right!"

But, we need to determine and settle on what is "right."  Prophetically speaking, "right" involves holding God in the proper esteem and place in our lives, both private and public.  We only get it right when we take His counsel on the subject.  People matter to God.  They should matter to us, then.  Prophetically speaking, "right" means loving people and handling them as He does.

But we, as a nation, have been "wrong" in that we seem to want to relegate God to the history books and to the margins (or basements, in many cases) of our national identity.  We don't seem to care about His claims of authority.  So, we find ourselves scrambling to make sense of atrocities committed on our streets, in our schools, and other arenas within the public sphere of life.  But what can you expect when we devalue life at the base level?  And, when expedient to our cause, we rush to enact measures that say more about our spiritual condition than about what is "right."  The fact that these atrocities are repeated with alarming frequency should be a clarion call for deep theological thinking and spiritual reflection by our governing authorities. Clearly, there are no simplistic answers that suffice.  But there are spiritually-focused ones that do.  Maybe we should let the atrocities of Newtown, Aurora, and the too-many-other places of mass murder drive us to real answers.  Prophetically speaking, only God can fix this.

And so, I offer this direct appeal to our president.  "Mr. President, while I respect the office that you hold and the authority that comes with it, I am concerned that you have played a card that seems to reveal your ignorance, at best, or your hypocrisy, at worst.  Either you don't understand the role of a pastor, or you thought the appeal you issued would be advantageous to your political posturing.  My personal feelings regarding the gun control debate are strong, but are not part of this posting. You ask me, as a pastor, to take up your banner of the moment.  Yet I see no attempt by the government of the USA to lead us to be 'right' where we most need it.  Until we address the fundamental failure of our country, we can expect nothing less than the disintegration of society."

Prophetically, in the tradition of Jeremiah, Amos, and Jesus himself, standing up for what is "right" is dangerous ground.  But living in the wrong is fatal to the national interest. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people."

This Might Hurt

Ever have someone you trust tell you that they are on the verge of causing you pain?  I think of visits to the doctor's office;  as the nurse prepares to jab you with a needle, she says, "You'll feel a slight pinch."  Then you feel what must be an railroad spike being hammered into your arm.  That ranks right up there with the old parental adage, "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you!"  I've been a parent and I've been on the receiving end in that scenario, and I can tell you, there are two different kinds of pain being referenced in that statement!

"This might hurt" is an ominous warning of what awaits you in the immediate future.  I have found that those warnings occasionally surface in print.  Take, for instance, the statement made in the Introduction of the latest book I'm reading (pictured here).  On page 2, Eugene Peterson signals his intent to shake churchy Christians out of their comfort zones when he writes,

"Every time we open our mouths, whether in conversation with one another or in prayer to our Lord, Christian truth and community are on the line.  And so, high on the agenda of the Christian community in every generation is that we diligently develop a voice that speaks in consonance with the God who speaks, that we speak in such a way that truth is told and community is formed..."

Did you get the "this might hurt" part of that?  Peterson lets us know from the outset that he does not intend to make his readers feel warm and fuzzy about their faith.  To be sure, there are plenty of books out there that are soft and velvety in their intent to make Christians feel good about their belief system.  But, those that communicate, "This might hurt" as we read them are not all that popular.  That could be because Christians of our day are soft and pudgy, like the old Amy Grant song, "Fat Baby."  Peterson will have no part of that, it seems.  Sure, he lets us know that there are many biblical references that promote comfort and peace.  But he knows that Christians need a good, swift kick-in-the-pants most of the time.  Get up.  Get moving.  Get it right!

"Every time we open our mouths...Christian truth and community are on the line."  Wow!  Kinda makes me rethink opening my mouth.  After all, as the "now" generation of church history, much is at stake in the way we handle the trust of God's word and reputation.  It challenges me to think that every word I utter carries implications on God's truth and community.  How about you?

Now that I think about it, "This might hurt" really is "That already hurts!"

More "Crazy"-ness

Though I just finished reading the Sanders book (see previous blog), I wanted to share another reflection from Chan's "Crazy Love."   On page 140, Chan makes a strong assertion (read that, attack!) regarding the 21st century Church.  "Non-churchgoers tend to see Christians as takers rather than givers."

Now, I'm just enough of a renegade and against-the-flow kind of guy to appreciate the statement and to endorse it immediately.  But I think the assertion is too important to give it a wink-and-a-nod and move on to other topics.  We should "try on" the statement to see if it fits.  Think with me for a bit.  How do your neighbors and/or family members - or coworkers - view Christians?  Too often, they perceive us as morality police who take it upon ourselves to legislate "fun" out of life.  Whether we deserve that tag or not, it is their perception, and perception is "truth" as far as the one doing the perceiving is concerned.  So, does that make us "takers?"  Probably.  But that doesn't seem to be the context of Chan's comment.

Chan levels his charge against the Church in conjunction with the 2nd great commandment (Matt. 22:39), where we are commanded to "love your neighbor as yourself."  In other words, he (Chan) challenges 21st century Christians to get dirty with people outside the walls of our church buildings.  Leave behind the safety of the compound and hit the streets - especially the dangerous ones - driven by a love for God that flows through us to those people out there.  

Here's where I think Chan misses it with us.  The modern expression of Christianity seems to have embraced the task he suggests.  Look around our church and you'll find a host of people actively "going out there" and giving.  I know that's true of many churches these days.  So, I'm not too sure that our reputation is that of "taker" rather than "giver."  I fear that there is a deeper pit into which our reputation has fallen.  This is the one that disarms our message, even as we freely give our resources to help people.  This is the perception of Christians and their message that kills their witness.  I believe that non-Christians tend to see Christians as...irrelevant.  

And, if I'm right about that, I believe that we have earned that reputation.  It's not enough to "give" to people in need.  The Red Cross does that.  So do multiple aid agencies of the US government.  Shoot, even the people Christians so often castigate for loose morals (entertainment types) do that.  And they give BIG bucks for causes!  Giving stuff is good, to be sure.  But giving self is best.  Need a good example of that?  Check out the cross event as recorded in the gospels.  Love that drives us to involvement and investment of ourselves on behalf of the ones we help gives us credibility.  That's called earning the right to be heard. But it won't ever occur if we intend to perch ourselves on the pinnacle of morality and throw resources down to the dirty little needy people of this world.  Throwing money at a problem might be the preferred option, but it certainly isn't the smartest - nor the heavenliest (yeah, I make up my own words!).  We follow the lead of our leader, who humbled himself...and got dirty;  and he did it because that's what it took to help me.  How could I settle for anything less than his model?

Crazy? Well...

So, here's the next book on my list.  It is a classic from J. Oswald Sanders and it promises to be a worthwhile reading endeavor.  I'll throw out a quote or two as I work through it, I'm sure.  I'm looking forward to his insights on a topic I have studied at length.  But, as I'm reminded regularly, just studying something at length is no guarantee that one effectively practices what they "know."

I just finished what some call a "modern classic," though I am not sure I agree with their assessment.  Don't get me wrong, "Crazy Love" (Francis Chan) is a good read, but I honestly can't figure out why it reached cult status among Christian readers so rapidly.  Perhaps it is tied to the deplorable spiritual condition of the 21st century American church.  Basically, Chan goes to the basics of Christian living.  Nothing particularly profound jumps out at us, but the reminders he gives are worth noting.  For the next couple of blogs, I'll throw out a quote or two for discussion.  Here's the 1st:  

"In hindsight, I don't think my church's teachings were incorrect, just incomplete.  My view of God was narrow and small."  Then, at the close of the next paragraph, he adds, "Some serious paradigm shattering happened in my life, and consequently in our church."  (p. 20)

So, here are a few questions that surface for me:  What is our paradigm of the Christian life?  What is the perspective of God that dominates my/your life?  Is He "small" or "great?"  And, are we answering that practically or theoretically?  Does our theology of God fit the biblical picture given?  And, ultimately, how does He make a difference in or lives?   Modern classic or not, Chan gives us pause to live some pretty fundamental questions.  What say you?

In Favor of "Against..."

I just finished reading "Against Calvinsim" and I'm fully in favor of it!  The book, written by Roger E. Olson (one of my professors at Truett Seminary), is an excellent read.  During my time with him, I was moved by his deep and abiding passion for Christ and His church, and for the laser focus he brought to the study of theology.  Dr. Olson is a prolific writer who possesses an incredible command of the historical development of theology. As I read through this master treatment of Calvinism in all of its theological, logical, and practical weaknesses, I was reminded of how grateful I should be for having had the opportunity to sit under his teaching.  If you're ready for some reading that moves far beyond the fluff of "pop spirituality," I recommend that you sink your mental teeth into this little book.  Here's a taste of the thought-provoking stuff he offers

- "...somehow or other most evangelical Christian young people manage to latch onto...a picture of God (as a doting grandfather) and fail entirely to plumb the riches of either the Bible or Christian theology to deepen their understanding of themselves and God.  So many of the brightest and best become vaguely aware that something is missing in their spiritual upbringing, and when they hear the message of Calvinism, they latch onto it as their lifeboat from watery, culturally accommodated spirituality.  Who can blame them?"  (page 17) In the end, Dr. Olson shows that the "lifeboat" of Calvinism is full of holes.

One should note that Dr. Olson is fair and thorough in his treatment of Calvinism and its emphasis on preserving the "glory of God" at all costs.  He lets us hear from Calvin and from other historical (including contemporary) adherents of this theological "system."  But he is ruthless in his expectation that they handle scripture correctly and that they maintain logical consistency.  On multiple fronts, he exposes their inability to do either/both.

Why should we care?  Why bother reading this?  I suggest that his depiction (as quoted above) of the failure of our "pop religion/spirituality" and the renewed fascination with this system of theological thought should cause us to take note of it and filter it for truth.  If our "church kids" are being spoon fed a watered-down truth that, in the end, will leave them hungry, shouldn't we change the "food choice?"  But, we cannot fall into the trap of believing that, just because a bunch of high profile people and preachers are Calvinists that we are safe in adopting it as our new (old) way of thinking.  Remember, when it comes to truth, "close to being right" is, ultimately, "being wrong."

Hedgehogs?

I'm engaged! No, not like that. Teresa and I have over 30 years of marriage under our belts, so that clearly cannot be my point here. What I mean is that I am engaged in a mental tug-o'-war with Jim Collins' discussion of "Good To Great" (see my previous post). So far, I really like his research and the findings extrapolated from it. He's stretching my thinking at the intersection of business and church health. And that leads me to this appeal for reflection from you, the reader. "What might Crestwood Baptist Church be the best at?" I look around at all the churches in this area and wonder what causes people to choose one over another. Or, worse, why do some people choose not to attend any church? And, more to the point, I wonder what CBC offers (or might offer) that no other church in our area can offer at the same level? Preaching? No, there are many good preachers around here. Music? Well, maybe, but there are some churches who really excel in this area, I'm told. Youth Ministry? Children's Ministry? Equipping? Mission work? If you happen to be a little put off by the question, then welcome to my world and that mental "tug-o'-war" I mentioned. Is it wrong to seek to the the best at something when it comes to church? Allow me to reframe the question: Which area of our church life are you comfortable saying to God, "That wasn't important enough for us to emphasize and seek excellence in." It's worth thinking on and discussing.