The 8^th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks is upon us. There may be a thousand other things now competing for your attention; there certainly are mine. But I wanted to take a moment anyway to remember and grieve, and to encourage you to do so.

I remember...

• Hearing about what was happening on the radio, having just dropped Marcie off at work and while on the way to the seminary campus.
• Finding my friend Bryan and the two of us immediately hitting the internet to try to learn what was happening.
• Realizing with relief that no one I knew well, personally, was a direct victim of these attacks-- but also that more other people than not were in the other position, having lost someone to the attacks.
• Everyone I knew walking around in a sort of daze for weeks, with no sense of humor or levity seeming appropriate.
• Finally beginning to feel some sense of healing, after Bryan Chapell preached THIS sermon in chapel.
• Many of my friends responding with anger, with a sense of vengeance in their hearts.
• One friend eventually feeling led to obtain a handgun and a concealed-carry permit, so that he might take responsibility to stop others who might perpetuate hate and violence.
• My heart, on the other hand, being wrung with grief not only for the victims, but for those who committed such acts and organized or called for them; and finding, not vengeance or even outright cold justice, but redemption as the greatest hope that I might have for them.

A number of things have come to pass since then...

• I had a son just over a year after (on 9/13/2002), and the memories are more filled with joy now than shock and grief.
• As a culture we've forgotten the unity that was brought about by those events, and have become more fractured than at any time recent memory can recall.
• Many have continued to be wracked with grief and sadness, unable to overcome the horror of that day.
• Even within a few years, however, my students at the school where I taught in seminary did not have much memory, if any, of the events of that day.
• This driving desire in me for redemption and hope of reconciliation that arose in response to these events eventually brought me to where I am today, where I am much closer to being a pacifist than anyone else that I know, and I find myself deeply committed to non-violent solutions.

Still, it is worth remembering the events themselves. Remember the brokenness, beloved, that we might mourn with those who still mourn, and cry with those who still cry. That we might continue to struggle together against the brokenness, and yearn together for redemption and reconciliation. Remember, that we might together long for the soon return of Christ and meet that day in which he will wipe away every tear, and there will be no more mourning.

In case you have forgotten, here is a reminder:

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Grief, Faith & Life

Happy Independence Day!

Here’s a good reminder of how today came to be so important (I swiped this idea completely from Ed Stetzer):

Tags: Politics, Cultural Discernment

The murder of Dr. George Tiller over the weekend was an act of sin and a tragedy. Regardless of Dr. Tiller’s choices and actions-- regardless of his sins-- a single individual taking his life was the laying of claim to something that individual had no right to claim. In that lone act, the murderer completely undermined the very cause he is believed to have acted on behalf of (or at least attempted to): the Pro-Life Movement.

According to the Washington Post, the suspect, Scott Roeder, had alleged ties to the violent group Operation Rescue, admired the Army of God’s “Defensive Action Statement” and was, by all appearances, a ticking time-bomb for something like this to happen:

Fellow abortion opponents described Roeder as a foot soldier convinced that killing an abortion doctor is not a crime because it saves the lives of unborn children. In a 2007 Internet posting, a person identifying himself as "Scott Roeder" said Tiller is "the concentration camp 'Mengele' of our day and needs to be stopped."

If this sort of language doesn’t frighten you, I’m not sure what would. And if Dr. Tiller’s murder doesn’t appall you, then I would challenge you: is your “Pro-Life” position a matter of conviction, or one of convenience?

Christians have no grounds for taking such action; quite the contrary. Albert Mohler stated it clearly and well:

In the case of Dr. George Tiller, the governing authorities failed again and again to fulfill their responsibility to protect all citizens, including those yet unborn. The law is dishonoring to God in its disrespect for human life. The law failed to bring George Tiller to account for what should have been seen as crimes against humanity. But this failure does not authorize others to act in the place of the government, much less in the place of God. The government must now act to prosecute and punish the murderer of Dr. George Tiller.

Misunderstanding what it really means to be “Pro-Life” leads us here, to this place, where those who claim to be acting on behalf of God and who coldly and confidently take the lives of others are regarded as the consistent ones.

Mr. Roeder claims to be acting on his Pro-Life convictions in murdering Dr. Tiller; yet, the leading Pro-Life organizations uniformly have denounced Mr. Roeder’s actions (ref: American Life League, National Right to Life, Americans United for Life). Indeed, so are major leaders in the church, like Dr. Mohler.

And yet, the mainstream media concludes that this is damning evidence of our inconsistency:

[These denunciations] don't square with what these organizations purport to espouse: a strict moral equation between the unborn and the born. If a doctor in Kansas were butchering hundreds of old or disabled people, and legal authorities failed to intervene, I doubt most members of the National Right to Life Committee would stand by waiting for "educational and legislative activities" to stop him. Somebody would use force.The reason these pro-life groups have held their fire, both rhetorically and literally, is that they don't really equate fetuses with old or disabled people. They oppose abortion, as most of us do. But they don't treat abortionists the way they'd treat mass murderers of the old or disabled. And this self-restraint can't simply be chalked up to nonviolence or respect for the law. Look up the bills these organizations have written, pushed, or passed to restrict abortions. I challenge you to find a single bill that treats a woman who procures an abortion as a murderer. They don't even propose that she go to jail. [Slate magazine: http://www.slate.com/id/2219537/?from=rss]

The problem is that 99% of what comes out of the church as “Pro-Life” statements is really simply “Anti-Abortion” noise. Most Christians don’t really know what it means to be Pro-Life in a consistent, worldview-driven way.

This is why church-goers are more supportive of torture than non-church-goers.

This is why so many Christians who heard about Dr. Tiller’s murder released a sigh of relief instead of a groan of grief.

Beloved, we MUST take up the reconsideration of what the idea of “LIFE” in our alleged “Pro-Life” position means. Ask yourself if being “Pro-Life” has anything to do with your views on any of the following topics:

• Welfare
• Government-supported healthcare for the poor
• Infertility treatments
• The death penalty
• Care for unwed/teenage mothers
• Domestic violence
• War and peace
• Care for the elderly
• Use of contraception
• Treatment of prisoners (domestic and foreign)
• Pre-marital sex
• Love and dignity for neighbor
• Criminal justice

Like it or not, these are all of a piece-- your position on life, and not just the life of the unborn, is what dictates how you fall out on all of these. If you don’t know how your personal convictions about being Pro-Life speak to all of these, then you’re not being consistent.

Don’t feel too bad; very few Christians in our culture have even begun to think about this, let alone come to any conclusions. But when the conclusions come, it almost always looks like something completely different from the actions taken by Scott Roeder. But think about what it would look like if much-- or even most-- of the church learned this sort of consistency? It would transform our culture.

Otherwise, we’re stuck with what we have today. And that’s a sad state of affairs.

More on Tiller, Roeder, and this issue:

• From Ignatius Press: Suspect arrested in Tiller slaying
• From Robert P. George: Gravely Wicked
• From the Center for Lutheran Theology and Public Life: Killing the Killer Was a Blow to Pro-Lifers
• From James Grant: Vengeance Is Not in Our Hands
• From William Saletan, The NY Times: This Is the Way the Culture Wars End

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Ethics, Health, Sin & Repentance, Grief

Every day I hear someone else mention Swine Flu, often in the form of questioning whether they should be worried.

The best way to deal with worry and anxiety is to be informed. (I know, that’s a sweeping statement that might be worth a blog post-- or a book-- down the line...) Where do you go to get information on Swine Flu?

• Let’s start “at home”-- the PCA’s Disaster Relief division (a part of Mission to North America) has put together this helpful factsheet, available in PDF format. This two-page resource has links to other helpful pages (where you may obtain factual information, not just hearsay, hype, or hysteria), as well as brief advice for some things to think about.
• Wikipedia is a very good place to go for information that has been updated about as frequently as possible. (Some people are skeptical about Wikipedia, but I’ve found it to be quite adept at self-policing.) If you don’t know what a “wiki” is, think of it as a user-edited website-- thus, Wikipedia is a user-edited encyclopedia. The Wikipedia page for the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak is a rich resource for up-to-date information.
• Another wiki that might be even better than Wikipedia’s Swine Flu page is this one: Flu Wiki, which is a resource about ALL Flu strains, including Swine and Avian Flu. There is more there, and the participants seem to frequently be a part of the medical community (not to say that the ones on Wikipedia are not, but simply commenting on the Flu Wiki).
• If you’re interested in following when new cases of Swine Flu are detected, this page has an ongoing report to that effect: Veratect, which is actually a Twitter feed that reports them.

Tags: Health, Cultural Discernment

These are such helpful quotes from David Gordon on the “Culture War”-- i.e., the attempt by Christians to get the world around them to conform to biblical principles:

The culture warrior refuses to acknowledge that true and significant cultural change can happen only when the individual members of the culture have forsaken their own self-centeredness, and have revolted against their revolt against God. Worse, the culture warrior assumes that coerced change in behavior is desirable-- that if we can pass a law that outlaws sin, this will somehow make people and culture better (when, in fact, we just become more devious and learn how to evade detection, adding deception to our other sins).

And...

Such a view is contrary to everything the Bible teaches that its prevalence must be account for as a kind of blindness that is due to misplaced patriotism... The particular blindness of the culture warrior is that he permits himself to think God is pleased by coerced behavior; by requiring people to say, “one nation, under God” even if they do not yet believe in God (which strikes me as an instance of taking the Lord’s name in vain). The culture warrior’s religion and his patriotism are in conflict. His Christianity teaches him that God is not pleased with mere external confession of insincere religious faith; but his patriotism just cannot accept the fact that his culture is moving in directions of which he disapproves. He desires to be proud of his nation; and he therefore concludes (wrongly, in my estimation) that it is better to have a public display of commitment to Christianity that is the result of coercion than to have a decline in the public display of commitment to Christianity.

And...

Haven’t we already had a historical experiment that is precisely what the culture warriors want? Wasn’t ancient Israel a nation whose constitution demanded obedience to the revealed laws of God, and didn’t its executive branch use coercion to attain such obedience? Did Israel not, effectively, have the Ten Commandments in its courthouse? Yet which prophet ever had anything good to say about the nation? ...If theocracy didn’t work in Israel, where God divinely instituted it, why do people insist on believing it will work in places where God manifestly has not instituted it?

[T David Gordon, Why Johnny Can’t Preach (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Books, 2009), pp. 86-88.]

These are so good, and hit precisely at the root of the problem of the culture war.

My only concern is this: at the end of the second quote block, Gordon asserts that the culture warrior’s Christianity teaches him not to believe that God is pleased with mere external display of religious faithfulness (absent any true inward faith). But I’m not sure that this is something we can uniformly rely upon in today’s church.

What do you think: can we rightly assume that every church, or even most churches, regularly and faithfully teach that outward religious living alone is not enough?

Tags: Cultural Discernment, preaching

Rachel Gardner is a literary agent whose blog I read regularly. This morning, she posted about an e-mail she recently received, where someone who had come across her blog asked why she self-identified as a “Christian” on her blog about being a literary agent. She responded, but also invited others to comment. I’d like to offer my thoughts here.

The question-- and the answer(s)-- are a symptom of a problem that the Kingdom of God has had for some time now: is it good and right to have a “Christian” writer, musician, literary agent, artist, etc.? Why not simply have a literary agent? A musician? An artist?

Over the last several hundred years, a cultural shift took place that cemented our current environment with the above problem as a definitive element. Christians, perhaps offended at the moral/ethical degradation of society as reflected in such cultural artifacts as music, literature, art, and so on, slowly concluded that the best solution would be to offer a niche in each of these arenas that was intentionally and overtly “Christian” in its content. Thus, the industries of Christian sub-culture were born, and now we have Christian publishing houses, Christian music labels, Christian television networks, Christian movie studios...

[An aside: what is ironic is that, in the last several decades, most of these companies have been purchased by larger companies that are not distinctively identified with a particular faith or religious group, but are-- shhh-- “secular” companies! Oh no!]

Now, everyone who has ever set out to defend this sub-culture to me has appealed to one of several angles:

• It offers a good opportunity for evangelism of the lost
• It provides a “healthy” alternative to secular media for Christians
• It fulfills biblical concepts of work, creativity, etc.

I would put it to you, however, that, if it does any of those, it does not necessarily do them well. Rather, it may be the case that this sub-culture often does NONE of those things!

Let me offer an example: when I was in college, a good friend of mine had come to faith recently enough that her tastes in music were still largely untouched by her perceptions of how to practice her faith. I recall overhearing a conversation that she had with an older student who, at the time, worked for a Christian bookstore. He was counseling her about what music to listen to, and encouraged her to “try this band, they sound like X, and this band sounds like Y...”

At one point I asked her: why don’t you keep listening to the bands you like? She said, “listening to them makes me angry.” So I suggested, could it be the form of their music-- the sound, style, pace, etc.-- that affects her mood, at least as much as the content (lyrics)? She confessed that she didn’t actually pay that much attention to the lyrics. Why, then, would she want to find a “Christian” version of the same anger?

The problem with my friend wasn’t that she was seeking change to better live out her faith. It was that the change she was seeking wasn’t enough. She was interested in keeping just enough of the “old self” (Eph. 4:22-24) to be comfortable, but just enough of the “new self” to make appearances. She wanted change, but not too much change.

Is this sort of music a tool for evangelism? Perhaps in a weak, bait-and-switch way, since you’ll surreptitiously slip “good” content (in the lyrics) in using familiar styles of music-- assuming the two don’t contradict each other, or that the listener pays close enough attention to the lyrics (and that they are well-written enough!) to actually get the message. But I doubt it is “healthy” for a Christian, as I suggested above. (I’ll address the biblical concepts of creativity and work at a later point.)

[Another aside: I’m not at all endorsing a perspective that certain kinds of music are inherently bad or evil. If that is true, I don’t think we can consider ourselves to be fair and objective measures of it. Rather, let me highlight that music is a highly emotive art form, and it evokes real and distinct responses from people; if the music you listen to causes you to stumble into a sinful attitude toward others, simply changing the lyrics is unlikely to help-- unless, of course, you’re listening to hymns that are full of bad theology and sinning in that way...]

Of course, the alternative in the Christian sub-culture is no better. In contrast to the “sound-alike” artists and bands, a good bit of what is marketed as “CCM” (=Contemporary Christian Music) is musically and lyrically poor, something like a mix of Muzak with bubblegum pop and a dash of lounge act thrown in. This may actually be the preferred style/genre for some, but I haven’t met them. Rather, most people I have known who listen to this style of CCM do so out of a sense of obligation. Certainly, it fails in terms of any evangelistic effort-- non-believers won’t subject themselves to it! But it also fails in terms of offering a “healthy” alternative, as it is something like the spiritual equivalent to diet pills: they taste bad, and while you will lose weight, you’ll also mess up your system while denying yourself the right enjoyment of creative and well-prepared meals.

In other words, in the search for change through “Christian” music one typically either finds too much change (where the actual inherent quality of the music suffers as a result) or not enough change (where there is too much latent worldliness and unholiness to accomplish the goal of holiness and sanctification). You rarely find a winning combination there.

This is why Michael Horton once said, “When people become Christians, they throw out all of their secular music; when they become [theologically] Reformed, they throw out all of the Christian music!” He affirmed in that statement that the sub-culture approach to music offers little help to the thoughtful, intentional Christian.

But what of the many musicians who are Christians, writing excellent music and lyrics and recording good songs about real life-- but who don’t feel the need to distinguish themselves as overtly “Christian,” either in their identity as musicians or through their musical content? Not that they hide their faith, or put on pretense; rather, their perspective is that if their music is good, they are fulfilling their calling as musicians and as Christians. (Now we’re beginning to dip into the biblical mandate for work and creativity...)

In my next post on this subject, I’ll take that topic up.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Evangelism

One of my former co-workers once said to me, “I don’t get this whole Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.”

I said, “Have you ever read, listened to, or watched his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech?”

“No,” he replied.

That explained it all to me.

This year, MLK Day has peculiar significance, as you know. If YOU don’t “get” it, then let me offer the following as an introduction to what makes it so important.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian Pastor and preacher, and was compelled by the convictions of his faith to speak out against the oppression and racism that was so prevalent in his day, and in many ways remains so in ours (if perhaps more subtly at times). His speech-- almost a sermon-- entitled, “I Have a Dream,” draws on the heritage of our country and what the ideas and principles behind the constitution stand for; more importantly, though, it draws even more heavily on biblical themes, particularly themes of redemption, love, and longing for glory, and is a heralding call to everyone-- ESPECIALLY Christians-- to live out these biblical principles.

In short, King responded to racism, hate, and oppression by calling for MORE Christianity, and a closer adherence to biblical Christianity.

Here is the text of “I Have a Dream”:

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Here is the speech on video:

Tags: Faith & Life, Cultural Discernment, rhetoric, Church Universal, love, community

I’m not usually a “meme” guy-- some blogs I’ve read do a meme or two a week, and I know it can get old for some readers. But this one was appealing, at least because I’m a reader.

The top 106 books most often marked as “unread” by LibraryThing’s users:

Bold the ones you’ve read
star the ones you read for school
italicize the ones you started but didn’t finish
@ the ones you want to read
otherwise comment as desired

Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
Anna Karenina
Crime and Punishment@
Catch-22*
One Hundred Years of Solitude
Wuthering Heights*
The Silmarillion
Life of Pi : a novel
The Name of the Rose@
Don Quixote
Moby Dick
Ulysses* (I’m not sure if this is the Joyce version-- if so, then I did NOT read it)
Madame Bovary
The Odyssey*
Pride and Prejudice
Jane Eyre
The Tale of Two Cities*
The Brothers Karamazov
Guns, Germs, and Steel: the fates of human societies (@?)
War and Peace
Vanity Fair
The Time Traveler’s Wife
The Iliad*
Emma
The Blind Assassin
The Kite Runner@
Mrs. Dalloway
Great Expectations*
American Gods
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius@
Atlas Shrugged
Reading Lolita in Tehran: a memoir in books
Memoirs of a Geisha
Middlesex
Quicksilver
Wicked: the life and times of the wicked witch of the West
The Canterbury Tales*
The Historian : a novel
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
Love in the Time of Cholera
Brave New World@
The Fountainhead
Foucault’s Pendulum
Middlemarch
Frankenstein
The Count of Monte Cristo* (2x)
Dracula
A Clockwork Orange
Anansi Boys
The Once and Future King*
The Grapes of Wrath
The Poisonwood Bible : a novel@
1984*
Angels & Demons
The Inferno@
The Satanic Verses
Sense and Sensibility
The Picture of Dorian Gray
Mansfield Park
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest*
To the Lighthouse
Tess of the D’Urbervilles*
Oliver Twist*
Gulliver’s Travels*
Les Misérables (@?)
The Corrections
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time
Dune
The Prince
The Sound and the Fury*
Angela’s Ashes : a memoir
The God of Small Things
A People’s History of the United States : 1492-present
Cryptonomicon
Neverwhere
A Confederacy of Dunces
A Short History of Nearly Everything
Dubliners*
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Beloved
Slaughterhouse-five@
The Scarlet Letter*
Eats, Shoots & Leaves
The Mists of Avalon
Oryx and Crake : a novel
Collapse : how societies choose to fail or succeed
Cloud Atlas
The Confusion
Lolita
Persuasion
Northanger Abbey
The Catcher in the Rye*@
On the Road
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Freakonomics : a rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: an inquiry into values
The Aeneid*
The Hobbit
In Cold Blood: a true account of a multiple murder and its consequences
White Teeth
Treasure Island* (3x-- plus it makes it into a favorite quote about reading...)
David Copperfield*
The Three Musketeers (2x)

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

(HT: Russell)

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Funny, Evangelism

This just gets worse every year.

Hearing the announcements that some department stores would be opening as early as 4am this morning, Marcie and I shook our heads in awe. What about the poor employees? we thought-- wouldn’t that mean they would be forced to be there earlier, probably 3am? They ought to be paid extra wages for coming in that early, just to serve others’ greed.

Well, the wages of sin (including greed) is death-- and the Valley Stream, NY Wal-Mart can vouch for it. It seems a Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death when the surge of crowds pressing in (having literally broken down the doors) flooded into the store.

No one stopped to help him. No one heeded the other employees who were trying to help him. Their eyes were blinded, hearts hardened, and minds clouded by the lust and greed that drove them in.

In fact, others were injured in the same incident, including an expecting mother. One of the policemen present said, “I’ve heard other people call this an accident, but it’s not. This certainly was foreseeable.”

If I bought the hype that the government holds the answers-- that so much was “at stake” in the election earlier this month that Christians truly had reason to fear-- then I might think, “they ought to pass a law banning this sort of thing.” And maybe they should anyway.

But the answer to this isn’t legislation; friends, the answer is repentance. We need to repent, as a culture and as a nation, for the sins of greed, lust, decadence, and envy. We need to repent of the idolatry of stuff that breeds the phenomenon of “Black Friday.” We need to repent of our desire to get something for nothing-- and for our support of a corporate culture that overcharges so much for goods that they can be discounted so steeply on sale days like this. We need to repent of being able to foresee how our greed and lust could lead to others’ injury, yet doing nothing about it.

And we need to pray for the family of Jdimypai Damour of Queens, NY, as they learn a new meaning to the label “Black Friday”-- that they would be drawn to Christ, that they would know true love and grace in Jesus, that they would forgive us for our sins that led to the apathetic killing of their loved one.

This is not a Wal-Mart problem; this is a society problem. As a part of that society, I am culpable and so are you. God, forgive us.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Sin & Repentance

(HT: Chris)

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Music, Movies

I read some really great stuff in November-- very refreshing, challenging, and re-shaping. Not a lot of books, but quality made up for quantity. Here’s the list:

• Living Streams: Journeys of a Life Well-Lived by Stuart Briscoe. This memoir is from a pastor/preacher I had heard of, heard some lectures by, and even read an article or two he had written, but didn’t know very much about. (I was mostly familiar with him through his wife’s ministry, which publishes the magazine Just Between Us for ministry wives.) I found in him a wonderful and humble man who God has clearly used in mighty ways, telling the story of how God uses His saints. Briscoe began preaching at age 17, and now at 80 has a wealth of wisdom and insight into ministry, which oozes out of every page. (9+)
• The Crucifixion of Ministry by Andrew Purves. A great book on how ministry isn’t all about us. Think of this one as a pastoral theology of sorts, with the brunt of the focus on how the Gospel is primary at all times. There’s some helpful discussion of how this looks, and a healthy dose of rebuke and humility. I needed this book, even though in some ways I didn’t feel ready for this book: there is a base assumption in Purves’ writing that most of us have gone astray in this manner, and I’m not sure I’ve been in ordained pastoral ministry long enough to be as entrenched as he assumes-- but maybe that in itself affirms how much I needed it. (8+)

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment, Pastoral ministry

Many people struggle with weight-- either being overweight (most of us) or, in some cases, being underweight. In some cases (on either end), the struggle is a truly dangerous one.

To combat the problems and struggles of being overweight, our culture offers us a number of “solutions.” (Sadly, our culture doesn’t offer any real help for the struggles of being underweight.) You can take pills that will suppress your appetite. You can have the fat literally sucked out of your body, and even have your digestive system permanently altered so that you are physically unable to eat “too much.” You can buy into a “subscription” diet program where every bit of your diet is prescribed for you. All of these will cause you to lose weight-- and there is nothing inherently wrong about any of them.

But none of them address the real problems of overeating. With some relatively rare exceptions, every chronic overeater does so for the same sets of reasons: as a coping mechanism, because of lack of self-control, out of greed, or even because of boredom. How does a person overcome these?

A friend of a friend asked exactly this question. He had been a collegiate wrestler, and this had completely messed up his metabolism. When he found himself significantly overweight not long after college, he determined to deal with it in a manner that is a consistent outgrowth of his Christianity. He called it “felling the idol.”

Man’s nature, so to speak, is a perpetual factory of idols. ~John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1, ch. 11, sec. 8

The real solution to the problem of overeating is to turn away from the idols in our hearts and find our hope in the Lord. What does that look like for an overeater? Maybe realizing that Christ alone will pacify the sadness and turbulence in her heart. Maybe owning that a biblical view of moderation will make us more satisfied in the long run, not less. Maybe in finding outlets for our boredom in a creative endeavor rather than only in food. Maybe relearning how to eat in moderation, enjoying the delights of food that God made (and that He made good). (As programs go, Weight Watchers does a good job helping with this.) Maybe starting an exercise program that improves your health and complements a healthy and moderate diet.

The bottom line here: Christians must learn to face the sin and fallenness that causes them to overeat and struggle against that-- not simply treat the fruits of that sin and fallenness with solutions that don’t get to the heart of it. What if eating in moderation was your natural inclination, the fruit of the Holy Spirit granting you self-control?

This can only happen if we think and live like disciples, not like food vessels that expand and contract mechanically.

So it goes...
The same is true for other perpetual struggles. For example, over the past 15 years there has been a substantial rise in use of pornography, even among Christians (and the struggle isn’t unique to men, either). One recent statistic suggests that as many as 50% of Christian men and 20% of Christian women are addicted to pornography (comprehensive statistics here.) The rampant availability of pornography on the internet accounts for much of the increase in this problem, while our over-sexualized culture easily accounts for the rest.

So, what is a Christian to do about that? Well, the “stomach-stapling” solution is to simply activate the filters and blockers that are built into many computers, or perhaps subscribe to a similar (but more effective) service that offers the same. And there’s nothing wrong with doing that. But this is treating the symptoms, not the root problem.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ~Matthew 5:27-28

A service like Covenant Eyes is a step or two in the right direction: beyond mere filtering, Covenant Eyes offers internet accountability, where a report of your internet activity is regularly e-mailed to one or more accountability partners, who (one would presume) have agreed to exercise true accountability if they see something amiss. As I said, this IS better-- it puts in place a system and structure that allows real growth and healing through accountability.

Even better (perhaps in addition to using something like Covenant Eyes) is to get deeper. God has created sex (and sexuality), and He made it good and pleasurable. He also designed it for certain contexts and relationships. A biblical treatment of the problem behind pornography (and addiction to it) is to face the sin of addiction, the struggle of lust, the indignity of objectifying others, and the neglect of God’s beautiful and perfect design. We must fell these idols in order to truly deal with a struggle with pornography.

Christians can do this-- it isn’t impossible to overcome addiction or a struggle with pornography. Resources like New Man magazine and Mark Driscoll’s e-book Porn-Again Christian are good places to start. The church can help, too, by making it safe to discuss this struggle (and other “taboo” topics) honestly and without fear of judgment or ill-treatment. What if desire and lust were checked quickly, and dignity and God-honoring treatment of others instinctively came to mind, as the fruit of Christ at work in you to restore a righteous view of people and relationships?

This can only happen if we learn to live like disciples instead of amoral, sexually perverse creatures.

Broadening the application...
So, if we deal with overeating only by treating the symptom through stapling our stomachs or denying ourselves food, we’ve missed the point. Likewise, if we deal with a struggle with pornography only by cutting off our connection to it, we haven’t truly dealt with the sinful lust in our hearts.

I would argue that we would do the same by making the outlaw of abortion our sole approach to dealing with the sin of abortion.

Make no mistake: I believe that abortion is a sin. I am appalled by the statistics related to legal abortions in the United States, and long to see it eradicated as a practice. I believe that, as a nation and a culture, we all have blood on our hands and ought to be regularly on our knees in repentance.

But if our agenda for dealing with the sin of abortion is simply to make it illegal, we’ve ignored the sin behind abortion. In short, we’ve become Pharisees-- who were utterly concerned with the appearance of righteousness, but inwardly were indifferent.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. ~Matthew 23:23

What about the sin of immorality that led to many of the pregnancies that were aborted? What of the sins of selfishness and lazyness that drove some to abort because a pregnancy-- let alone a baby-- would be too much of an inconvenience? What about the sin of those around an aborting mother, who allowed or even drove her to believe that abortion was her best option? What about the sin of a culture that leaves so many children languishing in foster care and orphanages because we won’t step up to adopt? What about the sin of a world that tolerates a highly-sexualized culture-- even participates in and encourages it-- that persuades children to take sexual relations so casually?

There is great sin involved in abortion. Be assured of this: if we do not attend to the litany of sins wrapped up in abortion, we will not reduce abortion substantially simply by making it illegal. Abortion wasn’t invented in 1973, and it wouldn’t be eliminated by the passing of legislation.

But if we fell the idols of abortion, we create an environment where abortion is reduced or even eliminated because it isn’t necessary. Women and men alike take sexuality seriously enough to not engage in it lightly, and they take responsibility for their actions if she does get pregnant by not aborting (and by giving the child up for adoption if they cannot properly care for him or her). The culture around them supports this out of an inherent value of all life, and few children who need adopting aren’t adopted, few mothers who need spiritual, social, and financial support lack it. No one who faces the struggle of being pregnant at a young age or out of wedlock becomes a pariah, because all acknowledge that their sins are just as severe-- and yet neither do they go without loving accountability.

What if abortion was essentially eliminated from our culture because there was no need for it?

It can happen if we learn to think and act like disciples, rather than political activist culture warriors.

Tags: love, community, Politics, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Health, worship

More and more U.S. citizens are owning up to the fact that fuel-inefficient vehicles are a bad idea. Some have long maintained that they are poor stewardship, and as gas prices have climbed (and even as they have settled back down, a little) many others have joined that position.

Thus, I offer the following modest proposal to solve several problems at once:

An annual federal property tax should be assessed on vehicles that fit criteria deeming them fuel-inefficient.

Here’s how it would work:

• All vehicles would immediately be subject to the tax. (Any vehicle may qualify for exemption based on a set of criteria-- see below.)
• Any vehicle with a fuel efficiency rating of 20 MPG or higher* would automatically be exempt. This rating would increase on a regular basis (more on this in a bit).
• Any vehicle that is registered as an antique would automatically be exempt.
• Any driver may also qualify for exemption of one or more vehicles, as long as he/she can demonstrate that circumstance require them to drive that vehicle (more on this in a bit).
• Any driver may also qualify for exemption of one or more vehicles, as long as he/she can demonstrate that the vehicle was used for carpooling to work for a certain percentage of the mileage driven.

So, for example, a farmer, general contractor, or other laborer who uses a pickup truck for his daily work would qualify for exemption and would pay no tax. A family with more than two children that owns a minivan would qualify for exemption and would pay no tax. A working musician whose performances require him/her to carry gear in a full-sized van would qualify for exemption and would pay no tax. And if any of these can demonstrate that multiple such vehicles all fit the exemption qualifications (a farmer with more than one working truck on his farm, for example), all would be exempt. Commercial vehicles would automatically be exempt.

Furthermore, any individual or family who preferred a larger vehicle such as an SUV or a pickup truck would be free to own one, or as many as they would like-- they would simply have to pay a tax for it. Those who want them for recreational purposes would likewise be free to have as many as they want, provided they pay the taxes. (The exception of cars and trucks registered as antiques is not a threat to the integrity of the concept, since such registration includes a mandated limit on mileage driven per year.)

The tax would need to be a high enough rate-- $200 or $250 annually, perhaps-- that would deter folks from casually or thoughtlessly buying a gas-guzzler. Every year, the MPG rate should increase by a mile or two, to “encourage” the auto makers to improve on the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.

The proceeds from this tax should be split three ways:

• Up to ⅓ would fund an annual tax credit for drivers of high-MPG vehicles such as scooters, hybrids, and electric cars (50 MPG or more). The remaining amount would be divided evenly between the other two efforts:

• • ½ would subsidize gas costs to keep prices affordable, so that the economy isn’t affected so drastically as it was over the past year.
• • ½ would support government-funded research into alternative fuels and renewable energy sources.

If the tax was set at $250 annually, and in the first year only 20% of vehicles were not exempt, this would generate more than $12.5 billion of tax revenue in the first year. If the high-MPG tax credit was $500 per year, this would only require $1.8 billion, leaving more than $10 billion to lower gas prices and develop better energy and fuel sources.

It might not be a perfect system, but I think it would be a good move.




*The average Miles per Gallon (MPG) of passenger cars in 2006 was 22.4, while “other 4-wheeled vehicles” averaged 18.0 that year. Since that was two years ago and the average, it is safe to assume that most cars and even trucks would qualify for this exemption initially.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Politics

I’ve heard or read a number of people who are simply mystified by the relatively large “undecided” category of voters in this election. Beyond mystified, actually-- many of them scoff at the idea of being undecided at this point.

My guess is that the race won’t be quite as close as the “undecided” numbers suggest-- in other words, we’re not in for another 2000 marathon, I’m betting. (And for what it’s worth, a full 20% of voters were undecided as late as September 2000.)

Most of the scoffers are either single-issue voters, straight-ticket devotees, or those who love to believe the spin, rumors, and lies. Anytime I hear, “he [or she] scares me” I realize I’m dealing with a scoffer-- and probably one who has put political movement (above all else, including God’s sovereignty) forth as the hope for our future security and happiness.

The real surprise (though most of the scoffers don’t think of it in this way) is how many voters are undecided because they are finding their normal categories for decision-making challenged or even turned upside-down. But considering these gives answer to the question, “why still undecided?” Here’s a glimpse of what I mean:

• Categories of faith: this could be seen as a “neither,” “both,” or “really? him?” category. Senator Obama is a professing believer, and has spoken openly about his Christian faith. Senator McCain is, at best, tight-lipped about whatever faith he professes (some will say that his choice of Governor Palin was a direct appeal to the faith-based vote). Even if you doubt the sincerity of Senator Obama’s profession-- or worse, believe the misinformation about him being an alleged closet-Muslim-- that, at best, makes him and Senator McCain even on what is typically a category where the Republican candidate has strength. (As an aside: I think President George W. Bush has done a lot to erode this as a Republican stronghold. While I don’t doubt his faith, he has been inconsistent, at best, in applying his faith to the decisions he has made.)
• Categories of role: I think almost everyone has assumed that the first woman elected to be president or vice-president would be a political liberal-- thus, most Christians were comfortable that they could oppose the politics behind the leader, and not have to speak to the gender or role issues. Governor Palin turned that on its head, stepping forth as a professing evangelical Christian AND a Feminist (she’s a member of Feminists for Life) and breaking all of the stereotypes. Now Christians are forced to decide: do they really oppose Feminism? Do they inherently oppose a woman in leadership? Can they be consistent in voting for a ticket that could put a woman in the Oval Office, while still maintaining that she mustn’t hold an ecclesiastical office? There are no easy answers here, but I think most Christians who hold a complementarian view about women’s roles recognize that they have a difficult decision in supporting the McCain/Palin ticket.
• Categories of ability: There’s no doubt that Senator McCain has more experience and preparation to serve as president, by far: distinguished military service, multiple decades in national politics, and broad and deep familiarity with foreign policy (and the people involved) add up to an impressive resumé, and Senator Obama cannot hope to compete at this level. However, Senator McCain faces an obstacle of inability that his experience has no sway over: perception, both domestically and internationally. Given that the perception of Senator McCain is that he would essentially represent a continuation of current policies-- which have been increasingly unpopular-- he is facing something of a lame-duck posture, whether he is actually that close to President Bush’s policies or not. On the other hand, Senator Obama is seen worldwide (and, for the most part, within the U.S.) as a break from status quo and a pursuit of true change. Couple that with Senator Obama’s support with congress, which will probably increase in number of Democrats, and whatever ability Senator McCain has is balanced out.
• Categories of issue: Yes, some of the single-issue topics polarize the candidates. On abortion, for example, there is little doubt that Senator Obama supports legislation that protects abortion rights, while Senator McCain is a strong opponent of abortion (and its legalization). On other issues, however, what should be important to Christians is not necessarily a shared priority with Senator McCain. Education and poverty, for example, don’t really rank as significant issues with Senator McCain, but Senator Obama has highlighted both as areas of priority. Even on the abortion issue, Senator McCain’s lack of substance on poverty undercuts the viability of any progress there, since a decrease in abortion will certainly amount to an increase in social need. Isolating the issues doesn’t help the voter understand which candidate is a better one. The media hasn’t helped, with some painting Obama as a socialist (he’s not), while others declare McCain as a warmonger (he’s not).
• Categories of tradition: Some voters are beginning to question the assumption that the “right candidate” will automatically equal the advancement of their political agenda. After 20 years of Pro-Life presidents in the White House, the legality and restriction of abortion is roughly the same as it was 30 years ago. With health care taking a prominent place in the election process for the past 20 years, the reforms that have been advanced by subsequent presidents have not made much headway in improving care or making it more affordable. Many of the undecided voters seem to be favorable to looking past these sorts of issues (what have been “traditional” deciding points for elections) and at other factors.
• No “good” candidates: More than anything I’ve heard this season, the comment I’ve gotten the most is, “I’ll have to pick the lesser of two evils.” This seems utterly unsatisfactory when it comes to how we pick our next president. My sense from the undecideds I’ve talked to is that their consciences are heavy about this attitude, and they have been holding out for further input that might shape the idea of “good” or “bad” perceptions of the candidates-- or inwardly debating a write-in.

Given these points, I don’t have difficulty understanding the undecided voter’s ambivalence. What about you-- do you have any thoughts about it?

Tags: Faith & Life, Politics, Cultural Discernment

I have to confess, I was skeptical from the outset of the new Waterbrook Press title How Would Jesus Vote? by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe. In my view, this could have (and maybe should have) been the shortest book Waterbrook has ever published, with a single page declaring, “He wouldn’t.” And I feared that this would be one more piece of Christianized political propaganda in a time when the church really needs solid, biblical wisdom.

Was I right? Yes and no-- but, sadly, mostly yes.

The book is divided into three sections-- Jesus and Politics, The Issues, and Final Thoughts. The first section is very good, with good rationale for why a Christian ought to be concerned with the political process, a check on the notion that all of the answers are found in political solutions, and an encouragement toward a well-considered “World and Life View.” Though Kennedy’s political views are present in the three opening chapters, it isn’t offensively present. I found my skepticism being challenged, and I began to have hope that this book may be exactly the resource the church needs.

Let me take a moment to say what I mean by “offensive” in this context. Everyone has political opinions, even if their opinions are simply, “I don’t care.” But when someone who is influential in a non-political arena-- such as the church or an educational context-- utilizes their position to advance their personal political preferences and opinions, they are abusing their position and deceiving those under their leadership. I find this offensive, especially in the case of a pastor or other church leader.

Which leads me to the second section, The Issues. There are 10 important and considerable issues discussed here, and in spite of my initial skepticism I had hopes that Dr. Kennedy would handle them fairly and biblically, based on the general appreciation I had for the first section.

I was wrong. In almost every case, Dr. Kennedy presents only scant biblical support for the views and opinions he proffers in The Issues. Instead, he puts forth his opinions and biases, sometimes with Scriptural support and sometimes without much biblical input at all. Worst of all, he concludes each chapter in the section with a “How would Jesus Vote?” summary of his opinions.

Take the environment as an example. Are there biblical texts that speak to the environment and the Christian’s view of it? Absolutely. Can a believer extract a balanced understanding of how he or she ought to view matters (especially political matters) of environmental conscience? I think so. Does Dr. Kennedy expose us to these texts, and explain how we might derive a biblical worldview about the environment? No-- what he offers amounts to an attack on the current positions of the political liberals, especially the Democratic party, and pronounces arguments and evidence against them that is little different from any other Republican attack. There is little biblical support, and no consideration for a number of biblical texts that speak to the issue.

By and large, that is the case for all of the issues. In some of them, Dr. Kennedy does better, in others worse, with drawing out a full sense of the biblical position on a topic. The chief exception for that is the issue of immigration, where Dr. Kennedy actually does a very good job of working through the biblical words on the issue, and a good job of applying them (in general terms) to our context.

Other than that, though, much of what counts for biblical support is often Dr. Kennedy declaring his opinion, then searching for a proof-text to back it up. I cannot recommend the second section at all, and would urge readers to simply skip over it.

The closing section is something of a mixture of the other two, in terms of approach. The content in the final section is hit-or-miss, but largely it is acceptably good. I do appreciate the general tenor of it, proclaiming that there is something more important than politics.

Dr. D. James Kennedy is a dyed-in-the-wool, straight-ticket Republican. There is no denying that having read this book, and there’s nothing wrong with that, either-- he certainly has the right to hold whatever political convictions are his. But in How Would Jesus Vote? he draws a direct equation between his Republican positions and biblical Christianity. And there IS something wrong with that.

There is no doubt that a book that looks at each of the issues from a strictly biblical perspective is a needed tool and guide for Christians today. Make no mistake, though: How Would Jesus Vote? isn’t it. Such a book would need to at least straddle the various parties and where they are closer to a biblical perspective, or at best transcend the parties and consider only the biblical views-- NOT baptize a particular party’s platform under the auspices of biblical support.

I rate this book as a whole as a 5. (If Waterbrook were to cut out the middle section and just publish the first and last sections as a book (about 88 pages), I would probably rate it as an 8.)

Tags: reading, Faith & Life, Politics, Cultural Discernment

I read a lot of blogs. Some of you know this, and have asked about it-- specifically, why do I read so many blogs, and what sort of blogs do I read?

First, the “why”-- I consider most of my blog-reading to fit into the category of “personal development,” in the same way that someone might read a newspaper or a trade journal. Maybe a dozen of the blogs I read are written by friends and strictly for the purpose of keeping me informed of their lives. The rest are related to something I am or that I do: ministry, writing, technology, productivity... plus a small handful of news blogs and feeds. This post is a perfect example of why I read blogs.

Now, a few more words about what sort of blogs I read. Here are some key factors for deciding whether I’ll continue to read a blog or feed:

• Teach me something frequently. A lot of the blogs that have earned a longstanding, permanent place in my feed reader* are there because they regularly give me something to chew on-- even if it’s “just” a quote or a short snippet of an idea. If you want me to look forward to seeing a new post from you, give me something to think about.
• Write with humility. Help me see that you don’t think you have the final word on a topic, unless it is your own opinion-- and in that case, help me see that you don’t think that yours is the only opinion that matters.

As importantly, here are some things that almost guarantee that I’ll drop your blog from my reader:

• Spending all of your energy selling me something. I won’t deny any blogger the right to make some money from their blogs, but don’t make it all about that. Just yesterday, I removed a feed because every post was centered around a book that was linked to (through an Amazon affiliate link) and the gist of each post was, “to REALLY learn about this, buy this book...”
• Toot your own horn often. It’s great to hear about something you’ve done that is praiseworthy. If more than half of the posts in a given week or month are all about your accomplishments (especially if they read like, “let me tell you about the great thing I just did...”), you can bet I’ll stop reading soon.
• Focus often on a topic that isn’t germane to your blog. It’s one thing to offer an occasional comment or idea about something that is apparently outside your normal field of topics; it’s another to spend a lot of time (yours and mine) on it, especially with a tone or voice that suggests that I should take your word as more than just another opinion. During election season, I dropped a couple of blogs from my feed-- one from a popular Reformed writer, and another that is supposed to be a news source for our denomination-- because both spent at least every other post hawking the editors’ personal political views.
• Put yourself forward as the watchdog for a particular group or cause. Someone recently said, “commentary is, sadly, always a few notches below creativity.” One thing I’ve come to despise is the set of blogs from folks who spend most of their time pointing out where everyone else is wrong. I tried reading some of the blogs that offer frequent discussion about matters in the PCA, but I just couldn’t stomach it.
• Write with no concern whatsoever for grammar or style. There are a few blogs that I would read regularly, if only the writers would use decent punctuation, capitalize properly, and break their text up in to paragraphs. As much time as I spend staring at a computer screen, if my browser is suddenly full of text that looks like an unbroken string of characters from top to bottom, my eyes glass over and everything goes fuzzy.

So, for whatever it’s worth, thats a quick summary of why I read blogs, and what sorts of blogs I read (and what sorts I don’t).



*I use a piece of software called a “newsfeed reader” that handles all of my blogs and other feeds. The one I use is called NetNewsWire. I only read blogs that offer an RSS feed (or something like it, that my reader can use)-- these notify me of new content and automatically summarize it for me. If a blog doesn’t offer a feed, I won’t read it with any regularity.

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment, love, community

With the twins being born, I didn’t get as much reading done this month as I would have liked. Nevertheless, here’s my list for October:

• Churched by Matthew Paul Turner. I’ve already reviewed this book here. (9+)
• Preaching to a Post-Everything World by Zack Eswine. Nevermind that Zack is a friend and a former professor of mine; this was one of the best books I’ve read in a long time. It was like a post-graduate course in homiletics (the study of preaching), and a much-needed and appreciated re-charge of my vision for my own preaching. Zack picks up where Bryan Chapell’s Christ-Centered Preaching leaves off and runs many miles further down that road. My one regret of reading this book is that I was only able to absorb about 10-15% of it, which means I need to re-read it every 6-12 months for the next several years. If you’re a preacher or teacher, this should go to the top of your must-read list. (10)
• How Would Jesus Vote? by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe. I’ve reviewed this one already, too. (5)

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

Waterbrook Press sent me a copy of Churched by Matthew Paul Turner to review, as well as two copies to give away! (More on that in a moment...)

In Churched, Turner reflects on his childhood memories of growing up in the local “fundamental Baptist” church. We’re given a child’s view (and an insider’s look) at how a Baptist church in the 70s and 80s looked and felt. I won’t say that this is how ALL Baptist churches looked then (or today), but obviously at least one did... and I’ve seen a couple that could fit the bill here, too.

What’s so great about Turner’s portrayal is funny, and delights in the irony and awkwardness of these situations, yet it is also humble and stops short of bashing or attack. Turner does a good job of making this as much about him and his family-- and their understandings (and misunderstandings) about faith and practice-- as it is about the church and its teachings.

Nevertheless, Churched is funny, and it does expose some of the aspects of the Christian sub-culture that are at least embarrassing, if not shameful. There are other books that take more in-depth and pointed shots at this; Dave Burchett’s When Bad Christians Happen to Good People (also published by Waterbrook) comes to mind. Turner’s book is different in two ways: it is more personal, coming across as more of a memoir than just an idea book; and it refrains from an attack position, instead merely pointing out observations.

The critique aspect can still be found, because Turner is a great writer who communicates the damage and problems of a fundamentalist and sub-culture mindset through his personal story. In his wrap-up chapter, Turner gets a little bit closer to the critique, but even here it is more inwardly-focused, almost self-effacing. His insights-- in the closing chapter and throughout the book-- offer me, as a pastor, a helpful perspective. Maybe the most stinging words came in this paragraph (in the final chapter):

Even though I’m in my midthirties, I still struggle with being alone with a pastor. Furthermore, and more detrimental to my spiritual health, I also have a hard time trusting pastors. Whenever I find myself in the presence of one of God’s official spokespeople, part of me clams up with fear. It didn’t matter that Pete and I were the same age or that he looked like Ryan Seacrest. I still felt fear.

Which simultaneously makes me want to invite Turner to my church, and afraid of whether I give off the same impressions of the pastors of his past and present. Probably, both of these are good instincts for a pastor to have. Thanks, Matthew.

(My rating: 9+)

I’ll post an announcement about my give-away copies next week. Stay tuned-- you’ll want to read this one.

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life

Carl Trueman, Chair of the department of Church History at Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia), has offered one of the most insightful and relevant reflections on the current economic and political crises that I’ve encountered.

I’ve cherry-picked a few of the choicer quotes below, but the entire essay is, I think, a must-read.

Regarding our current election, Trueman says:

Despite the Manichean, apocalyptic rhetoric that you get from both sides, the current American election is, indeed, an election about almost nothing, given that, if past records are anything to go by, a victorious Republican will likely be as socially liberal in practice as a Democrat, and a victorious Democrat as fiscally prudent (or not) as a Republican.

On who bears the responsibility for the economic collapse:

When we look at the crisis in the markets and try to play the blame-game, then we should avoid reducing the problem to one individual or even to groups. Cries of `It's the President', `It's Congress', `It's the Democrats', `It's the Republicans' and `It's the banks' all have a certain appeal. After all, it's always good to blame `them' rather than 'us.'

Why the markets didn’t self-correct:

Market forces are ultimately functions of human behaviour, albeit on a macro-level; and human beings, being as depraved and as blinded as they are, generate market forces which reflect that depravity.

How Christians should respond:

How should Christians respond to all this? I want to sow three thoughts in your minds. First, realize that, while free markets might be the best way of organizing economies at the moment, they are simply the best of a bad lot.

Read the entire essay here.

Tags: Faith & Life, Politics, Sin & Repentance, Cultural Discernment

I like books-- especially free ones. And I really like author Thom Rainer, and his son Sam.

That’s why I was excited to see this: their book Essential Church? is available for free as a downloadable e-book (PDF format). Only until Monday. Get it here.

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

Waterbrook Press once again sent me a book to review: this time, it was The Encore Effect: How to Achieve Remarkable Performance in Anything You Do by Mark Sanborn. (I was actually supposed to blog this review by last week, but I hope they’ll forgive me of it.)

There’s no doubt that Mark Sanborn is an effective communicator. A motivational speaker and a Christian, Sanborn has built his business and reputation offering wholesome leadership and personal achievement advice, peppered with biblical truth and spiritual reflections. The Encore Effect follows this model exactly.

There is a lot of good advice in this book, and a lot of good examples of how to put the advice into practice, whether personal stories from Sanborn’s life, accounts of others historical or contemporary, or analogies. Following something of a modern-day Norman Vincent Peale approach, Sanborn offers a classic take on life: “you can do it! Here’s how to focus your time, energy, and attention.”

Therefore, someone who is doubting their capacity for living a full life might find this book a great encouragement. Others, needing a few nudges in the direction of the pursuit of excellence, may also profit from a quick read. (The book isn’t long, and it reads fast-- I found it no trouble to put away 40-50 pages in a matter of 15 minutes or so.)

But here’s my concern, both for Sanborn and for Waterbrook: the book is published by a Christian publisher, and I suppose that Sanborn may present himself as a Christian author (though his website doesn’t make any specific mention of his faith). But the book doesn’t do great justice to the connection to biblical faith-- and in some ways, it does harm to it.

Each chapter ends with a section called “Intersection,” typically containing a quote of a Bible verse and a brief reflection about how Sanborn sees that verse applying to the content of the chapter. But there are two problems with this: first of all, these verses were frequently taken out of context, and Sanborn’s reflections further distanced the verses from their biblical meaning. It is a too-frequent commitment of a common mistake: having an idea, then finding a verse that appears to have some sort of connection to that idea, and claiming the verse is then a support for the idea. Sanborn’s ideas aren’t bad ones-- they may be a bit saccharine, but they aren’t bad-- but his claim of their support from Scripture IS bad.

Secondly, and on a larger level: the whole “intersection” idea bugs me. Too often, Christians relegate their faith to a compartmentalized, segmented aspect of their lives. The idea I get from Sanborn’s “intersections” is that he views faith this way, too: live your life-- you can be remarkable!-- and every now and then, what you do and who you are will intersect with biblical Christianity. The fact that Sanborn almost never incorporates Scripture or even people or events from Christendom in the rest of the book underscores this; he quotes from secular philosophers and even leaders of other religions more than Christian folk in the main body of the chapters. I’m making some judgements here about Sanborn’s views on faith that may be unfair, but they are based on the portrayal he has put before me.

The net effect is like trying to straddle the two worlds, and it doesn’t really work: taking something popular among the unbelieving world, frosting it with a bit o’ Christianeze, then re-presenting it as something new and better. This is the model that most Christian popular music applies, and the results are little-satisfying to either side. Or perhaps it is like co-opting “Free Ride” or the chorus from “Peaceful, Easy Feeling” to be used as praise songs; it just doesn’t really fit.

Overall, The Encore Effect isn’t a bad book; like so many other self-help and motivational books, it offers some nuggets of truth. It would have been a much better book had Sanborn resisted the temptation to spiritualize it and present it as something that is Christian in nature.

My rating: 6-

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

• Beyond Bells and Smells by Mark Galli. I was surprised by this book, as I had thought (and hoped) it to be something that would introduce the reader to the spiritual foundations of the liturgy, explaining the elements, etc. It wasn’t that, or anything like it, though I wasn’t disappointed with it overall. It is more a collection of essays on the spiritual impact and importance of liturgical worship, offering something more like a devotional approach to liturgy rather than an analysis of it. (8)
• The Power of Speaking God’s Word: How to Preach Memorable Sermons by Wilbur Ellsworth (re-read). This book is very good, offering a perspective on preaching and the preparation for preaching that is different and fresh. Beginning with the premise question of “what makes a sermon memorable?” Ellsworth quickly moves in the direction of an increased oral approach to preparing and delivering sermons, instead of the more common written/literary approach. Great words on the “what” and “why” of orality, but lacking a bit on the “how” aspect-- a factor that I find myself both disappointed with (who doesn’t like “method” and concrete advice on something like this?) and grateful for (because the approach I’ve developed is fairly different from his, and I like the freedom to do it my way). (8+)
• A Mile in My Shoes: Cultivating Compassion by Trevor Hudson. Hudson, it turns out, is one of the original “Christ-Followers”-- those who have eschewed the term “Christian” as being over-used and lacking the oomph they want in a label. If that suggests something about the ethos of this book, then you’re probably right on. Hudson’s contribution here is one part helpful reflection on the need for deeper compassion in a Christian’s (oops-- I mean Christ-Follower’s) life, a la Henri Nouwen; and three parts method for how to do what Hudson did. In all, sadly, the book amounts to only a little more than a planning resource for a Hudson-style spiritual exercise-- which is really a shame, since had the ratio been reversed it really could have been something. I give it slightly higher marks only because the gold to be mined within the method is good stuff, and maybe worth the work. (8)
• Calls to Worship: a pocket resource by Robert Vasholz. Following his pocket guide to Benedictions, Vasholz has produced another very helpful book for pastors and worship leaders, opening the door to fresh material that is too easily overlooked. A useful addition, this time, is to break them down into sections-- Vasholz offers the following sets of calls to worship: for special occasions including the Church calendar (42), responsive readings (36), and those to be read by Pastors only (39). A great resource. (9+)
• The Encore Effect: How to Achieve Remarkable Performance in Anything You Do by Mark Sanborn. I’ve already reviewed this one elsewhere. (6-)

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

I don’t think so.

So why is he a judge?

(HT: Leslie)

Tags: Funny, Cultural Discernment, Music, Media

Banner of Truth asked me to write a more detailed review of this book, so I’m posting it here.

Publisher: Banner of Truth Trust
Publication Date: 2008
Rating (1-10 scale): 7+

Anytime I hear the term "liberal" these days, I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand, the word can mean a number of things that are threatening to orthodoxy, or it can mean some things that are actually very good. On the other hand, I wonder if the term has served its purpose, and no longer is the broad-sweeping inclusive category that it once was. So when I received my copy of A Handful of Pebbles and saw that it was subtitled, "theological liberalism and the church," I wondered which of these it would be.

Fortunately, author Peter Barnes is quick to define what he means by liberalism, even granting that it can sometimes have good associations-- yet qualifying how the liberalism he intends is that which is a threat and challenge to biblical orthodoxy. What follows is Barnes's summary of what liberalism is, how it came to find its way into the church, and how an orthodox Christian ought to respond.

This small book offers a brief history of the rise of liberalism in the church, and it does a fair job of that. The first half could be an outline to a historical theology class, if that class focused exclusively on the rise of heresy and philosophical departure from orthodoxy. I appreciated some of the discussion about key doctrines, especially, and thought the content in the couple of chapters given to the problem of "what do we do about it?" were helpful, at least in a limited way, to give the reader some idea about why theological liberalism is at odds with orthodox Christian beliefs.

However, at the end I was left with a nagging question about who the intended audience for the book is. If it is for pastors or professors, it is far too thin on history and foundations to be of great use; It clearly is not intended as an academic reference. If, on the other hand, it is intended as an apologetic for liberal thinkers, it is likely too thin on refutation and discussion of problems; only the most willing and self-skeptical liberal would be convinced by this little tome.

The best audience I can think of for this book is the average church member in an evangelical church, who is himself/herself already committed to orthodoxy; for this person, it would be a good introduction to the indicators of liberal theology and their problems. I could see it being especially useful to put in the hands of a "liberal church refugee," stepping into an orthodox church after years of having the edge taken off of his or her beliefs. Or perhaps it might be a good tool for church officers, who may at times encounter mild or vague questions along the lines of what this book answers.

At times the tone of the book is a bit too defensive or even aggressive. While this may be justifiable given the subject matter, it undermines the brief urging at one point of approaching those in error with love and forbearance. I would have liked a bit more gracious attitude in a book like this.

Overall, I appreciated A Handful of Pebbles, even if I felt it was appropriate for only a limited audience.

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment, theology

An interesting discussion on counseling and medication over at another blog raised a good point that I’ve often found is a stumbling block to Christians. David Powlison, quoting the Director of the National Institute on Mental Health, said:

Psychiatric medications can sometimes take the edge off symptoms, but they can't give people what they really need. People need meaning and relationships. Psychiatry can't give that. Medication can't give that.

This is something that is apparently difficult to understand for those who have not had immediate contact with the effects of this kind of medication (known as “psychotropic” medication).

I once had a student whose comment revealed that even those who HAVE had contact sometimes misunderstand. She said in an off-hand manner, “I’ve taken anti-depressants. They make you happy!”

The truth is, they don’t. They might help you to be normal (in a chemical sense), but they don’t make you “happy.” My concern deepened as I counseled this student about this, because she had faced mild-to-moderate depression for so long that she had come to assume that her depressed state was “normal”-- thus, having that edge of depression taken off was “happy” feeling to her.

Here’s my best analogy of what psychotropic drugs offer: Suppose you love running, and have your heart dead-set on running a marathon in a year. In preparation for a training regimen, you visit your doctor, who informs you that the slight pain in your knee is actually a problem that needs to be addressed surgically; in short, if you don’t have your knee scoped, you won’t be able to train for the marathon, let alone complete it.

Here’s the analogy: if you have your knee scoped, is that going to make you ready for the marathon? No. You’ll still have a lot of work to do to condition your body (and your mind) for running the marathon. But if you don’t have your knee scoped, you are guaranteed that you won’t be able to run the marathon.

So it is with psychotropic medication: they won’t overcome your depression for you, but they might address the physical/physiological obstacles that would keep you from being able to do the work of overcoming depression. (Likewise with anxiety and other clinical mental health issues.)

Tags: Science & Technology, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Grace, Grief

The title came from a description that a pastor gave about what his church was doing by offering refuge to folks fleeing the path of Hurricane Gustav. This ironic statement echoes exactly what my friend Craig and I recently dialogued about on his blog. What’s wrong with this picture?

This quote demonstrates how thoroughly the ideas of “postmodernism” have influenced even the church. Without getting deeply into all of the aspects of postmodern philosophy, one thing that is notable is how the shifts in philosophy have led to consequent shifts in the seat of authority-- when, by “authority,” I mean the arbiter of truth, stability, and purpose. Follow with me:

Whether he realizes it or not, this pastor (quoted above) has clearly become convinced of the Post-Modern position, at least as far as whose role and duty it is to care for those in need. Historically, the Church has been the default institution that would be assumed to be charged with caring for the needy. In that sense, it would be just the opposite: the governmental services would be filling the gap the Church left.

How is that our mindset? Do we recognize that the Church’s job-- not the government’s-- is to attend to the needs of those in need? Do we understand the implications of this for the way that we vote or take up political activity? When we believe that the fundamental and primary solutions to our social and community problems is to vote the “right” person into office, have we sold out our biblical view of the church for a Postmodern illusion of solutions?

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Philosophy, Church Universal

I was invited by Thomas Nelson publishers to review one of their new titles, The Faith of Barack Obama by Stephen Mansfield. This is one of a small handful of books that are hitting the stores as the Democratic Presidential Nominee gains more attention in the U.S. and the world. Mansfield, who in 2004 wrote the similarly-eloquent title, The Faith of George W. Bush, brought the same approach to this look at Senator Obama’s life of faith.

You can’t consider a man’s story of faith without considering the story of his life, and Mansfield offers a brief but sufficient overview of Barack Obama’s family, childhood, early adult life, and entrance into the political realm. Senator Obama’s life story is rich and amazing in itself; through Mansfield’s pen it is a delight to read.

From there, the author presents us with Obama’s re-introduction to Christianity-- a more personal one than the senator had encountered before. We also get a closer look at Trinity Church of Christ of Chicago and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, both of which were instrumental in Obama’s spiritual awakening, as well as Rev. Wright’s version of Black Liberation Theology, which was less a part of Obama’s journey. And we are offered a brief contrast of Obama’s faith story with those of Senator John McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton, and President George W. Bush.

As a book, I appreciated Mansfield’s insight and perspective very much. He was light-handed with his own interpretation, instead relying on extensive interviews and quotes to tell the stories of Senator Obama’s life and faith for him. He was also mercifully light on political material or analysis, though at times (especially in later chapters) it emerged more explicitly, though not in a dogmatic way. Due to the timing of the book, I found some parts of it already felt a bit dated-- especially a couple of references to the likelihood that Obama would lose in the primaries-- but overall this aspect was masked fairly well.

As a message-- and every book has a message-- I appreciated Mansfield’s perspective, though less so. As I’ve mentioned before, I accept Barack Obama’s profession of faith as credible, and find it frustrating when people assume otherwise simply because of his name or his background. Mansfield does a fine job of addressing this, and perhaps that was a major goal for his writing; his style and approach is a positive one, focusing more on affirmation than exposé. But I felt that the questions that needed to be answered in a book like this went unaddressed, such as how much or how little Senator Obama embraces the prominent Black Liberation Theology of his (now former) pastor and church, or how he reconciles some of his more extreme views with his professed faith and trust in the Bible. As such, the book felt just a little unfinished-- as if the rush to press meant that the time ran out for the interviews that would answer these and other questions.

Still, the country and the church-- especially the evangelical right-wing-- need this book, and others like it, to help us understand our brothers and sisters of the evangelical left. Overall, I’ll rank this book at 8+.

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

There is an interesting overture before the legislature of Arkansas that, if it succeeds, would put a bill before the state that would outlaw adoption and foster care by unmarried people who live together.

I find it interesting because it is addressing the very problem that, I believe, ended the current debate about same-sex marriage before it started: when we (and by that I mean the “royal we”-- the culture of our nation) granted same-sex couples the right to foster and adopt orphans, we tacitly allowed them to also define themselves as a family. How, then, could we possibly deny them other similar legal rights as a family?

So the people of Arkansas have realized that-- or at least they have recognized that granting same-sex couples (and other unmarried couples as well) the right to adopt, they put the “traditional” understanding of family under threat. This is a pretty bold move, given the widespread acceptance of divorce and even co-habitation in our society.

At the same time, I have to say I’m sympathetic to the response from the “other side”-- in this case, including the social workers and others who want to see the huge numbers of orphans placed with families that can care for them better than the state. Is it not the case that ANY willing parent-- single, unmarried, homosexual-- who will offer love and care for a child is better than none, leaving children in state care?

And this is where the rubber meets the road: if the church dares to demand that such measures be taken (i.e., stripping same-sex couples of the possibility of adoption), we must step up to improve our participation in adoption and foster care ourselves. We are biblically mandated to do so (James 1:27) if we claim to take the practice of our faith seriously. How can we say that unmarried couples must not be allowed to adopt, when they are willing to do what we are not?

Tags: Faith & Life, family life, Cultural Discernment, Politics, Orphans & Widows

A friend of mine recently posted a series of notes on his social network discussing his concern for the fact that our national motto, “In God We Trust,” is being moved from the face of coins (as is common today) to the sides, or edges, of coins in some proposed future designs.

My friend’s concern is that, once the motto is moved to the edges of coins, it won’t be long before it is removed entirely. This is a Slippery Slope argument, but that’s not what I’m concerned about here. Instead, I’m bothered by my friend’s insistence that this bodes badly for the spiritual state of our nation.

He asserts that we see all references to God being systematically removed from the “arenas of our culture.” This, he says, is a problem because, as with the motto on coins, this removes from the consciousness of the culture the truth of the Biblical God. I think he assumes too much in this.

We in the church are accustomed to seeing the word “God” and immediately associating it with Yahweh, the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the trinitarian God. But I think the idea of “god” has become so vague and passé outside of the church that there is little or no association with the Christian God in the word itself.

For that matter, in a culture like ours-- where almost everyone has had some exposure to more than one religious belief system-- the notion of “God” may, as often as not, conjure up an association with Allah (the god of Islam), Gaia or some other pantheistic idea, Hinduism or some eastern religious concept, or even some personally-invented idolatry or paganism. It is clear from the studies that have been done that, while a very large majority of the population of the U.S. say they “believe in God,” the idea of god that those respondents hold is frequently anything other than an orthodox understanding of God.

In stark contrast, I get the sense from my friend’s posts that he considers the presence of our national motto as a great boon for the spread of the Gospel. While this might be an interesting conversation starter that could lead to an evangelistic opportunity, I’ve never heard of anyone who actively inquired about spiritual truth because of the U.S. motto on currency. I could be dead wrong on this one, but I rank the motto on a coin as several notches below bumper stickers, t-shirts, and coffee mugs as tools for outreach.

So here’s my point: should my friend be up in arms? I don’t think so. In fact, I think it is time and energy that is misplaced, that could have been spent doing actual ministry of evangelism and outreach. (So, too, is this post-- consider me sufficiently convicted.)

Tags: Faith & Life, Cultural Discernment, Politics, community, Evangelism

Waterbrook Press invited me to participate in another blog tour-- where I read and review books on my blog(s). This time, it is the “Children’s Extravaganza” (their term) which is a set of three children’s books they have recently published.

We read through the books-- of course we read them with Jack and Molly-- and got their opinions as well as forming our own. I’ll take each one in turn and offer sort of a mini-review.

The first book we read was God Gave Us Heaven, by Lisa Tawn Bergren. In it we follow a family of polar bears, with Little Cub asking Papa questions about God and heaven throughout the course of a day. It is a sweet story, and Bergren takes care to answer many important (and complex) questions in a way that is understandable to children. The artwork, drawn by Laura J. Bryant, is fun and cute, and both Jack and Molly liked it. In fact, Jack and Molly liked this book the most of the three. Marcie and I liked it a lot as well, though both of us thought that a few parts toward the end open the suggestion that everyone eventually goes to heaven. Apart from that concern-- and the subtle notion that polar bears have souls and go to heaven because of Jesus, which I don’t consider a huge problem in a book like this-- we liked the book and thought it was very helpful to begin conversations with Jack and Molly about eternal life and heaven. I’ll rank this one an 8+.

Bergren has written nearly 30 titles in the publishing world, and God Gave Us Heaven is her fourth. I hope she will offer us more.

When God Created My Toes was a cute idea-- speculate about what God thought about creating the different parts of the body (which, of course, we know already: He pronounced them “very good” in Gen. 1:31). It was done in rhyme, which made it easier to follow for the kids. While some of the rhymes were a stretch, several of them offered interesting and good insights. Jack and Molly liked it okay, but it wasn’t a favorite for either. And we didn’t love it, either-- mainly because a number of the pictures (drawn by David Hohn, some of which made Jack and Molly giggle) portrayed the children doing mischievous things, which we didn’t think we wanted our kids getting ideas from! Overall, I’ll give this one a rating of 6/6+.

Both When God Created My Toes and the last book, God Loves Me More Than That, are by Dandi Daley Mackall, who has written many, many children’s books (over 400!), and has other titles published by Waterbrook, as well.

Last, but not least, was God Loves Me More Than That, which we all liked very much. Focusing on how great is God’s love for us (Ephesians 3:17b-18, “And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ”), this book does a good job of offering something of a balance to the many wonderful books that focus on a parent’s great love (think Guess How Much I Love You?). The illustrations (again drawn by David Holm) were terrific-- my favorites of the three books-- and complemented the book so well. I had no parental or theological concerns about this one at all, in either the content or the drawings, and it’s a toss-up about whether this one might not be my favorite of the three. Marcie felt like it might be better for kids a little younger than ours, though Jack seemed to connect with it. I rate this one as a 10.

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment, family life

If you read very much on the internet-- especially stuff from other Christians-- then you’ve almost certainly encountered a lot of stuff about Senator Barack Obama. If you watch TV at all, or read the newspaper, he’s everywhere. Even Senator John McCain’s own ads call him the “biggest celebrity in the world.”

Even those who oppose Senator Obama, in one way or another, have given him a lot of attention. One of the blogs I read has averaged, it seems like, at least a post a week on why he’s not the guy that should be president. Plenty of Christians will offer great amounts of evidence for why Senator Obama is the worst possible future president for our country.

I almost never hear very much about Senator McCain. I don’t know anyone who is excited about his candidacy, or delighted about the president he would make. I’ve yet to read a well-written, thoroughly developed piece on why McCain SHOULD be president. (Or, for that matter, one on why he SHOULDN’T!)

In fact, the general sense I get-- even from those who strongly oppose Senator Obama-- is, in a nutshell, “I’m not that excited about [Senator] McCain either.”

No one is excited about Senator John McCain. No one is vigorously, zealously behind him. No one is concerned about zealously opposing him. At the beginning of an episode from the last season of West Wing, one of the candidates is told something like, this campaign is all yours-- you won’t even have to mention the other guy’s name. I think that pretty much sums up the status of Senator Obama’s status right now, too.

[Now, that last paragraph is all hyperbole, of course. I’m sure I’ll get some emails about it anyway...]

Senator McCain may have gained a bit of ground at Saturday’s Saddleback Civic Forum. Even there, though, many responses were that Senator McCain’s words were too “party-line” and sounded like he was appealing to that certain group of voters. Senator Obama came off as fresh and genuine to the same group, while others the same thing about him.

So, here’s how it looks from where I sit: Senator John McCain may, indeed, be exactly the man we need in the White House; Senator Barack Obama may, indeed, be the worst thing for Christians in the United States ever. Or both of those assumptions may be totally off. But unless he can get his campaign into a much higher gear (and there’s still plenty of time to do so), Senator McCain is going to become the next Walter Mondale, the next Bob Dole, and the next John Kerry: the “other candidate” who was easily forgotten, because the one who beat him was such a dominant presence. Right now, the election is Senator Barack Obama’s to lose.

Tags: Politics, Cultural Discernment

I managed to finish a few more books this month than last-- and more importantly (to me, at least), I got my rhythm back for reading. I feel like I’m plowing through them lately, having finished four books in the last 10 days.

Here’s my list for August:

• Evangelism in the Small Membership Church by Royal Speidel. This book is one of a series, entitled the “ministry in the small membership church” series, published by Abingdon Press. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am by this book. For one thing, most of it really isn’t about evangelism at all; after the first couple of chapters, the bulk of the content is just about pastoral ministry in general. Ironically, the author suggests that the book is a good one for groups of laypeople, but most of the book focuses on the pastoral side of church ministry. Secondly, the author doesn’t speak to small membership churches-- not really; he frequently cites examples from his own ministry experience where he refers to congregations of well over 100, several times mentioning events accomodating more than 500-- even though approx. 60% of all churches are congregations of 100 or fewer. Finally, much of his theology is just poor; there were a number of times that I just shook my head, wondering where he got an idea or how he found what he was saying in the text. While there are a few ideas in the book that I will come back to-- and I’m glad to have read it for those alone-- I simply cannot recommend this one. (3)
• Waterbrook Press Children’s Extravaganza (children’s books)-- reviewed earlier in the month: God Gave Us Heaven by Lisa Tawn Bergren, When God Created My Toes and God Loves Me More Than That by Dandi Daley Mackall
• Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the theology of the Lord’s Supper by Ben Witherington, III. I appreciate Witherington’s keen insight into the historical, social, and anthropological culture of biblical times; I’ve long been a fan of his “socio-rhetorical” commentaries. He brings that same insight into this book, giving a comprehensive look at what the institution and celebration of the Lord’s Supper would have looked like in Jesus’ day, and in the early church. There is good stuff to be found here, and Witherington affirms much of what has been something of a revival in Lord’s Supper theology. But I think the subtitle may take things a bit too far: the rethinking began well before this book was published (in 2007). Still, good stuff, even if Witherington is sometimes on the fringes with his theology, which makes me cautious about recommending him. Only because of that occasional theological variance, I rank this one a little lower than I might otherwise. (7)
• How to Pick a Peach: the search for flavor from farm to table by Russ Parsons. This has been a great and fun read, one I picked up for our vacation in the NC mountains and have recently finished. Parsons offers a season-by-season, produce-by-produce guide for how to know when fruits or vegetables are ripe, how to store them, and even some good advice on preparation and cooking. He also has encyclopedic knowledge of the backgrounds of our modern produce, as well as the food industry (farm and market). His book is peppered with history, science, recipes, and tips for the garden and kitchen alongside a nearly-exhaustive reference for produce. It deserves a place on my shelf alongside my cookbooks and other kitchen references, but I found that I enjoyed reading it cover-to-cover, unlike any reference book I’ve read before. (10)
• The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in broken bread by Robert Letham (re-read). I re-read this one quickly in preparation for the sermon series I’m about to begin on the subject of the Lord’s Supper. Letham does such a great job of covering this topic, with a lot packed into this little book (only 60 or so pages). I especially appreciate Letham’s practical approach: everything he has put into this book is geared toward a practicable use, and while the content is certainly theologically rich it is also written at a lay-level. So this would be a great book to introduce folks-- maybe in a Sunday School class, or officer training-- to the fundamentals of the Reformed theology of the Lord’s Supper. It’s not comprehensive-- there’s a good bit of Old Testament and historical content missing that is well-covered in other books (such as Given for You by Keith A. Mathison). But it is a great primer. (9)
• A Handful of Pebbles: theological liberalism and the church by Peter Barnes. This small book offers a brief history of the rise of liberalism in the church, and it does a fair job of that. I appreciated some of the discussion about key doctrines, especially. However, my question is who the intended audience for the book is. If it is for pastors or professors, it is far too thin on history and foundations to be of great use; if, on the other hand, it is intended as an apologetic for liberal thinkers, it is likely too thin on refutation and discussion of problems. The best audience I can think of for this book is the average church member in an evangelical church, who is himself/herself already committed to orthodoxy; for this person, it would be a good introduction to the indicators of liberal theology and their problems. While the tone is a bit defensive, perhaps that is justified given the subject. (7+)
• The Faith of Barack Obama by Stephen Mansfield. I’ve already reviewed this book on my blog, and you can read my review here. (8+)
• Serving in Church Visitation by Jerry M. Stubblefield. I was excited about this little book when I first got it-- and I wasn’t disappointed! This introduction to the approach, attitude, and practice of visiting others on behalf of Christ and His church is brief, yet as thorough as it needs to be. This would be a good tool to use in Officer Training, or perhaps more appropriately in ongoing study with existing officers-- though it is not limited to officers in its scope or audience. (9+)

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment, theology

Well, I came to the end of July and realized that, while I had actually begun a number of books through the month, I didn’t actually finish any of them. So August promises to be a heavier list of mini-reviews, but July is left with nothing to say (at least from my perspective regarding the books I read).

Instead, then, I’ll offer up this brief list of books that folks in my congregation are reporting that they have found to be of great help and interest to them:

• Putting Amazing Back into Grace by Michael Scott Horton. This isn’t a new book, but there is a new edition out, and several HWPC members have been reading it. Horton does an excellent job of offering an overview of the doctrines of grace, which are pillars of our theological foundations in the PCA.
• How People Change by Timothy S. Lane and Paul David Tripp. This one has (relatively speaking) flown off the HWPC book table, and tells the truths of the doctrines of grace from a decidedly different angle. It is, nevertheless, a great book that offers transforming truths to those who would look for gospel change in their lives.
• Surprising Insights from the Unchurched by Thom Rainer. This great book, based on Rainer’s research a few years ago, gives an amazing look at what formerly unchurched folks report were the keys to the church having an effective ministry of outreach to them.
• The Only Necessary Thing by Henri J. M. Nouwen. One of our members just lent me this book, assuring me that I would, as a Nouwen fan, be delighted in this look at prayer and the prayerful life.

Also, I’ve been asked to participate in several “blog tours” or blog reviews of books, so I thought I would mention those books at this point as a teaser:

• A Handful of Pebbles: theological liberalism and the church by Peter Barnes. Published by Banner of Truth.
• The Faith of Barack Obama by Stephen Mansfield (the same guy who wrote The Faith of George W. Bush). Published by Thomas Nelson.
• Three Children’s books by Waterbrook Press: God Loves Me More Than That and When God Created My Toes by Dandi Daley Mackall; and God Gave Us Heaven by Lisa Tawn Bergren.

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

I’ve mentioned Andrew Peterson before; he’s a guy with a lot of talent whose book I reviewed a while back, and he’s also a talented musician, singer, and songwriter.

One of Andrew’s songs that I love is “Family Man”-- it’s one of those songs that I wonder at how he ever performs live, because I don’t understand how he doesn’t choke up with tears.

Well, others love this song too. One church staffer created a video for the song, and it’s a pretty incredible video. Take a look:

"Family Man" from Trevor Little on Vimeo.

Tags: Music, Media, Faith & Life, family life, Cultural Discernment

In light of yesterday’s post on single-issue voting, I’ll offer this post that re-covers the ideas that started it, plus the counter-points to those ideas.

I’m not throwing my support behind either candidate– and I don’t care to share who I’m voting for. I think there’s a good case to be made for a conservative on both sides, and I understand the “I’m socio-politically conservative and I’m voting for Obama” side completely.

Here’s the gist of that argument:

1. Single-issue voting is wrong and unbiblical.
2. Even if it were not, we’ve been told that “the next president will end legalized abortion through judicial appointments” since the 80s– has it happened yet?
3. If that’s not reason enough to be skeptical, there is arguable evidence that abortion actually was reduced more under Clinton than Bush– so why is the default assumption that a Republican president will be better for the pro-life position? (Oh yeah: because the whole argument goes, the distant possibility of total elimination of legalized abortions is more important than the more likely possibility of reduction of legalized abortions.)
4. A vote for McCain is a guarantee for continued waging of war that is unjust and has little possibility of ending soon or with effective outcome. A vote for Obama is at least a solid chance of ending that much sooner.
5. The grim predictions of all who oppose Obama is that he is an extreme liberal who will be the enemy of people of faith. The last time we heard this was, of course, when President Bill Clinton was elected. But really, Clinton didn’t end up being that bad, and it is hard to argue that the U.S. suffered or got worse under his presidency. Why should we believe it this time around?
6. Isn’t it natural to want to believe that all of the talk of change, a new tone, and truly productive political process is true? Even the most cynical among us must surely WANT it to be true.

So there is my take on the case for Obama from a conservative’s perspective. Now, here’s the argument for the other side: why should a Christian/conservative/moderate (or even liberal) vote for John McCain?

1. Single-issue voting is wrong and unbiblical. (And just as many conservatives oppose Obama because of his position on abortion, many others oppose McCain because of his position on the Iraq War.)
2. Even if it were not, the Iraq War is a commitment we have made as a nation-- good or ill-- and we ought to take that commitment seriously enough to see it through to completion. Yes, we’ve been involved in it for over five years; we were in Vietnam for 16 years, and our failure there was largely due to growing apathy and opposition toward the later stages, even when some evidence of success had shown up. The recent reports of the positive effects of the “surge” ought to be enough to at least slow down the urgency to pull out as soon as possible. So the next president will at least need to be open-minded to the matters at hand, and not dogmatically committed to immediate withdrawal. We may not “win” this war, but we can certainly finish well.
3. McCain, though fairly moderate on many issues, has a solid record of “pro-life” support and congressional/senatorial voting. So if we ARE inclined toward the single-issue agenda that consumes so many Christians, he’s your guy!
4. A vote for McCain may actually be a pretty good balance of conservative and moderate positions, appealing more to many of the younger generation of folks who don’t identify purely with a right-wing, conservative agenda.
5. While McCain has, at best, been very tight-lipped about his personal beliefs and faith (to my knowledge he’s never gone on record stating that he considers himself a Christian or any other belief), he HAS shown himself to be friendly to Christians and other people of faith.
6. McCain’s lack of Obama-like charisma doesn’t alter the fact that he speaks boldly of change as well; plus, his years of political and military experience bolster his claims of being able to be the leader we need to get true bi-partisan change effected.

That said, there are reasons why many believers may not wish to vote for EITHER of them! Whether it encourages you to a write-in (Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are two names I often hear about as write-ins) or to go the “none of the above” route, here are a few more thoughts on the two presumptive candidates:

• Neither candidate is a distinctively Christian candidate; Obama, who has openly discussed his faith, recently resigned his membership from a congregation that espouses Black Liberation Theology in a denomination that is probably the most theologically liberal denomination that still considers itself to be “Christian;” now he is, I presume, an unchurched theological liberal. McCain, as I mentioned, has NO open declaration of faith or belief on record, and when asked by Christians about his faith instead refers to the inspiration he has found in the faith of others. This may not be a deal-breaker for everyone-- I would rather see the “best” man in place than an adequate Christian-- but it’s probably a factor for most Christians.
• Both candidates talk a LOT about change-- which may be good-- but have yet to really spell out what said change would really mean, at least in a way that has gotten through to the general audiences. In other words, nothing like the “lock box” of 2000 has really emerged. Time will tell; in the historic scheme of elections, it is very early (even though it seems like it has been going on forever already, and we still have six months left).
• While so much talk about change is bantered about, we’ve still got a growing economic crisis and an over-dependence on petroleum. We know what they’ll do about the Iraq War and the military action in Afghanistan, but what will they do about the economy? How will they solve our oil dependence problem? We’ve heard the soundbite niceties that represent, at best, short-term relief; I’m not sure if either candidate has a solid plan (or even an idea) about how they will lead the nation to true solutions over the long-term.
• Almost everyone I know seems fairly dis-satisfied with our candidate selection. Apart from those who have really been wowed by Obama’s style and charisma, most people I’ve talked to feel like both candidates represent something of a blasé option.

There it is: my assessment of the presidential race as it stands today. I hope this is, at least, food for thought.

Tags: Politics, Faith & Life, Cultural Discernment

In honor of Independence Day, I thought I would offer up a post that simultaneously speaks to our context and government, the Kingdom of God, and the current events of our political process. (I’m also taking this opportunity to respond to a question posed to me over at my friend Megan’s blog.)

Why is single-issue voting unbiblical?

I’ll work through this issue from the most practical to the most theological (but hopefully that’s a false dichotomy, and there are shades of each at the opposite ends of the spectrum).

• Even someone with a die-hard “culture war” perspective has to begin to wonder if the culture war has been lost. If you follow principles of just war (which biblical Christians ought to feel obligated to do), and you appropriate these principles into the culture wars as well (after all, they are just a violent in many ways), the principle of “probability of success” has to give you pause. If your single issue is abortion or defining marriage, don’t you wonder if we’ve already lost those wars? (Ditto for other single issues.)
• It is difficult to be a truly consistent single-issue voter. (Really, it’s difficult to be consistent about political issues in general; it’s just that the single-issue voter invites greater scrutiny of his or her consistency.) Most who hold up abortion as the defining issue, for example, claim (rightly, I believe) that abortion is murder. What, then, is the desired end-goal? To have would-be mothers arrested and tried for murder if they have an abortion performed? At least they should be tried as accessories to murder. Likewise, some claim that the definition of marriage as only that between a man and a woman is the ultimate issue of this year’s elections; they don’t want to allow same-sex couples to define their relationships under the terminology of marriage. But the outcries were far fewer when family courts began to grant same-sex couples the right to adopt, thereby allowing them to functionally define their relationships under the terminology of family.
• Another difficulty in single-issue voting is the problem of which single-issue you decide is the most important. How do you decide? Even the most carefully-reasoned decision here necessarily excludes a number of vital issues. The decision will inevitably be at least shaped by your cultural context: your race, your socio-economic circumstances, your geography of origin. Morality has a role, but in the end deciding on one single issue as arbiter political decisions is a moral and ethical coin-toss. This sort of relativism is inherently contrary to biblical reasoning.
• Whatever the single-issue is does NOT encompass the whole of any candidate’s platform or worldview. Thus, we may find that we are inadvertently supporting and aligning ourselves with a candidate with whom we utterly disagree on another issue. This is not always taboo, and there are times when we can and should join with those with differences for the sake of a particular effort; nevertheless, to do so thoughtlessly or ignorantly (because you simply weren’t paying attention to or concerned about other issues) is not being consistent to a biblical worldview of engaging and interacting with culture and world.
• (Closely related to the third point) It is impossible for ANY single issue to be elevated as more important than others from a strictly biblical perspective. Suppose the most aggressively anti-Christian legislation were at stake-- say, making it illegal for Christians to gather for worship, punishable by death-- would that rise to the top as most important? Would defending our “right” to gather for worship (the loss of which has never stopped the Christian church from gathering over the centuries) be more important than the biblical mandate to care for the poor or evangelize the lost? Would it be consistent to have argued for these several decades that opposing abortion is the most important endeavor the church can undertake (yes, I’ve actually been told exactly that) and suddenly to switch issues?
• Single-issue voting represents a segmentation of life into nicely compartmentalized concepts, as if they are completely unrelated. But the Bible clearly portrays a world where such things are inherently connected. Scripture shows us connections we can’t make in a segmented view, such as the value of building codes as a part of loving our neighbor as ourselves (Deut. 22:8). We can see these connections in our world today, as well. One person suggested recently that the solution to the economic crisis we’re in would be to cut governmental spending, which he fleshed out as, “get[ting] out of schooling, Social Security, and welfare.” Many Christians may agree. But the truth is that our society isn’t prepared for the fall-out for the reduction of governmental support in ANY of these areas, and until we establish a foundational structure for replacing ALL governmental education (and not just for the wealthy Christians, but for poor Christians and non-Christians as well), we ought not begin demanding that the government “get out of schooling.” Likewise, if abortion were outlawed tomorrow, the needs in adoption, health care, and social support for unwed and low-income mothers/families would go through the roof within months, and the demands on our educational, legal, and criminal systems would increase over the next two decades. We HAVE to understand the connections and obligations that each issue requires of other issues, and single-issue voting ignores that irresponsibly. After all, approximately 34% of our tax dollars go directly to supporting social programs; does YOUR church’s budget come even close to that much given toward benevolence? Let’s get our spending priorities in order in the church before we start worrying about the speck in the eye of our government.
• Scripture covers a multitude of issues that are at play in a socio-political system. If we based our assessment of what issues are the “most important” for Christians on what the Bible teaches about social and political issues, we would have to include issues of the sanctity of life and family values, of course; but we would also have to include matters of war and peace, social care for the poor, education, and racial and ethnic equality. Furthermore, a biblical view of the sanctity of life, for example, might begin with addressing abortion, but it goes far beyond that to include care for the sick, the elderly, and a host of issues that our bio-medical advances have raised for us. Yet few “pro-life” Christians I know can truly say they are more than simply “anti-abortion”-- they simply haven’t thought through what the fullest sense of the idea of being pro-life means, nor what they implications are from a socio-political viewpoint.
• The “greatest commandment” wasn’t “Do not murder” OR “Do not commit adultery,” though most Republican Christians I know seem to suggest that it was one (or both) by their single-issue emphases. The greatest commandment, to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength,” at least implies a whole-life devotion to God, which effectively nullifies the justification of single-issue voting. But if the inclination for single-issue voting persists, what does the second-greatest commandment imply? Wouldn’t “love your neighbor as yourself” lend credence to a single-issue emphasis on social issues like poverty, health care, or welfare?

These are just some rambling thoughts; a fair amount of this was shooting from the hip. I’d welcome any interaction about these.

Tags: Politics, Cultural Discernment

June was full of travel, which in this case meant substantially less reading for me. I feel a little bit starved of books, and hope that I’ll recover somewhat in July and August.

At any rate, here are the couple of books I read in June:

Effective Small Churches in the Twenty-First Century by Carl S. Dudley is a very helpful book that is based on thorough and useful research. Dudley deals with the data and concepts that arose from his study, so many of the ideas here are fresh and not found elsewhere (in other words, this one takes you beyond the "conventional wisdom” about small churches). A bit of a slow read at parts, but generally good stuff. (8+)

“The Vision Thing” by Don K. Clements. Clements is a retired PCA Pastor who now does consulting through Metokos Ministries, working with churches in helping them develop a useful vision for their congregation. He freely admits that he has borrowed heavily from Aubrey Malphurs’s Developing a Vision for Ministry in the 21^st Century, but he does a good job of summarizing that book in this small volume. Clements clearly knows how to coach churches in this process, and his knowledge comes through in the book. He writes with a conversational style, and it’s not difficult to get a fair grasp of what is needed for vision-casting through this little book. (8)

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

For all the grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other babysitters out there, here’s a rule of thumb about appropriate TV shows:

Don’t assume that it’s safe or appropriate to watch just because it is animated or drawn.

We were recently at someone’s house for a visit, and they don’t have young children. (No, you don’t know them.) One of these adults turned on the TV for Jack and Molly while we (Marcie and I) were in another part of the house. When I came in, they were watching a show that was an animated cartoon-- so the assumption was that it would be a safe show for them. But, in fact, it was a show with a fair amount of violence and themes that we would prefer to introduce our children to more gradually and through a different channel (sorry about the pun) of communication other than television.

It is difficult to grasp the amount of animated TV available these days, especially if you don’t have children under 20. I can name six or seven distinct channels that show animated productions, and some show only animated stuff. There is plenty of stuff that is animated, but is not even marketed to very young children. There is at least as much stuff that IS marketed to children Jack and Molly’s age, but that we don’t want them watching. Many of these shows regularly portray one or more of the following behaviors and/or ideas as both appropriate and acceptable:

• Crude language/joking
• Disrespect for other people/their possessions
• Whining and complaining
• Jokes/mischief at others’ expense
• Moral relativism
• An almost religious/spiritual environmentalism
• Thoughtless foolishness

Now, it’s true that many of the above are common behaviors/ideas among even young children, and many of the shows that are on portray exactly that: children acting like children. But something changes when any of these are shown on a show that makes them seem normal and right, and even appealing. Marcie and I simply aren’t willing to expose our children to that; they’ll get enough of it without feeding it to them through the TV.

On the other hand, the best shows deal with many of the same themes in a way that is good and helpful. Disney produced a show called “Recess” for a few years that frequently portrayed authoritative adults (usually school teachers) in a foreboding and somewhat intimidating manner; however, the show also regularly added in a plot development where the adults that appeared fearsome were shown to be caring, likeable people with normal lives. A show that our kids watch, called “Max and Ruby,” has older sister Ruby displaying a condescending and bossy attitude to her little brother Max in almost every episode; the resolution of every plotline, though, has Ruby realizing that there was something she didn’t know at work, and humility and appreciation were in order.

There are good shows on for children, and I appreciate that many production houses that market to younger children strive to offer some vallue in their shows, even if it is something on the order of a portrayal of decision-making in social circumstances. But it’s a safe bet that the parents of children you know have some distinct preferences about what their kids watch. If you don’t know what these preferences are, be sure to ask before you reach for the clicker.

Tags: family life, Media, Cultural Discernment

Do you get as tired of seeing these guys on TV hawking their “law services” to any of us who might remotely fall into an action class? This modern-day version of ambulance chasing gets under my skin. Consider this an open response to these hucksters.

First of all: why would I hire you instead of calling someone I actually know (who is at least remotely connected to the field of law) and asking for a referral? If your answer is, “because you know my face from TV” then you’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid too long.

Second: how did you decide that this-- marketing yourself as someone who takes advantage of others’ difficulties-- was a good career for you? Are you aware that you come across as slimy and opportunist, and most people (if they don’t ignore you) consider you and the services you offer to be about two notches lower than the seedy used car salesman stereotype? Surely someone has cared enough to tell you this before, but if not, I’m Simon Cowell enough to do so now.

Finally: you should be aware that I (and, hopefully, others like me) will urge anyone I know NOT to employ your services. As a Pastor, I’m convicted that the biblical passages that urge Christians not to take one another to court applies today; further, I believe that when legal action is necessary, it should be as uncontentious as possible. My instincts tell me that your approach would be at the far-opposite end of the spectrum, and you would go for as much contention as you could muster. I generally believe that our culture is far too letigious, and I think the positions and attitudes that you represent have greatly contributed to that.

In closing, I offer the excellent commentary from my man Remy, who astutely points out everything that is wrong with your commercials. Watch and learn:

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Media

At the recommendation of my St. Louis friend Steve Hughes, I started watching Last Comic Standing on NBC this summer. Funny stuff-- I’ve always enjoyed stand-up comedy, and this is a fun reality show.

On the first show, a pair came on that really hit on something good. They present themselves as a “Christian folk duo with a message” and (after looking them up on the web) I think they really are Christians who are also comedians and want to poke fun at the sub-culture that has, sadly, emerged as perhaps representative of Christianity in our world. Here’s their first clip:

Tags: Funny, Media, Music, Cultural Discernment

A few links and fun stuff for the weekend:

• Good thoughts on listening to a sermon can be found here (dealing with action) and here (dealing with reaction). Go forth and do likewise.
• A problem I just don’t have... yet?!?
• There’s been a bit of interesting stuff about transracial adoption lately. For one, there’s this piece from the NY Times on de-emphasizing race. Here’s another, from Touchstone magazine, discussing how the Gospel affects the issue. The Washington Post chimes in about it, and Thabiti Anabwile offers his thoughts on the Times piece and others. Thoughtful stuff. (HT: Between Two Worlds for some of these.)
• John Piper is starting a seminary at Bethlehem Baptist Church. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Will there be any other professors but him?
• Thoughtful ideas about both sides of the now-FINALLY!-decided Presidential race: is Barack ready? Is McCain ready?
• What are Christians NOT allowed to say? Here’s one piece on “cussin’” and foul language. Here’s another piece on the same topic, with a slightly different take. Here’s an entirely different idea-- with some surprising responses-- on what ideas Christians aren’t “allowed” to say. (I’ll come back to this soon, I think.)
• From Will Smith... who knew? Here’s some great marriage advice from the guy who brought us “Parents Just Don’t Understand” and “Gettin’ Jiggy Wit It” as well as Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Independence Day, Hitch, and The Pursuit of Happyness. I’ve always known he was a great talent; now I see that his talent extends into understanding people, as well.
• An interesting way to express yourself... create your own fonts. What’s so fascinating about this is that, 20 years ago, this artform was so obscure and difficult to accomplish that those who actually did it could be counted by the hundreds, if not the tens.
• Is your favorite ice cream in this list? Here are the top six most-fattening ice creams in the U.S. I’m so glad someone finally did that study.
• My friend Dane has some good questions for the emerging church. Very thoughtful-- I’d like to know that too, Dane.
• Okay-- 10 is enough for this week.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Politics, family life

There's a contest (or drawing... is there a difference?) that I entered on another blog. The idea is this: this other blogger is giving away 20 sets of 18 CDs, apparently provided to her by WOW-- which is a group that produces compilation CDs of Christian music. (HT: Megan)

Who knows if I'll win? But if I do, it'll be an interesting experiment. I haven't listened to very much "Christian" music for years. The only musicians who market themselves as "Christian music" that I've bought in the last decade are: Wes King, Andrew Peterson, Bob Bennett, Michael Card, and Bebo Norman.

I'm sure there's some decent stuff out there, but I can't bring myself to listen to the local Christian music radio station to find it-- and there wasn't a Christian music radio station in St. Louis, even if I had wanted to. (I know-- hard to believe, isn't it?) So this is an opportunity for me to be re-introduced to what's worth listening to.

Here's an interesting twist: of the 17 artists listed in the give-away, five of them are names that I have bought before (over a decade ago): Michael W. Smith, Steven Curtis Chapman, Newsboys, Third Day, and Point of Grace. They either have aged well, or the Christian music being offered today sounds surprisingly like early 90s pop. You decide...

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Music, Media

If the Democratic National Committee (DNC) decides to seat some or all of the delegates from Florida and Michigan, it will simultaneously unite the party and turn itself into a political farce.

If you haven't been following along, here's the backstory: in 2006, the DNC voted to limit the states the could hold primaries or caucuses before February 5^th to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. However, in 2007 both Florida and Michigan decided to hold their primaries earlier than they historically had-- and before February 5^th-- in order to increase their influence in the primary elections. Both were warned by the DNC that they must change the dates, and both refused; consequently, both were informed by the DNC that their primaries would not be nullified, as they were then stripped of their delegates. (Click here and here for more on these.)

Both states went ahead and held their primaries, in a pouty insistence that the DNC didn't have a right to its action (which it does). These primaries, however, were not given much attention in the campaigns; John Edwards and Barack Obama did not even register to be on the ballot in Michigan, for example, and almost none of the candidates spent a significant amount of time campaigning in either state-- though Hilary gave both states more attention than her counterparts, perhaps thinking it would be good ground-breaking for the general election in the fall. In one way or another, all of the candidates spoke out in support of the DNC's decision and right to make such a decision. Hilary Clinton was pronounced the winner in both states, although she only won 56% of the vote in Michigan (with a full 40% falling into a nebulous "undecided/uncommitted" category) and 50% or less in Florida. (Of course, in a primary race then those are pretty strong percentages-- but considering that neither of her stronger rivals even gave an effort, it's strikes me as a bit low).

Within a few weeks after these rogue primaries, however, it had become clear to Hilary Clinton that she wasn't the presumptive nominee that she thought herself to be. Suddenly, she changed her tune about the primaries in both Florida and Michigan, claiming that it would be wrong to deny them their voice in the election and that their delegates should be seated after all. That's convenient, since those delegates would be mainly in support of her campaign, which has continued to wash against the rocks over the ensuing months.

But frankly, it would be wrong to seat those delegates. For one thing, both states made decisions that were contrary to the rules laid out by the DNC, and they were both given an opportunity to bring themselves within conformity to those rules. So seating delegates from Florida and Michigan would send a clear message: "our rules don't count if you complain loudly enough." Or even worse: "our rules don't count if the Clintons benefit from them not counting."

Moreover, to seat those delegates would be unfair. Neither Obama or Edwards-- arguably the only other serious contenders at that point-- invested much effort or finances into campaigning there. And for good reason: they had been told that these so-called primaries would not count. They were abiding by the rules of the elections set forth by the DNC, and therefore had no reason to believe that it would ever become an issue. For the life of me I can't understand why Obama isn't shouting this from the rooftops-- unless he's too afraid that it would hurt his electability in those states this fall, which would be a sad reason to hold back.

It reminds me of a parenting philosophy one of my seminary professors espoused: he said, "in our household [a family of five] we make decisions democratically. Everyone gets a vote. But my vote counts six." That works in parenting, but not for national politics.

All of this comes together to make the DNC and the Clintons look ridiculous. Did the DNC set out to look like it was willing to let Bill and Hilary call the shots on this one? Did Barack Obama intend to appear to roll over and ignore a clear-cut situation? Did Hilary Clinton want to offer us one more example of her double-speak? Probably "no" on all counts. Yet, if things play out like it seems they will, all of these will come to pass.

Two ironies have already come to pass: for one thing, both states would have had all the influence they could have wished had they kept their primaries when they usually had them (early March for Florida; February 5 for Michigan). This year's Democratic primary has drawn out so long that almost every state has felt like they have a large part in the process. All of the hassle and mess about Florida and Michigan was for naught.

For another irony, it turns out that Obama will end up getting a significant number of the delegates even if they ARE seated. All schemes and closed-door agreements aside, Obama scored better than 30% of the votes in both "primaries" without even campaigning there-- including what had to be write-ins in Michigan, where he wasn't even on the ballot. So for all of Hilary's whining about the need to seat these delegates, she still won't have enough delegates to win the nomination, even if they decide to grant them all a place at the table.

This whole situation is a mess; the DNC doesn't need to make it worse by opening the door to making the whole party process even more of a joke.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Politics

A few weeks ago, a blog I read had a post about turning off the TV. The gist of the post was highlighting the fact that Americans watch too much TV (an average of four hours a day, says this blog) and how watching less reclaims that time for other things (like, in this case, de-cluttering your home). Many commenters chimed in with vehement agreement, claiming that TV was "a waste of time" and that there is nothing really worth watching.

While I agree that there is a problem of watching too much TV-- and that there are often better ways to spend time-- I also agree with one commenter who boldly spoke up in defense of television. His argument was that the claim, "There's nothing good on TV" is typical of those who, ironically, don't watch TV (and if you didn't catch the irony: if they don't watch TV, then they won't really know whether there's anything good on, will they?).

His point is a good one: some have argued that we're in something of a "golden age" of television. Cable channels (including premium channels like HBO and Showtime) have invested heavily for the last 10 years or so to gain a place in the primetime and serial TV market. Network TV-- long the dominant play-callers of the industry-- is fighting to maintain even a share of the viewers they once had, who are flying out the door to the cable and premium channels and their programming. This level of competition fell during a fortuitous point (for viewers, at least) in the timeline for the Internet: it was established enough to be a buzz-creator and discussion venue about new shows, but immature enough to not offer a competitive element of its own. So folks could talk about what they liked-- and savvy producers could learn from those discussions-- on the 'Net while returning to the "tube" to watch.

The result is an abundance of creativity and innovation in programming that has been unmatched in any form of media until very recently (more on that in a moment). There are good, engaging serials and dramas (Lost, 24, Heroes, not to mention the huge successes in the realm of crime dramas, like the CSI: and Law & Order franchises); quirky and clever comedies (The Office appeals to MANY; shows like Rules of Engagement and The New Adventures of Old Christine, though a bit racy, include smart humor instead of simple crass punchlines); and a world of gameshows like we never dreamed when we used to settle for Wheel of Fortune and The Price Is Right (in addition to full-on gameshows, like Deal or No Deal, many of the so-called reality shows are really just elaborate gameshows).

Sure, some "reality" TV is lousy-- but a lot of it is a lot of fun, with emotional, relational, and psychological elements that are surprisingly engrossing (think Survivor and The Apprentice). Many of the truly successful ones are an elaborate hybrid of The Gong Show and Star Search at a level that we always hoped was possible (maybe on par with The Ed Sullivan Show at times) when we watched those shows faithfully. (I'm thinking American Idol and Last Comic Standing.)

Add to all of that the immense variety of niche programming in the form of entire channels devoted to things like gardening, history, home improvement, cooking, financial investment, and educational endeavors. "Nothing good on TV"-- have you ever watched the Discovery Channel? You could conceivably watch movies all day long for a week and not watch a repeat-- with a basic satellite subscription. Nostalgic for the old stuff? There are several channels that show re-runs of I Love Lucy and Little House on the Prairie regularly.

As another commenter (on the Unclutterer post) mentions: much of the quality of writing on TV meets or surpasses most of the contemporary fiction for sale, and much of the screenwriting done for film. Americans may watch too much TV, but the snobbish dismissal of TV as a media genre is misplaced.

Watch while you can: I predict that this "golden age" of TV will only last another handful of years. While the 'Net wasn't mature enough to be a competitor as the current TV era was coming of age, it is now: video over Internet is becoming so common as to be passe. Technology in general is "democratizing" media creativity; soon you'll see YouTube filled with independently-produced videos that rival TV in their writing and production. Over the next 5-10 years, video on the Internet will do to TV what blogging has done to printed news; it's not put out of business, but it's certainly not the go-to source for current events that it used to be. Just as every blogger is ostensibly a reporter (if they want to be), soon every amateur videographer will be a producer (if they want to be).

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Media

Here are a few ideas that don't warrant a full post in themselves.

• C.S. Lewis' second Narnia book (Voyage of the Dawn Treader) has hit the theaters. Some have pointed out that there are some significant changes from the original story line (probably some spoilers in there for some of you). Some people think this is actually an improvement on the story line. Some feel the true meaning of the original has been adulterated. Others are somewhere in the middle. I haven't seen it-- what do YOU think?
• 
  
• Hilary's almost certain loss is striking some odd chords-- including the idea behind THIS piece from the New York Times, which argues that the advancement of women will be hurt from her loss. Apparently, Hilary has simultaneously positioned herself as NOT benefiting from the gender question while at the same time answering it. (Being a male, I was obviously ignorant of such high-level ideas.) Ironically, if she has marketed herself on the women's lib vote then she doesn't deserve to win. As my friend Sam Murrell suggested, to vote for Hilary Clinton ONLY because she is a woman (or Barack Obama ONLY because he is black) is to also undercut your own argument opposing others who vote AGAINST them for the same reason. Hilary can't say, "vote for me because it's time to have a woman in the White House" and then hold it against those who vote for her opposition because they don't want a woman President. Logical consistency at its simplest.
• 
  
• If you've been tracking with me on the stir and kerfuffle surrounding the General Assembly overture (#9) about Deacons, Deaconesses, and Women, you may be interested to know that Wayside Presbyterian Church in the Chattanooga area has posted a page that aggregates (or at least attempts to) all of the discussion from around the web. You don't have to look far to see the sort of hard-line, slippery-slope thinking I've mentioned. (WARNING: if you love the church and are discouraged by ungodly treatment of pastors and others, read with caution. Many of these discussions are not for the faint of heart.) I DO appreciate their work, especially, in their words, that they "are not making any effort... to sort the articles into 'pro,' 'con,' or neutral. These articles come from several different viewpoints. We are just providing information."
• 
  
• Along the lines of the previous item, my personal hope is that the 2009 General Assembly will appoint a study committee to consider what guidelines, if any, ought to be offered as measures of godly character and discussion for those who choose to use blogs, websites, discussion forums, and other Internet tools to debate theological and denominational matters.
• 
  
• Following up on my words about the Evangelical Manifesto, Ed Stetzer released the word late last week that Ergun Caner, President and Dean of the Seminary at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School, asked that his name be stricken from the charter list on the basis of his claim that he never signed it. For those who don't immediately make the connection (I didn't), Liberty is the school that the late Jerry Falwell founded and led for many years; ironically, Caner's own website describes him as "a leading voice for evangelicalism on the national stage." For another take on the Evangelical Manifesto, check out this post from Scot McKnight, Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (UPDATE: see this response to McKnight from PCA Pastor Andy Jones), and this alternative version offered by Dave Burchett, ESPN producer and Christian writer.
• 
  
• If you've been following the stuggles and difficulties in the wake of the natural disaster in Myanmar (Burma), you may be interested to know that missions boards and relief organizations are now succeeding in getting funds and other aid into the area. The PCA's Mission to the World (MTW) is asking for financial assistance through its "Minutemen" program; World Vision International is also appealing for help. Both sites have ways that you can donate online.
• 
  
• Here's a video I overlooked for my media tidbits on Friday: Possessed, a documentary which gives an amazing look at the worlds of hoarders. Very well done, with no commentary other than what the hoarders themselves offer. You can watch the whole thing online.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Links, Politics, PCA

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about reading in response to a question from one of my blog-readers. A few more thoughts have occurred to me.

On reading books:

• 
  
• Keep a list for recommendations. Suggestions for good books to read come up all the time: from blogs, on the radio or TV news, in lectures, from friends. I've found it helpful to make a note of recommendations that I want to eventually follow up on-- even if I don't plan to get the book soon-- and keep a list in one place. This way, I have my list handy when I order books. I've found using an Amazon Wishlist is the easiest way for me to organize these recommendations; since I'll probably buy from Amazon anyway, this makes it particularly easy to choose from my list. (I can access Amazon-- and add to my Wishlist-- through my mobile phone, too-- so it works on the road as well.) It doesn't hurt that this makes for easier gift-giving at Christmas and birthday times.
• 
  
• Have options on-hand for "what's next." If you're keeping a list, this makes it a lot easier to have options-- whether you go to the library or buy books yourself. I buy books about once a month, and I rarely order only one at a time; instead, I'll get two or three from my list (which also qualifies my order for free shipping, if I'm buying from Amazon). This way, I have a stockpile to choose from when I finish the book I'm reading.
• 
  
• Keep reading. When I finish a book, I start another within 24 hours. It is easy to fall out of the habit of reading, and difficult to get back into it. Reading is exercise for your mind-- so persistent discipline for it is the same as going to the gym. Keep it up.
• 
  
• Make notes about what you've read. I've begun to do this on this blog, as you may have noticed. When you finish a book, reflect on whether it was worth reading, what you learned, whether you would recommend it to someone else-- or at least that you read it!
• 
  
• Catalog your books. If you buy very many books, eventually you'll amass a collection that can be difficult to keep up with or manage. I've found it helpful to keep my books cataloged in a computer database (I use a free one called Books, which is made for the Mac; there are others for Macs, some for PCs, and online options), but you could do fairly well with just a spreadsheet. Keeping track of the author, title, some publishing data, and other helpful information (like if you've lent your copy out, or the notes you made about it when you finished it) is a good minimum. My database keeps all of this, plus a lot more.

If you really want to learn more about reading books well, I actually have a few book recommendations about that: How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler; How to Read Slowly by James Sire; The Little Guide to Your Well-Read Life by Steve Leveen; and Shelf Life by George Grant.

On other reading:

• Keep newspapers in check. If you subscribe to a daily newspaper, do you read it every day? We've found that we actually read our paper more because we cut our subscription back to Saturday and Sunday only. We don't have stacks of newspapers piling up as fast as before, so we're more likely to read them. You might find that a re-evaluation of your newspaper subscriptions will keep your reading progress streamlined.
• 
  
• Get your news from more than one source. It's hard to get accurate news. While it's tempting to settle for just one news source, it's likely that you won't really get a clear picture of the news, but a mostly editorialized version. I get my news from World magazine, Newsweek, the local newspapers, and the New York Times online.
• 
  
• Magazines are good-- in moderation. In addition to my book reading, I also have several magazine subscriptions. I've already mentioned Newsweek and World; I also get Cooks Illustrated, Photo Techniques, ByFaith, and Leadership Journal. Magazines are great for quick, concise articles on specific topics. But they can get overwhelming too-- Marcie gets stressed out with too many magazines coming in, so we keep these in check too.
• 
  
• Use RSS feeds for blogs and internet news. If you don't already know about RSS feeds, you should definitely check them out. I keep up with over 100 blogs and websites, and RSS feeds allow me to skim through more than 200 posts and updates daily in what amounts to just 1-2 hours total (and that's spread throughout the day in 10 or 15-minute increments). I don't even bother trying to read a blog that doesn't have a feed anymore-- but I haven't seen one without a feed in recent memory.

Reading is so worthwhile, but like anything worth doing it requires time and discipline. I hope that my suggestions have been helpful to make you a more effective reader.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, reading

Another week, another round of a couple more primary elections.

After Tuesday's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, it became clear that Hilary Clinton could not win the primary even if the Michigan and Florida delegates were counted (because the numbers simply wouldn't amount to enough) and Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic candidate for President of the United States-- even though Clinton vows to continue with her campaign.

Sure, part of the U.S. is issuing a collective sigh of relief that Hilary Clinton isn't going to be President, and folks in North Carolina and Indiana received the small joy of knowing that their primaries counted for something more than just local elections. But are the rest of us even paying attention anymore? Everywhere I turn, it seems like Election Fatigue has set in firmly.

Of course, we've known for quite a while now that John McCain is the Republican candidate for President; remember him? His campaign strategy has apparently been to keep his head down and let Hilary and Barack destroy each other's public image, while the rest of the country gets more and more tired of hearing their names and seeing them give the same speeches.

This has already been one of the longest campaigns in history-- and the sad news is that we still have six months of campaigning left. Will we make it? Has the long and tedious primary jaded us toward the importance of a Presidential election?

Tags: Politics, Cultural Discernment

The Work of the Pastor by William Still (re-read). This brief volume is a help, challenge, and rebuke for all of us. Still, who pastored a single flock in Scotland for 51 years, here presents the sum of the pastor's duties, distilling it down to the essence of shepherding and feeding the lambs on the Word of God. For such a short book, there is much to be found here, and it is one of those books I believe should make its way into the rotation of every pastor. (10)

Wiring a House by Rex Cauldwell. Yes, I actually read this book cover-to-cover. And, in fact, I thought it was a great read. When I was in seminary, a friend who was a former electrician taught me how to wire lights and outlets; now, as I face the work of our attic renovation, I realized that I had a bit more wiring to do than simply a light socket here and there. This book answered every question I had remaining, and gave me the knowledge and confidence to move ahead with the electrical part of the job without fear (or at least without more fear than is a healthy amount when working with electricity). This writer is a seasoned Master Electrician, and he does a great job of telling the industry secrets while introducing concept after concept in a very readable and didactic manner. He also goes the extra mile with "Above Code" comments in every chapter, telling you where the code standards aren't quite enough for one reason or another. A great book, and a must-read for me in my current status as part-time contractor! (9)

With Reverence and Awe by D.G. Hart and John R. Muether. This book, subtitled, "Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship," was a difficult read for me. I agreed with 90% of the content, and found it engaging in that manner; however, I agreed with about 30% of the tone-- how they brought about communicating their ideas. Like most forms of communication, tone matters so much when conveying sometimes difficult and/or confronting content. Even though they claim not to do this (of course they would!), there was also a little edge of "if you're not worshiping like us, then you're not worshiping the way God wants you to" in the book; that sort of arrogance gets under my skin quickly, even in small doses. There is some good content in this book, and they do a fair job of driving the discussion toward the Scriptures-- it might be worth reading just as an introduction to relevant biblical texts for thinking about worship (though other books do a better job at that). (5)

Emotionally Healthy Spirituality by Peter Scazzero (re-read). I first read this book a few years ago, but decided that it might be, well, healthy to read it again. It was just as good. Scazzero deals with a difficult subject honestly, with clarity, and with practicality. He discusses what emotional health is (on a primarily individual level), and how a church might (or any relational group) might embody good emotional health. While there are some shortcomings in the book, and while I want for more help and information on some of the points (another post on this is coming), I'd like to think that every church CAN aspire to what Scazzero sets forth as something like an ideal. (8+)

Ruling Elder by Leonard Van Horn. Here's a (very) brief little booklet that is great for orienting Elder candidates to the office. It is quite basic, offering a short examination of three questions: Are you called to be an Elder? What is your view of the church? Are you qualified to be an Elder? Van Horn works through each competently. By no means is this little book sufficient for all officer training needs! But I plan to use it as a give-away to all nominees (in complement to the training they are already receiving) to help guide them in considering their nomination. (8)

Framing Floors, Walls, and Ceilings by the editors of Fine Homebuilding. You can tell by the fact that I read two books on home remodeling-type subjects that I'm in the midst of a big project at the house! Unfortunately, this one wasn't nearly as good as the one above. It looks to be essentially a compilation of articles by these editors, all of which are moderately helpful. But because this one was cobbled together-- rather than written step-by-step with comprehensive planning involved, like Wiring a House was-- there are big holes of information. Since I've done some basic building and remodeling before, I was mostly able to follow along; someone with no experience in this area would easily get lost. I'll still use this for reference at times, but it's likely that I'll look for another (better) book on the subject to round out my knowledge-base. (4)

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

In response to one of my book listings, a member asked me, "you're a busy guy-- when do you find time to read all that you do?"

Fair question, and one that I've had to be creative in answering over the years. Here are some thoughts for folks who want to find more time to read, and/or read more effectively:

• 
  
• Take it with you. I rarely leave my home or office without SOMETHING to read-- a book, a journal or magazine, or at least my phone! (I make heavy use of RSS feeds, and my feed-reader syncs with a website that makes it easy for me to read RSS feeds from my iPhone.) If I'm going to be somewhere that there is even the potential for a wait-- restaurant, doctor's appointment, picking up the kids from school, etc.-- I will use that time to read, if I can. BUT not (usually) to the neglect of social interaction with others I'm with.
• 
  
• Place your reading in strategic places. I leave books and magazines around the house where I know I'll be when I might have a few minutes to read. I've usually got a stack by the chair where I usually sit in our living room and on my nightstand. (Yes, I also keep some reading in the bathroom.) And I keep something on my desk to grab when I have a minute or two at work.
• 
  
• Learn to read multiples. I usually keep three or four books going at once. One of them typically emerges as the "go-to" book of choice, but for some reason I've found that my reading pace slows if I'm only reading one book. If you can train your mind to follow more than one book at once, you'll get a lot more reading done, in my experience.
• 
  
• Learn to read efficiently. Not every book is one that I feel compelled to read every single word of. A professor in seminary suggested that, to read more efficiently, a good examination of the table of contents and/or index might suggest some emphases, and you may be able to determine that there are sections (even chapters) that you can skip without missing too much. Another technique: Read the first and last sentence of each paragraph, and thereby determine if the whole paragraph is important to read. (One would hope that this method wouldn't be necessary, because every word should be important, right? But in our day, editing is done with a light hand, if it's done at all, and books are often repetitive.) Two notes here: first, this doesn't work for fiction books! Second, I don't employ this method for most of the books I read, and you may find that, like me, you prefer to read more slowly and absorb a book, rather than skimming it quickly.
• 
  
• Know when to stop. Here's a freeing concept: you don't HAVE to finish every book you start! If you find that a book just isn't offering you much, or you think that you've probably gotten the gist of it, feel free to put it down-- for now, or for good. Not all of every book was written for you; some books aren't really suited for you at all, while others will have sections that just don't apply. Discerning when these are true can free you to use your valuable reading time more effectively.
• 
  
• Make time to read. This one seems obvious, but most of us have a dozen things that we would do with endless amounts of time that get neglected in day-to-day life. Just like everything else, if reading isn't a priority to you, you won't "find the time" to do it. It helps me to know that, several nights a week, I will read at night before going to sleep. Often, I sacrifice a few minutes of sleep to read a few more pages.
• 
  
• Read quickly. Some people have found that taking a speed-reading class is very helpful. Others (like me) just process words rapidly. If Marcie and I are both reading the same article, I usually finish it when she is about two-thirds of the way through it. I don't know why, but I just read fast. If there's a way to develop this, you might benefit from finding it.

Another important thing to keep in mind: part of my job is to read. I'm currently preparing one sermon, plus lessons for two other teaching times-- each week. As a result, I do a lot of study, and a big part of my study is reading. If your job doesn't call on you to read, then it isn't fair to compare your reading habits to mine. There are a lot of people that read much more than I do; it is said that Theodore Roosevelt read a book a day, even while in the White House. A friend of mine reads about 100 books a year-- which is probably twice what I read. I don't find it helpful to compare my accomplishments in reading to others, but simply to read as much as I am able.

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

Following up on my post from Tuesday, I got to thinking about bands that didn't have one stand-out album that defined them or a part of 80s music, and that also weren't obvious stand-out bands.

Okay, apart from Bruce Springsteen, Madonna, The Police, U2, Fleetwood Mac, Michael Jackson (yes, admit it), Prince, and a few other HUGE bands, which ones were the real essential, non-obvious bands and/or artists?

• 
  
• REO Speedwagon. A great band with a big sound, these guys had a clever knack that came through their songs and even their album names-- with albums called things like "You Get What You Play For," "You Can Tune A Piano, But You Can't Tuna Fish," and "Hi Infidelity." Favorites: Roll with the changes, Time for me to fly, Keep on Loving You, Take it on the run, Can't fight this feeling.
• 
  
• Styx. Tons of hit songs came out of this powerhouse, which was plagued by the (apparently common) problem of a frontman with a distinctive talent and sound along with a HUGE ego that eventually made it impossible for the band to stay together. Still, they had a ton of hits (spanning both the 70s and 80s) and their music is still great. Favorites: Lady, Come Sail Away, Babe, The Best of Times, Don't Let It End, Foolin' Yourself.
• 
  
• Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Another band that spanned the 70s and 80s (and 90s!), and another one that churned out hit after hit. While none of their 14 albums had more than two or three hits, the collective result is fodder for box sets and fun greatest hits discs. Favorites: Breakdown, American Girl, Refugee, Here Comes My Girl, Stop Draggin' My Heart Around, You Got Lucky, Don't Come Around Here No More, Jammin' Me, Runnin' Down a Dream, Free Fallin', You Don't Know How It Feels.
• 
  
• Men at Work. This band was so quirky, but wow, did they have a great sound-- sort of aussie-rock with a hint of reggae thrown in. The lead singer, Colin Hay, has a great voice (and crazy eyes), and a great sense of self-effacing humor. Favorites: Be Good Johnny, Down Under, Who Can It Be Now? Overkill, It's A Mistake.
• 
  
• The Bangles. While they weren't the first all-girl band of the 80s to hit it big (The Go-Gos beat them to it by a year), They had a longer and more successful career, and I think were a tighter band. Favorites: Manic Monday, If She Knew What She Wants, Walk Like an Egyptian, Hazy Shade of Winter.
• 
  
• Journey. It's difficult to overestimate the powerhouse that Journey was in the 80s, for me at least. With a career that started in the mid-70s, they had this arena-rock sound that persevered well into the 80s (and is still solid today). Though they seemed to do the unthinkable in replacing Steve Perry as lead singer (see above reference to distinctive and difficult frontmen), the word is that the guy who replaced him (also named Steve) both looks and sounds like him. Freaky. Favorites: Wheel in the Sky, Lights, Feeling That Way/Anytime, Any Way You Want It, Who's Crying Now, Don't Stop Believin', Faithfully, Send Her My Love, Be Good to Yourself, Girl Can't Help It, I'll Be Alright Without You, Only the Young.
• 
  
• Genesis/Phil Collins. These two seem to run together-- I have difficulty keeping straight which songs Collins released as solo work and which were done with the band. But it seems like every year or so, there was a hit song from either Genesis or a solo tune from Collins. Favorites: Invisible Touch, Sussudio, Against All Odds, One More Night, That's All, Turn It On Again, Throwing It All Away.
• 
  
• The Cars. Another band that got its start in the 70s (noticing a theme?), these guys had sort of a funk/new wave sound to some of their stuff that played well as 80s pop. They were also quick to embrace creativity with music videos in the 80s, which lent them more success. Favorites: Just What I Needed, My Best Friend's Girl, Let's Go, Shake It Up, You Might Think, Magic, Hello Again.
• 
  
• Bryan Adams. Fresh from Canada, this guy was another who had a bunch of records with a couple of real hits from each. He had a clean-cut look and a good voice, which lent to his success. Favorites: Cuts Like a Knife, Run to You, Summer of '69, It's Only Love, Please Forgive Me.
• 
  
• Hall & Oates. What a great combination of 70s funk/R&B with early 80s pop-rock! These guys churned out the hits too-- every few months there was a new one on the radio. Favorites: She's Gone, Sara Smile, Rich Girl, You Make My Dreams Come True, Kiss on My List, Private Eyes, Family Man, Maneater, I Can't Go for That (No Can Do), Out of Touch.
• 
  
• John Cougar Mellencamp. Maybe the worst stage name ever for a rock musician, John "Cougar" broke into stardom with American Fool, which made honorable mention in my list on Tuesday. He has a rootsy, almost country sound (indeed, he sounds more country than a lot of country musicians today), reflecting his Indiana upbringing. Favorites: Jack and Diane, Crumblin' Down, Pink Houses, Authority Song, Lonely Ol' Night, Small Town, Rain on the Scarecrow, Rumbleseat, Paper in Fire, Check It Out, Wild Night, Our Country.
• 
  

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Music

My friend (and fellow pastor) Russell Smith pointed me to a post at the Evangelical Outpost where Joe Carter is reminiscing about his favorite (non-obvious) 80s music. Since I love 80s music perhaps above all else except folk, I bit.

Russell has a good addition to Joe's list (and those in the comments), though I disagree with him on a few points. Here are my picks for the essential non-obvious ones.

• 
  
• The Connells, Fun & Games. The first time I heard "Sal" I knew I was breaking through to a new dimension of music; in the midst of the Classic Rock, 80s pop, and semi-folk that I had grown up with, The Connells offered a freshness and creative spin on rock that was a welcome addition to my library (and to others to whom I introduced it). Favorite tracks: Sal, Motel, Hey Wow, Something to Say.
• 
  
• Indigo Girls, Indigo Girls. I thought I knew what contemporary folk music was (think: Jimmy Buffett and James Taylor) until I heard these two-- man, was I blown away! This was my true introduction to a love of modern folk that continues today. The 'Girls went on to produce many fine albums (and they're still at it), but the grit and honesty of this disc remains a great listen. Favorite tracks: Secure Yourself, Prince of Darkness, Tried to Be True, Love's Recovery, and, of course, Closer to Fine.
• 
  
• Van Halen, 1984. Is this one obvious? It is to me-- but then I was a VH nut for a while. I don't think there is a better example of 80s rock (NOT pop) than side one of the 1984 tape. (Side two has a totally different feel to it, though also quite good.) Favorite tracks: Jump, Panama, Top Jimmy, I'll Wait.
• 
  
• Amy Grant, Lead Me On. I'll go with my friend Russell on this one. This was a huge album-- loaded with great songs that are still good today. Russell's summary of it's importance is all that needs to be said. Favorite tracks: Lead Me On, Saved by Love, If These Walls Could Speak, Faithless Heart.
• 
  
• Peter Gabriel, So. I'm with Joe Carter on this one (and the next). A great collection of music-- there's much more here than "Sledgehammer" and "Big Time," including the time-tested "In Your Eyes" and a handful of other great ones. Gabriel was the original creative force behind the band Genesis, and went on to a critically-successful career (if not always on the charts). Favorite tracks: In Your Eyes, Red Rain, Don't Give Up, Mercy Street.
• 
  
• Dire Straits, Brothers in Arms. Bought it for the amazing guitar intro on "Money for Nothing" and was quickly won over by the amazing breadth and depth on the rest of this disc (actually, I had it on tape). The other hit from this album, "Walk of Life," is also fun-- but there is a lot of good music to be found here. Favorite tracks: Walk of Life, Your Latest Trick, Brothers in Arms, Why Worry, So Far Away.
• 
  
• Paul Simon, Graceland. Chock-full of great music with a definitive African influence, this one re-established Paul Simon as a star for a new generation. Everyone knew "You Can Call Me Al" from the radio-- which is, admittedly, a very fun song. But if you want to get a great (and diverse) taste of good music, check out the rest of the disc. Still plays regularly at the Eubanks house. Favorite tracks: You Can Call Me Al, Graceland, Diamonds in the Soles of Her Shoes, Under African Skies, I Know What I Know.
• 
  
• U2, The Joshua Tree. This was the album that carried them from semi-obscure, slightly agitated activist rockers to mainstream, heir-to-The Police band of the late century and early 2000s. Who can forget this awesome disc? Favorite tracks: Where the Streets Have No Name, With or Without You, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, In God's Country.
• 
  
• The Police, Every Breath You Take: The Singles. Summing up an amazing career with numerous hit albums and singles, the was to be the culmination of their career. (They later released a few other collections.) Suffice to say, every song (or nearly so) on here is familiar to just about everyone my age, and this is a standby and staple when looking for some good 80s tunes. Favorite tracks: Can't Stand Looking You, Message in a Bottle, Walking on the Moon, King of Pain, Wrapped Around Your Finger.
• 
  
• Asia, Asia. This was another great one, with many fond memories (many of them of riding in Russell's Bronco II). Asia was a great band with an underlying sense of faith and belief. Favorite tracks: Heat of the Moment, Only Time Will Tell, One Step Closer, Wildest Dreams, Cutting It Fine, Here Comes the Feeling

Runners-up: The Hooters, Nervous Night; REM, Automatic for the People; Hank Williams, Jr., Greatest Hits; John Cougar (Mellencamp), American Fool; Genesis, Invisible Touch.

Tags: Music, Cultural Discernment

I was reading this article in Christianity Today about Jim Wallis, who is a leader among a Christians with a progressive political perspective, and I was struck by the fact that Ted Olsen (who interviewed Wallis) asserted that, for some, the issue of blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples is, in Olsen's words, "a gospel issue."

It's not.

Make no mistake: it IS an important issue. And it certainly is an issue of biblical authority. But it is NOT a gospel issue.

There's a key difference between an issue that is a matter of biblical authority and a "gospel" issue. A Gospel issue is one that actually threatens the truth of the Gospel-- such as a challenge to the incarnation of Christ, an assertion that the resurrection didn't happen, a claim that Jesus didn't live a sinless life, etc. Something that questions the underlying concepts of salvation is a Gospel issue. Thus, when folks in the PCA express their concern about the Federal Vision's position on Justification, for example, they are demonstrating concern about a Gospel issue.

There are a number of issues of biblical authority that aren't Gospel issues. Questions of infant baptism vs. believer's baptism, or of the function of the sacraments, are issues of biblical authority. These are very important issues. But they aren't matters of Gospel integrity, in the same sense that Jesus being God in the flesh is a matter of Gospel integrity.

Take note of this: it is possible for someone to be in error on an issue of biblical authority and still be a Christian, and it's possible for them to remain in their error and not be considered a heretic. This is because there are differing degrees of error in terms of understanding matters of biblical truth and authority:

Working through this concept, then, Here's how these break down:

• Truth: these are the real "gospel issues" that are universally agreed-upon as aspects of salvation, as well as a few other core beliefs (which include biblical inerrancy and authority, by the way). You might think of these as that which is required for membership in the church.
• Mistaken opinions: Minor matters of conscience typically fall here-- someone who is of the opinion that liberty in Christ allows them to drink as much alcohol as they want on occasion, for example, holds a mistaken opinion about biblical truth. In terms of agreement or disagreement, you might think of these matters to be often matters of "semantic" differences-- where often our language and the way we say things suggests differences that suggest differences that aren't really there.
• Errors: These are problematic, but not necessarily matters to divide over. Issues like "paedocommunion"-- where a child is offered the sacrament of communion on the basis of baptism, not on the basis of a profession of faith-- have been judged to be in this category. As such a matter was recently described by our presbytery, these might be judged as more than semantic, but not out of accord with the fundamentals of our system of doctrine.
• Systemic errors: When we get to this stage, there are concerns that may lead to division, without requiring that we dismiss those who differ as "unbelievers." For example, in the PCA we hold that the Assemblies of God theologians have instituted systemic error in the way they view the gift of tongues. I would also argue that matters such as the one discussed with Wallis, regarding the blessing of same-sex unions by the church, falls into this category. Presbytery would label these as beliefs which "strike at the vitals of our system of doctrine."
• Heresy: These are matters that violate the essence of the Gospel-- in other words, they are true "gospel issues" in the same way that the category of "Truth" above is, only in an opposing sense. When the remonstrants challenged the idea of the total depravity of man-- arguing that man in not inherently sinful, that he can, in fact, act in true and pure righteousness-- they were guilty of heresy. (Incidentally, they were judged as such by the courts of the church, and the response to their various points of doctrine was what we call the "five points of Calvinism.")

(Credit to David Jones and Michael Williams for this concept.)

I think it is not just useful, but essential for Christians to gain a better understanding of this. We all disagree on something-- and if you view disagreement as strictly a black-and-white, right or wrong, truth or heresy matter, then you are asserting that someone who is or may be a true brother or sister in Christ has given up the gospel.

Worse, you are asserting that your perspective is completely right and biblical-- which is never the case.

Tags: Bible, Biblical Theology, Systematic Theology, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life

You've probably gotten an e-mail forwarded to you about it. If not, then maybe you've read what the pundits are saying about it. Or maybe-- just maybe-- you've been unfortunate enough to have an irresponsible church throw it in your face.

What am I talking about? The suggestion-- or even the outright claim-- that Barack Obama is a Muslim, or a terrorist, or the Antichrist, just because of his name and his heritage.

In case you haven't heard, there's a man running for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States whose name is Barack Hussein Obama. Obama is considered an African-American, though he is actually of mixed racial heritage. He himself has acknowledged that his name alone is a disadvantage: on Jay Leno's Tonight Show, Leno asked him if he felt like the underdog; Obama responded, "when your name is Barack Obama, you're always the underdog." Apparently when he was in high school and college, he (wisely) chose to go by "Barry" to reduce the ruthless, thoughtless teasing that immature adolescents would surely have subjected him to.

My frustration has been growing about the way people have made enormous assumptions about the man simply because of what he was named. It seems that, having grown out of the stage of ruthless, thoughtless adolescents, Obama now faces the more formidable problem of ruthless, thoughtless adults. This morning the "last straw" came across my screen: this article about a church that was short-sighted and foolish enough to put a political message on their sign. The message? Get ready... here it comes.

"Obama, Osama, hmm, are they brothers?"

Are you kidding? April Fool's Day was a few weeks ago, right?

I'll summarize the article for you. The pastor actually says the message wasn't meant to be racial or political. He just wanted to make people think. About what? About, "what could possibly happen if we were to get someone in there that does not believe in Jesus Christ," he said. He refuses to take the sign down, because he doesn't want it to appear that controversy made him do it.

Folks, let's get two things straight about this: first of all, it is unloving, presumptuous, and morally wrong to make broad-sweeping assumptions about someone simply because of their name or because of whom they are descended from. When this is done to those of Jewish ancestry, it is called "Anti-Semitism"-- and who wants to be called an anti-semite? Yet we have folks running amok with the same thing surrounding Barrck Obama.

Second, Obama has been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for 20 years. Why is everyone so concerned that he is a Muslim?

If you want to know what we should really be concerned about, here it is: how about the fact that the United Church of Christ has been creeping (and sometimes racing) toward a liberal theology for years, and they are by far the MOST theologically liberal denomination that is considered a "Christian" denomination. They are merely a few notches away from the Unitarian Universalists in terms of how far from orthodoxy they have wandered. If you want a concern about the candidate's religious beliefs, be concerned that he may be too soft and wishy-washy on matters of genuine orthodoxy.

But then ask yourself this: who would make a better president-- the one who is a firm, theologically-conservative Christian who is barely qualified for the office, or someone who is (take your pick: Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist?) of other religious beliefs but is immanently qualified for the job? Just as I would prefer an Atheist who was the best surgeon in the state over a mediocre surgeon who was a Christian, I would rather have a Muslim in office who is the BEST candidate than a Christian who was a poor candidate.

But that's a moot point, since Obama's not a Muslim. Neither is John McCain or Hilary Clinton. Since one of these will certainly be in the White House this time next year, I pray that the BEST candidate would be placed there-- and I trust that God is at work putting that in place.

Finally, a disclaimer: I realize there's a primary today, and this post is in NO WAY intended to be a statement intended to have an effect on that. (I don't even think any of my tens of readers are in Pennsylvania.) It was more a matter of timing: I read this story this morning and my "tipping point" was reached, I had to respond.

Tags: Politics, Cultural Discernment, Evangelism

I didn't see An Inconvenient Truth. It's not that I don't care about the environment; I'm even impressed with Al Gore's passion and presentation skills (had he honed these a few years earlier, he may have won the electoral vote!). I just don't care too much about sitting through a movie-length propaganda film from a point of view that I don't completely agree with.

Likewise, I've never seen any of Michael Moore's documentaries-- although I confess I've always wanted to see Roger and Me, his film about how General Motors abandoned their factory in Flint, Michigan. Moore's political worldview, so I understand, is so in-your-face that those who disagree can feel the blood pressure rising.

The bottom line is: why go see such films? While some are cleverly disguised as documentaries (which, by definition, has a somewhat raw and unedited approach to presenting reality-- thereby calling into question whether the films mentioned here are true documentaries), they are actually long propaganda pieces.

Here's my question: who goes to see these that don't already hold to the positions presented? Can Moore claim to have swayed thousands to his political perspective through Fahrenheit 9/11? Has Al Gore really turned toward global warming the attention of those who were skeptical before?

I ask because I'm curious about the kerfuffle and spin surrounding the recently-released Expelled. Apparently Ben Stein (you remember him: the monotone teacher constantly calling for Ferris Bueller) has positioned himself as the Al Gore of Intelligent Design, making an exposé-like film that reveals how scientists everywhere, who are sympathetic to an Intelligent Design (ID) position, are being fired or run out of their positions in academia and scientific research because of their belief in the possibility of ID.

From the trailers, Stein's movie looks snarky and humorous (at least to those of us who lean toward his view on the matter). Apparently Stein interviewed a few prominent Evolutionists for the film as well as ID proponents, and his use of their perspectives has cast question on the reliability of he presentation, for me at least. At least one of these prominent scientists (who viewed the film in a pre-screening) claims that the editing and cut-and-paste job done to his interview completely misrepresents his point of view. What is worse, apparently one of the dominant thrusts that Stein attempts to make in the film is that Darwinism was a prime motivating factor in Hitler's Nazi regime, and therefore Darwinism ought to be inherently suspect. (Good thing folks haven't drawn the same mistaken conclusion about Christianity because of the Crusades and the Inquisition... oh, wait-- they have.)

So I wonder: what is the goal here? Do we (Christians, sympathizers to ID, those concerned with the lack of "objectivity" that comes with worldview-- take your pick) honestly believe and hope that secular, atheist scientists who doubt ID or zealously affirm a Macro-Evolutionary position will come to this movie and have their worlds turned upside-down? Do we expect that thoughtful secularists who are NOT scientists will be persuaded by such a film?

And if so, do we expect that it will happen through sarcasm, misrepresentation, and a handful of arguments wrought with poor logic (hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, ad hominems, etc.)? And that actions like kicking out those who disagree from early screenings will advance the cause? I don't really follow what the point is, unless it is some sort of retribution for Christians and other conservative thinkers being mischaracterized in the past. Otherwise everyone sees it for what it is: a propaganda piece (as my friend Jon said, "Obviously it is propaganda, but it is *my* kind of propaganda :)").

One more thing: I want to take this opportunity to call on World magazine, and especially Marvin Olasky, to step up and do the right thing with regard to this movie. Over the last three weeks, I have been appalled by World's coverage of this film. The same magazine that called Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, "disgusting, pathetic propaganda without the slightest shred of integrity" (July 17, 2004 issue) and accused Gore's An Inconvenient Truth of employing "stage tricks, straw men, and well-rehearsed rhetoric" (June 17, 2006 issue) lauds Expelled as, "reasonable, radical, risible, and right" (April 5, 2008 issue). Ironically, Olasky himself (who reviewed Expelled) said that biblically-directed reviews should "emphasize specific detail, not abstract theorizing" and "should present a biblical perspective, not individual bias" (Olasky, Telling the Truth: How to Revitalize Christian Journalism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1996, p. 173). Marvin, your team of reviewers has been waffling back and forth between "Inconsistent Christians" and "Traditionalists" instead of pursuing true biblical objectivity (see ch.1, esp. p.20, of Telling the Truth).

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, Politics, Science & Technology, Evangelism

The Living Church by John Stott. This was a good book on pastoral ministry in the church by a man who is a hero of Christendom. John Stott has served in ministry for over 60 years, most of those as the Rector of All Souls Church in London. His insights about ministry in the church are made valuable in part because of the testimony that stands behind them-- his many years of faithful service. There are good insights here, and it is worth reading even if it's not the "best" book on pastoral ministry out there. (8+)

The Cross of Christ by John Stott (re-read). That's right-- two books by the same author in one month! Actually, I started reading this one two months ago, and have used it extensively as I prepared my series on the cross. This one was written 20 years before the other, and is THE definitive work on the theology of the cross, in my view. It's quite readable, even though it digs deep, and Stott does a great job of taking in a broad swath, making the scope of his focus quite comprehensive, while still following a clear and direct path to understanding the thrust of the cross. I first read this one for my "Christ and Salvation" class in seminary, but frankly I've read it more thoroughly this time through. (10)

Surviving Your First Year as Pastor by Angie Best-Boss. Especially because of my interest and work with pastoral transition, I really want to like a book like this. But perhaps because of my research in the area of transition, or maybe due to my prior experience in ministry, I found this book to be a disappointment. The coverage is good-- what she talks about is a comprehensive field of topics. But she doesn't present much here that is extraordinary, or that a fairly intuitive seminary graduate wouldn't already be looking for. The best thing about it is the suggested reading at the end of each chapter, which IS quite good. (5)

If It Could Happen Here... by Jeff Patton. This was a nice little book that did a good job of presenting familiar concepts in a new way. The sub-title, "Turning the Small-Membership Church Around," is a fair summary of the content. To a certain degree, if you've read on book on revitalizing small churches, then the concepts in the rest won't be fresh; it's the way they are presented or the additional information that makes them worthwhile. This book tells the story of one pastor and his work with one small congregation-- what they did, how and when they did it, what worked, what didn't. It's not written in a prescriptive way, but more like a memoir or brief history; thus, it's not overbearing, and it leaves the reader free to take what they want and leave the rest. Overall, it's a good read, and I found some useful material there-- especially the first-hand testimony of how effective certain aspects of revitalization can be. (8+)

The House that Jesus Built by Dale Ralph Davis. This one was sent to me in the mail yesterday, and it's a good little introduction to church membership. Davis covers essentially the same things that I would cover in a "new members' class" except, of course, details about the local congregation, and he does it in a very readable and digestible book. It's short (only about 60 pages), yet it touches on the materials in a good introductory manner-- leaving the explanation and expansion on his introduction to pastors and leaders in a congregation. I'm not sure whether I'll use this as required reading for an Introduction to Hickory Withe Church class next time, but it's certainly a good resource to put in the hands of those who miss a class or two. (10)

Eucharistic Bread-Baking as Ministry by Tony Begonja. Although this book was clearly written for more Catholic- (and by that I mean Roman Catholic) leaning churches, it still has obvious value to any church that observes the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Since I've been baking the bread for our congregation's sacrament, I've come to delight in serving my flock in this way; still, I wanted to learn more about the unleavened varieties of sacramental bread, since there is at least some question about using leavened bread. This book offered a good introduction to the spiritual approach to baking bread for sacramental purposes, and the writer showed good sensitivity to matters that might be more pointed in certain environs (like whether a recipe produced very crumbly bread, which might concern those who believe that the bread becomes the actual flesh of Christ!). I haven't tried the recipes yet, but there is good practical advice on baking, as well. Overall, I'm glad to have this one on-hand. (8+)

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

Two ideas I've recently encountered that might get some discussion going about what it means to be "poor."

First, Jeff White of New Song Community Church in New York city recently spoke at a conference called A Conversation on Denominational Renewal in St. Louis (click here to find audio for all of the talks from that conference). All of Jeff's talk was great (as were the rest of them), but one thing he said stood out as an interesting idea: Jeff said he would like to expunge the church of the term "mercy ministry" because to extend mercy in a biblical sense means to give someone a second chance even though they don't deserve it, and this does not apply to poor people in most ways.

Second, the humor blog Stuff White People Like did an interesting post called, "#62: Knowing what's best for poor people." A big idea from the post: "It is a poorly guarded secret that, deep down, white people believe if given money and education that all poor people would be EXACTLY like them. In fact, the only reason that poor people make the choices they do is because they have not been given the means to make the right choices and care about the right things." And, as is apparent to these bloggers, making "the right choices" and caring "about the right things" are, in white people's minds, always identical to what white people (in this case, upper-middle class white people) choose and care about.

Both of these ideas, in their own way, represent challenges to the way I think about the poor and those in need. What do you think about these quotes and ideas?

Tags: Faith & Life, Cultural Discernment, community, Stewardship

My friend John posted a quick rant about grammatical and semantic errors this morning, and it inspired me to do likewise.

One of the things that I appreciate the most about Southern vernacular is that we have a pronoun for the second person, plural: "y'all". It's actually a contraction of "you all" and therefore the apostrophe properly goes after the "y", indicating that the letters lost in contraction would go there. (Many people are tempted to write it "ya'll" which is not a word at all, but spell-checkers aren't smart enough to know the difference so they assume that the spelling is correct. It's not.)

The real benefit of "y'all" is the same as for any other singular/plural pronoun: it clarifies whether you mean just one person or a group. No one gets confused when I say, "they went to the store", thinking that I really only meant, "he went to the store". Likewise, when I say, "would y'all like to go grab some lunch?" then Harry, Lou, and Jim know that I intend for all four of us to go, not just one of them and me.

An aside: sometimes then non-Southerners get caught with this. They try to bring the "y'all" but they haven't fully grokked its meaning, so they'll throw out a "y'all" when they really just mean "you". Consider this post a brief tutorial for non-Southerners.

The market value of "y'all" is hard to estimate. For one thing, it prevents the linguistic train-wrecks that sometimes occur without a true second-person, plural pronoun. I've heard Midwesterners wrestle with the ambiguous "you" and words that have plural form but singular meaning, like "guys", resulting in awkward phrases such as, "I'm coming to your guys house for lunch." As far as I know, that means that I have a guy, and she will be at his house for lunch-- not that she plans to eat lunch with Marcie and me.

More importantly, though: the definitive y'all would remove a lot of ambiguity in Scripture, where the Greek DOES have a clear and distinct second-person, plural pronoun, but our English Bibles translate both it AND the second-person, singular as "you." So, for example, this leads to an American reading of 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, which says, "do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit..." and the assumption is made that my individual body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, because I don't realize that BOTH of the pronouns ("you" and "your") are actually plural, even though the words "body" and "temple" are singular. But if it read "do y'all not know that y'all's body is a temple of the Holy Spirit..." then I might actually conclude something closer to what Paul meant: that it's not about my individualism, but the collective, cooperative gathering of the body-- also known as the local church.

(By the way, there are LOTS of passages in the New Testament that we read as singular and, thus, individual which are actually plural, like the example above.)

So we need "y'all". It's a more sophisticated use of language.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Language

Back in March (!), I offered a free copy of Andrew Peterson's On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness as a part of the "blog tour" I was participating in. Entry in the drawing was simple: answer a question about how frequently you believe a congregation should celebrate the sacrament of communion, and why.

There were five entries, and I'm pleased to (finally) announce the winner is:

Megan Dunham!

Congratulations Megan... I'll get the book in the mail to you in the next few days.

Thanks to all who participated in the drawing; your answers were interesting and helpful.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, reading

The technology world loves April Fools' day. Probably because so much of the "news" in technology lends itself to speculation (and let's face it, techies love to think about the "next big thing") the world of tech news loves to take advantage of this climate of anticipation and exploit it on April 1^st. There's a freedom in this realm of culture that would probably cause a lot of trouble in other parts of the mainstream media; I've learned that, when I read through the tech news online on 4/1, I read with a skeptical eye.

Here are the funniest (and cleverest) ones I found this year:

PC Actor Charged with Assault. "How do you like them apples?"
Introducing G-Mail "Custom Time." A great idea for really messing with peoples' minds.
April Fools' Stories You Shouldn't Believe. A funny collection of non-headlines.

I'll add more if I see them.

UPDATE: two more...

Wikipedia, the online (and community-edited) encyclopedia, offered a fun spin on their regular "On This Day" piece on their front/main page.
You might also enjoy their fictitious front-page Article of the Day on Ima Hogg.

Tags: technology, Cultural Discernment, Funny

Yesterday I offered a review of Andrew Peterson's new novel, On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness. As I mentioned, Waterbrook Press generously provided me with an extra copy to give away here on the blog.

So, here's the deal: I'll give the book away to one person (randomly selected) who comments here, in response to the following question...

How often should a congregation celebrate the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and why should they celebrate it that frequently (or infrequently)?

I'll look forward to your answers.

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

Andrew Peterson, who has become one of my favorite singers and songwriters, has written a novel, called On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness. (No, that title isn't a typo.) By happy circumstance, I was selected to participate in a "blog tour" for the book, which means (among other things) that I was provided a pre-release copy of the book to review here.

If you've heard Andrew Peterson's music, you know he has a knack for spinning tales and telling stories. In this book, he's taken his story-telling to new levels, and developed a book (actually, a series-- this is book one in the "Wingfeather Saga") that fantasy lovers will find engaging and delightful.

Now, I have a confession to make: I'm not a fantasy lover. I didn't make it through the Lord of the Rings books-- I didn't even finish the first volume. (I DID love The Hobbit. And I haven't really given the others a try since the Internet made it easier for the non-cartographers among us to follow where we are in the plot.... maybe I'll give them another chance.) That said, I've found Peterson's book to be very readable, and quite clever. Like a lot of fantasy, it comes across at first as if it was written for young readers, but deeper meanings and meta-themes emerge in this book that are great for all ages.

One of the best things about the book is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. Just about the time when things get too weighty, they seem to lighten up quickly-- making for a good ebb-and-flow in the narrative arc. There's a good story here, and it should develop well as the "Saga" continues in other books. Andy has built a well-kept alternate world (called Skree) where, unsurprisingly, many things are very much like our own, while others are smartly different. Perhaps as a nod to those of us who don't immerse ourselves into fantasy worlds easily, he's introduced his alternate world in a helpful overview at the beginning.

We then follow the adventures of the Igiby children-- Janner, Tink, and Leeli-- as they face the various aspects of their world. Here's the summary that the publisher provides:
"In the quiet land of Skree, the Igiby children—Janner, his younger brother Tink, and their crippled sister Leeli—stumble upon the lost jewels of Anniera and determine to return them. Unfortunately, the scary-bad Gnag the Nameless seeks the jewels for his own evil ends… and so our band of friends, accompanied by their trust dog Nugget, must escape with the help of their mom and grandfather (who happens to be an ex-pirate).

Their journey takes them through an inventively fantastical world of wonders, complete with memorable characters (like Gnag’s evil minions the Fangs and Peet the Sock Man), fanciful creatures (like sea dragons, snickbuzzards, toothy cows, flabbits, and bomnubbles), and captivating places (like the Books & Crannies bookstore, Shaggy Tavern, the Dark Sea of Darkness that divides the land of Skree from Anniera, the Glipwood Forest, Ice Prairies, and the Stony Mountains).

Through fast-paced storytelling, little ditties, songs, and poems, side-splitting asides, sensory descriptions of time and place, and characters rich in heart, courage, and smarts, Andrew Peterson has created a wondrous tale you’ll enjoy and treasure—just like those lost jewels."

Peterson clearly borrows on the patterns and traditions of other Christian fantasy writers-- J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Madeline L'Engle... but not too much, and not without good effect. I especially appreciated the quest for identity that the main character, Janner, engages in throughout the book: primarily, understanding the person of the father he never knew, who died before Janner was able to know him. This theme, which isn't developed to completion in this volume, promises to be a key part of future installments.

Andy Peterson blogs too-- with a community of bloggers at a site called The Rabbit Room. You can get a copy of On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness from Amazon (or by ordering through the Rabbit Room). Waterbrook Press, the publisher, also provided me with a give-away copy; I'll announce the way that you can enter your name to win this copy in the next few days.

Congratulations to Andy on your new book! (I call him Andy for two reasons: first, we've met and talked a bit, and second, because hey, he has that sort of friendly feel about him.)

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

When I am attacked by gloomy thoughts, nothing helps me so much as running to my books. They quickly absorb me and banish the clouds from my mind.
~~Michel de Montaigne

As you may have picked up, I love to read. More than that, I love books, and what they represent: accessibility to knowledge and understanding of subjects that are unknown or less known than we want them to be.

Someone once said, "There is no such thing as a learning congregation without the pervasive habit of reading." Getting good books into the hands of the people in our congregation strikes me as one of the most helpful things I can do as a Pastor. It represents an extension of the teaching ministry of our church, opens doors for further discussion on a variety of important topics, and affords congregants an opportunity to fortify themselves and their faith with sound instruction.

Read not to contradict and confute, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.
~~Sir Francis Bacon

Toward this end, our Session has determined to set up a book table in the education wing of the church facilities where good books will be provided at affordable prices. Some books have already been purchased and made available; others will follow in the coming weeks.

Why sell books at church? A book table offers two unique benefits to our congregation. First, it enables me, as Pastor, to exercise discernment on behalf of the congregation by choosing which books may, at this particular point in time and in the face of the circumstances immediately facing us, are relevant and needed for growth and encouragement. Not everyone is familiar with authors, publishing houses, and topics enough to be as discerning as they need to be for the investment of time and money into a book. As a Pastor trained for ministry, I am in a better position to make initial judgment across a wide array of topics, presenting to the congregation a selection of options. (In other words, it allows me to exercise what one friend called my "spiritual gift of bibliography!")

Second, it increases the accessibility to good books for our congregation. The closest Christian bookstore for many of us is a good distance away. Further, we are more mindful of spiritual things while involved in church activities than we are at other times. Our book table increases access in both proximity and mindfulness for our congregation. It also makes more accessible books related matters that may come up in sermons, classes, or in individual counseling. Having these books ready-at-hand makes it possible to extend the impact of our church's teaching and counseling ministries.

In the case of good books, the point is not how many of them you can get through, but rather how many can get through to you.
~~Mortimer Adler

Philippians 4:8-9 encourages us for what our minds should dwell upon. Reading good books is a certain practice that helps us to think about "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable." The apostle Paul himself was a model of commitment to reading (even toward the end of his life asking Timothy to bring him his scrolls in 2 Timothy 4:13), even though he apparently struggled with his eyesight. Thus, when Paul says in Philippians 4:9, "whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me," he clearly meant also a life committed to reading.

We, too, might take up this example. It is my prayer, and that of our congregation's leadership, that reading might be a tool that God uses to teach and grow His people of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church. As Les Parrott said, "A congregation that doesn't read is missing one of God's greatest means for providing personal and spiritual growth" (Serving as a Church Greeter, p. 49). May God bless our congregation as readers.

Reading is a basic tool in the living of a good life.
~~Mortimer Adler

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life

The Importance of the Local Church by Daniel Wray (re-read): This is one of the Banner of Truth Trust booklets, of which I am a big fan. Wray does a good job of capturing the essential need and value of the local church, which is a vital word for today when many Christians take church membership so lightly. (9+)

When Bad Christians Happen to Good People by Dave Burchett: The subtitle of this book summarizes it well: "where we have failed each other and how to reverse the damage." Burchett does a good job of highlighting a number of problems and failings with the church today; his assessment is fair and not mean-spirited, but neither is it a soft-sell. He also does a fair job of working on the how-tos of "reversing the damage" though this part left a bit to be desired. (I suspect he expands on it a bit in his follow-up book, Bring 'Em Back Alive.) Overall, a good book and worth reading. (8)

On the Edge of the Dark Sea of Darkness by Andrew Peterson. I already offered my thoughts on this book in a previous post. (8)

Proper Confidence by Lesslie Newbigin. Probably one of the best books I've read in a while, this book is a good union of philosophy, theology, and basic, practical thinking about how a Christian finds confidence in what he/she believes. Newbigin does a great job of summarizing the influence of a few significant philosophers (Aristotle and Descartes, in particular) on how we think about truth, and demonstrates that we (in contemporary western culture) have in many ways abandoned a more biblical view of truth because of them. I thought the book was very helpful; others might find it a little dry, because of the discussion of philosophy, etc. It's not for everyone-- but it was certainly a good read for me. (9+)

Tags: reading, Cultural Discernment

This clip from NBC's E.R. perfectly illustrates the emptiness of believing in nothing much at all. In the end, the "hope" that comes from the warm, sweet, sentimental stuff of "whatever works for you" and "we're all just trying our best" is empty, shallow, and pretty hopeless. "Sometimes it's easier to feel guilty than forgiven" sounds great when the realities of eternity are distant and objective; when eternity is near, however, I would respond just as this man did: "what does that even mean?"

The work of the cross, though-- while difficult to face in its true, unvarnished reality-- is a work that offers substance when real hope is needed. When you're facing the hard facts of death, judgment, and condemnation, you need "someone who will look [you] in the eye and tell [you] how to find forgiveness."

The only hope-- the only answer to the question, "is atonement even possible? What does God want from me?"-- is the hope of the cross.

(ht: Ed Stetzer)

Tags: Systematic Theology, Faith & Life, Evangelism, Cultural Discernment

UPDATE: I reposted this with the video embedded-- some of the feedback I got was that clicked through to another page was causing trouble. (Thanks to Eden Worship Center in Topeka, Indiana for the video montage you see.)

Tom Brady might be one of the greatest success stories of our day. (Okay, so he would be more of one if he had completed that perfect season a couple of weeks ago for his FOURTH Super Bowl victory...)

Yet, Tom Brady feels empty. In an interview just before the recent Super Bowl, Brady described his emptiness; watch the video.



My response when watching this video was: you're absolutely right! There IS something more to life than reaching record-breaking heights in the first few years of your career; there is something more than being considered one of the best-looking athletes around; there is something more than dating an international supermodel; there is something more than having all the money and fame you could ever ask for.

Oh, and by the way Tom: you don't need any of those things to obtain that thing, that "something more."

I hope you can see this as easily as I can: the "something more" that Tom is seeking is only found in Christ.

(ht: Fred Harrell & Big Hair Preacher)

Tags: love, Evangelism, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life

Here's an overview of the books I finished in February, and my recommendations about them (including a ranking on a 1-to-10 scale).

How Your Church Family Works by Peter L. Steinke: This is a great book, though the audience for it is something of a niche. It's really a book for Pastors and maybe church leaders; I could see a Session reading through it together, if the Pastor did a fair amount of additional explanation and teaching. (But it would be a good exercise.) The book takes basic family systems theory, a valuable practice in individual counseling, and applies those concepts to congregations as a broader spiritual family system. If you loved the Marriage & Family Counseling class in seminary and learned a lot from your genogram, you will love this book. The first half is fairly dense with theory, but well-done and important; the second part, where he gets into the practical application, really soars. A very good book. (9)

The Challenge of Jesus by N. T. Wright (skim): Once I realized that this book was a summary/lay-level version of Jesus and the Victory of God, which I read in detail for seminary, I switched to "skim" mode and worked through it quickly. Both books are the fruit of Wright's participation in the so-called Third Quest, which has produced some quite useful (though sometimes controversial) materials about the historical Jesus. Wright is a thoughtful, smart fellow who has many helpful insights into Jesus' life and ministry. At the same time, Wright's work is frequently provocative (though less so in this book, as the theological themes are toned down a bit), and the focus of these books on (among other things) the life of Christ led many to believe he denied the resurrection (which he answered with the third book in the original series, The Resurrection and the Son of God). While this one is a good summary, it's still far from light reading, and I would recommend it mainly for those who have some theological reading under their belts, and who have honed their theological discernment a bit. (A qualified 7+/8)

Benedictions by Robert Vasholz: Here's another more esoteric read for many-- though Pastors (and seminarians) will love the accessibility of this tool. In a search through the whole of Scripture, Vasholz has identified 109 distinct benedictions, and formulated them into the sort of poetic pronouncement common at the end of a worship service. Vasholz also included a (very) brief history of the benediction in Christian worship, penned by his colleague at Covenant Seminary, Church Historian David Calhoun. This book is published as a reference for Pastors, and as such doesn't make for a great bedtime reader; nevertheless, I read through it (I really did-- I read every benediction) and I'm thrilled about the possibility of pronouncing a different benediction every week for two years. (9)

The Shadow of the Cross by Walter Chantry (re-read): I was given this little volume years ago by my friend Richard Burguet, and have re-read it several times. It's subtitle is "Studies in Self-Denial" and it was, in my early 20s, exactly the tempering approach to Christianity that I needed, brash and over-confident as I was. Now, in my mid-30s it still holds similar value, reminding me of my call to servanthood and selflessness in life, family, and ministry. While it's not a long book (79p.), it's not necessarily a quick read. Still, I don't have many books on my shelf that I try to make a point of re-reading every couple of years or so-- and thus I don't have many books on my shelf I would recommend as highly as I do this one. (9+/10)

Tags: Cultural Discernment, reading

I love to read, and those who know me are aware that I read heavily: I regularly have multiple books that I'm reading concurrently, and I probably have averaged 50-75 books a year for the past decade and more. (I first realized that I had a higher-than-average tendency for reading when I set a personal goal to finish 25 books in a year my sophomore year in college and my friends and family finding this quite surprising; I hit 25 around August that year.)

As a result, I have a high awareness of good books on a variety of subjects. I've been told that I have the spiritual gift of bibliography-- I almost always have a book recommendation for a particular problem or issue. And, as an extension of that (and following in the pattern of several friends and others whose blogs I read), I thought I would start logging my reading habits here.

Most months, I finish at least two or three books during the month and begin others. Every now and then, I hit a peculiar month: while I continue to read, I don't actually finish any books! Whether its because I've spent a good bit of time writing, I've been reading magazines or other periodicals, or I've been reading parts of lots of books, I just don't make a lot of progress through any single volume.

January was one of those months. Thus, my first post sharing my reading with you is somewhat anti-climactic, I freely admit.

Just so that I don't leave it at that, here's the list of books that I am currently reading:

• 
  
• The Cross of Christ by John R. W. Stott
• 
  
• The Shadow of the Cross by Walter Chantry
• 
  
• The Challenge of Jesus by N. T. Wright
• 
  
• The Attributes of God by Arthur W. Pink
• 
  
• How Your Church Family Works by Peter L. Steinke
• 
  

Tags: reading, writing, Cultural Discernment

There are a lot of great causes that I think are important. Be they social causes, political movements, efforts for promotion of ideas, many people are involved in many things that give value to our culture and world. Some of them are things that, in another life, I would be willing to step into and personally assign my name to, either in support or in opposition.

But I won't do it. Not now, and not as long as the Lord has called me to serve Him in pastoral ministry.

A Pastor is, by profession and function, something of a "face" for the church, especially his local congregation. In some cases this is taken way too far-- and in almost every case, it is something that Pastors must be diligent to keep in check. They are not the church, or even in charge of the church, but they are the most prominent leaders in the church. And in many people's minds, they are the face that people think of when they think about the church. This is even more true outside of the church than it is inside it.

Thus, as a Pastor I must not be an activist. Why? Because an activist puts a priority on something other than the centrality of the Gospel and the faithful teaching of Scripture.

This isn't always bad-- there are times when an issue needs to be the front-and-center concern, and the Gospel's relationship to it must be secondary in that discussion. There are issues of political or social change that the Scripture doesn't directly speak to, and those who try to make the discussion all about the Scriptural principle that indirectly relates only serve to muddy the waters.

(Let me make this disclaimer: I'm not saying that Scripture is insufficient to give guidance for godly thinking and living in all spheres of life; Scripture IS sufficient for that. But Scripture isn't exhaustive in offering prescriptive conceptual thinking about all issues that face us today, and it is irresponsible to assert that it does.)

Some examples: while Scripture offers help in understanding the concept of just war, it doesn't directly speak to whether a particular war or military action is just. Scripture does discuss the stewardship of our world and environment, but it doesn't offer direct teaching about global warming. And although Scripture speaks to how a believer ought to behave in relation to his governmental officials, it doesn't address whether we should be in favor of states' rights over federalism.

And here's where the divide comes for me, as a Pastor: if my charge is to proclaim the truth of Scripture in season and out of season; if I am to preach, not myself, but Christ as Lord and myself as a servant; if I am to know nothing before my flock except Christ and Him crucified-- if these are what I am to be about, then I MUST not be an activist. To take an activist position would be to turn my focus away from this charge.

If the church is charged with demonstrating the historical marks of the church-- Word, Sacrament, and discipline-- and only that, then a church must not assume a particular position on an activist cause. And I, as the Pastor and "face" of the church, must not do so either.

Scripture DOES teach a lot about how we might think about social and political issues, and over the course of my ministry (and even over the course of the next year or so) I will address these as they present themselves in Scripture. But I must stop short of waging judgment on particular political leaders, individual social causes, or specific political or social issues (and whether I agree or disagree with them).

I have opinions on them, and I'll even share some of my observations at times. If I'm doing my job well, however, you'll walk away without certainty about what my exact political and social positions are. That is as it should be-- because I am not an activist, I am a Pastor.

Tags: Pastoral ministry, Politics, preaching, community, Cultural Discernment

Well, a lot happened recently, and even today. Here's a quick glimpse at what is going on...

Memphis ranks #1 again this week. The Tigers continue their amazing season; will they ever lose? (Hickory Withe insiders say, "no.")

Obama gains major ground in the Democratic primary. Whatever your political convictions, you have to admit that Barack Obama's campaign is building a head of steam that (for now, at least) looks like it might carry him all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue.

Louisiana Presbytery faces a formal indictment, and consequently Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church withdraws from the PCA. Personally, I see this more as a call to mourning than a resolution to the controversy that the Federal Vision has become.

Baptist group woos moderate views. Does this strike anyone else as ironic?

President Bush predicts "no recession." I don't understand how $300 per household will really prevent one (especially since, if you adjust the value of the dollar in comparison to international currencies, we are already in a recession!), but here's hoping he's right.

Tiger wins another, ties Arnold Palmer's record. He's amazing-- but why anyone is surprised by this, I don't know.

Legos bricks turn 50. Just about everything-- including a Lego church-- has been built out of these gems. Happy Birthday, Lego!

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, community

Two of the big debates that resurface every time there's an election are immigration and Social Security. Everyone seems especially concerned that Social Security will face difficult sustainability concerns, particularly now that the "Baby Boomers" are reaching retirement age. There are figures and documentation that show how drastically the system has changed over the years-- the ratio of taxpayers to Social Security recipients has practically inverted since the program's inception. Naturally, there's a question about whether we can continue to pay everyone the rates we are with much fewer taxpayers on the other side of the ratio.

In a different (seemingly unrelated) discussion, immigration is a perennial concern. Most people who promote tightening immigration restrictions seem to argue one (or both!) of two sides: either the concern is that an increase in immigrants will result in great upsurge of welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare recipients, or that the immigrants will rob existing citizens of jobs-- especially low-wage ones. I even recall hearing both arguments made by one politician at the same time, which could be contradictory since wage-earners are often not the primary recipients of social programs.

I was talking with Russ Campbell this morning, and I echoed the sentiment that my friend Jon once mentioned, wondering why no one ever thought another baby boom would solve the Social Security problem. After all, if the problem is essentially not enough taxpayers, one obvious solution seems to be to increase the number of taxpayers! As Russ and I talked about it, we had the thought (mostly Russ's) that one benefit a looser immigration system would bring would be an instant increase in the number of taxpaying citizens. Welcome to the United States!

Obviously there would need to be some restrictions, particularly for older immigrants-- but these are largely already in place, since no current citizen is vested until they've paid into the system for 10 years. And you (allegedly) get back something in proportion to what you contributed anyway; that's why we get those statements every so often that remind us how much cash we've dumped down a hole how much we've contributed to our retirement future.

Would this work? I'd love to hear feedback on why this idea shouldn't be some candidate's winning ticket to the White House this year...

Tags: Politics, Cultural Discernment, community

Not long ago, Lou and I set up his iPod to download our church's sermon podcast automatically (which, by the way, is best done by following the instructions on the Media page). Around that same time, another good friend got an iPod and discovered podcasts, including NPR's excellent Speaking of Faith show. Both seemed interested in knowing other good podcasts to check out, so I wanted to offer this quick guide to some that I enjoy.

First, a quick definition: for those who don't know, a "podcast" is a specialized sort of audio file on the internet that is designed to be downloaded very easily. Sort of like an audio blog, they are set up so that your computer can be notified when there is new content (and can even download that content automatically). If you have a portable music player like an iPod, you might find that podcasts (short for "iPod broadcasts") are a great way to get new content and learn things.

I listen to a pretty wide variety of podcasts. I listen to them while I'm driving to and from the church, on my way to visit someone, on trips, and even while I work out. Here's what's on my iPod. [NOTE: most links will take you directly to the iTunes page where you can subscribe or download samples for free.]

Sermons, Bible Study, and Such
City Church of San Francisco. My friend Fred Harrell is the Senior Pastor at this fine church, and they always have good (and challenging) messages.
Trinity Presbyterian Church of Charlottesville, VA. Another friend, Greg Thompson is also an emerging voice in the PCA and one of our best thinkers.
RUF Old Miss (Les Newsom). There are lots of great preachers in RUF; I think Les is one of the best.
Let My People Think (RZIM). Ravi Zacharias, a teacher and apologist, regularly offers new ways to think about familiar concepts.
The White Horse Inn. Michael Horton and friends provide thoughtful discussion about thinking biblically about issues facing the church today.
Mars Hill Audition. Designed to be an introduction to the more regular Mars Hill Audio Journal, Audition is a great sample of the good stuff Mars Hill Audio is doing.

Work-Related Stuff
Mac OS Ken. This brief weekday show gives me a great update on the latest news related to Apple Mac computers and other Apple happenings.
The Mayberry Driven Church. I appreciate the blog that accompanies this podcast frequently; they don't offer podcasts frequently, but when they do, it's very helpful and interesting.
Manager Tools. Anyone who works with people (isn't that about everyone?) should give this one a listen. Practical help and solid advice.
David Allen Podcast. David's "GTD" is a rich set of productivity principles. Occasionally David or one of his execs does an audio recording, and it shows up here. Always useful.

Other Regular Podcasts
The Splendid Table. The cook in me loves this weekly American Public Media production, which is always full of great cooking and baking information and trivia.
Car Talk. Both funny and informative, Tom and Ray have long been a favorite listen of mine; now I listen anytime I want.
The Clark Howard Show. I've never found more practical wisdom about consumer living than with Clark. He's humble, thoughtful, and helpful.

Podcasts I'm Trying Out
Speaking of Faith. Another APM production, this one looks at religion in our culture and discusses it honestly.
News from Lake Wobegon. Garrison Keillor is one of nation's great storytellers, using words in ways that most writers (including me) aspire to emulate.
Lawrence Lessig. Larry Lessig is one of the best presenters today; his podcast is a constant model of presentation goodness.
Cook's Illustrated. I'm smitten with this magazine, and now I can enjoy a video podcast from them as well.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, preaching

"I reach into my pocket just so I can make some change, and I find more hands than I could ever shake..."

~John Gorka, "Campaign Trail"

The Iowa Caucus is today-- which is a big deal, and it's not. It's a big deal because it signals the beginning of the Presidential Primary elections-- where the various parties select which nominee will represent the party in the general election. It's not a big deal (or at least, not the big deal that the media makes it out to be) because the Iowa Caucus is just one state, and historically the winner of the Iowa Caucus has won the party nomination less than 50% of the time.

Of course, it does mark the beginning of the official election year-- which is a big deal in itself, on a larger scale than just one state. There are some twists in this year's election: those who seemed early on to be sure-things are now showing that they are anything but, while otherwise low-level contenders have emerged in prominence; former party loyalties are being tested in both parties; and this also seems to be the year of the "anyone but" election.

By that I mean even candidates are suggesting that others should not get the nomination at any cost. Dennis Kucinich announced something on the order of, "if you don't vote for me, then vote for Barack Obama" (suggesting that Hilary Clinton or John Edwards are not worthy of the nomination). Evangelicals seem to be against certain candidates more than they are for any one in particular. The endorsements seem to be more "vote against" than "vote for" statements.

To me, this signals a troubling time. Christians in particular ought to be more about asserting what we do believe, what we are for, and what we will support; we ought NOT stand so firmly about what we are against.

Historically, Christians have identified themselves by a credo, a creed. The word credo means, "I believe" and it always has a consequent-- a statement that follows asserting what the belief is. "I believe in God, the Father Almighty..." When we move away from this form and begin to argue what we don't believe, we often divide unnecessarily. In my brief studies of church history, I have seen how this is the case.

There are times when we must divide. Certainly, there have been ecclesiastical divisions that were necessary and important, even vital to the health of the church. Likewise, there are political perspectives that prevent the wholesale unity of all voters (though there have been times when this has at least not appeared to be so: Ronald Reagan was elected by landslide victories in both elections, with 49 states voting for him in 1984).

When a Christian identifies themselves to me more by what they don't believe than what they do, I wonder whether they really understand the Gospel; it is, after all, fundamentally about reconciliation and bridging division. My experience has taught me that, almost universally, Christians who are more about being against something will not have a pattern of healthy relationships with other Christians.

I wonder if a similar standard could apply to political candidates? As we enter into the 2008 election season, who is asserting firmly what they DO stand for? Who is spending more time telling you what (or who) they disagree with? I suggest to you that the candidates that spend their time, energy, and campaign dollars talking about what they won't do (or about how other candidates will be trouble) are not leaders who offer hope of a healthy presidency.

Tags: Politics, Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life

We're a long way from the 2008 presidential election-- indeed, we're still a good ways off from many primaries. Right now, it's anyone's guess who will emerge as the final set of candidates a little under a year from now. Based on the way things appear now, I wouldn't be surprised if something like Montgomery Brewster's "None of the Above" campaign could gain some serious momentum over the next 11 months.

That said, here's an early read on the status of the current leaders. [Disclaimer: This is IN NO WAY an endorsement of any candidate, personally or as an organization. I certainly do NOT speak on behalf of Hickory Withe Presbyterian Church in this assessment, and even personally this is not a claim of how I will vote or even my inclinations. This is merely an assessment of how I see the race taking shape.]

The candidate that will win the 2008 election must find a way to appeal to the all-important middle-ground moderates-- a growing segment of our population. At the same time, they must strike certain chords with either politically conservative or progressive voters on certain issues; ideally, the candidate would be able to appeal to both extremes on some issues. I think it's safe to say that no Americans (or at least, very few) want to see the country divided as strongly as the 2000 Bush vs. Gore race.

Right now, the front-runners of the Democratic Party-- Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John Edwards-- are not leaning enough toward the center to woo as many moderates as they will eventually need to court. This is probably because they are (smartly) thinking primarily about the next vote only: they realize that they must win the nomination of their party in order to move ahead. (I recall hearing President Bill Clinton making this argument at some point-- maybe on David Letterman?)

But many voters from all points on the political spectrum are paying attention to both sides. Perhaps more than ever, the claims made during Primary campaigns will matter throughout the general election. Thus, any of these Democratic front-runners are in danger of marginalizing themselves with general election voters, or appearing to waffle on important issues down the line.

On the Republican side, many of the candidates are doing the same thing, in a slightly different way: some are following the same path and skewing too far to the right for a lot of moderates (I think Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson fit this category), while others (Rudy Giuliani and John McCain?) have moved to the middle so much that they have made a lot of the "far-right" conservatives uncomfortable.

Mike Huckabee, however, seems to have found a bit of balance here: he resonates with the conservatives on a handful of key issues, but appeals to moderates (and even some of the more "liberal" voters) on others.

Huckabee still has a long way to go. If he continues to succeed in his campaign, however, it may prove interesting to see if my read on this is accurate. Back in 2000, I thought a really interesting race would have been John McCain vs. Bill Bradley-- both were moderate enough to pose a significant "threat" to the other in the middle-ground. Will we see the same thing this year? Maybe Mike Huckabee vs. Bill Richardson...

Keep in mind, I'm not talking who should win, but who could. Often, "should" and "could" are different, at least in politics. Why? Because "should" is inherently subjective; my idea of "should" is inevitably different from yours. So the only way that "should" will win (or become "could") is if enough people generally agree with me (of course, that may mean that "should" doesn't win from your vantage point).

So why does this matter? To begin with, Americans-- and especially Christians-- tend to think far too individualistically about the world, including politics. I've heard too many times from Christians, "if so-and-so is elected President, I'm moving to Canada." Why is that? Aside from the fact that these Christians may not like Canada's leadership any more than the U.S.'s, perhaps they need to ask why they believe the election is all about them.

In fact, elections aren't about anyone in particular-- they are about all of us together. Sometimes what is best for a community is not what is necessarily best for any particular individual member of that community. So it is with a nation, as well. I'm all for contributing to the costs of paving roads I'll never use, and police and fire services I hope I won't have to use, because those roads, policemen, and fire fighters keep other people safe. And I need to realize that the best man-- or woman-- for President of the United States may not be the one among all candidates who will "benefit" me the most.

So "could" matters, even if the pundits tell us that we shouldn't vote based on electability. Rather than a "take my marbles and go home" attitude, Christians should lead the charge in supporting electable candidates who are good for the nation, state, and local community-- even if their worldviews differ somewhat from ours.

Tags: Cultural Discernment, Faith & Life, community, Politics

One of the issues that has confused Christians for nearly a decade is that of stem cell research. While many of us have heard the claims that "stem cell research will cure the world's diseases and afflictions," these claims are sometimes challenged, often unsubstantiated. And just as the issue was moving to the fore of public interest, the 9/11 terrorist attacks (rightly) took our attention off of it.

What is going on with the stem cell question? Proponents have long argued, as I mentioned before, that the key to solving a great many medical problems may lie in investing in stem cell research, specifically embryonic stem cell research. In fact, they have maintained that only embryonic stem cells offer the possibilities that medical science hopes for. Opponents claim that, in the case of embryonic stem cells, there is a moral/ethical sticky wicket involved: in order to obtain these cells for research, a human embryo must be destroyed. Since many believe that human life begins at conception, this means that, a human life must be taken in order to perform the research. This was the state of the debate 6 years ago, and for a long time there was little change in this impasse. Immediately prior to 9/11, President Bush issued an executive order substantially limiting stem cell research, and that further ceased any progress in the discussion.

Fast-forward to June of this year: a bill (one of a series) was passed by Congress to approve funding for embryonic stem cell research, and President Bush vetoed it. At that time, he put forth the argument that he (and many other opponents) have offered before: there are other, better sources for stem cells than living human embryos, and these offer as much possibility as any embryonic cells do. While many proponents snickered or jeered at Bush's dogmatic take on the research, a few scientists (specifically in Kyoto, Japan and Madison, Wisconsin) plodded ahead with just such an effort.

This fall, they announced their success in two medical journals (Cell and Science): they had succeeded in creating human stem cells ("pluripotent" ones-- meaning they have the potential to take many forms) from existing human skin cells. What is more, because these stem cells are created from a human's own cells, they theoretically offer better potential at organ replacement, for example, because of a lesser likelihood that the organs will be rejected. And this obviously removes the ethical concern, as no embryos are required for this process. They declared their discovery an "ethical and political win-win."

This advance, however, is not welcome news to the ears of everyone interested in this medical technology. It turns out that other implications have emerged from this research, as well: stem cell research may not be the promising cure-all that many hoped it to be. Instead, it may simply contribute to the study and advance of existing cures for diseases, rather than offering exciting and near-miraculous new approaches to curing things like paralysis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, or heart failure.

Many still claim that embryonic stem cells still offer this promise. Yet the truth is starting to come out: as Paul Nurse (a medical Nobel winner) said at a stem cell conference, "Creating cell lines for transplant is unlikely to come down the pike any time soon. Opponents recognized that this was an overselling of the technology" (Newsweek, 12/3). Even if the strongest opponents are right about embryonic stem cells, that still leaves the ethical dilemma of the use of embryos for research purposes. Thus, this revelation (about the realistic limits of stem cell research) at best puts us back to the stand-off that has been status quo for the past six years.

Two things need to occur to reasonably advance this issue for Christians and others: first, attentive thought should begin to debunk the myth that "funded stem cell research = cures for all our ills." Until our world begins to understand this more fully, no profitable discussion on the matter can really take place.

Second, however, is the imperative that everyone, even (and especially) Christians, must begin to accept: the bio-ethical issues of the value and sanctity of human life, so core to many Christians' understanding of how we understand things like the abortion issue, needs to be explored more fully. We must not accept a weak, inconsistent application of life-value, but must realize the full extent to which this value applies to our world. It includes (but is not limited to) embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and abortion; but it also includes questions about elder care, certain fertility efforts, and even warfare. From my perspective, we (as a Church) have been careless about thinking through the consistent application of our claims to be "pro-life" in the big-picture sense.

Sources:
"Where they stand" by Richard Ostling, in World magazine, December 15, 2007 issue.
"Reality Check on an Embryonic Debate" by Sharon Begley, in Newsweek magazine, December 3, 2007 issue.
"Scientists Produce Embryonic Stem Cells from Skin" by Joe Palca, on All Things Considered, November 20, 2007 episode.

Tags: Faith & Life, Cultural Discernment, Science & Technology

Philip Pullman's fantasy novel, The Golden Compass, has been made into a movie and is slated for release this weekend. This movie has created all sorts of hubbub in the Church, mainly because Pullman has been quite candid about his opposition to Christianity and to organized religion in general, and his novels (The Golden Compass is the first novel in the fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials) are sort of the anti-Christian answer to C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. The backlash from this movie so far seems to point to the potential for it to be the next Da Vinci Code in terms of the Church's response to it.
It's a reasonable question to ask: how should Christians handle this movie (and others like it)? I'm sensitive to the need for better understanding on this, and I'd love to provide a comprehensive guide to understanding The Golden Compass from a Christian perspective.
The problem is, I haven't read the books, nor have I seen the movie. I'm not certain I will, either-- fantasy is not usually my genre of choice. So instead, I'd like to point you toward those who are familiar with these, and encourage you to benefit from them.

• 
  
• My old friend Russell Smith, a pastor in Cincinnati, Ohio, has also blogged about the movie in a post entitled, "Why is the Golden Compass a big deal?" Russell offers brief but solid advice for how to think about this film and the lack of good NEW stories being told by Christians.
• 
  
• Dave Burchett writes thoughtfully about many things, and I appreciate his perspective on why this movie shouldn't be a big deal. His post, "Christians Shouldn't Lose Their Bearings Over a Golden Compass" (which gets extra marks for a clever title) is a great effort to disarm the threat, and also a call to more cultural engagement.
• 
  
• Those who want to understand the underpinnings of the story, and how Pullman is both an excellent writer and an effective apologist AGAINST the Church, need go no further than Mars Hill Audio. The most recent edition of Mars Hill Audio's Audition podcast is a very informative conversation with literary critic Alan Jacobs about Pullman's writing and stories. It will serve not only as a helpful orientation to Pullman's fantasy world, but also helpful advice about understanding the story without getting sucked into its worldview.
• 
  

I'm grateful to these men and the resources they provide. I hope you, too, will approach this movie (and other cultural artifacts like it) thoughtfully and willing to engage culture, and not run in fear from culture.

Tags: Faith & Life, Cultural Discernment, Movies