A problem of emphasis

Every now and then I come across a statement like this one I saw recently:

"People should be able to talk about their faith without fear of judgment or reprisal."

Without getting too much into the topic of evangelism and how/when people can and should “talk about their faith,” I want to point out a problem of emphasis when many people say something like the above.

More and more, it seems, the emphasis many Christians will read into a sentence like this one (or intend if they write it themselves) is on the judgment and/or reprisal. That is to say, they mean that Christians should be able to speak openly about their faith and there be no consequences. If a Christian stands up and speaks out about Jesus, they believe, then he/she should have no opposition to it.

I witnessed this not too long ago when it turned up that a man in Scotland had been arrested for street preaching. (Again, I’m not out to engage in questions of methodology today.) I saw a handful of links to articles about this on social media, with comments to the effect of, “They can’t do this—it’s a violation of his rights!"

While that may or may not be so (it certainly is not a “right” granted constitutionally in every country across the world), this is beside the point. When we turn to a “rights” argument we’ve lost the plot, as they say across the pond.

If this is what was meant (or should be meant) by the kinds of statements in question, they should read something like this: “People should be able to talk about their faith without judgment or reprisal from others.” But that’s not what is said!

Rather, it is the fear of judgment and reprisal that we should be without. This is the model we see in the New Testament: time and again, Jesus and the apostles faced the potential of being arrested (or worse) when they would preach the gospel. These potentialities (and actualities) did not stop them; rather, often they returned to preaching as soon as they got out of jail!

Acts 5:27–32 is a clear example of this:

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers  raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and  forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” 

What was distinctive about this response was not the insistence that these men has the right to teach and preach whatever they wanted—they didn’t. Rather, what distinguished them was that they said, “We must obey God rather than men."

They had no fear. Not of these leaders. Not of judgment. Not of reprisal.

Today, I hear fellow Christians say that laws passed limiting or restricting our “religious freedoms” are a threat to the gospel, and laws passed that support our “religious freedoms” are a victory for the gospel. No they’re not.

Let me be clear: I’m grateful for our country, and for the freedom that our constitution allows us (regarding our religion, and otherwise). I don’t take that for granted, nor do I wish to casually see it done away with. There are definitely times when I believe that our lawmakers (and law enforcers) act well, in accordance with our constitutional rights, and it is definitely something I give thanks about when it happens.

But the gospel is not beholden to the laws of the United States or any other nation. Indeed, if history is any indicator then the gospel thrives the most when the laws of nations oppose it. If you doubt this, consider where the growth in the church is in the 21st century:  Africa (where most of the countries are decidedly Islamic, culturally and legally) and Asia, especially China (which still has much of the atheistic secularism of its communist history intact). So maybe we can stop talking and acting as if our over-interest in political activity is a matter of the gospel—it’s not.

[There’s nothing wrong with an interest in politics. Politics is important generally for our culture. It’s a fine hobby for some, and a reasonable profession for some others. But it’s not a gospel matter—not in the “what must I do to be saved?” way. Even the Theonomists would agree with that, I think.]

What hinders the gospel—especially in a nation like the United States—isn’t the legal system. It’s not the liberal media or the secular pop culture. It’s the apathy of humankind for their fellow man, as manifested in our individualism. It’s our lack of belief that God actually can and will save those who are opposed to him. And it is our fear of the judgment of others, and our lack of willingness to suffer any inconvenience (let alone actual hardship) for the gospel’s sake.

I’m pointing the finger at myself here, but I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in being at fault in these ways.

What if we cared a little more for our neighbors? What if we believed God’s Word when it says that our neighbors can be saved? And what if we weren’t ashamed to love them well in the name of Jesus?

On "Christian Horror" as a film genre

A friend of mine recently commented on the movie, Satan Hates You (to be released to DVD in the UK), asking, "why is there not MORE Christian horror (or "scare" I guess)?" This is a good question, especially for those who are outside the church.

Incidentally, it's the same issue at stake for things like "Hell Houses" around Halloween: can people be "scared" into believing in Jesus? Should they be?

All of these— "Christian Horror" movies, Hell Houses, and so on— are based on the premise that the most effective way to motivate belief is to present the fruit of disbelief. Christians believe that those who do not have salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning work will suffer judgment and condemnation as punishment for their sin. The basic point of these approaches to "evangelism" is to present the reality of this as starkly and, yes, as frighteningly as possible.

What is the typical result? From reports I have heard from friends whose congregations hold such events is that many express their desire to avoid such a fate. What comes after this expression, though, is the key; it is certainly possible for someone to face the reality presented in a "Christian Horror" movie, believe that, make a response out of fear, and never know the hope of the whole Gospel.

A fellow pastor told me he once had a young man indicate his desire to join the church, and so he met with the man to explore this desire. He asked the young fellow, "why do you want to join the church?" The man answered, "because I don't want to go to hell." My friend then said, "and on what basis do you think you should be spared going to hell?" and the man responded, "because I heard a preacher tell us all about hell, and he said, 'if you don't want to suffer in hell, then walk forward and indicate your desire to unite with the church.' And I did!" The name of Jesus never crossed the man's lips, in spite of his sense that he should join the church and avoid the perils of eternal condemnation.

This is my point about Hell Houses and hell-oriented movies, as well. While they teach plenty about hell and probably a good bit about Satan (probably even a fair amount about the viewer, and his sinful condition), do they offer anything of Christ? The Gospel must be much more than simply telling me about my sin; it must primarily be about Christ and His work, in addition to my need for Him.

Finally, I also have substantial questions about using fear as the primary means by which we urge people to God. The clear teaching of Scripture is that God does not seek merely to scare us, but to be reconciled to us. If the central idea of our evangelistic outreach efforts is how afraid we should be, how do we then teach those new professing believers that their primary orientation to God is not one of terror but of adoption?

"For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.'" (Romans 8:15)

"Prosperity" Abounds...

...or, Brit Hume and Christianity, part two.

As I mentioned in a recent post, the web has been abuzz with Fox News anchor Brit Hume's public encouragement to Tiger Woods to seek hope in Christianity.

I'll say again that I am grateful for Mr. Hume's public witness to the hope of Christianity, and I'm grateful for his boldness in doing so. And I'll say again that I am, in no way, calling into question the authenticity of Mr. Hume's faith nor am I accusing him of purposefully presenting anything other than the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But I'll also say again that some of Mr. Hume's words were as troubling to me as they were encouraging.

I mentioned in my previous post that we must understand that Christ alone (and not "Christianity") can offer forgiveness and redemption. Now I'd like to take up a subject that I've actually been thinking about a good bit lately. This has come up in at least three different conversations I've had in the last two weeks, and now I find it present also in Mr. Hume's comments:

We all believe the "prosperity gospel" to a certain degree.

I know that when I say "prosperity gospel" then everyone has a different idea. Some will think of the scandals of the TV evangelists in the 80s and 90s, when Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert got rich off of donors before the greed and lust caught up with them. Others will think of more contemporary examples like Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, and Joel Osteen, whose teachings (mis)lead people to believe that their financial prosperity are inherently tied to their faith.

Some of these are pitched under the guise of Bible teachings, others under the broader blanket of Christianity, while some are related to Christianity only by association. All of them are adulterations of the teachings of the Bible-- and many of us assume that we're safe from them, simply because we don't attend "that kind of church" or listen to those folks on TV or the radio.

But as I said above, we all believe the "prosperity gospel" to a certain degree. So does Brit Hume-- at least, if his comments on the aforementioned video are any indication. Here's how I know: he said two things that are a direct, if covert, result of prosperity gospel teaching:

• "The extent to which [Tiger Woods] can recover depends on his faith..."
• "Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery..."

We may not believe, if we send $100 a week to So-and-so's ministry, that God will make us rich. In essence, however, we all believe something close to what Mr. Hume articulated: if we're really Christians, bad things won't happen to us. If we truly turn to "the Christian faith" then our problems will get better or disappear. If we are authentic believers, we won't struggle the way that we do. In other words, our faith might not make us financially rich but it will keep us from being financially poor.

In short, when we face difficulty in life, our knee-jerk reaction is to assume that it is because of our lack of faith-- we've lost the victory, we lack the faith, or we haven't gotten the blessing. We're all prosperity-gospel-believers when we face struggles.

Contrast this, however, to what the Scripture actually says about struggles (emphasis added):

• "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." ~John 16.33
• "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?" ~Romans 8:35
• "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God." ~2 Corinthians 1:3-4
• "That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." ~2 Corinthians 12:10
• "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him..." ~Philippians 1:29
• "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance." ~James 1:2-3
• "Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray." ~James 5:13
• "Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed." ~1 Peter 4:12-13

And contrast that, too with what Scripture says about blessings, and how they are present realities out of God's grace, NOT out of our acts of faith or obedience, nor are they withheld from Christians because of our lack of faith or obedience:
"From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another." John 1:16
David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.” ~Romans 4:6-8
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ." ~Ephesians 1:3

Friends, watch out for the "prosperity gospel"-- for it is no true gospel.

Brit Hume, Tiger Woods, and the hope of the Christian faith

Brit Hume, one of the newscasters for the Fox News network, commented on his sense about how Tiger Woods should seek a "spiritual recovery" in the wake of the recent events and scandals. Mr. Hume's comments have been making their way around the internet tubes, mostly through YouTube video clips:


I'm pleasantly surprised to see someone so openly appeal to Christianity as a source of hope and transformation, over and against other religions (Buddhism is specifically named). Even on the overtly-conservative Fox News Network, this is an uncommon find, and I applaud Mr. Hume for his bravery and his candor.

I'm not, in any way, attacking Mr. Hume nor am I claiming that his beliefs are in any way questionable or unorthodox. I understand that Mr. Hume has come under a lot of fire for his comments, which is both lamentable and unsurprising (as he himself has said). And I'll say this, outright: Mr. Hume has offered further clarification on this topic (check my friend James Grant's blog post for more on this), and on his comments, that to a certain degree mitigate my concerns (which are something of an aside from the topic at hand).

Furthermore, I agree with Mr. Hume completely in this way: the hope of the Gospel is the only hope that Tiger Woods, Brit Hume, Ed Eubanks, or anyone else may look to for true, lasting, and eternal hope.

That said, there are two concerns I have with the way Mr. Hume presented Christianity in the video clip above, and I feel they deserve to be addressed (especially given their common acceptance in our world, even among Christians). I'll take one of them up in this post, and follow up with the second in a later post.

First, Mr. Hume said that Tiger Woods should "turn to the Christian faith" to find the redemption and forgiveness that he needs (and, one might assume, that he seeks). We must be very careful to understand what we appeal to when we urge someone to "turn to Christianity".

Christianity is a religion, a religious belief system. Included within that system is the idea of salvation through faith alone-- something that no other religion promotes or claims. Contrary to common assumption, Christianity is NOT just like all the other religions-- it is unique in that point, among others.

But here's the rub: even Christianity cannot save you. We cannot turn to ANY religion-- even Christianity-- for salvation. There is no forgiveness to be gained through religious observance, nor any redemption to be found in a religion itself.

It is only Christ Who saves. For Tiger Woods, Ed Eubanks, or anyone else to find the forgiveness and redemption that we desperately need, we must seek it in Christ-- and through His grace alone. We cannot find it anywhere else, even in the trappings of "Christianity."

There is a sense that I'm splitting hairs here, because the essence of Christianity itself is this very truth. But when our culture and world speak of Christianity, they often overlook that; indeed, when many Christians speak of Christianity, they often overlook it. And I dare say, when Mr. Hume spoke of Christianity in the above video, his representation of it overlooked it.

This is the very reason why most people assume that Christianity is just another religion. It was the mistake of the formalistic worshipers of the Old Testament, and the error of the Pharisees in the New Testament. It was the end-game of the devolution of the faith in the middle ages, which was the seed-bed for the Reformation-- reclaiming this very distinction. And it must be OUR distinction today, or we surely perish.

Women and outreach

Does this idea about "women and word of mouth" suggest anything to the church about evangelism and outreach? Could this be part of the reason why there are more women attending church today than men? Does it imply that we ought to put more emphasis on women in our outreach efforts?

Tim Keller has it right

In this interesting article from Christianity Today, PCA Pastor Tim Keller claims that the Gospel is more than only justification. He's right-- for generations leading up to our individualistic age, Christians have understood this. It has only been in recent years (and coinciding with-- or due to?-- the individualism of our day) that the concept of salvation has been limited to a one-time experience, an almost gnostic approach to spiritual life.

Here's a key excerpt from the article:

Keller answered this year's question for the Christian Vision Project, "Is our gospel too small?" (The article is not yet available online.) In so doing he took a stab at defining the gospel. "Through the person and work of Jesus Christ, God fully accomplishes salvation for us, rescuing us from the judgment for sin into fellowship with him, and then restores the creation in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever."
Is God's plan to renew creation part of the gospel message? If so, is it the center of the gospel or a peripheral component of the Good News? Again, how you answer these questions affects how you will live, and how you will expect fellow church members to act.
"When the third, 'eschatological' element is left out, Christians get the impression that nothing much about this world matters," Keller wrote. "Theoretically, grasping the full outline should make Christians interested in both evangelistic conversions as well as service to our neighbor and working for peace and justice in the world."

Your salvation is bigger than just your conversion or justification, and it's bigger than just something that happens to you in isolation from others.

Leveraging great ideas for missions

In the big scheme of things, I don't know much about missions. That's something that I'm working on-- but my lack of knowledge doesn't keep me from thinking about it, especially when I see opportunities.

One of the big areas that has emerged as a theme in my ever-vigilant watch of technology is the development of new concepts and technologies to supply water and other resources to third-world communities. Allow me to point you to a few examples:

• Martin Fisher wins the Lemelson-MIT award for sustainability for the SuperMoneyMaker Pump. Fisher has devised a $100 water pump that can pull water from a 30-foot well to irrigate up to 2 acres of land. (He's also developed a $35 tool called the "Hip Pump" that uses a farmer's body weight to operate it.)
• The PlayPump System is an utterly brilliant concept that links a well pump and cistern to a kids' merry-go-round toy, so that as they play on the merry-go-round they are actually supplying water for their community from the well (which is stored in the cistern). The whole system costs $14,000, and can supply 2,500 people with water for 10 years. (PlayPumps International gets extra props for setting up a system where you can donate as little as $6 toward the installation of these-- and that $6 will supply one child with clean water for 10 years.)
• Dean Kamen has built the Vapor Compression Distiller, which is a chemical, membrane, and filter-free water purifier (meaning it doesn't require substantial maintenance and consumable goods to continue filtering). Kamen believes this could eradicate a huge amount of disease worldwide.
• The Hippo Water Roller is designed to alleviate the difficulty and physical stress required for a human body to retrieve and transport water from long distances. It allows 200 pounds of water to be reduced to an effective weight of only 22 pounds for easier transportation, even over difficult terrain.
• Daniel Sheridan has won three separate awards for developing a see-saw designed to provide enough electricity to power a classroom for several hours through 10 minutes of play.

All by themselves, each of these is a very good idea. It strikes me, though, that the missing piece for all of them is the infrastructure to distribute and install these.

Sure, the Peace Corps and similar secular groups are all over the place doing this kind of work. But why not missionaries? Why couldn't some of the many missions boards with teams of people in third-world countries send short-term teams that would bring and install these as a support and extension of the existing ministry?

One thing I DO know about missions is this: it is almost universally agreed that long-term sustainability of Gospel ministry depends on developing local, indigenous leaders to take over the ministry. That sort of sustainability, it seems to me, demands that stability of resources also be in place-- so water supply, irrigation, agriculture, medical care, and education must become immediate concerns for pastors and missionaries in a third-world context.

All of the above projects seem to offer affordable solutions for exactly that: stabilizing resources. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Am I missing something? What do you think?

What we should REALLY be concerned about...

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.

Why "Expelled"?

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).

Finding fulfillment

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)

Is atonement even possible?

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)

Ministry, church, statistics, and the U.S. as a mission field

I overheard a young first-year seminary student talking with a couple of others in the bookstore a few years ago. He was talking about his sense of call to ministry, and they asked him if he wanted to be a Pastor when he finished. Yes, he did, but he quickly (and haughtily) clarified: "I'll go overseas to do missions, of course. The U.S. is way too full of churches and Pastors."

This video is a good presentation of a bunch of amazing statistics about the church in the U.S., and in a matter of minutes utterly refutes this young man's jaded viewpoint. (HWPC folks, may I ask that you be sure to take a few minutes to watch this?) What's clear from the data presented is that the local church has never held a more important place in the community, even if most of that community doesn't realize it.

While it is clear that the statistics are presented with an intent to promote church planting, they offer great insight into the mission and importance of established churches, as well. In my view, those figures regarding the established church's less effective outreach are simultaneously an indictment and a call to action.

What struck you as the more interesting aspects of that presentation?