Thoughts on the Evangelical Manifesto

Last week, a document entitled The Evangelical Manifesto was released by a broad group of Christian leaders (by that, I mean leaders of Christianity in various forms) as an effort to raise helpful questions and offer helpful guidance about how we, as Christians, live out our faith as both citizens of the Kingdom and residents in our American culture.

The list of 80 "charter signatories" and authors includes a lot of names that will be familiar to many Christians: Kay Arthur, Darrell Bock, Stuart Briscoe, Leighton Ford, Os Guinness, Jack Hayford, Max Lucado, J.P. Moreland, John Ortberg, Rebecca Manley Pippert, Alvin Plantinga, Miroslav Volf, Jim Wallis. It also includes many names that won't be familiar, while the titles under them will: President of Dallas Theological Seminary; Chancellor, Northwest University; President, National Association of Evangelicals; President, Bethel University; President, Dollar General; Founder, Leadership Network; President, Liberty Seminary; Former President, Eastern University; President, World Vision International; President-Emeritus, Gordon-Conwell Seminary; President, Wheaton College; President, World Relief; President, Houghton College; President, Institute for Global Engagement; Editor in Chief, Christianity Today International; Founder, Charisma Magazine; President, National Religious Broadcasters; President, Beeson Divinity School. You get the point.

What's laudable about the document is that it offers clarification to a question that there are far too many answers for today: who are the Evangelicals? We hear about them in the news (especially as tied to some political or social movement). The Manifesto clearly asserts that we (Evangelical Christians) ought to be defined more by our theology than our political, social, or cultural agendas. And it goes on to say that, whatever we may differ about, there are many truths we can agree upon-- which it spells out in eloquent terms. It is unashamed of the Bible, of historically orthodox Christianity, and of the plain Gospel of salvation through Christ alone. (Some have suggested that it is not exclusive enough on the "Christ alone" part-- I don't see how the statement, "we believe that the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life 'from above'" (pp. 5-6) leaves that open to question.) The authors state that, in answer to the question above, we must reaffirm our identity, reform our own behavior, and rethink our place in public life. And in their description of how we might do all of these things, they challenge self-described Evangelicals to handle themselves and others with charity, grace, and humility, leading with a message of affirming what is true before asserting what we are against.

It's interesting to me that the above goals are almost exactly what I have been thinking about lately, and dialoguing with others about. It seems like there is a groundswell of support for exactly these ideas, and this Manifesto is perhaps the first big, self-conscious step in a good direction that the whole of American Christianity might undertake. It's not the only step, nor is it the last step, but it is a very good first step.

The document has come under fire right from the start, naturally-- because these days, it seems like anything that suggests that Christians can actually find common ground with one another, reaching past denominational or theological boundaries and acknowledging the faith and brotherhood of those who don't believe exactly like us, is clearly faulty and problematic in the eyes of a small but vocal minority. I've read a good bit of discussion surrounding this Manifesto, and I'm surprised at how vehemently it has been attacked in some cases. (Some of the attackers admit that they haven't even read the document!) My suspicion is that many of the attackers, by and large, are responding defensively to the suggestion in the Manifesto that their single-issue voting, slippery-slope sectarianism, or separatist fundamentalism is somehow out of accord with Scripture. This, by the way, is based on the fact that much of the criticism is aimed at these issues, and consists of arguments like, "how can they argue that there is a fight more important than abortion?" (which the Manifesto DOESN'T argue). As one commenter said, these critics are reading more into the document than they are reading out of it.

There are some legitimate critiques-- even some that I agree with-- but I don't think these should prevent Christians from embracing this document for what it is: a starting point, a common point. It isn't a complete articulation of what it means to be a Christian-- which is why, for example, there is something left to be desired in the view of participation in a local church-- nor is it a call to do LESS than what we are already doing in our life of faith, generally speaking. It is simply a call to be MORE what we claim to be, and to connect more fully with others who share the same faith.

Perhaps the most interesting attack came from Douglas Wilson. Known for his tendency to provoke strong responses, Wilson accuses the document of handing over the public square to the atheists and secularists (which, I suppose, is what the Manifesto's perspective would look like to a Reconstructionist like Wilson). This attack was interesting to me because Wilson was/is one of the loudest voices accusing the PCA of being too exclusive and not accepting enough of theological variance when it comes to the Federal Vision controversy. (Watch out, FV proponents; it looks like Wilson could be quite inconsistent in this way, much like my friend Jon and I discussed in the comments of his blog.) One brief paragraph from the Manifesto could have been penned by one of those very FV proponents who came under fire: "Behind this affirmation is the awareness that identity is powerful and precious to groups as well as to individuals. Identity is central to a classical liberal understanding of freedom. There are grave dangers in identity politics, but we insist that we ourselves, and not scholars, the press, or public opinion, have the right to say who we understand ourselves to be. We are who we say we are, and we resist all attempts to explain us in terms of our true motives and our real agenda" (p. 4).

It's worth noting that the self-appointed watchdogs of the PCA haven't commented on this document, although the "blogosphere" is abuzz about it. (In fact, I haven't heard anything about it from anyone in the PCA, that I know of.) I'm curious about why this is so, though I have my suspicions. How about it, friends: what is your take on the Evangelical Manifesto?

Discussing women and deacons

I mentioned a few weeks ago that Philadelphia Presbytery has submitted an overture to the PCA's General Assembly asking the GA to erect a study committee on Deaconesses. That overture has been echoed by the Western Canada Presbytery, and if I'm able to read this sort of thing at all, the committee will almost certainly be erected.

It may be needless to point out that this issue has caused quite a bit of stir and discussion. The PCA's own magazine, byFaith, has posted a summary of the announcement of the overture and that has generated quite a bit of discussion in the comments. Other, less "official" sources have also hosted a significant amount of discussion as well. A good bit of the discussion is quite helpful, offering finer points and perspectives that would simply be impossible to gather were it not for this Internet/Information Age that we live in.

Sadly, a lot of the discussion has also deteriorated into mostly or totally unhelpful rant, name-calling, and fear-mongering. A few of the points of discussion may be summed up as follows:

• "Scripture is clear on this matter (OR, arguing that Scripture isn't clear is a sign of our cultural liberalism and feminism)." The thought process here: because the NIV translates 1 Timothy 3:11 with reference to "their wives" instead of (the equally possible) "the women;" and because it translates "diakonos" Romans 16:1 as "servant" because it refers to a woman, then the issue is clearly settled. But who is to say that these translations are filled with cultural bias or the influence of a historical patriarchalism? Anyone who says, "Scripture is clear" has probably only been looking at English translations.


• "The Book of Church Order (BCO) already prohibits ordaining women as Deacons." The line of thought here: The BCO is a finished, completed document that is utterly faithful to Scripture and never need be changed or amended to be brought closer to the Bible. This is difficult to reconcile with (common sense and) the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says, "All syonds or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both" (WCF 31.4).


• "The word that is translated 'Deacon' in the Bible for men is obviously translated as 'servant' for women." Thought process: meaning changes substantially, even fundamentally, based solely on gender. This is an interesting foundational principle-- and one I'd like to hear more support for by other examples before accepting, which the arguers haven't provided.


• "The Apostles' recognition of Phoebe, and other women in the New Testament, was a function of their cultural role-- something that doesn't apply to us." The appeal here is to the historical context, which of course is a fundamental principle in Bible interpretation. The problem is that these same folks will argue that historical context trumps literary context (or the language of the text itself-- see previous bullet) when Phoebe is mentioned, but when dealing with, say, 1 Timothy 3:11, quickly jump to the next argument...


• "The historical context doesn't apply, since Paul was writing normative principles to Timothy about the qualifications for Deacons." Line of thought: somehow historical context is disposable for any normative portion of biblical text. The problem with that is that it would rule out the context of the deliverance and redemption of Israel out of Egyptian slavery as the setting for the 10 commandments, for example-- which most would agree poses some problems about a classic Reformed understanding of the 10 commandments.


• "Allowing women as Deacons (even if the Bible permits it) will inevitably lead to handing over all authority in the church to women." The thinking here is a classic slippery slope notion: if one thing is bad or prohibited, then we dare not go near anything close to that thing. (This was a problem that the Pharisees often had, by the way...)


• "Allowing women as Deacons is granting them authority and leadership that is unbibilcal." The thought trajectory in this argument is that Deacons have authority of the same sort that Elders have, and the Bible forbids women to have such authority. The problems here are rooted in the (mistaken and unbiblical) idea that Deacons are some kind of "Junior Elder" and therefore share in the role of authority with the Elders. But two problems immediately arise from this line of thought: first, the BCO itself defines the office of Deacon as "one of sympathy and service" (BCO 9.1) while it defines the Elder as office of exercising "government and discipline" (BCO 8.3)-- very different roles, one with clear distinction of authority and the other with, at best, less clear distinction. Secondly, the Deacons are "under the supervision and authority of the Session" (BCO 9.2), which begs the question: what authority do they have that, for example, a Sunday School teacher or WIC (Women in the Church) leader doesn't also have?


• "We already have the WIC; what do we need women as Deacons for?" The idea here being that the WIC serves as a functional body of "Deaconesses" and we should simply let things remain as they are. Here again, there are two problems with this: first, Scripture does not define for us something like a WIC, and if we desire to pattern our bodies of leadership after Scripture then we should be careful about casually assuming that the WIC fulfills a role that Scripture defines for women. Secondly, and more importantly: the WIC is a ministry of leadership, structured specifically to minister to the women in the church; yet, the office of Deacon is broader than just women. Frankly, I learn a lot from women and have benefited from the ministry and teaching of many women-- and I find the suggestion that women should only minister to other women (and children) short-sighted.


• "We ought to just do like ____ [insert name of a very large PCA church in the south] with the way they handle Deacon's assistants." I was surprised to see this argument made by more than one or two people. The thinking here: So-and-so has figured it out, and they should set the pace for all PCA churches. Again, problems arise: setting aside the very big assumption that the leadership there really has figured it out and has hit upon the perfect biblical solution, what does this have to do with what the BCO says about Deacons and women? But a closer look at the proposed practices reveals the truth: said PCA church's solution is to hire out the work of "serving tables" to outsiders (many of them unbelievers, all of them African-Americans).

I'm not convinced that blogs and discussion boards (mine included) are completely helpful in matters like these. It seems to me that folks are getting so entrenched in their positions, long before GA, that the possibility of healthy, profitable discussion on a study committee-- and even a good appointment of that committee-- is diminished.

I'm not decided about the matter. I've held back from my inclination to dig into the issue and study it to the point of deciding what my mind is about it-- though I'll take the time to do that before GA. But I am struck by this: most of the arguments against the study committee (summarized above) go against my logical inclinations-- committing fallacies and demonstrating inconsistency frequently-- and these weaken the case against a committee significantly. So I'm obviously in favor of erecting a study committee, even if I'm not decided on the issue of women as Deacons/Deaconesses.

Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm surprised that brothers and sisters in the PCA can't have a more constructive conversation about all of this. As much as anything, reading some of these discussions have caused me to grieve the lack of brotherly love and charitable grace within our denomination, and my heart has frequently been heavy about it over the past few weeks. Why is an overture to study ANY part of the BCO to consider if it is fully and truly based on Scripture so threatening?

One commenter (Scott Truax of Peace Presbyterian Church, Cary, NC) at the byFaith page summed it up the best: "If we follow Scripture, we have nothing to fear."

Election Fatigue

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?

Book Give-Away: a winner!

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.

More on suffering

Apropos to the wrap-up of the series on the cross yesterday-- the cross in our suffering, the cross in our glory-- I find this quote from the late James Montgomery Boice, who faithfully pastored 10^th Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia for over 30 years before succumbing to liver cancer:

If God does something in your life, would you change it? If you’d change it, you’d make it worse. It wouldn’t be as good. So that’s the way we want to accept it and move forward, and who knows what God will do?

(HT: Paul Bankson)

Essential non-obvious bands of the 80s

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.

When to read?

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.

Books for April 2008

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+)

Essential non-obvious 80s albums

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.

Some ideas about economics

The checks are in the mail, so many of us are starting to think about how we'll spend our tax rebate that should be coming over the next few weeks (or months for those of you who are getting the check by mail instead of electronic transfer).

There has been some good talk around the 'net about how Christians should approach this newfound largess. (It's not really largess, you know-- it's money that the government took from you, and now is giving a little bit of it back.) One guy says that Christians should NOT take the dough and buy a new TV, as this might be poor stewardship. Popular preacher John Piper says we must be careful that the world would see that Christ is our treasure in the way we spend our rebate. Both of these are good cautions.

Let me come in with a more middle-ground perspective: spend this money where it needs to be spent according to responsible budgeting. If you've already given generously to your church, to missions, to local and national charities and benevolence, then you may decide that the money would be well-spent elsewhere in your budget. If you have repairs or improvements to your home or car that are needed and you've been wondering how you would afford it, you may (rightly) view this rebate as God's provision for that need. And, yes: if you need to replace your TV, then using your rebate to buy a new TV may be good stewardship; you have my permission to do so.

Be careful of the voices that say that every spare dollar in a tightened budget MUST go to the church or a ministry. This sort of semi-socialist approach (that many preachers seem to advocate) was apparently the model of the Jerusalem church in Acts, when they sold everything and shared with one another as each had need. It also apparently led to poverty and struggle, which is why Paul had to ask the Corinthians and others to send money to the Jerusalem church. Good stewardship? Maybe not. A normative model for the church today? Probably not.

Changing directions a bit, here are a few other ideas I have about the economy (because I'm so qualified to make such assertions):

First idea: churches should stick to their budget.
When the economy dips like it appears to be doing (aren't we already in recession? especially when you factor in the loss of value on the dollar?), Deacons and Elders worldwide declare a moratorium on spending, even for those things that are already budgeted (and many of them for things that they already had money in the bank to designate). I don't mean trivial things; I've heard of churches cutting back on giving for missions and benevolence, cutting salaries, dropping outreach programs, and second-guessing needed repairs and improvements to facilities. They do this in the name of stewardship and prudence. But frankly, it has always seemed hollow to me; lately I've begun to put my finger on why.

For one thing, it denies that God is going to see through the plans that He led these leaders to make. Let's assume that the leaders who put together the budget in the first place were concerned about stewardship and prudence when they began. Let's also assume that they prayed over their decisions, and that they believed that God was leading their church in the direction they were budgeting for. I don't think either of these is a big leap. Okay then: friends, God knew about the coming financial crisis then, even if you didn't. The work of the church doesn't stop just because we face financial difficulty. Exercise your faith and trust God to provide (perhaps even miraculously) even in the midst of an economic recession.

For another thing, churches need to see themselves as a part of their community in all things-- including economics. Every dime spent by a church is a dime that goes into the local or broader economy-- and since all conventional wisdom (from both Democrats and Republicans) is telling us that continuing to spend will boost the economy, then churches are just as much a part of that as any other institution. Consider it "doing your part" to help boost the economy, if you need to.

Second idea: Congress should pass a one-time tax relief for gasoline.
One of the things that is making this particular economic recession especially difficult (as opposed to when the "Internet bubble" burst at the turn of the century, for example, which wasn't quite so drastic across the board) is how many aspects of our economy are facing strain right now. The housing market, the price of gas, the cost of war, and a number of other factors are all in play. As I mentioned above, the conventional wisdom is that spending on consumer goods and services needs to continue to stimulate economic recovery.

With summer approaching, consumer spending might normally be on the upturn, were it not for the prohibitively high cost of gas-- which will almost inevitably force many families to reconsider vacations, for example. As a solution, I propose that Congress should pass a one-time tax relief for gasoline expenses in order to promote travel and consumer spending during the summer.

Back in 2005, when Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, many people re-directed their generosity toward relief efforts-- so much so that non-profits throughout the rest of the country faced unexpectedly large decreases in giving. In response, Congress passed a one-time tax benefit (called the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act, or KETRA) which temporarily removed the restriction on itemized charitable donations, so that 100% of charitable giving that year would be tax-deductible. I'd like to see them do something similar, so that the extraordinarily high costs of gasoline could be offset by tax relief. (I personally think that this move might do more to stimulate the economy than the tax rebates mentioned above.)

Anyone know any Congressmen who we could propose this to?