Pastor's Blog

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

I’ve heard it said that the last person who knew everything (i.e. all the accumulated human knowledge at the time) was Erasmus. Of course we have no way of confirming that, but the fact remains that it is no longer possible for one person to absorb all the information that humanity has gathered. We all have to specialize in one way or another. The challenge today is incredible volume of information available to us. How do we filter for the important stuff and not be distracted by the trivial? How do we find reliable sources of information?

Joe Carter’s latest post over at the Evangelical Outpost got me thinking about this. His post focuses on the news industry, which in my opinion is becoming more and more irrelevant. I was in college studying broadcasting and working at the college radio station when USA Today began to be popular. I remember my professors decrying it as “McPaper,” fast-food news without any meaningful content. I don’t know if that was the beginning of the end or if it goes back to Edward R. Murrow, but news has become entertainment rather than information.

I used to be a news junkie. I read the newspaper, watched CNN (this was pre-FoxNews), and listened to talk radio all day long. In the end, I don’t think it was really profitable. Joe may have it right, it may be no better than watching the mindless sitcoms. All the news outlets use the same sources anyway. They just wrap it up in different clothes. I still listen to the news on the radio (WWJ) in the morning to see if there’s anything “breaking” that I need to know about. I still read the Sunday newspaper, at least some of it. They’re not my major sources of information anymore, though.

These days I try to focus on gathering information that helps me be what God has called me to be…a pastor, a father, a husband, a friend. Blogs are an interesting new tool for that kind of information gathering. They’re not a perfect source either. There are far, far too many for any one person to read. They can suffer from the same problems of triviality, and many are untrustworthy sources or have a particular axe to grind. I’ve found a few blogs that focus on the kind of information I need. By paying attention to the books they quote, the sources they cite, their links and blogrolls I find other possible sources.

I’m curious. How do my many (hee hee) loyal readers filter the noise of our information culture to find relevant information?

Culture | Technology

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 09:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Comments [2]

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Christian unity and doctrinal purity

I really sympathize with Mark Roberts, who is one of my favorite bloggers. For those of you who don't read Mark's stuff, he's a PCUSA pastor who is much more conservative theologically than the majority of his denomination. It can't be easy watching your fellowship slip from its commitment to biblical principles. I appreciate the honesty and gentleness he has shown in his response to the recent changes in the PCUSA.

I can't imagine that any thinking person would always agree 100% with every decision made by their fellowship. I know I don't always agree with the decisions of the A/G. (NOTE: I said decisions, not doctrines :-)

As Christians, however, we're called to submit to one another out of love. Of course, that's infinitely more difficult for someone in Mark's position, where the changes address "hot button" issues.

It's a constant struggle for any thoughtful, sincere Christian to stand firm while showing gentleness and love, especially when it comes to disputable matters. I'm speaking on what I think is a "disputable matter" tomorrow, so I suppose I'll get some practice...and so will our church. Pray for me as I pray for Mark. :-)

Culture | Current Events

Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 09:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Comments [2]

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Is God Judging the U.S.?

I read a good article today that I thought I'd share. The author makes some interesting points about God's judgment and the "culturally acceptable" sins of our society that we tend to ignore. The point of the article (as I see it) is not redefining sin, but recognizing the fact that we focus too much attention of certain sins while we turn a blind eye to others. How can we most effectively communicate the Gospel and make disciples instead of enemies? I think we need to start by recognizing planks in our own eyes.

Politics

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 09:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Comments [0]

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

C.S. Lewis does it again

This is really cool.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Romans 1:20 (NIV)

Missional | Culture

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 09:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Comments [0]

Saturday, June 03, 2006

The blogging caveman

I don’t think I’ll ever understand the feminist agenda. Why is it that they insist on defining a woman’s value by her earning power? Elizabeth Vargas recently resigned from anchoring the CBS World News Tonight to have more time for her family and the child she is expecting. She made it abundantly clear that it was her choice and she wasn’t forced out or fired, yet the feminists can’t accept that. They can’t understand why anyone would do such a thing; she must be lying for the network, they say. How incredibly narrow-minded. Motherhood is the most valuable and influential occupation anyone could have. Salary.com has calculated that a fair wage for the average stay-at-home mother is over $134,000. In the end, that means the feminist agenda is all about money. I suppose they won’t be satisfied until moms are actually paid a six-figure salary.

It seems to me the logical conclusion of the feminist agenda would be a society without marriage altogether. Anyone wanting children would go to the local reproductive clinic and hire a surrogate mother; whoever carries the child to term should be paid too, after all. Then once the child is born, a nanny would need to be hired and paid a lucrative salary for raising the child. Pardon me for being a Neanderthal, but I don’t want to live in that kind of society. I’ll stick with God’s plan, thank you very much.

Now for any readers who don’t know me personally, I will clarify that I don’t mean that women shouldn’t have careers. I’m simply saying that the feminists should (but never will) recognize the power, value, and appeal of good, old-fashioned motherhood.

BTW, my congratulations to Elizabeth Vargas and her husband Marc Cohn. Marc is one of my all-time favorite singer-songwriters. May their child arrive healthy and be a great blessing to their home.

Culture

Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 09:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Comments [4]

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

What ever happened to community?

Dan Edelen over at Cerulean Sanctum has started another series called "Unshackling the American Church." Dan can be a bit of a curmudgeon sometimes (no offense meant, Dan) but he always makes you think and I appreciate that. His latest post is a full-course buffet of food for thought. Dan can also be a bit paradoxical at times, using a technology like blogging to warn us of the evils of technology, but he has a valid point. Technology must be a tool we use when needed, not a fixation that rules our lives.

He also makes an interesting point about "home-based economies" that I need to give more thought. I think a "home-based economy" is more than just people working out of their homes, but I think that's certainly a move in the right direction. That idea seems to perpetuate the paradox, since it is generally technology that enables people to more easily work from home. The key, once again, is to not allow the technology to rule over us. If you're working from home but still working 12 hours a day, how is that an improvement?

Dan also goes off on consumerism and materialism, of course, but it isn't always that simple. Our economy, the cost of housing and energy in particular, is such that it is difficult for many to simply make ends meet. I think local churches need to find ways to create their own "micro-economies." I'm not talking about Waco-style communes, but I am talking about having more of an Acts 4:32 mindset. We're no longer an agrarian economy so we can't completely duplicate the first century church (apologies to Frank Viola), but we must find our own way within our current culture to share our lives more fully. I've seen the beginnings of this in our church, and I pray it continues.

Community

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 09:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Comments [1]

Monday, May 29, 2006

Sacred Ink

Well, my last post was probably a bit controversial, so I suppose another one can’t hurt. Only three people read my blog anyway.

Well, it’s Memorial Day and I’m thinking about monuments. Keith spoke Sunday and mentioned the monuments of the Old Testament. Jacob, Joshua, Samuel and others erected monuments of one kind or another to remind themselves and their ancestors of an event where God intervened in their lives. These monuments were permanent reminders of what God had done for them. Today, nations build monuments to commemorate events or people, but how do individuals erect monuments to God’s goodness? We live in such a mobile culture that we can’t really erect our own monuments. People generally don’t stay in the same place long enough for a monument to be a lifelong reminder.

My grandfather had a “monument” of sorts. It was on the wall of his home near the front door where he would pass it every day. It was a simple frame containing the name “Jesus,” the name spelled out using all sorts of pills he took for various health problems before he accepted the forgiveness of Christ. God healed him of those health problems and the “monument” was a continual reminder of what God had done.

How do modern people create permanent monuments to remind them of God’s goodness, no matter where they go? Pastor Chuckk (yes, he spells it with two k’s) Gerwig has created a web site called Sacred Ink that is a great example of how some people answer that question. I love his site. Traditionally evangelical Christians have had a very negative attitude toward tattoos, for a number of reasons. I don't. In fact, I have my own permanent monument to God’s grace and mercy. Some people use tattoos as an act of rebellion, but the same can be said for clothes, hair styles, motorcycles, etc. Pastor Chuckk’s site shows that others, like me, use them as permanent reminders of God’s love.

Tattoos clearly aren’t for everyone, but monuments are. Each follower of Christ needs to find ways to be constantly reminded of God’s goodness, mercy and grace. We are prone to forgetting, and forgetting what God has done is the first step toward ingratitude, bitterness, and eventually apostasy. The Hebrews of the Old Testament used rocks and tassels on their garments. What will you use?

Culture

Monday, May 29, 2006 - 09:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Comments [1]

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Words mean things, part 2

There’s been a bit of a firestorm in the Godblogsphere (who invented that term, anyway?) in the past few days. The spark seems to have been Mark Driscoll’s new book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev and Tim Challies review of that book. I haven’t read the book, but I have seen a few of the quotes that people are up in arms about. I’ve read other things Driscoll has written and he certainly doesn’t mince words. He has gone a bit overboard a time or two, IMHO. However, one could probably say the same about the apostle Paul. The question seems to be, how blunt is too blunt? Where do we draw the line on language? What qualifies as “unwholesome talk” or “obscenity” and what doesn’t?

Just how blunt was Paul? There are those who persuasively argue that Paul’s language was “colorful” by modern standards. I’m no Greek scholar, so I won’t weigh in on that question. In truth, even the scholars are guessing anyway. There’s no way for us to go back and determine exactly how Paul’s original audience would have reacted to his language. Even if we could, it’s not that helpful. Language is constantly changing, and it is totally dependent on the culture in which it is used. The same language is interpreted differently in different regions, or even by different people in the same region. What is considered coarse language by some is normal speech for others.

For example, the British slang term for a cigarette is a very inflammatory term here in the States. I could probably use the word “darn” in a Sunday sermon and no one would blink an eye, but change one letter and I would probably hear a few gasps…even though they essentially synonymous. The same comparison could be made between the words “poop” or “crap”* and Tony Campolo’s famous scatological expletive. I remember hearing Campolo’s “You Don’t Give A ____!” sermon in person as a young man. There were certainly a few gasps around me, but that was the intended effect. Was it effective use of language or simply gratuitous vulgarity? I suppose it depends on who you ask. I wasn’t offended, but I’m sure there are those who were.

As usual, I find myself in the middle between extremes on this topic. Am I going to use any of George Carlin’s “Seven Dirty Words” in a Sunday sermon? No. Are certain four letter words automatically a sin to utter? Not necessarily. Are we free as Christians to use any language device in any situation? Of course not. Should we judge each other’s faith based solely on our use of language? I won’t even dignify that question with a response. Christians do far too much judging as it is.

I don’t believe there is a universal list of “bad words” we need to avoid. Words convey meaning, and it is the meaning that matters. I can easily engage in “unwholesome talk” without using any questionable euphemisms whatsoever. On the other hand, I will admit that in private conversations with friends I have occasionally used “colorful metaphors” to accurately convey my meaning and I don’t believe I crossed the “unwholesome talk” threshold. I believe the answer is found in this: “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.” (James 1:26 NIV) Our language should not be our master, but we should always be the master of it. Any word used carelessly can be harmful, especially words spoken in anger and without self-control. Our words should always be carefully chosen, “full of grace, seasoned with salt.” Not enough salt and the food is bland and unmemorable, too much salt and the food too harsh for the palate.

*I wouldn’t be surprised if some of my readers may even find this term offensive, but that just proves my point. The KJV contains the word “piss” in a number of verses (don't follow that link if you're sensitive to crude language), but you wouldn’t believe (or maybe you would) the reaction I got when as a young man I used that term in front of my pastor.

Culture

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 09:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Comments [5]