This past weekend, I had lunch with a good friend of many years, John, and afterward we spent some time discussing Paul and his letters to the different churches (among other things).  John’s in a house with three daughters (the youngest of whom is in college) and my youngest son is a senior in HS this year, so our need for male companionship (outside of the family dog) lends itself to all sorts of interesting conversation.  But I digress…

I was remembering my NT professor’s instructions that when we read any of Paul’s epistles, we need to remember that he isn’t just sending a random shout-out or bantering with the churches he’s writing to, but that he’s actually answering some questions they’ve got and giving advice on specific situations within the church.  So – since we only have the answers, but not the questions, it is important that – if we want to do a deep study of any epistle – the first thing we ought to do is to try and discern the questions posed to Paul.

Somehow, John and I got onto the topic of I Corinthians, and he told me something he’d picked up in seminary regarding the questions posed to Paul that led to this particular epistle.  If you read the context of this letter, and the second epistle to the church in Corinth, it becomes evident that the church in Corinth had a problem that was not all that uncommon today:

1) There was at least one – if not multiple – vocal busybodies within the church who disagreed on issues of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

2) The busybodies were calling out those they disagreed with in the church, and playing out their personal grievances in public.  While some might have been legitimate, a number of them were quite petty.

3) They also were instituting somewhat of a hierarchy within the church – possibly based on social status, but more likely based on their “seniority” within the church.

4) One of the busybodies took it upon himself to write to Paul, and most likely (as possibly the first FDDM – “foot-driven discernment ministry”) hand delivered it to Paul.

John suggested I read I Corinthians as if the questions Paul was answering questions from this context, and that it would likely make the entire letter seem coherent in its entirety, rather than a collection of disconnected thoughts.

John suggested I read I Corinthians as if the questions Paul was answering questions from this context, and that it would likely make the entire letter seem coherent in its entirety, rather than a collection of disconnected thoughts.

And he was right.

And what was funny (at least to a nerd like me) was this:  When I got to I Corinthians 13 (the “love chapter”), it took on a whole new light.  It also made me wonder if reciting this chapter at weddings, framing it and putting it on the wall, etc. as a “beautiful expression of what love is” might not be missing the point a bit.  Maybe it’s a little bit more like taking a letter you received from Mom and Dad while away at college, scolding you for problems you’ve gotten yourself into and framing it for public consumption.

If you have time today – or even if you don’t – I think perhaps sitting down and reading I Corinthians with the possibility that the above context was what Paul was replying to might be a good thing for each of us today.

Grace and Peace,

Chris

Here is a recent submission we’ve received here at PPP.Info:

I have written a book called, “The New Pharisaism: How Spiritual Bullies Attack the Church.” The book deals specifically with the damage caused to church leaders, Christian ministries, and local churches by organizations such as “The Berean Call,” “Slice of Laodicea/Crosstalk America,” “Light House Trails Research Project,” “Media Spotlight,” “Southwest Radio Church,” “Apprising Ministries,”"Understanding the Times,” and many others.

In the church today, we are faced with a new level of intensity when it comes to spiritual abuse and bullying. As you know, this New Pharisaism falsely claims that New Age, Eastern mystical, and occultic practices are being introduced into most churches in America as part of the apostasy of the last days. This inflammatory and divisive material has made its way into local churches through individuals and small groups of bullies who have used it for their own selfish gain and self-promoting agenda.

My book also deals extensively with how to stand against this attack and how to find healing and recovery after the attack has occurred.

I believe that the book is an invaluable resource for your readers and anyone who is dealing with Pharisees today. The book is fully documented with scores of footnotes and is based on the careful exegesis and the sound exposition of God’s Word.

“The New Pharisaism” is available as a ebook download on my website at www.thenewpharisaism.com. On the website, you can also read about my credentials, download the introduction preview, and see the table of contents.

I would be most appreciative if you would let you readers know about this book.

Thank you and may God bless,

Pastor Bill Slabaugh

Has anyone read this? Any volunteers?*

*- My pocketbook is running incredibly low right now, so if anyone has $13 and reads this, I’d be interested in a review…

OK, so for the past couple of weeks, the outrage from the “pro-choice” left increased  in decibels and shrillness in anticipation of a 30-second commercial to air in the Superbowl from Heisman Trophy-winner Tim Tebow and his mother, in support of life (when she was pregnant with Tim, as a missionary overseas, she was afflicted with a condition where the medical advice was to have an abortion – instead, she carried him to term).  For example, Joy Behar on The View derided Pam Tebow’s decision, as Tim could just as easily turned out to be a “racist pedophile”.

And that was one of the nicer comments.

I have been critical of Focus on the Family in the past, and hearing that they were buying a Superbowl Spot made me cringe a little bit on the inside, just because of the ham-handed way they’ve handled political issues in the US in the past.  In this case, though, I have to tip my hat to them.  In the words of the Washington Post’s pro-choice sports columnist Sally Jenkins, to write last week:

Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion.

Indeed.  FotF’s strategy of not releasing the video in advance now appears somewhat brilliant in its ripping the veneer off of much of the pro-abortion left, as their rage built with CBS over its’ willingness to air the ad.  [Which is rather revealing that a group called the National Organization for Women went nuclear over CBS airing the Tebow ad, but had no similar outrage over the aired GoDaddy commercials, which - I would think - were far more offensive to women (and men).]

So, the game is over now [I really didn't want to see either team lose, though I was hoping for overtime instead of interception to end it], and the ad has aired.  So, what was all the fuss over?  Here you go…

Be prepared to be offended:

Really offensive, right?  Brilliantly played, Focus. Brilliantly played, I say.

In watching this whole thing played out, it reminded me of how many times we (myself included) deride things, sight-unseen, simply because of the source or the anticipated message, only to be left with egg on our faces (and lots of “splainin’ to do” afterwards”.

Way back in 2006, Mark Driscoll was interviewed prior to speaking at the Desiring God conference that year.  One of the interview clips can be found here, but I’ll quote the salient part:

When [missionary] Hudson Taylor shows up in China, and dresses in Chinese dress, and learns Chinese language, and eats Chinese food, and gets a Chinese haircut, everybody says, “There’s a good Christian.” When we do that in punk rock culture, people think it’s capitulation. I think there’s hypocrisy there. That’s why we’re not reaching Americans. We have a double-standard that we get stuck on the style and we forget the substance of the Gospel.

A missionary family (we’ll call the couple George and Mary — names changed for safety/anonymity sake) was recently at my church.  The people group to whom they minister are very disinterested in reading.  So much so that it is not uncommon for houses in that part of the world to lack indoor plumbing but have satellite television.  Another example — to be considered a best-seller, a book has to sell only a few thousand copies.

While their ultimate goal is translating the Bible — this people group does not have the Scriptures in their language — George and Mary realize that in the short-term, they need to set a primary focus on spreading the Word through other media (though, even this is not simple, due to laws in their region).  As George was describing the unique challenges that they face, he noted that their desire was to be — parents, cover your children’s ears — relevant.

A horrified gasp went up from the congregation when he used such a dirty word.  Actually, I’m kidding.  His choice of that word summed up what they were trying to do, given the culture of the people with whom they are dealing.  His point was that their message to those people is not “get your act together, get interested in reading, and then we’ll deem you worthy of telling you about Jesus”.

I doubt that anyone would fail to laud George and Mary’s efforts.  So why, exactly, does any mention of relevance in our culture get poo-poo-ed on so quickly and thoroughly by so many?

Are people in our culture less unsaved?  I keep seeing an image of Westerners showing up at the pearly gates, and St Peter does his best Maxwell Smart* impression, saying, “Missed it by that much.”

* (the Don Adams version — I’m old)

I’m just a few pages away from finishing the book Game Change. The book is about the 2008 Presidential election. It’s the first purely political book I’ve bought in a long time, maybe ever.  The book is decidedly Pro-Obama and an Hillary.

It’s been a fun read. The book showed me many things I didn’t previously know and yet those things reinforced for me some things that I had been thinking all along.

This post has nothing to do with Politics or the book. I just wanted to give you the background.

It occurred to me throughout the book that many people cast their vote not based on ideology. That is to say, many of the people throughout the book talked about why they cast their fate with a particular candidate. Time and time again it came back to one word. Not the plan (with some of the candidate’s the plans were very very similar). I mean obviously the Republicans were going to vote with the Republicans and Democrats with Democrats, but ultimately it came down to something intangible.

That something is called hope.

It struck me as I read this sweeping book about the sport of politics that hope is the one thing that the church has in spades. I mean think about it! We have hope that God is and will make all things new. He’s reconciled all things to Himself.

God gives us the promise of Hope. In fact one of the most misquoted verses in the whole Bible is because often the person doing the quoting leaves off the most important phrase. You know the verse.  It says

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you

Now, I’ve heard this verse used to defend people who are literal 6 dayers and why they fight for it. I’ve heard heretic hunters use it. Of course they never actually get to the next part of the verse. It says

to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, ¹⁶keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. ¹⁷It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. ¹⁸For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

Give an account for the hope you have in you. What is that hope? Christ died for you for me to bring us to God. I wonder if the reason we’re so rarely asked about our hope is because we don’t actually act like people with hope.

The fact that passage goes on to talk about how our gentleness and respect (actions) are our actual defense and not our finely tuned theological statements is just a bonus. Not our megaphones, or our witty blog lines. Not our book deals, or our denominations. Not how many years we’ve been in “professional ministry.” Not our cred’s.  Our action.

Did you ever wonder why he had to put the whole gentleness and respect in right after talking about hope. I think it’s because hope is offensive and scary to many people. In fact just today I talked to a guy who said, “Let me tell you something, hope is an f-ing scary thing. It may be the worst thing ever. A man can go crazy with hope.”  I’m going to withhold the rest of the conversation because the words would cause too many you to focus on them instead of the post. (Maybe me too?)

May you be someone who is filled with hope. May you be someone who people ask about the hope found in you. When pastor’s betray you, and friends abandon you. When Christians give more kindness to drug addicts than to you and you’re worse nightmare comes true may you be able to see and hold onto the hope found in you.

When you are at the end and are convinced you can’t go another step, may you be filled with the Hope that only God can give. May God grant you the clarity to see the Hope He offers.

May you always remember that God died for you.

*UPDATE*  An earthquake hit Oklahoma today.  4.0 on the Richter.  No word from Pat yet on the pact that Oklahomians had made with the devil.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.html

Not much comment is needed for this one.  And no, I’m not sorry about the title.  I probably didn’t put it strongly enough.

The people in Haiti need our prayers, our relief and support.  We should mourn with those who mourn, not look for ways to suggest that they sold their souls to the devil and got their just deserts.

Let’s start the week off right with a little fun.

It has been reported that sen. Harry Reid made some racially charged statements concerning pres. Barack Obama. Now many are calling for his resignation as majority leader among other things.

As it turns out, the Pres. has accepted Reid’s apology and some are even defending Reid.

Then there’s this happiness:

And there’s more.

This teaches me a couple of things. First, racism is still a problem in this country.

Second, there is an extreme double standard about race in this country too. Some get a pass; some do not. There is nothing different about Reid’s comments and those made by Trent Lott several years ago–comments that cost Lott his career in the senate. Why is there is a double standard?

Third, we should all choose our words carefully. It could very well be that these statements were given in a context that is different than just the soundbites (or quotations) we are hearing of. Nevertheless, words mean things and people are listening to our words.

So I’m not making any personal point because I do not have any particular opinion. What I am interested in is your opinion: Should Reid resign? Is there is a double standard? Will race ever not be an issue?

This is a different kind of post for me and I realize that this sort of post can be dangerous and cause all sorts of hate and discontent. I also realize many of you dislike Anne Coulter and many dislike Al Sharpton (and some dislike Geraldo and Fox News and me). Be that as it may, try your best to keep this civil and adult.

Share this Post

I just finished reading Have a Little Faith by Mitch Albom. It’s a short book (249 small pages) that tells the story of two people: one a Jewish Rabbi and the other a Christian Pastor. It’s a wonderful little book and I recommend it to you. I don’t think you are going to find every aspect of the book appealing, and much of it will leave you wondering how someone (namely, Albom) could come so close to something so beautiful and come away with so little (I found the last sentence a rather unfitting conclusion to the book even if it is a good thought nonetheless).

One of the stories told in the book is that of Pastor Henry Covington who started a ministry in Detroit, Michigan called I Am My Brother’s Keeper. Pastor Covington’s story is beautiful and full of grace. It was in a chapter about Pastor Covington that today’s thought overwhelmed me.

I thought about how churches and synagogues usually build memberships. Some run schools. Some host social events. Some offer singles nights, lecture series, carnivals, and sign-up drives. Annual dues are part of the equation.

At I Am My Brother’s keeper, there were no dues, no drives, no singles nights. Membership grew the old-fashioned way: a desperate need for God. (Mitch Albom, Have a Little Faith, 217)

The story that led Albom to write this is wonderful and alone makes the book worth its price. Please note: This is not a criticism of the way churches do things. It is, rather, a positive affirmation of how Pastor Covington serves his God and community and how God, through Jesus, meets desperate people in desperate situations.

Have a nice weekend everyone. Be blessed and a blessing.

OK, so I’m not totally connected to the goings-on in the world, and am a bit extra-cranky this week.  Needless to say, I’m several days behind on the news, but apparently semi-retired Fox political commentator Brit Hume has gotten himself into a pickle:

In actuality, I thought this was pretty sage advice.  It’s not something I’m used to seeing on TV, which was why (at least to me) that it seemed a bit visually jarring.  I also remembered that Hume had cited Christian study as a reason he was leaving the news business back in 2008:

I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done. I’m not claiming it’s impossible to do when you work in this business. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died (by suicide in 1998), I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what you say you believe, it’s a pretty big thing. If you do it part time, you’re not really living it.

With that in mind, his advice seems even more natural.  I think it takes guts to talk about basic application of Christianity to your life in the public eye, and in the conversational manner used by Hume.  What has surprised me has been the hair-trigger response by some folks on the right and left at Hume’s commentary.  I’m not sure whether it was his honest assessment of forgiveness and Buddhism or his frank advice about Christianity that was most offensive to the masses.  Maybe the venue wasn’t the correct one, if his only intended audience was Tiger, but I when I relisten to the clip, I think it was purposely meant for the wider audience.

On another front, a friend of mine in the community posted this link to his FB page, which surprised me a little bit (not that he posted it, but that Coulter wrote it).  I’ve not read Coulter in a long time – not because I don’t agree with her politics (I generally do), but because I’m not really interested in hyperbolic political commentary from either end of the spectrum.  Still, I was pleasantly surprised, but I wonder if she, too, won’t be criticized since she’s a political commentator speaking on the subject of religious belief.

The most common complaints I’ve heard have been “wrong venue” (for Hume) and “wrong person” (for Coulter).  Unlike a number of examples I’ve seen of “monster shouting” on street corners, Hume’s comments are downright humble and mild.  Unlike a number of simplistic, milquetoast explanations of Christianity I’ve seen/heard from famous folks (particularly those on the political front), Coulter’s is actually decent, if you can get past the political jibes.

Christianity is simultaneously the easiest religion in the world and the hardest religion in the world.

In the no-frills, economy-class version, you don’t need a church, a teacher, candles, incense, special food or clothing; you don’t need to pass a test or prove yourself in any way. All you’ll need is a Bible (in order to grasp the amazing deal you’re getting) and probably a water baptism, though even that’s disputed.

[...]Christianity is also the hardest religion in the world because, if you believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him. No more sexual promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies — no doing what all the other kids do.

[...]With Christianity, your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don’t deserve it. It’s the best deal in the universe.

It makes me wonder how often I’m in the “wrong venue” to say anything, or the “wrong person” to speak.

It makes me wonder how often I’m in the “wrong venue” to say anything, or the “wrong person” to speak.

And so I do not…

It is our experience that particular churches can become ‘holy places’, this does not require us return to some quasi-Jewish theology of ‘sacred-turf’; rather, it is because one day the whole creation will be sacred, will throb and thrill with the presence of the living and loving God, and because at certain points ‘where prayer has been valid’ this can be seen as it were in anticipation. To that extent the church is called to worship God revealed in Jesus and by the Spirit in every corner of the globe, and so to claim it for his wise and healing rule. In this process, moreover, there are clear indications of God’s ultimate purpose: he intends to establish his new city, new Jerusalem, as the place where he will live with his people forever. If, then, we are called to anticipate what God is going to do in the future with our acts now (for example we are called to implement already the justice which will be perfectly worked out in the age to come), we should surely also be seeking to create societies in the here and now, which will anticipate the nature of the renewed and healed Jerusalem. Not that we could ever ourselves build or bring about the New Jerusalem itself; such things leads to delusion and ruin. Rather, we are called, while forswearing all racial, cultural or geographic imperialism, to create communities of love and justice out of which healing can flow to others.

What struck me with this passage was what makes something holy. Historically, geographic locales were called holy based on the presence of God – e.g. the Holy Land, the Holy City. This is the quasi-Jewish theology of carded turf that was done away with by and in Christ.

But what makes a church or a person holy? How does a person or fellowship heed the command to be holy? And if God is the standard, which attributes and behaviors are we to mirror? To some a church is not a holy space of they use the wrong translation of the Bible, or worship to the wrong style of music, or use “worldly” tactics… “worldly as defined by “them.” These are the ones who we do not take too serious. Certainly there is a spiritual parallel to the sacred-turf theology; a person or church is holy based on the presence of God – not as literally as Jesus walking the hills of Galilee…but spiritually. Holiness is also based on behavior and attitude. So we think of holiness as doing the right things – or more often, not doing the wrong things – holiness by subtraction.

Herein is a challenge to add to our existing criteria of holiness, a holiness based on anticipation… and our role in response.