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”.

A couple months ago, I wrote a review of Zondervan’s Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (ZIBBCOT) Volume I (Genesis – Deuteronomy), part of a new 5-Volume set from Zondervan. I was highly impressed with the insight and sources provided in the historical comparative material covered in that volume.

In late December, I received volume 5, which covers the minor prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. It should be no surprise that I have loved it almost as much as volume one. In fact, my wife heard me talk about it enough that she purchased volumes two, three and four for me (to finish out the OT set) for Christmas, and the New Testament set for my birthday!

Following in the same format as Vol. 1, ZIBBCOT vol. 5 first covers the chronological placement of each of the OT books it covers, in some cases narrowing it down to 2 or 3 possibilities (where the biblical books do not give explicit time-periods). Then, based upon the most likely time placement, it uses the architecture, literature and artwork of the period to construct the culture of Israel and the surrounding countries, as relevant to the biblical text.

Additionally, there are beautiful photographs of the geography around the setting of relevant books/passages, maps, diagrams and lots of artifacts which illustrate the subtext of man passages.

As I noted in my review of Vol. 1, the authors of this series of commentaries are very respectful of the biblical text, as they compare and contrast contemporary beliefs and practices with those of the Hebrews in Israel. This is not done in any way to attempt to undermine the biblical text, but to help enhance it with a fuller cultural understanding.

For example, in Jonah 3, where the text indicates that God changed his mind, the authors note that the verb used here is the same one used in other OT books where it is said that God does not change His mind. Where this is different in Jonah is that the earlier passages were in the context of covenant agreements (where God will not change His mind), whereas the one in Jonah deals with the outcome of a prophecy (in which God can change His mind in how to meet the ends of a prophetic pronouncement).

Personally, I found the chapter on Job, the oldest book of the Bible, in terms of authorship, to be the most interesting one, with interesting notes on the differences between ‘the accuser’ in Job and the proper-named ‘Satan’ later in Scripture, and in-depth discussion on the origins of ‘the behemoth’ and ‘the leviathan’.

If I have any complaint about Volume 5, it is only that it seems a little more disjointed than Volume 1, which is only to be expected, since it covers so many short books of the Bible. All in all, though, it is an excellent resource that i will continue to go back to in my personal library.

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.

I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine. I told him that all marriages are mortal. He immediately became offended and said, “No way! My marriage is not mortal!”

I laughed at him and said not only was his marriage mortal but that if he didn’t recognize that fact and act accordingly it would increase the chances that his marriage could become sick or die. Of course, this was met with more angst. We ended up having a great conversation. He may or may not comment on this post, I don’t know.

I am preparing to do a communications seminar for a church next month. This is part of my transition from Graduate student to counseling/therapeutic professional.

We’re going to talk about what I believe is the most important thing for a couple to focus on in order for their marriage to survive. We’re going to talk about communication (6 principles guaranteed to improve communication in any situation) and we’re going to talk about the mortality of marriage.

Whether we want to admit it or not, our marriages are mortal. Everyone’s marriage is mortal. It does not matter how much you want to say that you will never get divorced or that your marriage will never die. It could and we have less control over than we’d like to admit.

I commented to my wife the other day that it seems every time I turn around I’m learning about someone new getting divorced. Some have been married for just a few years and some have been married for many years.

There is a hard reality about marriages. For every 100 couples that gets married this weekend better than 50 of them will end up in divorce. Every one of them thinks that it will be someone else.

I think that many people think that as long as they refuse to acknowledge the D word everything will work out. I admit I used to think this way. There is at least two problems with this type of thinking.

First of all, a marriage requires two people to work on it. A person I know once said that marriage is something you possess and do. The trick is you don’t possess it or do it alone. You do it with someone else. Sadly, that person can decide to walk away and there may be nothing you can do about it.

A second problem with this line of thinking is that it does not allow you to look realistically at your marriage. To say that our marriages cannot die is a lot like saying that our bodies cannot break down. It just isn’t based in reality.

When we say our marriages are not mortal, we can delude ourselves into thinking everything is OK when it is not. Worse, we can become too scared to admit that we have problems in our marriage. This fear may prohibit us from seeking professional help in counseling for our marriage.

The truth is your marriage, my friend’s marriage and my marriage is mortal. They can all die, which is why we must be vigilant in protecting our marriages. We must cultivate them.

When things are going ravishingly well, we must work at it. When dry and difficult times come we must work at it.

Admitting that our bodies are mortal does not mean that we want to die prematurely. The same is true for marriages. When I was married I made a promise to stay that way until death separated us and I meant it.

Denying that my marriage is mortal doesn’t make that promise any stronger. It does not make my marriage stronger, in fact I think it makes it more vulnerable.

By admitting that it is fragile, and extremely valuable I am admitting that it is something I have to work on every day.

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…

[The following is a post in which I am writing about Christian support for a doctrine of "Just War". Our friend, Rick Frueh, has written a similar post, in support of Biblical Pacifism.]

I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell. – William Tecumseh Sherman

We support and extend the ministry of the Church to those persons who conscientiously oppose all war, or any particular war, and who therefore refuse to serve in the armed forces or to cooperate with systems of military conscription. We also support and extend the Church’s ministry to those persons who conscientiously choose to serve in the armed forces or to accept alternative service. As Christians we are aware that neither the way of military action, nor the way of inaction is always righteous before God. – The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, 2004

[Please brace yourselves - this is going to be a long article. My dear friend, Rick Frueh, has requested that he and I write opposing papers on the acceptability of Christians supporting a doctrine of "Just War", with me supporting this doctrine, and him rejecting it. I would like to thank Rick for this 'challenge', and apologize in advance for so thoroughly trouncing him, here on the field of battle. ]

At Issue

Before embarking on this long road, I think it is probably best to indicate our areas of agreement and disagreement. Both Rick and I agree that war, in and of itself is abhorrent, and is something to be avoided. It is not something that we, as individuals should seek to cause, nor something that our nations should actively seek. Where we disagree, is whether or not acts of violence can be supported by Christians – on an individual or a national scale. Specifically, our disagreement is whether or not Christians should support their country in a war, or serve in that war.

Keeping this in mind, I will examine three basic concepts, which build upon one another, in regards to Christian and the use of deadly force: 1) Self-Defense; 2) Civil-defense; and 3) National-defense. As a backdrop to this, I will also quickly discuss the first century Jewish view of human life that Jesus supported, sometimes referred to as Pikuach Nefesh.

Before moving on to the meat of this article, I’d like to also make one more caveat: My purpose in laying out the case for the doctrine of just war is not to provide/denounce justification for any conflict unfolding in current events. Rather, it is to lay out the rational and theological underpinnings in such a way as to be able to have rational discussions and criteria on whether or not a conflict might be considered just or unjust.

Read the rest of this entry »

“Do we have the same angry, demanding gods and goddesses, who are never satisfied? Do we just call them by different names?” – Rob Bell, The gods Aren’t Angry

Like all the best religions, fear of climate change satisfies our need for guilt, and self-disgust, and that eternal human sense that technological progress must be punished by the gods.  And the fear of climate change is like a religion in this vital sense, that it is veiled in mystery, and you can never tell whether your acts of propitiation or atonement have been in any way successful.” – Boris Johnson

And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” – I Kings 18:27

How should Christians react when the gods of the world receive mortal wounds? This is a question I’ve discussed recently with my wife and a number of friends – with a gamut of responses. In particular, I’m interested in the ‘god’ of warmism (part of the pantheon of secular environmentalism). Having sifted through many of the 4000 documents (emails, computer code, raw data) released in the ‘ClimateGate’ scandal, I think it is safe to say that “warmism” – as a religion – has been dealt a serious, if not fatal, blow.

I’m not going to regurgitate everything that has been written about this enlightening scandal in great detail, since many others (from across the political spectrum) have done a bang-up job. Rather, I’m first going to go far enough into it to highlight “warmism” and its key levers, briefly explore the religious angle of warmism, then move into the historical spectrum of responses we might view in Judaism and Christianity toward false religions, and finally, calculate what might be an appropriate response.

ClimateGate and the Fall of Warmism

Steven D. Levitt, in Superfreakonomics, makes a fairly convincing case that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is more of a faith than a science:

It is understandable, therefore, that the movement to stop global warming has taken on the feel of a religion. The core belief is that man inherited a pristine Eden, has sinned greatly by polluting it, and must now suffer lest we all perish in a fiery apocalypse. James Lovelock, who might be considered a high priest of this religion, writes in a confessional language that would feel at home in any liturgy: “[W]e misused energy and overpopulated the Earth . . . [I]t is much too late for sustainable development; what we need is a sustainable retreat”.

It is this same mentality among the “true believers” that fueled the Population Bomb scaremongering of the 60’s and the Global Cooling panic of the 70’s. Which touches upon the key ‘need’ of this – and other – religions:

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the nice Thanksgiving traditions in my household (followed more, I think for Zan’s benefit than mine) is that it is officially the first day it’s OK to play Christmas music around the house/in the car.  As such, I spend a little bit of time browsing through my Christmas music, checking out the set lists I’ll be accompanying at church in the next month, and creating some play-lists for the car.

I also got to wondering what everyone else listens to in the way of music for this season in which we celebrate Christ’s birth (even though his actual birth date was more likely in September).  In that spirit, I’m sharing some of my favorite songs/albums in the hopes you’ll share yours with me (including links to check them out, if available).

Albums:

1. Andrew Peterson: Behold the Lamb of God:  By far, this is my favorite Christmas album, and it’s the only one that is exempt from the “Only between Thanksgiving and Dec. 25″ rule (above).  BtLoG, itself, aside from a couple of instrumental pieces, is not traditional Christmas music, but is all set around the story of the coming of Jesus – from the birth of Moses, through the kings of Israel and the writings of Isaiah, and into the events told in the Gospels.  In many ways, the music is one continuous 45-minute work that builds and tells a story, building on the emotion and yearning of the people involved.  Andrew (and a number of Nashville musicians) travel each December, performing this piece, along with some of their own music.  If they’re stopping near you, I’d highly recommend them!  [If you're interested, you can also listen to the entire thing - legally - here.]

   Read the rest of this entry »

I was in a fun conversation recently. We were talking about counseling. The other guy wasn’t so sure he saw the value in it. I told him that I thought there was tremendous value in it. One of the greatest questions we have as humans is, “Am I Being Heard?” He agreed but then he said the statement that made me cough.

He said,

“Oh you’re right, people want to be heard. The problem is that’s all they want. Most people just want to talk, don’t ever disagree with them. That’s the worst thing you can do.  If you disagree they’ll have a conniption and get angry.  You know who the worst offenders for that are?”

I told him that I did not, and he continued.

The worst offenders are pastors! You ever known a pastor that said he was your friend until you disagreed with him.

I answered in the affirmative that I had but that was true of other professions as well.

He responded by saying,

“yeah but pastors are the worst, especially youth pastors. Question them at all about their programming and they get all riled up, and defensive. Most don’t have kids but figure they can tell you how to raise your own and the one’s that do have kids usually have younger ones. It’s never a youth pastor’s position to tell my kids to disobey me or that I stink as a parent.”

He went on to explain the situation to me. It appears that he and his son disagreed about a major life decision. The YP agreed with the son and told him that he thought the mom and dad were bad parents. When the man asked him about it the YP told him that he knew what he was doing  (apparently a theme with the YP whenever he was questioned) and told the guy that he was a pastor and his authority.  As near as I can tell by my friend who introduced us the man and his wife are excellent parents. Now, here’s my question, what do you think about his assertion that the youth pastor should never tell the kid to disobey or that his parents were bad parents?

It was with great anticipation that I opened a package that appeared on my doorstep a couple of weeks ago – an advance copy of the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Volume 1 (Genesis – Deuteronomy) – which is part of the complete Old Testament Set released this past Monday. You see, my good buddy, Christian Penrod, had pointed me to an opportunity to get a copy of one of Zondervan’s OT Bible Backgrounds Commentaries to review – and, in all honesty, I don’t know that I was all that excited.

I’ve been let down by a number of Bible commentaries over the years – particularly OT commentaries – which, at best, acknowledge that Abraham and his descendents fit within the culture of their geography, and at worst, pretended the Hebrew culture was wholly unique, enlightened and only negatively impacted by “foreign” cultures. The truth of the matter is – as many of you, my frequent readers know – the Hebrew people, from Abraham through Jesus and his followers, were culturally influenced – and cultural influencers – with their own “pop culture” references that take more than a literalist hermeneutic to crack.

The Hermeneutic is Key

Many lay Christians have a hard time going beyond a literal hermeneutic, primarily because they know of no other method, and – in essence – end up using an a-historical-grammatical method – in essence, filling in the cultural “gaps” (i.e. reading between the lines) with modern cultural references and meanings, based upon the grammer used in their chosen translation.

In contrast, most well-read preachers/teachers, tend to use some form of historical-grammatical method, in which they try to examine the original meaning of the text – as first heard and taught – and then apply the principles at hand to the modern culture of their listeners. However, the historical context used often stops when the immediate boundary of the Hebrew/Christian culture at hand – or when a systematic theology developed centuries (or millenia) later conflicts with the culturally relevant meaning.

Examining the wider culture in which the Hebrews and/or Christians lived, though, is often ignored. One key reason tends to be that liberal scholars have tried to use such comparative studies, which show similarities in cultural beliefs/practices, to discredit Christianity as a shadow, or amalgam, of other contemporary beliefs.

This does not need to be the case. In fact, it should not be.

What Zondervan has done with its ZIBBCOT series it to take a highly respectful study of the cultures and events surrounding the people of the Bible, and compared them, verse-by-verse, with the experience of the Hebrews and Christians. In addressing their methodology, General Editor John H. Walton states:

Read the rest of this entry »