Articles

DAD'S DEMONSTRATION

My dad is a quiet man. He has always shunned positions that demanded being in front of people or leading people. He turned down supervisor jobs at work. He turned down nominations to church leadership--although for many years he did serve as deacon. Some have insinuated in the beginning of my ministry that it would have been to my advantage if my dad were a minister. Perhaps so. Perhaps, there would have been some advantage to name recognition and the experience that would have been afforded my being raised in a preacher's home. Of course, Jesus Himself didn't have that advantage. He was a carpenter's stepson. The fact is, my dad has been a tremendous help to me in the ministry: First and foremost is his example. Dad, got up really early, 4:30 a.m., I think, for work. Sometimes, at that time, having to go to the bathroom and noticing a light on, I would see in the other room Dad either reading his Bible or bent over at a chair praying before work. That example has been a constant motivator to me for keeping up my private times with the Lord. Also, in those days of late night revival services, often leaving church at 11:00 p.m. or later, Dad still attended every service our church had. Second, there was his common sense instruction about life and ministry. For example, over and over he'd remind me, "In the church never take sides (doctrine and morality excepted)." Lastly, he has always spurred me on to prepare myself for greater usefulness. When I was first called to preach, he came to my bedroom holding a sheet of paper and said something like, "Called to preach, huh? If you are, you will memorize these." He gave me a long list of Scriptures to memorize. To this day those Scriptures come back to me as I minister. He goaded me on to work through the lessons to get first my Christian Workers while I was yet a teenager, then my license, and finally my ordination papers. But the greatest thing of all I've mentioned was the image branded in my mind of his kneeling and praying before work. Thanks, Dad, for the demonstration of true faith.

Why Weren't Both Unfaithful?

It is a supposedly serious report: Global Warming causes infidelity. The places that have an alleged increase in the effects of Global Warming have an increase in adulterous affairs. When you look into the report, it isn't Global Warming that supposedly causes the increase in infidelity but the "stress" about Global Warming. Seventy-two percent of the five thousand respondents to a survey blamed stress over bad weather for their extra-martial affairs. Yet, the report was that Global Warming caused the infidelity. It was not considered that Global Warming could be non-existent but the propagandizing claiming it is real could yet cause the stress. Global "Warming" was blamed because those in hotter places, Miami, Florida, for instant, were more likely to report this phenomenon. Did none consider the infidelity increase in Miami might be because folks are wearing less clothes there and on its beaches than say in Juneau, Alaska? (And, yes, environment is "a" factor). Besides those problems and others with the report the underlying premise is what is most disturbing. That premise is that people's behavior is determined by the environment. This determinism is paralleled with those who seek to explain bad behavior as the inevitable expression of genetics. Others would say it's not the weather or genetics but socio-economic status that causes wrongful behavior. It is interesting to me that the societal pop philosophy that believes everybody should be free to choose to live and do however they wish also tells us that people are only doing what weather, genetics, economics dictate. This blame something other than the person's willful choice, this determinism, is an attempt to absolve folks from personal responsibility. This "I am not to blame" had its debut in the Garden soon after creation. Eve informed God, "It was the serpent's fault." Certain Christian movements adopted a spiritualized philosophy that takes the responsibility away from the individual. Lust is caused by a demon of lust. You act the way you do because of a generational curse. Yes, there are demons who encourage lust, and there are spiritual effects of one generation upon another. And yes, genetics can affect temperaments and propensities, and a hot summer's day can make it more conducive to lose one's cool. Yet, that is the thing about man created in the image of God. He can choose. He can choose to act contrary to what his genetics or environment might dictate. In the garden God planted two trees one of Life, the other of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God was letting humanity know, "You have a choice." If it were only about environment and genetics, Adam and Eve would have never sinned-they lived in a perfect environment with perfect genetics. If it were only about environment and genetics, many folks would never be converted. No. It is always more than that. It is "Whosoever WILL." Whatever your environment, genetics, or economic status, you can by grace be saved! God's given you a choice. (By the way, why would only one spouse in a marriage in Miami be unfaithful? If it is the climate, why weren't both unfaithful?)

BEING TOUCHY ABOUT BEING TOUCHY

It, I know, is probably because I'm not the touchy-touchy kind of person. I understand that by temperament some people can't even talk to another without constantly throughout the conversation reaching out and touching that one's arm, hand, etc. Yet, for whatever reason, I'm still uncomfortable with it. It seems to be an in vogue church buzz phrase. Recently, I have heard a pastor leading worship, a preacher in his sermon, and a singer before he sang each say it. What? "Reach over and touch your neighbor and say..." Reach over and touch your neighbor? I really don't want to sound nit-pickingly critical (so just take this as a personal quirk), but for some reason that puts the brakes on my worship or listening to the Word. There is just something about it that makes me wonder about its origins and purpose. It just seems awfully horizontal in worship. The encouragement to touch someone is accompanied by the instruction to say something to them. It is usually a repeat of a phrase or line (or paragraph) of the sermon such as "Reach over and touch your neighbor and say, 'I ain't going take no lip off the devil.'" During worship one might be coached, "Reach over and touch your neighbor and say, 'God's been so good to me, I'm going to shout and dance and praise His name'." As a pastor, I must admit, I have been tempted to say, "Reach over and poke your neighbor in the ribs to wake him up." but not, "Touch your neighbor." "Touch your neighbor" just seems so different from "shake hands with one another." I'm sure it confuses children once they get old enough to leave children's church and Sunday School and come to worship in the sanctuary. In Sunday School they hear, "Let's keep our hands to ourselves. Stop touching (hitting, poking, grabbing from, etc.) those around you." Then they come to worship and hear, "Reach over and touch your neighbor." When I was growing up in church, one of the favorite worship and revival songs was "Reach out and touch the Lord as He goes by." It recalled to our minds the example of the hemorrhaging woman who reached through the milling crowd and touched the hem of Jesus' garment and was healed. I just wonder: In our worship have we gone from "Reach out and touch the Lord," to "Reach over and touch your neighbor?" I can just hear it now. "Pastor, quit being so touchy."

THOSE WHO CRITICIZE THOSE WHO CRITICIZE

Before you pick up on it let me just tell you: I am criticizing those who criticize those who criticize. Huh? Recently, I read a Facebook post. It was criticizing a recognized figure of the American Christian scene-and not on an issue of morality or doctrine. My first inner response was, "What was the purpose of that?" Then, I read the comments on the post. One of them was a reactionary rant about Christians being critical of other Christians-referring, of course, to the author of the post. My inner response was "What was the purpose of that?" Didn't the one commenting on the post's writer's criticism realize he was criticizing the post's writer? There are Those Who Criticize: A true critique is offered by one with expertise and accomplishment. It should be offered for a purpose. When young, I participated in piano recitals and contests. The judges would fill out these long forms evaluating me on many different aspects. Not all were positive. I never felt the judges were being critical of me as a person. That is what they were to do, and it was for my benefit or instruction. Usually, a criticism that is Biblically condemned judging is an attack on the person himself. Most of the time, one is not criticizing because he is evaluating for his or others' sake. He is criticizing because to do so makes the one criticizing feel he is superior to the one he criticizes. Truth is, it is really difficult to cut someone down without feeling you tower over them. Then, there are Those Who Criticize Those Who Criticize: People who are quick to criticize those who criticize, are swift to do so because they self-righteously consider themselves morally superior for not criticizing. Yet, that is what they do. They criticize the person who is criticizing. These are they who are always going around saying, "The Bible says you're not supposed to judge people," all the while judging folks who judge. Lastly, there are Those Who Criticize Those Who Criticize Those Who Criticize: With this article I would like to believe I am criticizing those who criticized those who criticized simply because I see the irony in what they do. It could be, however, simply because I feel the same superiority they felt when they criticize those who criticized. But, I can honestly say, I felt repulsion at the self-righteous attitude in the comment on the post. Yet, when the Spirit brings me to honest reflection, I feel the same repulsion at the self-righteous attitude in myself when I find it so easy to criticize people. I am sure God finds it repulsive as well. As He says through His Word, "Who are thou that judgest another." (James 4:12). We can and must and are instructed to evaluate behavior, beliefs, and even attitudes. But, we do not need to do so simply for the purpose of inflating our own sense of superiority by attacking a person. So, as you read, honestly criticize my criticism, but don't criticize me for criticizing-of being critical of the critical. If you criticize me for criticizing those who criticize those who criticize, you have just entered a new category-those who criticize those who criticize those who criticize those who criticize.

THE VALUE OF A WOMAN, MOTHER

Liberals, today, continually harp on conservatives, and especially, Christian conservatives for their “war on women.” They are as blind as they are wrong-headed. In America, there is no war on women. There is a war on men. Liberal media and Hollywood in particular have feminized, emasculated, maligned the male image. They have attacked any wise, strong male leadership including fatherhood by portraying, as a rule, any but homosexual men as bungling, bumbling dolts that need rescuing by woman. The attempt is to make the genders equal. As examples of this mindset applied to other areas, attempting to make everyone financially “equal,” they fail to bring the poor up to the level of the rich and only succeed in bringing the rich down to the level of the poor. In education, the same philosophy, where implemented, fails to raise the failing student to the level of the progressing student and only results in dragging the progressing student down to the failing one’s. The error is based in believing the genders are identical. In insisting that men and women are the same the only thing such a mindset has succeeded in is devaluing women—and men. See, the value of something often is in its difference not its sameness. To use Jesus’ analogy of a believer’s influence, salt that is not salty is valueless. What makes salt valuable—and effective—is that it is different than sand, not just like it. Stating the obvious, women are different than men. The difference goes far beyond the anatomical. It is in this difference that women find value. To use mothers as examples, what man can give birth and nurse a child? What man has the heart of a mother? The liberal mindset errs in thinking that for something to be equal in value it has to be the same in nature. At first young children get tripped up on this concept. A child holds four quarters in his small fist. You try to trade him a dollar bill for the four quarters. He refuses. To him the bill and the coins cannot have the same value because they are different. In fact, “four” coins seems more valuable than “one” bill. Difference does not imply less value. Before you think me contradictory having previously stated that the value of salt is in its difference, the point there was that to make salt just like sand does not increase its value. To try to insist that a woman is identical to a man does not increase her value. To say that she is different does not decrease her value. Men and women have different anatomies, ways of thinking, roles to play, strengths, etc. That does not mean one is less valuable than the other. Difference doesn’t make less valuable. Difference is where the value is. Thus, to say that women in general and mothers in particular are different from men is to esteem them highly, value them immensely, and have no need of this war of the sexes.

IT'S CONTAGIOUS

If it is in fact a real sickness and a true alibi, it is a considerate and good thing: Someone will say to me upon returning to church after missing a service. "Pastor, I didn't feel well, and in case it was contagious, I didn't want to bring it to church and infect everybody." There are things contagious other than bacteria and viruses. This morning (Thursday) I read in the news the results of a study that, if you are friends with someone who got a divorce, then you are 75% more likely to get a divorce yourself. The title of the article was Divorce is Contagious. This is an example of an effect known as social contagion. Attitudes, behavior, emotions, information , etc., are contagious. People infect other people. A bad attitude is catching. I have often seen this. For example, it takes only one young person to begin to complain, "I don't want to go to that youth camp. It is no fun. I don't like it. It is horrible." Soon that attitude begins to spread like the flu among the youth. Like the flu, thank God, not everybody catches it. But many do. The same is true about discontent, lack of faith, discouragement and the like. Fortunately, social contagion doesn't just work with the negative. Enthusiasm can be contagious. So can expressed faith, evident joy, and effulgent passion. None should stay at home, but each should inquire of himself, "Do I have something that is catching, something contagious? What about a bad attitude? What about wrong behavior? What about negative emotions?" None should want to infect others with such. The answer isn't to stay away from people or church. The answer is to let God correct what is wrong and give you something with which you do want to infect people. An expression of heart-felt lifting of hands and worship is contagious. A hearty amen, is infectious. Exuberant singing can go viral. The point is you are contagious. The flu you can leave at home. The joy bring it with you. Infect as many as you can.

HOLINESS IS A DERIVATIVE

One thing that humans forget when they exalt man to imagined autonomy is that human life is derivative. To derive is to get something from something else. Even on the temporal, material level, man derives his life from sunlight, plants, animals, and air. Man does not have self-generated or self sustained life. He has derivative life. The grass cannot take credit for its green and growth. That green and grow is derived from sun, water, and soil. The bright flower cannot boast of its brilliance. Its brilliance is a derivative. Man may have grandiose illusions of his importance, knowledge, accomplishments, etc., but he still derives his physical life from chewing the grass (wheat made bread) that derives its life from the sun, water, soil. God is the only One with un-derived life. His life is inherent in who He is, self-contained and self-sustained. This is why a self-righteous spirit is as nauseating as it is illogical. One who is self-righteous sees his righteousness as a personal achievement. One who proudly boasts, acclaims, spotlights his own holiness has failed to realize and acknowledge that man cannot produce holiness. Holiness in not inherent in man. Holiness is a derivative. That is why the mark of true holiness is humility. If one is truly holy, he realizes that his holiness is derived and not self-produced. He has received his holiness from God. His holiness is both imputed and imparted by God. It is a derivative. By way of illustration, many excellent singers have great pride in their talent. They fail to realize that their talent is a derivative. They had nothing to do with the length and thickness and flexibility of their vocal chords, the unique design of their nasal cavities, the special wiring of their brains. All of that which results in the singing talent has been derived from their ancestors' shared DNA. To say that holiness is derived does not exclude any responsibility or action on our part. A singer has a derived talent; yet, that singer can choose whether or not to practice, learn, exercise, the ability he has derived. Holiness is derived. We choose whether or not to believe, to come to the place of impartation, to co-operate in obedience to God's work. We cannot take credit. We can only gratefully appropriate. Paul puts this about derivatives well in 1Co 4:7 " ... what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" He is the Vine. We are branches. We derive our life from the Vine. That is both cause for humility and rejoicing. There is something we don't have that we can receive. We are alive by what we have derived

IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN DENVER

Perhaps, if it had happened in Denver, the explanation might be more plausible. The esteemed, intellectual answer of the agnostic and atheist attackers to Christ's resurrection is a claim that His post-resurrection appearances, that the disciples insisted they experienced, were hallucinations. Had the appearances been in Denver, it could have been proposed that the disciples had been taking advantage of the legalized marijuana. Such a ludicrous explanation-that the disciples didn't actually see the resurrected Lord but were hallucinating and only thought they saw Him-is actually an indication that down deep the skeptics know that the historic evidence for these appearances is sound, solid, and monumental. I have watched debates where the atheist feebly countered the historic record of Christ's resurrection with the answer that the disciples, who said they had seen Jesus after He had been buried, were hallucinating. To offer the hallucination theory isn't just to deny the historical veracity of the resurrection, it is also to deny the nature and characteristics of hallucinations. I could say proponents of the hallucination theory are hallucinating about hallucinations. I do not attempt a full apology, but note just how shallow and easily debunked this hallucination theory is: First, what is a hallucination? It is something, some sound, sight, smell, etc., that seems real but does not exist and is usually caused by drugs or mental illness. Had the disciples been to Denver? No indication of drugs. Mentally ill? Again no evidence. Here's the rub: Hallucinations are an individual thing. Over five hundred people saw the Resurrected Lord on one occasion. How did five hundred folks all have the same hallucination at the same time? What if I told you that five hundred people who visited the pot shops in Denver on the same day all had the same drug induced trip? Jesus put in ten to twelve appearances over a period of forty days to various people at various times in various conditions. Identical hallucinations never have this consistency. Identical hallucinations? There's no such thing. Two other quick notes: Hallucinations are seen as true to those who want them to be true. Some, as Thomas, to whom Jesus appeared, had chosen not to believe Jesus was resurrected. Another thing: If these were hallucinations, why did they all stop immediately after the historical record shows Jesus ascended to heaven? No, it didn't happen in Denver. I don't think it was the disciples that had been to Denver. Such baseless theorizing against the historical record could suggest that the skeptics who originate such drivel have.

A STARBUCKS MUG AND THE SAVIOR'S CUP

A steaming hot, fragrant and fresh mug of coffee was put in my hands early this morning. As grateful as I was for being served, I could not but take note of the uniqueness of this cup from the usual ones. Observing its stubby height yet remarkable wide brim, I inquired of the one who had handed it to me, "What's with the mug?" "Oh," the answer came, "that's a Starbucks mug. Now you will look hip." (or whatever synonym for "cool" was used.). I am no fan of Starbucks (sorry you Starbucks loyalists). Neither at my age am I concerned with being "hip." But, through the morning I kept thinking of how I had held that mug earlier and stared into its mouth. Staring, I was pondering of how during this Passion Week Jesus faced a cup. The OT used, as an analogy of God's pending judgment of the wicked, a cup filled with poisonous, destructive alcohol. The figure informs us that God holds a cup of His fury which He will hand it to the wicked who deserve His wrath and require they drink it. Jesus in Gethsemane sweat drops of blood as He prayed, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." That cup wasn't just the awful suffering He would face from Roman crucifixion-though it is a reference to such. That cup was this cup of God's fury, wrath, and judgment. That cup was not Jesus' cup-He was sinless. That cup was sinful humanity's cup. That cup was your cup. That cup was my cup. That cup of judgment in the holy grip of God was being handed to us to drink. Jesus stepped between us and God and said, "Father, I will drink it for them." His humanity cried out in that garden, "Father, if there is any other way for them to be saved without my drinking that cup, please, let it be so. But, if there isn't, I will drink it." Drink it He did. The suffering of God's judgment on sin, although it came with the torture of crucifixion, was a far greater pain and darkness to Jesus than just the pain of the physical instruments of torture. He drank our judgment. He drank our suffering. It is one thing to be handed a nice mug containing a pleasant beverage. It's another to be handed a mug possessing awful, poisonous contents. In my mind's eye, seeing Jesus holding that cup, I don't think "hip." I think, oh, what love. Oh, what grace. Oh, what a wonderful Savior. He drank it for me.