I am vacationing this week in Glorieta, NM at the XL Ministries annual conference.
http://www.xlministries.org/
Glorieta is always pretty - mountains, trees, ... . But that is not the best part of the vacation.
I just got through playing 42 for most of the afternoon, and winning! But that is not the best part either.
The best part has been the exhortation and teaching that I have been hearing in the conference sessions. Some highlights from there:
- Excel still more - God expects us to improve from wherever we we are (1 Thess. 4:1). This is the foundational principle of this year's conference.
- The importance of teachability - understand that the biggest part of being teachable is being willing to change if the (good) teaching indicates the need for change. & change even in ones most stubborn, proud area if necessary (& of course that is the area that change will most likely be needed).
- An explanation of the doctrines of the "emergent church" movement, and how/why they differ from reformed doctrine (which I hold).
These are just the high points. Almost every session has had enough "minor" points to have made the conference worthwhile even without the ones that I have listed above.
That is all for now, but I will likely update this post later. There are 2 more days still to go in this conference!
Thursday, November 6
Wednesday, August 27
Iron sharpens iron, but a whetstone is even better
This post was supposed to be about worship style, but it got changed at the last minute. Stay with me.
I have been thinking about the meaning of praise and worship songs - the kind we sing at my church - a lot lately. It struck me that there are a lot of first person pronouns in praise and worship music: I, me, my, mine, we, & our.
Then I thought, if my object of worship is God, why are there so many first person pronouns in worship music? Is this really a form of self-worship?
Or am I putting God first, but myself right up (way too high) below him?
Or am I putting my relationship with God on the pedestal that God alone belongs on?
Has me-ism gradually pervaded my worship / my culture / my church?
I was about to conclude that the answers to each of these questions was one I didn't like very much. Knowing that there is wisdom in counsel, I put the idea before my wife. She thought about if for ~1.7 seconds and said "The Psalms are the same way...".
I had to re-think the issue from the beginning. I think that talking (singing) about my relationship w/ God is a valid form of worship of God. Probably my church's worship pastor knew that all along.
Proverbs 27:17 says that "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." - but a whetstone sharpens iron even better. I think that God gave wives to us men to keep us sharp.
I have been thinking about the meaning of praise and worship songs - the kind we sing at my church - a lot lately. It struck me that there are a lot of first person pronouns in praise and worship music: I, me, my, mine, we, & our.
Then I thought, if my object of worship is God, why are there so many first person pronouns in worship music? Is this really a form of self-worship?
Or am I putting God first, but myself right up (way too high) below him?
Or am I putting my relationship with God on the pedestal that God alone belongs on?
Has me-ism gradually pervaded my worship / my culture / my church?
I was about to conclude that the answers to each of these questions was one I didn't like very much. Knowing that there is wisdom in counsel, I put the idea before my wife. She thought about if for ~1.7 seconds and said "The Psalms are the same way...".
I had to re-think the issue from the beginning. I think that talking (singing) about my relationship w/ God is a valid form of worship of God. Probably my church's worship pastor knew that all along.
Proverbs 27:17 says that "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." - but a whetstone sharpens iron even better. I think that God gave wives to us men to keep us sharp.
Tuesday, July 15
Are we living in a post-Christian era?
A friend sent me a link to a video - part of an episode of the TV show "Extreme Makeover - Home Edition". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bmMo-3csXI
It shows a young one-legged US Marine veteran receiving his new house. (I won't go into the regular process that Extreme Makeover - Home Edition goes through. You know the drill.) It is all very emotional and patriotic. There are marines in dress uniforms attending the handover ceremony. Etc.
It got me to thinking.
Why do we approve of helping those who are in need?
Why do we hold especially high approval for military veterans who have received wounds serving their country (i.e., serving the rest of us)?
I think that it is because our culture still has an underlying base of Christian principles. It is because Christ is good that we see good in others and approve. If we had not Christ (at some deep cultural level) then we would not approve of military heroes. ...The hippies of the '60s & 70's were absolutely wrong (according to my standards), but they were at least acting consistently with their stated principles when they denigrated Vietnam-era veterans.
So I think that the standards of (a lot of...a majority?) of Americans must still be based in Christian principles. Much of our media, many of our politicians, a majority of our entertainment industry "stars" talk a strong humanistic (non-Christian) game. But is it therefore accurate to conclude that our culture has entered a post-Christian era?
I have taken it as true without a lot of analysis - that we have been living in a post-Christian society since the early 1960s. Today I think that there was probably a lot more evidence in popular culture to support this position in the '60s and '70s than there is now.
What do you think?
In the meantime, I am still praying for revival.
It shows a young one-legged US Marine veteran receiving his new house. (I won't go into the regular process that Extreme Makeover - Home Edition goes through. You know the drill.) It is all very emotional and patriotic. There are marines in dress uniforms attending the handover ceremony. Etc.
It got me to thinking.
Why do we approve of helping those who are in need?
Why do we hold especially high approval for military veterans who have received wounds serving their country (i.e., serving the rest of us)?
I think that it is because our culture still has an underlying base of Christian principles. It is because Christ is good that we see good in others and approve. If we had not Christ (at some deep cultural level) then we would not approve of military heroes. ...The hippies of the '60s & 70's were absolutely wrong (according to my standards), but they were at least acting consistently with their stated principles when they denigrated Vietnam-era veterans.
So I think that the standards of (a lot of...a majority?) of Americans must still be based in Christian principles. Much of our media, many of our politicians, a majority of our entertainment industry "stars" talk a strong humanistic (non-Christian) game. But is it therefore accurate to conclude that our culture has entered a post-Christian era?
I have taken it as true without a lot of analysis - that we have been living in a post-Christian society since the early 1960s. Today I think that there was probably a lot more evidence in popular culture to support this position in the '60s and '70s than there is now.
What do you think?
In the meantime, I am still praying for revival.
Friday, May 23
Swimming in Shark Infested Waters?
Circumstances are causing me to think of the relationship between the grace of God and the free will of men - in particular the fact that our security is based in and on God, but that fact does not provide us with a license to swim in shark-infested waters (relying on God to keep us safe). (Thank you, Dr. Ueckert, for presenting me with such an apt analogy.)
My church is scheduled to send a bunch of us on a short-term missions trip to Juarez, Mexico next month. The measurable goal of the trip is to build a house for a needy family in Juarez. A mission called "Casas por Cristo" (www.casasporcristo.org) coordinates, plans, & advises and we buy the materials and provide the labor. We have done this every summer for the last several. (I have been twice in the last 5 years.)
This summer, we have become aware that the level of violence in Juarez (& other Mexican border towns) is rapidly rising as various drug cartels fight with each other and the Mexican police for control of the border / control of the drug trade. Innocent people have been caught in the crossfire.
God did not call us to a life of ease, safety, security. But neither did he create us with intelligence merely so that we could build more funner video games (for our kids to play).
So, this year, if we go to Juarez we will learn more than how to build a house. We will see more than how blessed we are to live in the US of A in contrast to a poor country. We will also see the hand of God providing us with security. Not that he hasn't always, but the contrast will be more readily observable.
My conundrum is how to decide if Juarez in the summer of 2008 really is "shark-infested water" or is it an opportunity to see the hand of God providing our security in a more obvious way. In short, should I go & encourage others to go? Or should I stay home where I understand the dangers better.
I am reminded of the ancient Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times!".
My church is scheduled to send a bunch of us on a short-term missions trip to Juarez, Mexico next month. The measurable goal of the trip is to build a house for a needy family in Juarez. A mission called "Casas por Cristo" (www.casasporcristo.org) coordinates, plans, & advises and we buy the materials and provide the labor. We have done this every summer for the last several. (I have been twice in the last 5 years.)
This summer, we have become aware that the level of violence in Juarez (& other Mexican border towns) is rapidly rising as various drug cartels fight with each other and the Mexican police for control of the border / control of the drug trade. Innocent people have been caught in the crossfire.
God did not call us to a life of ease, safety, security. But neither did he create us with intelligence merely so that we could build more funner video games (for our kids to play).
So, this year, if we go to Juarez we will learn more than how to build a house. We will see more than how blessed we are to live in the US of A in contrast to a poor country. We will also see the hand of God providing us with security. Not that he hasn't always, but the contrast will be more readily observable.
My conundrum is how to decide if Juarez in the summer of 2008 really is "shark-infested water" or is it an opportunity to see the hand of God providing our security in a more obvious way. In short, should I go & encourage others to go? Or should I stay home where I understand the dangers better.
I am reminded of the ancient Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times!".
Tuesday, April 22
Brave Hearts Under Red Skies
Last night I finished reading the book Brave Hearts Under Red Skies: Stories of Faith under Fire by USAF Colonel (retired) Jeffrey O'Leary.
The book is a compilation of anectodes from war - either Christians being miraculously preserved during battle, or God using the "no atheists in foxholes" syndrome to bring people to Himself, or ... - that sort of thing. It was inspirational, to say the least.
The next-to-last chapter talked about the U.S. war against Islamic terrorism. It had some stories about particular events where God preserved &/or taught certain Christians in this war. It also had some thoughts from Colonel O'Leary that impressed me mightily. I doubt that I can remember it exactly, so I will paraphrase: I have quit trying to make sense of it all...I just know that there is good and there is evil, and if we are to live then evil must be defeated. He is saying this in the context of fighting evil simply because it is the right thing to do, and specifically not because he feels the need for revenge. He speaks about the rightness of giving up personal anger.
The last chapter is about Colonel O'Leary's personal efforts to put that idea into practice - his missionary work in India. (http://www.missionofjoy.org)
The idea that the effort should be made in support of truth & goodness and in opposition to evil - instead of because I am angry at the bad guys who killed my countrymen and who want to kill me - resonates with me at a deep level. It sort-of reminds me of: "Love Jesus, Know Truth, Serve Others, Reach People." (http://www.ssbaptist.org)
Hmmm...
The book is a compilation of anectodes from war - either Christians being miraculously preserved during battle, or God using the "no atheists in foxholes" syndrome to bring people to Himself, or ... - that sort of thing. It was inspirational, to say the least.
The next-to-last chapter talked about the U.S. war against Islamic terrorism. It had some stories about particular events where God preserved &/or taught certain Christians in this war. It also had some thoughts from Colonel O'Leary that impressed me mightily. I doubt that I can remember it exactly, so I will paraphrase: I have quit trying to make sense of it all...I just know that there is good and there is evil, and if we are to live then evil must be defeated. He is saying this in the context of fighting evil simply because it is the right thing to do, and specifically not because he feels the need for revenge. He speaks about the rightness of giving up personal anger.
The last chapter is about Colonel O'Leary's personal efforts to put that idea into practice - his missionary work in India. (http://www.missionofjoy.org)
The idea that the effort should be made in support of truth & goodness and in opposition to evil - instead of because I am angry at the bad guys who killed my countrymen and who want to kill me - resonates with me at a deep level. It sort-of reminds me of: "Love Jesus, Know Truth, Serve Others, Reach People." (http://www.ssbaptist.org)
Hmmm...
Tuesday, March 18
an argument for humility
I was visiting with an old friend the other day, and the topic of conversation began to range towards philosophy - as it seems like it frequently does when I get together with old friends. He said that he was beginning to believe that humility was a much more important virtue than he had previously given it credit for being. The more we talked, the more I began to see his point.
Being the way I am, I have to analyze everything down to within a logical gnat's whisker. So here is how I see it: God is in the business of running the world and he is very good at it. So the better I cooperate with him, the more smoothly my world will run. If I can manage to take it to the extreme & do everything exactly like he wants me to do it, then my world will run extremely well. God's highest goal, though, is His own glory. He ties these two things together quite nicely, though. When the world runs well, He gets the glory. When I make much of Him, I am working within his framework. He must increase and so I must decrease. ... You can see where this is going to end up. Eventually I conclude that my quality of life is dependent not on the recognition that I get for my work, but on the recognition that God gets for my work. Those old SS teachers were right all along!
I may change my mind tomorrow. But today I am thinking that humility is one of the more important virtues. (Thanks for nudging me down the path, Rocket.)
Being the way I am, I have to analyze everything down to within a logical gnat's whisker. So here is how I see it: God is in the business of running the world and he is very good at it. So the better I cooperate with him, the more smoothly my world will run. If I can manage to take it to the extreme & do everything exactly like he wants me to do it, then my world will run extremely well. God's highest goal, though, is His own glory. He ties these two things together quite nicely, though. When the world runs well, He gets the glory. When I make much of Him, I am working within his framework. He must increase and so I must decrease. ... You can see where this is going to end up. Eventually I conclude that my quality of life is dependent not on the recognition that I get for my work, but on the recognition that God gets for my work. Those old SS teachers were right all along!
I may change my mind tomorrow. But today I am thinking that humility is one of the more important virtues. (Thanks for nudging me down the path, Rocket.)
Monday, February 4
mandatory blog entry about the 2008 Elections
I think it is a rule that every blogger has to write at least one entry about the 2008 election. This is mine.
But actually, I have a question that I have been worrying about for some time. In much counsel there is wisdom. So I want to lay the question before the world and see what wisdom rears up to whap me up-side-the-head. Here goes:
What part should I allow (my perception of) a candidate's status as a Christian (or lack thereof) play in my decision to vote for / against him?
If a candidate is a conservative evangelical believer that is clearly a plus for him. If a candidate is a non-Christian that is clearly a minus for him. So if one candidate is clearly a Christian and his opponent is clearly not, is my decision made? Or do I consider other things - say - their stated position on the issues or my perception of their character - as well? How much weight do I give to each?
Are there degrees of being Christian and not-Christian? If conservative evangelical is the best, then is conservative main-line next best? And what is worst - Islamic? agnostic? Mormon? secular-humanist-atheist? Can I put them on a number line from best to worst? If I could, would it be valuable?
Right now I am hoping that most of the options will be essentially moot before primary election day rolls around in Texas (March 4). Because I don't know who I should vote for. Today the guy with the "best" position Christianity-wise (Huckabee), and the guy with the "best" position issues-wise (Romney) are both trailing the guy that I like the least (McCain). At least we don't have the guy who was publicly cheating on his wife still a viable option.
& don't get me started on the democrats! The problems with the republicans are bad enough.
But actually, I have a question that I have been worrying about for some time. In much counsel there is wisdom. So I want to lay the question before the world and see what wisdom rears up to whap me up-side-the-head. Here goes:
What part should I allow (my perception of) a candidate's status as a Christian (or lack thereof) play in my decision to vote for / against him?
If a candidate is a conservative evangelical believer that is clearly a plus for him. If a candidate is a non-Christian that is clearly a minus for him. So if one candidate is clearly a Christian and his opponent is clearly not, is my decision made? Or do I consider other things - say - their stated position on the issues or my perception of their character - as well? How much weight do I give to each?
Are there degrees of being Christian and not-Christian? If conservative evangelical is the best, then is conservative main-line next best? And what is worst - Islamic? agnostic? Mormon? secular-humanist-atheist? Can I put them on a number line from best to worst? If I could, would it be valuable?
Right now I am hoping that most of the options will be essentially moot before primary election day rolls around in Texas (March 4). Because I don't know who I should vote for. Today the guy with the "best" position Christianity-wise (Huckabee), and the guy with the "best" position issues-wise (Romney) are both trailing the guy that I like the least (McCain). At least we don't have the guy who was publicly cheating on his wife still a viable option.
& don't get me started on the democrats! The problems with the republicans are bad enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
