Rich? Me?

You probably don't consider yourself rich. I know I don't. Does anybody? It's funny, most people I know, even ones who I would consider wealthy, don't think of themselves that way. Which makes reading some of Scripture much easier than it should be. Consider the first 6 verses of James 5. It starts out, "Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you." then goes downhill from there. Or take Jesus' words from Matthew 19:23 "It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Passages like these should make you squirm a bit. But we conveniently assume they are talking about someone else. Certainly those passages don't apply to us, right?

See, if I focus on my bills, or my debts, or the coming college and wedding expenses, I can always make a case that we're just getting by. It's easy to forget the nice home, and all the things I own, and the 401k in the bank. Is it possible that I really am rich?

I came across the following link a while back, and it sort of jolted me into reality. I would strongly suggest taking this test at the Global Rich List.

Amazing, eh? My purpose here is not to elaborate on the theology of money and finances in the Bible, or to make judgment calls on who is rich or who isn't, or to make you feel guilty. My desire is that we would all ponder our financial situation and determine if we have been honest with ourselves in describing the reality of our finances. So maybe the next time you read or study one of these passages you will be willing to ask yourself the tough questions, knowing that Scripture is indeed talking to you.

Jerry

Preach My Sermon!

I had a post last year concerning the practice of providing message transcripts for a fee. Check out this blog entry at Between Two Worlds, highlighting the next evolution in this disturbing trend - encouraging pastors to plagiarize.

Jerry

Do As We Say...

This just came off the Associated Press newswire:

Gates warns Turkey not to invade Iraq

SINGAPORE - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday cautioned Turkey against sending troops into northern Iraq, as it has threatened, to hunt down Kurdish rebels it accuses of carrying out terrorist raids inside Turkey.

"We hope there would not be a unilateral military action across the border into Iraq," Gates told a news conference after meetings here with Asian government officials. Turkey and Iraq were not represented.

Gates said he sympathized with the Turks' concern about cross-border raids by Kurdish rebels.

Yeah. We certainly wouldn't want one country to invade another over terrorism concerns.

Good grief.

Is it hot in here?

Global warming. No good Christian believes in it. I mean, how could they? That would require rubbing shoulders with some shady characters - liberals, environmentalists, tree-huggers, pagans, scientists, and Al Gore. And since we know none of those people are Christians, they must have an ungodly agenda and nothing noteworthy to say. As I allude to in my post about Christians and Republicans, there is an unwritten rule on whom we associate with, and who we don’t, no matter what the situation.

The second reason we don’t believe in global warming is an inherent distrust with the field of science. Science, by its very nature, requires a natural explanation for the world we live in. Things that cannot be explained via hands-on experimentation, or more specifically, the scientific method, are pretty much dismissed. This, of course, is of great concern to those who believe the world is under the control of a Higher Power.

The third reason conservatives struggle with global warming, I believe, is a very strict, and possibly misguided, understanding of our mandate in this world, or at least in American culture. We believe we have a mandate to make our nation Christian again, and to do that requires a set of cultural behaviors to be eliminated or reversed. Issues that do not fall inside this set of mandates are met with suspicion.

A perfect example of this type of thinking is what happened recently within the National Association of Evangelicals, the loosely organized umbrella group for evangelical organizations in the country. 24 prominent evangelicals recently sent a letter to the NEA asking for the resignation of Richard Cizik, the vice president for governmental affairs for the NEA. The letter claims, in part, "Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time. In their place has come a preoccupation with climate concerns that extend beyond the NAE's mandate and its own statement of purpose."

Notice how the letter paints concern and work in the area of global warming as mutually exclusive with current evangelical initiatives. The unstated implication in the letter, then, is that evangelicals can only be involved in a limited number of issues. And those issues must fall within the narrow scope of traditional evangelical endeavors, otherwise they have no merit.

Now, it’s not as if we’ve used up all the resources available to us evangelicals and conservatives. From where I sit, I don’t see every church-going person being totally tapped out in their efforts to advance God’s kingdom and mandates in our culture. My point being, it’s not an either/or proposition. If God has placed a large burden for the preservation of the environment on the hearts of some Christians (and I would suggest we should all feel that burden to some extent), then we should thank God for their desire to follow through with God’s leading.

Not only that, it seems to me that Cizik’s actions fall completely in line with part of the NEA mandate. I quote from their web page: “We pledge our cooperation to any responsible effort to solve critical environmental problems, and our willingness to support all proven solutions developed by competent authorities. We call upon our constituency to do the same, even at the cost of personal discomfort or inconvenience” However, the mandate also mentions, “…some groups and organizations have reacted with a zeal that has not always been according to knowledge…” The implication here is very clear – evangelical leaders simply do not believe the data currently being postulated by the scientific establishment and reported by the mainstream media.

Now, do they have reason to be cautious? Sure. I certainly am no fan of mainstream media. I believe much of it to be biased, arrogant, and often anti-religious, if not downright wrong. Ditto with the scientific establishment, which has gone out of its way to paint itself as the bastion of truth and knowledge for our society.

But, I personally fail to see how these traditional tensions between Christianity and Science abdicate us of our mandate to protect and shepherd God’s creation. Now, most evangelicals would say I am misrepresenting them, that we obviously do have such a mandate. But often their attitudes (and letters like the one to the NEA) belie their words.

Whether the cause of global warming is the result of our behavior, or is simply due to normal cyclical changes of the earth’s climate over thousands of years, I think the evidence that the climate is changing for the worse is at least worth considering. And herein lies the lynchpin for me. Unlike other areas where we are in conflict with society, such as abortion and homosexuality, the actions we can take to help are not in conflict with God-given instructions, but in my opinion actually may fall right in line with them.

For instance, is it a bad thing to consider gas mileage as a major factor when purchasing a car? Is it really wrong to buy energy-saving light bulbs? Is it wild-eyed liberalism to actually suggest a gas-guzzling 4x4 that is only driven on pavement is a misuse of resources? (Yeah, I just stepped on some toes, didn’t I). Am I out of line with God’s directives if I recycle? Is it inappropriate to suggest drinking milk that isn’t tainted with BST? Would it be bad if I moved closer to my work/church/family to cut down on drive times and increase the opportunity to, say, ride a bicycle or walk (and shed a few pounds in the process)?

I could go on, but I think you see my point. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be cautious when evaluating the claims of secular institutions. And I’m certainly not suggesting we buy into the gloom-and-doom, catastrophic, and bleak future propagated by the media (who always love a good scare story). I’m simply suggesting that global warming is perhaps not an issue that we really need to be “against,” and that helping our earth by some small changes in our daily behaviors fit in nicely with some of the things God asked his children to do in Genesis 1 and 2.

Men of Whom the World Was Not Worthy

Sometimes I get sick to my stomach when I realize just how little my faith costs me. This is one of those times.

Men of Whom the World Was Not Worthy

God wasn't at Virginia Tech

Ok, so I'm driving through a small town near my house on my way home from work. A local business has a big marquee out front with a statement similar to the following:

Our prayers are with the victims in Virginia. Put God back in our schools.

Now, on the surface, both statements sound good, very "Christian", if you will. I mean, no good Christian would argue against either of those statements, right? But why not, I'll take a stab at it.

We can draw a couple conclusions from this seemingly innocuous statement:
1. God is not in our schools
2. The lack of God in our schools had a causal relationship to the massacre.

I have to admit to being a bit confused. I'm no scholar, but I do know a few things about God. But I was completely unaware that God had been removed from our schools. This was news to me, and forced me to ponder tough questions the rest of the way home. Was he absent? Playing hooky? Maybe he just got fed up with the NEA and took his omnipresence and went home. Who knows? But apparently God himself is unable to breach the walls of our school system.

Now, obviously, I understand what the sign meant. It meant that discussion of God, references to God, and most importantly, staff-led prayer to God, has been removed. But that's not what it said. It said God himself needs to be put back in school. "Jerry, you're splitting hairs. Why make a big deal of it when you know what they meant?" Because I think restrictions on prayer or discussions about God in school, and saying God isn't in our schools, are completely different things. But over the years we've gradually blurred the distinction and made them one and the same. And the net effect is for us to think fatalistically, to assume it won't get any better, and to fall back on trite responses to ghastly crimes.

But it's not true! I would suggest to you that God has never left our schools. He is always present and working, and no man-made ordinance, law, effort, or initiative will keep him out. But it's easy to forget that when we keep saying we need to put him back in. Remember, we are his hands and feet, his physical presence on this earth as we expand his kingdom. If it appears that God isn't in the public schools, then maybe it's us that has been absent. Maybe we've all withdrawn and run for cover, leaving the schools to wallow in our absence. How do you think we're going to turn this thing around? By standing afar and taking pot-shots at the system? Is that what we're commanded to do? No. Never. We are to get involved and to expand his kingdom through the tireless efforts of ministering to the lost. And that means going there.

I have a suggestion. See, it's easy to say we need God back in school. It's even easier when we grasp for reasons to try and explain a senseless crime that has no reason, other than as an example of the depths of depravity that can be achieved in our fallen word. Instead, maybe we could get just as worked up about the lack of prayer in our homes. Maybe we could ask why we don't pray more with our spouse, or discuss God more with our kids. Maybe we could start a petition to introduce more prayer in our churches. I think it's silly to be so concerned about prayer in school when we've nearly lost everything in our homes and our churches, the primary place of Christian education for our children.

So let's quit whining about the state of our society and our public schools and do something about it.

Jars of Clay - The Good, the bad, and the ugly

I've never been a big Jars of Clay fan. Probably for two reasons. First, they are popular. Popular Christian musicians usually rank a bit high on the sappy-meter for me. They all remind me of the old Undercover tune, "You'll have to excuuuse us, we're in love with Jeeesus." It was embarrassing to listen to. (Fortunately for us, Undercover matured and put out some of the best music ever to hit vinyl.) Second, they are too tame. The music was ok, but my ear bends to a more hard-core beat.

That all changed with their most recent release, Good Monsters. Did they finally see the light and go metal? No, its still relatively tame. But there is something different about this release, something darker, a bit more real. Granted, I haven't followed their last few releases, so I don't know if this was a trend, or just this last album. I actually bought the album after listening to a clip of the song Dead Man on Amazon.com. Other highlights include Work, and Oh My God, which actually moved me to tears.

So I had to hand it to them for putting out an album that was more open to the struggles and the dark side of the Christian life; more honest. Or so I thought. I happened upon an article in The Argus Leader newspaper, as a preview to their concert in Sioux Falls, SD. The author of the article interviewed lead vocalist Dan Haseltine on some various subjects, some of them a bit controversial.

Haseltine expressed frustration over the Christian fan-base's fickleness, and how quick they are to dump those deemed "unChristian." Apparently it is for this reason that Jars of Clay can't release the war protest songs they have written, and keeps Haseltine from commenting on his political views. "If you rock the boat too much, your records won't appear in certain Christian record stores anymore," he says.

Now that statement struck me as a bit odd. In fact, it raised all sorts of questions in my mind. They feel passionately about something, but refuse to sing about it. Why? Because it will hurt sales. Is that something to be proud of? I don't know. I guess you could look at it from two sides. On one hand, it sounds like they've sold out. Toe the line and don't say anything too controversial - the last thing we want to do is let our fans know how we really feel. Can't afford to lose all those T-shirt sales!

On the other hand, one could give Jars of Clay kudos for taking a big step in that direction anyway, even if they didn't go all the way. Maybe the CCM crowd is so narrow-minded, that it will take groups like Jars of Clay to "baby-step" them into the more insecure and not-so-neat areas of their faith.

I do know my favorite band, Stavescare, couldn't deal with it. The oppressive forces in the Christian music industry simply became too much to bear, and they eventually walked away and never looked back:

I need to find a place where I can breathe
Somewhere high above this empty landscape
Where the air is clear
And I need to find it while I still can.

So, I guess in the end I can't come down too hard on Jars of Clay. I hope they find the courage (guts?) to someday sing what's really on their heart. Because I think what they want to say needs to be said. And I hope Christians are big enough to listen.

Interestingly, the author of the article has this comment: "And in today's America, being 'Christian' seems to be tied to being a 'patriot.' Basically, if you're an outspoken Christian, you're assumed to be a conservative Republican who backs President Bush without question..." Hmm, sounds like something I'd say. Oh wait, I already did.

Ok, the last three blogs have been about music. Sorry, that wasn't intentional, just how it worked out. Next one will be different, I promise.

God bless.