Me with my lovely wife, Kathy:

Wednesday, March 13, 2024

An Easter Message that is Nothing But Scripture

 I don't know how many times I've heard something like this in my 50+ years of ministry: "I wish you/they/pastors/etc. would just preach the Bible." If you share that opinion, you should be very interested in the message I'll be sharing at Woodland Church on Easter Sunday.

God's Story in His Own Words, is a message made-up entirely of Scripture. It begins with "the beginning," John 1:1, and concludes with the "Amen" of Revelation. It traces God's plan in between. Most of the message is accompanied with pictures, many of them black and white prints by Gustave Dore' that many of you will remember from your first Bible.

I first shared this message on Easter ten years ago. Preachers often say that when they preach they are speaking to themselves first of all. I found this to be undeniably true concerning this message. I would have been glad I had prepared and preached this message even if no one else had been there to hear it. I'm looking forward to sharing it again. From time to time it is valuable to get an aeriel view of the whole forest. It will help you understand what you're seeing when you get back examining one tree at a time.

The graphic below contains information about the Easter Service at Woodland. Below the graphic, I'll share a few more thoughts so you don't get the wrong idea.



  1. While I do appreciate the sentiment that preachers should preach the word, I am not saying that every message should be verbatim recitals of Scripture. This message that I'm sharing on Easter Sunday is the only message like this that I've ever done. The messages in Scripture, the Sermon on the Mount, Peter's message on the Day of Pentecost, and Paul's messages in Acts, contain Scripture, are based on the Bible that the speaker had at the time, but they also included the thoughts of the speaker tailored to the need of the moment.
    What I am opposed to, and warn you against, are sermons like the one Charles Spurgeon commented on. He said something like, "If the preacher's text (the portion of the Bible he claimed to be preaching from) had scarlet fever, his sermon would be in no danger of catching it."

  2. If you are considering joining us at Woodland Church for Easter Sunday, I need to make something clear. I don't want to disappoint, offend, or needlessly anger someone, so I share the following: Sometimes when people speak about the "Bible" they are speaking about a particular translation of the Hebrew and Greek that they regard as superior to all other translations. In this message I use several translations, The New Living Translation, The English Standard Version, The New International, the New American Standard Bible, and the King James Version. The NLT is predominant in this presentation. It's use of common Twenty-first Century English flows well for this purpose.

  3. I encourage you to go to your church on Easter. If you don't have a church you call yours, and live in the Fincastle, Troutville, or Daleville area, or just want to take a lovely ride, I encourage you to join us at Woodland. You can find directions on the website.

  4. Here is a Bible passage that is part of the message,

    "Don't be afraid!" he [the angel] said.
    "I know you are looking for Jesus,
    who was crucified.
    He isn't here!
    He is risen from the dead, just as he said would happen.
    Come see where his body was lying."

Rejoice in that reality.


Thursday, February 1, 2024

The Senate Hearing on the Danger of Social Media to Young People

 I didn’t watch the Senate hearing on social media, yesterday. I did hear some of the “gotcha” moments captured and broadcast on radio. I saw a brief interview with one of the committee members in which the senator was shamelessly political—go figure—but was also undeniably right. Social media, platforms like Tik-Tok and Facebook have created an incredible and frightening opportunity for harm to young people.

As parents, as grandparents, as leaders in the moral realm, we simply cannot ignore this.

This morning I read the transcript of Al Mohler’s daily podcast, “The Briefing.” You can listen to or read it here. (A brief disclaimer: Yes, Mohler does sometimes pull the fire alarm lever when he ought to pick up his phone and talk to someone, but I do find him generally helpful as one who watches what’s going on and helps put cultural matters in the grid of a Biblical worldview.) A couple of significant quotations and thoughts from his article:

·       The “Surgeon General of the United States, Vivek Murthy, reported just a matter of months ago . . . there is a massive mental health crisis among American young people.” I wrote about that here. This crisis is not solely the fault of social media, but social media is clearly involved.

·       “. . . social media has created a vulnerability, a danger, for young people that frankly has never existed before in human history.”

·       Those of us of a certain age need to realize that others much younger than we have never known a world without social media. They take it for granted.

·       “ . . . there is moral responsibility in every technology . . .. There's a moral dimension to the development of the wheel. [It] can be used to convey you somewhere . . . it can also be used to crush someone . . .. [E]ven as ancient technology comes with its own moral dimensions, modern technology comes with multiplied moral dimensions, because of the sophistication of the technology, and the immediacy, and the reach.”

So, who owns this moral responsibility?

Clearly in the case of children and teenagers, as in every other realm, parents are responsible. And, at
the risk of eye-rolls and objections I’ll just bluntly say that many parents are grievously avoiding that responsibility. Giving a child unsupervised access to the internet is a lot like letting them play soccer in a mine field.

Yet, even with allowance for the preening and pontificating that is part and parcel of a televised Senate hearing, I think the Senators are right. Those who created and profit from the technology, bear a responsibility as well. In this regard, Mohler observes a “fishy” phenomenon. Folks who usually aren’t all that interested in parental rights, suddenly acting like advocates for parents being responsible to fix the problem. Yes, parents bear the major responsibility for their children, but others in the community—and in this case the community is global—bear responsibility as well.

So what?

I’m not a Luddite. The fact that I’m using the internet to publish my thoughts is evidence of that. But, controls on the power of the web are appropriate. As someone who is well into his adult years, I personally need to reckon with the fact that such controls may sometimes be cumbersome. I think I ought to be willing to pay that price in order to protect the vulnerable.

I appeal to parents. Resist the relentless pressure our culture puts on you, not to mention the whining of your child. Decide when your child should have a cellphone not on the basis of what “everybody else” is doing, but on the basis of what you conclude is best for your child. Do some listening and research before you come to that conclusion. Think about Proverbs 29:15 on this one. Proper discipline gives wisdom, but a child left to himself brings his parent to shame. ( That’s the HM application paraphrase. Look it up in your Bible.)

A general awareness is appropriate. Somewhere between tinfoil-hat paranoia and clueless indifference there is a sweet-spot. We’ll disagree on exactly where on the spectrum that sweet-spot is, but isn’t that what responsible people of faith always do? (See Romans 14) Let’s help each other out. There is an invasion all around us. Sometimes the invader is pernicious. Let’s not act otherwise. Yesterday’s Senate  gallery was filled with parents of abused, and in some cases hounded-to-death children. That is strong encouragement for us to be convinced that we need to link arms on this matter. We should expect our leaders to do something. We need to be willing to endure some cost—be it listening to the teenage whining or jumping through the hoops of proving that I’m not something I haven’t been for more than fifty years, a teenager.

We can do better. We have to.

Thursday, January 18, 2024

The on-going question of cremation versus burial:

Here js a brief article that, IMHO, ought to be read by all pastors, and any others who help folks make decisions surrounding the death of a loved one. That includes virtually all of us, sooner or later, so this is a matter that ought to be dealt with as part of a church's teaching. This article touches on a number of points that ought to be further explored and discussed. 

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/cremation-burial-choice/

I encourage you to read the article rather than merely my thoughts about it, but to encourage a conversation, I offer the following:

  • Justin Dillehay, a Baptist pastor from Tennessee, does a pretty good job of staying in the road on this tough issue. He avoids the extreme of saying what we do with our dead doesn't matter (for the record, I agree with him. I think it does matter). He maintains that for a long time, standard Western burial practice was referred to as "Christian burial," and that this means something.
    He also refrains from adopting a legalistic tone.  "[I]t’s not that cremation is a violation of a direct biblical command." "[T]here’s no moral prohibition on cremation in the Bible."
  • There is no doubt that Dillahay, comes down on the side of maintaining "Christian burial" as the norm for God's people. In doing so, he in no way--that I could see anyhow--drifts into the clearly heretical notion that what we do with the departed loved one's body has any impact on that loved one's eternal state. Though he does make the case for burial, he refrains from saying that cremation is devoid of at least reasonable justification.
  • One reasonable justification is cost. At least twice in the article, Dillehay mentions this. He even implies, if not flat-out says, that churches ought to be of some help in this regard.
  • While Dillehay does not frame it in these words, his article brings out two important facts about sound Theology: 1) A sound Theology is integrated. Every point of Theology touches on every other point of Theology. Dillehay raises the question, without answering it, as to whether humans are ensouled bodies or embodied souls. I'm not sure those binary choices are adequate, but this is a short article.  That touches on the intermediate state of the dead and the nature of the resurrection and my second observation about the A sound Theology, 2) Sound Theology leads to right practice. One flows from the other.
(Concerning the intermediate state, I found this article that gives an introduction to three views, two of which are quite common. The article does not discuss a fourth view, "soul sleep.")

I'll make three comments that constitute some of my reactions to the article.
  1. Dillehay rightly criticizes the "empty shell" descriptions that are often used to describe death, especially in explaining death to children. Yet, he also refers to scriptures that speak of the separation of body and soul. One has to dig deeper on this.
  2. While Dillehay speaks of the reality of the financial difference between burial and cremation, he doesn't pursue it much. Actually, that might have strengthened his case. (See below) Given the popular impression that people have about the financial difference between cremation and burial, the financial considerations are huge, bigger than the article admits. (More below)
  3. As Pastor Dillehay indicates this is a question that is worth pursuing. Four times in my career it loomed large for me.
    Funerals (and burials) are for the living. Dillehay is right. What we do with the body of a loved one (and what we request be done with our own remains) does say something.
    Fairly early in my pastoral career, a dear saint, someone I look forward to seeing in heaven, died. There were essentially no resources for a funeral, etc. The oldest son, in a very cavalier manner, declared that they would cremate the remains and go on with life. Probably stepping over a line--if not several--I declared that this son might do that to his father, but I wasn't going to allow that to happen to my friend. This man was a loved part of my church and someone who had lived in my home while he recovered from a serious health issue. Even though this was fifty years ago, when cremation was much less socially acceptable, my decision was not that cremation was absolutely wrong. Rather, it came from a conviction that what this son was saying about the worth of his father was definitely wrong. My church stepped up, and while I don't remember the details, my friend was properly honored and buried (not saying he couldn't have been properly honored had his body been cremated).
    Several years ago my wife and I served as missionaries on two different islands half a world away. What my wife would have done had I died "out there," or what I would have done had she died out there obviously remains an unknown. I told my wife, "If I die while we are out here, my recommendation is to have my body cremated. That way you carry my remains back home in a suitcase." Since then I've been told that is technically illegal, though it is often done. Transporting a body by air is quite expensive. 
    The other two experiences have to do with my Mother-in-law and my Mom. Both of these dear Christian ladies died as widows, away from the place where they and the rest of the family wanted them to be buried. Burial was the family consensus in both cases. I knew enough to know that the cost difference between cremation and burial consists not so much in the actual cost of the two procedures but in the cost of the "services" associated with "Christian burial." In both cases, family members transported the body from one state to another themselves. This was done legally and respectfully. Both were buried in inexpensive containers, the industry equivalent of a "plain pine casket." For each, a graveside service was conducted for only close friends and family, while a memorial service sans the body, and a time of visitation, was held at their respective churches. The casket was draped with a cloth out of respect not only for the deceased but for the mourners. At the visitation and memorial service, a picture was in place of the usual casket and body. All was handled with full respect. In fact, concerning one of these women who was known for her thrift in life, the fact that she was buried economically was an honor to her memory. The bottom line was there was little difference in the cost of the burial and what the cost of a cremation would have been.
    In other words, I would say that in addition to the Theological considerations, creative economic alternatives to typical funeral home procedures ought to be explored.
I think your thoughts in the comments could be useful to others who need to guide others through death-related decisions.

Friday, January 5, 2024

Tribute to Faithful Servant that Provides a Critique of Missions Philosophy

 I write this brief post from the guest house on the Campus of Amano Christian School, in Chingola, Zambia. My purpose in coming here is to be an encouragement to some Liebenzell USA missionaries.  Kathy and I are involved with LMUSA.

I've read Kevin Bauder's weekly articles for some time now. During some down-time, here in Africa, I took time to read this week's post. In it, Bauder gives deserved tribute to a faithful missionary who served behind the scenes for many years and, in the end, accumulated a major impact. Likely, like me, you didn't know Richard Redding. However, especially if you are a pastor or someone involved in Great Commission ministry in other ways, I encourage you to read Bauder's piece. In paying tribute to this largely unknown servant, Bauder exposes some troubling trends in current conservative Evangelical mission work, especially regarding who is and who isn't a real missionary.

I saw this during my years of pastoring and working with missions from that perspective. Now as I'm involved in missionary care I see the impact from a new perspective. I encourage you to read the article, it's not long, and draw your own conclusions. I welcome your interaction.


Thursday, November 30, 2023

Henry Kissinger and Solomon

 I just heard on the radio that Henry Kissinger, one of the world's most influential people, in the mid-twentieth Century, died at the age of 100. 

The New York Times called him "mesmerizing." He shared the Time Magazine's 1972 title, "Man of the Year," with President Richard Nixon. It is hard to name a world leader of that era with whom Kissinger was not involved. He dated Hollywood starlets and was often the featured character in the news stories of his day. In fact, he and perhaps the best-known journalist of the day, Barbara Walters, were the subject of gossip column rumors.
In a recent interview, marking his 100th Birthday, Ted Koppel commented, "He remains relevant on a global scale." If memory serves me correctly, once in a conversation with Gold Meir, President Nixon said, "We have something in common. We both have Jewish Secretaries of State." To which the Israeli Prime Minister replied, "Yes, but mine speaks better English."  I remember his heavily accented, somewhat mumbly manner of speaking. There was never any doubt, however, that the man was brilliant. Even though I speak more clearly than the former diplomat, I don't recall any two heads of state ever joking about me.

Kissinger's life is an apt illustration of the Bible Book of Ecclesiastes. He had everything, but in the end, he died. 

   “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13–14, ESV)  

Wednesday, September 13, 2023

Is 80 to Old for the President of the USA? What About Me?

 Listening to the news this morning, I heard several talking heads bring up the question about whether the President, Joe Biden, and the leading Republican candidate, former President, Donald Trump are too old to serve as leader of the United States.

In spite of the fact that at 73 years of age, I find myself saying, "I resemble that," this is a question that needs to be considered. To put it in the bluntest terms, we don't want someone having a "senior moment" when they push the nuclear button. To push things to the other extreme, though, I sure don't want to give a young hothead the opportunity to start a nuclear holocaust, either. The founding fathers of our republic recognized the need for maturity when they put an age threshold in place for the presidency. Those less than 35-years-old need not apply.

For the record, according to the National Park Service, "The average age [of those who wrote our constitution] was about 45 years. The youngest, Dayton, at 26, was one of three men in their twenties, the others being Spaight and Charles Pinckney. Eleven were in the thirties, 13 in the forties, and 8 in the fifties. Jenifer, Livingston, and Sherman were in the sixties, and Franklin was in his eighties." Dr. Franklin as he was known, one of the most respected minds in the world of his day, was in the time of life of the two current leading candidates to be our next president. Perhaps a case could be made that half-a-Franklin is better than about any politician available to us today, but that's a discussion for another day. I will say, if Ben were running today, I think I'd have more problems with his dalliances with younger women, to whom he was not married, than about the number of candles on his birthday cake.


Is an 80-year-old, qualified to be president?

Leading a nation, or any other organization for that matter, requires not only knowledge but wisdom. We tend to associate wisdom with age. Yet, we all know older folks who have only grown more bitter, prejudiced, angry, and deeper in their rut with each passing year. 

Leadership, likewise, requires knowledge. In our lightning-quick, changing world, keeping up is often associated with youth. I seldom meet someone in their 70s and beyond, who says things like, "Now that I've gotten older, I master new skills more easily,"  "I find my memory has improved." or, "I'm mentally quicker than I've ever been."

Yet, on an intellectual level, I have found as I have grown older, that the smartest, quickest, person in the room is not always the rightest. I think the ideal leader is one in whom there resides enough knowledge and intellect to follow and sufficiently understand new situations, problems, and proposed solutions, and who possesses enough wisdom and has a well-enough-tuned moral compass to decide what is best and right. 

If we accept what is obvious to all of us of a certain age, that, slow though it may be, mental acuity like physical prowess declines with age, while if we pay attention and don't let negative emotions dominate wisdom increases, then somewhere in the intersection of those two graph-lines there is a sweet spot. I've yet to meet a 16-year-old who has attained that balance. When I visit the nursing home I meet folks who are well past it. But where in between those poles is the magic age? The constitution says that the lower limit is 35-years-old (one current candidate for president is only 38). In spite of Dr. Franklin's record, is it time to place a limit at the other end of the age spectrum? Some say it is.

It depends (go with the pun if you want to).

Rather than focus on how old the president should be, I am thinking more about what do I do, what can I do, and what should I do at the age I am? Maybe some of you can help me with this. Maybe we can help one another. Here are some thoughts. I offer them in the hope that my mind is still acute enough to make sense and that my heart is wise enough to understand what really matters and sort better from not-so-much.

  • This one applies to both the young and old. I ought to live my life--especially the part of my life that has to do with learning and self-improvement--in such a way so that when I am older and my knowledge-izer begins to deteriorate or deteriorates more, there is still a reservoir from which my wisdom-ificator can draw. I need to depend on that.
  • I very much need to know the difference between things that are new and better and those that are old and essential. As an older guy I think I'm better off focusing on the latter.
  • I may need to admit that in certain areas I can't keep up anymore. I need to have others--probably younger others--who can tell me what I need to know about the latest and maybe greatest. I may choose not to go there, but I need to know that wisdom and curmudgeonliness are cousins. Go with wisdom.
  • As my ability to hold on to things diminishes, I need to be more careful about what I hold onto.
  • I need to know that it is wise to consider new ideas. For as long as I can, as much as I can, and as effectively as I can, I need to keep learning. I should not, however, waste that precious ability on the trivial.
  • In the same way that I have started using stair rails, I need to have intellectual assist devices. For instance, a search engine provides a quick check for spelling, correct names, dates, and other points of knowledge. It is wise to know that I may not be as smart as I used to be. I need trusted/trustworthy people who can help me on this. 
  • When possible, I ought to maximize collaboration--by the way, I think the same is true for you youngsters. Wouldn't you love to listen in on the conversation that Franklin and those twenty-something constitution writers had?
  • An article I read several years ago suggested that guys like me need to turn loose of the reins of leadership and embrace the mantle of sagacity (those are my words of summary).
  • I need to know when to quit.











  • I need to know when to quit!

Thursday, August 31, 2023

No one but the rebuked should know when you rebuke. Everyone should know when you praise.

 My wife is a John Maxwell fan. She listens, just about everyday to his "Minute with Maxwell" spot. When one particularly strikes her, she shares it with me. It's just one of the many reasons that I love, admire, and appreciate Kathy.

She sent me one today in which guest speaker, Joe Mamby, emphasizes what I regard as absolutely essential part of good leadership--Praise in Public, Admonish in Private. Joe links the concept to another trait that is also key to leaders--a proper understanding of patience. I hadn't thought of that connection, at least not in the way Joe presents it.

The "Praise in Public, Admonish in Private" concept is really a "duh" rule of leadership. It is so obvious for several reasons.

  • We all vicerally react against a leader who dumps on a subordinate in a public setting. It's like the eighth-grade bully picking on a skinny sixth-grader just for the sick fun of it. What is the skinny kid supposed to do, or what can the unfortunate subordinate do except act like a duck in the rain--just duck, let it rain, and hope that at least some of it will roll off.
  • The above reason is just one of the reasons why the violation of this fundamental leadership principle is toxic to the long-term success of an organization. We don't like that kind of leader. We dread the day when we will trip the tirade trip-wire. We tend to keep our heads down in that environment. We are unwilling to take a chance, or be creative even if we are convinced that to do so would be to the benefit of the organization. Sometimes even that doesn't work. On occasion subordinates get a public dressing down for not being more bold. When a worker can't win he/she is likely to quit.
  • The public tirade almost never leads to constructive instruction. The end of the dressing down is usually something like, "Go forth and figure out how to do better." Sometimes--in my opinion, rarely--the humiliated worker will go on a self-education program and actually improve. More often he/she will just learn to duck and hide more effectively, that, and, start working on their resume.
It is obvious, yet frequently forgotten or ignored.

The Minute with Maxwell spot had barely gotten started before I remembered the most glaring violation of this principle of leadership that I have ever seen. I was involved with an organization that depended for its life on the good will of a regulatory agency. We were enduring an inspection by a team from that agency. In normal circumstances, I think the team members are really nice people. In this circumstance there was such a huge power differential that they came across as anything but nice. In my view, they had an entitlement mentality. They had the power, others were expected to cater to them. One of my associates in this organization was found wanting by the inspectors. There is a pretty serious protocol that this team followed. At the closing meeting of the inspection tour my coworker, a person who bears the image of God, a dedicated servant, one who had worked very hard for the success of this organization, had to sit, without any recourse and listen to the clinical description of their failure to measure up. At the end, when I asked for some time before visiting team left, to give my colleague some time to recover, and make graceful, or at least less ignomious exit, the leader of the team objected. They were in a hurry. We took the time anyhow. It was not only wrong. It was immoral.

Joe Mamby links the concept to patience. I think it is a valid linkage. As a leader, I am ashamed to say that there have been times when I was in the place of that inspection team, and I, too, have failed. I should have been patient enough to forgo the perverted feel-good moment of "lording-it-over" (1 Peter 5:3) another. I should be patient enough to go the long route of shephering the person (see the context in 1 Peter). On those occasions when I failed I foolishly and wrongly traded a moment of feel-good superiority, or adherence to an unfeeling protocol, for an opportunity to help someone grow. What is needed is the self-control element of patience. 

At the bottom of this Praise/Admonish principle is a basic fundamental fact--people are special. They bear the image of God. They are the ones for whom Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice. They are more important than me looking powerful, in control, or ruthless. They are more important than protocol. As a leader I need to remember that. I am responsible to lead an organization to succeed. If a worker is not contributing to that success I need to correct, instruct, encourage, and, yes, on occasion, reassign, or even fire them. But, always with the thought in mind that this is a person who is highly valued by God. Joe's principle of leadership is inline with that.

I'm no longer involved in the organization that was being inspected. After the event I described above, I wrote to the person in charge. I was assured that they would look into it. I hope they have. I need to continually look into my practice in this regard.