Can We Just All Get Along, Part 3:

Part 1: https://howardmerrell.blogspot.com/2019/12/can-we-just-all-get-along-part-1.html
Part 2: https://howardmerrell.blogspot.com/2019/12/can-we-just-get-along-part-2.html

*********************************************************

All of them,
They always,
I don't need to talk to her; I already know what she thinks.

I think you can tell where I'm headed with that. Hold the thought for a minute, while I tell you about a road sign. Between here and Yigo (pronounced Jee-go, for you non-Guamanians) on what we call the "Back Road," there is a simple warning sign that says, "Slow Down." I use the sign as an illustration to talk about the difference between rhetoric and logic. Granted, rhetoric should be built on sound thinking, but there are trades to be made. When we are trying to speak in such a way as to persuade people, clear distinctions, and careful definitions may be left by the side of the rhetorical highway. Take the sign for instance. Clearly, the sign is wrong. Just as clearly, however, it communicates an important message.
Let's say my old truck is having a bad day and I'm chugging down the Back Road at all of ten miles an hour. Traffic is lined up behind me. I see the sign. Does it mean I'm supposed to slow down to five miles per hour? No. But, if we change the sign to read, "If you are driving too fast, slow down." aside from overfilling the space on the sign, the longer message loses the punch of the shorter version. The longer one is more accurate, but the shorter one probably communicates the intended message more effectively.
We crave simple, easily mastered one size fits all explanations. The problem is they don't fit all.
There is almost surely one of them who isn't like all of them.
They, at least some of them, don't always. . . .
And people are too complex for us to assume that we have their number, just because we know the cultural neighborhood they live in.
A few years ago I heard a lecture by an African man who spent the bulk of his childhood and teen years at a Muslim boarding school where he learned a conservative brand of Islam. Through a series of amazing, even miraculous events, he converted to Christianity. When I heard him, he was leading a ministry that helped Christians reach out to Muslims. One thing he said really stuck with me. "Islam is a system. A Muslim is a person."
As I've said in the last two posts, the fact that Christians are divided in an ugly way, over the impeachment and trial of President Trump, is sad. In the number two post on this topic, I point out that one way we do that is to see people with whom we disagree as "Others." "They aren't like me." Do you remember the joke, "I love mankind; it's people I can't stand"? The opposite is true, in the non-humor world. I can easily dislike an amorphous group--"them," or, "those people," or (fill in the blank). Often, though, if I get to know one member of that group, I find that I'm surprised. "He isn't what I expected.
Uncle Mc was blind as a result of his time as a POW in WW2. Uncle Mc grew up in the segregated South. In one of his many hospitalizations the nurse who cared for him most, and best, was a Black woman. Some who knew Uncle Mc were surprised that he praised this woman for her kindness, dedication, and skill. "Don't you know . . .?" Uncle Mc replied something like this, "If you have to tell me that she is Black, then it really doesn't make any difference does it?"

If you are only going ten miles an hour when you pass that sign on the Back Road, please don't slow down. Likewise, if you think you know your neighbor, or even more so fellow Christian, because you have heard what her group is like, don't stop there. Share a pizza, work on a project together, just do some life together. Likely, both of you will find out there is more to the other than you, or she, realized.

It's a place to start.

Can We Just Get Along, Part 2:

I don't remember whether it was Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, or some other show along that line, but I do remember the basic plot device of an episode. Two opposing groups were locked in deadly warfare. The story focused on one group "protecting" some important facility. Part of the soldier's training was that they were to wear this protective visor at all times. This would protect them from some blinding weapon that the enemy had.
The kick-in-the-gut ending came when some soldier lost his visor and found out that the hideous, insect-like creatures he had been killing in order to save his kind, were, in reality, people like himself.
Unfortunately, the syndrome happens in reality--sans special eyewear--all the time. I call it the "Other Syndrome." ( I don't think that is original with me.) If we see someone with whom we disagree as fundamentally other than we are, our tendency is to not treat them with the respect they deserve. I'll not supply any general examples, though they abound. Stop and think for a minute and come up with your own.

Specifically, the current divide among Evangelicals concerning President Trump is riff with the Other Syndrome. From Hilary Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables," to right-wing commentators who ridicule the left, to Galli's claim to be an elite Evangelical, to those who doubt the salvation of those on the other side, it is clear that one reason we can't have a civil discussion is we not only disagree with our opponents, too often we don't consider them worthy of civil discourse. I'm not saying there aren't real differences. There are. I'm saying we often don't treat others with respect, even in the church.

Let me illustrate the concept based on the politics/culture of the little city where I spent most of my adult life. In the 70s when I moved to the paper mill town where I ministered, there was plenty to argue about, but there was a certain level of civility as well. Mill managers and laborers had children who attended the same schools and played on the same sports teams. Often management and union members attended the same churches and ate at the same restaurants. One sat at a desk, the other carried a lunch box, but there was an awareness that in significant ways, "we are the same." In the last couple of decades, a "Brain-drain changed the character of things. The higher-level management no longer lived in our little town. They commuted in from 50 miles away. Doctors, lawyers, and even school teachers followed suit. It became easier to think of the other side as OTHERs, not like me. The community suffers because of that.

This is a bad thing in society in general. Within the church it is horrible. The fact that I always need to bring to the table is that any difference I have with a fellow believer pales in significance when I consider the sameness we have in Christ.

Lord, help me to think about that before I speak, write, or post.

Can We Just All Get Along? Part 1:

Mark Galli, Franklin Graham, and some friends of mine:
I realize that by writing this, I'm taking the role of someone who steps into a domestic dispute. Before I'm done both sides might decide to unite and fight with me rather than each other. I'm motivated to stick my nose in, however, because this is a squabble that is taking place between my friends. Though I've never met either, I regard both Mark Galli and Franklin Graham as friends. I have benefitted from both of their ministries. As soon as the matter hit the fan, so to speak, some of my personal friends began to weigh in. I felt like the host at a Thanksgiving feast when war-veteran Uncle Charlie, just couldn't resist commenting on Niece Suzie's "I love Jane Fonda" sweatshirt and the vegan meal she had packed in for the occasion.
At first, I thought I would write one big peace-making piece. Instead, I'm going to dole out my "wisdom" in bite-size servings. That way you can chew on each serving for a day or two before the next mouthful is served up.
Before I offer my first pacific hors d'oeuvres (note that's a lower-case "p"), let me review what I'm talking about.

• On December 19, Editor Mark Galli published an editorial in Christianity Today stating, "Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments."
• Whatever is you may think of Galli--I have found him to be often helpful in pulling together various strands of thought in the Christian world--he is no dummy. I'm not saying that it was Galli's intention to stir up a ruckus with his frequent use of CT founder, Rev. Billy Graham's, name, but he had to have known that using Graham's name in this context could be seen as waving a red cape in front of a bull named Franklin.
• Franklin Graham, Billy's son, did not disappoint. He released a statement the next day. To no one's surprise, he disagreed with Galli. He did surprise some of us, though, when he revealed that his dad had voted for Mr. Trump.
• I have no idea how many opinion pieces followed. I saw several articles about an interview Galli did on CNN. Another article is a summary of an interview Galli had with New Yorker writer, Isaac Chotiner.
• Nothing much happens in our world without a petition or letter to sign. Not to disappoint, more than one-hundred Evangelical leaders signed a letter addressed to CT President Timothy Dalrymple. “Your editorial offensively questioned the spiritual integrity and Christian witness of tens-of-millions of believers who take seriously their civic and moral obligations.”
• Of course, Dalrymple responded, and 
• on it goes.

Let's begin by thinking about worldviews--perhaps philosophies or even Theologies are better words. What I'm talking about are those foundational truths on which we build the rest of our thinking. Our overall philosophy of life and our ethics which are part of that philosophy are based on the way we see the world. What makes the world tick? Or, perhaps more accurately, "What would make our world work the way it should?"
Since all Evangelicals, to one extent or another, hold in common the basic Gospel message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and all that these fact mean, one would think that Evangelicals share the same worldview. One might think that, but one might be wrong. The Roman Catholic Church and the early reformers all subscribed to the same creeds, yet their differences fomented reformations, martyrdoms, and wars. The varying denominations in Christendom bear witness not to what they shared, but to that over which they differed.

The operative question is often not just, "What do you think is important? but, "What do you think is most important at this time, and how does that differ from what your neighbor thinks?"
Take the present bruhaha and dig down to the basic realities--as each side sees them--that lie below the surface. Here are two matters that both sides agree on, in principle, but about which they disagree mightily in degree and emphasis--abortion and social justice. Keeping our focus on the evangelical leaders who are in this argument, it is clear that both sides are prolife. Just reading the articles I mentioned above will make that clear. Once you get below that agreement in principle, however, we notice all sorts of differences. Is this the most important issue of our day? Is it so important that someone who is not prolife disqualifies themself as being worthy to hold public office? What about prenatal deformities, rape, or incest? How do we define "health of the mother"? What difference does the answer make?
Galli's writing and Graham's humanitarian work clearly show both to be dedicated to social justice. Just exactly how does one best address life's inequities? To what extent do people today have a responsibility to repair the social legacy of their less enlightened ancestors?
There is an old joke about politics. Elections are about choosing between "Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dummer." (originally it was Tweedledee and Tweedledum, John Tenniel's illustration, from Through the Looking-Glass (1871)). Of course nobody in national politics is dum anymore. even if they are, brains can easily be hired. It seems that now the choice if often between Tweedle Bad and Tweedle worse. Deciding who is Bad and who is Worse is a matter of nuance. Answers to basic questions like those above are going to inform that choice. Good people will disagree.

Two more things, really quick:
Nobody wants to make an important decision based on 50.0001% certainty. In the same way that a fisherman's fish gets bigger each time he tells about his catch, decisions that barely more than a coin-toss to begin with, evolve into thunderous slam-dunks. Our craving for certitude drives us in that direction.
When our certitude is challenged we easily become like a potential mugging victim cornered in a dark alley. 2x4, rock, broken bottle, we desperately look for a weapon we can use in self-defense. In  the kind of fight this article is about, there is almost always piece of pipe nearby. It is about 2 feet long and has fitting on one end. Read the label--ad hominem, attack the spokesperson rather than what the spokesperson says.

In this case the spokesperson is me, so be nice. Chew on this until next time.
it

The Wonder of Christmas, Don't Just Ooh and Aah. Live it.

Merry Christmas!

There is a tendency we humans have. It is often called "compartmentalization."

We have an ability to take certain thoughts, memories, and experiences and put them in a mental room--a place in our mind that we keep separate from everything else. I see moms do this when they suffer from some physical pain, yet wall that off from their everyday life in which they cook, clean, and make life good for the rest of us. We might say that kind of compartmentalization is good. Sometimes I have to deal with people I don't like. I need to keep my feelings separate from my need to do my job. I need to remember however that these compartments are never completely leak-proof. Big problems come when we attempt to compartmentalize issues that should be addressed and solved. This is especially true when we attempt to compartmentalize that which is explosive or corrosive. It will eventually get out.

But my purpose, today, isn't to talk about counseling. 

I observed in my pastoral ministry a tendency to compartmentalize when it comes to Theological truth. Now that I'm involved in Christian education, I am even more prone to build rooms in my

mind. "This is my Theological Truth Room. In this room, I believe that God is Lord. He is to be obeyed. I believe that all humans are created in God's image and are to be treated with honor, respect, and kindness. In my Theological Truth Room, I can tell you about inspiration and how the Bible is truly God's word.

I have the ability, however, to step outside of my Theological Truth Room and live the rest of my life as if none of that is true. 

Two things, I've read recently remind me of my tendency to compartmentalize Theological truth. One of them is a well-written 3-part series about the wonderful Theological truth we celebrate at Christmas. The other is a practical reminder I received from a missionary colleague.

"Tried With Fire: Like Jesus," by Kevin Bauder (Scroll down at the site and start with Part 1) takes on the difficult subject of the nature of Christ, the hypostatic union, the kenosis, in plain terms--the wonder of Christmas. The nature of the God-Man, Jesus Christ is at the heart of our faith. It is also at the fringe, or just beyond the edge of what we can comprehend. There is good reason that this truth occupied the best minds of early Christian history. It is a key part of our view of the Triune God. This saying that is frequently quoted about the doctrine of the Trinity, applies to the nature of Christ, as well..

The Trinity:

Try to Understand It

and You’ll Lose Your Mind.

Try to Deny It

 and You’ll LOSE YOUR SOUL!

(As a side-note, Fred Sanders has an interesting article on this, in which he says we don't know who said it first .)
Getting back to my main point, however, Bauder reminds us, referring to Philippians 2, that the wonder of the incarnation is not a Theological pearl to store away in the Theological Truth Room of my mind. It is a reality that should inform every aspect of my life. The way of thinking that led to God the Son's humiliation, should be my way of thinking. If Christ was willing to lay aside His honor for the sake of others (John 17, Phil. 2), then who do I think I am, when I claim that, or act as if, serving others is somehow beneath me? 

The truth of Christmas should not be remembered just during a certain season. Rather like the frankincense the wise men presented to Christ, gave a smell that permeated every part of the house, all my life should be informed by this sublime reality. I should not only proclaim with wonder that "God became man." I should live a life that is an appropriate response to the incarnation. I should live in the "Therefore" of Romans 12:1.

A friend is a missionary with another agency and a part of my Guam Church. 
She and her husband are on furlough, a strange (to others) part of the missionary occupation that involves visiting supporters. She writes:

Last Saturday, we spent part of the day with [some folk they know from the past at our Church]. They asked about many of you and send their greetings. At lunch they were telling one of their sons and his wife about their first Sunday at [our Church]. Right after the service, [a couple from our church] invited them to lunch at a restaurant. The [couple] didn't know them. The [visitors] felt so welcomed at [our] Church that they decided not to look anywhere else for a home church. So once again everyone can see how important is for everyone in our church [or any church, or a small Christian university] to do their part to make visitors feel welcomed.  

What this couple did for some visitors to their church has a direct relationship to the wonder we celebrate at Christmas. Why should I spend my time and money on strangers? I might not even like them.

Why? because of what Jesus did for us. As the Apostle John puts it, so succinctly, "We love because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19).

Open the door, let the wonder of Christmas spread through all your life. It is a truth too wonderful to keep in just one room.

 Merry Christmas!

Some Missionary Thoughts That Might Prove Helpful

Over at another blog I posted something that might be of use to pastors and/or folk who serve on missions committees, etc.
Here it is.

Psalms of Confidence: Do you really believe what you say you believe?

Sunday, I had the privilege of teaching Sunday School at Faith Presbyterian Christian Reformed Church, our church, here, on Guam. We are doing a study on the Book of Psalms. Sunday's class was built around a video of a lecture on Psalm 11 delivered, by Dr. Godfrey at Ligonier Fellowship. If you are interested you can purchase the video from Ligonier.
You can read Psalm 11 here.

As is often the case, I didn't get done with what I hoped to say. In case any of my classmates are interested in some follow-up and for the benefit of all, here is some of what remained on my iPad at the end of class.

Psalm 11is according to The Light of the Psalms, by  Michael Ross, a “Psalm of Trust.”  He identifies six other Psalms as Psalms of trust, or as they are sometimes called Confidence Psalms. 

Psalms 11, 16, 23, 27, 63, 73, and 91 all begin with a basic Theological truth about God. These are concepts that we don't have trouble affirming when the sun is shining. When the dark clouds of life roll in, however, we tend to say, "Maybe not today." In brief, bullet-point fashion, here are the realities about God found in the opening statements of these Psalms of Trust.

• Psalm 11, begins with the Lord as David's refuge. That thought also is part of the opening of Psalms 16, and 91. In 27 we find a similar word, "stronghold." When I checked, I saw that the alternative translation is "refuge."
• Psalm 16:8 is a deliberate action. It is the kind of response Col. 3:1 calls for, "seek the things above." David makes the Lord the center of his thoughts, as his descendant would later command. "Seek first the kingdom of God."
• Psalm 23, the most familiar of the Psalms begins with the comforting truth, "The Lord is Shepherd." It goes on to enumerate the benefits that come to a sheep in His flock.
• Psalm 27, is a vastly different picture from the pastoral scene of the Shepherd Psalm. God is my stronghold, my defense.
• When David  looks at God in Psalm 63, he sees him as "My God." He is not just an abstract concept. David longs for God. God is personal. David's relationship with Him is a personal relationship.
• I call Psalm 73 one of the "slippery place" Psalms. Asaph is desperately holding on to the truth, "Surely God is good to Israel, To those who are pure in heart!"
• Psalm 91 begins with a summary of what we have already seen. The Psalmist begins with a combination of military security and personal trust.

A definition of Theology that I sometimes use, is, "It is an over-arching philosophy of life that puts God in the proper place." These Psalms sit us down and ask us the hard question, "Do you really believe what you say you believe?" In each of these Psalms there is a wave of dissonance that comes in. Dr. Godfrey makes this clear. In the here-and-now it doesn't look like God is Who He says He is. The question hangs in the air, "Is He?"

It's in verse 4 of Psalm 11 that David anchors his soul. As in a concert the momentary dissonance draws attention to the resolution when it comes. In these Psalms the present reality--honestly, even brutally expressed--provides the dark background that shows the brilliance of the truth even more vividly.

• In spite of what's going on right now, the "Lord is in His holy temple." Ps 11
• The "Lord is my chosen portion." Ps 16
• The shadow of death and the evil around me are no match for the Shepherd's rod and staff. Ps 23
• David's confidence is not because of, but in spite of his circumstances. Ps 27
• Like the Apostle Paul a millennium later, David does the arithmatic. "Your lovingkindness is better than life." Ps 63 & Phil 1:21
• In Psalm 91 is extravagant in it's reassurance. It is like a crecendoing tympany that keeps on rising.
• Psalm 73 is my personal favorite, for putting things right. The hinge-pin of the Psalm is a trip to the sanctuary (73:17). True worship is therapeutic. It sets the bones of our soul straight.

Perhaps at the beginning of these trust Psalms, we could accuse the writers of whistling in the dark. By the end, though, they have wrestled in the mud with demons within and without. Each of these Psalms ends with triumphant confidence. 

“For the Lord is righteous; he loves righteous deeds; the upright shall behold his face.” (Psalm 11:7, ESV)  

“You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.” (Psalm 16:11, ESV) 

“Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.” (Psalm 23:6, ESV)

“I believe that I shall look upon the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living! Wait for the Lord; be strong, and let your heart take courage; wait for the Lord!” (Psalm 27:13–14, ESV)  

   “But those who seek to destroy my life shall go down into the depths of the earth; they shall be given over to the power of the sword; they shall be a portion for jackals. But the king shall rejoice in God; all who swear by him shall exult, for the mouths of liars will be stopped.” (Psalm 63:9–11, ESV)  

“Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.” (Psalm 73:25–26, ESV)

"I will . . . show him My salvation." (Psalm 91:16)

God is Who He says He is. Go live like it.

Redecoration, A Model of Excellence

My lovely wife, Kathy, just finished, at least mostly finished, a redecorating of the President's office. She wants me to have a nice place to work. I am grateful. It is a pleasant place to do what I need to

do, and a comfortable place to meet with visitors.

The furniture was a gift from a member of our "Guam church." The plan came from Kathy and a colleague of mine, here, at PIU. In the picture to the right, my Virginia home is on the left panel and my new, Guam home is on the far right.

The wall next to my desk has pictures of family and a copy of my "Delivery Business" saying. The greenery is something that grows in the yard.



Most of my books are digital. Some are still in Virginia.
The shelf has a few text books, some books I have rescued from a library sale & various mementos, some left by the previous president, Dave Owen. I keep the three hats on the top to remind me that I need to be flexible--wear different hats--and because it saves closet space at home. :)

This (left) gives you an idea of the area where I sit. I'm using the desktop computer, on the little table, right now. My laptop sits on the desk.
More greenery in the corner (below).

The diploma from Liberty Seminary and the window treatment, Kathy made, remind me of an old song. It was the theme to a John Wayne movie. Anyone remember?

Our emphasis, this year at PIU is on excellence. Whatever we do, we should seek to do it with excellence so we can glorify our Great God.

Let's do it. Thanks, Kathy for setting the example.

September 2019

Why Do Good Ministries Often Have Such Small Treasuries?

Recently, a friend of mine, a person of influence in Christian ministry, wondered out loud, "Sometimes I wonder why in our rich Western World some of our ministries are constantly at risk - because of financial reasons."

I was a lead pastor for forty-two years. For much of that time, I was active in missions, Christian education, and other ministry ventures. My observations have often led to the same musings. I'll briefly share a few thoughts. I hope they will further a conversation.

I'll begin by sharing what I hope to avoid in this conversation. On several occasions, I have run across a bitter-spirit on the part of otherwise solid servants of Christ. I don't want to go there. Please don't let anything I say below lead you into that ugly state and please pray that I don't go there.

A Theological truth is foundational in this discussion, yet it is one that is often overlooked. God is in control. I reason from that reality to a conclusion. If God is sovereign, and if the work I am involved in is honoring to Him, then the fact that the ministry I'm involved in has fewer resources than it looks like we need is probably a reality that I should learn from. "Lord, what do you want me (us) to learn from this?" Over the years I have counseled many married couples with financial problems. Often it didn't take long to discover that the money was only a symptom of bigger issues. I don't think churches, mission-endeavors, Christian schools are immune to that syndrome. "Lord, help me to look deeper."

 The Church has plenty of money, but God's people, too often, are, like the unfaithful servant, burying it in the ground, instead of investing it to God's glory. Too many look upon their wealth as a means to play the "mine's bigger, nicer, prettier, or more-impressive" game with their neighbors who worship the god of consumption--conspicuous and otherwise. What would happen if Christians drove their perfectly good cars a year longer than they usually do and invested a year's worth of car-payments in the Lord's work? Make up your own paradigm for food, clothing, entertainment, etc. It may sound like I'm contradicting myself at this point. Is God in control or are individual Christians in control of their pocketbooks? The answer is, "Both." It is an antinomy that goes beyond this brief post. I appeal to the Apostle Paul as my precedent. He told the Philippians that "God would supply all their needs (Phil. 4:19), yet he took an offering from them to meet the needs of the saints in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:1-4). Was God not looking out for the Jewish brethren? It may not be a completely adequate explanation, but God chooses to use means to meet His ends. In the same way that people won't hear the Good News unless someone goes, no one will go if no one gives. (Rom. 10:15, Phil. 4:13-18)

Giving is a practice to be taught and promoted. People have said, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks." Well, I'm a proverbial old dog, yet I am learning some new tricks. For all of my career, I have been dependent on the gifts of God's people. In my new role, though, it is more-so. One of the tasks that make up my new role as President of Pacific Islands University is fundraising. A part of me approaches this responsibility in the same way a ten-year-old boy looks at taking a bath and putting on his Sunday clothes. "Do I have to?"
Yes, I do have to.
I'm learning, though to see this part of my job as more of a, "Wow, I get to!"
I've been reading a book written by an executive in a huge Christian organization.

God can fund His kingdom without our help. However, He chooses to make ordinary people His partners through giving. As we give our treasures, our hearts are drawn toward eternal things, and the bond of materialism is broken. As Matthew 6:21 reminds us: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Fundraising is not a necessary evil. You are a holy intermediary, a matchmaker, to connect the intentions of God with the resources of the people of God. Giving is an honor. Inviting people to give is also an honor. Calling it a necessary evil is blasphemous. (Morton, Scott. Blindspots: Leading Your Team & Ministry to Full Funding . CMM Press. Kindle Edition.)

A friend of mine has a ministry of leading churches that have been established in the modern missions era, to go from being just receivers of the generosity of other churches, to become sacrificial givers to support the great commission task which is yet to be completed. As I look in the pages of the New Testament I don't see that God's work was supplied by token giving, like many in the West practice, nor by bake sales and other gimmicks to try to get money from the people of the world to reach the world. The widow with her two small copper coins is the model, not the rich folk who gave from their pocket-change (Luke 21:1-4). We expect sacrifice, and rightly so, from those who step into positions of service for the cause of Christ. Should the support of such service be without sacrifice?  Again referring the Apostle Paul, he praised the people of Macedonia for their sacrificial giving.

 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. (2 Corinthians 8:3–5, ESV)  

Far too many Christians, both in the majority world and in the affluent West have yet to learn the joy of giving. Those of us in leadership should not flinch from modeling and teaching this spiritual discipline. "God loves a cheerful giver." (1 Cor. 9:7-8) Let's spread the cheer.

Lord, it is not a class in which we want to enroll, but we acknowledge that you are in charge of our curriculum. When those of us who have been given leadership responsibilities find that the ministries we lead don't have enough resources to do what we think we ought to be doing, help us to learn. Bring us face-to-face with the realities, even if they are inconvenient truths. Teach us, all, the privilege of giving. May our, "How much do I have to give to relieve my guilt?" be replaced with, "How much can I give to maximize the impact that I, as your steward, can have, and in the process bring greater joy to me, as your Child, and to those with whom I am privileged to partner, and to bring glory to You? AMEN"

The Dangerous Edge of Satire

I don't read all of the Babylon Bee's political and cultural satire. I have friends who follow it closely; they post an informal version of the "Best of the Bee." I enjoy reading those.

The B, Bee is edgy in, what I regard as, the best sense of the word. If I start reading a B. Bee article and find it too obvious, I typically don't finish. In order to be really effective, satire needs to function close to the edge of believability. The question, "Is this writer really serious?" needs to stay in the air for a while.

So like most edgy things, that which makes it effective, also makes it dangerous. That danger is multiplied by the internet. Good satire will use subtle cues to indicate that the author isn't really serious about what he is saying, but is quite serious about what his satire implies. The "wink" has to be subtle or the whole thing ends up being a parody. There is nothing wrong with parody, I often enjoy it. It tends, though, to involve more laughter and less need for thought than satire. At the end of a good piece of satire, the reader/listener/watcher says, "I need to think about that. That challenged my preconceptions." The after-effects of parody are more likely to be recovery from a good laugh, and perhaps the need to repent for making light of someone or something. Satire can fool even an intelligent, well-read person. Parody will fool only the most simple.

The problem is all communication in the 21st Century, especially communication like this, is available to all people. The "www" does stand for something.

I'll digress and go down a detour to make the point. Twenty years ago, "David Howard, an aide to Anthony A. Williams, the mayor of Washington, D.C., used "niggardly" in reference to a budget." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly) Some people were highly offended, thinking or claiming that the bureaucrat was using a racial slur. Others, dictionaries in hand, pointed out that the word has nothing to do with race, its derivation has nothing to do with ethnicity, and to accuse the man of using insulting language based on a phonetic (no insult to the people of Phonecian ancestry intended)  was just plain wrong, and perhaps stupid. I remember discussing the matter with a friend. He maintained that he would never use the word. I maintained that it is a perfectly good adjective. We were both right.

When I'm with "my people" I can use code language, and satire is often based on code words and expressions. When I'm speaking with, or for, everybody, I have to stay farther away from the edge. I'll confess, I don't particularly like that. I absolutely need to remember, however, that while the Bible nowhere forbids cleverness, it does put the standard of speech as that which builds up, not that which causes rot (Ephesians 4:29). I remember a time I was preaching. I talked about some people setting fire to the church building. I thought my signals were clear that I was making this up, it was hypothetical. I was alarmed to find out at the exit, hand-shaking time, that one family thought I was totally serious. To say the least, that illustration didn't edify.

Am I encouraging folk to only use the most flat-footed prose? I quote the Apostle Paul in response. "Mei genoito, God forbid, may it never be." I am encouraging myself, and others who use the spoken and written word to seek to influence others for God and good, to be careful. Christianity Today published an article including a survey of Babylon Bee satires which people thought were serious. The article brought to light an area in which special caution, both for writers and readers, is called for. 

I am most likely to believe something 

outrageous about someone I already don't like. 

No satire intended, at all. Think about that.

And remember, even when we speak to our

own group there are often open-mics about.

Some Thoughts on Death and Funerals

I started writing a comment on a friend's Facebook post. He had linked to the blogpost below. Thank you, Bart. I realized, after I started, that what I wanted to say was way longer than a comment ought to be, so I decided to write my thoughts, here.

I don't know Chad Bird (When I mention "Chad" below, please don't confuse Chad Bird with my son, Rev. Chad Merrell, whom some of you know). Chad seems like a good guy, thoughtful, smart and passionate. He and I share a view that much that is said at funerals shouldn't be said. I have thought for a long time, that pastors miss a great opportunity to minister when they, essentially, mail-in their funeral sermon (fill-in the name of the deceased). Chad posted about Things he doesn't want people to say at his funeral. I felt led to comment.

In a 42-year pastoral career--extended into the new gig I have as president of a small Christian College (I spoke at the funeral of a staff member, here)--I have done my share of funerals. Though, since the church I pastored had a young-ish congregation for most of my career and was smallish for all of it, I've not buried as many as some other lifers.

I recall a couple of funerals of folk over 100, and a few with coffins the size of a big shoebox. I refereed family fights. Once I got "fired" before I did a service, because of a comment about a cat that I made on the visitation night. I conducted a funeral for an old recluse who lived like a poorer version of Miss Haversham, and one old gent who outlived almost all family and friends. I helped the funeral home personnel and the one attendee who looked capable of lifting anything carry the coffin. One of the saddest was a service for a lady who had gotten lost in the system and spent almost all her life in a succession of state mental hospitals. There was probably nothing wrong with her. I attended many other funerals. As a musician, my wife ministered at many more.

Most pastors miss an excellent opportunity to minister at funerals. Solomon tells us of the opportunity in Ecc. 3 & 7. Second to Psalm 23, the list of couplets in Ecc. 3 is, in my experience, the most requested passage of scripture. Though most refer to the "Turn, turn, turn" song, rather than the Bible.

It is poor stewardship to waste the opportunity.

As to Chad's "Don'ts":

He and I have some disagreements Theologically, though I sense we have more in common than divides us.

Chad says: Don't say:

"He was a good man. Don’t turn my funeral into a celebration of my moral resumé. "

In the histories of OT Kings, many of the kings of Judah are listed as "good." One should not seek his own honor, but bestowing it on others, as Jesus did toward John the Baptist, or Paul did toward Timothy and Epaphroditus, or John did toward Demetrius is healthy and good. I don't see why just because someone is dead this should be different. There is a lesson to the living in the good example of the dead.

As always, the Lord should be elevated. Part of that praise is for what He did in the life the deceased. I don't think David was altogether wrong in his eulogy of Jonathan, though he had to be creative with Saul.

 "Chad...Chad...Chad. I don’t want to be the focus of my own funeral."

This prohibition is a continuation of the above. On a professional level, I disagree. While a funeral message is for the living, it ought to be, at least to some extent about the dead. Later on, Chad objects to those who forbid mourning. I agree. He objects to the belittling of the importance of the body. Again I agree, with some qualifications. Just who is it that we mourn? Just who is, or whose is, the body in the casket? I think there is something wrong with a funeral when someone can attend and needs to look at the worship folder in order to know just who is being remembered. Yes, absolutely point people to Christ, but that is not incompatible with holding up the person being remembered.

"God now has another angel." 

Dead people don't become angels. Absolutely right, but is a funeral the best place to teach anthropology and angelology? Like Chad, I hope that the person leading my funeral, or the people asked to speak at my funeral will not draw their Theology from "It's a Wonderful Life." I don't recall hearing the angel line from the pulpit, though I'm sure it happens. If there is an open-mic time, it is almost sure to come out. What do mourners mean by that statement? If we can bridge to an affirmation that this life that we now live is not the end, we do well.

"We are not here to mourn Chad’s death, but to celebrate his life."

Funerals represent a time of contrast. They aren't just one thing. We tend to not do nuance well. Yes, we mourn, but especially at the death of a saint can we not celebrate?. At the end of 1 Cor. 15, Paul looked death in the eye--if not spit in its eye--and, in essence, said, "Nah,nah, nah, nah, nah!" "We mourn not as others who have no hope." I find the last letter from Screwtape to Wormwood to be one of the most beautiful pieces about death ever written. It is a word of victory, worthy of celebration. I think David's eulogy for Saul and Jonathan had that nuance of praise and sadness. Indeed the mourning is accentuated by the good qualities David observed in the father and son warriors' lives. A life well-lived has a heavenly quality. Celebrating that is worthwhile. Can we stop the reactionary pendulum somewhere closer to the center?

"Chad would not want us to weep."

This is not a universal sentiment. A horrendous example of the opposite was Herod's instruction that a number of the notables of Judah be killed at his death so mourning would be assured. I was privileged to conduct the funeral of a church member I'll call "Mary." Over the years she gave me various pieces that she wanted shared at her funeral. Most of them were hilarious. Though I am careful about surrendering control of a funeral to the dead person, I thought Mary's wishes were appropriate--certainly in keeping with the life she had lived. Christ was honored in the service. There was more laughter than tears, though they were also present. We had recorded the service to accommodate family who couldn't attend. I think 20 or so dvds were requested. Chad is right. Mourning is appropriate. "Jesus wept." is not only the Bible's shortest verse, it is one of the most profound. Jesus wept not only for His friend--perhaps not even primarily for His friend--but for the Romans 8 condition of the world that his friend's death illuminated. Every time we attend a funeral it is a reminder that the last enemy, death--the enemy of the Lord of Life--has not yet been put down.

"What’s in that coffin is just the shell of Chad."

Most pastors that I know, know enough about their Theology to speak with a measure of accuracy within their Theological tradition. One shouldn't be surprised or upset if the person conducting a funeral speaks out of his/her own tradition. There are Theological differences concerning Anthropology. From the open-mic, again, anything goes. Again, I ask, though, is a funeral the best place to argue the fine points of Theology--human dualism-monism, transubstantiation, consubstantiation (which Chad brings up in his article), etc.? Whatever one regards as the proper designation of that body in the casket is, one thing is clear. It's dead. In spite of the best efforts of the embalmers, it is no longer fit for life. Yes, we should honor that body. Yes, even if it is burned to ashes, or rotted to dust, it will be raised. But, unless we are soul-sleepers, or advocates of immediate resurrection, we have to know that some aspect of the person that used to be intimately united with that body is no longer there.

Chad closes his article with this line. I repeat it here and add my Amen!

 Let them hear the good news, especially in the context of this sobering reminder of mortality, that neither death, nor life, nor anything else in all creation, can separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ, our Lord, for He is the resurrection and the life.

Being Reminded of an Important Point of Theology, by an Imam.

I still look at the world through a keyhole. In the sense of the flow of time and the scope of the world, I can only see a little bit at a time. As some of you know, in recent years, my limited gaze falls on the Island of Guam, rather than the hills of Virginia. The guy on this side of the keyhole is the same.

I just read about Abubakar Abdullahi, an 83-year-old Muslim cleric in Nigeria. Imam Abdullahi was awarded the International Religious Freedom Award from the U.S. State Department.
Over a year ago a group of Fullani herdsmen were wrecking violence in the village where Abdullahi's mosque is located. It is a scene that has played out many, many times in Nigeria. To protect them the Imam directed the fleeing Christians of the village into the Mosque. He then tried to talk sense and peace into the Fullani attackers. At one point he even, in essence, offered his life in exchange for those of "his guests." The attackers were frustrated with attempts to gain entrance and finally left. Two-hundred-sixty-two people were saved from murder, rape, kidnap, and forced marriage. 
I'm glad the State Department recognized Imam Abdullahi's heroism. I would love to shake his hand.

Too many of us in the conservative Evangelical tribe forget about a Biblical concept called "common grace." God pours out blessings, like rain (Matthew 5:45) on both good and bad. Likewise, because of the image of God that remains in people, in spite of the Fall, people, even those outside the fold of those who trust Christ, are capable of acts of beauty, wisdom, goodness, and heroism like that of Abubakar Abdullahi's action that saved the lives of hundreds. These expressions of humanity at its best, even in the lives of unbelievers, even though they may not recognize it, or even know it, bring glory to God.

You can read about Abdullahi's actions and see a video about him, here.


As much for myself as for you, let me suggest a quiz--of sorts--to see whether we fully recognize and rejoice in common grace.

1. When I read/hear about an event like Imam Abdullahi's rescue of his neighbors, is my first reaction "Yeah but," or "Praise the Lord."?
2. Do I look on those who are different than me as fellow humans, created like me in God's image (James 3:9-10), or as some kind of other?
3. Am I willing to engage in costly acts of kindness toward those who are not part of my family, community, faith, political party, etc.?
4. Likely the occasion to protect your/my neighbors from an attack from terrorists will not present itself to you or me. Do I, though, use the little opportunities, that do come my way, to "to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people"? (Titus 3:1-2)

I don't know about you, but I need to do some work before the next quiz.

Here is a brief article on common grace.

Praying for the President: Should I, Would I?

A neighboring pastor, Jerry Fallwell Senior, used to say that people in Lynchburg VA would either pucker (as in to kiss) or spit when they saw him coming. Clearly, our current President, Donald Trump, brings out those kinds of polar responses in the political social realm. I'll leave it to others to sort out which pole, or perhaps a mediating view, is right about the current resident of the White House. My thought today has to do with an interesting encounter another Virginia pastor had with Mr. Trump.
At this point, I'll quote from Tim Challies's blog. I had heard about Trump appearing before a church asking for prayer. It was Challies who provoked me to click and learn more.

PRAYER FOR THE PRESIDENTDavid Platt explains how he found himself praying for President Trump on Sunday morning. “Sometimes we find ourselves in situations that we didn’t see coming, and we’re faced with a decision in a moment when we don’t have the liberty of deliberation, so we do our best to glorify God. Today, I found myself in one of those situations.”

Platt found himself in a very typical pastoral situation, not that the President regularly appears in a church requesting prayer, but pastors frequently find themselves in situations when they have to make potentially important--even life-altering decisions in a very brief time. I have often been in these Nehemiah moments. You remember, don't you, when Nehemiah stood before the absolute sovereign of Persia. In the sycophantic culture of the palace, Nehemiah had been caught in what could be a capital crime. “Why is your face sad, seeing you are not sick?" (Nehemiah 2:2) Sadness in the monarch's presence was considered an insult. Nehemiah bravely summarized the source of his discomfort, the plight of his people, the Jews, who lived on the fringe of the Persian kingdom. I figure Nehemiah's senses must have been on high alert. The plight of his people was the result of the policy and practice of the Persian administration, and he was standing before the Supreme Persian. Nehemiah's relief at not being immediately dragged away was short-lived.
Then the king said to me, “What are you requesting?”" (2:4)
In that brief moment--that was all he had--Nehemiah prayed.
I figure Platt uttered one of those "Help, Lord!" prayers as he decided how to handle the request put before him. President Trump had shown up, unannounced, toward the end of a service, and requested that the McLean Bible Church have a time of public prayer for him. (It would appear from the report that the President's request was not disruptive--at least not to those other than Pastor Platt.)
I've not made requests before all-powerful Kings or had the controversial President of my nation appear at a service requesting prayer. I have, many, many times found myself in situations when I needed to decide fairly quickly, knowing that the decision wasn't completely black or white and/or knowing that either way I decided there would be consequences, some negative. Just off the top of my head here are some. Fellow pastors will note, "been there, decided that."

• Phone call from a funeral director: "Rev. Merrell, The family of Sally Jones has asked that you speak at her funeral." At this point the default, "Yes, of course." answer is on my lips. "Oh, and by the way Rev. Objectionable will also be speaking." Fill in the blank. Rev. Objectionable is a heretic, sexually immoral person, member of a group that is Theologically obnoxious, or someone who has instulted me and my church, etc.
• Walking into a hospital room of a person who has been diagnosed with a terminal disease. The family has been diagnosed with a sickness called "denial." In hushed tones they instruct me, "Don't mention that she has cancer." 
• In spite of my best efforts to set up policies and guidelines, someone or something comes along that doesn't quite fit what I had already decided. As I make up my mind I can already hear the protests, "But you didn't do that for . . ." The nuance that influenced my spur of the moment decision would be lost on my detractors.
• I wish I could more consistently take comfort in the knowledge that our Lord suffered at the hands of critics. "He hangs out with tax-collectors and prostitutes." Too frequently, my thoughts continue, "Yes, and they crucified Him."

I could go on, but I think I have made the point, at least one point, of this post. Church-member, your pastor is called on to make decisions that you will never have to make and often make those choices in a Nehemiah moment. Cut him some slack. More importantly, pray for him.

For what it is worth, I think Platt made the right decision. He probably won't read this, but I figure I ought to stick up for someone who is making a good effort to do the right thing in a turblent context. To those who think otherwise, I ask you to consider, would your objection still be there if the President were Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sanders, or (fill in the blank with your favorite)?

I also was convicted by the news. I find it difficult to consistently pray for my leaders. Often mention of "Kings and all who are in high places" in my public prayers are most prominent by their absence. I need to do better.

Below is the link to a post in which Pastor Platt shares his thoughts. It concludes with a video of him praying for President Trump.

https://www.mcleanbible.org/prayer-president

BTW, a word of thanks to Denise Gregson for giving me a heads up about Tim Challies post. :)

Dealing with the Troubling issue of Child, Sexual Abuse from a Pastoral Role:

We live in troubling times. To use the old KJV language "perilous times." Part of the peril of our day has to do with the swirling issues in regard to human sexuality. Some of the dangers are obvious--there are those who adopt clearly wrong/destructive behavior and hurt not only themselves but others. On the other side is the reality that dangers lurk for those of us who are just trying to figure out what is the right response. How do those of us seek to proclaim God's truth and hope navigate these troubled waters? Some of us, who have reached a certain age, have seen the public and official agencies change views and policies. Some of these changes are for the worse, some for the better. Present attitudes and legal requirements concerning the abuse of children represent one area that has changed in recent decades. A case can be made that with the new abortion law just signed in New York, and the one being considered in Virginia, that our culture has forsaken its responsibility to protect the most vulnerable. I can't and won't argue with that, but that is not my purpose today.
The same bureaucratic machine that protects the right to kill the unborn, and perhaps the just-born, can cause a great deal of trouble for the pastor or other religious worker who is just trying to do the right thing. The Roman Catholic Church historically did the rest of us clergy a great service (though some would say what I'm about to say is a dis-service to many) by maintaining the sanctity of the confessional. As I understand it it is, "the absolute duty of priests not to disclose anything that they learn from penitents during the course of the Sacrament of Penance (confession)." Those of us who pastored in traditions that don't have confessionals generally adapted and adopted that general principle and applied it to matters shared with us in counseling or other pastoral ministry. Readers who are interested can search for ways in which this practice has been challenged in recent decades. It needs to be understood that while the general principle of pastoral confidentiality should be upheld, maintaining an absolute seal on information received in pastoral settings creates ethical problems.
In my pastoral ministry the expectation that I gave to people in counseling, etc. is that I will not tell/share anything that is inappropriate for me to share. The obvious implication being that there are some matters that I conclude should be shared. If the counselee is not comfortable with that assurance they can seek other counsel. We can talk more about that later. I have a different purpose today.
In my humble opinion, it is clear that pastors, youth leaders, and others who are likely to come face-to-face with child-abuse, or behavior that leads one to reasonably suspect that child-abuse it taking place be informed about what the law says about their responsibility to report.
My thoughts were jogged by two good articles that I read in the last couple of days:
What Clergy Need to Know About Mandatory Reporting, and 
What Churches Need to Know about Sexual Crimes.
The second of the links above is particularly helpful in that it contains links that lead to several databases of information. As usual Gene Edward Veith is helpful. Both articles point out that laws vary from state (or in my case territory) to state. Also, it is clear that this is an area of law in which changes have been made, not only in actual statutes but in the way courts are interpreting them.
The articles provoked me to check what the law says in my new home, Guam. I would encourage my colleagues to do the same in the place where they serve. 
I was reminded of a reality that I knew, but which is often not front and center in my thinking. For purposes of the law, a child (minor) is anyone not yet eighteen years of age. Even in the college setting where I currently work I on occasion deal with people who, for purposes of this law, are defined as children. 
The Archdiocese of Agana is currently mired in a horrendous clergy sex-abuse scandal. The problem is not isolated to the Roman Catholic Church. A pastor friend of mine is on the docket to testify about another pastor's alleged abuse of a teen church member. Keeping these kinds of problems in mind, one can understand the motivation for the portion of Guam's Child Protective Act that specifically states that clergy are not exempted from reporting requirements. Many would say that the consequences for failing to report are not enough, but they are serious enough to bring fear to my heart.

"Any person required to report pursuant to § 13201 who fails to report an instance of child abuse which he or she knows to exist or reasonably should know to exist is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by confinement for a term not to exceed six months, by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both. A second or subsequent conviction shall be a felony in the third degree. Fines imposed for violations of this Chapter shall be deposited in the Victims Compensation Fund."

I know there may be times in which conscience may compel one to "obey God rather than man," and face the consequences. That's not my point today. As I began, we live in troubling times. It is wise to know the lay of the land and give some forethought to what one will or won't do. If these thoughts put you on track to do that, you are welcome.

Lessons from a couple of great scholars like Professor Brainard the inventor of Flubber and Dr. Quick Draw McGraw:

I just read Al Mohler's apology and explanation about his former support of C. J. Mahaney, of Sovereign Grace Ministries.
I read Dr. Mohler's piece at a time when several sources of input are coalescing into a general caution in my consciousness. Let me explain.
We live in a day that discourages investigation and contemplation. The instant comment or retort is highly admired. If you think about something too long, and "too long" can be as little as the proverbial "sleep on it," you'll lose your place in the discussion.  It's like commenting, while on a road trip, about something you noticed an hour ago. The rest of the travelers are already into the scenery that presents itself NOW. Right or wrong, some people praise me by telling me that I think well on my feet. The desire to live up to that approbation makes what I'm talking about a particular temptation for me.
To give a very unscientific explanation, it seems that our minds work according to a set of unseen algorithms. When a piece of "news" is introduced into the marvelous computer known as my brain, it first passes through a set of rudimentary filters: 

• Do I agree or disagree?
• Do I like or dislike?
• Is this about friend or foe?
• Is there potential in this news to help or hurt me?
• etc., etc..

Somewhere there is a blinking light that says, "Check it out"



But like the conscience that can be seared (1 Tim. 4:2), that warning light has been dimmed or hidden by clutter. The need for speedy response tends to make the pulsating warning more of a nuisance than a caution.
"I know something people need to know." or,
"I need to protect this good person who is being treated badly." or,
"This is so right I need to put my "AMEN!" in the comment stream."
I may even breathe a prayer. "Lord, please let my comment/blog-post/tweet/email to my loyal readers show up before Dr. Big-Name's." 
I don't want to impute my faulty reasoning to another so I'll simply quote Dr. Mohler,  "I deeply regret this. I frankly was not equipped to sift through the allegations and did not grasp the situation, and I am responsible for that and for not seeking the counsel of those who were." 
If the President of Southern Seminary, with a capable staff of researches to work with, is not equipped, what chance do we mere mortals have?
I'm going to try to avoid doing what I'm saying not to do, but consider the Jussie Smollett episode. I have no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong--that's a big part of the point of this post--but I figure a foreign news agency is my best hope for objectivity. The BBC gives an overview of what allegedly happened.  That word, "allegedly," deserves a comment. In the brief article, I counted about 15 times that words like alleged, reported, he said were used.  This kind of self-protective language has become ludicrous.

Journalist Harris Sherline says, "'Alleged' has become perhaps the most overworked and misused word in the American lexicon. His article,  goes on to ask, ". . . does using the word 'alleged' in every reference to a crime really protect the rights of the accused . . .?" I'll confess my bias. I think it often has more to do with protecting the writer than anyone else. 
But getting back to the alleged Smollett incident, when it was first reported, folk with one view of the way things are responded with outrage in one direction. Then when the police were reported to have alleged that Mr. Smollett faked this so-called attack, others with a different view of the world jumped on their own bandwagon and proceeded down the information superhighway with the volume at deafening. Let the dust settle? If I do that, I'll be seen as not appropriately outraged. We even have a new term for it, virtue signaling--the conspicuous expression of moral values. No one wants to be seen on the wrong side of history (look it up), and since history is constantly being made and just as quickly being forgotten I need to make my view known quickly. Since the virtue that folk are signaling varies from one side to the other this game can be like playing ping-pong with a ball made of flubber (Boy, I'm showing my age on that one.) Some online commenters will actually shame others because they were too slow to draw their virtue-signaling six-gun.

I like Dr. Mohler. His writings have been helpful to me. I appreciate his apology, not only because it appears to be (there I go) a sincere attempt to do the right thing, but because it is instructive. 
With the clarity of hindsight, Dr. Mohler says, "I did not even grasp the context I was speaking into." 
How many times have I been guilty of that--not allegedly guilty, but guilty? The answer is many times.
He points out as well that his earlier statement was made on the basis of wrong information. " I did not realize until this past year. . . . When this issue resurfaced a year ago, I was made painfully aware of my serious mistakes."
My late Father frequently said to me, "Now son, let that be a lesson to you." I pray that it will be, not only to me, to Dr. Mohler, but to those of you who allegedly read my blog.