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)  

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!

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. 

Don't Water Down The Homiletical Soup

 Reading in Jeremiah, this morning, I was reminded of a proverb I have tried to keep in mind all of my ministry life. I'll tell you the proverb in a moment, but first I'll share a portion of the passage that provoked my thought.

Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces? 30 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who steal my words from one another. 31 Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the LORD.’ 32 Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the LORD, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the LORD.  (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Je 23:29–32). (2016). Crossway Bibles.)

One of the guiding principles of my ministry has been, I hope still is, "When I confuse thus sayeth Howard, with thus sayeth the Lord, I dilute the word of God." I think it's a good proverb, though I admit it isn't a Biblical proverb, for all preachers/teachers of the Bible to remember.

It's a harder concept to live by than it may at first seem.

 First, let me address the critic in the room. "I know that I don't have the power to alter the word of God. I know and fully believe that not a jot or tittle of God's word will perish. It will accomplish the purpose for which God sent it forth." 

But, like so many things that involve the intersection of God's sovereignty and my/your responsibility, it's complicated. In the Old Testament era, the prophets who spoke for the Lord were responsible to speak what the Lord gave them to speak. A few chapters earlier (Jer. 20), we read of Jeremiah's struggle in delivering the word from the Lord when it was an unpopular word. He was tired. He didn't want to do it anymore, but to paraphrase, he concluded that he couldn't not speak God's word. (To a lesser extent I've been there. On the other side of the coin were those who weren't prophets, or perhaps even prophets who didn't have a message from the Lord at that time. They were responsible to be quiet, or if they did speak to make sure that they did not misrepresent what they said. "This isn't a word from God. This is what I think. I offer it only as personal advice." It takes thought, dedication, and care to keep it straight.

In my case, toward the end of a life ministry, I find it perhaps more complicated than it has ever been to live by my proverb. 

I have, by God's grace, been spared from any great scandal in my life as a pastor and missionary. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues in ministry have set the bar for achieving a position of respect pretty low. I find that now in my sixth decade of ministry, people respect what I say. In particular to my fellow seasoned servants, I say, "We need to be careful with this." It is awfully easy to let it go to my head. The term "pontificate" comes to mind. Especially since I don't believe there is really a "Pontiff," I need to watch for that trap. Yes, I have been around the block a few times, and yes, I have by God's grace learned some things from God's word. Yet, in my most honest days--Lord grant me more--I realize that a lot of what I have learned has to do with how much I don't know. In my own little circle, I have gained a reputation as an honest expositor of the Bible. To change the metaphor from the one in my proverb, that gives me an edge. There are people who trust me. It is important that I not dull that edge by spouting off what I think in a context in which people expect me to be telling them what God has said in His Word.

I find myself using the digital-age shorthand "IMHO" (In my humble opinion) more often lately. There are several tendencies that I observe in my life and in the ministries of others who share God's word that compel me to use this humble acronym:

• Categories are tough to keep straight. Is this actually something that the Word of God says, or is it something that I heard someone say that the Word of God says, or, even more troubling at this point in my life, is it something that I think I remember thinking at some time in the past that the word of God says? Or most troubling of all. Is this what I think needs to be said. I'm not advocating for wishy-washy-ness. I am reminding myself and others to follow the Apostle Paul's counsel to Timothy, "Work hard to show yourself as one who accurately handles the word of truth. Then you won't have anything to be ashamed of." (My application-paraphrase of 2 Timothy 2:15.
• Good preaching is giving people a way to apply the Bible to their lives. The application of the Bible, a book written in a different era in a different culture and place can be tricky. It is very easy to make a way to apply a text of scripture sound like the only way to apply it. In the history of preaching that error has resulted in a lot of homiletical water being added to the soup.
• My Theological grid can get in the way. I suppose I still identify as a dispensationalist. Though my dispensationalism has eroded over the years. I try, however, to give preeminence to, "What does this text mean?" over, "Where does it fit on the chart." Sometimes I fail. I observe the same problem with a different label in the ministries of others who have different Theological orientations. Yes, my Theology informs my exegesis, but if my Theology is sound it comes from proper exegesis of the Bible. "Lord, don't let me stand that on its head.
• On some days it seems everybody but me is so sure of themselves. "Howard, why don't you speak more forcefully? Fake it. Nobody will know. You deserve a place at the table of absolute certainty." It's tempting. My gray hair lends credibility. But, alas, it isn't true.

I'll give Jeremiah the last word. Actually, he was speaking God's word. Concerning those false prophets the Lord said:

“I did not send the prophets, yet they ran;

I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied.

 But if they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people,

and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their deeds.  

(Jeremiah 23:21-22) 

Lord, deliver me. 

 

To Be Kinda Convinced Is Not Enough, but Be Careful

 No one who is paying attention at all can doubt that we citizens of the United States live in a very polarized time.

It's not the greatest TV ever produced, but an old Outer Limits episode, "Hearts and Minds,"  makes a 
point that we would do well to think about. Our current political situation got me thinking about the old TV show.  (You can find the episode on Youtube or find a summary here.)

The Outer Limits episode is a negative utopia piece. The world is locked in a war over fuel for energy, and the soldiers who make up the characters in the video are hard-core, totally committed to their "us or them" battle. It is a war for the survival of humanity. Not only is the video black and white, the cause for which they are fighting is absolute. The women and men who make up the small squad of soldiers are very human. The enemy is a horrid insectoid race of aliens, carrying a deadly-to-humans infection. The soldiers are equipped with an injection system, not unlike the insulin pumps that make life for many diabetics much easier. Only in the futurist dark fantasy, the medication that is injected into the soldiers' bloodstream is an agent that supposedly protects them from this alien infection.

The tragic twist that is revealed toward the end of the episode is that in reality the "juice" is part of a system that makes the soldiers see their enemies--in reality as human as they--as "bugs."

As I say, it is not the best TV programming ever produced, but underneath the heavy-handed, manipulative drama is a very real human tendency that is often exploited by demagogues of various stripes. One of the soldiers expresses it as he confronts a fellow fighter. "You have to hate them." One does not go to war over a trivial disagreement over a minor offense. Over the years I have resisted, and sometimes been captured by this tendency to make ones opponent an enemy, and to go on and make ones enemy something other than human. I succumbed to the "juice."

Someone once said something like (how's that for precision?), "Madison Avenue (the advertisement industry) is in the business of creating desires for things that didn't even exist a short time ago." It doesn't take too deep a dive into our consumerist culture to see dangers with that, but much more problematic is turning that syndrome on its head, and creating hatreds for causes, movements, and groups of people.

Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler if his rhetoric had been, "It seems to me, as I examine the economic trends of post-war Germany that the Jewish community may have reaped a disproportionate amount of profit when compared to other sectors." No, the Feurer was a master of what has come to be known as "othering." In our real-world scenario the "juice" is not injected by an implanted pump, but by rhetoric, alignment with movements, and well-crafted media. On the other hand, I have to admit that Churchill's rhetoric, often strident, led to what I regard as a good outcome. Balance and caution are needed.

I'm struck by the contrast that I see in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. (I'll leave the discussion of the imprecatory Psalms for another time.) Never was there a greater contrast than what took place in the passion of Christ--the absolutely righteous human surrounded by a mob that cried out for His crucifixion. Having accomplished their bloody mission, the totally innocent victim of this supreme othering calls out, while suffering the agonies of death on the cross, "Father, forgive them."

I am not discounting the great importance of the causes that are before us, things like:

• The sacrifice of innocent children to the total autonomy of the individuals who make the tragic choice to kill these little people.
• The denial of the biological reality of maleness and femaleness, and the demand for total acceptance of, even support for, the futile notion that one can choose ones gender with absolute freedom.
• The deep-seated disagreement over the nature of reality itself--"Is this a world of stuff and stuff alone, or is there a spiritual reality all around it, that is, indeed, more permanent than the stuff w walk of, breathe, eat, and with which we clothe ourselves?"

Yes, there are clearly issues that are worth contending for, fighting for, even dying for, but if the fight is to be "the good fight," it must be undertaken on the basis of truth. The truth is that even those who hold to polar opposite views than mine, are, like me, human beings. They are, even though many deny it, the special creation of God. Just like me, they owe their existence to dirt, water, and air--the providential work of God Who causes "all things to hold together." As much as I may want to hate them and as often and loudly as some of my co-belligerents encourage me to hate them, I can't. It is not that I'm not able, I am very capable of that hatred. It is that must not. I am a follower of the one who asked for the forgiveness of His tormentors. 

Let me finish with a few suggestions that flow from this thought:

• We have to be careful about hyperbole. Is this really the "most important election in our history," or, "the defining cause of our generation, or "a battle for the life of our nation/way of life/freedom/etc."? Perhaps, but be careful.
• Is there anything right about the position of the person who holds another view? Is the abortion advocate right about the plight of some women? Does gender confusion cause real heartache for many, particularly young, people? Have some elements of our society been wrongly treated for a long time? I'm not saying that the answers to those questions erase the real issues, but rather that asking and seeking honest answers to those questions remind me that on the other side of the debate stage stands another human, not an "other."
• The changing of hearts and minds is a much more long-lasting solution than the wielding of power.

Be careful of the "juice."

 

The Rise and (Fall) of Dispensationalism

 Putting "Fall" in quotation marks is an addition to the title of the book, by Daniel G. Hummel, which is the topic of this post. The subtitle of The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism is "How the Evangelical Battle Over the End Times Shaped a Nation." 

I'm not writing a review. For that, I point you to Pastor Gary Gilley's review of the book. It was his review that brought the book to my attention. Having read the book and then reread Gilley's review, I think he does a good job. Instead, what I am doing, here, is sharing some, somewhat random, thoughts about the book and what the book, intersecting with my background and current place in life, raises.

I grew up spiritually in an environment in which the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible, were second only to the Bible itself, in authority. I was surrounded by pastors who were graduates of Moody Bible Institute. Both D. L. Moody, and the Bible Institute he founded take up a lot of Space in The Rise and Fall . . . (R&F). I graduated from a Bible Institute that was, in many ways, a smaller clone of Moody. It's Founder and first president was a graduate of Moody. My Theology prof received his doctoral degree at Dallas. He had actually heard Lewis Sperry Chafer lecture. Dwight Pentecost's book, Things to Come, was assigned reading. I also spent two years at a Bible College that was thoroughly Dispensational. The President of that school, at the time I was there, is quoted in R&F.  My post-graduate studies were in a school that wasn't particularly known for being dispensational, but it clearly welcomed Dispensationalists on the faculty. Buildings are named after Tim Lahaye.

I still claim Dispensational Premillennialism as my Theological House, but as John MacArthur is widely quoted as saying, my Dispensationalism might be a bit "leaky." It's not that I have come up with a system of Ecclesiology and Eschatology (in my humble opinion, those are the two areas of Theology where Dispensationalism makes the most difference), rather in my book of Things to Emphasize Dispensationalism doesn't take up as many pages as it once did.

Some years ago another Pastor and I attended a conference on Dispensationalism. It was one of those conferences in which experts/serious scholars presented papers to their colleagues, who would then ask questions and give comments. We got to listen in. One of my teachers and a schoolmate were among the presenters. The experience could have served as an illustration for the latter portion of Hummel's book. This was a small gathering. While the presenters were brilliant men, with the possible exception of the President of Dallas Theological Seminary, none of them were at risk of being interviewed on national TV. The Theologians at the conference occupied a narrow strip of Biblical real estate between the up-and-coming more reformed scholars and institutions, on one side, and the "Left Behind"ers on the other. I detected the smell of holding-on-for-dear-life.

Reading the book reminded me of, and strengthened an observation that has informed my ministry for the last thirty or thirty-five years. I heard the point made by a college roommate of mine, who was, ironically enough, working for Moody Bible Institute at the time he made the comment, that no system of trying to systematize the whole flow of Scripture is sufficient to take it all in. Not long after I heard, essentially,  the same statement made by a nationally known pastor. At about the same time, I spent a considerable amount of time working through and preaching from the Sermon on the Mount. That series changed me. For reasons I won't go into here, I came to decisively reject the old, extreme, Dispensational "truth" that I had been taught, that the Sermon on the Mount was "Kingdom truth;" it didn't directly apply to the Church. With D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and others I concluded that Jesus most famous sermon was every bit about the here and now.

I sort of channeled a concept that I had heard powerfully expressed by an old-time preacher from West Virginia. B. R. Lakin began his career riding a mule to speaking engagements. He became a successful pastor and popular revivalist. The experience he spoke of was during what Hummel would call the "Rise" phase of Dispensationalism. I'm paraphrasing, but the old preacher, speaking from the platform of that thoroughly Dispensational Bible Institute said something like.

I attended a Bible Conference and saw a man with a bed sheet and fishing pole [Lakin was obviously referring to one of the Dispensational Charts that Dispensational prophecy preachers were famous for. The charts developed by Clarence Larkin are probably the best known]. He told me that this part of scripture applied this time and this other part of the Bible applied to another time [what old dispensationalists often referred to as "rightly dividing the Word"]. I went home and tried to do that for myself but finally gave up in frustration. I simply took of all of the Bible as God's word to me and sought to apply it to my life in my time and place. 

To any who may have been present at that Chapel service or who know Lakin better than I do, I emphasize again that I am working from memories of an incident more than fifty years ago. I also know that good preaching is often hyperbolic. I'm confident that Lakin's hermeneutics were more sophisticated than this anecdote implies, but the mule-riding preacher's words have haunted my mind and heart for most of my life.

I'll leave tracing the impact of Dispensationalism on a national/international scale to better minds, like Hummel's. I'll just say that too many pastors and Bible teachers approach Scripture and ask, "From a Dispensational point of view, what does this passage mean?" I know that there is no such thing as a "view from nowhere," but I do believe that trying to adopt a less prejudicial perspective is important. Approach the text with the necessary agnosticism. After you see what the text means, you may find that it aligns with your overall view of things, be that Dispensational, Covenental, or whatever. Fine. Just be sure you let the text speak. Don't put words in its mouth.

Apparently, I'm an outlier. The fact that I see nothing in the New Testament that indicates that I should bring a lamb to church tomorrow, indicates to me that there are at least two ways of doing things presented in Scripture. A straight-forward (literal, with a right understanding of the word) indicates that Israel is not the same as the church and the church is not the same as Israel. In fact, the tenses of the New Testament in reference to the formation of the church indicate that it didn't even exist in Old Testament times. I do live in a time in which the residents of the planet, except for those saved by grace, are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3), the world itself is in the power of the wicked one (1 John 5:19), and that this wicked one apparently has a lot of freedom to do his anti-God work (1 Peter 5:8). I could go on, but all that I am saying is that when I take God's word for what it appears to me to say, I see what has come to be called Dispensationalism. On the other hand, some of my go-to commentators would be insulted to have their name associated with Dispensationalism. I go to their books because they deal honestly with the text. I will enjoy telling them if I live until the Rapture, "See I was right." In the meantime, they are a help to me. If we both live to some one-size-fits-all general judgment day I'll say, "Well, what do you know?" 

I'd like to finish this before the Rapture, so I'll stop.

Donuts, Chicken, and Our Polarized Culture

 You may have heard of the controversy about Chick-Fil-A's DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusiveness) policy. It seems to me that some conservative Christians have been too quick on the trigger in reacting to something that they think should generate outrage. Here is an article from a blogger that I like. Dennison, as he often does, says in essence, "Let's cool our jets."

I had a personal experience that reminds me of the chicken-sandwich-kerfluffle. One of my grandpa things is to do a donut run whenever I'm visiting with my grandkids. Most of my grandchildren are grownup, and the one who isn't thinks she is. Still, they seem to enjoy Grandpa going out before breakfast and bringing home some pastry. I know for sure that Grandpa enjoys it a lot.

On my last donut run, I went to a local donut shop that I've come to like. Most of the business there is drive-through, but an enjoyable part of the experience for me is going in, smelling the smell of fresh donuts, and, perhaps, interacting with another early-morning pastry fetcher. On this trip I had a pleasant 30-second encounter with a youngish guy who properly "sir"ed me, as his elder. He held the door for me and I for him, as he exited with sweet treats and coffee. Across generational and racial pseudo-boundaries we agreed on the good early morning aroma. 

I was waited on by a very nice young lady. She got my order right, pleasantly helped me get the right mix in my box of a dozen, and handled the credit card transaction flawlessly. She put a wad of napkins in the box and thanked me with a smile. We found no hair stuck to any of the pastries. If I were a donut shop operator I'd want an employee just like this young lady.

Thus far, I've only described the donut server based on the things that really matter. Everything else about this woman was totally "un-me." It was almost like she was wearing a t-shirt that said, "Please be offended at me." Her outfit included a spiked collar suspending a pair of handcuffs. Her hair was turquoise blue. Her tattoos included facial markings that clearly had a feline look. There is more. In another context, if I knew this woman well enough to engage her in conversation, I'd probably inquire about her appearance and what lay beneath it. Everything about her looked like she is looking for love/acceptance/meaning/satisfaction in all the wrong places. There was a bit of an ache in my heart for her and others like her.

The fact is, though, my 90-second encounter with the donut server was about donuts. She handled that transaction flawlessly.

• Do I want this woman--probably a college student with initiative enough to get up early and go to work--to have a job, or do I want her to be a burden to her neighbors?
• Beneath all of what I regard as her utterly outlandish get-up is this woman a bearer of God's image?
• Is she someone to whom I should show kindness and treat with the same love that Christ showed for her and me--in equal amounts?
• Did she do exactly what she should do for a grandpa out on an excursion to please his grandkids?
• Can I really say that "I have it all together?"

My questions force me and perhaps push you toward a position that part of me doesn't like. As I answer each question I very much want to add a "yeah but."

Some businesses chose to require a strict appearance code for their employees. Others allow rednecks to wear their John Deere caps, retired execs to don a white shirt and tie, and let gray-haired women look aged versions of June Cleaver. The donut shop I visited, obviously, pushes that freedom of choice to the max.

The bottom line has to count for something.

We enjoyed our donuts.

 

Looking at the World, The Surgeon General Sees a Truth from the Bible

 This will be quick and quite inadequate in dealing with a very important topic. My main purpose is to point to something that is undeniably a big deal, a huge problem in our world today--loneliness and disconnectedness. Hopefully, it will whet your interest to do some more study.

Unless you are on the extreme end of disconnection, in which case you probably aren't reading this, you are aware that isolation, strained social interactions, or even an almost total lack of meaningful social interaction, and the resulting loneliness, and doubts about the meaning of one's life are big problems. The fact is, even though we recognize the problem we likely don't see how wide and deep it is. I didn't.

Al Mohler's daily "Briefing" for May 3, 2023 tipped me off to an advisory by US Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation. Mohler gives a good summary of the report and points to its implications for those of us who see the world through a Biblical lens. The page that contains the recording of the "Briefing" also includes a link to the Surgeon General's report.
I quickly read/skimmed the advisory report this morning. It is full of disturbing statistics and trends. Not only the prose, but the artfully done charts and illustrations point strongly to an issue that is a growing problem in America, and beyond. More and more people are disconnected from meaningful relationships. The result is loneliness and a host of other issues. These problems are not only seen on an individual level. This "epidemic" threatens the fabric of our society. I plan to read the publication more carefully.

Most of us are aware of COVID's negative impact on social interaction. The advisory points out that the problem did not originate with the pandemic. It did, however, make it worse. The last portion of the Surgeon General's publication wisely points to the future. Unless corrective action is taken (I haven't read the report closely enough to know whether I agree with Dr. Murthy's prescriptions or not) the problem will continue. The problem, and the questions as to what we should do about it, are matters that should be of great interest to Christians.

Here is one of the charts that illustrates the growing problem:

(Page 25)

Often, we see the Bible as standing in opposition to the conclusions of science, and I am not downplaying that tension. However, if we are right in believing that the Creator of the world and the ultimate author of the Bible are the same Person, then we should expect that science, honestly done, and Bible understanding, based on sound hermeneutics, should be aligned, not in conflict. As I read the Surgeon General's words of concern and warning, I was struck again and again with this alignment.

The Triune God, out of His marvelous existence of sublime relationship between Spirit, Son, and Father, created humans as creatures of relationship, with one another and with Him. In the Old Testament God chose to work through a nation. In the New Testament we meet the transnational body, the Church. An intensely relational entity through which God moves His grand plan forward. While there is far more that we don't about Heaven than we do know, it is clear that the eternal abode of God's children is a place of unhindered relationships, "now I know in part, but then I will know fully" (I Cor. 13:12), we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2).

While God has supremely communicated to us through His word, the Bible. He also communicates through His world, and since we are created in His image, through our hearts. You can see this in Psalm 19, Romans 1-2, and the Book of Ecclesiastes. In taking a look at our world, focusing on human interactions, and the lack thereof, Dr. Murthy and his team have exposed a truth that is clear in Scripture.

It is not good for man to be alone.

I encourage you to listen to, or read the transcript of Mohler's "Briefing, read or at least look through the Surgeon General's advisory, and--and this is most important--plug into a community of people who take the Word of God seriously, a place where soul-nourishing relationships are encouraged. That would be a good, Bible-believing/teaching/living church. Let me know if I can help.

The Briefing, May 3, 2023

Our Epidemic of  Loneliness and Isolation, US Surgeon General

The Lust for a Place at the Table

 Many of us have memories of the adult table/children's table divide that was necessary for big meals. We didn't want to be relegated to the little kid's table. If tattling was the key, then tattle we did. Even more so, in high school, we wanted to sit with the "cool kids" at lunch. We sometimes paid the admission price of dumping a socially undesirable friend to gain admission.

An article by Daniel Sillman in Christianity Today, "Carl Henry's Temptation (And Ours)" explores a grown-up version of the syndrome. I have observed the phenomenon often. I have felt the temptation on numerous occasions. I have succumbed more than a few times. I have seen the resulting compromise. 

The article is worth reading. Unfortunately, it is only available to subscribers. If you find out otherwise, please correct me in a comment.

A Review of Almost There, by Elwood McQuaid

A friend gave me a copy of Elwood McQuaid's recently published little, 164 pages, book, Almost There. Before I share my thoughts about Rev. McQuaid's reminiscences about his first pastorate, I think I should share my perspective--some might call it my prejudice.

I hadn't gotten very far into the book, when I realized that Pastor McQuaid was sharing experiences that were very similar to what my wife and I experienced in my first pastorate, twenty years after those of the Mcquaids. I found a kindred spirit in the book's twenty-one chapters. The McQuaids and the Merrells both came from the North to Virginia. Like them, Kathy and I fell in love with the Old Dominion. Elwood tells a tale about possum hunting. My yarn is about blowing my eardrum out on my first deer hunt. You get the idea. I'll stop there.

Pastor McQuaid writes about the rural 1950s Virginia community of Goodveiw and the Goodview Baptist Church with great fondness and sincere respect. In the epilogue, he sums up something that America is missing but seldom misses. 

[A] quality of life and stability of values [that] have all but disappeared. Today we confront a daunting, downward plunge into neopaganism. Is it irreversible? Only God knows. From my perspective, we need to return to the qualities that made us what we once were. Oddly enough, those virtues are best revisited not in America's teeming metropolises, but in the small towns where ordinary folks set the standard." (161)

Through much of the book, Pastor McQuaid tells his story by introducing us to the people of Goodview. People like Jimmy Jones, the leading layman at Goodview Baptist when Elwood and Maxine arrived. Jimmy went on to a highly successful pastorate of his own. A lady in the church where I pastored came to know the Lord under "Pastor Jimmy's" ministry. There was Buck Daniels, who always managed to make himself scarce when Pastor McQuaid came calling. The prayers of Buck's two sisters were finally answered when Buck turned to the Lord years later. The book shines a light on these people whom some would call "unsophisticated." The ability of the church's women to produce feasts on wood stoves, using homegrown and raised ingredients, and the mastery of timber cutting, by the communities men are held up as skills to be valued and respected

When I was in Bible College, we "preacher boys" took a class that was called "Practical Theology." It was about the nuts and bolts of pastoring a church. In many ways, Almost There is a book of case studies in practical theology. In my humble opinion, the book is full of examples of real pastoral care. While these examples are not couched in formal Theological terminology, the sound Theological underpinnings are there. I'll share one example. 

One of the central realities of sound Biblical Theology is the dignity of all human beings. We do not have value because of our wealth, power, beauty, intelligence, or achievements. We are valuable and worthy of respect because we bear the image of our creator. In the chapter, "Who is that masked man?" Pastor McQuaid makes that known with great sensitivity and tenderness. He also points out that people who should know better, too often don't. In this case, it was a "highly recommended" evangelist who failed the test on how one should treat a fellow child of God--even a child of God who carried a childhood fascination with the Lone Ranger into adulthood.

A man who should have known better had entertained himself at the expense of someone who didn't know he was being mocked. And he did it in front of the man's wife and children, who knew exactly what was happening. Cletus Norman was a hard-working husband, father, and good citizen. Sure, he held fast to a harmless fantasy that others had long since abandoned. But exploiting Cletus's weakness and humiliating him for a few moments of personal amusement seemed to me to be a heartless thing to do. (96)

From God moving in mysterious ways to provide a new parsonage, to the amazing examples of grace that led folk to become women and men of God, this little book is filled with examples of the power of a Gospel-based ministry. We need that.

I recommend that any pastor who leads a small congregation get a copy of Almost There. Even those who don't share the commonalities that I share with Pastor McQuaid will be encouraged and challenged to be faithful. If I were teaching that "Practical Theology" class, I'd make this book required reading. Most young pastors, even in today's world, will find their first flock in places more like McQuaid's Goodview than Keller's Manhattan. And while I can't say for sure, I suspect that those who do land in one of the urban centers will find folks there who, below the surface, look a lot like the tomato-growing, chicken-frying, front porch-sitting, possum-hunting residents of the Goodview of seventy years ago.

Almost There is published by Westbow Press, a division of Thomas Nelson and Zondervan.
The Book is authored by Elwood McQuaid with Lorna Simcox.

Howard Merrell, the writer of this review, began a forty-two-year ministry at a little church about a hundred miles from Goodview in a mill town in the Alleghany Highlands of Virginia. Like Elwood and Maxine McQuaid, Howard and Kathy Merrell were educated by their first church. Unlike the McQuaids, the Merrells stayed put. I think Pastor Mcquade would agree that God leads His servants in different ways for His own purposes.

In one chapter, Pastor Macquaid mentions a good friend of his, Morrie Brodsky, founder of Scripture Truth Book Company. Morrie's son, Phil, is my friend. He gave me the book. Phil and his staff at Scripture Truth are distributing the book. Perhaps you can obtain it elsewhere, but I encourage you to contact the folks at S.T. https://scripturetruth.com/

A Rare Defusing of a Common Syndrome: Something We Need More Of

 On the surface, Joshua 22 is a totally odd chapter of Scripture. It is knee-deep in and totally wrapped with the Old Testament Jewish Culture and a system of worship that is totally alien to me. As I have read through the Pentateuch and now am nearly through Joshua, I find myself saying again and again, "Thank you, Lord, that I live in this time after the coming of Christ!" I am confident that there is a rhyme and a reason to the way God chose to be worshipped in this era, and to the elaborate ways He established the special relationship between Himself and the people He had just delivered from bondage in Egypt, but I don't understand many of the fine details, and I am glad that I don't have to deal with all the rules, restrictions, and boundaries.

Yet, in the midst of this totally "Other" system of worship and Theocratic rule, I find a bunch of people who are just like me and my neighbors. It is on that level that I am able to apply the truth of  1 Corinthians 10:11, a verse that is talking about the experiences of the Jewish nation of this era:

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. (1 Corinthians 10:11, NASB95)  

These folk had the same blood type as me--totally human.

As I say, understanding and applying Joshua 22 is totally dependent on grasping the context, so for those of you who haven't been following the formation and establishment of the Jewish Nation, I offer the following summary: 

(If you are up on your Old Testament Jewish History, feel free to skip to the "Meanwhile Back at the Ranch" heading.)

• God, for purposes that run through all of Scripture, chose to establish a nation that is set apart from the rest of humanity, yet with a mission to be a blessing to all the people of the world. This nation would be the descendants of  Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God changed Jacob's name to Israel, the name that was passed on to the nation that sprang from his descendants.  (This begins in Genesis 12)
• It represents no failing on God's part, in fact, it is part of the formation process that the infant nation became slaves of the great Egyptian Empire. (The early chapters of Exodus)
• Under the leadership of Moses, accompanied by an impressive array of miracles--all of which left the Egyptian gods, so-called, lying shattered in the desert sand--God delivered the nation of Israel from its 400-year captivity. (the rest of Exodus and Numbers)
• On the way out of Egypt to the Promised Land, God gave the people a set of laws, a system of worship, and a calendar that would set the rhythms of Jewish life. Many of these patterns can still be seen in the practices of Rabbinic Judaism today. Miraculously, the Lord cared for His people. (The latter part of Exodus, Leviticus, and the first half of Numbers record the history of this time and process.)
• Building a nation that will serve God made up of people who, like all of us, are prone to rebel against God, is a messy process. That messiness brings the refugee nation to a crisis in Numbers 13. As a result of their refusal to by faith obey the Lord, the nation was delayed in reaching their new home. The forty-year tour of the wilderness meant that by the time Jacob's descendants were finally ready to enter Canaan/the Promised Land/Israel, it was a new generation that would enter. (These 40 years are covered in the latter half of Numbers) Before the people moved into their new home a review of the Law was necessary. (That's the Book of Deuteronomy)
• Following a change of leadership from Moses to Joshua (You know, the guy who "fit the Battle of Jericho") the Nation of Israel crossed the Jordan River into their new home. Before they could settle down, however, the current residents needed to be conquered. The "Why?" of that is a bigger, much bigger, matter than this post, not to mention my mind, can contain. (The Book of Joshua, up to chapter 22)

Just one more detail needs to be added to this historical overview. As the Jewish nation was on its way into the region west of the Jordan River that would become their home, a couple of minor kings and kingdoms were defeated. Some of the Israelites, the Tribes of Gad, Rueben, and half the Tribe of Manasseh looked around at the rich pasture land and said, "We'd like to settle down here." After promising to help the rest of the nation conquer the land across the river this plan was approved by Moses. The two-and-a-half tribes were as good as their word. As Joshua 22 opens, these soldiers are going back to civilian life on the farms that were already occupied by their wives and children.

Meanwhile Back at the Ranch:

As soon as they cross the Jordan the Eastside contingent of the Nation of Israel does something that looks to me, and more importantly to the rest of the Jews, to be a total violation of all that they had learned in the last fifty years--do it God's way or suffer the consequences.

When they came to the region of the Jordan which is in the land of Canaan, the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh built an altar there by the Jordan, a large altar in appearance. (Joshua 22:10)

When the family on the other side of the river got news of this, they in unison cried out, "Here we go again!" Quoting the great prophet Barney Fife, they vowed to "Nip this thing in bud." No, really they said, "What is this unfaithful act which you have committed against the God of Israel, turning away from following the LORD this day, by building yourselves an altar, to rebel against the LORD this day? (Joshua 22:16). (1995)

They didn't just talk about what their transJordan cousins had done, they mustered an army and were fully prepared to deal with what their relatives had done. And, they were prepared to act before the transgression had nationwide consequences.

In many ways, you have to admire the response of the nine-and-a-half tribes. They had finally learned that God, and God alone, must be worshiped and He must be worshiped as He prescribes. That is a fact that is as applicable today as ever. I was about to say, though, that the Canaan-dwelling Jews went off "half-cocked"--not fully prepared--but maybe they were nine-tenths cocked--"almost, but not quite." Whether the missing element in their action was 50% or 10%, it was crucial.

Two words describe the missing, or faulty, part of their reasoning, "to rebel." Though the Jews living on both sides of the Jordan were Jews, descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, miraculously delivered from Egypt and preserved in the wilderness, now there was a river between them. Already, there was reason to other them. They aren't like us. They live on the other side.

Here is where it really gets ugly. We know why they did this. They built this altar "to rebel."

Automobiles have "Idiot Lights" for a reason. It is because so many of us are _____s when it comes to making sure that our cars and trucks have enough oil and coolant in them. In this day in which "othering" has been raised to an international pastime, I propose that we all install "Motive-Alert" warning lights (digital or analog is up to you) on our personal dashboards. Any idiot can look across the river and see that those other people are building an altar. It takes a smart idiot--one with a working Motive-Alert warning system--to realize, "Yeah, but I don't know why."

To their credit, the "Nine-and-a-halfers" didn't immediately go all ben Rambo on them. They sent Phineas, Henry Kissinger, and some other guys over to the other side to talk--and more importantly, listen--first.

Newsflash:  

The diplomatic mission from the nine-and-a-half tribes sent to the other side report: "We are glad that our brothers and sisters on the other side of the Jordan remain true to the core values of what it means to be a part of the nation delivered by God. In an official statement representitives of the two-and-a-half tribes say: ““The Mighty One, God, the LORD, the Mighty One, God, the LORD! He knows, and may Israel itself know. If it was in rebellion, or if in an unfaithful act against the LORD do not save us this day

Further: 

 "[W]e have done this [built this altar] out of concern, for a reason, saying, ‘In time to come your sons may say to our sons, “What have you to do with the LORD, the God of Israel?

 “Therefore we said, ‘Let us build an altar, not for burnt offering or for sacrifice; rather it shall be a witness between us and you and between our generations after us, that we are to perform the service of the LORD before Him with our burnt offerings, and with our sacrifices and with our peace offerings, so that your sons will not say to our sons in time to come, “You have no portion in the LORD.” 

In conclusion: 

 “Far be it from us that we should rebel against the LORD and turn away from following the LORD this day, by building an altar for burnt offering, for grain offering or for sacrifice, besides the altar of the LORD our God which is before His tabernacle.”

I encourage you to read Joshua 22 on your own. Join me in applying the 1 Corinthians 10:11 principle to this passage. "What can I, on a personal level, learn from this passage?" and "As I pray for my leaders, how does the experience recorded in Joshua 22 inform what I ask on their behalf?"

Though it wasn't forever after, Joshua 22 ends with the people living happily together. The river was a reality. The "othering" division that almost took place didn't need to be. 

We need more Phineases.

 

If I Could Understand Everything About God . . .

 One of the catchphrases (in this case it's actually a sentence) I frequently use is: "If I could understand everything about God, he wouldn't be much of a god would he?" Others address the same idea by talking of attempting to "put God in a box." Obviously, if the earth is God's footstool (Isaiah 66:1)--and that's a metaphor--then there is no box big enough.

Especially, though, for those of us who approach our faith in a cognitive way--"What does the Bible text say, and what does it mean?"--and who have seen the excesses of late Twentieth and early Twenty-first Century so-called Spirit-led ministry, there is a measure of cynicism that has to be overcome. We've seen too many "Spirit-filled" evangelists weeping before the camera, looking at a different camera wide-eyed and disheveled when they are caught in Spirit-forbidden sin. If I'm not careful I allow all the gold-plated bathroom fixtures, Leer Jets, and mansions with guards to convince me that anything beyond what happens with me just isn't right. It must be fake. Somebody has an agenda.

Lord, when my skepticism becomes seeing you as living in a box, forgive me. Heal my heart.

I read this account from Christianity Today magazine of what is going on at Asbury University, 

My first impression was: I was impressed, but, likely, not in the way you expect.

I was impressed by the way the administration at the school reacted to what was going on. I can tell you by experience that making good decisions, as a group, in a new situation, with others looking over your shoulder is hard, really hard. It looks to me like these folk are working hard to maintain balance. On the one hand, there is the unknown. On the other hand, there is a desire to do what is right. 

Lord, guide the administration at Asbury. Protect them and help them protect the students in their care.

The article I mentioned above, and other reports tell of gatherings similar to what is going on at Asbury breaking out at other schools. 

Lord, I admit my ignorance, but I confess that my ignorance of your greatness is vast. It is so vast that I have no idea of what I don't know. Surely, in the vast reaches of who you are, that stretch infinitely beyond what I know, there is much that I don't understand. I do know that you, God, are loving and righteous. So, Lord, from my tiny store of understanding I reach out to you. Lord, I pray that not just college students, but old and young, rich and poor, people of all colors and economic conditions will know your love and will turn from the sin that not only destroys individuals but is consuming our society. I pray that folk will turn to you. 

   Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.  (Matthew 6:9–13, NASB95)  

AMEN 

Epiphany--for me not quite, but . . .

 Some of my friends, who have gone to the trouble of reading some of my Facebook posts over the past couple of weeks, may have wondered about my wandering. "Howard's not a liturgical guy, yet here he is going on about some Anglican guy's thoughts on the days from Christmas Eve to the Feast of Epiphany."

Guilty.

I have been interested in Walter Russel Mead's thoughts recorded in his "Yule Blog." For some years, Mead has taken time annually to write his "Yule Blog" corresponding to the Yule Season, which at least some followers of the Christian liturgical calendar will recognize as the time beginning with Christmas Eve and ending with the Feast of Epiphany, January 6, today.

Until a couple of weeks ago I had no acquaintance with Mead. He is an Anglican. From what I have

read in the 2022-23 edition of his Yule Blog I conclude that he is the kind of Anglican I wish there were more of. He reminds me of C. S. Lewis in one regard, that is, he is not a member of the clergy or a professional Theologian, yet he says profound and relevant things about Theology and what it means to follow Christ. His professional resume makes clear that he is an intellectual. Like Solomon, he has concluded that one's intellect is not fully developed unless it includes training and thought on Theology, which was once considered the "queen of the sciences.

Mead's Lewis-like view of what it means to be well-educated is one reason I was interested enough to read his winter musings. Even though the "Yule Season" ends today, I encourage you to read his Yule Blog.

Here is a sample from the final post on the 22-23 Yule Blog:

[T]he Baby Jesus is the meaning of Christmas, and the meaning of Christmas is the meaning of life. That meaning is the source of our life, the goal of our lives, and the light of all life and of all human beings. It has existed forever and somehow both lives with and is God on high, but It came into our world and into a Jewish family on a special day when Augustus Caesar ruled in Rome and Herod was king in Jerusalem. We had somehow lost touch with the Meaning of it all, but the Meaning hadn’t lost touch with us. It was intent on finding us anyway—and It did. That is what Christians have been celebrating since December 25 and what in many ways we go on celebrating all year.

The second reason I have taken the time to read and comment on the Yule Blog is because I need to explore this whole thing of the liturgical calendar some more. 

In most of my pastoral career, with a few exceptions, Christmas, Palm Sunday, Good Friday, Easter (I'd add in the somewhat cultural late additions of  Thanksgiving and Mother's and Father's Day), I have paid no attention to the liturgical calendar. I say "most of" because during my few years living on Guam, I periodically filled the pulpit for the lovely congregation of the Lutheran Church of Guam, which does follow their liturgical calendar. When I would preach there I would choose one of the texts for that Sunday, as my text from which to preach. I was a guest. I thought it best to follow their practice. 

As near as I can tell, the liturgical calendar is the result of collective wisdom and input that stretches over the centuries, that came to a consensus: "These are events and/or truths that are worth celebrating, understanding, and remembering we'll put them on the calendar." Major divisions within the Christan community--the great schism between East and West, the Reformation, etc. have resulted in variations, so not everyone agrees on exactly what should be on the liturgical calendar nor exactly when those events should be remembered. For instance, many remember today as Epiphany, a day associated with the visit of the Wisemen to the Holy Family, and others, celebrate today as Christmas, the birthday of our Savior. So there are a lot of churches that really don't follow a liturgical calendar, then there are churches that do, but they don't all follow the same calendar.

So, other than the fact that this is a matter of division in Christendom is there any lesson here?

Here is one, or maybe two: Though I enjoyed my time with my Lutheran friends, and appreciated Mead's Christmas-related thoughts, I'm not recommending that we Evangelicals adopt one of the Liturgical Calendars as our guide for answering the greatest of Homiletical questions, "What do I preach next Sunday. While I respect the wisdom of the ancients, I don't think that they are necessarily the best authority on what the people in Covington Virginia need to hear next Sunday. I think in general, expository preaching through books of the Bible and/or themes that run through the Bible is the way to go. But, and here is my point. I need to realize that these ancients weren't dummies, at least all of them weren't. I need to listen to them more.

To use the word in its non-Theological sense, that's a pretty dull epiphany, but it's the best I can do right now.