It's Complicated . . .

but politics often is.

Since it involves Sarah Palin, and she's been good enough to call my house several times in the last week, I thought I'd share something with her here. She didn't leave a number for me to call her back. I'm sure it just slipped her mind.



Anyhow:



I may not have all the details, but here is what I understand. Joe Miller, a friend of yours, won the Republican primary.

Incumbent Republican, Lisa Murkowski was not willing to rally behind Miller. Instead, with the blessing of much of the GOP establishment Ms. Murkowski is mounting a write-in campaign.

One can make a case that Murkowski had somewhat of a contract to respect the will of the primary voters. She lost. What she did seemed like bad style to me. I think her explanation, she wants the "people to have a choice," is pretty lame. Seems they had a choice and it wasn't her. I'll let others decide whether what she did was ethical. Is there such a thing as political-ethics? If so, my guess is a lot of politicians skipped that class.

I live a long way from Alaska, so I don't know much about what happened next. I understand that Murkowski's campaign was able to get some consessions from a judge, making it easier for a voter to write in. Included in these consessions was a ruling that poll workers would have a list with the names of write-in candidates who asked to be put on the list. Write-ins have to be spelled correctly. Murkowski is not the most common name.

Now, a radio talk show host--who looks a lot like a young Rush Limbaugh--gets involved. As I understand it, Dan Fagan, began promoting the idea that every Tom, Dick, and Mary, especially if their last name ended in "ski," should call the judge and get their name on this list. The idea being, this would make it harder for voters to find and copy Murkowski's name. Understandably, the Murkowski campaign was not happy with the radio voice. They made threats and Mr. Fagan found himself suspended.

There were some other media misactions, directed at Miller, that took place about the same time. While not directly related, they no doubt helped fuel to the ire.



OK, I'm not commenting on Politics, Governor Palin, I just want to talk about what is right.

I agree that as long as Fagan is not violating a law he has the freedom to spout his stuff. I have weighed-in, in the past, on protecting the freedoms of folk with whom we don't agree. (See my post from 8/24) I don't know, so I won't argue with you when you say that Miller is being treated badly.

What bothers me is I don't hear you saying that political decisions should not be decided by tricks and obfuscation--tricking people into spelling a name wrong. We should help people get the truth, persuade them to act on that truth, and pray. Winning by tricks may produce a short-term victory. It is a sure route to long-term disaster.



We can't tolerate underhanded behavior on the part of those who support our causes. If we don't condemn this stuff, at the least we appear to support it.

October is Pastor Appreciation Month.

Not only this month, but all year there are people in my life who let me know I am appreciated. A week or so ago a lady who attends my church told me that she appreciated the fact that her son "got" the message. It had given her good opportunity for conversation. A new couple expressed appreciation for the investment that I and others at CBC are making in their lives. A colleague in leadership has graciously, and conspicuously worked with me in hard times. My wife not only thanks me for sharing the Word of God in my messages, she does so with an obvious awareness of, and yieldedness to the word that was shared in the sermon. A gentleman who is part of my church just let me know that he would help me get to a meeting to which I need to go.

Perhaps the greatest appreciation: I just got off the phone with someone in whom I have invested years of ministry. We were talking about plans to invest what she/he has gained in a new generation of ministry.
There are those I have pastored who show their appreciation for what I have passed on by making tough, but right decisions.
My wife and I received gifts from our congregation this month. We appreciate each sincerely given offering of appreciation, but these "life-gifts" mean the most.
Thank you.

With that in mind I want to take a moment and mention pastors I appreciate.
Rev. Eugene Marsceau was my pastor in my later childhood and teen years. He became my Father-in-law. He taught me to love the word of God, and that people matter. Most of the churches he pastored were not successful in the way that gets one written up in a book. He succeeded with me. He is with the Lord now. I appreciate him.
Rev. Victor Decker was my pastor my last two years in college. He didn't treat me like one of the boys from the college. He regarded me as a young man headed into ministry who needed all the guidance and challenge he could give. Pastor Decker traveled more than 500 miles for my ordination. He modeled faithfulness. I appreciate you, Pastor Decker.
A pastor in another town ministered to a loved one of mine. As I put it Pastor Kirk "walked to Hell and back" with him and held his hand the whole way. I appreciate that, brother.
My Son, Chris, is Pastor of Global Outreach in a church that has more people in it on Sunday morning than live in the town where he grew up and I still pastor. I appreciate your passion, son. I greatly enjoy the relationship of colleagues in ministry that is ours. One of the most fun phone calls I ever made was calling first First Baptist in Mound City Kansas, and asking for Rev. Merrell, adding, "This is Rev. Merrell calling."
A appreciate my guys who are in Ecuador, Honduras, New Zealand and Allentown PA. It is an incredible joy to see Doug, Fred, Pink, and Daniel serving the Lord, making a difference for Him in this world. On days when things look black I hope it helps to know that I appreciate you.
I am privileged to have two friends in ministry, Billy and Dan. All three of us are pastoring our first churches. Two of us have grown gray and one nearly bald in the work of the Lord in this little mill town. These guys have pastored me, visiting me in the hospital, helped me bury my dad, and labored to keep me on track. I have breakfast with them most Thursdays. I appreciate you guys.
One of the titles by which my Lord goes is the "Chief Shepherd" (Pastor).
Lord, I so much appreciate the fact that You never leave or forsake me, and for more than thirty-seven years You have given me the opportunity to share in the work that You are doing.
Thanks!

Some Further Thoughts on Fundamentalists and Evangelicals:

In a recent post I referred to a series of articles by Kevin Bauder. My knowledge of Dr. Bauder is limited. He is the president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis. He is a self-described Fundamentalist. A friend of mine who moves in those circles indicated as much. Reading the articles I am referring to will confirm this. I make this point, because what he has to say is much more significant because of who he is.
While Dr. Bauder espouses historic Fundamentalism, he levels some much needed criticism at some of the misdirected rancor, and foolish distinctions within the movement. I thank him for writing about a subject that needs to be carefully and bravely explored--. My previous post gives some of my thoughts on the matter. Though I applaud the gist of Dr. Bauder’s series and appreciate the courage that it took for a person in his position to write this series, I do have some problems with some of his thoughts. Apparently Dr. Bauder doesn’t even entirely agree with himself. If I understand his most recent post in the series, it is a rebuttal of the post prior. I guess arguing with one’s self is a sure way of assuring that you have a worthy opponent.
My intention had been to write somewhat of a critique of Bauder’s series. I have since given up that idea. I encourage others to read the series. Perhaps this blog can be the venue for a conversation about the ideas the series raises.
Here is one thought, another seasoned servant who observed the same problem but proposes a slightly different corrective:
A fellow pastor who has also raised this issue is Charles Wood (Woodchuck). He sends out a daily email, The Woodchuck’s Den, with content of interest to guys like me. For decades Pastor Wood identified himself as a Fundamentalist. He is a Graduate of Bob Jones University and he pastored churches aligned with Fundamentalism. In a recent email Wood identified himself as follows, “I consider myself a conservative evangelical, with that position delineated by the wall of Biblical inerrancy and authority.” This is not the first time Wood has used this description. In previous emails he has articulated an observation that I have made as well. Those who call themselves Fundamentalists but who live close to the boundary that separates them from the Evangelicals near the line on the other side have much more in common with their near neighbors on the other side than they do with many who also identify themselves as Fundamentalists. The same can be said from the other side. Like Wood, I frequently use the Conservative Evangelical nomenclature.
I hope I am not misrepresenting my cyber-friend, Pastor Wood, but I think he proposes forming a new group out of the Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who live close to the border. In my thinking I have already done that. Bauder wants to maintain the distinction. He sees the differences as important enough to do so. But he very much wants us to ratchet down the name-calling. He praises the Conservative Evangelicals for their defense of sound doctrine in recent decades. He speaks with approval of some within his own camp who have reached out to Conservative Evangelicals in constructive ways. “They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.”
I sincerely hope that others will add their voices to these men’s. These posts on this blog represent my attempt.

An Open Letter on Quran Burning:

I am double posting this. I just put it on my STTA blog.

An Open Letter to the Pastor and congregation of Dove World Outreach Church in Gainesville, Florida: Pastor Jones, you and I have not met, and I'm not familiar with your church. I was glad to read a statement attributed to you, that your ministry stands for the "truth of the Bible." That is a passion that I share. It is on that basis, and that we both lead flocks entrusted to us by the Chief-Shepherd, that I ask you not to burn a copy of the Quran.Several of the news articles I have seen and heard ask you to reconsider Saturday's ceremony, because it is offensive to Muslims, or because it endangers people--in particular members of our armed forces. I agree in part with your reply to these critics. While these ought to be, and I am sure are, matters of grave concern to you, they are not sufficient reasons to compromise the truth. However, I would ask you to consider the following: Islam is a religion that knows no separation from the state. In the mind of the Muslim there is no secular and sacred. A "good" Muslim government provides an environment in which its citizens can--in a sense must--be good Muslims. Of course the Mosque is in total support of such civil rule.The church, on the other hand, always has been, and very much needs to continue to be, counter-cultural. While Christians are instructed to be good citizens, we do so in full awareness that we are citizens of another, a greater, an eternal realm. The civil authority put our Lord to death, and sentenced millions of our sisters and brothers to the same fate. The Bible does not encourage us to expect much more from the goverment. We are to be the conscience to our nation, not the Bureau of Publicity-stunts.Yes, we are at war--ideological as well as military--but it is not the task of the church to wage that war. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the Crusades.
While we disagree with the truth claims contained in the Quran (and other purportedly holy books that contradict the Bible) we ought to treat these books with respect--at least in the presence of those who honor them.When the Apostle Paul was building his case that all the world stands guilty before God, one group of people he addressed was his own nation, the Jewish people. Of course Paul's countrymen were adamant about avoiding any hint of idolatry (Romans 2:22). The apostle challenged them, however, with the possibility of having desecrated temples through robbery. Apparently this was a practice that was not unknown. When Paul and his companions were brought before the judgment seat in Ephesus it was said in their defense that they were "neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess [Artemis]." (Acts 19:37)Acts of desecrating the objects of worship of others--even false objects of worship--are not in keeping with the pattern we find in the New Testament. (The fact that we do find such actions in the OT I can't consider at this point, beyond saying that we know things this side of the cross that were unknown in that era.)
When Paul found himself in one of the most pagan places in the world, Athens, he did not go about knocking down or defacing the idols and altars to false gods that were there in abundance. Rather he used the presence of these objects of worship, and the hunger in the hearts of the Athenians that these objects brought to light, to engage in one of the most brilliant pieces of evangelistic discourse ever recorded (Acts 17).
We are told, "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse." (Romans 12:14, NASB95) And to not "pay back evil for evil to anyone. . . . If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." While burning a copy of the Quran might make some of us feel courageous and righteous, I would recommend that which takes far more courage, and not only feels righteous, but is righteous and spreads righteousness.
Some folk I know have offered to study the Quran with nominal Muslims. As the emptiness of the book--and even more so, the emptiness it leaves in the heart--is made clear, my friends have been able to share the truth of Jesus Christ with these folk.
Another friend of mine--a tall red-head (well, it is mostly gray now)--pastors a church and leads a school in a Muslim land. He has not led followers of Mohammed to to become followers of Christ by burning copies of the Quran. He has done it by loving those whom others--even their own Muslim neighbors--have rejected. That kind of love will shine brighter and farther than any fire you will start this Saturday. Pastor Jones, I urge you not to burn the Quran, not because it is risky, but because it is wrong. Sincerely in Christ, Howard Merrell It's STTA.

Well worth reading . . .

I plan to read it again.
This is from Billy Graham's grandson. Pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian.
Pastor Tchividjian makes a point I have been making for years. I love it when people--especially well-known people--agree with me.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2010/08/22/we-are-one/

Folk thinking about what is going on in New York:

I haven't forgotten about the Fundamentalist - Evangelical article. I'm letting it digest a bit & will get back to it.
Meanwhile, on my other blog, Something to Think About (See sidebar), I recently posted something about the controversy over the Mosque near ground zero. Since I also send STTA to a mailing list I received some replies.
Below for your convenience, I have copied the original post. After I have cut-and-pasted some of the thoughts I received. Good stuff. It would appear that folk are doing what I always hope they will do with STTA--think about it.

Monday, August 23, 2010

This could get me in trouble, but think about it:
At this point I can't imagine that anyone in the whole country is unaware of plans to build an Islamic-Center/Mosque at a site so close to where the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11 that the building currently on the site is damaged from the landing-gear of one of the planes. Various polls indicate that most Americans are opposed to it being built there. If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf calls me and asks my advice, I'd encourage him to build the center elsewhere. (If you are reading this Feisal, my number is in the book.) However . . .Whether our nation is a "Christian" nation or not, from a historical perspective is a subject of sharp debate. Based on influence that the Bible and Christian thought have had on our culture and institutions, it seems to me that in that sense we are. We need to be aware, though, that our Founding Fathers clearly, and purposefully chose not to create a government that supported a particular religion over others. I doubt that their thinking went much beyond a consideration of the spectrum of Christendom, and perhaps Judaism, but the laws they left us, confirmed by two-and-a-quarter centuries of practice clearly extend freedom of conscience even to those whose faith is radically different than the majority view. One of the wonderful freedoms we enjoy in these United States is that minorities are protected by law. As long as the few are exercising their rights lawfully, the majority cannot deprive them of that freedom.In recent years many communities have become opposed to churches being built in their "back-yards." Objections range from traffic congestion, to noise, to loss of tax revenue. I wonder if there are other reasons that lurk below the surface. I'll not step in the same mud-hole as our President, but I do think we have to be careful how we frame our argument. Some of the rhetoric being used to discourage the building of the Cordoba Center in Lower Manhattan could be, with little change, used to oppose my grandmother's church from building a new Worship-Center on the south side of Hometown USA.Let's just make sure that we speak in favor freedoms that we might need.It's STTA.

Comments:

One respondent corrected some information: "Its not a mosque though, nor is it called the Cordoba center any longer. Its just called I think Park 51." I'll not take the time to sort out what is the current working name, etc. The respondent did go on to say that the Islamic Center would include a "prayer space." I'm not sure what the distinction, if any, between that and a mosque would be. I'll leave that to others.
The same respondent: "It was supposed to promote tolerance and inclusion of multiple faiths, but so much for that now.Some folks brought dogs to protest the morning prayers at a prayer space a few blocks away from the proposed Park 51.. classy.Ballot initiatives and movements are growing to make new mosques illegal. (I should note that similar things have just occurred in France and Denmark)
Its pretty ugly up here about it.. really embarrassing stuff. Its mainly related to the election cycle. . . . shameful."

Several respondents agreed with my sentiments--it shouldn't be built there, but it is legal for them to do so. One said, "I really hope it doesn't go up."

Interesting comparison: "Should the Japanese build a monument to their victory at Pearl Harbor AT Pearl Harbor? Probably not."

One reply recommended that if they do build it, the best response would be to ignore it. Don't let them control how we feel. "So many choose to offend. So many choose to be offended."

As I expected some readers had another view:
"You must not listen to talk radio, or you'd know there's a whole lot more to this issue than meets the eye, rendering your position way off the mark." (For the record, I had been on the road & listened to 3 radio talk-shows on the subject. It was partly what encouraged me to write.)
After referring to the similarity between interpreting scripture and the US Constitution an old friend said, "The intent of the authors has long been set aside by both conservatives and liberals, making the verbiage of the constitution fair game for most any agenda. And so the argument goes . . . until Christ returns.The building of a mosque is not a religious matter with Islam. It is an act of aggression by an enemy of the state. To apply religious freedom concepts to it is to use the wrong constitutional sections in a very unwise and improper manner." [emphasis added]

Finally, one reader offered some thoughts on even-handedness and government neutrality:
" I am concerned that the Orthodox church that was destroyed is about ready to give up fighting with the Port Authority on rules and regulations that are keeping them from building. Will the mosque encounter the same rigid standard? I thought government was to be separated from the church? If so, why is the government giving the impression they are pushing this matter forward and paying for some of the groundwork?"
This concern is bolstered by the fact that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is currently on a good-will tour as a representative of the United States.

Think on, pray much. The answer is not in a hole in New York, but on a hill in Jerusalem.

I Both Embrace and Reject Fundamentalism:

Several years ago a Bible College instructor whom I greatly respect came up to me after I had been privileged to preach in chapel at the conservative, I think in the good sense of the word, Fundamental, Bible College where he teaches, and observed, "You are on a crusade, aren't you?"
I was glad he noticed. I'm not sure if he intended his comments as I took them, but I was encouraged. Perhaps I am the ecclesiastical version of Don Quixote, tilting at windmills hung from steeples, but I do continue on, lance in hand.
As far as I understand what it means to be one in the historic sense, I am a Fundamentalist. As far as how Fundamentalism has come to be defined at this point in history, I utterly reject the label. Too many Fundamentalists became too committed to too many principles, convictions, and conclusions that weren't fundamental at all. They allowed--in some cases caused--themselves to be defined by what music they didn't use, what Bible translations they rejected, which well known Evangelicals they separated from, etc., etc. They made silly distinctions, such as separating from Theologically solid people who failed to do due diligence to some Fundamentalist sacred-cow, while continuing to tolerate--in too many cases even embracing--those who hold to heresies like King-James-Only-ism. No wonder many young people who grew up watching these contradictions rejected the whole business.
When I've had the opportunity--they are few, and my circle of influence is small--I have challenged this drift in our movement. Thus my friend's observation: It may be a tempest in a Theological teapot, but I am crusading when I have opportunity.

Recently I came across an article by Dr. Kevin Bauder, President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis. Bauder appears to be a Fundamentalist with solid credentials, yet in his article, "Let's Get Clear On This," he chides his colleagues for some of their foolish distinctions and lack of sound thinking. I highly encourage you to read the article and then the follow-up articles, http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time. The follow-up articles are listed in reverse order. As of today there are eleven. You need to scroll to page two in order to find the first one, "Now, About Those Differences, Part 1 - Why This Discussion?"

The whole set of articles is well worth the time it will take to read them. I'm so impressed, I'll be taking time to read them again. I hope to post some comments on this blog. I welcome yours.