Thankful:

Thanksgiving began tonight.
For the last, who knows how many, years Covington Bible Church has participated in a Thanksgiving service with several other local churches.  This year it was our turn to host the service.  We chose to keep it simple, to emphasize the ministries of labor in our churches every week, and to give an offering to others who have needs.  I hope the other folk who were part of the service appreciated it as much as I did.  I am thankful.
It was good to be reminded of why we should be thankful, even in hard times.  It seems that we have gotten really good at whining and complaining.  It was good to be reminded that what we ought to be doing is offering thanks.  No one who participated in the service was whistling in the dark.  They were folk who had lived long enough, looked hard enough, and yielded to God's plan completely enough, that they have come to see that indeed God is good.
Thanks.
A group of young people from our church presented a funny and thought-provoking drama about the importance of thanksgiving.  I confess that there are times in my life when I could be rightly arrested for failure to be thankful.  Lord deliver me.
Thanks.
It was good to be reminded that I am part of a team.  Several churches banded together in tonight's service.  I could focus on those who weren't there--if you look at the rolls of the participating churches there were far more who weren't there than were--but I choose to focus on those who were: fellow pastors, dedicated missionaries, solid leaders, dedicated workers--the kind of people who build the Kingdom of God.
Thanks.
Thanksgiving began, for me, tonight.  May it last all year.

Christianity is about faith in Christ

From the message this morning at Covington Bible Church, from Acts 24:24-26. The rich, powerful, and beautiful Felix and Drusilla, heard Paul on faith in Christ Jesus.

In our day of pluralism and tolerance gone amok, we need to be very clear.  Christianity is about faith in Christ.  Not just faith in a generic Supreme power kind of a God, the great Architect of the Universe, or the Higher Power however you define she, he or it.  We are talking faith in Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, Who was born as a man, lived a sinless life, died as our substitute, came forth from Grave in victory and lives today to intercede for and save forever all who put their trust in him.We need to be kind and polite and respectful to Jews and Muslims and believers in the gold mega-ball, but we cannot back off one inch from the reality that there is “one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”  We must not compromise from the absolute conviction that there “is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”  

Except for my gray hair I look like a paleo-evangelical, but I'm not quite ready to adopt the label as mine.

A young friend of mine, Bart Gingrich, recently introduced me to a new label, here.  I'm pretty tired of labeling, and particularly relabeling--as if calling something by a new name somehow made it different.  This label, though, caught my attention.  Bart, in his article, responded to an article by Thomas Kidd.  A colleague of Bart's also contributed a piece--sort of an across-the-table-with-coffee, friendly debate.  This morning again through Bart--he expands the view from my keyhole--I found that the new moniker, and Bart's article had been passed up the food-chain to First Things, here.

I've had three primary reactions to the discussion about "paleo-evangelicals":

1. I regard it as a very good thing.  I have for sometime thought that the dual sleeping arrangement between a large section of Evangelicalism and what I would call conservative politics has been unhelpful, and, more importantly, unhealthy.  It appears to me that those who are saying, "I guess I am a paleo-evangelical."  Share that discomfort with their political bedfellow's snoring.  My thinking on this was advanced and clarified by some of Chuck Colson's writings, and a very practical straight forward little book, Blinded By Might, written by two former associates of Jerry Fallwell,  Cal Thomas, and Ed Dobson.  To a lesser extent my thinking was tweaked by David Kinnaman & Gabe Lyons' book, Un-Christian.
2. I was actually surprised--pleasantly so, mostly.  As the name of my blog would imply, I don't get out much.  Even as I type this, I have other, much more local things to do.  So it isn't hard to bring up things in the bigger world that surprise me.  I think, though, that I'm more thoughtfully surprised on this one.  I know that the first half of the hyphenated term was transplanted from a well established--though not popularly recognized--label, Paleo-conservative."  Applying "paleo" to evangelical would indicate that this is what evangelicalism was, before it became what it is today.  If I'm wrong about that, I hope my better informed friends will correct me.  But what I find somewhat shocking is that Evangelicalism has morphed into a movement--at least this is how it appears to a significant body of thinking observers--that is identified more by its politics than it's Theology.  At this point I go back to reaction #1.  I'm glad for the recognition.
   I also offer an apology.  I get the idea that I'm much older than most of the voices in this conversation. I'm about forty years older than Bart.  I don't regard myself as directly responsible, but on the part of my generation, I just want to say that I'm sorry.  I'm sorry that we made, or allowed "Evangelical" to become a political term rather than a word that calls to mind what it originally meant--Good News, John 3:16, and Amazing Grace.
3. This is really #2 from the other side, and a return to #1, sort of:
   I am an Evangelical.  As you can tell from some of my previous postings on this blog, I have been somewhat conflicted over that title, but I wear the title with much more comfort than I ever have before.  I grew up in the result of, and the core of my education came from, the Fundamentalist movement that took place in the first half  of the Twentieth Century.  I was taught that "Evangelicalism" was a bad word.  I still have friends that regard it as such.  As I observed what happened to Fundamentalism in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, and as I grew (I hope).  I came to mostly reject the label Fundamentalist.  I hadn't really changed what I believed, but I saw that in the eyes of many--in particular young people--Fundamentalism was seen as something that I wanted no part of.  So, with apologies to some of my forebears, I, mostly, quit using the title.*
   At the same time, though, Evangelicalism took on overtones with which I was not comfortable.  Unlike many of you in this conversation, I was alive before the Moral Majority.  A large part of my thinking here was shaped, not by broad reading and careful reasoning, but by association with some very Godly people who were absolutely Evangelical in the Biblical sense, but thoroughly un-evangelical as defined as a political movement.  If you search this blog for "political" and/or "politics" you'll find that on my side of the keyhole I've been campaigning for some time, that evangelicalism is not a political movement.  I'm sorry we have allowed it to become seen as such.  I would challenge others in the conversation--unless they are political operatives of the ilk who can tell you which way Toyota driving accountants are going to vote (I guess you are paid to that)--to stop looking at Evangelicalism through a political lens.  Yes, because Evangelicals tend to take seriously what the Bible actually says, we are likely to be pro-life, for instance, but to say Evangelicalism is pro-life, as if that defined us, is to distort us.  

Bottom line.  I reject the label Paleo-evangelical.  Not because what I've seen so far does not describe me, it does, mostly.  I said as much in my comment, here.  I reject the label, because I'm not prepared to surrender most of the field and claim just a corner.  I maintain that what is described as Paleo-evangelicalism is really Evangelicalism.  Let's describe the other folk as Politically-distorted-evangelicals, and reclaim the word "Evangelical" for what it really means.

*It doesn't quite fit in the flow of this piece, but the book, Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, helped clarify my thinking.  Chiefly, the editors choice to include Fundamentalism as one of the subsets of Evangelicalism confirmed a view I have had for some time.  Historically, and Theologically they have common roots.  

Is This OK?

Some time ago I was made aware of the Lifebook Project, http://thelifebook.com/about/.
It is a very simple concept.  It involves students giving a book to fellow students.  The bulk of the book is the gospel of John; the rest is some Old Testament background and questions and answers for teens.  You can see all of the book at the link above.  

The books are provided for free by the Gideons International.  
I and my associate decided this could be a great opportunity for our students.  I signed Covington Bible Church up.  A sister church also registered.  We received 1,000 books each--enough to saturate the middle and high schools in our area.
Having signed up and received the books, I was about at the end of what I could do.  This is a student to student project.  So I approached several high school and briefly described the project.  Every one of them quickly said they would be involved.  In fact one of the student leaders actually approached me and told me that she wanted to lead the effort at her school.  Some of us met together to eat pizza and watch the training videos--they are on the website, too--and I pretty much told the teens they were on their own.  A few weeks later a couple of them came to me and said this and that, and is it OK if we do it this way?  I told them it is their project.  Go with it.  
They did and are.
It makes a gray-haired pastor thankful.

In the last couple of days we have received some discouraging news.  Even though it is completely legal for students to engage in religious activity in non-disruptive ways, some of our local administrators and school boards have said the students cannot pass out these books, or they are being needlessly restrictive.

I am including the links to some information about the legality of this kind of activity toward the bottom of this post, but before I list them let me say a couple of things to you adults.

• Please commend these youngsters for being willing to participate in this project.  I'm doing it right now.  You gals and guys rock!  I hope adults rise to the challenge of evangelism, as you have.
• Let's not get in the rock-throwing, chanting, marching on the school board office mode.  Unfortunately we live in a time in which the ACLU and groups like them have cowed school systems into submission.  (There are lots of political implications to that, but those are matters for another post.)  It really doesn't matter to many school systems who is right.  What matters is the knowledge that if they get taken to court, it will cost them money--money they don't have.  I don't want to be guilty of using the same bullying tactics as the other side.  Rather, I appeal to the consciences of those in charge.  What these youngsters want to do is right, and it is wrong to tell them that they can't.  BTW, A BIG THANKS TO THOSE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WHO ARE WORKING WITH US.
• In appropriate ways, make the facts known.  We live in a land where there are appropriate ways to make the truth known.  I'm not encouraging you to be obnoxious, at least not too obnoxious--in fact I hope you will be nice--but I am also not saying you should be quiet.  We probably shouldn't be quiet.  That's why I publishing this.
• Know that the Gospel is not stopped by these kinds of roadblocks.  Let's go on.  BTW, if you can come up with a creative way of distributing these books off-campus, let me know.  I'll try to help.

Resources:

In 1995 President Bill Clinton and US Secretary of Education
Richard Riley wrote clearly and extensively about the rights of students on school property.  Here is a brief quotation, followed by the link to much more:

. . . the First Amendment imposes two basic and equally important obligations on public school officials. . . . First, schools may not forbid students acting on their own from expressing their personal religious views or beliefs . . . [and] must give students the same right to engage in religious activity and discussion as they have to engage in other comparable activity. . . . At the same time schools my not endorse religious activity or doctrine. . . . 

http://www.thelifebook.com/resources/downloads/documents/tlatlb.pdf

Here is another article that explains the rights of students: http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12816 

Summary of what the above looks like to me:
I'm a preacher and not a lawyer, but it would appear to me that unless the schools that are preventing the distribution of Lifebooks are also banning passing out invitations to birthday parties, and advertisements for non-school concerts, tractor-pulls, and scout meeting, that they are violating the rights of students by zeroing in on this project because of its religious content. 

  

Politics, Let's Let the Church Be the Church:

I just published this on my STTA blog.
This one, though is less "daily" than a lot of what gets put there, so I'm posting here as well.

Politics is a horribly messy business.  I have frequently found myself voting for people that I don't think I would really like, if I had the opportunity to get to know them.  In past local elections--where I actually do know some of the candidates--I have found myself voting against people that I actually do like.  On one occasion, I remember trying to talk myself into voting for a guy.  "He's nice."  "He means well."  I remember a politically active lady asking me--sincerely and somewhat plaintively--concerning issues regarding the sanctity of life.  "Can't we make room for just a little of this?"  The woman was caught in the messiness of politics.  She is committed to the Biblical position of human life from conception onward being sacred, yet, at the time of our conversation, she continued a life-long  allegiance to a political party that is overwhelmingly "pro-choice."  My dad put food on the table through his labors in a steel mill.  Not only did he wear a hardhat, he gave old discarded ones to me and my siblings so we could play with them.  So I sympathize with the voters in my predominantly blue-collar area.  Some of my neighbors sat on the knees of grandfathers who wheezed out stories of mines, and miners, in the days when virtually every underground miner contracted blacklung.  It was just a part of business.  Folk with that kind of a background tend to see politics along the lines of "Us and them."  It was the alliance between certain business interests and certain politicians that resulted in labor being exploited in times past--some would say, still today.  And it was an opposing alliance that brought better conditions to working people.  It's complicated. Our national election, almost four years ago, caused the messiness to explode in many homes and some churches.  Lot's of older evangelicals said, "How could you vote for a platform that doesn't honor the sanctity of life?"  Many younger evangelicals said, "Here is an opportunity to decisively speak against the greatest injustice in the history of our nation.  How can you not vote for that?"  There was, and is, a strong case on each end.  Knowing my characterization is a great oversimplification, I present it as one more illustration of the messiness of politics. As one who has led a church for all of my adult life, and who has sought to influence the church.from my seat in my modest study in a small church in a little town, I put out a warning/challenge:  Let's not allow the messiness of politics to sully the church, the Bride of Christ.  I plan to say some more but here is a starting place.  Let us know with rock-solid, unshakable certainty that the relief people desperately need does not lie primarily in the political realm.  That is because the problems are primarily spiritual.  We deal in the Word of God.  We offer the water of life.  We represent the King of kings and Lord of lords.  Let's not allow the church to be seen as the lackey of a political party or movement.  Let's let the church be the church. Here, is an excellent article that says much of the above better than I say it:  http://sbcvoices.com/d-a-carson-on-angry-christians-and-the-devils-tactics/

Continued, Courageous Bible Interpretation:

The "How do I want it to turn out?" question:
Let me start right in with an example.  I came of age in the church in the early 70s.  It was a time when Fundamentalism, of which I was (maybe am) a part, was spelled with a capital "F."  One of the tenents of the brand of Fundamentalism of which I was a part was a total, or almost total condemnation of divorce and remarriage.  When I began examining scripture on this subject one of the objections that was raised against any liberalization of the view on marriage, was basically, If you say this, then they will do that."  In other words let's decide the outcome that we want, and then say that's what the Bible teaches.  It was never blatantly stated, but that was the clear implication.
I've heard the same rational put forth concerning the Bible's teaching about drinking alcohol, and concerning teaching about upholding Christian liberty.
It is legitimate to follow a scriptural interpretation through to its application and ask whether that application is consistent with what we know about scripture and God, but there is a difference between using this "Where does it lead?" question as one of the tests that apply to an interpretation and making it the controlling concern.  We distort the scripture when we ask what interpretation do I need to adopt in order to lead to the ethical teaching I want?"  Instead we need to fearlessly ask, "What does the Bible say?"  Having answered that, then I need to seek to responsibly put that into a consistent Biblical ethic.
There needs to be a certain fearlessness in proper Bible interpretation.
Have the courage to ask, "What does it say?"  not, "What do I want it to say, so it will lead to the behavior I want?"

". . . in ways wonderful to behold."

I have been reading a book that originated as a set of lectures by A. T. Robertson, delivered at Princeton Seminary nearly a 100 year ago.  The Pharisees and Jesus is a worthwhile read--so far anyhow.  Over the course of my ministry I have read a good bit about the Pharisees.  I am always amazed at their hermeneutic and ethical gymnastics.  Robertson made me aware of one routine I hadn't seen before (or had forgotten) Is it acceptable to eat an egg that a hen laid on the Sabbath?  One doesn't have to go farther than the New Testament to observe the contortions Robertson speaks of:  "They either read all the oral law into the written law (eisegesis) or twisted it out of the written law (exegesis) in ways wonderful to behold."* (emphasis added)  Just look at Matthew 23 and Mark 7:9-13 for some examples.
Another good read on Pharisaism is Extreme Righteousness, by Tim Hovestol.  He points out that 21st Century (Well it was still the 20th when he wrote.) Conservative Christians bear a closer resemblance to the Pharisees than they (we) may care to admit.  This premise has been born out in my reading of Robertson, thus far.
One of the similarities of 1st Century Palestinian Pharisees and 21st Century American Evangelicals is our faulty hermeneutics (principles of interpreting scripture).  I hope to explore this concept over the next few posts.  I would welcome your input.


At this point indulge me, and perhaps be amused, while I use humor to make a point.  There are several versions of this joke.  If your version is better, please share it.  A Fortune 500 executive had an important decision to make.  He needed some data.  He called in his lawyer, the head of public relations, an accountant, and an economist.  After explaining the gravity of his situation he told them he needed their best answer to a question.  Each of them were to report separately on, "How much is 2 + 2?"
The accountant was sure that he knew the answer, but had been recently accused of bean-counting and not understanding the nuances and complexities of business, so doubt began to creep into his mind.  He spent a sleepless night wrestling with formulas, and running calculations on several different computers.  The next morning the strain was evident on his face when he fearfully reported, "Four."
The PR guy and the economist likewise stayed up all night plying their trade.  The PR specialist shared various surveys.  "If women spend $2.00 for one item, and $2.00 for another, they consistently report the sum to their husbands as "about $3.00."  On the other hand surveys show that when a fisherman catches two fish each weighing two pounds he reports the total to his fishing buddies as "about five pounds."  With a possibility of error of +or- 3 my research indicates 4."  
Fine the exec said and dismissing him, called in the economist, who after displaying an office full of charts declared that he was comfortable with a range of three to five with things in (insert state of choice) trending toward six."
Giving him time to gather his stuff the decision-maker thanked his employee and sent for his lawyer.  He had stopped off on his way home the evening before for a few games of tennis, after a sumptuous meal he had enjoyed time with his family, and slept soundly.  Tanned and fit he strode into the room, pulled down the window shade, and made sure the door was locked.  Satisfying himself that no one was listening he leaned across the bosses desk and in a low whisper asked, "How much do you want it to be?"


Too often that is the approach that we take in our interpretation of scripture.  We already have a conclusion then we go to the Bible to justify it.  Here are some ways that I have seen this happen:

• The "Which Translation?" question:
  Those of us who are English speakers are blessed with a number of good translations of the Bible.  Generally they say the same thing--perhaps one doing a better job of it than another.  Sometimes though they don't.  I ran into this with the text I was dealing with last Sunday.  In Luke 18:11 some translations indicated that the Pharisee prayed to himself.  Others have him standing by himself praying.  I'll let those more capable than me weigh in on the Greek grammar, etc.  The fact of the matter is, I want the passage to say he prayed to himself, because that translation fits my sermon better.  I came to the conclusion that that is the best translation, for reasons that, no doubt, some of you would regard as inadequate, but the fact of the matter is that I need to restrain the "What do I want it say?" question, (I hope I did.) and work hard (2 Timothy 2:15) to answer the only question that really matters--"What does the text say?"
  Here is a yellow flag for laypersons.  If a book, sermon, or study sheet, quotes from a number of Bible translations, it is fair to ask, "Is the author picking translations that agree with him, or is he using the translation that best captures the sense of the original?"
  Sometimes "things wonderful to behold" take place in this regard.
• The "How Do I Want It To Turn Out?" question:
  Stay tuned.