Impact

Proverbs 27:17
"As iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another"

Today at work, I had a good conversation. I was doing a project with a co-worker that required us to spend about 4 hours together. In the time we had together we talked about lots of religious and bio-ethical topics. He is a recent convert from a somewhat shallow evangelical Christianity to the tradition rich faith of Roman Catholicism. After some discussion, I was able to discern that he seems to have a very strong grasp on the gospel of grace and a trusting relationship with Christ.

Despite his new allegiance to the Holy See, this gentleman was explaining his view on abortion and I realized that he was not in keeping with the official Catholic position. He said that he felt as if abortion was wrong BUT we shouldn't tell women what to do with their own body. I spent 20-30 minutes outlining my position that abortion does not only involve one actor. There are, in fact, two persons affected by the act of abortion. I argued that the "thing" inside a woman has different genetic DNA than she does, it is growing, and it feels pain. Amongst other things, these seem to lend evidence to the truth of that "thing" being a human being. Granted, a very small human being in the earliest stages of development - but human nevertheless.

He conceded that the baby in a stage of gestation was a human. Then, I talked about the role of society in setting up rules for what we can do to others - how murder, rape, and assault are all forbidden and penalized by law because they injure another human being aganist that persons will. If abortion is essentially the act of one human (mom) deciding to kill another human (baby) without the victims consent, it can't ever be ok.

Shortly after I finished my position, we went to lunch. When we came back he told me that he spent the lunch break musing over the issue and that he had decided that he needed to change his position into the one that I hold (the one I believe is biblical). I was so happy for this brother in Christ. I think he is a very caring person who was simply confused on the subject, probably by the lies fed to us thru media and news outlets. I will continue to pray for this young warrior of the faith. I hope he is used in a mighty way by God and that I may be an instrument of the Lord in shaping him.

Just some fun

This is nothing theological or philosophical - just dumb fun. Actually its dumb fun from several years ago. I just ran across these again and I always find them funny - maybe you do too. Feel free to insert your favorite hardcore person for Chuck Norris...

1. Chuck Norris’ tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
2. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
3. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
4. The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.
5. Chuck Norris can win a game of Monopoly without owning any property.
6. There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.
7. Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
8. Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
9. Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
10. When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
11. If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris.
12. If you work in an office with Chuck Norris, don't ask him for his three-hole-punch.
13. Chuck Norris once won a game of Connect Four in 3 moves.

Seven Pounds (of crap)

Tiffany and I watched the movie "Seven Pounds" the other night. My parents were over and we went up to blockbuster and decided to rent something entertaining. We were misled.

Seven Pounds is a depressing and predictable drama starring the Fresh Prince himself, Will Smith. (BTW, what ever happened to the actor who played Carlton?) It is the story of a very wealthy CEO who owns an aeronautical engineering company. One night he is driving down the freeway with his wife and he is texting (a pet peeve of mine.) Not looking at the road he causes a major crash, it kills his wife and 6 other people.

Apparently, he is subsequently spending several years in a downward spiral of depression. FInally, he hatches a plan of self-made redemption. He will steal his brothers IRS agent ID, hack into the governments computers to find 7 worthy individuals, give these people his most valueable items, and then join his victims in the afterlife. His choices for "good" people are pretty mundane:

A blind meat home delivery telemarketer, an abused Hispanic women and her two kids, a young black boy in need of bone marrow, a hockey coach needing a kidney, and a young woman with congenital heart failure.

As the movie progresses, we see Will Smith moving into a hotel, ignoring his brother, and then we see the unfolding of a relationship between Will and the woman with heart failure (Rosario Dawson). She is really lonely for some reason AND she is always two seconds from sudden death - sad. Will befriends her, helps her in numerous ways, then sleeps with her. She is smitten with him and allows herself to dream of marriage and kids even. Will goes to her doctor and asks the chance of her survival - he is told 3-5%. That night, without a word to anyone, he kills himself in a bizarre self-induced jellyfish attack.

This movie stunk it up. It was plodding, easy to decipher, and incredibly melancholy. I believe that the producers were looking to create a moving story about a man making his own salvation by doing good things for good people, before dying himself. I saw Will Smiths actions are extremely selfish and pathetically cowardly. Suicide never proves beneficial for anyone. The person is dead, and while they may escape the pain of this world, they might not escape the torment of eternity without God - depends I guess. Also, tons of people are left behind with questions and grief.

In this movie, Will Smith romances this girl, has sex with her, sneaks out without a word, kills himself, gives her his heart. Not heroic. It would have been heroic to have given that girl love and peace and joy regardless of the time she had left or whether she got a donor or not. At the end of the movie we see Rosario Dawson acting all happy that she is alive with Wills heart. In reality, I think that most women would have been devastated by what Will did. It was a wierd movie.

In the end, I know a better story. Its a moving story about a God-man who freely gives away his salvation by doing the ultimate good thing (bearing our penalty unto death) and the gift that is given is given to wretched, horrific people, folks who do not deserve it. At the end of this story is real heart replacement and eternal joy, no pain and no grief. I wish more people would make movies about that story and the countless stories that have been inspiried by it.

Idol Worship

Today at work I was doing a lot of mindless scanning and I was able to listen to my iPod all day. This morning, I had the wonderful opportunity to download various sessions from The Gospel Coalition annual conference, held last month in Chicago) and so I spent my afternoon learning from Tim Keller of Redeemer PCA in New York City.

The talk by Keller was regarding the idols of the heart. He discussed the idols of the ancient world as recorded in Acts 19:21-41. He particularly talked about the city of Ephesus and the temple of Artemis there in Paul’s day. He spoke about the importance of recognizing the idols in a society/ person. Only by seeing what they are currently worshiping can we tear down the idol and replace it with the glorious gospel of God’s grace.

Keller defined an idol as “anything that has replaced God as the ultimate object of worship in one’s life.” He says that it was obvious in the ancient world what the idols were, because pagans made carven images representing them. Today it is harder. It is the good things in life that we make supreme which are most often our modern idols.

The 3 main categories that Keller describes are:

Personal
- money
- romance
- children

Religious
- truth
- gifts
- morality

Cultural
- reason
- family
- politics

Then, Keller says that it is a dangerous thing to take on the idols of the world. While the idols themselves are worthless things or non-material things, it is through the idols that the powers and principalities of darkness work. Yet, we see that it is Paul (relying on the victory of Christ at the cross) who dares to take on these idols. It is a task which will bring pain, suffering, and hardship – just as Paul found out.

Nevertheless, we are called to take up our cross and bear the difficulties we may endure as we point out and tear down idols. Not to do so would be denying Christ and acting ashamed of the gospel. We can find rest in the hope that this is a temporary dwelling place – our home awaits us in the future grace that has already been purchased by Jesus.

Also, I was struck by the similarities that Keller points out between the ancient world and today. He notes that the idol of Ephesus (which was the fertility and crop goddess Artemis) was a representation of the idol of business and financial prosperity. It was common for the people of that day to sacrifice children to this idol in exchange for more fortune and wealth by way of good harvest. Then Keller links this ancient practice to modern NYC (where he pastors) which isthe financial center of the world. New York is a climate where abortion and absentee parentism are rampant for the sake of getting ahead in career. “Choosing” to murder an unborn child or leaving ones child with a nanny 90% of the time is not much different than the blatant child sacrifices were in Ephesus.

Interestingly, this topic has been the focus of the past 3 Sundays at my home church as well. Given the apparent emphasis that God is putting on this issue before me, I was also touched by Keller to examine the idols of my own life. Maybe this blog has been a tool for you to examine yours also.

Responding to my Neighbor

I was reading the Henry Neighbor this morning as I ate Corn Flakes with one hand and helped my 6 month old eat baby food Bananas with the other. I ran across this article by Dick Yarbrough.
-------------------------------------------------
I warned you: Dr. Gil can ...Pray Up a Storm
My hair is wet. My socks are mildewed. My joints ache. There is a torrent of water running down the street, and more rain is on the way. Drought? What drought?

I hate to say I told you so, but well — I told you so. Remember when Gov. Sonny Perdue had a prayer session at the state capitol in November 2007, at the height of the drought? I said at that time that you had better get your umbrella ready because he had invited Dr. Gil Watson, the World’s Greatest Preacher, to pray for rain. If Gov. Perdue wasn’t serious about wanting rain, he should have invited one of those weird-dressing televangelists instead. They would have asked the crowd for money instead of asking God for rain.

At that time, the governor said his goal was “to very reverently and respectfully pray up a storm.” He may have been trying to be funny. Frankly, I doubt it. Gov. Perdue is a lot of things. Funny is not one of them. But he hit the jackpot when he turned the matter over to Dr. Gil, who has prayed up a bunch of storms. Now, look at us. I need a rowboat just to get to the grocery store.

Dr. David Stooksbury, Georgia’s head climatologist, isn’t ready to recommend we all run out and build an ark and start loading the giraffes and elephants. According to news reports, he says long-term rainfall deficits are still a concern and that soil moisture levels across south Georgia remain “abnormally dry.” Maybe so, but I read the other day that peanut farmers in south Georgia have had to delay planting next season’s crops because of rain totals that are reported to be 500 percent above normal. They got almost 18 inches from mid-March to April. Maybe the state’s climatologist, Dr. Stooksbury, needs to confer with God’s climatologist, Dr. Watson.

It is a theological fact that God likes Dr. Gil a lot. For one thing, neither God nor Dr. Gil has any hang-ups with women being preachers. Women can be governors, senators, secretaries of state, House speakers, CEOs, professional golfers, skydivers and Army generals, so why not preachers? Before you Bible-thumpers rail at me about what the Good Book says about women in the pulpit, be sure and read the part that talks about how women should dress in church and not speak out. Don’t go choosing the verses that suit your fancy and passing on the ones that don’t.

We aren’t talking about ordering cafeteria vegetables here.

And while I am on the subject, neither God nor Dr. Gil would refuse a child her first communion because she was allergic to wheat, and the church said she couldn’t have a rice wafer because it was against the rules. Anybody who wants to defend that piece of wrongheaded thinking needs first to read the part in the New Testament where Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not.” He didn’t add, “unless they have a wheat allergy, and then they are just flat out of luck. Hey, rules are rules.”

God doesn’t care about all the rigmarole that we humans make up just so we can claim to be right and everybody else wrong. He wants us to obey the Ten Commandments and love each other. Dr. Gil does both of those better than anybody I know, with the possible exception of Billy Graham. That is why God likes Dr. Gil and why we are all wearing hip waders to work these days.

Now that he has the state as soggy as a tomato sandwich on white bread, I have this nagging feeling that Dr. Gil Watson, the World’s Greatest Preacher, is going to turn his attention to trying to save my sorry soul. God and I wish him all the best in that endeavor.

Making it rain in Attapulgus and Hahira and Varnell is one thing. Making me a kinder and gentler person is more along the scale of feeding the masses with five loaves of bread and a few fish.

That would be a miracle.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I decided to respond...

Mr. Yarbrough,

Thanks for your recent praise of the power or prayer in the "I warned you..." editorial. God often uses the prayers of his people to bring blessing upon us. Even when our prayers are not answered in the way we hope for, prayer is still vital as a link to relationship with God. Ultimately, he will be most glorified in whatever he wills to occur. I am thankful that he has sovereignty decided that Georgia should experience some relief from drought, even if it means more time behind my lawnmower than last summer.

However, after reading your article I was dismayed by your theological convictions and I felt compelled to respond in the case that you are misunderstanding the faith. You said "God doesn’t care about all the rigmarole that we humans make up just so we can claim to be right and everybody else wrong. He wants us to obey the Ten Commandments and love each other." I certainly agree that God is not concerned about man-made religion. Yet, your characterization of what does interest God is quite off the mark. In Matthew 22:36-40 we read the Pharisees asking Jesus "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Clearly from Scripture we can glean that our greatest duty, in fact our greatest joy, is found in loving God with our whole being - not obeying the Ten Commandments. Confusing the relational aspect of Christianity with the legalistic aspect of religion is a common occurrence in society, one I am afraid you may have fallen into. We can read from the apostle Paul in Galatians 3 as he explains the difference between the two. He says that the purpose of the law is to lead us to Christ. In essence, to show us our inability to obtain perfection and our subsequent need for Jesus. It is only in a relationship of faith in Jesus as Savior that we might find salvation. Stemming from that relationship of faith is a relationship of obedience to Jesus as our Lord. Once he has become the chief treasure of our life we begin a process of being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, in which we may gradually become more law-abiding, kinder, gentler, etc... The observance of law without relationship is empty legalism; the observance of law within relationship is loving obedience. The key is that our salvation depends not on our efforts to follow rules or be nice to folks - but on God's mercy and grace through the work of Jesus on the cross, cleansing us from our sin - if we believe and trust.

Secondly, I imagine that your reflection on communion and wheat wafers may refer to Haley Waldman of New Jersey. I was likewise appalled by this incident. As a Reformed Protestant I might be opposed to the stance of Rome for different reasons than you, nevertheless I agree that this is a real shame. However, I don't think that we can object to the teachings about the sacrament by quoting a single Bible verse in response. I think we must object more generally about the nature of the Catholic view of the Lords Supper in contrast to what the Bible tells us. But, as that is more of an in-house (and detailed) matter, I will be satisfied to say that I agree with your condemnation of that situation.

Lastly, I think that your view of women serving in the role of church leadership is not a biblical view. This may make me a "Bible-thumper" as you termed it, but I feel that it is an important subject. It is not a breaking point for me, I think it is a secondary matter (compared to my initial point regarding the glorious message of grace vs. the wage based system of law), yet it is worth speaking to. The logic that argues for women leaders in church because of the roles of women in society is faulty. The bible speaks less-clearly to the role of women outside the church while it does speak volumes about the role of women in God's designed order. It is clear in Scripture that women are created equal yet deferent (an allusion to the role of Jesus within the Trinity). The role of women as under the headship of men seems to stem from the sin of Eve in Eden. She was deceived and yet Adam was called to account. The plan of God was to give overarching responsibility in life, and especially in church, to the men. Within this structure we see that women are not to exercise authority over men in church, noted in 1st Timothy 2:12. I could go on about this matter, but others have done a far better job. Check out the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood for more details (http://www.cbmw.org/).

Ultimately, I was delighted to read your column giving God the credit for brining the rain, through the prayers of your favorite pastor and others. God always deserves our adoration and worship. I was just concerned about some of the other points you made in your piece and I hope you have found my reply to be challenging and thoughtful.

Best regards,
Jason
McDonough, GA

Conversation

(A conversation I had today with a co-worker. She is an anthropology major at a local university. She will soon be heading off to get a graduate degree in that field. She was raised in a fundamentalist church enviorment. I have tried to recapture the talk that we had as accurately as my feeble human memory will allow...)

Her: "I just get tired of people saying that I have to believe everything in the Bible to be a Christian."

Me: "Yeah, I understand that. I don't agree that to be a Christian one has to believe everything in the Bible. It seems that there are some foundational things you would have to put your trust in - but some of the secondary issues could be set aside and one could still be Christian."

Her: "What would you say those essential beliefs are?"

Me: "I would say that you most fundamentally need to believe in, and trust in, Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Of course, to do that a few supporting facts would need to be assented to. You need to believe in a transcendent personal triune God who created time and the material universe from nothing. He made man in his image and man willfully rebeled aganist him, condeming all people to eternal punishment. Yet, in his mercy he made a rescue plan and subsequently he prepared the way for rescue thru a particular nation and ultimately by a particular man - Jesus. Jesus was born of a virgin, fully God and fully man, and he led a sinless life that culminated in his death on a cross in our place - so that God might be justified in forgiving those who are saved. After his death Jesus rose from the grave and ascended to the hand of the Father, that we would have assurance of his mission and so that death would be forever destroyed - paving our way into the presence of God. Finally, he will come back to judge the world one day and to make all things new again.

Her: "OK, I believe all that. But, so many other things in the Bible have been distorted or misinterpreted. There is alot of allegory and metaphor in the book."

Me: "I am confused about how you can get over the first (and biggest) speed bump - that is, the idea of God - then, up and over the second bump - Jesus' ressurection - yet, you have difficulty with the other stuff. While I don't think you have to believe in the story of Jonah dwelling within a whale for three days to be Christian, I am puzzled about the reason you would reject that and accept the core beliefs."

Her: "Well, everyone has their own view of God."

Me: "Yes, we all do - yet, there is only one true objective God. Do you think that people can get to heaven outside of Jesus?"

Her: "Yeah sure, there are lots of people who never hear of Jesus - I can't see that God would condemn anyone who never even knew about him. If you have a general belief in God and you try to live your life in a moral way, you will make it to heaven."

(At this point I realized she was kidding herself about her professed religion.)

Me: "What if you looked at it as - people get condemned because they sin aganist God, not because they didn't get to hear about Jesus. And by their nature, people hate God and could never make it to heaven on their own works. Yet, in his mercy God has saved some people - turned their inner being into someone who loves him and seeks him - even though no one deserves that grace. Because of that heart change believers have the hope of working towards moral actions and holy ends. We will never realize our full potential until after death, but it will come. The idea here is that morality is a result of salvation not visca versa."

Her: "Then it seems as if we have no free will."

Me: "We do have free will - yet, our will is always going to act as a servant of our inner nature. If you like vanilla ice cream and you hate chocolate ice cream, given the choice, you will always choose vanilla. God dosn't remove our will - he simply directs our inner being so that our will can choose him over evil."

Her: "That sounds like a God I don't want any part of. If he is the one making all the decisions, why dosn't he save everyone from hell?"

Me: "I don't know the answer to that. Two things - one, we have no right (as clay) to question our potter. Two, he may save some and allow some to perish in order that both his holy wrath and his merciful grace can be displayed. By showing both he is more glorified than if only one was demonstrated. Its a hard questions that really boils down to faith. Does all of that sound foolish to you?"

Her: "Yeah, that is crazy. God is about love and he won't reject people if they try hard and believe in him. What an arrogant way to see God."

Me: "Please understand that I am not trying to be a jerk when I say this. I don't think you understand classical Chrisitianity. Too often these days the word is bandied about without any substance. The point of the message is grace - not law. God is love, but he is very clear on how to get on the road to be with him. You said you believed in Jesus and that you felt that belief in him was unnecessary to get to heaven right?"

Her: "Yup"

Me: "What about when Jesus himself says - I am the way, the truth, and the life - no man comes to the Father except by me. That is pretty unambiguous"

Her: "I imagine that is a translation issue. The Hebrew was probably translated by some scholar incorrectly. Furthermore, the writer who penned that had his own agenda and he was writing 60 years after Jesus death."

Me: "The New Testament was written in Greek not Hebrew and there is no reason to believe that there are any major translation issues that affect doctrine in any part of Scripture. Also, the writer certainly wasn't writing 60 years after Jesus death. No Gospel was written after 69 AD, because none of them mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 by the Romans. If we take Acts, it was probably written in the early 60's because it ends without a chapter on Paul's death. Luke wrote his Gospel before he wrote Acts, so we can date that Gospel in the late 50's or early 60's. We know that Mark was the first Gospel to be written - that puts Mark in the mid to late 50's. That is only 20-25 years after Christ's death. That is not very long to wait for a biography, much less four of them."

Her: "OK, but even if it was written that close, the writers all had different views on Jesus according to their agendas. You have to remember that as you read and not trust everything they say about him, like the "I am the Way" comment."

Me: "How do the Gospel writers have views which inherently cause us to question their reliability?"

Her: "Well, look at John - he sees Jesus as divine son of God. Meanwhile, Luke focuses on his miracles and Matthew shows him as the suffering one, which alludes to the sufferage of the Jews under Rome."

Me: "I don't see how this makes the writings unreliable. Just because four different people wrote four seperate biographies about a man and they all focused on different facets of his personality - that doesn't necessarily mean that they are fabricated or false. You need better evidence to sweep away the statements about Jesus that you don't like. It is intellectual dishonest to cut and paste out of the Bible. If you hold to the orthodox Christian faith then you would be hard pressed to simultaneously disregard those passages you disagree with. The faith is built upon that book and what it says, with supporting evidence in history. How do you reconcile your claim to be Christian and your incredibly secular and skeptic analysis of the Bible and biblical history?"

Her: "I don't know. I believe in God and I guess I worship him as Jesus because that is how I was raised. I try to live a good life and I think its incredibly arrogant when people walk around acting as if they know who is going to heaven or they have all the truth."

Me: "I think you hit the nail on the head. It is your upbringing that gave you a belief about Jesus and I think that it has been your secular anthropological education which has challenged those inherited views. In my opinion you are actually a Deist or Theist of sorts and you will probably realize that in the near future, at which point you will drop the Christian moniker completely. I would challenge you to do some serious study of Gods Word and of theology. There is a truth out there. Its a love story of undeserved grace, not our own efforts. If you can gain an unobstructed view of the reality we live in, portrayed by the Bible, your doubts and misgivings about some of these things will fade. I must tell you my sad history. I grew up with a mental assent to the divinity of Jesus, but that is not enough. The book of James tells us that even demons believe. Christianity is about a relationship with God, an intimate connection with the sovereign of the universe. That is a far better thing to study and experience than all of the anthropological journals out there. Give it a shot."

Her: "I think that the real problem is narrow-minded people who set aside good science to spend their days in theology schools discounting the truth we can find with our own hands. And I resent being called a Deist, although it might fit."

(At this point I was called away on another work project. This employee will be leaving us soon to move on. I will pray for her. I feel that I mishandled that conversation on so many points. Yet, I am resting in the truth that it is God who makes the seed grow.)

Joel Osteen and the Glory Story

This article by Michael S. Horton, PhD is located on the web at: http://www.wscal.edu/resources/MichaelHorton_GloryStory.php
Its a good read...

"Name it, claim it"; the "health-and-wealth" or "prosperity gospel" : these are nicknames
for a heresy that in many respects is only an extreme version of perhaps the most typical focus of American Christianity today more generally. Basically, God is there for you and
your happiness. He has some rules and principles for getting what you want out of life and if you follow them, you can have what you want. Just "declare it" and prosperity will come to you. (1) God as Personal Shopper.

Although explicit proponents of the so-called "prosperity gospel" may be fewer than their influence suggests, its big names and best-selling authors (T. D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, and Joyce Meyer) are purveyors of a pagan worldview with a peculiarly American flavor. It's basically what the sixteenth century German monk turned church reformer Martin Luther called the "theology of glory": How can I climb the ladder and attain the glory here and now that God has actually promised for us after a life of suffering? The contrast is the "theology of the cross": the story of God's merciful descent to us, at great personal cost, a message that the Apostle Paul acknowledged was offensive and "foolish to Greeks."

Joel Osteen: Another Verse of a Really Long Song
The attraction of Americans to this version of the "glory story" is evident in the astonishing success of Joel Osteen's runaway best-seller, Your Best Life Now: Seven Steps to Living at Your Full Potential. Beyond his charming personality and folksy style, Osteen's phenomenal attraction is no doubt related to his simple and soothing sampler of the American gospel: a blend of Christian and cultural elements that he picked up not through any formal training, but as the son of a Baptist-turned-prosperity evangelist who was a favorite on the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). However, gone are the eccentric caricatures of "prosperity" televangelism, with its flamboyant style and over-the-top rhetoric.

In the Wal-Mart era of religion and spirituality, every particular creed and any denominational distinctives get watered down. We don't hear (at least explicitly) about our being "little gods," "part and parcel of God," or the blood of Christ as a talisman for healing and prosperity. The strange teachings of his father's generation, still regularly heard on TBN, are not explored in any depth. In fact, nothing is explored in any depth. Osteen still uses the telltale lingo of the health-and-wealth evangelists: "Declare it," "speak it," "claim it," and so forth, but there are no dramatic, made-for-TV healing lines. The pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, TX, which now owns the Compaq Center, does not come across as a flashy evangelist with jets and yachts, but as a charming next-door-neighbor who always has something nice to say.

Although remarkably gifted at the social psychology of television, Joel Osteen is hardly unique. In fact, his explicit drumbeat of prosperity (word-faith) teaching is communicated in the terms and the ambiance that might be difficult to distinguish from most megachurches. Joel Osteen is the next generation of the health-and-wealth gospel. This time, it's mainstream.

As community philosopher Karl Marx said of a consumer-driven culture, "All that is solid melts into the air." Religion, too, becomes a commodity—a product or therapy that we can buy and use for our personal well-being. Exemplifying the moralistic and therapeutic approach to religion, Osteen's message is also a good example of the inability of Boomers to mourn in the face of God's judgment or dance under the liberating news of God's saving mercy. In other words, all gravity is lost—both the gravity of our problem and of God's amazing grace. According to this message, we are not helpless sinners—the ungodly—who need a one-sided divine rescue. (Americans, but especially we Boomers, don't take bad news well.) Rather, we are good people who just need a little instruction and motivation.

"Law-Lite": Salvation From Unhappiness By Doing Your Best
There is no condemnation in Osteen's message for failing to fulfill God's righteous law. On the other hand, there is no justification. Instead of either message, there is an upbeat moralism that is somewhere in the middle: Do your best, follow the instructions I give you, and God will make your life successful. "Don't sit back passively," he warns, but with a gentle pleading suggests that the only reason we need to follow his advice is because it's useful for getting what we want. God is a buddy or partner who exists primarily to make sure we are happy. "You do your part, and God will do his part." (2) "Sure we have our faults," he says, but "the good news is, God loves us anyway." (3) Instead of accepting God's just verdict on our own righteousness and fleeing to Christ for justification, Osteen counsels readers simply to reject guilt and condemnation.(4) Yet it is hard to do that successfully when God's favor and blessing on my life depend entirely on how well I can put his commands to work. "If you will simply obey his commands, He will change things in your favor."(5) That's all: "…simply obey his commands."

Everything depends on us, but it's easy. One wonders if he has ever had a crisis of doubt or moral failure that stripped him naked in God's presence. Osteen seems to think that we are basically good people and God has a very easy way for us to save ourselves—not from his judgment, but from our lack of success in life—with his help. "God is keeping a record of every good deed you've ever done," he says—as if this is good news. "In your time of need, because of your generosity, God will move heaven and earth to make sure you are taken care of." (6)

It may be "Law Lite," but make no mistake about it: behind a smiling Boomer Evangelicalism that eschews any talk of God's wrath, there is a determination to assimilate the gospel to law, an announcement of victory to a call to be victorious, indicatives to imperatives, good news to good advice. The bad news may not be as bad as it used to be, but the good news is just a softer version of the bad news: Do more. But this time, it's easy! And if you fail, don't worry. God just wants you to do your best. He'll take care of the rest.

So who needs Christ? At least, who needs Christ as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29)? The sting of the law may be taken out of the message, but that only means that the gospel has become a less demanding, more encouraging law whose exhortations are only meant to make us happy, not to measure us against God's holiness.

So while many supporters offer testimonials to his kinder, gentler version of Christianity than the legalistic scolding of their youth, the only real difference is that God's rules or principles are easier and it's all about happiness here and now, not being reconciled to a holy God who saves us from ourselves. In its therapeutic milieu, sin is failing to live up to our potential, not falling short of God's glory. We need to believe in ourselves and the wages of such "sins" is missing out on our best life now. But it's still a constant stream of exhortation, demands, and burdens: follow my steps and I guarantee your life will be blessed.

A TIME story in 2006 observed that Osteen's success has reached even more traditional Protestant circles, citing the example of a Lutheran church that followed Your Best Life Now during Lent, of all times, "when," as the writer notes, "Jesus was having his worst life then." Even churches formally steeped in a theology of the cross succumb to theologies of glory in the environment of popular American spirituality. We are swimming in a sea of narcissistic moralism: an "easy-listening" version of salvation by self-help.

This is what we might call the false gospel of "God-Loves-You-Anyway." There's no need for Christ as our mediator, since God is never quite as holy and we are never quite as morally perverse as to require nothing short of Christ's death in our place. God is our buddy. He just wants us to be happy, and the Bible gives us the roadmap.

I have no reason to doubt the sincere motivation to reach non-Christians with a relevant message. My concern, however, is that the way this message comes out actually trivializes the faith at its best and contradicts it at its worst. In a way, it sounds like atheism: Imagine there is no heaven above us or hell below us, no necessary expectation that Christ "will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead" and establish perfect peace in the world. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find anything in this message that would be offensive to a Unitarian, Buddhist, or cultural Christians who are used to a diet of gospel-as-American-Dream. Disney's Jiminy Cricket expresses this sentiment: "If you wish upon a star, all your dreams will come true."

To be clear, I'm not saying that it is atheism, but that it sounds oddly like it in this sense: that it is so bound to a this-worldly focus that we really do not hear anything about God himself—his character and works in creation, redemption, or the resurrection of the body and the age to come. Nothing in the past (namely, Christ's work) nor in the future (namely, Christ's return in judgment, raising our bodies in everlasting life) really matters. Maybe I haven't heard enough of his talks on TV, but I have never heard anything that approached a proclamation of any article mentioned in the Apostles' Creed. Despite the cut-aways of an enthralled audience with Bibles opened, I have yet to hear a single biblical passage actually preached. Is it possible to have evangelism without the evangel? Christian outreach without a Christian message?

If God matters, it is for the most trivial concerns—or at least those quite secondary to the real crisis that the gospel addresses. One could easily come away from this type of message concluding that we are not saved by Christ's objective work for us, but by our subjective "personal relationship with Jesus" through a series of works that we perform to secure his favor and blessing. God has set up all of these laws and now it's up to us to follow them so that we can be blessed. I can think of no better illustration of what sociologist Christian Smith has identified as "moralistic, therapeutic deism": the gospel of American Religion.

As the New Testament repeatedly affirms, those who want to be saved by their own obedience need to know that God doesn't grade on a curve. His record-keeping is bad news, not good news, unless Christ's obedient record has been credited to us through faith alone. God's law says, "If you want to be saved by your own effort, here are the terms: Do all these things and you'll go to heaven; fail to do them and you'll go to hell." The revivalists of yesteryear came up with their own list, but it was basically the same threat: "Do or die." The kinder, gentler version is, "Try harder and you'll be happier; fail to do them and you'll lose out on God's best for your life here and now." No heaven, no hell; no condemnation or salvation; no perfect obedience of Christ credited to us: Just do your best. Remember, God is keeping score! Christ becomes totally unnecessary in this message.

Osteen reflects the broader assumption among evangelicals that we are saved by making a decision to have a personal relationship with God. If one's greatest problem is loneliness, the good news is that Jesus is a reliable friend. If the big problem is anxiety, Jesus will calm us down. Jesus is the glue that holds our marriages and families together, gives us purpose for us to strive toward, wisdom for daily life. And there are half-truths in all of these pleas, but they never really bring hearers face to face with their real problem: that they stand naked and ashamed before a holy God and can only be acceptably clothed in his presence by being clothed, head to toe, in Christ's righteousness.

This gospel of "submission," "commitment," "decision," and "having a personal relationship with God" fails to realize, first of all, that everyone has a personal relationship with God already: either as a condemned criminal standing before a righteous judge or as a justified co-heir with Christ and adopted child of the Father. "How can I be right with God?" is no longer a question when my happiness rather than God's holiness is the main issue. My concern is that Joel Osteen is simply the latest in a long line of self-help evangelists who appeal to the native American obsession with pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Salvation is not a matter of divine rescue from the judgment that is coming on the world, but a matter of self-improvement in order to have your best life now.

Footnotes

1 This position is extensively documented in Michael Horton, ed., The Agony of Deceit (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990) [back to text]

2 Joel Osteen, Your Best Life Now: Seven Steps to Living at Your Full Potential (NY: Warner Books, 2004),41-42 [back to text]

3 Ibid., 57 [back to text]

4 Ibid., 66 [back to text]

5 Ibid., 119 [back to text]

6 Ibid., 262 [back to text]

Zombies among us!

Since the 1950s there has been an American fascination with zombies. Beginning with the Night of the Living Dead movie, continuing up to the Thriller music video, and captivating a new generation with the Resident Evil video games - the zombie is a popular icon in this nation. With its grotesque image of rotting flesh, bulging eyes, a lumbering gait, and an appetite for brain, the zombie is a miserable creature. Dead yet walking around in our world.

What a lot of people don't realize is that there are many zombies living amongst us today. Sure, the rotting flesh is invisible, the hunger for brain is replaced with french fries, yet the real zombies of this world are nevertheless active among us. They can be our next door neighbors, our co-workers, even our fellow church parishioner.

Ephesians 2 says that those living for the passions of the flesh and the desires of the body are children of wrath, that they are dead in their trespasses as children of disobedience. In fact we were conceived in sin and subsequently born dead according to Psalm 51. Having been born of the flesh we are bound to be nothing more than flesh (rotting flesh in fact) if we are left to ourselves.

Dead in sin, walking around for 80 years or so in a futile attempt to satisfy ourselves...what is the hope for the zombies of Earth?

Back to Ephesians 2...

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

The good news is that God has mercifully decided to send his son that we might become alive. Not because we were worth his time, but because he was gracious and eager to reveal his glory. Through the sacrifice of Christ, in the work of the Spirit, according to the sovereign choice of God, we are given new life - born again. I grew up hearing the term "born again" in my mothers vocabulary and yet I had no idea of where it was from in Scripture.

Read the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3. It is a powerful passage. Understanding the need I had for divine CPR to be performed on my stillborn soul (and that it was the mysterious will of the Spirit blowing where it wanted that made my life possible, not anything in me) was a moment that changed my thinking in a radical way. I hope it might have the same effect on you. If you don't have a saving faith in Christ, realize that you can. Keep your eyes on the cross and ask God for regeneration with the deepest longing of your soul. If you sincerely desire an eternal relationship with him, you will be gifted to believe. If you are already a Christian, viewing the process of salvation in this way might help you understand the magnificent role that is played in the act by God's grace.

So next time you watch a zombie movie remember that there really are zombies, they walk among us. If you have been saved from continuing as one by our merciful Father, then labor to complete you role in his plan by spreading the good word of new life to the zombies - don't run from them.

Edwards on the Glory of God

God is glorified within Himself these two ways:

1. By appearing in His own perfect idea [of Himself], or
in His Son, who is the brightness of His glory.

2. By enjoying and delighting in Himself, by flowing forth
in infinite love and delight towards Himself, or in his Holy Spirit....

So God glorifies Himself toward the creatures also in two ways:

1. By appearing to . . . their understanding.

2. In communicating Himself to their hearts, and in their rejoicing and delighting in, and enjoying, the manifestations which He makes of Himself. . . .

God is glorified not only by His glory being seen, but by its being rejoiced in. When those that see it delight in it, God is more glorified than if they only see it. His glory is then received by the whole soul, both by the understanding and by the heart.

God made the world that He might communicate, and the creature receive, His glory; and that it might [be] received both by the mind and heart. He that testifies his
idea of God’s glory [doesn’t] glorify God so much as he that glory that testifies also his approbation of it and his delight in it.

Jonathan Edwards, The Miscellanies [vol 13], p 495

Jon and Kate (plus God)

So it has apparently been confirmed that Jon of "Jon and Kate plus 8" has been having an adulterous relationship with a 3rd grade teacher over the past few months.

This is sad.

Its sad on a number of levels:...because of the offense to God (Psalm 51), because of the damage caused to his family, because of the relentless media onslaught that has begun about this very personal issue, and because of the ammunition that this will provide for some who wish to make a mockery of our faith.

Not long ago this couple wrote a book about their life with 8 children. Because they had been so vocal about faith on their TLC reality show, the Christian published Zondervan picked up their story for print. The news of this Christian super-family experiencing such dreadful sin will certainly flame the anti-Christian engines of many in the media.

For me the situation brings a few points to mind:

- Adultery is wrong. See Exodus 20, the Ten Commandments.
- Fantasizing about Adultery is wrong. See Matthew 7 and Jesus remarks about lust.

- The devil is a being with limited resources. He is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent.
- Like any good General who is working with limited resources, the devil must choose where to direct his minions in their work of temptation, lies, and deceit.
- People who are very vocal AND/OR public about their faith are good targets for the evil one. If he can get them to fall, they will take out many on their way down. There is no point for him to worry about convincing non-believers or lukewarm believers to sin, they are usually already engaged on some level. It is the folks who wage war on their sin nature and who desire to make God known - they are the devil's targets. (see the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis)

- Jon and Kate were people in the media who seemed to be unafraid to vocalize their belief. (So were King David, Peter, and Ted Haggard)
- Those who desire to stand up for Christ should be prepared for the pending spiritual attacks. Prayer, studying the Word, a strong support community in the local church, etc... (I think this includes me since I write this blog, talk to co-workers about Jesus, and try to obey his will)

- Even in the wake of adultery, the desire of God is for reconciliation. Divorce is not legitimate, even though it was permitted. (Last time I made this statement I came under pretty harsh attack and subsequent testing personally - praise God he is gracious and rescued me from the lies of the evil one). See Matthew 19 and Jesus response to the Pharisee.
- If Jon and Kate ask for God's forgiveness of this sin and subsequently repent of it, exhibit the same divine mercy towards each other, get good biblical counseling, and make a formal apology to the many who have been distressed by this news...then the glory of the Lord may yet shine in the midst of the darkness we just found out about. Because ultimately, the gospel is about unmerited grace.

Jon and Kate have a chance to show the world a portrait of God's beautiful grace, the power of forgiveness, and the hope of reconciliation in their response to this sad situation. We should pray for them.