Sometimes it takes a ballpit

Check out this beautifully conceived and well done concept. Put two strangers in a ballpit with some pre-written mixer questions and then stand back and watch the laughter, surprises and simple joys of – get this - talking to another human. In our day of pseudo relationships engineered by cell phones, social media and sound bytes, we need to be reminded again that relationships begin simply – and sometimes in a ballpit.

Thank the good folks over at Soulpancake (brainchild of Rainn Wilson – aka Dwight on The Office) for putting this together.

Here’s one idea for putting yourself out there if you don’t have a ball pit:

• Introduce yourself to the person in line with you – at the grocery store, movies, etc. Smile and say, “Hi! I’m ____. Tell me something good that happened to you today. I like meeting interesting people.”

Review: The Lost World of Genesis One

Each year, I try to do research and reading related to the ongoing conversation debate between proponents of evolutionary theory and those of biblical creationism. I can easily say that it is a constantly evolving dialogue battle. John Walton’s 2009 release of  The Lost World of Genesis One steps into that fray attempting to reconcile the scientific community with the metaphysical/spiritual community.

One of the reviewers of Walton’s book said it was very readable. I’d like to add a caveat. While it attempts to provide an accessible understanding of the overall debate over origins and translation of the creation account in Genesis 1, it is dry. He does offer a few helpful and creative analogies throughout the book that seem to place the book on a “lower shelf” for those who may not read much in this area, but I’m not sure if he was really successful.

With that said, Walton’s basic premise goes like this:

• Genesis 1 should be translated as providing an account of functional creation, not material creation. Much of the first several chapters explain this perspective and remind us that in our western mentality, we are not aware that the ancient world of Genesis 1 would not conceive of a mindset that divided science from spiritual. They were holistic in their worldview.
• The creation of the world should be seen more as the establishment of God’s cosmic temple. The entire creation has as its center God, not man, and the end result is intended to create a place for creation to enjoy God.
• He sees the seven days in Genesis 1 as seven literal days, not as periods of time. He points out that an immeasurable amount of time may have passed before these seven days. This view allows for but does not necessarily advocate an evolutionary perspective.
• Genesis 1 does not attempt to provide a scientific perspective on creation. Here’s a helpful quote related to that:

If God were intent on making His revelation correspond to science, we have to ask which science. We are well aware that science is dynamic rather than static. By its very nature science is in a state of flux. If we were to say that God’s revelation corresponds to “true science” we adopt an idea contrary to the very nature of science. What is accepted as true today, may not be accepted as true tomorrow, because what science provides is the best explanation of data at the time. This “best explanation” is accepted by consensus, and often with a few detractors… We gain nothing by bringing God’s revelation into accordance with today’s science. In contrast, it makes perfect sense that God communicated His revelation to His immediate audience in terms they understood.

• Public education should be neutral regarding purpose of origins. Much of the animosity and ugliness of the warfare between idealogies is unnecessary, Walton says. If we could fairly admit when we are trying to teach/coerce about purpose behind origins – whether that evolution shows all is chance or intelligent design proves designer, we could better dialogue.

My overall assessment of the book goes like this: I didn’t like the first half of the book – at all, but I thoroughly enjoyed the second half of the book.

The first half of the book is when Walton offers his novel interpretation of Genesis 1 as being a functional creation intended to culminate in God’s cosmic temple. Walton spends far too much time comparing the biblical audience and culture with other ancient near Eastern cultures. His interpretation of Genesis 1 is thus weighted heavily toward how other cultures – and decidedly not biblical ones – thought about creation. He uses ancient creation documents to prove his point. My point, however, is that God was rewiring the Jews all along to think different (Steve Jobs should have been a big fan of that.) How an ancient culture thought is thoroughly difficult for us to interpret, but Walton has no problem doing so and then reading this interpretation into the biblical account of creation.

I am not suggesting that the Israelites are borrowing from these ancient literatures. p78

His occasional statements like the one above can not account for the amount of authority that he gives to these other non-biblical sources. So, I was unconvinced with his reasoning and interpretation that he offered in the first half of the book.

However, the second half of the book, beginning with the chapter titled “Other Theories of Genesis 1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough” is truly good. I’d encourage anyone to read from there to the end of the book. It is there that – regardless of his own interpretation of Genesis 1 – he offers extremely helpful thoughts and principles that could dramatically reshape the current angst over origins – both in the scientific community and in faith community (and they don’t have to have a dichotomy).

He includes a chapter about how public educators should handle the teaching of origins that is sound, balanced and though it will make each opposing viewpoint uncomfortable, it does offer a way forward. Before offering five resolutions intended to provide a way forward, Walton says:

…empirical science is not an education unto itself that can serve all the needs of society or that can serve as the sum of one’s education. The physical sciences are only one branch of education, and we dare not isolate them from the humanities or elevate them as self-contained.

I was grateful for Walton’s attempt to offer a work that brings together two worlds that seem diametrically opposed so often in the origins debate. He is unabashedly clear that whatever means God used for creation, God was the Creator, and He is the Sustainer of His creation. He believes in a literal Adam and Eve. If you buy into his interpretation, his work offers a way to read Genesis without casting aside the authority of scripture. I appreciated his final comments:

We must not let our interpretations stand in place of Scripture’s authority and thus risk misrepresenting God’s revelation. We are willing to bind reason if our faith calls for belief where reason fails. But we are also people who in faith seek understanding.

7 helpful tips for those in their 40s

I read and tweeted about a very helpful article entitled Seven Skills to Develop in Your 20s. I thought to myself that there needed to be an article for my generation with advice that was just as helpful. So here goes:

1. Gut check. While this could mean that your 40s is an excellent time to do a personal assessment of your life, that is both brutal and honest, I literally mean… a gut check. It’s time to look at the mass directly above your belt and determine if it exceeds the landmass of Rhode Island. If it does, stop eating so much. Your 40s do not have to be a time where your girth equals the earth. Take care of yourself physically.
2. Hair today gone tomorrow. For guys, come to grips with the fact that your follicles have lost theirs. It’s time to shine, literally. Enjoy showing your skull. Your ego doesn’t get a do over, so please don’t attempt a comb over.
3. Own your era. Whatever decade(s) in which you learned to drive and went to college… own them. I still have a leather bomber jacket that I refuse to let Carolyn throw away that I wear for special occasions. I do regret allowing her to get rid of my purple Levi 501 jeans. From music to fashion to TV shows and movies, use them to identify you as a ‘Merican. “I was born in the USA…!”
4. Reading asses. Sometime around 41ish, you’ll notice that you’re holding books further away from your face than before. Then you’ll notice your spouse is holding books further away from her face. Then you’ll realize she’s holding your book across the room for you so you can read it. That’s when you’ll sigh and realize that you need reading glasses. Then you’ll put them on and see your typo in the description of this paragraph.
5. Driving you crazy. I saw a tweet the other day that said “Driving a convertible is the best way to let everyone know you’re divorced.”  That was after I had test driven a 2006 cherry red Dodge Charger. Thank goodness I invited Carolyn along on the test drive. I don’t know what it is about cars and guys in their 40s, but you will most assuredly get bitten by the car bug sometime in this decade. Either that, or you’ll preset your radio station on 80s music and lose your keys twice a week.
6. Mr. Ed. Of course, he was a talking horse in my day. But the abbreviation ED will begin to provoke nervous laughter among you and your peers. You’ll begin to sweat when those commercials come on as you think to yourself, “That guy doesn’t look any older than I do…”
7. Surprise surprise. Someone will most likely throw you a birthday party when you turn 40 that features black stuff. Enjoy it. The decade of your 40s is not nearly as old as you thought it was when you were 21. You’ll realize that you can still beat your teenage son in basketball, and though they won’t admit it, your kids think you’re quirkily cool.

8. (I know I said seven, but I had to add one.) Joy. The decade of your 40s is actually a sublimely sweet time. If you’re a follower of Christ, you’ll sit back in delight as you begin to see previously confusing threads of your life form into an intricate and beautiful tapestry. You’ll experience present blessing for past obedience, and you’ll discover that regardless of age, there’s no greater joy than embracing the adventure of faith.

Oh, and you need to check out this list of jokes about the 40s.

Can you say, “Watch me!”?

Love this video on the importance of living a life that shows Christ, shares Christ, and speaks Christ.

Watch Me! from 10ofthose.com on Vimeo.

HT: Tim Challies

Easter expectations

Here’s the challenge. If you blog, Tumble, Facebook, or Twitter… post a short description of “what I expect from Easter this year.” Then please link it in the comments below.

Here’s mine:

What I expect from Easter this year:

Movement. As a pastor, I’m eager and hugely expectant for God to work tomorrow. I hope and pray for movement in people. Christians need to be moved from complacency and take-it-for-granted pseudo spirituality to humility, repentance and surrender. We need to be moved to revival. Those who aren’t Christians (yet) need to be moved toward faith. They need to see a God, sense a hint of the divine in such a way that their doubt becomes genuine. Instead of doubting God’s existence or relevance, let them now doubt that their life is complete or fulfilled. Let them doubt that they have it all together (because none of us do).

So, I hope on this Easter that God moves me and you. Henry Blackaby said in his Experiencing God Bible study, “You can’t stay where you are and go with God.”

I’m ready. I hope you are… to be moved.

It is only the stubborn who say in their heart, “I shall not be moved.” (Psalm 10.6)

Sunday’s comin’

Review: Is God a Moral Monster? Part 3

This is the third and final review of Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster? You can find the first two parts here and here. To sum it up, I can easily recommend Copan’s book to you. It’s chock full of helpful insights and context for some of the most stringent objections to the teachings, culture and imagined contradictions that most skeptics level against the Old Testament.

Copan deals in depth responding to criticisms of the Old Testament in areas like:

• Does the OT belittle or denigrate women?
• Does the OT advocate slavery?
• Was the killing of the people groups in Promise Land by the Israelites mass genocide, and how is that ethical?
• Is all religion violent?

These are just a few of the topics Copan addresses. He does so by examining scripture in depth and in context. I was deeply appreciate of how he covered so much biblical material in a way that is both easily readable and understandable. His responses to critics were gracious, well-reasoned and constantly centered on the teachings of scripture. His sense of humor also shows through consistently in little comments here and there.

However, I was bothered by his consistent use of apologetic terms for the law of the Old Testament, known as the Mosaic law. Though the Old and New Testaments view of the scriptures is that they are inspired by God and “perfect,” Copan finds fault with the Old Testament law calling it “inferior,” “not ideal,” and “not perfect.”

Take these references:

By the Old Testament’s own admission, the Mosaic law was inferior and future looking. (59)

The law of Moses, though not ideal, presents a remarkable improvement when it comes to punishments. (121)

Israel’s laws weren’t perfect, to be sure. But when we compare them to other ancient Near Eastern law codes…, the general impression noted by scholars is a range of… improvements in Israel.

To his credit, he did qualify these statements by saying the the Mosaic law was put in place to prepare humanity for the coming of Christ. It was only a babysitter, so to speak. However, Copan’s consistent use of terminology like the above erodes many of his arguments and appeals to the context of the scriptures.

It’s interesting that I read Copan’s book while I was in the process of reading through the Bible in a year. When read in context and chronologically, one can see the beauty, grace and perfection of God’s Word in the Old Testament. I agree with Copan that it is not the final word, but I am not willing to say it’s inferior or not ideal. It was the perfect Word for an imperfect people and culture that served perfectly to lead them to faith in a perfect God.

There were some sections that just radiated with power and brilliance. I found the section titled An Untamable God in chapter 17 particularly good.

We sensitized Westerners wonder why God gets so angry with Israel… We live in a time when we’re very alert to racial discrimination and intolerance, but we aren’t as sensitized to sexual sin as past generations were. We live in a time that sees death as the ultimate evil. Perhaps, we need to be more open to the fact that some of our moral intuitions aren’t as finely tuned as they ought to be. (192)

I totally agree. I also think Copan should apply this idea of being overly sensitized to his own material when at times he seems too quick to apologize for the laws of Israel. It’s interesting that he quotes C.S. Lewis on the idea of chronological snobbery earlier in the book and then seems to set himself up to judge the Mosaic law (though not nearly as harshly as the critics he responds to) as inferior by modern culture’s own standard of morality.

Lewis said “the uncriticial acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that count discredited.”

There should be no need for us to apologize how God works in the past. There are many issues about God’s work that we simply can’t explain in a tidy, logical package. We don’t understand how His mysterious ways in our lives today, much less the past.

On the whole, Copan’s book is an excellent resources to respond to critics and provide believers with more understanding about difficult issues related to the Old Testament.

Maybe the ideal “God” in the Westerner’s mind is just too nice. We’ve lost sight of good and just while focusing on nice, tame, and manageable. We’ve ignored sternness and severity (which makes us squirm; consider Romans 11.22), latching on to our own ideals of comfort and convenience. We’ve gotten rid of the God who presents a cosmic authority problem and substituted controllable gods of our own devising. We’ve focused on divine love at the expense of God’s anger at what ultimately destroys us or undermines our fundamental well-being. (193)

A response to Jen Hatmaker

First of all, I don’t know Jen Hatmaker. Second of all, she’s waaaay more hip, ‘in,” connected and choon than I am. Third, I’ll probably make some mommy bloggers mad at me for this entry. Jen (not that we’re on first name basis, but it’s only three letters and easy to refer to her that way) is a fantastic writer and has authored several Christian books and Bible studies. Her blog is consistently well-traveled and popular (unlike other blogs whose URLs rhyme with ferny lie rot bomb). She recently wrote a blog entry that has exploded in the Christian blogosphere. That’s probably why you haven’t read it. It’s titled, And Then the Conference Uninvited Me to Speak.

She describes a recent experience in being uninvited to speak by a large church. Having not been invited to speak in large churches in the first place, I figure that I’ve had similar experiences so I could readily identify with her indignation. Her blog entry is a beautifully-written description of the importance of Christians having a loving heart towards all people. She expresses deep concern for how some in the American church have turned off genuine seekers by their arrogance and judgmental attitude.

I loved her description of her traditional, Bible-belt upbringing:

I grew up immersed in typical Christian subculture: heavy emphasis on morality, fairly dogmatic, linear and authoritative. Because my experience was so homogenous and my skill set included Flying Right, I found wild success in the paradigm. My interpretations were rarely challenged by diversity, suffering, or disparity. Since the bulls-eye was behaving (we called it “holiness”), I earned an A.

Immediately following that, however she quotes research that seems to indicate that “80 percent of those reared in the church will be ‘disengaged’ by the time they are 29.”

She says:

80 percent. Gone.

From there, she passionately and eloquently urges Christians to a more gracious lifestyle. Count me in for that.

However, the deeper I read into her article, the more uncomfortable I grew with her conclusions. She said:

Jesus is a hero, a brother, a Savior in every since of the word. He is everything good and gracious. His love for us is embarrassing, boundless, without standards at all.

Here’s the problem. I want to agree with all she is saying, but I believe there are at least two mistakes in her blog entry:

1. The research she quotes is both misleading at best and completely erroneous at worst.

Youthministry.com debunked the statistic (and others have been attempting to do so consistently), but these stats are constantly being used as a doomsday cry for the church of “We’re losing young people!” I reviewed Christian sociologist Bradley Wright’s book Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites and Other Lies We’ve Been Told here, and I think it should be added to Jen’s reading list. She would be deeply encouraged by it. He points out how prone statistics are to poor interpretation and application and cites the surveys she mentioned, among many others.

Jen used them to stir our hearts. Our hearts should be stirred by the heart of God for the lostness of people without having to use questionable conclusions by well-intentioned research organizations.

2. Her eloquence about Jesus and His love for all peoples goes a bit too far in claiming that His love is “without standards.”

It is boundless, but it has standards. The standard is this: His love must be received and returned. Jesus’ boundless love isn’t so powerful that every person will go to heaven. We must act in response to His love and His Word. Jen seems to be saying that Christians should unquestioningly love and embrace whatever lifestyle or behaviors people choose.

I totally agree with her that:

Christianity is too thrilling to reduce to middle/upper-middle class First World Problems, encapsulated in issues and gauged by a nebulous moral compass that lost its bearing decades ago.

However, in her zeal to demonstrate the radically amazing, transformative grace of Christ, I wonder… If this were the only blog of hers that someone reads, the only piece of one of her many written works, would she be satisfied that she’s communicated that Jesus is the God of grace and truth in this post? Or is this more reactive to a specific situation that she would never want to become her magnum opus?

At over 400 comments and counting, she’s certainly created a ruckus.

I’m willing to wrap us all in grace, because one day we’ll both discover we got some parts right and other parts wrong. Jesus’ mercy is going to be enough for us all.

I don’t know which “one day” she is referring to, but there is a day foretold in scripture which indicates that while Jesus’ mercy IS enough for all, not all will be recipients of it. Jesus said:

“The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.” (John 12.48)

I love her heart, but I’m concerned that she’s gone too far in trying to appeal to those who dislike or even hate the church. It is, after all, the bride of Christ, the people of God. We cannot hide with eloquence what might hinder our acceptance with others.

Wrapping Up

Christian leaders and influencers need to be very careful about motivating through statistics. Does the American church have issues? Absolutely! Do we sometimes demonstrate a love deficit? Check. But the solution is not to leave the dance floor upset by someone’s lack of grace and rhythm. I think we need to dance with greater grace… and offer lessons to the side-step-steppers along the way.

A pause in preaching provides perspective

Tomorrow will be the first time I’ve preached at Northstar in four weeks. I’ve not been gone – just thrilled that we have so many qualified teachers/preachers in our congregation that we can raise up a “teaching team.”

Being able to be there and be fed is important for a pastor who really believes that we are to be the church. I am not indispensable. No pastor is. We are vessels. Servants. Stewards. The pastor who will not give up or share his “pulpit” with others demonstrates one of the following:

• Ego
• Leadership development problems
• A church with a wrong conception of the pastor’s role

A church who feels like they “hired” the pastor to preach to them has its own issues. It enslaves a pastor to the pulpit, and so he preaches week-in and week-out, in fear of other’s opinions of him should he not be in the pulpit. The attitude is “what do we pay him for. after all?”

Nancy Jernigan recently tweeted:

Pastors making a decision to not take a break & allow someone else to fill in for them is heartbreaking to watch!

I go back to the title of this post: a pause in preaching provides perspective.

The last three weeks, I was able to observe our church being the church – welcoming guests, smiling, sharing, encouraging. I was also able to see some things that need to be improved but that I would never notice on a typical, hectic Sunday. Finally, I was able to worship and be ministered to by other capable and gifted servants of God.

Pastors, take a break. You need it more than you realize. It’s not just a break. It’s an opportunity. For you. For other leaders.

You may be surprised how much your people thank you for it.

Hear and fear

“And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you.” (Deuteronomy 19:20 ESV)

This “hear and fear” principle is repeated in several instances of Moses’ recounting of the law to the Israelites just before they crossed over into the Promised Land.

It’s like a cramming session. It’s a law-repeat so that this new generation will remember the words of the Lord.

The punishments for transgressions – in this context, retribution against a false witness – were severe because others would “hear and fear.” This would deter people from like offenses and ingrain into their culture as a people the taboo nature of the offense.

Not acting harshly against appearances of evil numbs a people to the evil within them over time. We see it in our culture today, that in the name of “tolerance” (some attempt to call it grace, but it is a dis-grace), we allow evil to not just survive but to become the norm.

When you tolerate evil in your midst, it’s a slow contaminate. But when the whole is corrupt over time, it’s a fast road to judgment.

This principle of quickly dealing with evil is also found in the New Testament account of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. It had the desired results:

“And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things”. (Acts 5:11 ESV)

Hear and fear… think about that.