Brian McLaren on Rick Santorum on Barack Obama: A Lesson in Pots and Kettles

Brian McLaren rightfully and appropriately nailed Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum yesterday for allowing his political ideology to unduly influence his approach to interpreting the Bible. In a masterfully written piece at the web site Pantheos, McLaren well-stated that there is indeed such a thing as “phony theology,” and through some of the most accurate and astute exegesis I’ve seen from him in more than 10 years, called Christians back to a sound theology of creation care.

If only Brian would use the Scriptures in this way more often.

The situation that gave rise to this article was a comment made by Santorum attacking President Obama for what he calls a “phony theology” that “takes seriously, serving the earth.” Apparently, Santorum had taken a moment on the campaign trail to take issue with some of the President’s policies on the environment. Before that conversation was over, Santorum described statements made by the President at a recent prayer breakfast as influenced by a “phony theology,” and concluded his remarks by stating that the earth was made “for man’s use.”

To be sure, there is more than one legitimate application of Scriptural teaching concerning our responsibility to care for the environment and the balance between “dominion” and “stewardship of the earth.” One can certainly care for the environment while simultaneously questioning the wisdom of certain public policy positions on the issue. But Rick Santorum went further than this, taking a single Genesis passage out of its context in order to forward what McLaren correctly identified as a “hallowed interpretive tradition of the industrial era.”

Says McLaren: “Now, many of us notice that this "dominion" is an expression of humanity being created in "the image of God." That framing seems to imply that human beings should show the same care for creation that the Creator does—respecting and conserving God-given balances and systems. As image-bearers of God, we should, for example, show foresight to conserve God-given resources to benefit future generations rather than grasping for the most profit in the least amount of time to benefit today's one-percenters. (One might even argue that this approach is more truly and deeply conservative.)”

McLaren then moves on to ground this view of creation care in a thoroughly Biblical worldview of creation itself. In particular, his approach to Genesis 2 and the language of “cultivate and keep” is a textbook example of careful exegesis that is usually governed by a conviction that Scripture should interpret Scripture. Theologians call this a “historical-grammatical” approach to Biblical interpretation. This approach assumes a couple of things. First, it assumes that words have actual meaning, and that when Biblical writers used particular words under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, it was no less than God’s own intention to communicate meaning through those words.

Second, this approach assumes that the historical context of Scripture passages—which include any issues that were being addressed at the time of writing, as well as the personality and writing style of a given Biblical author—is of imminent importance in understanding what God intends to communicate through His Word. The dictum “Scripture interprets Scripture” is honored best when this approach to interpretation is employed, and in this article, McLaren does it well, concluding his argument with an application of retiring “Santorum's Industrial Era theology of dominion and exchange it for a more ancient understanding . . . and one with more foresight for the future as well.”

In an attempt to counter Presidential environmental policies with which he disagrees, Rick Santorum did violence to the very Scriptural text he claims he respects and follows. In his inaccurate invocation of God’s name, he essentially ignored half of the creation mandate. Regardless of what one thinks about Obama’s environmental policies, Santorum’s brief wade into the theological aspects of this issue demonstrate how so often, people are much better Republicans (or Democrats) than they are Christians. In this, McLaren deserves credit for calling the body of Christ back toward a more holistic and Scripture-centered view of Scripture.

Problem is, in order to write this article, McLaren had to violate some of his own more normative interpretive approaches. For example, moving along this exegetical continuum would naturally lead one to believe in a literal Garden of Eden, a literal Adam and Eve, and a literal creation narrative! Yet some of McLaren’s earlier works give indication that these are antiquated ideas that must be discarded. Additionally, McLaren’s positions on everything from substitutionary atonement to homosexuality give evidence that even he only employs the historical-grammatical approach to Scripture when it suits his own agenda, as this approach to understanding Scripture on a consistent basis would quickly overturn most of McLaren’s own positions.

Bottom line: a phony theologian just called out a politician for being a phony theologian. He happened to be right, but the whole situation screams “irony.”

McLaren has an unfortunate history of such inconsistent approaches to Scripture. When the historical-grammatical approach fits his own agenda, he is happy to employ it, such as he does here with environmental issues, or previously with issues like immigration. And when he takes these positions on solid Biblical grounds, I’m happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with him.

Yet when the same interpretive approach calls for a belief in the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation, McLaren has quickly abandoned this approach—along with centuries of orthodox Christian tradition—and instead insisted “that I do not believe this is the right question for a missional Christian to ask.” Likewise, when a historical-grammatical analysis of texts like Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 clearly reveal the homosexual lifestyle to be a sinful distortion of God’s intention, McLaren reverts again to an epistemological swampland by stating “Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality.”

So in the end we have two partisans; one Republican and one Democrat, both stating that Jesus is unequivocally on their side. The only difference between Rick Santorum's partisanship and Brian McLaren's is that Rick Santorum's should be expected. He is, after all, a politician!

I once had a wise seminary professor who, while tearing apart a long-held understanding I had of a certain Biblical text, warned me about allowing personal feelings, political positions, cultural assumptions, or anything else get in the way of understanding the otherwise clear meaning of Scripture. “You should hate it,” he said, “when anyone twists the Bible to fit their agenda, even if that person is a “conservative.’” He was right. May the church return to her prophetic role in culture. And may the first result of that return be people in those churches who are less worried about holding together an ideology, and more concerned about just being good followers of Jesus.

Beware of those who drape their theology in a partisan cloak.

When "Friendly Fire" Isn't so Friendly

About 13 years ago, Pastor Trey Rhodes was sitting in a meeting of other pastors who were considering the sponsorship of a new church. The local Baptist Association had called this meeting to discuss "concerns" that several of the pastors had relative to this new church proposal. Church planting wasn't nearly as "cool" back then as it is now, and in fact was held in high suspicion in several segments of my denomination. In particular, these guys were concerned about the theology, evangelistic philosophy, and church growth methods this young church planter under their inspection wanted to employ.

Before long, the meeting turned caustic, with accusations of heresy and being "unBaptistic" being leveled at a young guy who wasn't in the room to defend himself.

That young guy was me.

After hearing several very negative comments about me, Pastor Trey obtained my phone number and called me directly. Over the next several months as we got to know each other and he came to understand who I really was and what I wanted to see accomplished through planting new churches, he became a fan, and later on, a very dear friend. Two years after this, our new church had the opportunity to play a small role in helping Trey launch out himself to start a new church.

Such was the Kingdom advance that resulted from the decision to make a single phone call, and actually get to know someone. It's a shame that doesn't happen more often.

As a guy who spends most of his time working with pastors and seeking to bring the churches they lead to greater missional cooperation, I've spent more time than I want trying to de-fuse misconceptions and get past misunderstandings, and toward the commonalities I know are present for us to be on mission together. To be sure, I'm convinced I serve with some of the finest pastors in the country. I'm thankful that in the northeast, we don't have the luxury of so easily dividing over silly issues and gross mischaracterizations of each other. When you represent less than .01% of the total population, you simply cannot afford to divide on too many things! Nevertheless, even in an area like ours the propensity exists to hold fellow pastors in suspicion, merely on the word from a third party, and without talking to them directly.

We who dare to pastor churches should know better! We preach from a Bible that clearly instructs us to refrain from making judgements on fallacious grounds, and we serve a Lord who was crucified precisely because of the same kind of rumor-mongering, slander, and character assassination that, regrettably, some in pastoral leadership sometimes commit without thinking.

This scenario happens every time we say of one of our fellow pastors "I heard he is a Calvinist! He must not believe in sharing Jesus," or "with the way his church is growing, he MUST be compromising something!" or "I'm not so sure he is 'one of us'."

It continues with assignment of motive without any basis in reality. If he employs a church growth tactic we don't agree with we assume he is "all about the numbers." If he hosts a Super Bowl party on a Sunday night we assume he is "bowing to the idol of professional football." If he engages a segment of his culture in a way we think goes too far, we declare that he has "sold out."

When such claims are thoughtlessly made without so much as a shred of evidence, or without actually trying to get to know someone, those actions say more about us than those we are accusing. To be sure, putting someone else down often makes us appear better, more holy, and closer to God in our own minds, but it does nothing to help the reputation of our Lord Jesus or the advance of His Kingdom.

Making matters worse, too many pastors don't go right to the source, but instead rely on so-called "discernment ministries," organizations who make it their life's work to destroy the ministry of anyone they deem heretical. Funny thing is that many of these so-called ministries are themselves guilty of malpractice, since the overwhelming majority are not directly accountable to any local church, and that should tell you pretty much everything you need to know. Pastors have the intelligence and ability to seek out accurate answers about a fellow pastor simply by reading original source material. When it comes to the "big name" guys, make sure you have read their books before you say anything publicly so that whatever you say you can say with accuracy.

Oh, and when it comes to the pastor across town, the solution is easier still. Don't say a word about him from your pulpit until you have sat down with him personally.

Am I suggesting that pastors should not warn their people when they believe false teaching is present? Not at all! Paul warned us that wolves abound who look like sheep, and part of our role includes the protection of our flocks. But I am suggesting that our current practice of third-party sources and hearsay means we "cry wolf" way too often, and lose the respect and attention of our people in the process, thereby opening them up to REAL attacks from REAL false prophets.

We are not politicians in competition with one another for the "party nomination." We are a band of brothers on the same side of the battlefield, and who need to ensure that, in the midst of all the casualties that already result from the degree of spiritual battle in which we are involved, "friendly fire" isn't the cause of those casualties.

We rightly lament the rampant gossip, backbiting, slander, and character assassination that so often takes place in our churches. We wonder to ourselves how on earth people who are supposed to know and walk with Jesus can act in such ways.

Gentlemen, the sad truth is that many times, they act in such ways because they are following our example! We need to set a better one!

The pastorate needs more good men like Pastor Trey Rhodes. And the evangelical church needs its present leadership to commit to better discernment that is guided by actually getting to know other people. Stopping this kind of ungodly behavior in our churches begins with us.

What T.D. Jakes is Teaching Us about Orthodoxy, Heresy, and Unity

I really wasn't looking forward to yesterdays Elephant Room discussion. For one thing, my schedule simply did not allow me to dedicate an entire day to the event. Furthermore, I was honestly skeptical of the content, and the outcome.

My primary reason for this skepticism? One of those invited to participate in the discussion yesterday was T.D. Jakes, a texas pastor who founded "The Potter's House" in Dallas. It is well-known among evangelicals that Jakes spent his formative years among those called "Oneness Pentecostals," who deny the historic Christian doctrine of the trinity. Oneness Pentecostals instead confess to something called "modalism" or "Sabelianism," denying inherently the full personhood and separate consciousnesses of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Yet over the past few years, Jakes had been silent about where he stood on this issue. Furthermore, he was joined on stage by the likes of Crawford Loritts, Mark Driscoll, and James MacDonald. I've been listening to all these guys long enough to know that they are not theological lightweights, and are not easily fooled by heresy. That fact alone should have been enough for me to wait--to expect the best in hope as commanded in 1 Corinthians 13. Still, I was skeptical.

I should have known better.

To be sure, the trinity is no small thing. In fact, in many ways, it is everything! One of the first questions one must ask when considering the Gospel is "who is God?" Obviously, if you get that one wrong, it only goes downhill from there. Furthermore, each of us owes our salvation to the trinitarian nature of the Father, who chose us before creation, the Son who paid the penalty for our sin, and the Spirit who seals us and sanctifies us in our new relationship as His adopted children. Though the Scriptures as a whole are pregnant with the concept, Ephesians 1 details in the most succinct terms how the members of the Godhead work together--as separate persons--to bring about the redemption that assures us of "every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies, in Christ."

To put it bluntly, if God is not a trinity, then the Gospel is a myth! No Trinity? No Gospel!

So we are right to see the issues surrounding T.D. Jakes as no small thing. At the same time, the way many evangelicals suspiciously responded to Jakes' statements to Driscoll and MacDonald yesterday betray that while we rightfully excel at sniffing out heresy, we are slow to love, to assume the best, and to celebrate when someone who has erred realizes that error through his or her own examination of the Scripture. The mixed reaction to Jakes' statements in the Elephant Room yesterday reveal that the spirit of Ephesus is still, regrettably, alive and well (Revelation 2:2-5)

I'm grateful that, through the transcripts of Trevin Wax yesterday, I was able to read that T.D. Jakes is now a trinitarian. But more than this, I was thankful to read of his life journey which has brought him to this place. He spoke of how he had embraced modalism because, well, that is the tradition in which he grew up!

According to Wax's account, Jakes elaborated on his background in this way:

They [Oneness Pentecostals] believe in Jesus Christ, he died and raised again. But how they explain the Godhead is how Trinitarians describe the gospel. I was in that church and raised in that church a number of years. I started preaching from that pulpit. But I’m also informed by the infiltration from my Baptist experience. I ended up Metho-Bapti-Costal. I’m a mixed breed. It is easy to throw rocks at people who you do not know, but when you see the work of Christ in their lives, you try to build bridges. So even though I moved away from what that church’s teaching, I didn’t want to throw rocks. Much of what we do today is teach people to take sides. But I believe we are called to reconcile wherever possible. My struggle was that in some passages, the doctrine fits and in other places it doesn’t. I don’t want to force my theology to fit my denomination. . . The Bible made me rethink my ideas and I got quiet about it for a while. There are things that you can say about the Father you cannot say about the Son or the Spirit. There are distinctives. I’m very comfortable with that.

Jakes goes on to then confess an orthodox understanding of trinitarian Christianity, while admittedly pushing back a bit on language choice, for Biblical reasons:

I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe “manifestations” as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. For God was manifest in the flesh. Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it’s robbery to say manifest in the flesh. Maybe it’s semantics, but Paul says this. Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think it’s important to realize there are distinctives between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. I’m with you. I have been with you.

So here we have a guy who was raised in a tradition that he, over time and through his study of the Scriptures, realized contained error. He studied and prayed his way through some things that were fuzzy to him, and as they became clear, he landed squarely within the realm of Christian Orthodoxy. What's not to celebrate?

And by the way, this is not the first time this has happened. The early church took three and a half centuries before what we today call "orthodoxy" was established. Are we to believe that no one was orthodox before the Council of Constantinople? Of course not! First, second, and third century followers of Jesus spread His message, organized themselves into churches, submitted to Biblically qualified leaders, observed baptism and the Lord's Supper, and lived the message of Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit in front of an unbelieving world.

Throughout those three centuries, much was discussed about the nature of God. During this time the early church had to hunch and feel its way through a myriad of issues, returning time after time to the text of Scripture and thereby avoiding the theological "off-ramps" of Nestorianism, Arianism, Monarchianism, and a host of other heretical streams before finally being able to articulate what we now call an orthodox understanding of the triune God, codified in a revised Nicene Creed in 381 A.D.

My point is that seventeen centuries later, individuals sometimes take this same journey, and its a journey that is often complicated by an error-filled tradition to which they were exposed at a young age.

Does that mean Jakes' earlier error was "no big deal?" Not at all! But ff T.D. Jakes' testimony yesterday teaches us anything, it teaches us that while Christian faith may exist in a personally "pre-Nicean" form, if it is real, eventually it will emerge as a decidedly "post-Nicean" faith. I believe that's what happened to T.D. Jakes, and I rejoice in this.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be good enough for many in the evangelical church. In some sense, this should be expected. As the heirs of the Protestant Reformers, we can be a cantankerous bunch and we can critique ourselves to death. Its in our family history! The Reformation began as critique. It was neccesary critique. It was purifying critique. It was a critique that led to the recovery of the Gospel, AND the recovery of the church!

Problem is, as the Protestant movement grew and established itself, it tended toward maintaining its posture of critique as opposed to mounting an offensive and aggressive movement forward to accomplish the Great Commission. Possibly the only legitimate criticism that Erasmus of Rotterdam leveled toward Martin Luther was when he contended that the Protestants couldn't possibly represent the "true church" because, in Erasmus' words, "you have no missionaries."

These are our theological ancestors, and we would do well to cling to the faithful teaching they left us while simultaneously realizing--and rejecting--the hyper-critical nature of our history so that the sins of the fathers are not visited on the sons any longer.

So how do we do this? Do we jettison concern for sound doctrine? Anyone paying attention at yesterday's Elephant Room should know that isn't happening. At the same time, when someone formerly in error confesses Christian orthodoxy to me, my response shouldn't be cynicism, suspicion, or on T.D. Jakes' case, the desire to know "how trinitarian" he really is.

To be sure, I differ with Bishop Jakes on quite a bit, and his former modalist views are not the only areas where I would personally have concerns. But yesterday's conversation between Jakes, Driscoll and MacDonald have put my concerns about trinitarian orthodoxy to rest, and in fact, have left me with a renewed confidence in the power of the Scriptures to transform our fallen minds and understandings.

Others may want to continue to critique and find fault. But I love my brother in Christ, and as a result will bear, believe, hope, and endure with him as he continues to walk in a right understanding of God.

As for me, I'm rejoicing that I have a brother in Dallas!

When it Comes to Our Relationships, Are we Labeling, or Listening?

I’m not sure if its because we are in an election season, but I’ve been thinking a lot lately about labels; how they are used, and how they are misused. Watching the Presidential debate in New Hampshire last week, I was struck by the way labels were used in the attempt of some candidates to pigeonhole other candidates. And after 20 years in ministry, I’ve come to the conclusion that the church participates in this same destructive exercise.

Now, I’m not against using labels. Labels can give us a sense of where people are coming from. They help us understand the philosophical rationale for decisions made, commitments kept, and why people care about the things they care about. But at the end of the day, a label doesn’t mean much unless it is understood in light of a person and that person’s context.

A personal example will illustrate this. I’m an evangelical Christian who believes in an inerrant Bible, a literal Adam and Eve, and the virgin birth, substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I’m also a complimentarian that believes the Scriptures commend male pastoral leadership in the home and in the church.

But although I believe in a literal creation, I plant no flags in the ground regarding exactly when God spoke the created order into existence. I’ve read those who believe the earth is 6000 years old, and I’ve read those who believe the earth is tens of millions of years old. My position is that, since I wasn’t there, I’m just going to say “I have no idea.”

Additionally, although I am a complimentarian, I believe women are called to every manner of ministry in the church, including the teaching ministry. I find nothing in the text that prevents a woman—under the guidance of her pastor—from teaching the Bible, planning missions strategy, leading ministry efforts in the church, or teaching in a seminary or other institution of higher learning.

I could go on, but these two issues alone are enough for some people to say that the phrase “evangelical” doesn’t fit me. On one occasion about ten years ago, someone actually referred to me as a “liberal.” That was a first!

A few other examples of labels are:

Baptist: There has been much discussion over the last couple of years about what it means to “truly” be Baptist. But which kind of Baptist are we speaking of? Paul Tillich was an existentialist theologian who eventually denied the bodily resurrection of Christ, yet he called himself “Baptist.” Jack Hyles taught that women should always wear dresses and never cut their hair, and he called himself “Baptist.” Westboro "Church" (using that term loosely, I know)in Kansas promulgates a message of hatred for homosexuals, soldiers, and the United States as a whole, and they call themselves “Baptist.”

Living in Maryland, when I identify myself as “Baptist” it is likely that the person I’m talking to might invoke any one of the above expressions. I don’t live in the south where even the dogs and cats are members in good standing of the local Baptist Church. I live in a place where we are about as numerous as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and viewed with essentially the same degree of suspicion. So the only way for someone to really know what I mean when I apply the label to myself is to get to know me.

Liberal. This is a word that often gets tossed around carelessly, especially if your goal is to make someone else look bad. Problem is, not all forms of liberalism are bad! Most of the “liberal arts” universities in America were started by Bible believing Christian groups. Furthermore, the domain of society this term is applied to makes all the difference in the world. Are we talking about political liberalism? Theological liberalism? Social liberalism? Educational liberalism? Each of these terms has an historical definition that separates many of them out from the usual perception of the “left-right” spectrum.

Muslim. Over the past year, God has opened the door for me to interact with many new friends in the Muslim community. In that time, I’ve learned much about the lives and faith of these precious people, and when I watch FOX News, the Islam I hear described bears little resemblance to that practiced by the people I’ve come to know and love.

To be sure, Muslims of the sort described on our nightly news programs do exist. But Islam is a global, and thus diverse, faith. It is practiced through Sunni, Shi’ite, and Sufi expressions in dozens of countries around the world, and among 1.6 billion people worldwide. Consequently, a Muslim living in Instanbul, Turkey is probably very different from a Muslim living in rural Afghanistan, the North African desert, or among the immigrant communities that now live in various major cities throughout Europe and the United States. Think about the difference between an Eastern Orthodox Priest in the Balkan region of southern Europe and a Pentecostal preacher in south Alabama. Both are “Christian.” That same sort of variety exists in the Islamic world as well.

Calvinist: Again, which kind are we talking about? Guys who don’t believe in evangelism? John MacArthur students committed to sound exposition? Those who minister in the tradition of Spurgeon? Dortians? Amyraldians? “Whiskey Baptists?” Those labels too can be highly confusing and polarizing.

Conservative. The present forward movement of the Republican primary season ensures that this term gets worn slick. What exactly is a “true conservative” or a “strong conservative” anyway? By the standards of some, William F. Buckley, who is arguably considered the father of modern political conservatism, would be considered a moderate today. And if ever there was a term that meant so many things that it means nothing, it’s the term “moderate.”

Is it possible to be theologically conservative yet educationally liberal? History proves that it is.

So where am I going with all this? Here is my big idea: If the labels we use to categorize others can themselves have so many different expressions, then the only way I can truly get to know another human being is to spend time with them and build a relationship. Investing part of your life in a venture as risky as getting to know another human being can sometimes be messy. Sure, its easier to simply label people and move on. But in the end, that approach cheats us out of the tremendous blessing of sharing life, and for Christians, sharing our faith.

For Christians, this is an imminently important issue. We have, to a large extent, capitulated to the cultural propensity to use labels as a device to pigeonhole people and isolate ourselves from them. Then we wonder why we have such a difficult time connecting with our communities and the world. If we don’t build bridges, we will never share Jesus. And you can’t build bridges to culture without building relationships with human beings from every walk of life.

Use labels as reference points. Use them to understand someone’s personal background. But get to know people. All the labeling in the world is no substitute for sitting down with another human being and hearing from them directly. Plus, it’s the only way we can substantively engage the world Jesus died to save.

My Favorite Half of Romans 14*

One of the most annoying experiences of ministry often comes, interestingly enough, after I've preached a message. It's that moment when I'm standing in the back of the church shaking hands, and someone comes up and says "great message Dr. Rainey. I wish _________ could have been here to hear it. They need it!"

Honestly, it's hard in moments like that to keep my temper at bay. I want to ask, in righteous indignation, "don't you need it too? What's wrong with you that you see faults in others before you see them in yourself? Haven't you read Matthew 7:1-5?? Are you an idiot?? . . . .

. . .but just before exploding, the Spirit reminds me that often, I too, am an idiot.

For example, many folks on my wife's side of the family come out of a Holiness background. Because of this, they hold strong convictions that I don't hold. I remember early in our dating life when Amy would say "don't talk about movies we have seen around the relatives. They believe going to the theater is sinful."

Of course, my instant reaction was to appeal to Romans 14. After all, Paul has given us clear instruction regarding how to relate to each other on "debatable" matters. There is nothing . . .absolutely NOTHING in Scripture that forbids me from seeing a good movie, especially one in which there is lots of gunplay, fast cars, and buildings blowing up in a hopelessly gratuitous fashion. There is liberty in Christ, and where "movies for guys who like movies" are concerned, I aim to exercise my liberty!!

Furthermore, those who would object to my affinity for fast cars and bullets on the silver screen should consider carefully the following verses from Romans 14:" . . .and let not the one who abstains pass judgement on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him." v.3b"Who are you to pass judgement on the servant of another?" v.4"Why do you pass judgement on your brother?" v.10"Therefore, let us not pass judgement on one another any longer." v.13a

Wow, if only my "weaker brother" were here to read these verses. He sure needs it!

Problem is, in quoting my preferred half of this text, I've totally ignored (i.e. violated) the parts that are addressed to me in an effort to point out those parts that are addressed to my weaker brother. Talk about irony!

As a "stronger brother" in this regard, I should instead be looking at the following passages:"Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains. . ." v.3a". . .but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." v.13b"For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died." v.15"It is not good to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble." v.21

Do such texts mean that I should totally abstain from seeing the movie "Contraband" this weekend? Not necessarily. At the same time, it probably means I should keep quiet about it around certain folks out of deference for their convictions. OF course, they have their responsibilities as well. But I'm not responsible to fulfill my weaker brother's responsibilities. I'm responsible to fulfill mine.

The same is true for any other debatable issue. My denomination, for example, has, on the whole, very strong convictions about alcohol consumption . . .convictions that I share to a large extent. So when it comes to beer, I switch teams. I'm no longer a "strong" brother. Now, I'm a "weaker" one. And within our churches, I’ve noticed a strange phenomenon: almost anytime a debatable issue divides the strong and weak, the weak come out on top in the form of additional rules. The strong are often warned against causing others to stumble. The weak are rarely called out for judging their stronger brothers.

Perhaps this explains, at least in part, why there are so many evangelical churches that are culturally unengaged—bordering on the isolationist. To be sure, some of my more aggressively evangelistic brothers sometimes do things, and go to lengths, that give me pause. But when comparing those I believe sometimes go too far with the multitude majority who don’t go far enough, I think we need more of the former!

The thing that interests me about any debatable issue is that most folks are just like me . . .they have a propensity to appeal to those verses in Romans 14 that are addressed to their opponents. The problem with this approach is that it not only ignores those texts most applicable to you, but it also violates the spirit of the very texts to which we appeal; a spirit that is best summarized by Paul's contention that "the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."

"Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding." (vv.17-18)

Appealing to my "preferred half" of Romans 14 is never conducive to the kind of peace and Kingdom thinking that Paul describes. To pursue peace, I have to appropriate the other half . . .the half that describes my responsibilities when it comes to debatable issues.

With this in mind, maybe I don't need to judge my brother who participates in activities I find I can't participate in without sinning. Conversely, perhaps I need to resist colorful descriptions of "Ironman" in front of certain family members.

Maybe, just maybe, if we all practiced such things, righteousness and peace and joy would be seen more clearly in us by those who need to know Jesus. Just maybe, this is what Paul had in mind when he wrote Romans 14.

*Adapted from a 2008 post on this blog.

Why this Evangelical is Voting for Ron Paul

I rarely write on issues that are solely political in nature. As a follower of Jesus and a regional leader of global missions, I frankly have more important things to write about, and understand that no eartthly kingdom compares to the eternal Kingdom of God I'm called to proclaim.

Furthermore, I want my primary message to always be that of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and entering exlusively into prolonged political conversation inevitably dilutes that message. For these reasons, this will be my one and only public political endorsement this year. But before I make it, a couple of qualifications are neccesary.

First, I'm making this endorsement as a private citizen, and posting it on a privately-owned website that is in no way funded by the organization that employs me. When I speak as Director of Missions, I represent 12,000 Baptists in the Baltimore-Washington, D.C. area, and when it comes to the political, we are a diverse bunch, so I don't in any way want to give the impression that I am speaking for them, for the churches they attend, or for the Association I'm privileged to serve. Additionally, there is always an irrational fear--usually from the political left--that in making an endorsement I'm somehow violating Constitutional law. I wouldn't want Rev. Barry Lynn and "Americans United for Separation of Church and State," the ACLU, or any other loony-left group of people who have yet to find a real job to have any reason to think that someone's "rights" are being violated by what I say here.

Second, the nature of this endorsement is likely to trouble some of my ministry colleagues, who have already expressed suprise at my personal choice for President this year. While there is no candidate in the race with whom I am in 100% agreement, I hope this post will clarify why a conservative evangelical Christian is not only able to vote for someone who is not "far right" on every issue, but sometimes SHOULD cast such a vote.

With that said, I'd like to list here the primary reasons I believe Ron Paul Should be the next President of the United States, and then address some concerns that I often hear about some of Ron Paul's views.

1. Ron Paul is the true "Champion of the Constitution." Name the issue: Whether it is fiscal policy, foreign relations, national security, or social issues, Ron Paul is the only candidate in the field who consistently appeals to the Constitution of the United States. When the left appeals to emotion when arguing for continued funding of unsustainable government programs, Ron Paul answers with our founding documents. When the right appeals to fear when arguing for stronger "security measures" that steal individual liberty, Ron Paul answers with our founding documents. Ron Paul's views, compared with other candidates, reveal him to be the only one who truly believes that we are a nation of law and not of men. In contrast to Gingrich, who has publicly stated he would purposefully go around Constitutional law if he thought it neccesary to "protect us," Ron Paul believes that no one individual is above the Constitution, including the President.

As a result, Congressman Paul has been the lone voice opposing the Federal Reserve, insisting on closing any federal department not expressly authorized by the Constitution, and sounding the alarm about how the so-called "Patriot Act" and sections of the most recent version of NDAA blatantly violate habeus corpus and our fourth ammendment rights.

Over a decade ago, former President George W. Bush suggested that the right saw the Constitution as an authoritative document to be followed, while the left saw it as a "living, breathing document" subject to interpretations not dependent on the intent of the founders. Since that day, I have come to realize that both Republicans and Democrats treat the Constitution with disdain. They just disagree about which parts of it they want to ignore. I'm weary of Presidential candidates with little respect for our body of law. I want a President who understands that no one is above that law, especially the Chief Executive. Among all the candidates in the current field, Ron Paul is the only one who seems to understand this.

2. Ron Paul tells it like he sees it. Admittedly the 76-year-old candidate isn't the most eloquent speaker in this group. Frequent verbal bridges and blunt remarks that could be better expressed sometimes get in the way of the message. This is especially true when Paul is onstage alongside such magnanimous speakers as Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Furthermore, there have been many verbal gaffes in this campaign that have left him misunderstood. But if one only takes the time to look past the delivery to the actual message, one observes something that I don't believe is evident in any other candidates' platform: the unvarnished truth unaccosted by nuances that appeal to the "party line."

All the candidates speak about a prosperous America. All the candidates speak about a strong and secure America. Only Ron Paul has spoken in detail, and substantively, about how he would seek to bring this about. Some of his ideas are controversial, and still others highly unpopular (I would say it is because they are misunderstood, and will explain more below). But among the current slate of candidates, when asked a direct question, Ron Paul is the only one who provides a direct answer.

To be sure, there are much more eloquent candidates in the field. Indeed, there are many on that platform that appear more "Presidential" (whatever that means) than Ron Paul. But we elected our current incumbent largely due to his silver tongue, in spite of the fact that he had never run a business, met a payroll, or served in any executive capacity whatsoever. I think we've had enough eloquent speech. What we need now is plain, straight-talk.

3. Ron Paul has the only sane fiscal policy. The "bloody ram's head" that sits conspicuously on our nation's table right now is that we cannot continue to sustain a budget that created a $15 trillion debt. But there are two hard truths that must be faced in order to solve this problem that neither major political party, as a whole, wants to face. Defense and Entitlements are the two largest portions of the federal budget, and in order to get our fiscal house in order, both must be cut substantially. But Republicans won't agree to cut the former, and Democrats refuse to cut the latter. Ron Paul is the only candidate who states the unpopular but plain truth that both must be cut, and that both CAN be cut without dismantling our ability to defend ourselves or sending millions into poverty.

Additionally, Congressman Paul has consistently opposed the existence of the Federal Reserve. It was Ronald Reagan who once said "Government isn't the solution to our problem. Government IS the problem." If ever there was a government entity that tangibly proved this statement true it is the Federal Reserve System. Those on the right and left have differing views on what to do with the Fed in order to improve our economy, but neither considers that the Fed itself--with the way it has kept interest rates artificially low while simultaneously destroying our money supply with inflationary practices--might be the source of the problem.

4. Ron Paul may be the only candidate who knows the meaning of "liberty." Many examples could be given to prove this, but the most recent and obvious would be the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. Normally a benign bill annually passed to fund the Pentagon's defense budget and the military, the current version of NDAA contains two "poison pills" that allow the incarcertaion and indefinite detention of AMERICAN CITIZENS, without due process, by the American military. This blatant violation of Posse Comitatis sets the stage for a future in which political opponents who are able to be "linked" in any way with suspected terrorist organizations could simply be locked up and silenced indefintely.

But perhaps the greatest tragedy of this piece of legislation is the way in which it could change the perception of our military. My kids are learning to honor those who serve in our military as heroes who protect our freedom, and who are on our side. The newest version of NDAA creates an environment where my kids could have their homes invaded and their parents arrested and held indefinitely by those same military personnel.

What is horrifyingly strange about all this is that no political candidate is sounding the alarm about this gross violation of the law by our current Congress, and our current President who signed it into law. Since 9/11, American's have had their right to privacy violated in every place from the internet to airports. We have been forced to succomb to an emerging and growing "police state" in which it now appears the military may even become a part of that police force. More recently, American citizens have been targeted abroad for assassination, without due process. Not a single candidate for President is saying anything about this--except Ron Paul.

There are other reasons I support Congressman Paul's candidacy, but I also realize that there are grave concerns about his positions on a number of other issues, so I'd like to address those now, as well as address how this evangelical can, in good conscience, vote for him and support him publicly:

Isn't Ron Paul "Pro-Choice?" The short answer to this question is "no." As a practicing obstetrician for many decades, Dr. Paul has publicly stated his pro-life views. This is of particular importance to me. I strongly believe respect for all human life is foundational to continued liberty, and therefore have never, and will never vote for any candidate who believes it is permissible to murder a child in the womb. Congressman Paul has also stated his opposition to abortion.

The sticky part of this argument lies in what the Congressman would do legislatively and otherwise related to this issue. Although he is pro-life, he has stated that he would appeal to the 10th ammendment on this issue, meaning that he believes it should be totally within the power of the 50 state governments to regulate and/or outlaw the practice as they see fit. For many of my fellow social conservatives, this doesn't go far enough. As one who favors a human life ammendment to the Constitution, I too believe the Congressman should go much further on this issue. But what many are forgetting is that for Ron Paul's vision of "state regulation" of abortion to be realized, "Roe-v. Wade" would need to be overturned, which is what ALL social conservatives would love to see happen.

Since "Roe" was decided in 1973, the majority of Supreme Court justices appointed have been by "pro-life" Presidents, yet we still have a Court that respects stare decisis more than innocent human life. Knowing his views on Constitutional law, I am convinced that President Paul would not compromise, as other pro-life Presidents have, when it comes to his judicial appointments. In short, I believe Ron Paul would do more do end abortion than the five pro-life Presidents combined who have come before him since the "Roe" decision.

Ron Paul's Foreign Policy views scare me. "Ron Paul wants to dismantle the military." "Ron Paul would leave us wide open to attack." Such rhetoric is stirring, concerning, and TOTALLY untrue.

Though he has been called an "isolationist," Congressman Paul's views are actually those of a "non-interventionist." In short, Paul is a consistent believer in national sovereignty. But he doesn't believe that only the United States is sovereign. He believes ALL nations are sovereign, and that the U.S. has, over the years, intervened in the affairs of other nations that should not have concerned us.

Still, the charge that Paul would leave us open to terrorist attack seems very convincing, at least to those who have never actually looked at his voting record. He voted in favor of authorizing President Bush to use force in Afghanistan after 9/11, in retaliation for the attacks on New York and Washington. Additionally, and contrary to the claims of many on the right, Ron Paul believes in a strong, impenetrable national defense. He believes the job of the military is spelled out in the Constitution, and that job consists of defending our own borders, not policing the world.

There was a time when such was the official doctrine of the Republican party. But 9/11 created a national paranoia that the far-right has exploited over the past decade that led us into a prolonged war in Iraq, a military force that is stretched thin, and a total reversal of a previous belief in "non-intervention" by the so-called "Bush doctrine." Ron Paul wants to see this trend reversed, and so do I. That said, I will say that I'm not in total agreement with the Congressman on this issue. I don't believe a doctrine of non-intervention calls for the closing of every military base we have around the world. Additionally, I believe Paul to be "common sense" enough to adjust his particular views if reality dictates. I'm sure there is something about a new President receiving his first 2 or 3 intelligence briefings that tempers one's ideology. (remember President Obama's promise to shut down Gitmo?)

But I agree with him that in many ways, our intervention has probably caused more problems than it has solved. Those of us opposed to U.S. participation in the United Nations are the first to cry "national sovereignty" when the U.N. presumes to tell Americans what to do. We should offer the same level of respect and understanding to other nations.

Don't you think Ron Paul's view that we should legalize heroin is extreme? Yes I do. However, I agree with Congressman Paul's overall view that the "war on drugs" has solved nothing. I am not pro-drug use. But like prohibition that preceeded it, the war on drugs has done little to stop or even slow down the abuse of illegal (or legal, for that matter) substances in our nation. It has, however, resulted in deficit spending, prisons overcrowded with non-violent offenders and lots and lots of dead police officers. On the more general note, Ron Paul is right: We MUST have a new approach to this issue.

I've heard strong rumors that Ron Paul is anti-semitic. These rumors are blatantly false, to the extent that they are laughable. If "anti-semitic" means you aren't a Zionist, then I suppose you could call Ron Paul anti-semitic, along with the overwhelming majority of non-dispensationalist Christians, and secular Jews around the world. Referring to certain Jews as themselves being "anti-semitic" seems a bit absurd, no?

Unfortunately for those who are trying to push this rumor, the phrase "anti-semitic" has an actual definition. If you believe we should support Israel no matter what--even if they should decide to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Turkey--or if you believe the U.S. should continue sending foreign aid to Israel, you will disagree with Ron Paul. That doesn't make Ron Paul anti-semitic.

Contrary to the claims of many, Ron Paul is more pro-Israel than any other Republican nominee, for the simple reason that he doesn't believe Israel should have to ask the permission of the United States before it makes a decision, including a decision to defend itself. His desire to suspend foreign aid to Israel is bundled with his position that U.S. foreign aid worldwide should come to an end. And he is right, by the way. The Israelis are more than capable of defending themselves. Come to think of it, I'd be afraid to pit our Air Force against theirs. Even Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has stated that Israel does not need the help--or the permission--of the United States to do what it believes is in its own national self-interest.

So there you have it. I want my country to stay free, to be prosperous again, and to return to its Constitutional roots. For these reasons, Congressman Ron Paul gets my vote for President.

For more information, watch this 15 minute interview conducted by CNN's Pierce Morgan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haceEBNxCG4

Waiting for Christmas*

All of us find that certain Biblical commands are easier to obey than others. Personally, I have never struggled with the "active" commands of Scripture . . . ."GO" "TEACH" "BAPTIZE" "PREACH" are divine calls to which I almost always respond in the right way.

But recently, I have been struggling in my efforts to obey the more "passive" commands of Scripture. God created me with a high-D personality and leadership style hard-wired into my consciousness. As such, commands like "WAIT" "BE QUIET" and "BE STILL" are more difficult for me. But this week, I have found a model for such patience in Luke 2.

The story of Simeon is one of those tales that, if televised, would likely be relegated to the Hallmark Channel and never seen as a "Christmas classic." While most pastors will spend the perfunctory amount of time in the first part of Luke 2 this Christmas, this second part of the chapter is often overlooked. Still, Simeon's ability to wait on God amazes me. Verse 25 states that he was "righteous" and "devout," and that this righteous devotion was manifest in the way that he waited. His life really matched what he professed to believe. God had told him years earlier that he would not die before bearing witness to the Messiah with his own eyes, and with strong faith, Simeon clings to this promise . . . .by waiting!

Within one month of Jesus' birth, Simeon experiences God's fulfilled promise. Joseph and Mary, two blue-collar, lower-middle-class parents, bring their newborn son into the temple in Jerusalem according to the custom of the law. At this point, Simeon has been waiting for decades, and his excitement over being able to finally see the Christ-child is evident to anyone in the temple that day. As he takes the infant in his arms, he exclaims: "Now Master, You can dismiss your slave in peace according to your Word. For my eyes have seen your salvation." (Luke 2:29-20 HCSB)

This was the last thing Simeon was waiting for before his death, and throughout decades of waiting, he never gave up. God loves faith like that . . . .faith that hangs on . . . .faith that is willing to wait.

But we aren't part of a culture that sees value in waiting. We want instant gratification. In a society dominated by drive-thru lanes, microwaves, TiVO, and 24-hour service, waiting isn't a virtue, its a weakness! If you are waiting, its because you weren't assertive enough, or didn't demand enough.

Perhaps this is why it is such a struggle for guys like me to submit to God in this way. But if I am able to wait, I learn that God keeps His promises. Simeon waited for decades. But in truth, Simeon's people had been waiting for several millenia! The promise Simeon saw was made as early as Genesis 3:15, and restated in Genesis 12, Genesis 17, 2 Samuel 7, Jeremiah 31, Isaiah 53, Zechariah . . . .you get the picture. God allowed centuries to pass before making good on His promise. But in the end, He always keeps them.

But waiting on the fulfillment of God's promise isn't something we do naturally, which is why Luke emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit in Simeon's life no less than three times in this passage. The Holy Spirit was on him. The Holy Spirit revealed truth to him. The Holy Spirit guided him. And the Holy Spirit helped him to wait.

Without the Holy Spirit, we can't wait. We will jump the gun. We will try to get ahead of where God is working. And we will fail. The Old Testament is full of accounts of men who would not wait on God's promises and failed. For Abraham, it was the conception of Ishmael by Hagar. For Saul, it was the consulting of a medium. For Moses, it was simply striking a rock in anger. But the result of refusing to wait is always the same: sin, shame, hurt, and devastation.

But there are others who did wait on God: Elisha, Job, Nehemiah, Paul, and others. Elisha was protected by an unseen yet innumerable army (2 Kings 6), but not before being faced with the army of Aram. Job was given back double what was taken from him (Job 42), but not before he lost everything most precious to him. Nehemiah saw the completion of the walls around Jerusalem, but not before facing strong opposition from the Samaritans. Paul was able to witness the spread of the Gospel throughout the entire Roman Empire, but was also forbidden by God from entering Asia.

Life doesn't give us a lot of green lights. More often than not, God doesn't say "you can have it now." Most often, he says "you must wait," and then uses the process of waiting to make us into the kind of people He wants us to be . . . .and this drives me crazy! I'm an active guy. I like to move. I like to work. I like to play. And I like doing all of these things with intensity. Waiting has never been on my list of favorite things to do. But this Christmas, God is working on me by having me wait.

Perhaps this is true for some who are reading as well. If so, know that if you give up, you will never know how truly close you were to seeing the fulfillment of His promises to you. Picture Simeon getting up on the morning of Jesus' dedication, murmuring to himself "I've been waiting on this for 40 years. Is it ever going to happen?" Meanwhile, the Messiah is in town, and his parents are on their way to see Simeon at this very moment.

God's promises and God's answers are closer than you think, because God is closer than you think. If you refuse to wait on Him, you might very well forfeit everything. So this Christmas, be still, be quiet, and wait on the Lord. You won't be sorry!

*This post was originally published December 12, 2006

Sin, Redemption, and the Justice of God: What I Learned from the Death of Kim Jong Il

Being away from the office for the holidays, I'm further behind than normal when it comes to keeping up with the news. So it was yesterday before I discovered that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was dead.

My emotions have been both strong and diverse since that moment.

On the one hand, my faith teaches me that Kim Jong Il was a human being created in the image and likeness of God; a human being who possessed an eternal soul that is most likely, based on his own worldview affirmations and accompanying behavior, being tormented at this very moment in hell. And since the Scriptures teach that this torment will never end, there is a side of me that is sorrowful. In some sense, this reflects the heart of God, who says "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways. . ." (Ezekiel 33:11 ESV)

On the other hand, I cannot hide my satisfaction in knowing that an egotistical, dictatorial, mass-murdering maniac will no longer be able to persecute his own people. During his 14 year regime, the so-called "dear leader" of North Korea imprisoned more than 200,000 political dissidents, tortured and murdered thousands of his own people, took a "military first" approach to government infrastructure and allowed his own people to starve during one of the worst localized famines in modern history. He oversaw the massive imprisonment of Christians, as well as government endorsed policies that encouraged the kidnapping of foreign nationals, and the sexual abuse and trafficking of young North Korean girls for the pleasure of North Korean government leaders. If ever there was a tangible expression of Satan-incarnate in our generation, it was Kim Jong Il.

It was with these two warring sets of emotion that I said to my wife last night, "Kim Jong Il has died and gone to hell."

Amy's very quick response was a simple "Wow, I'm not sure what to think about how you just said that." And she was right.

After some time in prayer, I think I know what was happening inside me. In one sense, the satisfaction that someone is likely facing retribution for wrongs done is a just feeling that appeals to the justice of God Himself. The Scriptures tell us that the law of God is inscribed on the heart of men and women to the extent that even those who do not know Christ can recognize injustice when they see it, and they rightly want it rectified. (Romans 2:15) Likewise, our Creator is just, and has promised to leave no sin unpunished. Ultimately, He will right every wrong in His grand mission to reconcille the world to Himself.

I have sometimes counseled victims of violence, rape, theft, or some other injustice, and many times, they have come into my office assuming that a Christian should never get angry at such things when the truth is just the opposite. Jesus got angry enough to crack a whip and turn over tables . . .INSIDE the temple! We read in the Scriptures that God is angry with the wicked (Psalm 7:11), and that the injustice of sinners causes him to hate "all workers of iniquity" (Psalm 5:5). So when we are angry at obvious injustice, we are reflecting the heart of our God who despises when those he has created in His image are abused and taken advantage of. There is no sin in being angry at injustice, and there is no sin in desiring justice for those who deserve it. Therefore, it is not wrong to desire justice for a madman like Kim Jong Il. It is, in fact, righteous, to take satisfaction in the fact that, one way or another, God is, even now, calling the "dear leaders' atrocities to account, and issuing punishment accordingly.

But my sin last night was that in my quick and smug dismissal of a man who the whole world knew was evil, I conveniently forgot that I have the same sin nature in me that has probably sent Kim Jong Il into eternal judgement. My wife was right. What I said was Biblically correct. But I should not have said it with confidence. I should have said it with trembling.

There is obvious evil in the world. The Stalins, Hitlers, Quaddafis and Kims of our time are but a few historical examples of what happens when the worst kind of evil is allowed to influence a people or a government. When we witness the kind of unspeakable atrocities that have been committed by such men, it becomes much easier to believe in hell. But what we forget is that the same sin nature that affected the hearts of these hardened, pagan leaders also resides in the heart of this Baptist preacher.

Paul reminds us in the first three chapters of Romans that no one is exempt from the wrath of God because "all have sinned." (Romans 3:23), and the sin is, ultimately, against God. And since the offense is against an infinite being, it is only right--only just--that the punishment itself be infinite. When God examines the depth of my heart, He sees the same viral sickness that resided in the heart of the recently deceased North Korean dictator. And when sin is observed from this persepective, we come to the conclusion that at heart, there really isn't any difference between Kim Jong Il and the rest of us.

Thankfully, the Gospel doesn't end with "justice for all," but instead with the offer of grace to anyone who will accept it. But this grace isn't cheap. It isn't "sweeping under the rug" the reality of our hearts' condition and the sin and evil that results. For those who place their faith in Jesus, He has become our "propitiation." (Romans 3:25), meaning that He has borne the wrath of God in our place. Because of this, he could "pass over the sins previously committed" and become "just, and justifier of the one who has faith."

Once, there was another ruler of another kingdom. This ruler took another man's wife, impregnated her, and effectively murdered her husband to try and cover up the scandal. Imagine that you are the parent of Uriah, the faithful soldier of Israel. Imagine your discovery that the King of Israel has taken your daughter-in-law from your son, and sent your son to the front lines of battle to ensure his death so that he can cover up his adultery. Would you not want justice? Would you not cry "foul" when Nathan the prophet says to King David, "your sins are forgiven?" How can this happen? Because God's promise in the New Covenant was that he will settle all debts, render all justice, and "balance the books." In David's case, as in the case of every believer, that debt was settled at Calvary, and that is the only thing separating us from people like Kim Jong Il.

If you are tempted to think your sins are not as offensive to God as those of the "dear leader," then its been too long since you have seen and meditated on the bloody mess atop Golgotha's hill.

God is a God of justice. In the end, this means that in the absence of any final hour confession of Christ, Kim Jong Il will be paying for his crimes against God and men for the rest of eternity, and this is right. But it didn't have to be this way, and neither does it have to be this way for anyone else.

The death of Kim Jong Il should remind us of the justice of God. It should also remind us that this justice is indiscriminate, and that for every one of us, a day of reckoning is coming. On that day, either my sins will be paid in full by Jesus, or that payment will be required at my own hands.

Kim Jong Il is in hell. If you can say that, or read it without trembling, your view of justice is way too shallow.

Sinning with a Smartphone

The cute picture to your right was posted by my wife yesterday. Amy and I have a good time nudging each other about the other's use of smart phone technology, but there is a serious side to this issue that is too often excused, or outright ignored in our current climate.

The fact that I'm writing this article and publishing it via electronic media should be enough to demonstrate that I am not against technology. Through the internet and related communications devices, my office can operate "virtually" without actually having to be "in" the office. All our staff are issued smartphones and laptops so that we can easily stay in touch with each other while in various locations across this vast association, which stretches from College Park to southern Pennsylvania.

Additionally, smartphone technology allows me to stay up to date on the latest national and international news (CNN is so last generation!), converge all my social media in a way that allows me to better communicate with the churches I serve, or stay in touch with an old high school buddy. Last month while in India, I could be reached by any pastor in our network who simply dialed my cell number as if I were in my office in Eldersburg, Maryland, and Skype technology allows me to host virtual "face to face" meetings no matter where I find myself in the world. It also lets me see my wife and kids when I'm away. Everything from important meetings to sermon preparation is expedited because of technology that is right at our fingertips.

But there is another side to this issue. When the need to "stay connected" results in one being disconnected from those closest to him, an addiction has been formed that must, for the glory of God, be broken.

I admit, I have been there. Regrettably, the comical scene you see in the cartoon cell above has been played out in the Rainey household, on more than a few occassions. To this day, it remains a difficult struggle. After all, I get about 200 emails a day. My combined social media connections are in excess of 2000 people, and I serve a network of churches where roughly 12,000 people worship every week. So there is always an update, a message, an alert, or a need. And thanks to the technology at my fingertips, I'm ALWAYS aware of it--for better or for worse.

So here is the bottom line, (and I know more than a few pastors who need to pay heed to this as well). Of all 12,000 people who attend our churches, none should be as important to me as the one I'm married to. Unfortunately many times, by virtue of my never-ending phone-checks, I've communicated just the opposite. Over the years, I've had to re-assess my relationship with all of my electronic gadgets. I would suggest that anyone, in any profession, do the same. Every household is different. Therefore, I would not prescribe exactly the same approach for every family. Nevertheless, I do hope my description of our own approach to this issue below will encourage more families to set appropriate boundaries. For our household in 2012, there are three, non-negotiable rules that are in play where smartphones are concerned:

1. 8 PM is "shut-off" time. At some point, the office has to be closed, even if its "virtual." For me, closing time is never later than 8 PM each night, unless an evening meeting has me out later. If its 8:15 and I'm at home, you will not be able to get in touch with me unless you are the Associational Moderator, the Chair of our Administrative Team, or our Office Manager. Over the years, I've discovered that these three folks know what actually constitutes an "emergency." Most of the other 12,000 people in our network don't. Between 8 and 8:30, we are putting our kids to bed, praying with our kids, reading Bible stories, sharing potty humor, talking about any problems at school (sometimes those problems and potty humor are related, but I digress), and being a family. After 8:30 is time for Amy and I to be together, talk about our day, watch a movie, pray together, and just be husband and wife. Twitter updates and text messages don't enhance that time. They steal from it.

At the end of the day, there is only one person who can ensure that my family gets the time from their husband/dad that they are entitled to and that person is me. To literally say with your actions "12,000 people will just have to wait" requires some hard boundaries.

2. The phone is in another room during dinner, or in the car during a family event. I used to take my phone into my son's band concerts. The result was that I never enjoyed the concert because I was either reading the news or responding to an email. A generation ago, the question was "when is dad getting home from work?" Today, the question is "when is dad going to put his work down and pay attention to me?" I don't want to repeat those early sins, because when I communicate with my smartphone that a news article about the GOP debate is more important than my son's improved trumpet skills, I am sinning against my son.

Family meals are another time when the phone is not a welcome device. Early in our marriage, we set a rule that we would not answer the house phone if it rang during dinner. It is ironic that 17 years later, that rule is still in place, but somehow it became acceptable to bring my DROID to the dining room table and ignore my wife and kids while responding to a Facebook comment. There is absolutely no emergency so great that it cannot wait until after family dinner to receive my attention. (and, just as a reminder, there is no such thing as an emergency "on Facebook.")

3. "Need to use only" is in effect on family vacations. Before we leave on vacation, I record a message on my phone that states when I'll be back, and a number where those who need more immediate attention can call one of my staff. I do NOT leave those who call an option to be called back before I return.

Instead, I turn the phone OFF, and put it in the console of our family's minivan. I only take it out and turn it ON when Amy and I are going to be separated during the day. Again, our Associational leadership have Amy's cell number, and know that in an emergency, they can get to me through her. But I do not answer a phone issued to me for business purposes if I'm not supposed to be conducting business.

On several occassions, I have unknowingly called pastors on vacation, and had more than one of them actually pick up the phone while on the beach with their families! Guys, we really aren't needed that badly! And if we have conditioned our people that we are "always available" and further enabled that attitude by the way we abuse technology, we not only sin against our families, but also against the people we are supposed to be equipping for ministry, because we have trained them instead to be dependent on us.

Technology is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately those of us who use technology have fallen minds and sin-sick hearts that have often turned a wonderful, time-saving invention into an idol. I hope some of the ideas above will be helpful to others, as you seek to strike the balance between staying connected to work and refusing to be disconnected at home. To those who are out of control, from a guy who admits to having once been out of control, stop sinning against your family, and get dominion over your smartphone!

Austerity, or Retrenchment? How Organizations Can Tighten Their Belts with Purpose

If by now you aren't aware of our nation's economic woes and its effect on everything from employment to retail sales, you are probably one who lives in the woods, churns your own butter, and only have access to dialup. You probably don't own the technology to be able to read this blog either.

Yep, its scary out there, and over the past three years, I've watched as the people in the churches I serve have lost their livelihoods, homes, and hope. I've also had a front row seat to the effect of these realities on the churches themselves. And occassionally, I've seen elder boards, finance committees, and pastors hit the panic button when their church started hemmoraging financially. In the economy of the "new normal," everybody is feeling the pinch, and trying to determine how to do more with less.

There is a positive side to this. For years, many churches relied on fat incomes. Now that streams of income have grown fewer and more anemic, churches are learning to depend on the Lord. At the same time, I've seen quite a few knee jerk reactions to a drop in giving. Though these reactions, for the most part, are motivated by a noble desire to "save the church," an over-reactionary approach to what the corporate world calls "austerity measures" can result in a demoralized staff, a culture of panic ministries with no resources to operate, and a church adrift in "survival mode."

With all this in view (and with apparently no end in sight to our economic woes), I'm going to suggest a different approach. In the past year alone I've heard from several pastors who have had their salaries drastically and suddenly cut because of panicking financial administrators. I've seen ministries and mission efforts stopped in their tracks because the "bean-counters" reacted in fear, and I've seen churches unintentionally publicize desparation to the communities they are called to give hope to.

In other words, when you react to bad economic times by simply saying "cut, cut, cut," here is what you are saying to your church, and your community: "We are going to try and keep doing everything we have done before. We just aren't going to do it as well."

To be sure, no organization can continue spending more than it takes in (I'm waiting for the government to learn this lesson--perhaps in vain!) But there is a right way and a wrong way to cut spending. "Austerity measures" without a clear purpose don't communicate that you are responsible. They communicate that you are cheap!

So, how do you "cut with a purpose?"

1. Get ahead of the tsunami! Have good, sharp people on your financial team that can project income/giving trends in a way that allows you to prepare in advance. If you know a storm is coming, you can prepare for it in a way that minimizes the damage. Giving a pastor or staff member 60 days notice that they will have to absorb a huge cut in salary demoralizes staff in a way that can sometimes render them impotent to continue leading. A sudden freeze in spending not only damages effective ministries, but sends shockwaves of panic throughout an organization. People will honestly wonder if their paychecks are the next thing to get frozen!

On the other hand, if projections indicate that austerity measures might be neccesary, communicate the reasons clearly, and communicate the plan as soon as possible. Get ahead of the problem, plan for it before it arrives, and give the people who work for the organization time to plan for it as well!

2. Re-visit your Vision and Mission. This is why I prefer the term "retrenchment" to "austerity." "Austerity" simply communicates that an organization is reducing its spending. "Retrenchment" communicates that an organization is facing tight financial times with its purpose and mission clearly in view.

The first question to ask in tight financial times is not "what do we cut," but instead, "What are we supposed to be doing?" The mission of God's church does not change simply because there isn't as much dough in the offering plate as their used to be. Though cuts must sometimes be made, making those cuts without first reassessing what the organization is called to do can unintentionally sabotage that mission. Every organization can cut spending, but no organization should cut things that will be to the detriment of the mission.

3. Jettison tangential emphases and the expenses needed to maintain them. During more affluent times, churches will often say "yes" to a program or ministry that might not be central to its purpose, but will fund it anway because, well, the money is there.

In leaner times, when a church reassesses expenses in light of its mission and vision, the first things to go should be those things that weigh down the organization rather than help it to accomplish its goals. Most or all of these ministries may be good. But the church as a whole is ALWAYS more important than any of its parts. Don't defund a ministry central to the operation of the church and expect it to continue. Instead, defund ministries not central to the operation of the church, bury them with dignity, and move on!

4. Staff according to the new reality rather than merely reducing staff for the old reality. Too many churches and organizations, when seeking to cut spending in personnel, simply ask "who gets to stay, and who has to go." Both of these are the wrong first questions! Instead, construct a "new normal" in light of the overall purpose of the church, and ask how that "new normal" needs to be staffed. Yes, this may still mean that someone loses their job. But the question of whether someone keeps their job should never be answered only in light of the church's financial situation. Once tangential emphases have been eliminated and the next strategic steps of the church are clear, staffing decisions should be made in light of what it will take for the church to move forward. In one sense, you might call this "zero-based staffing."

Just because you can "afford" to keep someone doesn't mean you should. Conversely, tight financial times, in and of themselves, do not justify demoralizing a solid, faithful, and successful leader.

I believe Jerry Rankin is right: Austerity measures will become the norm in many churches and organizations in the near future. But cutting spending doesn't mean you have to be cheap. Tighten your belt with a purpose!

Global Associations?

I write this post while on my way to Chennai, a city in southeast India where I and a pastor colleague from our Association will spend several days training indigenous pastors. We began yesterday in London, where I met with folks with whom we will be working next summer, serving the city during the summer olympics.

So this morning, I sit at Heathrow airport (not an uncommon place to sit if you are on your way to India), and since our flight has been delayed by four hours (also not an uncommon thing if you are on your way to India), I've had some time to think through how God has blessed the Association of churches that I'm privileged to lead. As an appointee of the North American Mission Board my primary responsibilities involve mission work in the United States. Yet my work sometimes takes me out of the country because the churches I serve in central Maryland understand that global missions is accomplished, first and foremost, by local churches.

Four years ago, I stood in front of our Association at its annual session, and issued a challenge that within the next five years, our churches should work together to make a significant missions impact on every inhabited continent on the globe. Our churches answered this call, and just two months ago, when a group of MMBA volunteers began work in Australia, we reached that goal--a full year early!

Its truly a privilege to lead a network of churches that understand their global mandate. At the same time, I strongly believe this should be the norm for every Baptist Association. While this post is far from a comprehensive and detailed guide on how to lead Associations in that direction, I have listed below three primary elements that are an absolute neccesity for any Association that wants to go global.

Awareness: About two years ago I met a gentleman from the staff of our International Mission Board, who shared with me that the IMB had brought him home from his overseas assignment so that he could work to promote the work of international missions among local churches on a full-time basis. Puzzled, I asked him to clarify his role for me, and again he said "I'm here to promote the work of IMB among local SBC churches," to which I replied "funny, I thought that's what I did."

It is disconcerting that the IMB feels is has to spend missions dollars to keep missionaries here in the states in order to raise the awareness of our churches where global missions in concerned. Fundamentally, I consider this to be because of a failure at the Associational level. Directors of Missions have historically been the primary conduit of promotion when it comes to both giving and participation in missions, and I'm convinced that if Associations would again return to this promotional role, our churches would be more accutely aware of the extent of lostness around the globe, and also be equipped by the Association to identify and engage the part of that lost world that Jesus wants them to reach. I pray for a fresh movement of global missions awareness and promotion at the Associational level. Directors of Missions can be a vital link between local churches and unreached peoples around the globe. Historically, we have been exactly that, and we need to return to that focus.

Intentionality: The "bloody ram's head" on the table of conversation in SBC life is that the Director of Missions is a slowy dying, yet endangered species in our denomination. I believe the biggest reason for this has nothing to do with "regionalization," "restructuring" or anything else happening at other levels of our denomination. Instead, I believe the biggest reason DOMs get a bad rap is because so many are not as intentional as their job title suggests

Let me quickly follow that statement by saying that I believe most DOMs are great guys who really do have a heart for lost people, and love our mission enterprise. Additionally, there is much "generalist" work to be done at the Associational level. Search committees have to be guided and advised, churches in conflict need mediation and/or arbitration, and occassionally, doctrinal questions need a local forum in which they can be settled. But ultimately, if the job title means anything at all, it speaks to what should be the primary focus. I am not the "Director of Theology," the "Director of Search Committees," or the "Director of Baptist Identity." I am the "Director of Missions," and I believe that title itself is pregnant with intentionality

Associations that survive and thrive in the future will be those networks that recognize this. DOMs who successfully navigate the sea of change in our denomination will truly fulfill the role of a local missiologist for their churches, and will see to it that the primary focus of their work is mobilizing churches for evangelism, leadership development, and church planting; the three inevitable results of Biblically-based missionary work. The natural outcome of such an emphasis will be an Association of churches with a truly global focus.

Strategy: For Associations to make the shift I'm talking about, many things might have to change. Everything from the structure of the entity to the job descriptions of its staff will need to be revisited and open to revision. And these discussions must be ongoing. Just recently, I met with my own board to discuss with them how my role next year will change due to the growth of our Association to almost 60 churches, the expansion of our work in central Maryland and around the world, and NAMB's expectations of me as a church planting catalyst. 2011 has been a good year for us, but if we want to continue our work in an effective way, I simply cannot have a schedule and focus in 2012 that is identical to 2011. As Alan Hirsch has wisely but simply stated, "What got you HERE isn't neccesarily what will get you THERE."

Therefore, the intentionality I mention above must be applied strategically, and this must happen on at least an annual basis! If the ultimate aim of an Association is to mobilize churches for their Biblically mandated missionary work, then everything about the Association must be constantly evaluated and structured in a way that will allow this aim to be reached.

International missions is the responsibility of every local church, and the Association sits, potentially, at the most strategic place to help churches get there. Leverage that local influence so that more of the world's unreached peoples come to know Jesus!

Halloween, Anfechtung, and the Protestant Reformation

"Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scripture, or from plain and clear reason and arguments, I cannot and will not recant. To go against conscience is neither right, nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me!" -Martin Luther

Tomorrow evening, Amy and I will join other parents who walk their children around a mall, or church parking lot, or to neighbors houses, in the effort to fill their Halloween bags with candy. Non-profit organizations all over the country will rake in the money by hosting haunted houses and scaring the living daylights out of people who, ironically enough, are paying big money to have the daylights scared out of them.

As is usually the case on October 31, churches are taking advantage of the season by sponsoring “trunk or treat” outreach projects, or taking their youth through a “judgment house.” I find it strange that at this time of year, the church pays so much attention to a holiday that has nothing to do with its history and heritage, and so little attention to the historical event that continues to define us to this day. 494 years ago today, a Catholic monk named Martin Luther nailed a 95-point statement of concern to the door of a church in Wittenburg Germany. This single gesture ignited a movement that resulted in the recovery of the Biblical Gospel, the empowerment of the laity, the uncovering of the true church, and probably most important, the escape from something more terrifying than anything our imaginations could invent on Halloween.

Luther had a word for this terror. He called it Anfechtung. Although there is no English word that corresponds exactly to the German phrase, we know that Luther was expressing the deepest kind of darkness that one experiences when his worst moments of terror, depression, doubt and despair combine. Born in 1483, young Luther aspired to practice law, but in 1505 after a near-death experience, he fled to a monastery, and would spend the next decade struggling with doubt about the condition of his own soul.

Living under the constant fear of God’s judgment caused Luther to confess with regularity the slightest offense to his spiritual guide, Johann von Staupitz. Staupitz, who served as the chaplain of the University of Wittenburg where Luther taught Theology, eventually grew tired of Luther’s perpetual appeals for forgiveness and said to him “God is not mad at you. You are mad at God.” Eventually, Luther would come to agree with Staupitz’ assessment. Indeed, Luther admitted later on that he in fact hated God, and came to realize shortly afterward that this hatred was but one part of a fallen will that sought to rebel against the Creator.

Ironically, it was through his assignment teaching Psalms and Galatians that Luther finally began to develop a different picture of God. He discovered that Jesus, in dying on the cross, took our iniquity on Himself, and subsequently, the penalty for such iniquity. In short, Christ took our anfechtung, that terror of God's wrath which the human soul rightly dreads. But it was a prior trip to Rome coupled with his studies in the Scriptures that brought Martin Luther to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church was not interested in taking away anfechtung, but instead profiting from it!

Luther had traveled to Rome because he wanted to see Roman Catholicism at its best. What he found was a cultic center of medevial ecclesiastical power that disappointed him greatly. The selling of “indulgences,” or offerings by which one could supposedly free himself and others from purgatory, found its way to Wittenburg in 1517 by way of the charismatic Johann Tetzel. Commissioned by the Pope himself to finance the building of St. Peter’s Bascillica in Rome, Tetzel stood in the square of the city and with confidence offered his hearers the opportunity to free themselves and their relatives from purgatory, from damnation . . .from anfechtung. His words, while eloquent, stirred anger in Luther:

As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs!

At the end of that same month, October 31, 1517, Luther responded to Tetzel’s message with his 95 theses, and the course was set for an ecclesiastical tidal wave that would eventually be called the Protestant Reformation. Lasting more than three generations, this ecclesiological shift has given us the Scriptures in the language of the people, a theologically informed laity, freedom of religion, and most importantly, the recovery of the Biblical Gospel. Though it was not his original intent to separate from Rome, Luther’s subsequent studies brought him to the conclusion that Roman Catholicism proclaimed a false Gospel.

Likewise, Protestants today rightly deny the existence of a priestly class. We rightfully challenge the legitimacy of a papal office, and contend that the existence of the papacy itself only illustrates the confusion that is propogated when church councils and tradition are seen to carry authority equal to the Scriptures themselves. We rightfully declare that salvation comes not by the imposed sacramental “works” of the church, but instead by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone!

Modern Protestantism owes its affirmation of sola Scriptura, sola Christo, sola fide, sola gratia, and sola Deo Gloria to the legacy left us by Martin Luther. But such theological axioms by themselves aren’t much of a legacy, unless they demonstrate efficacy in removing the anfechtung from which Luther so desperately wanted deliverance.

The dread Luther felt prior to his conversion was legitimate, warranted, and deserved. Human beings are born separated from God, become actual transgressors from the moment we are volitionally able to choose, and are as a result the enemies of our Creator. Being the enemy of the One who just gave you the last breath you took is certainly a position in which one should rightfully feel dread. But as Luther discovered, through the substitutionary death of Christ, God has become “both just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:21)

While the masses may spend October 31 taking in the “Saw” trilogy, or watching old “Nightmare on Elm Street” flicks on DVD, followers of Christ should recognize that for the church, October 31 represents much more than fear. To the contrary, this day represents the beginning of a young Monk’s discovery that God, by himself, without human effort, takes away sin, and the appropriate fear of God’s judgment that accompanies such sin.

Halloween is known by our culture as a time to be filled with fear, with dread . . .with anfechtung. But the legacy left us by men like Luther and those who followed serve to remind us every October 31 that God has not given us a spirit of fear! Let's spend this October 31 thanking God for the recovery of the Gospel that made our conversion, and the removal of our fears, possible.