Can't We All Just Get Along? Probably Not.

Before I get into the meat of this post, I feel it necessary to make it known that I did not, nor do I now, support Donald Trump for president (although he is the president elect, and I will "support" him in that I will respect him in his office).  I did not vote for Donald Trump.  My "tribe" stands to lose very much from his election to the office of president (which, much to my chagrin, my tribe doesn't seem to understand).  For instance, I am of the opinion that the election of Donald Trump has effectively ended the debate on the sanctity of marriage.  Conservatives have unknowingly abandoned their argument for marriage being between one man and one woman by throwing their support behind a candidate who does not share a like-minded opinion on the sanctity of marriage.  The same is (somewhat) true for the life argument, although, to be fair, it remains to be seen how the newly elected president actually will deal with life issues.  At the very least, we can say that his commitment to pro-life values is very late in coming, and is not entirely robust.

I could go on and on about my problems with Donald Trump, but I'll leave it there for now.  I hope that you can see that I am not a Trump supporter, and that this reality will give you some context to what I'm going to say next.

In the two days since Trump's election to the presidency, there has been much consternation on the left that has manifested itself in the form of protests, riots, and social media outrage.  Others - both conservatives and liberals - have called for unity and to put our support behind the president-elect, and that this is a time for us to see how we can work together toward a better future for our country.

Well, it ain't gonna happen.

Please understand: I don't say this because I don't want it to happen, or because I don't think it should happen.  Indeed, I do want it to and think it should happen.  But the reality is that our society has changed so drastically in the past 10 years, that our collective cultural and social constructs and "enlightened" worldviews won't allow us to make peace with one another.  It's a fascinating (and frightening) time to be alive.  Let me give you just three reasons why I think there will be no peace and unity in our nation for the foreseeable future:

1. Because we now interpret disagreement as hate speech.  Certain issues in our society that used to be matters of opinion in which two disagreeing parties could engage in vigorous debate have been deemed to be the litmus test for bigotry, hatred, racism, etc.  For example, the opinion that illegal aliens should not be allowed in our country is interpreted as having racist motivations.  And nobody wants to reason with a racist, because racism is wrong, right?  Nobody wants to have unity or peace with racists, because racists are filled with hate, right?  In the eyes of some in our country, it would be akin to finding unity with the KKK, which obviously is a type of unity that nobody wants to have.  Another example is opinions about the sanctity of marriage.  Not advocating for gay rights is considered discrimination and bigotry.  Who wants to sit down and work together with a bigot?  No one.  Since one side is convinced that the other is filled with hate-mongers, they have no desire for unity or peace with them.  To do so would be to validate what they see as hatred and bigotry.  As long as people interpret the opinions of others as hatred and bigotry there will be no peace or unity in our country.

2. Because we we buy the narrative perpetuated by the media.  The media loves ratings, and they know that juicy stories are going to garner page views, link clicks, air time, and advertising dollars.  The media doesn't care about the truth so much as the bottom line.  They don't care about what's actually happening, but they're happy to report on fringe stories that are just that: on the fringe, so as to make people angry.  When people are angry, they visit websites and share articles on social media; they watch cable news shows and read magazines.  The media knows this, so they consistently report stories that they know will push people's buttons, and we - people who like to have our buttons pushed - take the bait.  We ingest these fringe stories and we react to them.  The media tells us what is important, and we go along with it like obedient sheep.  As long as we allow the narrative of our society to be perpetuated by the media, there will be no peace or unity in our country.

3. Because social media amplifies the worst about us.  Similar to the way the media spins the narratives in our country, many of us live in the microcosm of social media.  We're never more than a click away from airing our most inflammatory opinions that we haven't thought out, vetted, fact-checked, or even read beyond a headline.  This kind of sharing simply perpetuates the anger and extremism that we all fall into if left unchecked.  Plus, social media is a safe place for us to say inflammatory things - there are no checks and balances.  The worst that can happen is for someone to call us a crazy liberal or conservative.  A very recent and real example is this website that supposedly catalogs instances of racism that have occurred since Donald Trump was elected president two days ago, and allegedly as a result of his election.  Take a look at the examples posted there, and you'll hopefully notice a few things pretty quickly (note: I am not justifying any of the horrible things described on this site): 1) many of these reports are unsubstantiated; they are based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay.  2) considering that reality, it is possible that these alleged instances of racism could be spread by anti-Trump people who want to hurt the image of those who have supported Trump (in other words, they're intentionally causing trouble - something that has been done before the in the recent past).  3) it's also possible (and, in my opinion, likely) that these instances of racism (if substantiated) were perpetrated by fringe minority groups who always have been racist losers and are simply living up to their reputation.  It's unlikely that all of a sudden, once Donald Trump was elected, a vast number of people suddenly began to let their racist strips shine through.  It's more likely that racist losers - who were racist losers long before Donald Trump was even on the political scene - have taken this opportunity to perpetuate their wickedness because they know they'll get the spotlight (see point 2 above).  But people have taken these fringe incidences and have used them as an opportunity to showcase the very worst things about humanity.  And others on social media see them and are (rightly) enraged by them.  But rather than direct their anger toward the fringe minority groups perpetuating evil, they choose to instead direct it at those who merely disagree with them (see point 1 above).  There will not be peace and unity in our country for a long time because social media brings out the worst about us, and we're all too quick to believe it and attribute it to everyone who thinks differently than we do.

We are a long way off from having unity as a country.  We can't even trust one another when we say that we don't hate each other.

Filled With a Sense of "Ugh."

I've been off of Facebook since the middle of October, and I've talked about it here and there.  I look at my wife's account every once and a while and am stunned at how uninterested I am in any of the content therein.  This is not to speak disparagingly about the digital company The Mrs. keeps, but is more accurately a commentary on how meaningless and shallow and unworthy of my time I have come to believe Facebook is (again, I'm not trying to call anyone who has a Facebook account meaningless or shallow).  I've toyed with going back to Facebook, albeit with a much more focused intention (such as using it strictly for ministry purposes), but I can't even bring myself to do that.  Just the thought of reopening my account fills me with a sense of "ugh."  It's kind of hard to explain.

But in the time I've been off of Facebook I've had time to reflect on what it was like for me to be connected to social media, or even more simply, connected to digital devices such as computers, phones, iPads, etc., through which we access Facebook, games, and other digital services.  I've come to realize that people today simply spend a lot less time thinking.  There's no downtime for their brains anymore.  If you're bored, you plug in to something - even if it's something mindless.  Other times, we're programmed to be plugged in to two things at once.  Think about it: have you ever "watched" a movie while also being on your phone or computer or other digital device?  I know I have.  And it's not just during movies.  Seems to me like people are plugged in most times, regardless of whatever else is happening.

As I've already said, it's been my observation (I'll speak for myself) that because of this I spend a lot less time just sitting and thinking.  It used to be that when I worked around the house or did chores I would do it without any kind of distraction.  Nowadays I do it while listening to Wretched podcasts.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if you work around the house or do chores without something in your ears, you have time to think - time to reflect.  For the most part, I (and I think it's safe to say "we") have lost that time.  We don't reflect much anymore, because we're listening to someone pontificate on our favorite podcast.  And we don't observe and think anymore, because we've got our noses buried in screens.

All of this came to a new reality for me today as I was preparing this week's middle school Sunday School lesson, focusing on Philippians 4.8: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."  The point of the lesson is that what we put in our minds influences our thoughts, and in turn influences our actions.  The admonition of the lesson is to evaluate what you put in your mind: is it God-glorifying?  Will it build you up?  Will it cause others to stumble?  And so on and so forth.  The secondary intention of the lesson is to encourage kids to be filling up their minds with praiseworthy things, as delineated in Philippians 4.8.  Put simply, if we're filling up our minds with bad input, we'll have bad thinking, which will manifest in bad actions.  But if we fill up on the things of God and think about those things, our behavior will be God-glorifying.

But here's the problem: since we have our faces glued to screens, and since we're constantly engaging our minds in what I'll call mindless activities (such as browsing a Facebook feed, playing an online game, etc.) we don't have any brainpower engaged in thinking about things, let alone good and godly things.  I would argue that technology and things like Facebook are morally neutral.  That is, they don't cause us to sin directly, and they don't have to be used in sinful ways.  And even if we are using these good gifts of God in non-sinful ways, they're still locking our minds onto whatever it is they are showing us, thereby diverting our mental capacities away from thinking about anything useful.

It comes down to this: you may not be using Facebook or digital devices and services to do sinful things or fill your mind with bad input, but you're almost certainly not using these things to think about stuff listed in Philippians 4.8 either.  But then again, maybe you are.

I guess I'll just speak for myself.

Rob Bell and the Couch

In an earlier post I described an experience I had in our youth group meeting a few weeks ago when a student realized just how influential factors in her life were in the process of her reading and understanding the Bible and thinking about God.  The example I used was that of a couch: we see the world in a certain way because our culture has couches.  Yeah, that sounds strange but I'm not going to rehash the whole post here.  You can read it for yourself, and you should if you want to understand anything else I'm going to say in this post, as I'll refer to the couch from time to time.

In the mean time, Rob Bell has recently endorsed homosexuality as a biblically viable way of life, and has recently engaged in a debate with a Brit named Andrew Wilson (see video below).  I have no idea who Wilson is, but he is posed against Bell on the topic, and believes that the Bible condemns homosexuality (as it does with all deviant forms of sexual behavior, such as lust, adultery, fornication, promiscuity, etc.).  The two go at it on this particular issue for about 20 minutes.

I must say that it's not a particularly entertaining bit, nor is there much of any positive nature to take from it.  Rob Bell is so incredibly vague in his answers that there isn't much takeaway.  And his use of vulgarity isn't much appreciated either (warning: Rob lets slip a "BS" in the middle there somewhere).

But there is a very important part of this debate that has to do with my couch story that I began with.  Around 11:30 in the video, Bell appeals to his experience with gay friends, and says that same-sex relationships are not sinful, and are, in fact, part of how life is and how the church is.  His challenger responds by calling Bell on his appeal to anecdotal evidence and instead asserts that God gets to define what is OK and what is sinful, and that he tells us so in the Bible.

Bell comes back by basically stating that Wilson's view of same-sex relationships is based on his own interpretation of scripture, and is therefore flawed and invalid.  Wilson says it's not just his interpretation of one or two passages of scripture, but also the whole "sweep" of scripture that informs his opinion.  And Bell comes back again with another question: "Your interpretation of the 'sweep' of scripture?"

What Rob Bell is basically doing is saying that Andrew Wilson can't get an objective view of what the Bible says about homosexuality because of the couch he's sitting on.  In other words, Bell would posit that Wilson can't know what the Bible says about homosexuality because of all of the influences that are constantly pushing and pulling him one way or another.  What is astonishingly ironic about this is statement is that Bell doesn't realize that he's in the same boat.  That is, if Wilson can't get an objective handle on what the Bible says about homosexuality so that he knows it is condemned, how does Bell assume he has such an objective means by which to declare it righteous?  To put it in my couch language, if Wilson's knowledge about couches has skewed his understanding of homosexuality, hasn't Bell's couch skewed his view as well?

Don't get me wrong: I affirm the reality that we are pushed and pulled in all kinds of different directions as a result of being linear, cultural beings.  Things affect us.  We change based on our environment.  Our ideas and thinking are shaped by the people and events around us.  Even the way we read and understand the Bible is affected by these influences.  I get it.  But the question we're asking here is this: do those variables preclude us from being able to grasp objective truth?  Wilson would say no; Bell would say yes.  To which I would follow up by asking, "How do you know that Rob?  Is it true that a person can't know truth?  If it is, then your argument is invalid.

Rob Bell is basically stating that his position is right.  If you disagree with him, he will say that you are wrong because you have been influenced by your culture and your opinion is shaped by those influences.  Rob, if we're going to play this game, we all have play by the same rules.  If my view is flawed by my influences, so is yours.  Let's at least be honest.  If we have to play this game your way, then at least abide by your own rules.

Bad Church Signs

I have a particular fascination with church signs.  By "church signs" I mean those changeable backlit signs that can be manipulated to emblazon anything from service times to catch phrases.  I like to see what a church puts on their sign, no doubt because our church has one of these signs, and also because in my early twenties, as the janitor at Riverview, it was my job to change the lettering on our sign.

It has become commonplace for churches to use these signs nowadays as a way of plastering what they think is some kind of memorable or cute phrase that is usually a play on words.  Most of the time, however, these phrases are over-the-top cornball, and probably serve to turn more people off to the church than bring in prospective attenders.

It wasn't until the past 10 years or so that churches used these signs for cutesy catch phrases.  Before that, most church signs were simply used to broadcast service times or special announcements.  When I was in the ecclesial janitorial business, church signs were a booming business.  Our church was constantly getting solicited by church sign companies, wanting to come and redo our church sign (it's kinda old).  I've watched several marketing videos (VHS tapes, that is) on the effectiveness of having a church sign in my days.

There is a church in Mendota Heights that was probably the first church in the area to put something on their sign that was somewhat cutesy or thought-provoking.  Except most of what they put on their sign wasn't cutesy or cornball - it was actually pretty good.  This church was located across the highway from my high school, and once in a while, my fellow students would comment on what was plastered on that church's sign.  And not in a mocking way, but in contemplation.

The trend these days, however, is to plaster some cutesy phrase that a preschooler wouldn't find amusing on your church's sign, presumably with the hopes of bringing people who enjoy the phrase into the church so they'll meet Jesus.  (Hey!  Maybe we can fulfill the Great Commission with our church sign and not have to talk to people!  Wouldn't that be great?)

I've posted about some of these goofy signs before, both from local churches in my area.  You can read about those signs here.  But today I drove by two other churches, and they likewise had goofy signs, one of which is just stupid, and the other this seminary-trained pastor doesn't even understand.  Judge for yourself:

Sign at Church A: "Google can't satisfy all your searches."

Sign at Church B: "Is the Son in your eyes?"

The sign at "Church A" is very similar to an internet meme seen at left (actually, Church A has posted the meme at left on their sign before, believe it or not).  The sign at "Church B" is something I don't even understand.  I realize that they're playing on words here, but what am I supposed to get out of "Is the Son in your eyes?"  Are they asking me if I'm a Christian?  Are they asking me if I've "seen the light?"  What the heck is going on there?  And better question: how is that supposed to make me want to go to your church?

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all churches who have such a sign to please, stop it with the cutesy phrases.  Nobody likes it.  It's not cute.  It's not catchy.  And I would be willing to bet that most people who see these signs drive past them thinking less of the church the sign belonged to than more of it.  In essence, I think the cutesy phrases on church signs are having the opposite effect of what is intended.

Then why do churches continue to put goofy stuff on their signs?  I figure they come at it from one of two ways: 1) they actually believe that the cutesy phrases are cute and creative, and that people like them;  2) they realize that the phrases are actually stupid, and that people don't like them, but they figure that any advertising is good advertising.  That is, even though people don't like the phrases, they will remember them, and therefore remember the church, which - perhaps according to the church - is a good thing.

As I mentioned earlier, Riverview has such a sign with removable lettering.  I'm not even sure what's on it right now, but we usually just use the lettering to post the times of our services and Wednesday Night activities.  That's good enough for me.  Nothing cutesy there.  Just the facts, Ma'am.  Otherwise, I know we've used the sign in the past to say "God's word is truth."  I like that too.  It's not trying to be cutesy or catchy.  It's presenting your with a truth claim that you need to weigh in your mind.  If you want to do that corporately, you can come and join us ever Sunday morning at 9:00 and 10:30.  That'll do.

What's Going on with Billy Graham?

Towards the end of the most recent presidential election cycle, it was reported that Billy Graham had removed Mormonism from his website's cult directory.  This happened reportedly after Graham met privately with Mitt Romney, presumably for the purpose of securing Graham's nomination.  Knowing that Graham maintains sway over many evangelicals, it makes sense that Romney didn't want to be portrayed to them as being a member of a cult.  Thus the removal.  I posted briefly about this incident when it occurred.

Unfortunately (for the gospel) it turns out that the negative speculation surrounding this event was well founded, as this statement from Franklin Graham confirms that the motivation for the removal of Mormonism from their "cult page," and now the subsequent removal of the cult page altogether, is to not offend people or call them names.  Franklin Graham says that he can't see preaching the gospel and name calling (which is what he considers labeling certain beliefs and people as "cults") going together.  He has therefore removed the page.

Graham says, "If I want to win people to Christ, how can I call them names?"  Like what?  Mormon?  Is that derogatory?  No, it simply describes who the people are and the belief system they ascribe to.

Graham's website defined a cult as "any group which teaches doctrines or beliefs that deviate from the biblical message of the Christian faith.  It is very important that we recognize cults and avoid any involvement with them.  Cults often teach some Christian truth mixed with error, which may be difficult to detect."

To be sure, religious groups classified as cults according to the definition above are not a part of orthodox Christianity, and therefore do not have any eternal, effectual, salvific value.  Or, in other words, they don't save.  Wouldn't you think it'd be important to have a clear idea of the identity of such groups?  I would.  But apparently Franklin Graham seems to think that such distinction amounts to "name calling."

Billy Graham's media representative chimed in by saying "Mr. Graham's calling is not to pass judgment, but to proclaim the biblical truth that Jesus is the only way to heaven, allowing every individual and group to fall along that plumb line."  What's ironic about this statement about a commitment to not judging people, and citing Jesus as the only exclusive way to God is, in and of itself, judgmental.

Moreover, the Bible is replete with instructions to call out those who do not preach and/or teach the truth, and to have nothing to do with them.  It even calls out false teachers by name at points.  Why?  Because these false teachers and false religions were leading people astray and into hell.  Isn't that worth calling a spade a spade?  Isn't that worth a potential offense?  I think it is.

But more than that, it must be understood that the gospel is, by its very nature, offensive.  You don't need to call anyone names or single anyone out.  The gospel does that all by itself, and it does it very well.  But still, Graham's media rep said that if Graham were to do or say something that would alienate an audience, he wouldn't be able to reach them.  In my opinion, the gospel itself alienates an audience.  In fact, the Bible tells us that it is foolishness to those who are perishing.  Of course it alienates!  Of course it divides!  That's what it is designed to do.  If the gospel is designed to offend the hard-hearted sinner, then any attempt to soften that offense is unwise and unloving.  To pretend that we have to repair bridges or water down the truth so as not to offend is anti-biblical.

The problem with what the Billy Graham folks have done is not so much a relational or PR problem, but a shift in understanding of the purpose and nature of the gospel.  Moreover, it's a bait and switch method of evangelism that seeks to befriend people and find commonality with them so as to win their friendship before giving them the hard news of repentance and faith.  It's dishonest.

God knows the great work that Billy Graham has done through his obedience to the Great Commission.  It's a shame to see his ministry lose its integrity.  But then how do we explain Franklin Graham?  He's also done some amazing work, which my own church just participated in through Operation Christmas Child.  Hopefully we can chalk this and other recent Billy Graham blunders to his old age.

John MacArthur aptly commented on the situation thusly: "We have no right to redefine salvation in our own terms in order to be popular or in order to be accepted.  True and historic Christianity has never been confused about what it means to be a Christian."

A (Worshipful) Comedy of Errors

It's been a week since my most recent sermon at Riverview.  Whenever I fill the pulpit I try to write a post about the content of the sermon I preached.  For whatever reason I haven't gotten around to writing that post yet.  Well, I just downloaded the podcast of my sermon from last week, so I thought this would be an opportune time to say a few words.

I need to start off by saying that it's a good thing that God doesn't accept our worship based upon the level of technical perfection it is conducted in, nor does he give demerits for uncontrollable technical glitches.  Thank goodness that Jesus' blood and righteousness are what make our worship acceptable, because if God's standard for acceptable worship were functional microphones and technical perfection, then Riverview Baptist Church would have been up a creek last week!

First of all, it was a crazy service.  There were several technical snafus, not to mention that it was a very full and detail oriented service.  Several things had to go a certain way in order to "work."  To begin with, the Pioneer Girls group was presenting a black light puppet show during the service for the children's story.  This meant that we had to try and black out as much natural light from the sanctuary as possible, which meant quite a bit of work beforehand, plus all of the platform furniture was either moved or removed, and there were plenty of black light decorations all over the stage.

Things went crazy during the service too.  Rich, our multi-media guy, came down right as the service was about to begin and told me the computer had frozen, and it was going to be a solid five minutes before it was back up and running.  This was a bit concerning, considering that a lot of our announcements are fueled by visuals on the screen.  Moreover, we were showing an Operation Christmas Child video during the announcements.  Rich told me I needed to kill some time during the announcements to allow time for the computer to reboot.  I did, but apparently it wasn't enough.  The computer was still hiccuping by the time we were ready to show the video.

After all that, our sound guy, Craig, signaled to me from the sound booth that my microphone wasn't on.  I signaled back that, in fact, it was turned on.  He then signaled back that I had it on "mute mode."  I signaled back again that no, I didn't.  This wouldn't be too much of an issue, had I not been responsible for the corporate prayer that morning, which I was.  This means I had to pray corporately for the church, which is somewhat hard to do without any voice amplification.  During a silent prayer time, Craig snuck down and gave me a new wireless mic, and told me to plug my mic cord into the new receiver.  I couldn't get my cord to plug into the mic!  So, out of desperation, I picked up one of the hand-held mics, which unbeknownst to me, was wrapped around the music stand I was standing in front of.  The mic cord had no slack, and as I drew it to my face, the taut cord pulled the mic from my hand and it bounced loudly off the music stand (did I mention this was during the silent prayer time?).  The foam wind protector on the mic fell off and rolled onto the floor (four feet below the platform).  It turned out that this particular microphone was having problems too, so I ended up just shouting out the corporate prayer for the morning.

After the prayer, I invited the congregation to stand and sing the doxology in preparation for the offering.  As the piano and organ played the introduction to the doxology, out of the corner of my eye, I could see someone ascending the stairs to the platform.  I looked, and was more than surprised to see my three year old daughter coming to greet me on the platform.  She had left her seat, gone and picked up the foam wind protector from the handheld microphone, and brought it to me on the platform.  According to my wife, she was very distressed when I dropped the mic earlier and the foam wind cover fell off, and she felt it was very important to return it to me.  The Mrs. told her to go get it and hand it to me after the prayer.  In the mind of my three year old, this meant to bring it to me on the platform, which she did.  Needless to say, I was quite surprised to see her up there!

After the doxology, and during the offertory, I slipped into the back room (because there was nowhere to sit on the platform.  Craig, the sound guy, was waiting for me, with yet a third wireless mic.  He explained that the cord from my original wireless mic had shorted out, and that's why it wasn't working with any mic he gave me.  But here he was, with a fresh and working mic and cord, which I quickly clipped to my tie.

Then, after coming up with a makeshift children's story to introduce the black light puppet show, the kids came on and did a fantastic job.  Take a look.

After each service, it's traditional for the preaching pastor to meet exiting worshipers at the door for a handshake, which I dutifully did (although I always get out of there as fast as possible - no offense to Riverview folks, but have you ever shook 200 hands in a row?  You tend to want to wash your hands as soon as you can).  This time, one person who was in the service and had heard my sermon simply came up to me and asked me where the book of 2nd Colossians was located in the Bible.  I didn't understand.  That's a strange question to ask.  After all, my sermon was from Colossians 2.

Uh oh.

He said that I had mentioned at the beginning of the sermon that we were "continuing our study of 2nd Colossians."  No.  Not possible, I thought.  I must've said something like, we're "continuing our study of the 2nd chapter of Colossians."  Surely I would never say something as stupid as referring to 2nd Colossians - a book that doesn't even exist.

Although, when I look back on it, it's not too surprising that I would say something like that in a sermon.  Whenever I preach, I tend to get in a zone where all I'm focusing on is the sermon, and what I am saying.  I find that if I don't pretty much know what I'm going to say during a sermon, then it's anybody's guess what is going to come out of my mouth.  Therefore, if you ever hear me preach, you can pretty much know that almost every word I say is prepared before hand.

This zone, however, can tend to tie me down and make me oblivious to what is happening around me, and even to what is coming out of my mouth.  Sometimes I think I can get so concerned about what I am going to say, that I don't realize what I've actually said.  It seemed possible to me  that something like this could have happened here, although I wasn't going to believe it until I heard the recording for myself.

Well, as I said earlier, I just downloaded the podcast.  Here's a transcript of the first 11 words of my sermon from this past week:

"We're continuing on, this morning, in our study of second Colossians..."

Oops.

Oh well.  Like I said: if nothing else, we can rejoice that the acceptable-ness of our worship is not dependent upon us doing it well.  Thank God for that!

Back to Church Sunday

If you've ever needed a real life example of how screwed up our concept of what the church actually is, here it is for you.  You probably didn't know it, but "National Back to Church Sunday" is scheduled for September 16.  What is "National Back to Church Sunday" (NBTCS)?  It's a date when supposedly all Christians are supposed to invite all of their friends and family members "back to church."  They've even made a cheesy rap song to try and make it cool and "relevant."  The site declares that NBTCS is "the single largest annual community outreach in the nation."  I have a few issues with this.

1. There are two interesting words in the name of this event, the first being "back."  This refers to the calling back of those who have left the church and have sought meaning in life elsewhere.  Calling someone to church - specifically "back" to church makes me wonder why they were ever there in the first place.  It can't be that they used to go because they were genuinely converted and then backslid.  No, scripture says that believers congregate with other believers.  Maybe not in the traditional Sunday morning way, but they do have fellowship with other believers.  In fact, they must.  So let's get our ideas straight: we're not calling Christians back to church, we're calling unbelievers to church.  If they had been before but stopped going, they're still unbelievers.  We're not inviting darkness to have fellowship with light, because it can't.  I wonder if the event organizers have thought through this.

The other word that I find to be interesting in the title of this event is "Sunday."  The site states that churches who participated in the event last year saw an average increase of 26% on NBTCS.  Hmm.  I wonder what the attendance was the week after?  Getting people, especially goats, to come to church for one week is nothing to brag about, nor do I think it's a victory.  In fact, church pews are lined with unbelievers every week - why have an annual Sunday for them?  It's not hard to draw a crowd for a Sunday.  It's much harder, and requires much more prayer and dedication to preach the unpopular message of the gospel over and over again, sometimes seeing no results, calling all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel.

2. The church needs to rethink the concept of outreach.  The website claims that this week is the single biggest national outreach event in the country.  When did inviting people to come in to church become outreach?  Shouldn't "outreach" have a decidedly outward moving feel to it?  I would think outreach would be more like taking the gospel to the streets, rather than taking the people to a show disguised as a church.

3. This event is nothing more than a marketing gimmick, and since when does the church rely on gimmicks (OK, the modern church relies on them quite a bit, to its shame)?  In commenting on this event on his Facebook page, Voddie Baucham said this is really nothing more than "Cheesy marketing of the Church of the Living God."  He's right on, and his emphasis is on the nose.  We serve the living God, whose glorious deeds are recorded in scripture, not to mention who sent his Son as a sacrifice for the salvation of all who would believe through repentance and faith.  But apparently that's not enough.  That's not enticing enough to draw the crowds.  And it really isn't.  In fact, the Bible says the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing.  Why do we expect them to fill our churches?  Moreover, if the perishing are filling our churches, then we might want to step back and reexamine what we're doing.  Because what are they drawn to?  It certainly isn't the gospel (Romans 3.10-11, 1 Corinthians 1.18).

Olympic Debauchery

I really enjoy the olympics.  I could watch it all day, even if a lot of the events I like aren't televised, and even if it's the monotony of gymnastics.  It's still fun when it's the Olympics.  Plus, now in the age of the internet you can see almost all of the events online if you so desire.  I love competition; I love sport; I love seeing our athletes represent our country on the world stage.

That being said, my love for the Olympics died a bit today.

One of my Facebook friends posted this article on his page this evening, explaining how the Olympic Village quarters in London will be stocked with an ample supply of condoms.  The article goes on to talk about how the two plus weeks the athletes stay in the village are usually packed with raucous parties and casual sex, even casual sex out in the open, according to Hope Solo.  Great.  That's great.  Now when I watch the olympics this year, I'll be thinking about who our athletes have shacked up with the past night before they stick that landing, run that race, or swim, or whatever.  Not what I need to be thinking about.

And this information is in addition to the rash of recent pictures I've seen of virtually ever American Olympic team from this year posing nude in some goofy picture of them covering their goods with their hands, arms, or appropriate sporting equipment (I won't link to those pictures, for obvious reasons).  Why?  Why do Olympic athletes need to pose nude?  And what kind of moral compass do these athletes have that tells them posing nude is a good (let alone necessary) thing to do?  Why?  WHY?  What does this add to the sport?  To the competition?  To my experience as a spectator?  Not to mention the fact that I'd like to watch the games with my kids.  Thankfully they're too young to read articles on the internet and peruse sports news sites where they might see a nude picture of our once-proud American athletes.  But some day they won't be too young.

I was really bummed when I read that article about the athletes' propensity for casual sex during the game, and have been increasingly disappointed with every nude picture that has been released of our athletes.  But maybe I shouldn't be bummed.  After all, the pagans are acting like pagans, as Todd Friel says.  Why are we surprised?  Isn't this exactly what Romans 1 tells us is going to happen?  Yes, it definitely is, but I guess I'm bummed that it's so much in the public eye.  Part of me wishes that if these people were are going to be so debauched to sleep around every chance they get and pose nude for whoever'd like to see their naked bodies, that they'd at least have the decency to do it behind closed doors and not expose it to the news media so that I can enjoy the purity of the Olympics, even if it's just a pipe-dream.  After all, ignorance is bliss, as they say.  But another part of me wonders if that's just catering to my own idealistic way I want the world to be, with complete disregard for the way things actually are.  If Olympic athletes are sleeping around but not exposing their actions to the public, it doesn't make it any less sinful and debauched.  But do we need to know about it?  I don't think so.  I mean, really: are we really that debased as human beings?  Are we really that uncontrollable that we have to have sex with anything/one that moves?  Really?  You people can't control yourselves for two weeks?

All things considered, I wouldn't be surprised if the tales of casual sex that are reported on in the media are actually the exception rather than the rule.  That is, for every debased athlete that wants to get busy, there are probably a dozen that are satisfied to simply compete and enjoy their time on the international stage.  It's a shame that the actions of some have brought a bit of a black cloud on the games.  I still plan to watch the games (at least as much as I am able), although I have to admit that my attitude toward them will be different this year.  And I'm struggling with this: is that right?  Am I right to be bugged by this, or is it just the way of the world, and I need to reform my overly idealistic view of the world's morality?

I'll have to ponder this.

I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church

My dad alerted me today to a half-page advertisement in Thursday's Pioneer Press for the "I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church." Yes, that's what it's called. I'm not sure why. It's definitely one of the more interesting church names I've ever heard.

The advertisement is riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, not to mention several items which point to the shaky theology of the leadership of the I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church. The wording and phrasing of the ad is so bad, in fact, that it makes me think it was translated from another language into English for the purposes of the ad. Since these folks probably paid upwards of $5,000 for this ad, I hope for their sake that's the case. Here's the content of the ad (note: all of the bad grammar and spelling belong to the ad, not to me):

Dear Friend in Christ,

A new church is about to open in the Whittier neighborhood. Its success mainly depends on the hearts of those who want to make something really positive and powerfully wonderful happen.

The "I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church" is refreshingly different in its approach to what is the heart of our many fine Christian churches scattered around the Twin Cities and surrounding areas.

Although preaching is a valuable means of communicating the word of God, we prefer to focus on acting "hands on" by the means of serving that of which we have already learned. We want to take what we know and apply in our lives - starting in the community. We have seen how the joy of serving is contagious. When onlookers see how we live the word, they will witness honest faith.

Our building which houses our church (members) will mainly be used for these purposes.

1. Bible study occurring anytime 2 or more care to gather.

2. Discussing the different projects of service we are currently doing and their progress. Determining what other needs our community demands that we will have to address, and plan how to effectively handle them. Then addressing the impact these actions may have. We will be vigilantly aware to keep refining our means of service to be the most utmost efficient.

3. Addressing problematic concerns of members and guests by means of relating our own true life experiences and their resulting outcomes. No advice, speculation, or guessing given. Members will follow these and other ground rules as best they can.

4. Events and activities - of course, there will always be a time to have soe fun. We will play and socialize as well.

At the bottom, on either side of the ad, there are two ornate crosses and the words "Generous givers change our emotions." Below this it says "You may become a donor who: makes us satisfied - any amount; makes us happy - $100; makes us excited - $500; makes us most joyful - $1,000; makes us extremely grateful - $10,000; makes us cry - $100,000 or more."

A few comments for the folks at the I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church, based on this ad:

1. Your church's "success" (whatever that means) does not "mainly depend on the hearts of those who want to make something really positive and powerfully wonderful happen." Your church's "success" depends on God.

2. You say your church is "refreshingly different" in that it is at the heart of what other churches in the area are doing. How's that different?

3. Preaching is, in my opinion, the most effective way the word of God is communicated to the world. Serving is good and noble, but don't serve the community at the expense of the preaching of the word.

4. Never (NEVER!) quantify your level of satisfaction based on the amount of a monetary gift. This runs the almost certain danger of alienating someone who can only give $5.00. According to your scale, that person can only make you satisfied - not even happy, let alone "most joyful"! Ever heard of the widow's mite?

5. This ad really looks atrocious. At the very least, make sure that words are spelled correctly and your grammar is accurate. People are watching.

The more I think about it, I think this might be a scam just to get people to send whoever placed this ad some money. Either way, it's definitely unique.

Jesus Wants You To Friend Him

Several months ago I "liked" The Bible on Facebook. For a long time "The Bible" never posted anything - it just sat dormant. You'd think that The Bible would post its verses on its Facebook wall, but apparently not. Then one day, The Bible started posting like mad. Several times a day The Bible posted, and each post showed up in my news feed. The strange thing was, though, that it was posting under the name Mark Brown, who is apparently the page's creator. And Mark didn't post Bible verses. Instead he posted a lot of self-help kind of stuff, and a lot of pretty loose theology. I don't know Mark Brown, but I think it's safe to say he's no theologian.

Today I "unliked" The Bible after I saw this post: "The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is, in a way, a lot like Facebook. Jesus has friend requested the entire world and He is awaiting your response. Will you 'friend' Him?" That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and it cheapens the relationship between God and man and removes from it elements of holiness and righteousness in ways I won't go into here.

Folks, Jesus has not friended the world. And he's not sitting at his divine computer, waiting for you to friend him.