New Zealand and Nietzsche both start with "N"

But now they have more in common. From NZ comes the story that students will be allowed to use "text speak" on national exams from now on. That's right. No longer will they be required to write in full sentences. Gone are demands for adjectives, prepositional phrases, verbs, and had they not already disappeared, adverbs.

Nietzsche, in his book Twilight of the Idols, makes the following statement:

"'Reason' in language - oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar. "

He recognized that our use of order and structure spoke volumes about God. He also noted that the fact that words can call to mind "things" was imitative of what God did in creating the world.

This gives us a real obligation to use words wisely. As Christians, we either promote God or erase (get rid of) him by our writing and conversation. Which are you doing?

The Haggard Buzz

This morning I read three different pieces on the Ted Haggard situation. All were on Ref 21. Each had a different focus. One, quite frankly, had a strange message on when to give forgiveness. One suggested that our proper task at this time is to feel shame for what happened and not push grace too far until we do feel the shame. The last entry warns of the dangers of following a man rather than Christ.

I assume these entries were for "us" in the cheap seats as we deal with the sting of the Ted Haggard situation. If so, I like the last entry, see some good in the middle one, and disagree with the first. (More on this later?)

What seems to me to be important at times like this is the issue of surprise. Most people express surprise that such a thing could happen. At the same time, we seem to read about this kind of thing throughout Scripture. From Adam accepting fruit, to Abraham passing off his wife as his sister, through David's adultery, on to Peter's denial of Jesus, those with a heart for God continually demonstrate their need for a Savior.

Certainly this doesn't excuse Haggard from his lies and behavior. But, it shouldn't be a threat to our faith. Everything about our faith warns us that this will happen. Jesus, in John 2, refuses to trust himself to men because he knows us. We are that bad. Also, we are that saved.

So, when someone asks you if your faith is shaken, tell them, "No, it is affirmed."

Thinking Christianly

In my apologetics class, I have been assigning the homework of finding news stories and relating our world view to the stories. The idea is that if we can talk about the news at work we can do apologetics.

To my surprise, most of the folks have real trouble with this. As one honest class member said, "We don't think this way. We have God stuff, bad stuff and then the news." In other words, it is common for Christians to think of most stuff with a "neutral" mind. This is not good.

For example, I mentioned the Michael J. Fox ads on stem cell research. Most had heard of the ads and were put off by them because they knew that stem cell research killed living embryos. Still, few had considered that Michael J. Fox's reasoning was simply a form of "ends justify the means." Christians should say, "God justifys the means, not the ends." They should be able to extrapolate the "ends" philosophy into other areas as well. (For example, Hitler's experiments on Jews was just this same reasoning.)

Instead, they have been trained to spot things God doesn't like, but not explain why. They haven't been trained to think God's thoughts after him. That is what we need to do.

So, look at the news. As you do, ask what God thinks and most importantly, why He thinks as He does. Try it!

Is Apologetics A Lost Art?

Yesterday there was a story about how former former German Chancellor Schroeder had doubts about President Bush because Bush constantly referred to his Christian beliefs. Here is the beginning of a great water cooler discussion of separation of Church and State, or beliefs and actions. Yet, I fear, most Christians will miss the opportunity by simply disagreeing with someone who takes the Separation view. After words of disagreement, everyone will return to work.

What about Apologetics here? Why don't we take on the idea that we really want a person to act in accord with his or her beliefs? We can point out that a person who doesn't act in accord with beliefs is commonly called a hypocrite. We can point out that politics and science aren't immune from this principle. After all, Darwin was mad at God and acted in harmony with that belief when he put forth his hypotheses. We expect our business leaders to remain true to their business plan, which is based upon certain assumptions. Why don't we expect the same from a leader.

If the leader was opposed to Christianity, wouldn't we expect him to live accordingly? Scripture affirms this truth. Paul is regularly reminding us that we are to live our beliefs. That is in harmony with the way that even unbelievers live. Can you imagine the uproar if a well known atheist said, "Well, I personally don't believe in God but I think it is great that we have His name in the pledge of allegiance."

I think this is the first step in blasting off the glasses that an unbeliever sees through. (A VanTillian idea!) He must see the illogic of his ways.

This keeps the conversation alive with our unbelieving friends. Simply disagreeing does not. Let's get out there and set some blasting charges!

Books or Blogs?

I just finished another of John Buchan's amazing works of fiction. Buchan wrote in the first half of the 20th Century (most in 1910-1925) and finished the fourth in a series "starring" Richard Hannay in 1924. I enjoy downloading his books for the Palm and reading by backlit screen.

So, for fiction I turn to books, both paper and electronic. But, when it comes to nonfiction, I find that much of the material I read is found on blogs. Cyber authors address issues immediately via their blogs. Yes, I still read nonfiction in bound form, but there is really good comment, analysis and information available on the internet that is hard to pass it up.

Pastors post sermons and articles (thoughts) which are worth viewing. Charlie Wingard, my own pastor does this regularly. Reformation 21 has a great blog, and there are several others that are worthwhile. Younger folks blog regularly, and it is interesting (and important) to see what they say and what they are thinking. It is also interesting to see how they think. They will, after all, make the big decisions in the future. What will the church look like? (Yes, George Barna, there will be a local church!) What will they do with all of us baby boomers in 20 years?

It seems to me that there will always be a place for David McCullough's books on the shelf. But, there is lots of good history material online. And, thoughts about tomorrow are always online today!

School Shootings

Today the school shootings extended to a private, Christian school in Pennsylvania. Not much is known yet about the shooter. He lived in the area, and left a suicide note. Reportedly, he was avenging something that happened to him when he was twelve. The death toll stands at four, with more expected to die in the hospital.

Tomorrow I will meet with the principals about school safety and security. The biggest problem is the idea that it can't happen here. Of course it can. Can we make it absolutely safe? No, we can't. Can we improve? Sure we can.

I am sad at the loss of innocence for the kids at school. The closer we come to a "lock down," the harder it is to look like an extension of the home. Should going to school look like going on an international plane flight? Must we hire a crew of armed guards? Would that guarantee anything? No, it wouldn't.

The last generation saw violence come into their homes and school via the live television news feed. The generation is seeing it come in live. What would it all mean without the belief that God is in control? That is something we need to stress to the kids. Evil exists, but God is still in control.

Contentment and the Thorn in the Flesh

I learned something new! While I hope I am always learning, this is different. This is one of those times when you learn something so simple, you wonder why you never knew it. And, it concerns the thorn in the flesh.

Contentment, means being willing to not only accept what God has given you for a situation, it means being at peace with it. I usually think of things like calling, gifting, equipping when I discuss contentment. I forgot the thorn in the flesh which Paul discusses at 2 Cor. 12:7.

I have had a muscular-skeletal thing in my chest off and on for years. (Distance runners who stop are great candidates for this, I found.) Anyway, it has flared up more on than off in the past two months. I went to the Dr., got some meds, and I find that I am so much more contented now. I am at peace.

But, what if the condition hadn't gone away? That's where Paul's discussion hits home. I need to add to my contentment bag of tools a tool that reminds me to deal with thorns in the flesh. The next one might not go away, and I want to ensure that I don't lose the peace. That shouldn't be hard, now that I have learned something new!

p.s. You young guys will discover that the "thorn" thing is more relevant as you pass the 40 mark!

What Does It Mean?

On the 15th, the 5th Circuit issued an opinion in Staley v. Harris County, Texas . The decision deals with whether or not a monument (which does look like a trash receptacle) is too religious in nature to stand in a courthouse area in Houston, TX. Based upon recent Supreme Court decisions, it looked like a slam dunk that the monument could stay. Even under older tests, it looked golden. It has to be removed.

Bad facts make bad law. That's where Judge John Devine, a Texas state court judge enters the picture. He is bad facts like Roy Moore is/was bad facts. Judge Devine restored the monument in 1995, about forty years after it had been built. He did it with fanfare and lots of talk about how he was putting Christianity into government. Frankly, his "style" was what I think caused the court to issue a bad law opinion. They didn't like Devine.

Certainly there is no excuse for their twisting the law to get at him. (Their decision reminded me of a 9th Circuit edict.) Still, did we have to give them the chance? What is worse, guys like Devine will argue that the ruling is even worse than it is. He and his buddies will argue that the Washington monument is coming down next. All that talk will set the stage where either an en banc ruling or a Supreme Court review will become an either or issue. Any court looking at this will get to choose from two bad choices; they can either affirm bad law or vindicate the hyper right. Things don't look too good.

When will we learn that appeals aren't won in the newspapers? Posturing looks good, affirms our commitment to Christ (no matter how stupid we look), but leads to a loss. The question isn't, do we want to win? The question is, do we want to sound pious? It shouldn't be that way. What does it mean?

Happy New Year!

In spite of the January 1st thing, and the various Jewish and Chinese dates, the new year starts when school starts. That is today for me, so Happy New Year! As always we are starting back with a spiritual theme. This year it is the danger of lying. The students will view Mark Twain's
"The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg." Twain was quite an existentialist. It seems to me that he intentionally wrote Hadleyburg (which included a lying, loser pastor) and "The Mysterious Visitor" (with a misunderstood priest) to encourage folks to live in despair. I guess he figured that if he did, they should.

I sometimes think that existential authors are better "evangelists" for their cause than Christians are for theirs. We don't have to write happy endings to communicate world view. We just need to communicate truth. Why are so many authors with Christian convictions authors of fantasy? I don't know, just asking. Actually, it is good to start the new year asking questions.

What is Means and What is Ends?

Over here, on JJ Stellman's Blog there is a discussion of whether or not the church is created to be a transformational instrument in the world. (I'm sure JJ will clarify my assessment of his ongoing discussion.) Should there be a strict "two kingdom" separation between the cultic (church) and the culture (society and government)?

My question in all of this is what are we talking about? I think the idea is that JJ sees churches today seeking to be "missional" as the means to reach people. Perhaps he is arguing that our means are the means of grace, not the ministry of mercy, deed, etc.

OK. Maybe that is the case. But, shouldn't the ends (as opposed to means) of our lives as the church be transformational. I am not talking about how we are transformed, but how our culture is transformed by strong churches. Shouldn't people in a community be impacted by our presence, what we do and how we personally transform? Some should hate us. Others should love us. Some should come to Christ. Again, not because we see our kingdom work as a means to say, "Hey, look at us!" Instead, because we do intrude the Kingdom into their midst, the end of that should be a transformed world. Didn't Pliny say something about that?


While I have no use for churches that are "missional" because that is the cool thing to be, I see that all churches are called to be light. When it shines, things happen. We don't shine as a means to make things happen. The ends, as a result of our shining is that things happen.

Random Thoughts on Sabbathing

Last night I continued reading authors on the Sabbath. I finished the evening listening to Tim Keller's sermon on Luke 6. Before that I reviewed Dabney, Hoeksema, and others. My reading confirmed what I wrote years ago; there is little agreement out there not only on how to observe the Sabbath, but why we observe it.

Two things seem clear to me from Scripture. First, it a Sabbath to God (Ex. 20:10). Second, it was made for us (Mark 2:27). It is hard to rest from worldly concerns. It is hard to spend the whole day thinking about God and His love. I guess that shows how out of practice we are and how much we need one day in seven to help us. Most people spend time looking for Sabbath rules. It is much harder to simply experience a Sabbath.

It's Gonna Cost Me

I am in strong rebellion against things egalatarian. I confess, I see egalatarianism everywhere. It is like when you get a new car or truck and suddenly you notice your kind of car or truck everywhere. You never saw so many convertibles before! Well, that's how I am about egalatarianism. Now from Reuters comes the story that American women favor a plasma tv over a diamond solitare necklace by a 3 to 1 margin. They want the same thing the guys want.

So, the only logical way to respond, it seems to me, is go out, spend money and buy my wife something that is feminine. I mean something that no guy would buy for himself. No androgony here! At the same time I need to work to avoid the reality that most things I would consider (Victoria's Secret, etc.) are really for me!

Oh, what a difficult world we live in! May boys stay boys and girls stay girls. God's idea seems just right to me!

Considering Temptation

Mark Twain's The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg is a chilling tale. It deals with a town that prides itself about its integrity. Turns out that when tempted, the integrity is veneer deep. With what James says about how temptation is not sin, but a precursor, I think I (we) would do well to give temptation more regard. If we could just have a converation with God, ourselves, or an advisor during a temptation, we might consider passing on the sin. If someone could have talked with Eve in the garden, she might have heard, "Come on, Eve. God has been good to us. He has never failed us. What do we really know about the snake in the tree? It seems to me he is being a snake in the grass and trying to ruin a good thing. Tell him to get lost." What a difference considering temptation makes!

Blogging Manners

I have noticed that many blogs are well done when it comes to grammar, spelling and style. On the other hand, it seems an equal number have adopted a grammar, spelling and style where anything goes. Ebonics used to be associated with undereducated folks from the poor side of town, at least until Oakland schools adopted it. We have reached a point where capitalization, which should be used to communicate truth, is gone. Punctuation, useful for more than clarifying the Eats Shoots and Leaves statement, has followed capitalization into the boonies. What is left is a contracted, ebonic like language of the electronically printed page. Before you LOL, consider that what we say in our blogs should communicate to those who may not be fluent in EE (electronic ebonics). So, be careful out there.

Can You Split Over What You Don't Know?

In my Sunday School class today I posited that the Federal Vision controversy will not split the PCA because most don't understand it. They will pick a camp and be done with it. Further, it seems to me that the younger guys appreciate the "attempt" at scholarship on the part of the FVers. Traditionalists spit back a one sentence confessional quotation, must as is preferred during ordination trials. To me this means that the traditional church becomes a frog in the kettle. Over time it will become more influenced by the FV as more young guys get into church positions.

Personally I think that the FV is Covenant Theology on steroids AND HTH. Trying to explain God through one lens of any kind gives one tunnel vision. I think that this stuff would have been refuted long ago if we in the "traditional" church would get serious about theology instead of memorizing parts of the catechism. For example, the padeocommunion issue is one we are losing. We lose because we have, for years, misinterpreted the "discern the body" (and the related examination) provisions of I Cor. 11:27ff. The exegetical work of the FVers shows this up easily. Then, once they display our poor exegesis, they move quickly to say that our interpretation of this passage is ALL that stands between accepetance and rejection of padeocommunion. Hence, if it falls, so does rejection. Smart guys like Jeff Meyers argue just that way.

As Lee Corso might say on ESPN, "Not so fast, my friend!" If "body" means church as the FVers show, and I have always taught that it does, it does not follow that padeocommunion is right. To discern the body means to understand principles of community in the church, which means understanding how the church came into being, which means understanding the gospel. So, no padeocommunion. (This seems a lot like the Ex. 12 discernment suggested at the passover.)

Because the traditional positon seems closed to conceeding anything, I think we lose the support of the young guys. So, look around in five years and see how strong the controversy is. Maybe we will be more FV than we think just by time passing. Sad.

RUF with Sacraments

Last night we attended an "emerging" church (PCA). The young woman who sat next to me was a regular with a PCA background. She said that she and her husband loved it because it was like RUF with Sacraments. And, it was.

Liturgical, informal and with RUF type tunes, it appealed to the trendy, 20-30 somethings. No 40s appeared, and only three 50s couples. There weren't many kids there. It was a wonderful collection of young people, but none of them looked like they were off the streets. Most really did look like RUFers. So, across town the socioeconomic look would have been different in a traditional church, but just as narrow. Is the emerging really emerging or just mining in a different strata of the earth?

One thing I really liked, however, was the start time-late afternoon. Could this begin to bring back the "rest" idea to Sunday? I would guess that it could. It might also be a wonderful way to jump start a church plant. My guess is that early afternoon folks would never go back to early or mid morning. How restful if this caught on for families.

Where to?

Like the cab driver who turns and asks, "Where to?", the same could be asked of the emerging church. It is a conversation (movement) already torn by the issue of theology--Bad or good. My thinking is that the Driscoll led group will move more and more towards the organized church (Church 1.0 types as he likes to call them). The impact of this move will hopefully be a more "Missional" traditional church. This move seems to be obvious to me. Traditional churches are criticized for programs, but as twenty somethings have kids, the youth program will become more important.

The "emergent" guys, led by Brian McLaren, seem headed towards a hook up with the mainline denominations, where theology already is post-modern and relativistic. They will also have an impact (negative) on those "revolutionaries" that Geoerge Barna has convinced to drop out of Church and embrace the Church without commitment. This will probably lead to further abberations in beliefs.

So, my guess is that in a few years, the emerging church will have arrived, having gone in a circle back into the presently available camps.

Setting Sail

I was challenged by a statement made by Sean Lucas about the need for Pastors to blog if they hope to reach all the people. So here is my blog. As a sailor, it seemed fitting to name it the Jib Sheet. I have a roller furling jib, so sometimes I will sail in light winds with a light weight jenny fully unfurled. Some of my posts will be "light winds" posts. Other times I reef the jib in to a small storm jib. I expect that some posts will be about storms I see heading our way. Anyway, I will appreciate your comments, and If I don't like 'em, I can always strike sail!