Category: Uncategorized Page 12 of 71

I was reading this afternoon a wonderful but little known book on marriage with the pleasingly provocative title Naked and Unashamed by Bill Mills of Leadership Resources, International, a dear friend and model of Christ-like leadership.

As Bill gently and wisely lays out the Biblical notion of submission, he reminds us of this:

It is the law that is measured out. It is the law that always asks the questions, “How far do I have to go? How much is enough?” But love never asks these questions because love is never measured out. Love is always poured out. (page 60)

That is so wise, and meshes so well with the previous post that I determined to try your patience with one more post today to share it with you.

The buzz in theological culture has been about Pastor Rob Bell‘s take on the future in his recently published Love Wins.

But it seems that the buzz in the broader culture has been Nebraska pastor Todd Burpo’s take on the future titled Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy’s Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back.

Judging from his released promotional video, Pastor Bell’s concern is hell. Judging from the title, Pastor Burpo’s concern is heaven. So far, according Amazon.com stats, heaven is winning. It is #1 in sales by the online service. Hell is lagging behind at #4, but is no doubt creeping slowly upwards.

I have read neither book, and tend to avoid investing precious reading time in books that prove, when the dust settles, to have been fads. In this regard, Rob Bell will prove to be the least faddish. His following is tremendous and his influence substantial.

But apart from the similarity in content, I wonder if both books are drawing their communicative power from caricature. Caricature sells better than truth.

Heaven Is for Real is the account of a little boy who recovers from surgery with stories of having been to heaven. The family claims that he emerged with details of family members of which he should have had no knowledge, proving to them that he had really met these people in heaven. (How did they know, by the way, that it was heaven? Perhaps “Purgatory Is for Real”.)

According to the publisher’s blurb,

“He describes the horse that only Jesus could ride, about how ‘reaaally big’ God and his chair are, and how the Holy Spirit ‘shoots down power’ from heaven to help us….[the insights show that] Jesus really loves children, and be ready, there is a coming last battle.”

Caricature? Sure. Whether the little boy simply projected onto his memory palette the imagery from his Sunday school classes infused with a vivid imagination or not we cannot say. But it is curious that what he sees corresponds to popular religious imagination.

The popularity of this suggests that for many of us, the revelation of Scripture, with its breadth and depth and, yes, ambiguity regarding the future is insufficient. My experience as a pastor tells me that there are those, perhaps many, who read such books to confirm their stereotype of the future and are then unable to hear a more nuanced and carefully constructed vision taken from the pages of Scripture and rooted in solid theological tradition.

We often prefer caricature to truth.

And that may explain the popularity of Rob Bell’s presentation. Bell has been charged with challenging the historic Christian teachings on hell and judgment and eternity. He has been accused of universalism, a charge he has denied. I can’t interact with the charges, not having read the book, though Martin Bashir of MSNBC does a standout job of challenging him to be specific about what he believes.

In Bell’s online promotional video of his book, he raises intriguing questions, beginning with this one:

“Will only a few select people make it to heaven and will billions and billions of people burn forever in hell?”

He presents the question in such a way that we are led to imagine that he is indeed presenting the orthodox, historic, Christian position. If that is what he means, it is a caricature. And caricatures are easy to deflate and overcome.

Just as there are those who promote the simple view of heaven ‘seen’ by Pastor Burpo’s son, there are Christians who teach that the central Christian message is that God sends people to hell. There are Christians who insist that heaven will be populated by only a few, rather than a number greater than the sands on the sea shore or the stars in the sky.

Such caricatures are to be lamented, confronted, and corrected.

I understand Bell’s desire as a pastor to present a message that can be heard and comprehended in a culture which seriously questions Christianity. This past Sunday I preached on a subject which required me to address the subjects of sin and wrath and judgment and hell. We had a number of visitors. I have wondered since, “Is there another way I could have said what I said which would have communicated to the unbeliever or to the jaded in a more effective way.” And I have wondered whether those who were there would be back and, if not, if the specific message preached would keep them from returning. But I have not been asking whether the message I was communicating needed to be re-imagined.

The jury is out as to whether I’ll pick up Bell’s book and read it. I probably will. But one question he asks in the promotional video is one that I can endorse enthusiastically and with great passion:

“What we believe about heaven and hell is incredibly important because it exposes what we believe about what God is and what God is like.”

That is precisely what makes these questions so critical, and makes any misrepresentation or caricature, whether innocently by four year old boys or knowingly by fifty year old pastors, so troubling.

I’m sad. I have benefited a great deal from free digital access to the New York Times over the past several years. However, this was announced via email today:

Today marks a significant transition for The New York Times as we introduce digital subscriptions. It’s an important step that we hope you will see as an investment in The Times, one that will strengthen our ability to provide high-quality journalism to readers around the world and on any platform. The change will primarily affect those who are heavy consumers of the content on our Web site and on mobile applications.

Their decision to move to a paying model is, no doubt, what an ailing news industry has needed. But the end result is that those of limited resources are cut out of the loop. The $60 I would need to pay, annually, is far beyond what I can justify.

I knew this was coming, and was hoping for a pricing strategy similar to what one finds with iPhone apps – a low price offset by huge volume. Here’s hoping that market pressure brings the price down.

Until then, I’ll be dumber.

I’m not sure how this is germane to David Brooks’ new book, or to the reviewer’s critique of it, but I find it fascinating nonetheless:

And a famous experiment conducted around 1970 demonstrated that the ability of 4-year-olds to postpone gratification by leaving a marshmallow uneaten for a time as a condition of receiving a second marshmallow was a very good predictor of success in life: “The kids who could wait a full 15 minutes had, 13 years later, SAT scores that were 210 points higher than the kids who could wait only 30 seconds. . . . Twenty years later, they had much higher college-completion rates, and 30 years later, they had much higher incomes. The kids who could not wait at all had much higher incarceration rates. They were much more likely to suffer from drug- and alcohol-addiction problems.”

I think I would have been a single marshmallow guy, no matter what the consequences.

The church I pastor is in Seminole County, Florida. Paradise, or nearly so.

But as this segment from 60 Minutes shows, paradise is not always what it seems.

Recently I had an occasion to hear a prominent and respected evangelical leader speak to about 400 gathered people. In his message, which was full of worthwhile and thought-provoking content, he referred to his reading of the New York Times “with his nose plugged”. He almost apologized for reading the Times, saying he had to do it because of his radio program.

I can guess the audience that “nose plug” comment was intended for, but it, like many off-handed comments we make, was neither necessary nor wise.

First of all, I think one SHOULD read the New York Times. It IS one of the primary media of our day and its reach is broad. We should not apologize for doing so as if we are doing something shameful.

But, secondly, when we speak, to four-hundred, to four-thousand, or even to four, we ought never to assume that our inside ‘jokes’ will be uniformly appreciated. I merely lost respect for the man. But suppose there was someone there who had just ended a five year stint writing for the Times. How would he have taken that snide dismissal of his work? Or if someone there was simply wrestling with the claims of Christ, he may (unnecessarily) leave thinking either 1) he must, in addition to coming to trust Christ, come to mistrust the New York Times, in order to be a Christian, or 2) that he has no more taste for Christian things because of the “Christian” take on something he holds dear. In either scenario, the offense is not the cross, but the carelessness of the speaker.

David Bisgrove, Associated Pastor of New York City’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church, stressed this point in an extremely helpful presentation to the Gospel Coalition in 2007. He said

In most (even thriving) churches, the whole service usually assumes: 1) a lot of Biblical knowledge, 2) a ‘we-them’ mentality (we Christians vs. the big, bad world), 3) much evangelical terminology. Thus most Christians, even when they are edified in church, know intuitively that their non-Christian friends would not appreciate the service.

He illustrated this point by noting a time that he was preparing to preach and saw Robin Williams sitting in the middle of the congregation. He was glad, as his mind scanned his notes, that he was making no disparaging comments about Hollywood.

People misunderstand me every time I talk in this way. My plea is simply this: The cross will be offensive. Let us not, therefore, find other ways to offend with the result that those who need to hear the cross never can.

In my wanderings last week, I heard about a PBS series called Great Romances of the 20th Century.

Great Romances of the 20th Century examines many passionate love affairs, including those of Jackie Kennedy and John F. Kennedy, Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, Juan and Evita Peron, and Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. Great Romances unlocks the secrets that were behind some of the world’s most famous and rapturous relationships.

I suppose those ‘secrets’ would be fun to hear, but this is really not about ‘great’ romances, but ‘celebrity’ romances and celebrity romances, as Donkey so unceremoniously pointed out, watching the dragon spit out Lord Farquaad’s crown, never last.

Hollywood is not the first place I’d look for great romances or for secrets of their longevity. More likely are such to be found at the tables around us at church dinners populated by broken people who have learned to love one another ‘for better or for worse’. More likely they are to be found in the lives of the old couple walking hand in hand on the beach. These relationships might not make good TV, but they would make a great study for those newly married or contemplating marriage.

A year ago, I surveyed a half dozen couples who had reached at least thirty years of marriage. These are not couples who have faced an idyllic life. They have experienced shattered careers, cancer, and near divorce. But they are together and thriving and I asked them why? Their answers, which are really no secrets, are wonderful and inhabit my hard drive still awaiting processing and posting.

While that waits a future day, on this one which will expose some of us husbands as being thoughtless and others as sweetly romantic, which will cause some to celebrate the ‘in relationship’ tag on Facebook and others to curse it, we remember that great relationships are not built upon romance at all, but on love, which is something far greater and deeper and harder.

Happy Valentines Day!

Here is a great little assessment of the “wisdom” of marriage partners having separate financial accounts. A snippet:

The way I see it, there are no individual expenses; that ended when 130 of our nearest and dearest watched us swear to love, honor and cherish. If Peter had no income at all, he would still need clothes, haircuts, and the occasional night out with friends; likewise with me. That’s one of the things we both signed on to provide the other person. So who cares whose income it comes out of?

My experience with marriages in trouble suggests that her concerns are absolutely correct.

Clearly one of the hottest topics out there among parents priming their tots for Harvard is Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, currently #10 on the Amazon sales lists.

I heard Chua interviewed on the radio a few weeks ago and she sounded kind and charming, but I’m not going to read her book. I already have enough reasons to feel guilty about my parenting disabilities. I don’t need to add another. There have been some interesting responses to Chua’s hard nosed style, so I’ll lean on those .(And await another here.)

David Brooks takes on Chua as being insufficiently challenging as a parent. She would make her daughters practice music for two hours a day and would threaten severe discipline if they came in second to anyone in anything. And, she banished sleepovers. No time for that. Curiously, Brooks does not criticize her for being too severe, but for coddling them:

I believe she’s coddling her children. She’s protecting them from the most intellectually demanding activities because she doesn’t understand what’s cognitively difficult and what isn’t.

Practicing a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, but it is nowhere near as cognitively demanding as a sleepover with 14-year-old girls. Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group — these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale.

Lane Wallace, while not addressing Chua directly, or consciously for that matter, in a post on entrepreneurial and life passion, reflects on the kinds of things in childhood which fuel the ability to imagine and create. She lists as the second factor, this:

Support and enthusiasm for trying new things. To imagine something that doesn’t yet exist and have the confidence to pursue or invest resources in that vision, a person has to believe a) that exploration and experimentation are good things and b) that [there] isn’t just one right answer. (So kids raised in regimented households tend to have a harder time coming up with highly creative visions that challenge accepted ways of doing things.)

I can’t help but wonder if the parenthesis had a target.

But the best response I’ve seen sidles up next to those of us who stumble through parenting and graciously assures us that if we are bad at this child-rearing thing, we are probably worse at dog-rearing. She notes that Amy Chua’s dog is no match for some top flight canine scholars. This author’s own dog is an accomplished teacher.

The dog who now sleeps in front of our fire is Sophie, a cross between a Labrador and a setter, who, like most of our dogs before her, has shown little interest in the niceties of human language. In fact, my ability to communicate my needs and wishes to her is quite limited.

She has, however, managed to teach me to carefully — and, I might say, correctly — interpret every bark, whine, ear twitch, needy moan and shift in posture, and to respond accordingly. She didn’t learn English. I learned Dog.

This, I encourage you to read from beginning to end.

I managed to snap a photo of the previously alluded to sign as I drove by today. Enjoy!

Previous messages on this board encouraged people to not leave pets locked in car “…due too heat” and announced a discount on “sugeries”.