So now we have a high school in Washington, DC that just hired a lady to be their high school football coach.  Interesting.  Is she allowed in the locker room with the boys to give them a pregame locker room talk?  Does she give thrilling pregame speeches to them about how to be MEN win or lose?  Is it sexual harassment if she pats them on the butt after a good play?  I wish I were kidding about this, but it is true.  You can read the article here.

The gender confusion in our society is nothing new . . . the same confusion was talked about in ancient Israel 4,000 years ago, when Moses forbade men to dress in women's clothes and women to dress in men's clothes.  But today it is almost getting comical to see the extremes we are expressing in order to try and make the genders the same.  Notice I didn't say equal . . . I do believe men and women are equal, they are just not the same.  Those are two totally different things, as two can be equal and not the same. 

I preached on this in passing last weekend as I addressed the verse in Galatians that says in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, slave or free, as we are all one in Christ.  This verse was meant to stamp out slavery and racism and inequality among the sexes, but it was not meant to make men into women or vice versa.  For example, I told our church God would hate it if we had two water fountains, one for Jews and one for Greeks, as that would be racism (remember Jim Crow laws - it happened in churches as well).  He would also hate it if we had two restrooms, one for slaves and one for free, as that would be classism.  However, it is perfectly fine to have two separate restrooms, one for male and one for female, as God commends separate roles for men and women, He just opposes the inequality that has existed throughout history.  We can be equal and yet play separate roles. 

So don't be sucked into the craziness of the day.  Don't be afraid to preserve some roles for men and some for women.  Men don't work in our nursery, women don't do the heavy lifting that goes along with setup.  Girls don't play football and boys aren't majorettes.  And ladies coaching high school football makes about as much sense as guys becoming professional lactation consultants!

Yea, Banal is an SAT word.  The definition is "devoid of freshness or originality; trite."  As I was reviewing some recent tweets from some people I follow, this is the word that jumped into my mind.  I mean, here I was, reading about a guy taking his kids to ball practice, another watching the sunrise, etc., etc.  Now those are not bad things, but it just occurred to me how trivial and trite it all was, and then I realized that 100's of people are reading the same thing!

So then I start thinking, what does the whole idea of twitter say about our society?  What are the larger implications?  I am not willing to die on any of these hills, but I have a few initial thoughts about this.  First of all, I think it surely says that we are now an oral society, not a literate one.  Of course, the vast majority of Americans can read, so by definition they are literate, but the vast majority also chooses not to read, so we are an oral society.  Tweets about our friends and others are about 20 words long and that is generally enough reading for us.  Secondly, I think it says that we are generally more inclined to living our lives through other people rather than taking the risks necessary to actually live our own life.  In other words, we are fascinated by the simple and mundane statements of others and we like to "live" through them instead of focusing our energy on living ourselves.  Finally, I think it fuels our propensity towards marketing and self-promotion.  The way we craft our facebook pages (especially the photos), the way we tweet only about the 'cool' stuff we are doing (often exaggerated), it paints a picture of ourself that is not real.  And the real danger in that is not that others wind up with a false image of who we are (though that happens), but even worse is that we end up with a false image of who we are.  Then we have to go out into real life and try to live up the false image we have portrayed in the cyber world, which is emotionally taxing and ultimately impossible.

So what is the answer to this dilemma?  Do I post a pic of myself on facebook first thing in the morning so everyone can see my bedhead and wrinkly face?  Do I tweet about how I just lost my temper and yelled at my kids or how I was just blown off by a person I wanted to ask out?  Do I go out in the back yard and put the sledge-o-matic on my laptop?  Probably not, but at the least we need to realize that the people and lives we see lived out on facebook and twitter are not real, they are just carefully selected marketing schemes.  Therefore, we don't need to hold those up as models and try to either live through them or get depressed because our lives seem so mundane in comparison to them.  And most importantly, we need to live in real relationships with real people and not try to do life in 20 word tweets.  I guarantee that will not work in your marriage, with your kids or with other relationships, so train yourself to relate to others by, surprise, relating to others.  Don't sit home with your laptop and tweet and fb all night, go hang out with friends and neighbors and work on your face to face skills, not your fb skills.  Those are the ones you need in life and those are the ones you need in ministry.

But Todd, isn't this the ultimate hypocrisy, as you are active on both facebook and twitter?  No, I am not saying they are evil and we should not use them.  I am simply saying they have sprung up in our society and have given us an outlet whereby we can bypass real relationships and yet not feel so isolated and lonely, which is a dangerous thing.  I like the cyber world just like everyone else, but I constantly push myself to relate to individuals face to face and not just in the cyber world, and I encourage you to do the same.

This past Sunday I preached on the issue of pornography in our society (listen here).  As a part of that, I threw out some stats that are shocking and sad, yet true.

• Americans spend $12 billion annually . . . more than on pro basketball, baseball and football combined.
• Porn sites are 12 percent of all websites, 20% of men and 13% of women admit to viewing porn at work.
• 90% of children between the ages of 8 and 16 have already viewed porn online.
• #1 consumer of porn is boys ages 12-17.
• 10% (30 million in America) of adults ADMIT to pornography addiction, 28% of those adults (9 million) are women
• The average child sees porn for first time at age 11, usually inadvertantly on the internet.
• 20% of all teens have sent or received nude pictures of themselves or others.
• In 2002, of 1,351 pastors were surveyed by Christianity today and 54% said they had viewed Internet pornography within the last year, with 30% of those having visited these sites within the last 30 days.

Houston, we have a problem!  The clear majority of the next generation is being continually exposed to pornography and it is changing the way they think and the way they bond with the opposite sex.

The real danger of pornography is that it hijacks the normal bonding process that is supposed to happen in sexual encounters and it causes people to bond with sexual objects (porn stars), not real people.  Over time, those addicted to porn begin to view almost everyone as sexual objects to be judged primarily by their bodies alone, not judged as real people.  This objectification of the opposite sex carries over into marriage relationships and destroys them.

This is how it works.  When an individual watches pornography, they are not just a passive spectator of the sexual acts they are viewing.  On the contrary, they are active participants because their brains are projecting them into the sex acts as participants.  It is just like watching a horror movie.  During the scary scenes, our brains have projected us into the film as a participant and they send clear signals and chemicals to our bodies that cause us to be frightened and elevate our heart rate and blood pressure so that we could flee the perceived danger.  At that point, our brain is fooled into thinking we are a participant in the film and reacts accordingly.  The same thing is true when viewing pornography.  This means that, neurologically speaking, there is little difference between a person who watches pornography and the actual porn stars themselves, except for the risk of STD's and pregnancy to the porn stars. 

After our brain has repeated exposures to pornography and projects itself into the scenes as an actor, not a spectator, the brain is being taught how to act towards the opposite sex.  It is being taught to use people, not cherish them; to be rough and selfish in sex, not kind and affectionate; and ultimately to objectify all sexual partners and view them as a necessary means to sexual fulfillment, not real people with real needs.  The brain of the pornography viewer, just as the brain of the pornography actor, is being taught to look at all women (or men) as mere objects of sexual pleasure, not real people who have emotions, families, feelings, needs, hopes, aspirations, etc.  It is also being taught to compartmentalize sex as something that is done outside of a real relationship.  I mean, does anyone ever consider what it would be like to have a conversation about aging parents over breakfast with the porn star they view on the internet?  Of course not, but this is a critical skill in bringing intimacy into a marriage.

This objectification of other people is what 'hijacks' the normal bonding process inherent in sex between a man and a woman, and teaches the brain to bond with sexual objects, not real people.  This 'compartmentalization' of sexuality bleeds over into the marriage relationship and causes isolation, sexual dysfunction, impotence, loneliness, isolation and an inability to achieve true intimacy, which is what we all desire.

If you are struggling with pornography, I urge you to confess this addiciton to the spiritual authority in your life, whether that is your pastor or just a friend you know who really walks with God.  This addiction is so prevalent in our society, but it can be overcome through the power of Jesus and living in His community, the local church.

For more info, I recommend www.porntopurity.com or the newly released book, Wired for Initimacy. How pornography hijacks the male brain by William M. Struthers.

Somehow, someway, conversion has become a bad word in our culture.  "We aren't into converting people" is a very cool mantra, it's just not biblical.  Paul used the word often in the New Testament, as here in Romans 16:5, "Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first CONVERT to Christ in the province of Asia."  In the spiritual realm, conversion is simply the act of becoming something new, which is exactly what Jesus promises when he says that repentence and belief lead to regeneration, or being made new.  So I am very into converting people.  I am into seeing people have allegience to this world and change their allegience to Jesus and be converted.  I am into people being converted from the worship of other gods to the worship of the one, true God - Jesus. 

But many 'emergent' believers like to back off the whole concept of conversion because this is what gets us into trouble.  I remember traveling to India years ago to the city of Hyderabad.  We arrived one week after a local evangelical pastor had been killed by Hindu fundamentalists.  It was interesting because in this particular area there was a majority population of Hindus, then a large minority population of Muslims (about 30%), then a small minority of Catholic Christians (1-2%), and just a smattering of Evangelical Christians well below 1%.  So why was the evangelical pastor targeted by the Hindu extremist and not the Muslims or the Catholics?  It is simple . . . he worked to convert Hindus (and Muslims for that matter) to Evangelical Christianity, he considered this to be his duty and his delight.  Muslims, on the other hand, had no interest in converting Hindus to Islam, and Hindus had no interest in converting the Muslims to Hinduism.  As for the Catholic Christians, more often than not, they were also content to simply minister to the needs of historically Catholic families in the area.  But the very word 'evangelical' means one who is active in evangelizing, which means to verbally speak the good news about Jesus and exhort others to be 'converted' from whatever they currently are into a devoted follower of Jesus. 

This is the part of our faith that gets us into trouble and distinguishes us from other religions which are content to sustain themselves by simple biological growth rather than through conversion growth.  But our marching orders are different, for Jesus said go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every living creature and ask them to follow Me at all cost, and it often cost a lot.  I just read this article about one of our brothers and his 15 year old daughter in Egypt (pictured above).  He is currently living on the run and being persecuted for converting from Islam into Christianity.  Amazingly enough, in Egypt one can legally convert from Christianity into Islam in one week, but it is ILLEGAL to convert from Islam into Christianity, period.  This is a big deal because your religion is stamped into your passport and it determines whom you can marry, where you can worship, where you can study and where you will be buried.  Nevertheless, even in such harsh conditions, it is our duty to convert all men into worshipers of Jesus.  Actually, it is not our duty, it is our delight, as nothing is more energizing than seeing one more human being receive total forgiveness through Jesus.  So let's pursue the conversion of all men at all cost, it is our delight.

I was talking to a good friend of mine recently who is on staff with FCA.  As we were talking about our spiritual journeys, he brought up the fact that we often teach people to simply be better Christians instead of teaching them to actually know God.  But wait a minute, aren't those the same things??  That is the question and the issue at hand.  As we talked, I saw the dichotomy.  We can just teach people to be "better" Christians by doing more stuff for God - giving more, praying more, reading more, serving more, more, more, more.  Yet sometimes we are not teaching them to know God.  Maybe God wants them to rest, maybe God wants them to do something totally different.  I think there is a difference here that we have to address.  What we want is for people to know God, to be at peace with Him, to be comfortable with Him, to hear His still small voice in their lives and respond, but often we are content with people who will just do more in the name of 'spiritual growth', which may simply be spiritual activity. 

I know this sounds confusing, and parts of it are, but I would challenge you to contemplate it.  Are you working hard to actually know God better, or are you simply trying to be a 'better' Christian by doing more?  Let's not settle for simple activity, let's stretch out for a real relationship, which is a radically different thing from religious activity.

In my research for our Xmas series, I came across an organization called Kiva that makes microloans to the poor around the world.  The way it works is that private citizens who want to be lenders, like us, can simply make a $50 or $200 or $500 loan to a small business person in the developing world.  These entreprenuers have been pre-screened and approved for the loans based on their current work ethic and business model.  Amazingly enough, there is currently a 98% payback rate for Kiva loans, and most are repaid within 12 months.  This is pretty fantastic considering that Kiva has facilitated over $100 million in loans over the last 4 years!

So what if the 'Smith' family got together this year and instead of everyone exchanging names and buying about $500 worth of 'stuff', they put all of their money together and used this $500 in capital to provide a loan to a young mother in Cambodia who is selling pigs and doing well, but needs $500 in capital to expand her business.  This $500 loan would be paid back into their Kiva account over the next 12 months, at which time they could make another loan, perhaps to a young weaver in Guatemala who needs to update his manual loom in order to work more efficiently.  It could become an annual tradition for the family to use this $500 in capital to help a hard working person from another country provide for their family by expanding their small business.

Here is a sample profile of a lady in Cambodia needing a loan.  So if you are looking for something a little different this year, check out Kiva and bless the poor in celebration of Jesus, who though he was rich, became poor for our sakes.

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. (2 Corinthians 8:9)

I recently read about the ongoing saga between former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, and the Miss California Board of Directors.  Now Carrie is suing the organization because they publicly disclosed the fact that they loaned her $5,000 to pay for a breast augmentation surgery leading up to the Miss USA pageant, in hopes this would help her chances of winning.  Now I am a fan of Carrie and the courage she displayed, and there is no doubt that she was railroaded out of her Miss California title solely because of her opposition to same sex marriage.  But this latest revelation about her saddened me. 

As I read the story, I realized again that we have a culture that is so into 'body worship' that even our most confident and attractive young ladies buy into this lie and feel the need to surgically enhance their bodies in order to attract more attention, not to themselves as humans, but only to their bodies.  Wasn't there a time long ago and far away when it was considered rude and immoral for a bunch of men to focus their attention on the breasts of a young woman?  Yet now we live in a culture where plastic surgeons make megamillions each year enhancing womens' (often in their teens) breasts for this very purpose?  Am I the only one that thinks this is a little whacked???

And guys are not immune to this cult of body worship either.  We don't get botox injections and surgical enhancements quite as often, but we do take black market steroids in order to bulk up as quickly as possible.  And again, it is our best male athletes, not our worst, who continually buy into this lie and feel the pressure to go beyond what is natural. 

The source of this chaos is theological, not physical.  Once God is dethroned in a culture, all anyone has left is his or her physical body, so our body very naturally becomes our god.  You see, our hearts were made to worship, they were made to enthrone someone or something, so if God is not in the picture and the body is all that is left, we will definitely place it on the throne and pay any amount to 'enhance', 'augment' and immortalize it. 

But what would it be like to be free from body worship?  To be free from all that pressure to beautiful, tight, handsome, built, etc., etc.?  Jesus can free you from that by placing your eyes on eternity and on your soul, not on your body and the here and now.

"Let us fix our eyes, not on what is seen, but on what is unseen.  For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal" - The Apostle Paul

I was recently preaching at Radius about Father Maximilian Kolby, a Catholic priest who willingly laid down his live in the Auschwitz concentration camp to save the life of another man, Francis Gajowniczek.  Following this event, the Catholic Church conferred upon Maximilian its highest honor, that of sainthood.  During the sermon, I noted that I personally do not believe in conferring sainthood upon individuals (also known as canonization), as I see no biblical precedent for it and most people to whom it is given don't even want it! 

However, in lieu of sainthood, I do reserve the right to confer another honorable title upon individuals who do courageous and extraordinary things for Jesus, and that title is STUDHOOD.  You see, God makes you a saint by cleansing you with the blood of Jesus, but you can make yourself a STUD in the Kingdom by standing up and believing God enough to do something extraordinary for his Kingdom.  That is what Maximillian did in 1941, and that is what a guy named Martin Luther (pictured here) did in Europe in the 16th century.  And anybody who goes above and beyond the call of duty and earns the Radius title of STUD in the Kingdom is worthy of a full Sunday sermon, so that is what we will deliver this weekend. 

Think about it.  If you worship Jesus at any church other than a Catholic church, your church was birthed by the movement 'Stud' Martin Luther began at great risk to his own life.  And even if you worship Jesus at a Catholic church, you now worship him in English, not Latin, and you have your own English Bible, because of Martin Luther's courageous reforms.

So this Sunday we will celebrate a little known Christian holiday called Reformation Day, which celebrates Martin Luther's life and ministry.  We will examine the life and teachings of Martin Luther and apply them to our lives today, in hopes that a few of us will step up to the plate and achieve the great honor of 'Studhood', or 'Studettehood' where applicable . . . See you there.

Did you know that the word "X-Mas" originated from people replacing the English word Christ with the first letter of Christ as it is written in New Testament Greek, Χριστος.  So you take the first letter of this Greek word for Christ, which is 'X' (the Greek letter Chi), and use it as an abbreviation.  So X-Mas is really just an attempt to abbreviate the word Christmas, not a covert attempt to somehow take Christ out of Christmas.  So here's the plan.  We want to take Christ, as He really was in the 1st century when he was called Χριστος, and introduce him to Christmas in America in the 21st century.  What would Jesus think and do if he were a member of Radius during the Christmas season?  What plans and dreams would He have for us?  Those are the questions we will seek to decipher as we go forward . . . and yes, we are doing this very early because we have some very special plans for Jesus' birthday this year and we have to get an early start . . . see you on November 1st!

SERMON SERIES SCHEDULE:

11.01.09  "Putting The X Back In X-Mas"

11.08.09  "The Wrapping Is The Key"

11.15.09  "Gifts That Keep On Giving

Radius Church is at it again.  Our small groups have increased in number from 15 to 30, and we are pumped about that.  But we don't want our small groups to simply be places to hang out and do some kind of dry study that it totally separated from following Jesus by loving your neighbor.  Therefore, we have given each of our 30 small groups a $500 grant from our church offerings and instructed them to seek God together and ask how they can honor Jesus with this money.  One group is going to help a single mom, another group is going to help with medical expenses for a child with cancer, and others will do and execute things that are so far removed from our leadership team that we would never even know of these needs, much less do something about them, if we didn't actually empower our members to be missionaries.

This is the part of our church that I love the most - the fact that we empower all of our members to do Jesus' work in this world.  It is so easy for people to see needs around them and say, "The church should step in and help these people", and then they call their pastor and ask him to help.  NO, NO, NO.  Jesus put that in front of them, so they are the ones called to help, not the pastor.  In fact, THEY ARE THE PASTOR IN THAT SITUATION!  They are closer to the situation and have been touched personally by it, so they are actually in a better situation to discern how to help.  Furthermore, they have the same open line to Jesus that the pastor uses, so they should be the ones asking and wrestling with God about how they are to help.  But this breaks down unless they actually have access to the resources of the church.  If only the pastor can turn loose the resources of the church, they can't get the church to respond.  We want to turn that paradigm on its head a little and give them the resources of the church and let them respond in freedom.  

It should be a lot of fun as we go forward and unleash an army of 200 missionaries armed with $15,000 and all asking God, "What would you have us do in our community to cause the name of Jesus to be highly esteemed?"  Stay tuned . . . . the stories will begin to pop on our website soon.

I just broke another boundary in life . . . . I read something out of Vogue magazine!  But it was worth crossing the estrogen ocean in order to read the interview posted there with Jenny Sanford.  If she were a guy, I would call her a stud, but since she is a very proper lady, I guess I will call her a queen.  She has been through the ringer over the last 12 months or so as her husband's very public midlife crisis and subsequent affair has been aired to the entire country.  Through it all, however, she has been an absolute model of dignity, honor, forgiveness and wisdom.  So even though Mark Sanford has drug Jesus' name through the mud by his illicit affairs and abandonment of his family, Jenny has brought immeasurable honor and glory to Jesus by responding to this betrayal with a perfect balance of forgiveness and discipline (e.g. she kicked Mark out of the house in discipline, but offered to forgive and reconcile if he was willing to do what it takes).  Even Vogue recognized this beautiful balance and talked about her as the new model of how to respond to an adulterous husband.

In the interview, Jenny had the following insight into the male psyche that was right on the money . . . “I think my husband has got some issues that he needs to work on, about happiness and what happiness means. You wish it wouldn’t come to a crisis like this, but I think when a lot of men get to this midpoint in life, they start asking questions that they probably should have asked a long time ago . . . Midlife aging is different for men than for women,” she says. “Mark is worried about what his next job is. He worries about making money, running for office again, his legacy. I know my legacy is my children. I don’t worry about that.”

Excellent insight Jenny.  It is at the midpoint of life that men begin to face the reality that they are not going to be as rich as they wanted, they are not going to be as famous as they had hoped, and they are realistic enough to understand that these things aren't just around the next corner, the false hope they held to when they were in their 30's.  So what do they do?  They start looking for ways to get their ego stroked (they conveniently call it 'looking for happiness') whenever and wherever they can find it, and they usually find little sparks of it apart from honor and godliness.  The problem is that these little ego strokes they receive by affairs, greed, drugs and porn, are followed by waves of guilt, shame and wreckage in their lives and the lives of their friends and family. So what is the answer, you ask?  The answer is to do what Jenny said, ask the foundational questions of life earlier and destroy the ego, don't stroke it!  The male ego cannot be fed, it has to be starved.

One other related quote by Jenny was the following:

The question is why some men—specifically, male politicians—don’t seem to understand how extramarital affairs poison both careers and families. Having watched the species up close all these years, [Jenny] Sanford has a theory. “Politicians become disconnected from the way everyone else lives in the world. I saw that from the very beginning. They’ll say they need something, and ten people want to give it to them. It’s an ego boost, and it’s easy to drink your own Kool-Aid. As a wife, you do your best to keep them grounded, but it’s a real challenge.”

That's the point . . . if the male ego gets stroked, it feeds on itself and others and is always consuming but never satisfied.  When it is in this mode, it eventually destroys everything around it.  We see this time and time again with men who are politicians or athletes or actors and even pastors.  When a man is elevated amongst a group of people and is constantly having his ego stroked by others, it is very easy for him to "drink his own Kool-aid" and begin to think he is 'all that'.  He wrongly thinks that he deserves this attention and entitlement takes the place of thanksgiving.  This kind of thinking is the beginning of the end and it always ends up with a foolish affair, a betrayed wife, bitter children and a disgraced, humiliated man acting like a 16 year old boy.  It makes us all mad, but in reality it is just really sad.

So ask yourself this question today . . . are you drinking your own Kool-Aid?

Do you ever see things that are just embarrassing.  What about Michael Jordan's childish rant during his hall of fame induction speech (nobody wants to be like Mike anymore . . .), or Kayne West's drunken idiocy at the MTV awards?  There is no shortage of material out there for guys doing foolish things.  I have contributed to that profile myself. 

However, it is even more embarrassing when it is done under the label and title of Christian.  I expect guys who are not in submission to God to do stupid and embarrassing things, but it is more painful when those who wear the Christian uniform do so, and without apology.  But this has always been a problem on this earth and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.  When Paul was writing the New Testament letters, he was continually calling people out publicly for doing embarrassing things in Jesus' name.  He called Peter out for his racism, he called out others for their greed and manipulation of women, he called others out for getting drunk and playing the grace card.  It is an old, old story, but today I thought I would throw out a few things I would love to see rectified in our global church.

1. The "Christian" music industry.  It is such a joke.  You submit an original song and they like it and want to publish it, but they ask to change ONE WORD of the song and in return they want to be listed as a bona fide co-writer and thus receive 50% of all future profits.  One word of a 100 word song and they want 50%, and they dare call that "Christian"?  Last time I checked, God hates stealing.

2. 50 U.S. based bishops from a large denomination, all of whom receive a lifetime appointment, decided to lower their salaries this year as a "gesture of solidarity with others hurt by the global economic downturn."  As a result, all 50 US based bishops will receive a salary of $121,000 this year, not the $125,800 they were scheduled to receive.  I hope they figure out a way to survive with that kind of drastic 'gesture'.

3. Churches recruiting staff.  When universities recruit coaches from other teams, they have to make contact with the Athletic Director before opening that conversation, as a matter of respect and integrity.  Churches, on the other hand, would never do such a respectful thing.  When we recruit staffers from other churches, we never ask or consider how the loss of this person might affect the church where they currently serve . . . . sad to say, but I think we don't care how it affects that church as long as we get our man.  If it really is God's will for that person to leave and come to work with us, would God not lead the other church to recognize that as well???  Shouldn't we at least have that conversation before making the offer?  I hate it when secular rivals (college athletics programs) treat each other with more respect and dignity than local church leaders, who claim to be 'on the same team'!

These are just some of the issues of the day, there are plenty more we could put here.  But here is the warning for us all - we are all capable of doing things that are just flat embarrassing to Jesus and His Kingdom.  I have been guilty before, no doubt.  My daughter recently told me of an instance at her school where an administrator blatantly violated the very dress code they had just emphasized to the students.  She was upset about it, and rightfully so.  I explained to her the word hypocrisy at that point and then told her plainly, "If you ever see that at Radius church, you have the authority to call it out right away, as we are capable of doing foolish things like that as well, and we need to be held accountable so that we don't embarrass Jesus with our double standards."  I like that, a place where we are aware of our propensity to set up a double standard, but a place where we have the right to call it where we see it.  Sounds like a New Testament church to me . . .

St John's Lutheran Church in LexingtonI sat down this past Sunday to unwind after a great morning, but when I read the editorial page of The State newspaper I saw something that was so deceptive I had to respond.  So I immediately sent my letter to the editor in response to a full column that was written by Rev. Eric Wolf of St. John's Lutheran church here in Lexington.  Rev. Wolf wrote in defense of his denomination's recent decision to bless homosexual unions.  Most of my response letter was published in today's paper, but a pretty significant part of it was left out, so I reprint it in full in my blog where I am the only editor.  Also, lest anyone think I am some type of homophobe, I assure you I am not.  I have dear friends that are currently practicing the homosexual lifestyle and I have made it clear that they are not to be discriminated against and they are welcome at our church.  We are to be a safe place for people of any and every sexual orientation . . . heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, et al., though we only endorse and bless heterosexual marriages.  You can listen to my sermon entitled "The Issue of Homosexuality?" at this link. 

So here is the full text of the letter that was sent to the editor and published in part in today's paper . . .

Having just read Rev. Wolf's 'biblical, ethical and moral' justification of blessing homosexual unions within the ELCA, I would like to offer a few comments.  First of all, it is somewhat embarassing that Rev. Wolf wrote, "The chief argument against blessing homosexual unions conerns the statements in Leviticus and Galatians against homosexuality."  In fact, these statements are actually found in Leviticus and Romans.  It is also telling that he conveniently chose not to quote either of these passages within his column.  I charitably assume mistaking Galatians for Romans was a simple oversight on Rev. Wolf's part, but it should be noted when a Priest claims to have a faith "rooted in the scriptures" and yet makes such an obvious error in referring to those scriptures?  

Additionally, Rev. Wolf's argument is basically that sexuality is something we are born with and therefore our duty to love our brother or sister just as they are takes precedence over any biblical prohibitions related to sexuality.  Based on that logic, I would simply ask about the case of polygamy or polyandry.  How do we respond to men or women who are inwardly driven (from their earliest memories) to have more than one partner/wife.  Or what about the bisexual, who is born to love and have sex with both men and women?  Once we 'redefine' marriage as nothing more than a lifelong commitment between two consenting adults, on what theological, civic or rational basis can we confine the union to only two adults?  Why can't three or more consenting adults of any gender choose to enter into a lifelong, consensual, marital relationship?

Finally, I love the way Rev. Wolf conveniently reminded us that 'good' homosexual couples were better for society and the family than alcoholic, drug addicted, sex-crazed heterosexual couples.  That was very insightful.  Actually publishing such a ludicrous, false dichotemy was so juvenile I was not sure how to respond, other than to say that the verses Rev. Wolf quoted in his column should have instructed him to be a little more fair minded, comparing 'good' heterosexual couples with 'good' homosexual couples when considering their impact on children and society at large.

After I sent this letter, I was wondering if I was too harsh in it, as I have a natural talent for sarcasm and at times that can be a lot more destructive rather than constructive.  On the other hand, we are commanded to tear down every lofty argument that sets itself up agains the knowledge of Christ, so we have to point out faulty logic, faulty thinking and faulty statements about God, albeit in a fair and charitable way.  I hope I hit this balance here . . . and Rev. Wolf, if by a long shot you wind up reading this blog, please don't personalize the debate . . . in fact, I would love to catch a lunch with you sometime in the near future where we could discuss these things outside of the public eye.

There is a feel good facebook post circulating right now that says the following:

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your facebook status for the rest of the day.

I have read it twice, and being who I am, I just couldn't let that pass without an obvious declaration of just how misguided and naive the statement really is.  And since it is going to pull emotional heartstrings and a lot of people are going to jump on the bandwagon, I thought I would at least post on it and show the obvious flaws in the statement, so here goes.

What the statement is really saying is that no AMERICAN should die because they can't afford healthcare and no AMERICAN should go broke because of sickness, for if we really meant what the statement says, that this should happen to NO ONE, then I assume that includes Afghanis, Nigerians, Kenyans, etc.  And if that is the case, that NO ONE should ever die because of lack of healthcare, then is it ethically OK to do thousands of very expensive MRI's on athletes in America and Western Europe while thousands of children die everyday in Asia and Africa from simple dysentery, which is easily treated with $10 worth of glucose IV's and antibiotics??  O, but that is healthcare rationing, isn't it?  Yes, of course it is, and anytime one organization or one company or one country controls healthcare, there is always rationing.  The rationing can be economic (the rich can afford it, the poor cannot) or ideological (the young deserve it, the old do not), or nationalistic (Americans deserve every possible treatment during the last 6 months of life, Tibetans do not).

I hate to be a stick in the mud, but this statement is just naive and naive people can't sustain a democracy.  If you are going to circulate it, then go ahead and say what you mean by inserting the word AMERICAN in it so that we can discuss that national debate.  But noboby really wants to insert AMERICAN in it and then circulate it, because we immediately feel the hypocrisy and nationalistic healthcare rationing inherent in the revised statement, so it doesn't feel as good to post it.

Alternatively, if you leave the statement as it is and say those things should happen to NO ONE (in the world), then step up and live out the logial repurcussions.  It would require each and every American and Eastern European to give up about 25-50% of their current income to provide that medical care to EVERY ONE.  Ready for that?  But we would have to go even further than that.  We would have to stop producing H1N1 flu vaccines for our kids immediately and instead, produce antibiotics and IV packs for kids with dysentery in Africa, as H1N1 rarely kills children here and simple dysentery is easily treated.  Us older folks would have to voluntarily forgo our own sports related surgeries and procedures that allow us to run and play in our old age (I currently have a partially torn rotator cuff that needs repair), as these are not a priority in the worldwide scope.  These elective surgeries would have to be subservient to life-saving AIDS meds in Russia and appendectimies in Central Asia.

So what is the answer, you ask?  I am not smart enough to know, but I do know that some type of healthcare rationing is a reality under any system and our choice is simply who and how healthcare is rationed, not if healthcare will be rationed.  Will the government ration it, will economic realities ration it, will nationalistic power ration it?  Out of those three, I still vote for economic rationing as the lesser of three evils . . . I know it is unust and not perfect, it just seems better than the alternatives.

Unfortunately, our world will continue to be full of horror stories of people dying and suffering needlessly for lack of healthcare until Jesus returns and brings perfect peace and justice and thereby puts an end to all healthcare rationing.  Until that time, just make sure you look out for your next door neighbor and don't spend a lot of energy on utopian visions of a world where no one dies for lack of healthcare - only Jesus can deliver on that campaign promise.

As a follow up to my last post, I want to address Jesus talking about judging others.  Many people will tell you that Jesus would never have us judge anyone, but that is simply not true.  They take this from Matthew 7, but they take it out of context.  Here is the majority of the passage:

I made a passing statement in church on Sunday that we are actually required to judge our brothers in Scripture.  This caused some questions, as I knew it would, so I wanted to follow up with a little more depth. 

Somehow, in our society, we have been taught that the greatest virtue in the world is to never judge anyone. I have no idea where that came from, but it is an idea that is foolish, unlivable and unbiblical.  We have to judge people everyday.  We judge the contractor before he works on our house, we judge the boy before he takes our daughter to the movies, we judge our neighbors before we give them an extra key to our house, we judge criminals and punish them accordingly, we judge a pastor before we commit to bringing our family to his church.  These judgments are not always right, but we all make them based on the information we have, and we should make them.  We just need to judge people fairly, which means not based on outward appearances, financial or social status or other earthly measures, which are shallow and foolish, but based on the 'content of their character', as Martin Luther King, Jr. so famously said.  But how do I see a person's character, you ask?  That is easy, you just watch what they do and you will see their heart.  Greedy hearts don't give money generously, immoral hearts don't stay faithful, lazy hearts don't work hard, etc., etc.  It is not rocket science.  Who we are comes out in what we do, period. 

Now there can be seasons of exception, but if you watch a person for 3 months and all you see and hear is greed, why do we hesitate to make a judgment and say that person is greedy?  When we see and hear of that same behavior in a contractor (made by other people who judged him), we make that judgment quickly and don't give him the contract to build our home.  But when we move this everyday principle into the religious realm, we lose all sensibility and say, "I am not to judge anyone."

The fact of the matter is that no one is to lead in the church unless they have been 'judged' morally and spiritually and found to be hospitable, temperate, able to teach, self-controlled, gentle, not argumentative, etc., etc.  These are moral judgments we have to make about people.  Furthermore, we judge everyone before they work in a ministry at Radius, even giving a background check before they work with kids (and if we find certain crimes on the background check, we would judge them unfit for that task).  Even further, our entire system of accountability within the church is based on judging each other.  I often sit with some of our elders and we judge each other - Gasp!.  They ask me, "What kind of husband have you been this last week?"  If I have done well, I am judged and pass the test, but if I have done poorly, I am judged to have been a poor husband this past week so they follow up and ask how they can help this poor husband be a better one next week.  You see, I don't mind being judged by a fair and impartial judge, as that ultimately makes me better.  I just don't want to be judged by a crooked and corrupt judge.  Wait a minute, did I just judge that judge by calling him crooked and corrupt?  There I go again, judging other people, just like you.

So what is the answer?  It is this - it is fine to judge other people as long as it is done fairly and according to God's standards, not outward appearances or race or religion or social status.  But we are NEVER TO CONDEMN OTHERS - that is the distinction.  God is the only one with the authority to condemn, but we can make judgments and then act accordingly.  I personally think we just confuse the English language and that is what people mean when they say we are not to judge, they really mean we are not to condemn, which would be right.  I don't condemn the Muslim, or the homosexual, or the greedy or the addict.  

The Biblical case for this is in 1 Corinthians 5, where we are commanded to judge those inside the church, those that wear the name Jesus.  There they had an immoral man in the church and they weren't doing anything about it.  Paul told them to never judge those outside the church for such grossly immoral sins, but he commanded them to judge those inside the church for gross immorality.  In fact, he commanded them to EXPEL this immoral brother.  In order to do this, they had to judge him to be immoral, then they had to expel him for being immoral.  Why so harsh, Paul?  Because he was running around flaunting his immorality in Jesus' name and bringing a bad reputation to both Jesus and Jesus' church.  He was judged by the Corinthian church and refused communion for a season, till we see in 2 Corinthians that their loving rebuke of him worked and now he was back in the church, minus the blatant immorality.   He was judged, but not condemned, and the judgment of the church actually brought about a good result in his life, and he was welcomed back in the church.  Here is the passage where the command is given (1 Corinthians 5:9-13, New Living Translation):

When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or are greedy, or cheat people, or worship idols. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people.

It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”

There you have it, it is in black and white.  It just says there is a responsibility that comes with wearing the name Christian or believer or follower of Jesus or whatever the label of the day is.  If you don't wear the name, we will never judge you, but if you wear the name of our Lord, we have responsibility for you, just as I do for my children.  Don't you despise the parents who have kids strung out on drugs and they refuse to see the reality of it, refuse to make a judgment about them and take action to help them?    Isn't that pitiful?  Isn't it just as pitiful for a church to call itself a family and yet have a member of that family sleeping around on his wife, breaking his children's hearts, and yet no one has the courage to judge him, rebuke him and offer him a path of restoration with his family and with his God?  It happens all the time in our churches and it is naive at best, total cowardice at worse.

One final argument here.  As Protestants we are all big on saying there is no difference between our pastors and our lay people, we are all the same before God, and that is true.  So why is it that we have no problem whatsoever judging pastors who sin, yet it is viewed as evil to judge lay people who commit the same sins?  If we are ok with our members being greedy and running their businesses as cheats and say that it is none of our business and we shouldn't judge them, then we should be ok with our pastors being greedy and running their finances unethically as well.  We all know that is not the case, so why the double standard?  It is because we have somehow been taught that we can judge pastors and leaders, but to judge anyone else within the church is a heinous sin, but we have been taught a great theological error.  So go ahead, judge me, just judge me fairly and as Jesus said, judge me by the same standard with which you want to be judged yourself.

But what about Matthew 7, you ask, where we are told not to judge others?  I will tackle that one in my next post.

Is it just me or is everybody else tired of 'studying' Jesus.  The command He gave was to follow him, yet it seems like 90% of everything we do is focused on studying Him, analyzing His word, looking for cute little nuances in his teachings that sound cool and important and make for good illustrations.  Is that really following?  NO, IT IS NOT, and that's the problem.  If we were to take his word at face value and just begin to follow him, which I define as living out his commands in daily life (not simply studying them with our buddies), then our spiritual lives would take on an entirely new dimension.  For example, maybe we don't need to take the financial peace class, we just need to give generously.  Maybe we don't need to take that leadership class this semester, we just need to intentionally serve everyone that works for us every single week for a semester.  Maybe we don't need to study Paul's missionary prayer letter to the Phillipians, but rather we need to become a missionary to our neighbors by serving them, inviting them into our homes, into our church, etc.   Another insightful study on prayer . . . maybe just an hour of prayer a week instead of another hour studying it?

So some may write me off as a heretic, but put me down as an official Bible study skeptic.  Why?  Because it is very easy for "Bible study" to become our drug of choice that consoles us while we are continually refusing to follow the very commands we are studying.  It is like a football player that has the playbook memorized inside and out, but he never runs sprints or lifts weights, he simply studies the playbook.  Do you think he will ever execute on the field?  No, and worse than that he will be an embarassment to his teammates as he will be overweight, out of shape and pitifully slow.  And so it is with our endless array of fun, "life-changing", provocative Bible studies that feed the mind but do nothing to exercise the soul.  Can't we just hit the field and execute the commands we already know???

John 5:39-40:  Jesus said to the religious people of his day - You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

This week, the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) followed the lead of the Episcopal Church in America (ECA) by affirming that homosexual relationships are valid and normal in the eyes of the church and those currently practicing homosexuality should not be precluded from serving as pastors in ELCA congregations.  There is a very interesting side story here . . . at the exact hour this debate was scheduled, 2 pm on Wednesday, a tornado hit the church and conference center where delegates were stationed.  Coincidence . . . John Piper doesn't think so, see his opinion on his blog.

Anyway, it appears to me that this is the case of a dying denomination hoping to get traction and stop its rapid decline by bowing to the culture's norms rather than lovingly calling the culture to Jesus' norms.  As I said in the title, dead things just go with the flow, but living things have the energy and drive to swim upstream.  And it is surprising the amount of blindness there is to this among mainline denominations.  Every single mainline denomination is in decline (Methodists, Episcopalians, ELCA Lutherans, Presbyterians (PCUSA)), and now 2 out of these 4 have capitulated on the issue of homosexuality and without a miracle the other two will soon follow, as they were at about a 55/45 split on this issue at their last votes. 

At the same time, there is some fantastic growth within churches in the USA, but it is happening among socially and theologically conservative evangelicals (non-denominational churches and conservative churches of every stripe and flavor).  These churches are swimming upstream and growing, while mainline churches are floating downstream and dying (laying off denominational workers, closing churches and missions, etc., etc.).

I could draw a lot of conclusions from this matter, but I don't think I have to.  I think it is all so obvious that writing out the conclusions would only insult your intelligence.  So just let me conclude by saying that never, ever, ever, ever have the followers of Christ had the luxury of just going with the flow in culture.  In every instance when you see the followers of Jesus going with the culture, whether in 1st century Rome or middle ages Europe or the 'golden years' of America in the 50's and 60's, you see a compromised church in decline that is awaiting a prophetic movement.  These new movements bring the church back to a place of leading people to reform our cultures, not capitulate to them.   Jesus was a revolutionary, he was crucified for being a revolutionary, and his followers are built to be revolutionaries, albeit peaceful ones. 

So let's stay true to our Christian Manifesto, the Holy Scriptures, at all cost.  Following the paths and teachings of Jesus have always caused followers to be disdained by the larger culture, but this is our calling, this is our privilege. 

And let us pray for the 30-40% of Lutheran churches within the ELCA that voted against this theological error, as they have some very tough decisions to make in light of these decisions.  Will they stay in the ELCA and be a prophetic voice and take their punches . . . will they separate from the ELCA and perhaps forfeit their property, the retirement and pensions of their pastors?  It is times like these that cause churches to count the cost of being a prophet, and often the cost is high . . . but not nearly as high as the cost of compromise and capitulation.  Swim upstream you Bible believing Lutherans, and refuse to set aside the commands of God for the votes of men, but be careful to do so lovingly and not spitefully, following the model of Jesus, the peaceful, yet fearless revolutionary.

What kind of crazy, skewed morality do we subscribe to when NFL players are regulary suspended for a game or two as a result of domestic violence, yet people question whether Vick should be reinstated after serving a 23 month sentence for dog fighting!!!  I am sorry, but I think his prison sentence was way too harsh to begin with, but now that he has paid his debt to society, he should be given a second chance without question.  23 months of his life for running a dog fighting ring.  Drug trafficers, manslaughter offenders and pimps get shorter sentences than that.  Does anyone really believe that if I were charged and convicted with that same crime, that I wouldn't get off with probation?  But I am not a nationally known star who earns $100 million by throwing a ball and playing a game, which easily incites a spiteful envy amongst middle class Americans.  Furthermore, it would be hard for PETA to boycott Radius Church's sole sponsor - God. 

Tony Dungy, former Colt's coach and a fellow believer, is exactly right on this one.  EVERYONE deserves a second chance . . . and I want to talk to the high school and collegiate friends of anyone out there that thinks Vick doesn't deserve a second chance.  I would be willing to bet that if I looked long and hard, I would find that they, themselves, had been granted a ton of second chances in life.  I know I have!  Shame on those hippocrits who are stingy with their second chances - second chances are the stuff of life!