Toward True Love

-->

A reader asked me the question: 

How do we answer the cultural idea that morality should be based upon that which does no harm to others rather than biblical values. (My question is - setting aside the Bible for sake of discussion - how do we offer an effective response to that?) I hear this a lot with college age students.

At the heart of the issue is the question “What is Love?"

Is love giving people what they want whenever they want it, however they want it? I wonder what our children would grow up to be like if we took that approach.

Does love come in the shape of discipline at times? If I tackled someone out of the way of a speeding vehicle, would they not be grateful despite the scrapes and bruises?

One of the things we have been created for is to love people. The problem is that we have morphed love into something that it is not. Love is never giving someone something that will harm them. Love is never telling a lie. Love is never condoning a behavior in someone that is destructive. Love is never enabling someone to continue down the wrong path.

But those statements define love. What do we believe are wrong paths? What behaviors do we believe are destructive? What is harmful to people? How we answer those questions will shape how we love. Well, that is true as long as we aren’t self-absorbed entertainment sponges, vampires who suck life from the world and never give back.

Now in those statements, we see that we believe there is a wrong path. We all believe there is a path that leads to death. Even the most tolerant hippy would tell you that intolerance is wrong. The debate isn’t about whether there is a wrong; the debate is always centered on what is wrong.

We also see in those statements that we believe things will harm people. It is easy to identify the immediate harms. Shooting someone for no reason is harmful. But the discussion gets sticky when we talk about long-term harm and/or psychological harm. Is feeding someone McDonalds every day harmful? Is drinking eight alcoholic beverages a day harmful? Is spending too much time watching television harmful? We all know that they are because we have seen the long-term impact of people who have abused things that were designed for good. Well, McDonalds might not ever be able to be used for good, but I think you get the point.

The immature mind will only look at the now. Does this feel good to me now? Then it can’t be that bad. Does this make me happy now? Then it can’t really be bad. But what happens when we wake up the next day and the man or woman who gave us so much pleasure the night before is gone and our heart is broken? What happens when the hangover comes? What happens when I am dying of liver disease? What happens when I have to face my personal crisis alone? True love has to look at what an action is doing to us, not just today, but tomorrow. Is it building better relationships? Is it making me into a better me? Some things might give a momentary rush or satisfaction, but if continued regularly, the behavior will destroy.

So when it comes to loving someone, we actually have to ask if what we are doing is to their benefit, not just in the moment, but tomorrow and the day after that. [A brief disclaimer. We have to be careful though that we do not stray into never doing any loving actions for others because we have a pull up your own bootstraps definition of love. Not loving is always a terrible definition of love.]

Is it more loving to give someone a free handout or is it more loving to give someone work to earn money to buy the food? Is it better to give someone free housing or is it better to help someone learn the soft skills necessary to hold a job and get their own housing? Now we would always answer the latter on these. But are we willing to make the sacrifice to give the work if it means I pay someone to mow my yard rather than do it myself? This might take away from my date night money or my vacation money. Are we willing to invest the time and energy into a person to teach them the necessary skills for living rather than enjoying another book, movie, or that extra time with the kids?

Now this brings us to biblical values. God gave us biblical values, not to enslave to some outdated moral code, but to free us to be loving. When we are enslaved to bad behaviors we are bad lovers. When we are free, we are empowered to love the way God intended us to live. When the Bible teaches values to live by, those of us who believe in God and his inspired word view those instructions as liberating. They are given to free us from the chains that often bind.

True love is more difficult than the “make me feel good because I have done something” type of love. We need to really make a difference in people’s lives. This won’t usually happen through a quick one time fix. This takes time, training, and a serious relational investment. Love is always sacrifice, our sacrifice. 

His sacrifice. 

“But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:17-18 ESV).

A Christmas Story - Fra-gi-le. It must be Italian.

This is my final article spinning out of scenes from the Christmas cult classic, A Christmas Story. The Old Man, the name given to Ralphie’s father in the movie, entered a contest to win a prize. And he won! The prize came in a giant box labeled “fragile.” Upon seeing “fragile” on the box, the Old Man said, “Fra-gi-le. It must be Italian.” He was excited, barely able to contain his excitement. He clamored to open up the box.

When all the packing materials were removed out came a plastic leg. Not just your normal, everyday plastic leg. No, this leg was a leg lamp with fish net stockings. The Old Man wanted to put it right in the middle of the front room window, so that everybody going by the house could see it. After positioning the lamp exactly where he wanted it, the Old Man exclaimed, “Oh, look at that. Will you look at that? Isn’t that glorious? It’s indescribably beautiful. It reminds me of the 4^th of July!”

A little over the top. It’s easy for us to acknowledge that the old man’s behavior when he opened the leg lamp was utterly ridiculous, but we do the same thing. Only not with leg lamps. Our idols are much better disguised.

John wrote one of my favorite letters and the Bible. He concluded his letter, which we know as 1st John, with the statement that we are to keep ourselves from idols. John’s letter emphasizes love. It is one of the harshest letters in the Bible. Not because loving is harsh, but because he tells us what is the punishment for not loving. In it we see John tell the readers that if they don’t love the people around them then they don’t love God. And if they don’t love God, God has no room for them in His family.

It seems a little weird for the letter to end in a command to keep ourselves from idols when the rest of the letter didn’t even talk about idols, but John knew what he was doing. We cannot properly love when we have idols in our life. But let me clarify what an idol is. An idol doesn’t have to be some gold statue or special relic from long ago. An idol is anything that prevents us from focusing on what we’re supposed to be focused on.

This leads me to ask, “What is your leg lamp?” What is your idol? What is it that you have in your life that you focus on, that you find beautiful, and that really controls your life? Because if you are focused on the wrong thing, then you have an idol. It doesn’t matter how good that wrong thing is; if it’s not the right thing, then it’s an idol.

Let’s test it with a completely good thing, the Bible. The Bible is a tool for us to get to know God. Unfortunately, I’ve seen many people turn the Bible into an idol. It transforms from being a great tool to show us God and relay His will for our life to being the end all of our faith. When the Bible becomes more important than Jesus—when the Bible becomes more important than loving our neighbor—when knowledge of the Bible becomes an end to itself, we have missed the point. We have turned the word of God, which we are so richly blessed with, into an idol.

Now if this can happen with the word of God, then it can also happen to anything else in our life. We have to be careful.

The idols in our life don’t come wrapped in a giant box and appear to be a useless leg lamp. The tricks Satan uses on us and our own self-deception are more covert than that.

Jesus came into this world, as we remember this time of year, to free us from sin. We might not have a leg lamp, but I guarantee that we do have idols. As John concluded in his letter, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21 ESV).

A Reply to Sin Isn't the Problem with the World, Theology Is

George Elerick just wrote an article on the Huffington Post:  Sin isn't the Problem with the World, Theology Is.

One of the comments stated the following.  I foolishly replied.

"But what did the unicorns say about it? The dragons? What about the fairy queen?

It's 2010, we need to stop this magical thinking. It is embarrassing that any functioning adult would believe this. No matter what nonsense you use to back it up. It's childish."

Before you disregard it because it is from the Bible, what do you think about the biblical approach to sin? The author took one approach - that sin is not significant or that it is not striving to better one's self. The Bible takes another. That we are all sinners. Too often humans like us live with an air of superiority to those who have different views or actions than we have. For instance, you called Christians "childish" demeaning their intellect.

When we live either the author's view or the biblical view out in the way we view others, both lead us to loving all of humanity and not looking down on others. Those people who wrote the letters and books that are contained in the Bible nearly 2000 years ago had that one figured out. What if the Bible's view on this is right?

And most Christians also don't want anything to do with Pat Robertson's form of Christianity.

We are each sinful, but we are also wonderfully made in the image of God. We can either wallow in our sin or we can train ourselves to be a reflection of His perfected image.

A Light in the Darkness, TPing in the Dark

The writer of Psalm 119 declared, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path”  (Psalm 119:105).

What a great illustration.  A lamp to my feet and a light unto my path, but I don't know many of us who walk around with a lamp any more to show the way.  It might not be as poetic but if the author of Psalm 119 was writing today, he would have said, “Your word is a flashlight that shows me the path to go on when it is dark.”

Do we let his word show us the way through the darkness?

When I was in junior high, we would often go out and toilet paper people’s houses.  It was not a nice thing to do (although really, people appreciated being toilet papered as long as it was in good fun and not vindictive, which it always was for us – it showed we cared in a weird way).  Anyway, part of TPing people’s houses was dressing up in dark clothes and running across town.  Well, I don’t know if you’ve ever ran in the dark without a light.   The roots in the ground will trip you.  And that is pretty dangerous.  I fell a few times from roots.  You’ve got to be real careful in the dark.  The most dangerous obstacle when running around town in the middle of the night is clotheslines.  One time, I ran into a clothesline at top speed in the dark.  It knocked me down and made a mark on my forehead that lasted a few weeks .  Clothesline in the dark can be deadly.

Being out in the darkness and trying to get around makes you realize that light really does help out a lot.  Life in the spiritual dark can be just as deadly.  God’s word will help us navigate through this life by helping us develop our relationship with Him, a relationship through which He will transform us into the person he knows we should be so that we can live life to the fullest.

Translations of the Bible - English Standard Version

The English Standard Version has been making some waves in the Christian community. It is the number one selling Bible for the Kindle at Amazon. It has been endorsed by everyone from Jack Cottrell, Max Lucado, to Ravi Zacharias. But I decided to look at the preface to see how they approached interpreting the original texts.

The ESV takes the place of the New Revised Standard Version as an update of the Revised Standard Version. The NRSV was published in 1989. The NRSV is my personal favorite, although I will be making the switch to the ESV. It has been slammed as being too liberal in some circles. Here is a post making that point. What I like most about the NRSV, which the ESV tries to maintain, is that it takes the approach of being a literal translation while still trying to be grammatically fluid.

There is debate on whether a more dynamic, thought-for-thought, translation like the Message or the New Living Bible is more useful than a literal, word-for-word, translation like the NASB or the ESV is better. Each probably serves its purpose and probably more useful for some rather than others depending on what the intended purpose in reading Scripture is. Many people do not want to go to the Scriptures and have an intense study. They will leave that up to their more studious friends and concede to them on the religious tit-for-tat discussions.

Any translation is influenced by the interpretation of the translator. The more you move away from the a literal translation to a dynamic translation, the more you inevitably will have the theological biases of the translator in the Scripture. Those who are reading the more dynamic versions must realize that they are reading something between a literal translation and a commentary. For this reason, it is best to go with a more literal translation when doing serious Bible study if you do not read the original languages.

Many literal translation proponents enjoy the New American Standard. The NASB does take the literal translation approach, but it seems grammatically choppy and really grains against me when reading. I don't want to be grammatically frustrated when I read the Scriptures. I want to be challenged, frustrated about my own ineptitude at serving Christ completely, and wallow in grace, but I do not want to be distracted by bad sentence structure. I have no problem with the translation of the NASB. It is the delivery of that translation that upsets me.

When I do intensive Bible study, I will reference and look at the NASB, the NRSV, the NIV (because that is what most people read), and the original text if I am reading the New Testament (my Hebrew is useless). I might even look at the Message or some relevant commentaries if I am confused. But the NRSV is what I use when I just doing my devotions or reading the Bible for pleasure.

But I am going to trade in my NRSV for the ESV. It takes the literal approach while trying to be grammatically fluid. They explain their approach in their preface:

Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between “formal equivalence” in expression and “functional equivalence” in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be “as literal as possible” while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence. Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original; and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts.

Michael Marlowe, a reviewer, posted a lengthy review in which he stated that "Its English recalls the classic diction of the KJV, and so it has some literary power (this is not unimportant in a Bible version)." Wayne Jackson, in his review for the Christian Courier, noted that the language is "rendered in beautiful English." That might seem irrelevant, but for those of us who cannot stand the NIV or the NASB because of the grammar, have fluid grammar is important for a literal translation.

In then end, all of the popular translations cover the essentials of the faith and would be useful for study. We will not be saved through study. The purpose of study is to show ourselves approved in the way we live. It's not just to be intellectual Scripture giants. Our knowledge is pretty irrelevant without grasping the grace of God and surrendering our hearts to him.

edited to add:
I just pulled the trigger and bought...

I liked the single column, reference system of this Bible. You can view a sample page here.

You can see other ESV Bibles at their website although I would advise buying them on Amazon where it much cheaper and free shipping if you order over $25. I found it best to look at the company's website because I was looking for a Bible with the cross references. Then I would take the ISBN number from the website and look it up on Amazon to find to the price.

An Ugly Cat, The Rebirth of a Church, Personal Response to Christ’s Love, and a God of Second Chances

After a recent leadership meeting at the church, there was this ugly, pregnant cat climbing on my car and rubbing against my leg as I was talking with a friend in the parking lot. At the time I was annoyed by the cat. She had a weird limp, no tail, and was one of the ugliest cats I had ever seen. I've only seen uglier on the internet.

The next day I was thinking about that cat. She had been through a lot to make her that ugly. I would not be surprised if she had been hit by a car or involved in some farming incident with a combine. I have no idea how she had lost her tail.

Then it struck me, her kittens will be precious little kittens. Her physical ailments will not be passed on. The same is true for us as a church. We are being born again. In the fall, we are going to reintroduce ourselves to the community as Riverside Christian Church. We are going to be a new plant, coming out of what was the Antwerp Church of Christ. We are going to focus on having real, authentic community with one another, passion for Jesus and his work, and loving everyone we encounter.

And you can join and change yourself. You do not have to be part of our church to restart your life if that is what you need. No matter how spiritually deformed you feel you are, God is willing to make you whole. The process won't be a bed of roses, but it will be the best decision you have ever made. We, as a church, have been given a second chance at life. And God is giving you a second chance. We serve a gracious God of second chances.

Despite the fact that I dropped the ball in loving my roommate when I bailed him from jail by not relaying the message that God laid on my heart, I have been given many more chances to love since that time. Just because you fail and are not who God intends for you to be at times, God is willing to give you another chance. He always gives us another chance. Despite my failures to follow, God has blessed me at other times by allowing me to join in his work. There is nothing greater than to be God's hands in helping the hurting, the oppressed, our neighbors and friends, and even our enemies – there is nothing better in this world than love expressed in real, tangible ways. That's what the path he has called each one us toward, a path of loving our brothers and sisters, our neighbors, and our enemies. Let us follow, get up when we fail, and follow again.

Love - What We Need to Change the World -- or at Least Our Neighbors

The reason most churches in America are struggling is not because the culture is hostile to the gospel but that we have yet to really live the gospel in their midst. We like to speak the gospel, but words are cheap. Most people reject intellectual propositions rather than Jesus Christ. We need to live the gospel, not just speak it.

The key to loving is that the change that Jesus brings has to have already happened in us. Love begins with us accepting Christ's love and reflecting it to others. We cannot love the unlovable unless our hearts are changed from a worldly, selfish state to a Christ-like, giving, sacrificial state.

When we see the hurt, the oppressed, the hopeless, are we hurt? Do we sympathize? Or do we echo the words of the Pharisee who prayed, "God, I thank you that I am not like other people" (Luke 18:11). Are we haughty in our position of wealth, education, or any other part of our life we hang our pride and success on? The tax collector prayed, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" (Luke 18:13). Jesus followed that up by saying, "I tell you, this man (the tax collector) went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted" (Luke 18:14).

A chart in the book UnChristian, which deals with what the younger generation thinks about the church and what the church has done to foster that thought, explains the call to a radical, sacrificial and loving life through the following verses.

Genesis 12:2-3—God wants the lives of his people to bless others.

Isaiah 58:10—God followers should spend themselves on behalf of the poor.

Micah 6:8—We should be known for living humbly and pursuing justice and offering mercy.

Matthew 5:44—Love people who seem to be ‘enemies’ and pray for them.

Matthew 25:35-40—Whatever people do for the ‘least of these’—forgotten and overlooked people in society—they do for Jesus.

Mark 9:35—The greatest role in life is to serve others.

Luke 4:18—Jesus’ ministry was first introduced as freeing captives, serving the oppressed, and healing the sick.

Luke 15:3-7—God pursues people like a shepherd would search for even one straying sheep.

Luke 15:11-32—God is described as a father who patiently waits for the return of his child.

John 3:17—Jesus came not to condemn the world but to save it.

John 15:13—You cannot love a person more than by giving your life up for him or her.

Galatians 5:13—Christians have freedom to love unconditionally as Christ loved people.

Philippians 2:17; 2 Timothy 4:6; 1 John 3:16-19—Our lives are to be ‘poured out’ and spent to serve God’s purposes.

Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:21-22—Our attitude should be like that of Jesus, who loved and accepted humans even though they were ‘enemies’ of God. The he changed their status from enemies to friends, even sons and daughters of God, when they commit themselves to him.

1 Timothy 3:1-7—One of the qualifications of Christian leadership is to have ‘a good reputation with outsiders’ (v.7 NIV).

Titus 3:2—Christians should be peaceable and considerate, showing true humility toward everyone.

2 Peter 3:9—God wants everyone to repent and turn to him.

Would other people describe your life as a Christian in these terms? Do these principles guide your relationships with outsiders? Are you a Christ follower who seeks to live out this picture of Christianity as you interact with others?

Quote from unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity... and Why It Matters
by David Kinnaman (213-314).

Confront Certain Sins? Never. - A Discussion on Gluttony in the Church

Aleks Tapinsch, who has his own website focused on his native country of Latvia, All about Latvia. If you wonder what is the news in Latvia or just wonder what Aleks is up to lately, check out his site.

Aleks had this to say in response to the discussion on what laws would be in a Christian nation.

"But what should be done with the sin of gluttony in the country of Christ? It seems Americans are suffering from it the most. And not only food, but also gluttony for stuff.

How can we talk about the sins of homosexuals when majority of our church members are obese and what's worse they don't even care? When was the last time you heard a sermon on gluttony?

Sloth should also be outlawed, shouldn't it? Anyone who does not work should not eat. We should scrap all those government programs providing financial help to the needy, the unemployed and the poor. They're just lazy, after all.

And what are we going to do about liars in Christian Exodus? Burn 'em."

My question would be, what should be done with these problems now in the church?

I believe we are to hold one another accountable on spiritual issues so that we can be where God wants us to be. As Ryan Dobson said in his interview with me, holding one another accountable is what we do if we actually love one another. Also, we are disciplined by God because of his love for us (Rev 3:19, Heb 12:7). We need to work on developing relationships with one another and being humble enough that proper Scriptural discipline can occur without conflict in our midst.

I have a tough time finding Scripture that condemns gluttony. There are 2 in the Old Testament (Deut 21:20, Prov 23:21) that would be adequate. But the principle of Christian Freedom is large enough and firm enough to stand on concerning gluttony (Gal 5). We are called to be free from anything that controls our lives besides Christ (Rom 6:5-23). Christ came to make his people a free people. If we are controlled by our flesh, then we are limited in how much we are controlled by Christ. If we truly love our brothers and sisters in Christ, we will try to help them overcome anything that controls them besides Christ. Unless, of course, we aren't focused on being the people God wants us to be and want to blindly adhere to our nation's religion of tolerance.

Now onto the "anyone who does not work should not eat" comment. It seems almost like Aleks was quoting Scripture. 2 Thessalonians 3:10-11 states: "For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat.

For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies." We are called to be loving and feed the hungry in other parts of Scripture (Isaiah 58:5-12, Matt 25:34-46, Rom 12:20). Romans even goes as far as saying we are to feed our enemies. Thessalonians offers a balance to those passages, a harsh balance that my body wants to say is unacceptable. However, it is when we submit to beliefs in Scripture that grate us the wrong way or stop doing something we love because Scripture condemns it that we know we are truly following Christ. For even the people that don't know God follow their hearts and do what they please. We are called to follow God's heart and do what he pleases even when it isn't or heart or our pleasing. So when we see a hungry person we should feed him. Then we should try to find him a job to feed himself. If he refuses to work, then we should refuse to feed. Harsh, Yes. Scriptural, Yes.

And liars. That one is the worst because it is so divisive and destructive to relationships. A glutton or slothful person only hurts himself. A liar destroys those around him. There is nothing that will be disciplined more harshly in my children than lying. Proverbs 19:22 says, "It is better to be a poor man than a liar."

Slothfulness, gluttony, and lying are things we should be dealing with now as a brothers and sisters in Christ. We don't have to wait until we have governmental authority behind us (and I would be scared if we did) to help those stuck in sin around us. Nor do we have to wait for governmental authority to crack down on us in order to overcome our sin. We are called to be like Christ.

Watch out of the potholes.

The Difference Between a Nation of Christians and a Christian Nation

Ben Brown gave a great reply. One that I mainly agree with. However, I still don't think I could convince somebody that Christian Exodus is not something God would call people to. I'll go through and reply to Ben's comments. It will be like I'm talking to him, but don't feel like you're invading our privacy by reading. This is the internet after all. And Ben, if you want to reply to my reply in your blog I'll put a link to that post in here.

"The difficulty(s), I think, would form along "denominational" lines. Christianity isn't necessarily suited to the democractic model. There are denominations that consider abortion ok, there are denominations that think women cutting their hair is sinful. If we tried to form a Christian nation it couldn't be 100% democratic. People would try to find biblical basis for their own view, but as most of us know people can find "justification" for just about anything if they know how to look."

Two issues here that I would like to talk about. First, I would agree that democracy probably isn't the government that would allow people to be led by God moreso than some other form of government. It does appear to be the form of government where people reap what they sow a lot quicker than they would in another form. If we are a stupid and shallow people, we will elect stupid and shallow leaders. If we are God-fearing people, then we would elect God-fearing leaders. So if a nation that is democratic is filled with genuine Christians, then the nation would be on the right track.

Now onto "denominational" lines. I do not know of a Christian whose life shows they are seeking God, who holds the Bible up at the foremost authority, and still thinks abortion is ok. There are disagreements when it comes to the life of the mother amongst Christians, but I do not think there is any disagreement otherwise. Christian Exodus would not attract those who believe that the American government has already made all of the right decisions anyway. And as for the more legalistic branches of Christianity, Christian Exodus has already stated what they believe. Either you believe these things and hop on or you don't believe them and stay where you are. Here is their statement of faith. I have a problem with one of them, but that is another topic for another day.

So far I am not convinced Christian Exodus is unbiblical or out of God's will. We'll continue on.

"Then the problem becomes dissatisfied people breaking off and forming their own groups. The precedent has already been set by breaking off into the larger group of Christians, what's to stop a smaller group from doing the same thing if they don't like the brand of Christianity that's currently predominant. It's a logistical nightmare. When the kingdom comes it's not going to be a democracy, why try to cram it into that hole now?"

This wasn't a problem during the time when America was colonized (or taken over depending on your perspective). There were many places for different groups to go and live together. I don't Christian Exodus is saying they are trying to bring the kingdom of God about through government. I think they are saying what I said in another post - being godly in government should not be something excluded from the being godly list. We accept that we are to be godly in our families, careers, and church life, but when it comes to government we shut the godly meter off. Saying they are trying to be the new Israel or the kingdom of God is a misrepresentation of their stance. They just want to live in a nation where they don't have to continually wash their hands of their nation's perpetual sins. A nation will sin. Just like it is for individuals, sins are much worse when they are conscious and continual. I feel guilt for our nation's sin of abortion every time I think about it because I am an American. I am partly responsible because we live in a democracy and I have a say in what happens.

"I don't disagree that God makes all things possible, but just because something is possible doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea. We're call to be "in the world, but not of the world." By separating ourselves we're not really doing that. Also, how much less are we a witness to those around us, when we're not even around. You asked whether it would hurt our witness, and I am left wondering if our witness would still exist. Would we live, work, fellowship, wholly exist within this new nation? If so why leave? We'd send out missionaries to the outside world, but then how is that any different from what the church is doing now. A few doing the work that the many should be doing."

I could use the same arguments you used for subjects such as house church to home schooling to going away on retreats. Why take all of the good Christians out of the institutional church? How can you children be a witness to the world if they aren't in public school? How can you be an effective Christian if you are going into isolation for a period of time? Sometimes things have to happen that separate us from those around us, whether for a moment or a lifetime, that will enable the Gospel to grow. Our witness is not limited to our personal relationships. Although I believe in personal evangelism, I do believe many Christians have the tendency to use our relationships as manipulative tools rather than for authentic friendship.

An example of effective evangelism is found in the book Celtic Way of Evangelism. It talks about how Ireland and Northern Europe was won to the Lord.



The general concept in their evangelism was the monastery. Don't think of what the monastery has become, but realize what its original intention was. I think this illustration parallels the goal of Christian Exodus. Technology has made people in a state like South Carolina just as close to the rest of the world due to all of the improvements in communication and transportation just as people who once lived in Europe outside of a community were close to the community they wanted to minister to. In a weird and maybe unhealthy way, I am closer to people who live around our nation than I am to people who live 100 yards from me. In Celtic Way of Evangelism, George Hunter describes how the Christians would move to a location outside of a community, establish a monastery, and start living out the Christian life together. It wasn't about evangelism; it was about being real Christians living together. As a result of this, the communities they were living outside of saw God's love and were eventually included into their communities. Before long, the people in the other community were living out the Christian life, realized this, and decided they were Christians. The book focuses on the difference between Christianity being a lifestyle to be lived compared to a set of belief statements to be acknowledged.

I strongly believe that the greatest evangelistic tool Christians have is just being authentic Christians living together. That was the drive that encouraged me to start the church in Lansing. That is the drive that penetrates my ministries now. There is no apologetic trick or evangelistic method that will create real Christians besides us being real Christians.

A person's witness is not limited to their personal relationships. As a matter of fact, William Bradford, who lived in the 1620s, just witnessed to me today. I wanted to read the Mayflower Compact to see whether it was overtly Christian or not. It was. The whole purpose of starting the colony appears to be to bring glory to God. This is where I have a problem saying Christian Exodus is wrong. Although, I agree partly with everything you wrote. I understand the fear of separating the people of Christ from the world. I don't think democracy is the form of government God intended for the world. I fear the continual fragmentation of Christianity. However, I still can't say Christian Exodus is out of God's will. It appears to be a continuation of His will. He has sent people to start nations in the past, from Abraham to John Calvin to American colonists, and will probably continue to do similar things in the future. But I get the feeling that everyone around me is saying this is not something God would do. How can it not be something God would do if it is something God has done? Please let me know why and where my logic is faulty. I want to know the right answer.

Christian Exodus might not, in God's mind, be a witness for today. It might be for tomorrow. God is at work for the redemption of the world. And if Christian Exodus can somehow bring about that, He is all for it. I still don't see where it exacerbates problems that are already occurring. It seems like it would fix some while being a light for the world of how people who claim to follow God should live together.

Also, some non-Christians will still live in South Carolina, so it isn't like they will be living in a Christian bubble.

"I'm at work, so I need to go, but I think it's a pipe dream to think that a christian nation could even exist. And a bad idea if it ever came to fruition."

I think I would agree again. But I do think there is a difference between a Christian nation and a group of people who are Christians that comprise a nation. A Christian nation would be arrogant and proud. As a matter of fact, I think America makes this claim. A nation of Christians would be humble and serving. Quick to help the rest of the world in an instant. Loving in every way possible. It wouldn't accept sin while at the same time trying to reform the sinner. It would be everything a good church should be because it would just another ministry of the church (God's people). The kingdom is God's. We are just caretakers for a temporal time.

Watch out for the potholes.

A Court Win for God Under Technicality - Trying to be a Christian Nation

Today's headline at Yahoo read, "Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality" This is just an example of yesterday's point that we are not even close to being a Christian nation. Some of you might be saying, "That's right, and we aren't supposed to be one." I would agree.

But what happens when the majority of a nation is actually Christian, not just in survey polls only? Let's revisit Christian Exodus. If Christians move to an area and become a very large majority, should they let the non-believers decide whether we should abort babies, feed the hungry, help prisoners better themselves, and stand up for world peace? Or should Christians stand up and not allow in utero babies to be aborted, feed the hungry out of our excess or even sacrifice our just enough, re-educate prisoners, and try to bring about world peace? I'm sure there are many other things that Christians should not allow to be on their hands if they are the majority in the society.

I'm not talking about militaristic taking over of a country, but what a democratic country should look like if Christians are in the majority. Christians should always be concerned first and foremost about the kingdom of God. But does that exclude us from being concerned about our family, our work, or even our government. Why do we exclude government from the whole subject? The Bible doesn't tell us much on how to raise a godly family, yet we still believe that is something God wants us to do. The Bible doesn't tell us much on how to be godly in the workplace, yet we still believe that is something God wants us to do. Why do we say, "The Bible doesn't tell us how to be godly citizens in a democracy (something they didn't even have when the Bible was written), so we need not worry anything about it?"

I am not just asking these questions Socratically. I really am struggling with the issue. In college, discussion was the way we would arrive at the truth. (Thanks, Shannon Caroland.) We would discuss, discuss, discuss, until we, usually, came to agreement. It was very rare where when we didn't come to a concensus and decided to agree to disagree. Now that I'm in the real world nobody seems to care about one another and their thoughts. People's thoughts are up to the individual and nobody else should have a right to influence them unless they are a paid minister or psychiatrist. From them it is expected but easily disregarded because it is their job. So we always keep ourselves isolated on the throne of a kingdom of one. I would much rather be a citizen in a community of 1000s than the king of one.

Watch out for the potholes.

Creating a Jesus State - On Christian Exodus

I've been trying to avoid being contentious, but I can't.

The other day when I brought up Christian Exodus, Crystal replied in a follow-up post saying, “Now concerning a Christian Nation, the logistics will shoot that idea down quicker than anything else. Land, roads, taxation, etc etc.” Although she went further, she wasn’t alone in this reply. I also talked to Josh Kissling and he brought up the same thing in my store.

What should be our proper response has been plaguing my heart ever since. I didn’t want to bring my conclusion up because I don’t want to cause strife and I like both Crystal and Josh, but I have to get it off my chest or I will go crazy.

When the topic of Christian Exodus comes up, the thought that it isn’t possible should be the least of our concerns. If God is calling people to it, then whether it is possible doesn’t really matter. Should we be the type of Christians that worry about whether that which God has called us to is possible? Or are we to be the type of Christians that follow God’s calling no matter how irrational or illogical it may seem? I think it was very irrational for Jesus to die on a cross to save the world. Hosea could have been saying, “Lord, it is not logical for me to marry a prostitute.” Abraham could have told God, “This is where my family is and where I am supposed to be. That is completely irrational that you would want me to leave this land I was born in and go to this so-called ‘Promised Land’.” But it is in the things that are irrational or illogical that God turns the ways of the world upside down.

The first and most important thing is whether Christian Exodus contradicts Scripture. That one I am not sure on. If it contradicts Scripture, I would love to see verses. But we cannot say that just because the Bible doesn't give directions on how to do government means that God doesn't have a plan for it. We are given the Spirit to help us work through things the Bible doesn't directly address.

The second thing we can look at is church history. The modern church seems to be oblivious to the past. But in order to understand if this is something God calls Christians to, we can look at the past. Because if he called people to it once, then it is something he can call people to again. Was John Calvin called of God when he tried to create a theocracy in Geneva? Do we think God called the Mayflower over here to start a Christian colony? Many of the American colonies were started due to people being “called” by God to sail across the ocean and start governments that would be focused upon doing the will of God. They had to leave behind their present environments where they could’ve been more effective personal witnesses of Christ, but, apparently, they were called onto a different path because God had bigger plans in the works than just the one or two individuals they would win to the Lord through personal relationships. God is always trying to redeem the whole world. He always is looking at the big picture which we sometimes have trouble seeing.

Now this leads to the heart of the matter of Christian Exodus. I believe God is in the process of not only redeeming individuals but of also redeeming societies, which would include governments. The question that is important, and that we should tackle, is whether God would call anyone to leave their environment, go to another place, and change a corrupted government into a government that is focused - although they will fail - on following God. They key thing is that they would be striving to be what God wants them to be.

The American government is not Christian. It might have resemblances of Christianity, but it is failing on many levels. It is not striving to be what God wants it to be, and I do think a government can try to be what God wants it to be. However, I do not know what the proper response of this is. I am not a total supporter of the Christian Exodus, but I am not a naysayer yet. I actually haven’t heard a solid reason to be a naysayer. The most convincing argument is being a witness to those around you, but history has shown God's call away from that in the past. All of the people against Christian Exodus act like it is obvious to be against it and don’t explain why it is obvious. I am having trouble understanding how it is obvious when I look at this in the context of history. God wants to redeem the whole world. Would Christian Exodus somehow prevent God from waking people up or might it be the alarm clock the world has been waiting for?

Maybe I'm wrong. Please let me know where I am, so that we all can grow.

And watch out for the potholes.

Another Pothole in the Road of Blogging

Well, I just typed up my first blog. Went to preview. Wanted to change something. Pressed back. It was gone. No more first blog.

So here is my second. I'm sorry if it sounds a lot like the first. However, I know that you didn't read it.

This blog is an accident. I wanted to reply to a post in Tom's blog about Christian Exodus but I couldn't use my name until I created an account. I didn't want to be Mr. Anonymous. So here I am. Maybe it is a vain attempt at not trying to be Mr. Anonymous. But I view it as more of a way to keep in touch.

A quick update on one of the most important areas of my life, the church. The reason I bring this up in my first post is because I would like the prayers of anyone out there reading this. I'm getting a lot more involved down here. After a year in the wilderness, I've been given the opportunity to be more involved. I'm heading up the small group program. We are starting it from scratch. The church had a plethora of good leaders to choose from, so I think we will be in good shape. I'm taking a more active role in the high schoolers lives. I currently teach Sunday School. But the thing I'm most excited about is to lead a Friday night movie discussion group. We are going to watch a movie every week and discuss the themes in it afterwards. If you know of good movies to use, please post them in the reply area. I would love to hear your ideas. I have a lot already, but I'm sure some that I don't already have would be better than what I have. I do have one stipulation after talking with the parents: the movies cannot be over PG-13. That's the challenge - finding deep movies that don't cross that line. Please pray for me and my involvment in the church.

Since some of you reading this will be from the Delta Community Church in Lansing. I just wanted to say that we miss you. We will be up in August and look forward to seeing all of you.

As for the post in Tom's blog that I was referring to. It could have come across that I'm in favor of it. I'm not in favor or against it yet. It raises a lot of questions. Would a nation (you could just call it the church that has physical boundaries) that is focused on God and his glory be a good witnessing tool to winning the world? It would be a chance to show more of the world that this is the way Christians live and the way we take care of everyone in our society. Would you lose your opportunity to witness on an individual (isn't that the only way that matters in America?) by living in such a society? At what point in sheltering ourselves from the world do we lose our ability to witness?

That final question also centers around the struggle I'm having with whether to homeschool our children. But I don't want to talk about everything in my first blog. Nothing will be left over for the rest of my life.

Currently in the Radio - The Best of REM


Currently reading - Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land


I'll give reviews of books when I'm done with them. I just let you know that if I like the music. I think music reviews are so ridiculous.

Have a good day and avoid the potholes.