Monthly Archives: October 2009

An Incredible Opportunity

Yesterday I had the pleasure of talking with a kid who is thinking about quitting his sport.

 

This young man is a devout Christian; he goes to and/or leads several church and youth functions.

 

One of the points I made to him was that his sport is a ministry; it is an incredible sphere of influence.  “Look at your teammates,” I said.  “They are in need of Christ.  Share the gospel with them and talk to them about Jesus!  If you quit, you won’t have that opportunity.  Sport is an incredible platform for the gospel because there’s something about bleeding and sweating with your teammates that bonds you and brings you close.  You can, of course, still share with them if you quit, but you won’t have the same respect and authority.”

 

His eyes kind of lit up when I said that.  I wonder how many times he’s heard that before.  Probably not many.  I haven’t yet heard it in any of the messages that have been given at the one student Christian group I attend.  I’ve heard about “hurting God’s feelings,” but not about talking about Jesus.

 

This reminds me of what commenter Tim said the other day in reaction to one of my posts:

 

I agree that talking to people about salvation through Jesus Christ is important, but do you think you might be working with a narrow definition of evangelism. By calling it ‘evangelism proper’ and referring to this as the act of talking to people about your religious convictions I think you miss the wider meaning of what evangelism is. I think we could agree that the word evangelism comes for the Greek word euangelion or good news. The good news Jesus says he came to proclaim in Luke 4 says nothing about belief or faith or doctrinal convictions. Instead he speaks of release of captives, blind people seeing and the downtrodden freed (sounds a lot like social justice to me).

 

All I’m saying is I think it’s a both/and kind of situation. Unfortunately the majority of traditions have chosen to major in either one or the other and not both.

 

I can certainly agree with Tim in the last paragraph.  It’s a both/and.  That’s what I’ve been arguing a lot lately.  In a certain sense, I can also agree with the first paragraph.  The problem is that in the church’s effort to embrace a wider definition of “missional,” it is very, very easy to leave the “talking about Jesus” part out.  It’s unpopular.  It’s just not sexy.  People will speak ill of you and regard you as slightly annoying.  Many in church leadership, who are trying to bring the Church a little positive PR, might subconsciously drop that and still think, “hey, we are sharing the gospel.”

 

Speaking and proclaiming and dialoguing about our sin problem and *the* solution Jesus offers (the only adequate solution!) is not sufficient…but it is necessary.

 

Yes, in Luke 4 Jesus might focus on the “social gospel” and might speak little or nothing of doctrinal convictions and such and salvation by faith, but both Him and His apostles do elsewhere all over the place.  That needs to be emphasized.

 

My point is not that we should dump the “freeing the downtrodden” part.  My point is that we need to correct the imbalance and emphasize sharing our Savior via proclamation more.  If we don’t, we’ll be missing an incredible opportunity, just like the young man above.

A Good Thing

As I was driving home tonight, I was incredibly joyous.  I had just worked a 12 hour day, I was exhausted, and I had some more work to do when I got home.  I had been up since 5am, and it was 8pm when I walked in the door.  This has been the norm the past 2 and a half months.  You’d figure I’d be dragging my feet in the door, but I skipped in the door with vigor.
Late tonight I asked myself “why”?

 

I think it’s because of my wife.

 

Now, don’t roll your eyes.  Hear me out on this.  Part of my upbeat-ness is, no doubt, from my job, which I absolutely love.  But I can’t ignore the roll my wife has played in this.  Sure, we’ve had to adjust to each other’s quirks and we’ve had some disagreements, but I’m having the time of my life with her.  Sure beats coming home to an empty apartment or coming home to roommates.  Sure, I was friendly with all my roommates and I got along with them great.  But I wasn’t one with them.  None of them was my sole (as opposed to soul…there is a difference!) mate.

 

When I first walk in the door at night, I am greeted with a long, much needed hug.  It is the highlight of my day.  Without it, my energy supply to get through the day would be considerably less.

 

What’s more, not only do I get to come home to a hug, not only do I come home to a home cooked meal, not only does the responsibility of being a husband enhance my own sense of my manhood.  Not only do we get to talk to each other about our day(s), but we get to be goofy together.  That laughter is absolute soul food, and it is giving me quite the unexpected lift in my step.

 

Some who have been married longer (or those who haven’t been married at all) might scoff at this: this won’t last.  Wait until kids.  Then your life will really be over.  Or if kids don’t “end your life,” just….just wait.  Things will change.

 

Perhaps.  Yeah yeah, maybe  we’re still “on drugs” as they say, and we are bound to come crashing down.  But you know what?  I don’t care. It says in the Old Book, “He who finds a wife finds a good thing.”  I am currently enjoying that which I have found and which God has given.

Late Night Tossin’ and Turnin

A post I wrote a while back kicked up some dust on Facebook this week.  A friend linked to it, and the comments came a flyin’ in.

Much of the discussion, unfortunately, revolved around whether I should have made the post in the first place (some thought it was wrong for me to evaluate and critique a sermon publicly.  I stand by my actions), but some of the comments were about the actual content of what I wrote.  Lots of people from both sides chimed in, and this was good to see.  I hope the post made people think.

As I went to bed that night, my mind was busy with intense thought.  This actually kept me up the whole night.  I just couldn’t stop turning the comments over and over in my head!  One of the things that I kept coming back to was this:

So a church says that it wants to see people “come to know Jesus.”  That’s great!  But that begs certain questions, doesn’t it?  First, what does the church mean, exactly, when it says it wants people to “come to know Jesus”?  There are lots of different ways of cashing out that phrase, some of which Jesus wouldn’t affirm.

Another question is: how do they go about bringing people to Christ?  Look around: what does the church actually do?  What is affirmed?  What, if anything, is left out?

Those are all good questions to ask.  Sometimes, what you’ll notice is a great commitment to social gospel things, such as the AIDS walk and Katrina relief.  No on in their right mind would put these down as unnecessary to the “mission” of the church.  But what you might notice is that it’s very easy to leave out something that’s equally necessary: actual evangelism.  It’s not so much that it’s explicitly put down, but just conspicuously missing.  Do the pastors ever actually say, “you know, guys, sometimes you actually need to just go out and…well…talk to folks about Jesus” (the link represents one time I’ve heard that)?  How many, if any, training opportunities are there in evangelism for the members?  How many outreaches are there that actually have evangelism proper (talking to people about Jesus–maybe not necessarily open air or cold turkey.  There is more than one way to skin that cat) as a central focus?  Is there a staff person at the church whose role includes attending to evangelistic concerns?

How much of the church’s finances go towards evangelism?

 

If evangelism is ever talked about in the sermons, what is said?  Does the pastor just mention stereotypes (ie, the guy on the street corner with the bullhorn), only so he can tell you what not to do?  Or, are evangelists ever praised for their boldness?

In a church’s rush to be “missional” and “relevant,” it is very easy to leave out that crucial part because it won’t win you any popularity contests.   But in the whirlwind of all that passes under the rubric of  “outreach,” it’s oh so necessary!

When a church says it’s interested in bringing people to a saving knowledge of Christ, look for the benchmarks above.  That’s not the whole of it, but it is part; a part which is  far too easy to leave out.

A Hole in Our Holism

In an article by that title, Stan Guthrie has some good food for thought for the contemporary American Church:

Right now our passion for social issues of all kinds is ascendant. And indeed, our old, narrow, world-rejecting fundamentalism needed a decent burial.

 

Today, it’s great to see how much easier it is to draw crowds by organizing a conference dealing with race, anti-Semitism, abortion, Darfur, homosexual marriage, sex trafficking, AIDS, or environmental stewardship. Loving our neighbor via these issues is right and good. And our newfound activism also can help make the gospel we preach attractive to outsiders. As Jesus said, “[L]et your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”

 

But it seems harder for us to get excited about evangelism. Our holistic mission has a hole in it—not enough evangelism. For instance, while the American population continues growing, our own evangelical numbers barely tread water.

 

Is there a connection between our rediscovered social passion and our growing evangelistic indifference? History certainly provides ample warning, if the Student Volunteer Movement is any guide. Organized in 1888, the SVM boasted a great motto: “The evangelization of the world in this generation.” But according to scholar Paul Pierson, the SVM began stumbling under “a desire to tackle the problems of Western society coupled with doubts about the validity of world evangelization.” By 1940, “It had ceased to be a factor in students’ religious life and in the promotion of mission in the churches.” A greatly diminished SVM was finally disbanded in 1969.

 

…Does our heightened social consciousness—from the Left and the Right—actually drain our evangelistic zeal? It shouldn’t, because we are called to do both.

 

But maybe our preference for social activism reveals a more basic problem: that we don’t really believe our neighbor’s deepest need is to be forgiven by and reconciled to God. We seem to think that if only he or she is fed, or lives in a society brimming with Christian principles, or sees our battles against the world’s many injustices, then we will have discharged our responsibility to Christ.

 

I’m not sure Jesus would agree. “For what does it profit a man,” the Lord asks, “if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?” May our concern to make a difference in this world not blind us to our neighbors’ eternal destiny in the next.

 

Read the whole thing

Teachable Moment About the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

For some reason, lately I’ve had several “teachable moments” come up with the students in my classes.  It’s why I absolutely love my job.

Taking advantage of some of the teachable moments are risky, but that’s the way it goes.  With these moments, they are the sorts of risks I want to be taking.

One girl in one of my classes is doing her research on same-sex marriage.  She is 100% for it…big time.
On Thursday, while we were in the library, I walked by her table and took a look at one of her sources.  It was a radio address by James Dobson.  Not exactly the most erudite defender of traditional marriage (Jennifer Roback-Morse, Greg Koukl, Alan Shlemon, and a handful at The Public Discourse do a better job), but she gets points for at least looking at potential counterarguments to her position.

Continue reading

Facing Reality

There are a few things that abortion advocates forget when discussing the procedure.  One of them is “what is the unborn?”  As Greg Koukl has said, if the unborn is not a human being, no justification is necessary.  If the unborn is a human being, no justification is enough.

Another issue abortion advocates typically scoot over is accurately describing just what an abortion is.  Some merely state, “women should have the right to choose…”
Well, choose what?  Describe the choice you want women to have.

Others settle for a sterile dictionary definition: “the termination of a pregnancy.”  Yes, a pregnancy is terminated, but that’s not the whole of it.

This is the quandry one of my research class students is getting herself into. She is doing her paper on abortion, and she is defending the pro-choice view.  She asked me to give her some pointers, so without jumping in and bombarding her with the pro-life view, I honed in on these questions immediately.  They are questions she must face if she wants to honestly deal with the issue and face the counter-arguments to her position.

This, by the way, is what any researcher must do…without addressing counter-arguments put in their strongest possible fashion, the researcher is not engaging in research, but mere confirmation bias.

At first, she didn’t get it.  “Do you mean, ‘what is an abortion to me’?” she asked.

“No,” I replied, “that is a subjective question.  Though you can bring that in towards the end, like in your conclusion, the question you need to primarily address is an objective one.  Abortion is an objective procedure that objectively does something to an objective entity.  Therefore, scientific and philosophical considerations, rather than your personal feelings, are what you need to lead with.”

I went on to give her two specific questions she needed to address in her paper:

What is the unborn?  Human or blob?

Describe an abortion in detail.  What is involved in a D&C and D&E abortion, for example?  What are the tools used, and what happens to the unborn and the mother?

No doubt, there are other questions she could raise.  If she ends up changing her mind (if she really faces the two questions above, it will be difficult for her to not change her mind), for instance, she might want to address the issue of what should happen legally to those who perform abortions.  But the two issues above are of primary importance.  No one who honestly deals with abortion can avoid them.

Somewhat ironically, the second question above played itself out just a few moments later.  One of the other students–a pro-lifer also researching abortion–came upon a website that had pictures of aborted fetuses.  She watched, as other students gathered around.  A look of shock and disgust came upon their faces.  In some instances, they voiced their disgust.  Did the situation make me uncomfortable?  Yes–How could it not?
I let her continue, however.  Why?  Because the pictures accurately reflected reality. When researching an issue, you must look at the whole picture (pun intended).  Were a student to research the treatment of blacks before the civil rights era or during slavery, I would fully expect him/her to wrestle with Emmett Till, the testimony of the Little Rock Nine, and the stench of slave trading ships.

The girl viewing the website didn’t push the pictures in the face of her classmates or any pro-choicers in my class.  She just let the website play the pictures of what happens to a fetus when an abortion is performed.  Any researcher who delves into the procedure must face them.  Any researcher who doesn’t do so is researching not reality, but an air-brushed version of only half the issue.

Shock-Jock: All the Rage

You ever notice that there are an abundance of men who constantly play the “court jester” these days?  I’m not talking about guys who are really funny, goofy fellas that are fun to be around because they know how to light-heartedly tease you, or men who use the art of sarcasm well to make a deep point.  I’m talking about fellas who seldom seem to take much of anything seriously.

Two of my friends on Facebook displayed this characteristic today within minutes of each other.  The first, after another friend wrote a comment about abortion, remarked that he thought it was good because it’s “population control.”  The other faked his own marriage on Facebook (and, I admit, did a pretty good job of making it look real).  Both are Christians.

“Lighten up, Bordner.  Why don’t you just learn to laugh?  They were both just joking.  What’s the harm?”

I enjoy a good joke like the next guy.  Ask my wife: I am constantly teasing her, and it adds some lightness and laughter to our marriage.  There is a time to laugh, joke around, and be sarcastic.  But that is not all the time.

For both guys, I know by now to take their words and actions with a grain of salt…I knew right away, for example, that my first friend was only joking about abortion really being a good method of “population control.”

Therein lies the problem.  He was only joking, and I learned long ago to simply write him off.

The result of such flippancy is that both men have lost the ability to speak truth into my life and probably others’ lives too.  Both, in being so irreverent, have become totally irrelevant and impotent.

If you are a guy like this, you might not think it’s a big deal.  In fact, you probably like this sort of thing.  You like shocking people, because it brings you attention and people think you are funny.  But what about when you actually want people to take you seriously?  What then?  If being a shock jock is your bottom line, what will come of you when it is time to buck up and be useful?  After all, when his hour came, no one listened to the “boy who cried wolf.”

This is not something a man does.  It is something a boy stuck in Peter-Pan syndrome does.  We need a few more good men in the world, not this douche-baggery.

I know that term might offend some readers.  Oh well.  I’m tired of seeing this phenomena in so many young men.  It’s time to call a spade a spade.  I mean, c’mon; why even joke about abortion? Men who call themselves doctors split a baby’s skull open with forceps and suck out her brains. That is not the sort of thing to joke around about. I feel silly even saying such an obvious thing.

Another illustration: I watched Paranormal Activity this weekend.  With it’s fixation on the occult, I should have walked out of the movie.  It wasn’t so wise to stay, but that’s another post for another time.  In the movie, the main female character is being pursued by a demon.  Her boyfriend, with whom she lives, sees this as an opportunity to be entertained and buy cool gadgets.  He buys a bunch of high tech gear to record the entity in action, and teases it constantly.  He just wants to see a lil’ action and doesn’t take his girlfriend’s distress seriously.  He thinks it’s all one big joke.  When he finally does get serious, the situation is out of control and he can do nothing about it.  Spoiler: he ends up dead and his girlfriend ends up possessed.

Why all the irreverence?  A few things.

First, our society enables men to postpone responsibility.  Years ago we didn’t even have the category of “teenager.”  Next we added the category “adolescent,” and recently, some sociologists have begun to talk about the phenomenon of “adultolescence.”  Countless numbers of adults, especially young men, attempt to extend their adolescences into their late 20′s and early 30′s, and many well-meaning people encourage this attitude (“Wait until later to get married.  Have fun now!”).  My bet is the “flippant boy” persona is an extension of that attempt to run away from responsibility, even if only at a very subconscious level.

Secondly, our society tends to idolize the persona.  There are a large number of TV shows, such as Family Guy and South Park, that stand upon this type of humor, and there are a number of actors who’ve made a career out of playing these types of characters (most male actors in Anchorman, for instance).  It’s all around us, so it’s not surprising that young men would seek to emulate what our culture praises.

Thirdly, for some young men, it can be a way to hide insecurity.  We all have our fig leafs, and this is an awfully big one.  I once dated a woman (Ironic that I’ve been talking about men doing this all along.  I guess women can do it too, though it’s much more common in men) that displayed this.  Whenever someone would get personal and deep with her, she would start laughing and cracking jokes.  It was her way of running from facing her ish.

What do you think?  Do you see the same issue?  Do you even think it’s a problem?  If so, what are some other ways in which we enable this attitude, and how can we exhort young men to drop the fig leaf and grow up?