Grasping for Grace

Yesterday I talked to our church about the subject of grace. It was a message about the nature and need of grace, and how God gives us grace in order to demonstrate his own goodness in our lives, and how we must receive that grace each day by faith in Jesus Christ. In the middle of all this, I mentioned the biblical example (of what not to do) of Esau. As most of us recall, Esau was the first-born son of Isaac and was to receive the birthright, or the blessing, from his father Isaac. However, in a moment of temptation, he gave into the moment and sold his birthright to his younger brother Jacob. The story goes that “Afterward…(Esau) when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could bring about no change of mind, though he sought the blessing with tears.” I believe that this was the consequence of Esau missing the grace of God. It is not that Esau was bankrupt of God ever doing any good thing in his life for the remaining years; it is just that that moment was so profoundly negative that it never lost its effect upon not only his life, but those who became his descendants- the Edomites.

In the New Testament book of Hebrews, where this reflection is found, the encouragement is given prior to this: “See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.” This indicates that one of the things that might cause us to “miss” the grace of God is bitterness. This is one of the most powerful and sinful forces we know. We have all witnessed its destructive powers unleashed on people who have no idea they were even involved. We have certainly seen this in kids who become adults and eventually unleash their fury upon unsuspecting parents. We have seen this in employees who cave into the personal pressures of life and financial woes only to end up taking their anger out on their co-workers and/or boss in a fit of violence. Bitterness is an occasion to store up pockets of anger and hurt and selfishness until we have a more convenient occasion to unleash them. None of us are free from its grasp. We have all known family members who have struggled with this very thing, and we have all probably at one time or another given into its allure.

As I prepared for this message, as any message, I never prepare it with any particular person in mind. I try to be sensitive to where I am personally, and where the group is collectively to whom I am addressing. With this in mind, something happened yesterday after our worship gathering for which I could not have been less prepared. Sometimes people frustrate each of us beyond what is imaginable, and beyond what we feel we can take. In the aftermath of all of this, I began to reflect upon one of the things I had said, “We can never really say, as followers of Jesus Christ, that this is more than I can handle, because it’s not, or else we would not be experiencing it.” I began to feel that my own message was a message that I needed possibly more than anyone else. I found myself beginning to toboggan down the slippery slope of bitterness, and missing the grace of God in my life.

I began to be reminded that people suck, but so do I, and yet God is awesome to love me and them, and wants me to demonstrate his grace in how I react to the hardships and difficulties of life. Please pray for me during this time, as I seek “not to receive the grace of God in vain,”.

Thoughts on Quitting

Yesterday I read a letter of resignation for my position of pastor at Confederate Avenue Baptist Church. It was one of those surreal moments in life where you almost ask yourself is this really happening? My wife Melissa and I made the decision to leave CABC about two weeks ago. We really believe that God has shut the proverbial doors on our efforts in the Grant Park Community and we have decided to go and become a part of the church called the River located in Milton, Florida. We really believe in this decision and think that this is what God wants for our lives, and we are very excited about our becoming a part of this church planting team led by our best friends Sam and Samantha Crum. I want to say all of that to make sure that my other forthcoming thoughts are not misunderstood.

The decision was a difficult one, because we have labored for three years at this one place, and we have become very attached to the people of the church, as well as the community. We are disappointed, too, because our vision for CABC in the Grant Park Community was never fully realized. We have struggled for some time, also, with the idea of quitting. There seems to be a fine line between just quitting for frustation or exhaustion's sake and stopping because it seems as if God is either done with your role or the church's role. This is obviously not very clear-cut, because there are always things going on within even a declining church that may be interpreted to be the workings of God, and those can be "signals" for us to stay, because God could be potentially about to do something great. The problem, of course, in our situation is that good things have happened all along, but the fundamental make up of our church has not really been altered in a tremendous way. Certainly our worship gathering has been modified ostensibly, but what I mean is that the basic limitations of the church that existed when we came are still largely present. I admit that much of this is probably due to the constraints of my own leadership (Author John Maxwell calls this "the law of the lid").

Nevertheless, Melissa and I both do not feel as if we have failed, or if we are quitting on God or the people of CABC. We believe that we have gone as far as we can, albeit not fully where we wanted to go, and we consider God to have used our efforts here to bring people to the kingdom and teach them the way of Jesus. He has, furthermore, extensively and deeply taught us a great deal about people, culture, ministry, and ourselves. Through each of these lessons we have undoubtedly learned more about God, and we have grown in our belief that a life of faith is a journey not a destination. Although these facts are true, the feelings that go with them are real, and leaving is never fun under any circumstances, and these are mild. For those of you who have helped us thus far on our journey we thank you and welcome your prayers and counsel for the next leg.

About the Upcoming Presidential Election

As anyone who lives in the free world knows, a presidential race is upon us. I, as you should be, am very concerned about our nation’s direction. This country faces some of its most severe challenges at the outset of this young century. The fate of Iraq, as well as our American soldiers fighting over there, has been a hot topic in our country ever since the war began, as it should be. There is no question that the presidential candidate who has a clear and workable strategy for our role in Iraq will probably garner a lot of support. Nevertheless, there are many other issues that America faces now that I think are of immense importance, and I want to voice these at this time. These topics, as you will note, may not be the ones that line up with a specific political party. My thought with regards to this is that followers of Jesus should not be captive to the ideologies of any one political party. When our allegiance to one platform becomes so strong that it dims our prophetic voice within the society in which we live, then we have failed to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Therefore, these issues are not pregnant with political candidates in mind, but rather what I, as well as many others see, as problems that need to be addressed in our society.

1. There must be a solution for the Iraq War. I am not suggesting that I know what it is; I am only lamenting the obvious. As has been stated before, “War is hell.” We cannot be unmoved in hearing of the countless stories of American soldiers being killed by car bombings, suicide strikes, and insurgent violence. There will always be casualties in wars, no question. That is what makes the situation in Iraq so egregious, however. It is a war that we entered with skewed intelligence and primarily unilateral involvement. Now that we have, no one would reasonably assert that Saddam Hussein was a good leader. In fact, he was a brutal dictator who was responsible for genocide on his own people. But his removal from power and our occupation of that country is dubious on many grounds. I do believe, as Solomon put it, that there is a “time for war”, but I think it has to be the last resort and I think that it needs to be done with the same principle of self defense. The Iraq War, I think, is probably not a text book reason to go to war justly.

The question before us now, however, is how do we finish this now that we are there? I don’t know. As the administration has already admitted, there have been many miscalculations on the numbers of troops needed for the conflict, but I do tend to agree that some form of troop withdrawal should begin taking place. I do not believe that the Iraqi’s will ever take the helm of independence while we are still giving them full support.

2. We must solve the problem of illegal immigration in our country. Let me offer a caveat to this. I do not ascribe to a one-size-fits-all approach to this, as some staunch republicans do. I think we need a plan that balances the need to protect our borders, as well as show some concern for those immigrants who have been working here in this country for years. Although I disagree with President Bush over many things, I do applaud his recent work, along with Senator Ted Kennedy, with respect to this issue. I think their strategy is the best plan I have seen so far, but it is not enough. There must be a leader to step forward with a comprehensive plan that deals with the many variegated problems of this sensitive issue, as well as strong enough to prevent terrorists from compromising our country’s safety.

3. There must be a solution for the health care system. This is one issue I think actually collects a general consensus from both parties: Our health care system in this country is broken. The astronomically rising cost of health care in our country is a rising problem that is not going to get better on its own. It would be nice if both parties stopped bickering with one another over platforms and power, and came together on this. Perhaps there needs to be a meshing of both ideologies in order to fix this. I have never been a proponent of large and unbridled government, but in this situation, I am not opposed to a government-regulated health care system of some kind. It seems to be working quite well in Europe, and I think it could work here, as well, with perhaps some modifications.

4. We must address the problem of poverty in our country. It is unmistakable that the poor has always been close to the heart of God, and it is also very true that our lives will, in large part, be graded on how we treat the poor during this life time. What is so unfortunate to me is that while many “Conservative Christians” have been so vocal in opposing abortion and gay marriage and promoting prayers in public schools, they have been virtually silent when it comes to the poverty in our nation. Some of the most extreme conservatives have even blasted the poor and homeless and welfare-dependent people of this country as being either lazy or stupid. In a number of studies about the problem of American poverty, this error has been exposed and shown to be counter to the actual, well-documented facts. Are there people who take advantage of this system? Of course, but therein lies the problem. As the old adage goes, “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish, feed him for life.” I have talked with various mission directors in Atlanta, and they stare this screaming problem in the eyes everyday. They are dealing with people who are now in the second and third generation of poverty, and they don’t know what to do to break the cycle, because they have always lived this way. The Republicans have been trying to stifle the charity and the Democrats have been trying to continue it without any plan to move people from dependence to self supporting, and both plans are altogether deficient. We need a complete overhaul of our welfare system, but we also need to rethink the issues that cause poverty, as well, in our society.

5. We must make strides to protect our environment. We cannot afford to ignore the majority of the international scientific community with regards to global warming. I am not saying that their claims should not be taken with a grain of salt, but the preponderance of data to substantiate their reports, even to a scant reader, has to be taken seriously at some point. Our environment is not a left-wing, liberal issue; it is a moral issue that all Christians should take seriously. This responsibility began for us when God gave us the job of taking care of the earth (or Garden) and to work it and protect it. Obviously sin has affected our environment to some degree, “because the whole creation groans for the day when it will be redeemed”, but our charge to keep it has not changed, and for some reason the reckless abandon with which many are destroying our environment, as well as entire species of animals, does not seem to hold a significantly high priority for most believers. We cannot be the servant of God and the presence of Christ in the world until we take seriously our vocation to preserve what God has given us. Not even a Tim LaHaye-like, escapist theology can abrogate that.

6. We must maintain the high sanctity of life in every area. What this means is that the issues of abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and war should all be thoughtfully considered in our perspective of the world in which we live. For many conservative Christians, abortion has been the battle cry for so many years, but if we want to be taken seriously and have a fully biblical world view, then we must also address these other issues, as well. Life is precious, because God has created man and woman in his own image. Therefore, a proper view of the sanctity of life should guide all of our debates. Does this mean that I am proposing a scenario or view that opposes war under any circumstances? No, e.g. I think the Second World War was absolutely necessary, and it was the last resort, and it was, in my opinion, an act of self-defense. The sanctity of life was the reason that we did go to war, although it cost many lives. So, don’t misunderstand what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that we hold true to the sanctity of human life in our consideration of going to war after every other avenue of diplomacy has been exhausted, and that we count the cost with extreme deliberation before proceeding.

Furthermore, our view of the sanctity of human life should direct our opinions with regards to capital punishment and torture of prisoners. First of all, let me say that I am not against capital punishment. The biblical ground for capital punishment predates the institution of the Mosaic Law. What I am against is the reckless way it has been administered under our current judicial system. In other words, there have been many cases that are well-documented where innocent persons were executed erroneously, only to be exonerated by DNA or testimonial evidence years afterwards. This is a tragedy that we, as believers, cannot and should not ignore. Either we need to fix our system, or we need to abolish the administration of the death penalty altogether.

It is, also, disturbing to note how many people are willing to “look the other way” when it comes to the torturing of prisoners. Where are the bracelets for WWJD when we consider this debate? Could we really conceive of Christ, who said to “Love your enemies, do good to them who persecute you, pray for them which despitefully use you”, ever condoning our government to torture prisoners (even our terrorist enemies who have persecuted us) in order to achieve a pragmatic goal? I don’t think so.

Finally, I want to say that I am vehemently against abortion, but I also want to say that I think we need politicians who are actually willing to work on issues that lead to abortion, e.g. poverty and poor education. I think we need to oppose abortion, but I think we need to be clear that we are not against the women who are in that situation. I believe we need to find some common ground to try to decrease the number of abortions in our country. The politician who is savvy to how this will be accomplished will get the most attention in our country.


7. We need a politician who is willing to work on balancing the federal budget.
This is not just political rhetoric. This is a real need in our country that will have long-term implications for the generations to come. If we do not get a handle on our government’s deficit, it will ruin our ability to trade with other nations in the future years. We need a constitutional amendment that requires congress and the president to have to balance the budge and live within their means. We have to do so; why should this government not have to? I am convinced that this will affect many more issues, including how to solve our social security dilemma.

Conclusion: Let me state, in conclusion, that there are many more issues that are important to me, but these are some of the biggest that I see. I would love to hear some feedback on any of these, or if you think there are some other big issues that need to be addressed.

Musings about Open Communion

My blog today has to do with the particular element of worship called communion, or the Lord’s Supper. Let me say at the outset that my position has dramatically changed during the past few years from what it was while I was going to college. Therefore, this position, to me, is a fairly recent one, but is certainly in good company with many other believers throughout church history including Samuel Goddard, the grandfather of the more famous Jonathan Edwards, who by the way did not agree with me or his grandfather.

The position that I hold to now is the position of open communion, which is of the persuasion that all present at the worship gathering should be invited to participate in the communion. Now, for some this may sound rather strange, since they will immediately conclude that the Lord’s Supper is a time of worship for believers. Before I give my reasons for believing that this is the best and most Christ-honoring way to do communion, I would like to give a couple of clarifying remarks.

First of all, I do not believe as some Roman Catholics do, that there is justifying power in the elements of the communion, or that any work or deed we perform can make us righteous in the sight of God. The Apostle Paul wrote to Titus that it is “not by works of righteousness we have done, but according to his mercy, he has saved us…” He also said in his Ephesian letter, “For by grace are you saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.” And Paul writes to the Roman Christians that believers are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ and his atonement for our sin.

I am not opposed, however, to the use of the term “sacrament” to identify the communion, because of the fact that it does accurately represent what communion is and does for the believer. A sacrament is something that contains an element of saving efficacy in it. Now, as we have already stated, we are justified in the sight of God, i.e. made righteous and declared not guilty, through the death of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, our salvation is not complete, and we are not fully saved. God is still in the process of saving us. For those who are committed to the Baptist adage “once saved, always saved” this will not mean much. But for others who believe that salvation is secure, yes, but also believe that true believers will continue in the faith, and if they don’t, then they were not ever true believers, this will make sense. In other words, Christ is the one who saves us, but anyone who has ever struggled with his or her own wickedness knows that he must be saved, in a sense, every day. Does that mean that he loses his salvation? Again, we are not talking about deliverance from a final hell, but rather a deliverance from a spiritual hell on earth each and everyday. We must get up everyday and fall on our knees in fresh repentance and brokenness and cry out to Jesus to save us from ourselves, so that we can be involved in redeeming the world in which we live.

So, if we realize that we are BEING saved, then we must also realize that God uses various tools in our life to point us to Christ, who was, is, and shall be our salvation. Those tools are in our lives as the means of grace to us so that we will experience more of Jesus and his love, and it will cause us to renew our dying in him. There are many, the Scriptures, the community of Christ, baptism, giving, singing, fasting, praying, loving, and, of course, communion. Each of these things can be called sacraments if we understand them to be means of God’s grace in the process of our ongoing salvation from sin.

Secondly, I do not believe that the unleavened bread and the wine are the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. I, also, do not believe that the presence of Christ is in the actual bread and wine, although I am not adamantly against this Lutheran concept altogether. I do believe that Christ’s presence is with us as we celebrate the communion, as the Bible clearly teaches. This subject is a blog in and of itself and does not fit my purpose here, other than to clarify what I do not believe, so criticism of my position might be more aptly directed to the core of my blog.

Now, why do I believe open communion is to be preferred over close or closed communion? As I see it, this answer is to be given in the context of the three basic reasons for communion. What that means is that Scripture gives some specific reasons for the giving of these elements, and those reasons are not contradicted by the practice of open communion. On the contrary, I find the practice of open communion very consistent with what the Scripture gives as its reasons for communion.

Firstly, Jesus explicitly states that the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine should be done “in remembrance” of him. In other words, this is an opportunity for us to worship Christ and revel in his person and his actions on our behalf. This reason may entail many components, including personal scrutiny whereby the believer examines himself. Paul wrote about this in the corrective portion of his first letter to the Corinthians: “A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Now this section is a rebuke for the professing believers who were abusing this worship element by indulging themselves. The punishment that is spoken of here is not in reference to unbelievers. I have heard others use this text before to refer to people who take the communion “unworthily”, and then say that unbelievers should, therefore, not be allowed to partake of the communion. This is the theological equivalent of comparing apples with oranges. Let’s look at the passage in question for just a moment.

First Corinthians 11:30-32 says, “That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep (i.e. died). But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.” This whole discussion is obviously given to believers. That is why he contrasts the believers’ punishment with the unbelievers’ condemnation. The fact that unbelievers are condemned is an assumed fact that Paul contends for. Jesus said the same thing in John 3:18, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” So, if an unbeliever is already condemned to Hell, then how can he be more condemned if he takes the communion? The answer, of course, is that he cannot. It is like trying to distinguish between a dead person and “a really dead” person”. In other words, if a man is already condemned, he cannot become any more condemned than he already is.

What this is in reference to is the attitude that should be lived out in the way we take communion- a sacred remembrance of Jesus and a solemn, introspective examination in light of Him. The pertinent question for us is how does this relate to our taking open communion? The short answer is that our taking communion does not directly have any bearing on those who are unbelievers. All of the prescriptions that are given by Paul to the Corinthian Church are only applicable to believers and how their worship should be conducted. What is conspicuously missing from this is any reference to unbelievers whatsoever. In fact, when Paul speaks about the controversial subject of spiritual gifts just three chapters later, he addresses the issue of unbelievers who were assumed to be present during the worship setting. If Paul was so concerned there with the propriety of believers’ worship with regard to their speaking in tongues in the presence of unbelievers, why is he not equally concerned with whether or not unbelievers might take the elements of communion?

To be quite honest, there could be a number of assumptions made with different explanations in view, but the truth is we don’t know, and Paul didn’t address it. You could make the general assumption that they only served the communion elements to believers, but then why not make other assumptions that they only took offering monies from believers, or that only recognized Christians were allowed to share in the singing time, or perhaps they withheld fellowship or food from those who did not know Jesus Christ? Perhaps, you say, that I am being absurd or argumentative, but I think these are nonetheless fair questions, because even if you argue for inclusion in those other things because they are means by which we can proclaim the gospel, then how is it different when it comes to communion?

This brings me to the next reason given for communion, which is proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. This doesn’t even seem necessary to defend, because the meaning of communion itself presents the elements of the gospel. This is one of the most powerful examples in Scripture of an object lesson of Jesus’ love for humanity- the shed blood and ravaged body of Jesus Christ given for the sins of the world and their forgiveness. What could be more compelling than that? If there is any doubt that this is in mind when we take communion, listen to Paul again elaborate: “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Communion is such an awesome time of worship for me and it, as all authentic worship should be, is also an opportunity to spread the good news about Jesus Christ and his death and his forgiveness for sinners and his love to be experienced through the cross.

On the other hand, what if we keep an unbeliever from taking communion? Have we benefited them any? No. In fact, we may have done great harm to them by not welcoming them and asking them to participate with us in this experience of loving God? Now, if someone is to suggest that we teach people what communion means, then certainly I am in agreement with them. Nevertheless, I think often times we batter people with the banner “now this doesn’t save you” so much to the point that we may actually hinder them from getting saved through it, because, after all, it is the gospel- both preached and experienced. This is why I go back to the word sacrament in this discussion. If by sacrament you mean that taking the communion can save someone, then no, I don’t believe that. But, if you mean that this is one way through which Jesus Christ is seen and treasured and loved and surrendered to, then, yes, I do believe that this can, in the strictest sense of the word, be called a sacrament. As Samuel Goddard believed, I believe, also, that communion has a converting element to it.

For the record, I do believe that communion is also the New Covenant equivalent of the Jewish Passover, i.e. it is the New Passover. As for our discussion now, I think it is similar to what has already been said. Obviously only true believers will worship Christ and fully appreciate the meaning and experience of the communion. Nevertheless, I do think there is great value in sharing it with others who might be brought to Christ through its means.

Finally, let me say that this is the way we have chosen to practice communion, and I am not trying to suggest that everyone should do it this way. What it does mean is that we find this way the most biblically inclusive and the most Christ honoring way to practice communion. In other words, we find the fulfillment of Christ’s command for our lives in this, i.e. by practicing open communion we succeed in loving God and loving our neighbor as our self. I am hoping that this might open up some ideas and a healthy dialogue of disparate views that could hopefully deepen all of our communion experiences.

Conversations with God

I wished that my spirituality was of such depth that I could talk with God as a man talks with his friend. Almost always, though, it is me who is doing all the talking, and less frequent that I would want to disclose does God actually do the talking (I have a sneaky suspicion that it has more to do with my lack of attentiveness than it does with his speaking). I do try to have a quiet time with God in the mornings, because I still think there is something to the quality of King David’s experience with God, when he cried, “Early have I sought you.” I do not always fulfill this ritual, and I am learning that it is okay if I can’t do that every single time, because my acceptance is not based on what I do or how I perform. Knowing this gives me encouragement and freedom to return to a place of meeting with him.

God has also been gracious in showing me that although a place and a time is important in an ongoing dialogue with God, it is equally important to acknowledge God wherever and whenever I go throughout the course of my day. Many times we assume that God is in the steeple or the sanctuary or the pew or the sermon, when sometimes he is in the father and his child in the park, or he is in the cashier at the convenient store, or he might be in the sudden downpour of rain as we jet across the parking lot. This means that I have learned that God is at work in our world in all kinds of different ways, and sometimes we miss this, because we are looking for the specific box in which we have placed God, and he is living and moving and breathing outside of it.

I know that for many years I lived under the assumption that only a small pocket of people in the world had the truth of which I was an honorary member. And then my box grew to include a few more, and now during the past couple of years God has completely destroyed my box, and for the first time in my life, I can honestly say that I don’t know what God wants from me, but I am ready to give it, and I know that he is at work in my life and my family’s life.

I was driving in the van today muttering to God about so many things in my life with which I need direction. At one point during the monologue I cried out to God with tears and told him this: “God, I wished I could sit down with you and have ten minutes of your time. I wished that you could tell me everything you want me to do (all in succinct bullet points, of course). The decisions that I have to make in the coming weeks are of such tremendous magnitude, and I want to see these people come to know you, and I want to honor you and I want to live out your design for my life. God, please speak to me, and do not hide your face from me.”

Fortunately and unfortunately God has not chosen to make this world so simple. It is beautiful and ugly all at the same time; it is a very difficult world, and if we pretend to know the work of God in it, then we commit a grievous sin against his greatness. We commit the prejudice that the friend of Job committed when he accused Job’s children of sinning as the reason for Job’s suffering. And when we want to know everything, we have to be careful that we do not act as the disciple Thomas, who would not believe until he had seen. I may not always understand, but I must always trust God, and know that he is at work in my life, as well as others.

A Prayer Request

I have been at this pastor thing now for about two and a half years, and I feel like I know less now than when I started, although I know more about what I am not. I want to take this time to say “thanks” to all those who have helped me along the way in praying for me, as well as for my family and my church. I also want to take this brief time and ask each of you (or all two of you… is it really that many?) to pray for me and CABC during the next few weeks especially. Our leadership is really searching to find clear direction for what we are doing, and there are a lot of “irons in the fire”, so to speak (whatever that means).

Seriously, I am very thankful for all that God has done in my life, and I am very grateful for his ongoing mercy that endures forever and keeps back what I deserve and does not consume me for all of the stupid things that I have done in my life and all the stupid things that I have wanted to do but couldn’t. God is so unbelievable to continue loving me despite my great faithlessness, and so magnificent in that he chooses to use a trashed vessel like me. I thank God for all that he has allowed me to go through, because I know that without that, I would be even more proud and stubborn than I am now, and I thank God for all that he has kept me from (even blessings at times). As I write this, I have an excruciating desire to be great, and yet I know now that through God’s Son that this is not a misdirected passion. I want God now more than ever to set the people of Grant Park free. But, I know that he has to set me free first. I am longing for his goodness to infect those around me to obtain the prize of Jesus Christ.
Please pray for me now more than ever, as I will soon be taking a first-ever hiatus (a very short one) to determine what I am doing. Thanks

A Personal Reflection On Promptings from the Holy Spirit

About eighteen years ago, when I first became a Christian, I began to get involved in learning what the Bible taught, and I tried to become regular at having a daily “quiet time” with God, although I was inconsistent at best. I remember, however, in those early days of the faith how tender I was to the Holy Spirit, often tediously taking notes of sermons, soaking up every morsel of biblical information I could possibly obtain, as well as often responding to sermons by going to the altar and confessing sins. I, also, recall how I had such an intense desire for God to use me and to do something amazing with my life, and that would often result in my involvement in various ministries of the local church.

One of the most vivid memories I have of God working in my life in those early years of following Christ was his Holy Spirit, on various occasions, prompting me to act in some specific way. I recall one such instance of God intensely prompting me to pray for a dear friend who, at the time, was away from the Lord. I shared the prompting with several of my other friends, and we committed to pray for him for several days, and he soon after came back to the Lord, and resubmitted himself to Christ. I also remember, when I lived in Jacksonville, how God impressed me to witness to a stranger carrying groceries and how he came to trust Christ, through a bizarre series of events. I know there were several other occasions I clearly remember of how God brought to my mind things to say when I was encouraging a believer, preaching a sermon, or witnessing to an unbeliever. Unfortunately, my promptings of the Holy Spirit began to diminish as I became more educated in doctrine.

This is not to downplay the importance of doctrine in a believer’s life and faith, because it is foundational to his health, but when knowledge begins to puff one up, the learning of doctrine can be devastating. The problem in my own life was my reading of men who valued the Scriptures so much that they thought any adherence to something subjective was an attack on Scripture itself. The tragic thing is that I not only became convinced of its teaching; I became closed to the working of the Holy Spirit in my life. That is not to say that the Holy Spirit did not do anything else in my life during this period, nor does it mean that I received no promptings from the Holy Spirit. In fact, I continued to receive convictions of sin through the Holy Spirit and the preaching of Scriptures and other believers; I continued to be moved to action at different times in my Christian life, but I always dismissed these occurrences as non-subjective, because they were in some way connected to the Word of God.

I am a pastor of a church in Atlanta now, and God has been teaching me some amazing truths. This morning on the way back from studying at my favorite coffee shop I confessed to God my lack of tenderness and sensitivity to the person and work of his Holy Spirit these past few years. I confessed that during this time I had even rationalized away the authenticity of some of the experiences I described above. I admitted that I had squandered many opportunities for God to work in my life, because I erroneously concluded that my sensitivity to those promptings was a danger to the sufficiency of Scriptures in my life. I confessed that I now believe that God primarily speaks to believers through the Scriptures, but often through other prophetic revelations, as well.

Now, some of you who read this (all two of you) might have agreed with everything I have written up to this point, but now you would disagree with my classification of these promptings as prophetic revelations. That is okay, I guess, but it is important that you are, at least, open to God’s workings and promptings in your life. But, more on this later…

Isaiah, a.k.a. Dr. Death

I have watched enough medical dramas, as well as witnessed real life episodes, to know how devastating it is when someone gets the bad news about their “condition”, their “disease”, their “inoperable brain tumor”, etc. Doctors, of course, don’t go to medical school for all those years to articulate the miseries of suffering and death; they go to school so they can help people heal and get better. No one dreams about being by the bed side of someone who has no chance of cure, and having to tell them that. They may have grand visions of performing the miraculous surgery to save someone from cancer, but not the other way around.

It is so much more interesting, then, when we consider the mission of Isaiah in chapter six of the book he wrote. He had a vision, also, and he made himself available to become a missionary: “Here am I ,LORD, send me.” But perhaps he didn’t have a chance to sit down with his guidance counselor or recruiter for an adequate amount of time, because it wasn’t exactly, perhaps, what he had envisioned. God told Isaiah essentially that he would be delivering the bad news to the family. He would be telling the people of Judah there is no hope; you have a disease; and you’re going to die. To make matters worse, God tells Isaiah to prevent them from hearing; keep them (spiritually) blind; make their hearts calloused. Why? “Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” What? Isn’t that what we are supposed to be here for? Are we not supposed to be involved in healing people? When someone has cancer, don’t we want to tell them how they can be healed? Not so in this passage, where God appears not to want them to repent, so that they can be led into national desolation and exile.

I must admit that this is a difficult text to swallow, because of the apparent implications that God is merciless and unloving. The reader of the fact that God here does not want these people to be healed, nevertheless, has to extrapolate several other points from this text:

(1) Up to this point, God has been very longsuffering and loving with Judah. Time does not permit me to elaborate on the history of Judah, but suffice it to say, there has been much mercy and love and forgiveness poured out on this people. Not only that, but God entered into a covenant with this people, and the deal was if they broke the covenant he would break the covenant and judge them for their disobedience.

(2) The “until” in Isaiah 6:11 indicates a renewed opportunity of repentance that would occur. Isaiah seems to be as beleaguered as we are at the thought of delivering the message of doom and gloom, and questions “For how long, O LORD?” Surely this is only temporary, since Yahweh is a loving God and this is his covenant people. The answer he receives is not much comfort for the one in his shoes, however, but it does give some comfort to us, as well as insight into the character of God. The word “until” introduces the happenings of the Babylonian Invasion, in which King Nebuchadnezzar would sweep in and destroy the city of Jerusalem and lead the inhabitants off to Babylon as exiled slaves. The amazing thing is that judgment upon Judah ,in retrospect, was one of the greatest acts of mercy God could have ever shown the world, because it forced Judah to be “the Light to the nations” that it was designed to be. Therefore, Isaiah’s quest to become a missionary seemed very disappointing, when in fact he played an integral role in the nations coming to know the true God of Israel, by Judah’s dispersion into their regions. As they were exiled, many of them repented and were used to bring many others into a relationship with Yahweh, and eventually there was a collective repentance that took place.

So, what is the lesson from all of this? (a) God sovereignly works the events of history for his ultimate glory, (b) God is holy and just in all that he does, (c) Repentance is solely the work of God, and (d) God’s abundant mercy many times precedes abundant judgment, nor is it always an assumed given. Therefore, we must humble ourselves and take heed to the words of Dr. Death.

From Life to Death with Anna Nicole Smith

I am a pastor, so I have been preaching through a series in the Book of Ecclesiastes about “the Meaninglessness of Life”. In this series, we have talked about the futility that is contained in the things of life, not things that suck, but good things that were designed by God to be enjoyed. We all enjoy good food, like a Steak Diane from the Cheesecake Factory, or a piece of chocolate cake from Dailey’s. Those are things obviously to be enjoyed. We also enjoy good sex (those of us who are married). Although some of us might cringe when that word is mentioned, the truth is God has created it to be a beautiful thing; the world and our own wicked hearts have perverted it, so much so that we can’t even read the Song of Solomon without blushing, or if we do we buy into the incredulous idea that somehow the Shulammite woman’s breasts refer in some way to the church. We enjoy the satisfaction in accomplishments or the labor to which we give ourselves. Especially those of us who can be given to being a workaholic know how enjoyable work can be. We also enjoy the taste of good wine (especially white wine), because it was “made for the gladness of man’s heart”. We also enjoy friendship. I have really basked in the friendships God has given me in my life. I feel like a fool for squandering some of the ones I have had in the past, but still cherish the few valuable ones that I have, because they are priceless, and they make the world a safer place for me to live in. I also enjoy wisdom. I have been to school and to college and I still enjoy reading a theology book like nothing else. I enjoy learning and becoming more knowledgeable of the world in which we live. I love music, as well. I enjoy listening to good Christian rock as well as good secular rock, and I have learned to glorify God in both. I also enjoy laughter. Wow, my life is so stupid sometimes, I have to laugh. I have to give myself permission to laugh at the crazy things that take place at times. That is the world in which we live. I could go on and on about the many gifts that God has given each of us, and they are great and they are to be received with thanksgiving and enjoyed.

But they must never become the pursuit of our lives. They must become the bed of roses on the path to our goal. They are certainly beautiful to look at and to smell, but we must never pitch our tent in the bed of roses and make that our dwelling place. That is the thing that Solomon found out about life. Life has a lot of fleeting joy; it always leaves you wanting something more. It’s like drinking a Coke; you enjoy it when you’re thirsty, but it has a tremendous after taste that makes you want something purer, like water.

Life was designed by God to be like this. Our hearts have been fashioned in such a way to give us a longing for something greater, for something more long-lasting, for something more eternal, for something more divine…like God.

If we fool ourselves into thinking that this world will satisfy our starving hearts, we will die miserable. It reminds me of the news story I heard today about Anna Nicole Smith dying. Thirty-nine years of age. Table dancer, Playboy’s Play Mate of the year, Marilyn Monroe look-alike, widow of half-a-billion dollars-oil tycoon, star of a reality t.v. show, model, etc., etc., etc. And now she is dead. What is all that to her now? But don’t be so hard on her. We all have our own repertoire of things we value in this life. They’re certainly not as impressive as Anna Nicole Smith’s, but they are all the same nothingness.

The same way her life ended is the same way our own life will end- with the breath going out and our lives’ pleasures not meaning anything. Our challenge from this is to see our life as part of a grand purpose that God has for us; a purpose that is not fully known, but is manifestly acknowledged and submitted to. We are not here for ourselves, but for the glory of God, but our happiness depends upon God. Not the temporal, shallow happiness that goes away with the gift, but the deep, radical, God-centered happiness that is never-ending, because it is fixed on the Giver.

Kirk Cameron and the Gospel of Christ

I was flipping through the channels last night, between watching my new show “Heroes” and Monday Night Football, and I caught a glimpse of an old sitcom my family watched when I was in school called “Growing Pains”. I watched it for a few minutes, and the thing I have discovered about most sitcoms you formerly watched is that when you watch them now they don’t ever seem as funny as they did then. Regardless, I was more interested this night, because this past weekend I went to a conference called “Transformed”, which is put on by a group called Way of the Master . The Way of the Master is actually a religious television show that is featured on TBN, and stars Kirk Cameron, who played Mike Seaver on “Growing Pains”, and an Australian evangelist named Ray Comfort.

The show has become very popular in Christianity, and has elicited such awards as the People’s Choice Award for Best Religious Show, as well as other notoriety. The show’s emphasis is on evangelism, and they routinely go up to strangers on the street and interview them about their perspective of going to heaven, as well as their notion of their own goodness. One of their foundational methods is to use the Ten Commandments to get people to the place of seeing their own guilt before God. Once they are ready to accept their own guilt before God, then they present the gospel of Jesus Christ to them. There seems to be some merit to what they are recommending, but I caution against a one-size-fits-all approach to evangelism. To their credit, however, throughout the conference, they pointed out that their method is not to give people a rote script to follow or to memorize, but to place principles in the hands of believers, while at the same time encouraging them to ultimately depend on the power of the Holy Spirit to guide and direct them as they talk to people about Christ.

Overall, I think the show is very sound in its theology, and I benefited greatly from the conference. It is also very encouraging to see how God has radically transformed the life of one of TV’s former celebrities, Kirk Cameron, as he held his bible, expounded scripture, talked very clearly about giving the gospel, and even boldly witnessed to thugs in the ghetto of New York.

A Journal of Anger

Last week, my family and I went on Thanksgiving vacation at Sea World. We shared a house with my friend Sam Crum and his family, and had a wonderful time. The trip did have one hiccup, though. On the second night we were there, we were playing a game of Monopoly (the perennial game that is so similar to real life that it causes people to lash out at one another as if it were real money they were losing). I won’t bore you with all of the details of what transpired, because I don’t want to bore you (or because I am too embarrassed maybe), but let’s just say that I took the game way more serious than I should have. Not only was it stupid for us to have a conflict over this, but it perpetuated into the next day. Thankfully, we did work things out, rationally concluding that our marriage was more valuable than Monopoly, and we went on to make some great memories (as well as other things).

This past Sunday, the Lord reminded me of some valuable truths with regards to sinful anger and pride, as I listened to our lesson during the bible study time on “The Stress of Anger.” My friend Mark did a fine job leading us into a Scripture-based but very penetrating talk on dealing with anger. I felt like God was reminding me of how stupid and sinful I have been through demonstrating my sinful anger towards people. I also felt God revealing to me the massive pride that I have, and how wicked I have been in trying to metaphorically murder people with my words, thoughts, and actions.

After our bible study time, I went to the worship service, only to hear our worship leader deliver a message about spiritual blindness in all of us that keeps us from seeing Christ. The Holy Spirit spoke to my heart about how blind I am to my own pride, because I rationalize things away, and defend myself to the death, when it is really my own usefulness to God I am killing. On the way home from church, I apologized to my wife for being a stubborn jackass so often, and asked her to forgive me.

This morning, I went to the doctor for the fourth time in three weeks to get treatment for something that is known as iritis, which is an extreme inflammation of my iris. As I struggled to read any of the reading chart with my left eye, I thought of the blind people in our church, and I thought of how I frequently take the goodness of God for granted. I then thought back to the messages that God had spoken very clearly to me on Sunday, and how he has been so merciful to me in sparing my life and giving me good health.

This afternoon, I called the owner of the company who put the flat roof on our church a few weeks ago, to ask him about an insulation estimate. I casually asked him how things were going, and he told me that he was dying with arterial sclerosis, and could go any day. Immediately, everything I had complained about or fretted over during the past week grew very pale in comparison to what he was experiencing. I asked him if he was ready to die, as I myself wondered if I was. I thought of how sinful I have been in my anger and rage and bitterness and malice, to the point of losing all effectiveness and respect. I thought of how foolish it was for Michael Vick to extend his middle finger to thousands of Atlanta Falcon fans in that game against New Orleans, thereby revealing the depth of his frustration, but also exposing the depth of his depravity. I thought of Mel Gibson ranting and raving in a drunken stupor over the Jews. I thought of Bobby Knight throwing chairs and slapping players on the sidelines of a basketball game. And I thought of myself getting upset over not having enough fake money and fake property during a Monopoly game with which to escape my hopeless life.

How many times have we bowed to the moment of temptation, and given up valuable time, territory, and joy for the “principle of the matter”, when in the end it really didn’t matter. What if all the conflicts and arguments and tirades were wiped clean of our lives forever, and we could love one another unimpeded by human pride and selfish anger? Thankfully, the blood of Christ does wipe us clean from our anger and pride and wickedness. We, as believers still struggle with sin (like anger), but we have the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome it, and one day we will be at home with righteousness, and sin will be no more, because we will be just like Jesus in perfect joy and perfect love. As I reflect upon my question to the man dying of arterial sclerosis, I also reflect on the opposite question, which would be “am I ready to live?” God has renewed his mercy to all of us today. Therefore, how then shall we live? Angry at people we are supposed to love, or satisfied in Christ so completely that we do not have to die for our pride?

To the Darwinian, I Became a Darwinian?

There is an article that came out a couple of weeks ago from Time Magazine, called “God vs. Science” (you can access it at Time.com). This article features a debate involving Richard Dawkins, probably the most well-known scientist-atheist in the world, who recently came out with a New York Times best seller called The God Delusion. It also includes Frances Collins, the director of the National Genome Research Institute since 1993, who is a theistic evolutionist, who has been praised by President Clinton for his monumental work in genetics. To his credit, Dawkins is a brilliant scientist who unfortunately talks down to his opponents, as if there is no intelligent person out there who believes in both God and science. Collins is an able defender of the Christian faith, who is a former atheist who was converted at the age of 27, and is no stranger to the naturalistic claims of many scientists. Collins does a good job of engaging Dawkins on the basis of philosophy, design, and moral presence within humanity.

What is also interesting is the fact that the New York Times ran a poll back in April of this year, asking people if they found fossil evidence of evolution more credible or the creation story as told in the Bible? The results were 56% in favor of fossil evidence, and 44% in favor of the creation story as told in the bible. The poll, to me, is not surprising, because it is worded in such a way as to reveal that there are a lot of people who accept evolution as fact, and yet believe that God originally created our universe.

The issue that needs to be discussed among Christians is how we reach people in this highly secular world who wholeheartedly buy into the claims of science, and yet are still interested in spiritual things. The Barna Research Institute has actually discovered that people are more spiritual now than they have ever been. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are interested in the God of Christianity, but it does mean that they are searching for answers. One of the telling things about this debate is the fact that Dawkins, as well as many other Darwinians who reject God, fails to deliver in the realm of our everyday existence. While science should be pursued and can answer many questions about the how, only faith deals with the why. That is not to say that faith is blinded by wishful thinking or empty headed assumptions. Faith that is strong is built on reason and revelation (as Collins points out). The cold logic of Dawkins, again, makes sense from a non-God perspective, but is not complete in terms of answering bigger questions that every human wants to know. Here are some observations from the debate that I think are worth considering:

1. Science is incomplete (not futile) in answering the question of whether God exists.
This is not to say that studying science can not tell us anything about God, because that would contradict the Scriptures, which tells us that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the sky shows us his handiwork.” That certainly doesn’t mean that you have to be a scientist in order to discern the splendor of the constellations, any more than you have to be an architect in order to discern the grandeur of the Eiffel Tower. What it does mean is that the basic scientific tool of observation reveals to us the beauty of God. Nevertheless, science is not the final frontier, in terms of discovering who God is. On the contrary, it is actually the beginning point on the journey for many people. The Scriptures also tell us that “what may be known about God is plain to them (those who suppress the truth about God), because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” In summary, nature reveals to us a Creator. It can’t reveal to us the message of that Creator; only a special revelation from him to us, but if we don’t accept that truth, we can’t go on in the journey of faith to find out who he is and what he desires.

2. Evolution is considered “scientific” on the same grounds that God is considered unscientific.
Evolution is accepted, because it (as science) can be observed. The only problem is that evolution has never been observed. There are evidences of it that give us insight into its existence, but there is no hard, fast trace that we can currently look at in a laboratory. On the other hand, God’s existence is denied on the basis of not having been observed, either. Nevertheless, in the same way that the traces of evolution have been researched, the traces of God have also been discerned, such as design, nature, and moral presence.

3. The likelihood of God existing is greater than the likelihood that he didn’t.
One of Collins’ best sellers, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief, cites the fact that there are six universal characteristics, or constants, of our universe, and if they were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. Dawkins argues the counter point that this universe is one of a zillion other universes, and that most of these will not have the right conditions for life, but as the number rises, the probability increases that one of them will contain the right recipe. This actually is very faith-filled for Dawkins to purport, since there are no known, observable, other universes. It seems more likely, as Collins argues, that there was someone planning the infinitesimally exact components to coincide for life to exist.

4. The acceptance of biblical miracles does not betray science, but only gives credence to a real creator.
Miracles are that which defy the normal laws of nature. It is not implausible to believe that if there is a creator, then that same creator is able to invade our world, and transcend the very rules he established. His doing that would be, interestingly enough, more plausible if he wanted to demonstrate his love and power to us by interacting with us through Jesus Christ by his incarnation, death, and resurrection.

5. Human beings acting out moral laws within this world is a good indicator of a Creator who put that in us.
This evidence is seen in those who do not have any knowledge of God’s revelation, acting on the law of their conscience. Speaking of the non-Jewish nations (or Gentiles), the Scriptures tell us that those “who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them).” How is it that people will sacrifice their DNA existence within the gene pool for those outside of the gene pool if we are only trying to survive and look out for number one (C.S. Lewis talks about this power in his masterpiece Mere Christianity)? I think this is more plausible than Dawkins’ thought that we (now in a much bigger world) are merely acting out our ancestors’ drive to help those within their own gene pool, so that we can survive.

6. Whatever our Christian position of how creation came about, our main goal should be to demonstrate the fact of creation.
There is a big controversy that has been going on for quite a few years within Christian circles about whether the creation came about literally in six days, or whether it came about over the course of eons and eons by evolution. The fact is God created the heavens and the earth, and humanity, and all that is. We must respect the findings of science, but we must also seek to communicate the gospel of God. That is not done by narrowly repudiating everything that comes from science, but by seeking to find common ground between that and our faith, and seeking to become Christ (not a Darwinist) to all those we seek to reach.

Borrowing Some Thoughts On Clothes In Church

This is a blog from Mark Driscoll's blog site (TheResurgence.com), called "Dear Abby, Can I Wear My Swim Trunks To Church?" He asks some very good questions about a common debate among many evangelicals. I could try to blog about it, but he says it so much better than I, so here you have it...

A while back "Dear Abby" was asked a missional theology question. A debate ensued when one of her readers asked if people should be expected to dress up for church. The responses were all over the map:

A priest who likely wears a dress/robe curiously said, "I'm appalled at how some people come dressed for Sunday worship. . . . What has become relaxed is the attitude, the respect and reverence people have for worship and church buildings. . . the lack of respect and reverence to worship is disgusting. These same people would never allow their children to play in a sporting event out of uniform, or apply for a job interview themselves dressed inappropriately. Sunday worship should be no different!"

Diana from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, wrote in, "More important than what people are wearing is the reason for being in church in the first place. Maybe it would be better if we could all enter God's house blind. If we can't see what people are wearing, we can leave our judgments and prejudices outside and use the time to learn more about God's purpose for our lives."

A cowboy from Iowa wrote in, possibly with a crayon, "That we worship is more important than what we wear. That letter reminded me of the story of the old cowboy who visited a new church in his jeans and boots. After the service, the pastor greeted him and remarked, 'We enjoyed having you here today, but before you return, you should have a talk with God about proper attire in church.' The next week, the cowboy returned wearing the same clothes, so the pastor approached him again. 'I thought I told you to speak with God about what to wear when you came here,' he said. The cowboy responded, 'I did. But he said he didn't know because he'd never set foot in here!'"

Barbara from Pennsylvania wrote, My pastor says no one would consider dressing casually if they were going to be in the presence of our president or any other dignitary. Why would we consider anything less for our Lord? Makes perfect sense to me."

And Matthew in Peoria wrote, "Church is where you go to give praise to the Lord, not check out what others are wearing. If 'Dismayed' feels put out because someone isn't dressed the way she'd like, then maybe the services should be held at Macy's so she can feel more comfortable."

The entire exchange raises an interesting series of questions, such as:
If God is our Father and the church is our family, should we view going to church services as a formal event or a family event?
If we are to welcome the poor and socially outcast, does a dress code essentially push such people away from church?
If people become overly worried about their appearance instead of their heart, are they like the Pharisees that Jesus chastised for only washing the outside of the proverbial cup?
Is the church building somehow a magical sacred space like the Old Testament Temple? Or is it simply a place where God's people gather that is no more and no less sacred than the homes they live in, now that the Spirit has been released from the Holy of Holies into the whole earth?
Do we think that Jesus the homeless guy who was born in a barn was dressed up when He held church outdoors?
Why should we press for formal dress in church when one of the only passages in the New Testament that speaks about what to wear to church rebukes women for dressing up to the degree that they turned church into a fashion show (1 Timothy 2:9–10)?
When Jesus says that people judge the outward but God is looking at the heart, does that mean that as long as women don’t show up in clear heels looking like they need an aluminum pole to dance around, appearance is really a secondary matter?
Since we are supposed to be hospitable and welcome people to church as missionaries, does it not make sense to dress like "normal" people rather than make normal people dress up like "church" people?

At our church I usually preach in a button-up shirt, jeans, and boots. A number of our worship bands, especially the indie rock ones at the evening services, play in t-shirts, jeans, and flip-flops. This is something I've been thinking through since I will be preaching a twelve-week series on questions about Jesus this fall. For the series, I am planning on wearing some funny Jesus t-shirts to show how much of a pop-culture icon Jesus is. They say things like:
Jesus is watching you smoke that weed!
Jesus is watching you download porn!
Jesus is my homeboy
Buddy Christ (from Dogma)
Jesus vs. Satan (from South Park)
WWJD for a Klondike Bar
I heart Jesus and french fries

"Dear Abby" hit one of the more debated missional theology issues in our day that is related to many other issues, such as how we view God (e.g., daddy, boss, or president), church buildings (e.g., God’s special house or just another room), what constitutes a church (e.g., a formal building or a people who love Jesus), and the feel of a church service (e.g., formal meeting or family reunion).

Christ: Still the Answer in a Post-Modern Era

We live in a post-modern world today. What that means is that for most people truth is something that is not as easily found. It is not that post-moderns deny the existence of truth, but rather the certainty of knowing what that truth is. Post-moderns have, of course, been around for a long time. The classic example is seen in Pilate, the Roman governor who reluctantly gave the order for Jesus to be crucified, when he asked, “What is truth?” The post-modern world has been asking that question ever since. Our recent world, however, has been largely modern since the dawn of the Enlightenment Period, or the Age of Reason. During this time, men said that everything in this world could be understood by sheer reason and logic. In fact, God was not needed, because reason became their God. This modern worldview has continued throughout most of the 20th century, and I would also suggest that many people living in rural areas as well as most aged forty and up still hold to this type of thinking. This period has had tremendous impact on the church and, therefore, the church has seen everything through the lens of black and white. In subjecting the world to reason, we have sought to explain everything and have pushed out any concept of mystery.

Postmodern thinking, on the contrary, began to emerge in the 1960’s but most predominately in the 1980’s. It began with the “hippy” counter-culture of anti-establishment and anti-authority. The post-moderns have questioned everything, searching for truth, but rejecting the certainty of their own perspectives of truth.
Examples of Postmodern thinking include: (this information is taken from an article entitled “Connecting Churches with Today’s Modern and Postmodern Cultures”)

• The possibility of multiple gods. There is more to the universe than we can perceive. Religion, science, and philosophy are abstracts that are difficult (if not impossible) to grasp.
• Scientific knowledge can be used for good or evil. Scientific advances often can be used to improve or destroy life- consider atomic energy, genetics, or information technology, for example.
• Morality is relative. There are many standards for morality, and my moral base is personal, therefore is not yours to judge.
• Humanity has failed to solve social and political problems. Optimism has been replaced by pessimism for the future of mankind.

One response to this way of thinking is to consider the words of Christ from the gospel of John, chapter ten. From this passage, we are able to learn elements in dealing with a post-modern culture: (1) Christ is still the answer for today’s culture, and (2) Our method of sharing Christ must consider the reality of post-moderns.

Jesus is Still the Source of Truth
In verse one of this chapter, Jesus says: “I tell you the truth…” Jesus begins this part of his talk with the religious leaders by asserting that what he will say is the truth. This assertion assumes two things: (1) Truth exists and (2) Truth can be known.

Jesus Connects the Truth with His Culture
Jesus did this by using images and illustrations that people could relate to (such as sheep jargon to his agricultural audience). Jesus often spoke in object lessons and stories. Why? Because it is an effective teaching method that relates with people. The good news is that the Bible is God’s story of redeeming His people. Our approach to sharing the gospel must include the reality of our own experiences. Today, the post-modern person relates to real life stories, because although they may deny our absolute presentation of truth; they cannot deny our experiences. We must present our faith as a journey, not a final destination. In other words, we must not arrogantly maintain that we have all the answers, but that through Christ we can hope to put some of the other puzzle pieces together.

Jesus also used the language of the day. Although they did not understand the meaning behind what he was saying; they did understand the language itself. If I drove to work this morning and a flock of sheep was crossing the road here in Grant Park, and there were shepherds walking with them, along with clods of “stuff” they had left in their path (not the shepherds, but the sheep), I might think, “wow, Grant Park is really moving in the right direction.” The point is that it wouldn’t happen, because grazing sheep is not part of our culture today, but it was common to the culture in which Jesus spoke. We must, therefore, use the language of our post-modern culture, and try not to maintain the traditionalism of our Christian vernacular, for the sake of comfort or convenience.

Jesus Presents Himself as the Only Entrance to a Relationship with God
Not only do we live in a post-modern age, but we also live in a pluralistic age, where many believe that there are a lot of ways to God. Jesus clearly states that he is the gate to becoming part of his people. Although, we want to seek continually a way to communicate this truth as less offensive as possible, this truth will undoubtedly always offend some, because the gospel is unapologetically exclusive. We must never use this as an excuse, however, to be offensive in and of ourselves, or to be mentally lazy in our methods to communicate the gospel.


Jesus’ Life now is the Key to Communicating with the Post-Modern
Jesus uses the word “saved” here, which means “deliverance, salvation, or rescue.” It is no surprise that the Jews often looked at this in terms of political salvation, because they were under the rule of the Roman Empire. Our modern era has seen this in terms of heaven and hell, and has trumpeted the gospel in cold, catch phrases like, “If you were to die today, where would you go?” Certainly, salvation does include ultimate rescue from a real place called hell, but I also believe that those who live outside of Jesus Christ live in a spiritual hell on earth right now, and need to be rescued from their miserable existence.

When Jesus speaks of salvation here, he is speaking not only of a final deliverance from hell (the penalty of sin and the presence of sin), but also of a present deliverance from the power of sin, i.e. new life right now. This means that Jesus is the answer to the post-modern’s present questions of fulfillment, joy, and existence, and he offers this life today.

Preaching to Lepers

This is an excerpt copied from a book I am reading called The Revolutionary Communicator. I found the story fascinating and especially relevant, since I just talked about "How to Approach Sinners" and even made a reference to lepers. I am sure that there are dangers in putting a story like this out there without any commentary, but I am going to trust the reader to make the appropriate applications. Enjoy:

"Molokai. The island's name was pronounced bitterly, with loathing and fear. Between 1866 and 1873, nearly eight hundred lepers were quarantined there on an isolated peninsula. Towering volcanic cliffs hemmed them in on three sides, and crashing surf on the fourth. It was a prison, a netherworld made all the more surreal by its pacific beauty.

Abandoned without law or hope, the lepers gave themselves alternately to despair and to what pleasures they could grasp. Robbery and drunkenness, sexual orgies and anarchy marked their lives. When finally, after a tortuous descent, the lepers finally succumbed to their disease, their already-decayed bodies often became food for pigs and wild dogs.

Father Damien first came to Hawaii in 1864. He had been born in Europe, the sturdily built son of a well-to-do Belgian farmer. When his brother fell ill and could not travel to his post at Hawaii's Sacred Heart Mission, Damien asked to take his place.

For a decade, Damien served at the mission. During that time, many of his parishioners were forced away to Molokai. Their memory remained wedged in his mind, slowly building into a fearsome emotion. He yearned to go to the lepers and to convey love to them where they lived. In April of 1873, Father Damien wrote to his superiors, asking for permission. A month later, he stood on the beaches of the dreaded isle. Damien steeled himself for the worst, but the sights and smells of Molokai left him gasping. One of his first encounters was with a young girl, her body already half eaten by worms. One by one, Damien set out to meet them all. Carefully avoiding physical contact, he confronted their rotting bodies, putrid breath, and the ever-present rasped coughing.

Damien's first desire was to remind the lepers of their inherent dignity to God. To demonstrate the value of their lives, he honored their deaths-constructing coffins, digging graves, protecting the cemetery from scavenging animals, and ensuring a ceremony for every passing.

As the days went by, however, Damien began to feel that he could not fully convey all that he wished to share without drawing ever nearer. He began timidly to touch lepers. He ate with them, and hugged them. Over time, he even began to clean and wrap their oozing sores. Everything Damien did, he did with the lepers. Together, they built coffins and chapels, cottages and roads. He taught them how to farm, raise animals, and even sing despite their mangled vocal chords. One report described him teaching two lepers to play the organ with the ten fingers they still had between them.

Damien sought to draw near to the lepers in his words as well, even speaking of "we lepers." Writing to his brother in Europe, he explained, "I make myself a leper with the lepers to gain all to Jesus Christ. That is why, in preaching, I say 'we lepers'; not 'my brethren...'"

It was eleven years after Damien's arrival on Molokai that he spilled boiling water on his leg. He watched with horror as his feet blistered- yet felt no pain. His efforts to draw near to the lepers was complete. Now he would meet them in their disease as well.

The final five years of his life, Damien served the lepers of Molokai as a leper priest. The days passed with both joy and suffering. Outpourings of international support arrived at the island, and also several helpers. Alongside the blessings, however, came physical pain, and times of loneliness and even depression. Finally, on April 15, 1889, Damien breathed his last. He was laid to rest among the thousands of lepers he had helped to bury in what he called his "garden of the dead."

In 1936, at the request of the Belgian government, Father Damien's body was returned to his birthplace. Years later, the people of Molokai pleaded that at least part of their beloved Father be returned to them. What they finally received, with joy, was Damien's right hand- the hand that had touched and soothed and embraced them, even when everyone else had done all they could to keep the lepers far away."

How To Approach Sinners

It is an amazing thing to me that I should ever have to do a blog of this nature, but it seems that in recent years it has become more and more popular among Christians to become politically motivated against certain sins. We have anti-gay rallies and march in the street for what we might consider “gross” sins, but then we fail to be as angry towards our own political party’s rampant adultery. What am I suggesting? I am suggesting fairness towards all. That means if we are really going to get upset about sin, let’s begin with ours initially, and let’s don’t pick and choose which ones we are going to protest. I mean, can you imagine an anti-lying rally in downtown Atlanta this morning, or maybe an anti-lust rally, or perhaps we should have an anti-hatred rally. The truth is that the reason we don’t is that we have all been guilty of those things, and we would feel hypocritical if we took part in a rally of that sort. But, it is much more feasible to protest that which we have not taken part in, and so we do. In order to shed some light on what our perspective should be towards sinners, I would like to refer you to the story of the woman caught in adultery in John chapter eight.

This story, to me, is one of the most revealing stories in the Bible about the reality of sin in our lives, and the power of Jesus’ love and grace overcoming it. The classic phrase in the King James, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (or as so often is the way that it is quoted, “let him cast the first stone”), is one of the most famous statements in the entire English language. Those who know nothing of Jesus and his love, know about the depth of that one phrase spoken so long ago. This story is a story about sinners, their sin, and their blindness to their own sin, and their need of Christ to deliver them from their sin. I hope that through this story we can learn some truths about the reality of sin and our approach to sinners. There are several principles here that to me are monumental in learning how to deal with sinners.

All of Us Have Sin and Should, Therefore, Treat Every Other Sinner Graciously.
The fact is we are usually harder on other people than we are ourselves. We look at others with an eye of frustration, because they are not like we are, or because they struggle with different sins than we do. We often condemn people, if not by our actions or words, by our thoughts. These men were so focused on this other’s sin that they failed to see the sin in their own life. Isn’t that the way we feel? We get so upset about other people’s sins, and there are all sins that make us angrier than others. You can sit and listen to people who get upset over other people’s certain sins, and they rant and throw a tirade over it, because they are angry at another’s sin.

Don’t misunderstand me. I think there are times when anger is expected, like when 9/11 happened, or when someone tries to attack our family. But, most of the time our anger and frustration with people is nothing more than hypocritical judgment. We should not be blinded to our own sin, but should look inwardly, so we can see clearly to love and help others. The men who took the woman caught in the act of adultery were showing their hypocrisy in several ways:

1. Their Judgment was Only One-Sided. The last time I checked there has to be two people involved in adultery. Where was the man? Was he not at least AS guilty as the woman? Could it be, because of their chauvinistic culture where women were little more than door stops, that they were angrier with the woman just because she was a woman?

2. Their Judgment was Humiliating to the One Involved. It says two things here that are revealing: (1) They caught her in the act. My friend Sam, pastor of the River, astutely pointed out that she was probably naked during this act (it should be apparent now why commentaries are of little value to me). Not to be crude, but it would be very difficult to commit adultery with your clothes on. Therefore, they may have brought her either naked, or half-dressed (at bare minimum) with just a blanket or something thrown over. Either way, she was totally exposed.

(2) They also made her stand before the group. There was a large crowd in the temple courts waiting to hear Jesus teach when this happened. As if being half-dressed or naked was not bad enough, then she had to stand there before the group, with some men undoubtedly lusting after her. This could explain, by the way, Jesus’ looking down and writing on the ground. We are unfortunately, often harsh in our judgments to people, and we often are blinded by our own arrogance.

The Longer We Live the More Sin We Have.
This is a very simple point, but (in vs. 7-9) it is not insignificant that the older ones went away first. They started to go away when Jesus mentions he who does not have sin can cast the first stone. Their going away means that they apparently felt guilty because of what Jesus said, because they knew that they were not without sin. The reason the old ones went away first, I believe, is because they had lived longer, and therefore, had more sins to be convicted over. This isn’t picking on anyone, but the truth is the longer we live, the more we are going to sin, and therefore, the more repentant and broken we should be before God. Sadly, though, we do not normally with time become more broken, but we become more hardened by the effects of sin in our life. And this hardness creates in us a judgmental spirit that treats the sinners of today like the lepers of yesterday. This is not the way to approach sinners. We should remember Jesus condemning the hypocrisy and condemnation of the religious leaders and extending grace and forgiveness and love to the broken sinner.

A Creator or An Eternal Mass of Nothing

The topic of evolution vs. the concept of a creator is one that is much too complicated for me to take up here. The emphasis in that sentence is not on the here but on the me- i.e. I am not smart enough to debate the fine points of intelligent design, nor am I detailed enough to be able to pick apart the problems that are supposedly apparent in evolution. This is not to say that I have not had discussions about evolution, nor does it mean that I am totally uninformed of this debate. My expertise, undoubtedly, is very scant, as I have probably read about five books about the subject of evolution in my life time. I have also taken a class about the subject of creationism (albeit not a very good one), and I have attended a debate in the Atlanta area between William Dembski (Intelligent Design proponent) and Michael Ruse (Evolutionary Agnostic who is a professor at Florida State).I have grown up in this culture, of course, and have been educated through our public school systems (which is why I write so poorly). As you can see, I am not qualified to give a dissertation on the details of science, but I have been given by God (or natural selection, if you don’t want to blame God for my stupidity) a brain to discern some logical conclusions about science and the bible, and that is basically what I would like to write about.

Premiere to this discussion, I would like to say that my belief is that God created everything. My belief in this, once all of the debates of the books have cleared, comes down to just a few things that I would like to share:
(1) I believe that God created everything, because I believe in the truth of Scripture.
This statement is very subjective in that my belief is based on my personal faith in the bible. This is not the only thing, but it certainly is the main reason why I believe in God’s creation. The bible has never been disproved or shown to be inconsistent in what it has declared. It could also be argued by those who disagree that it has never been proved to be indisputably correct, either, and this is a truth I concede. However, the possibility of its veracity must, at least, be considered.

(2) I believe that God created everything, because I am able to observe intelligent design in his creation.
I look at the sky and I see a painter; I look at the mountains and I see an architect; I look at the ocean and I see a chemist; I look at the animals and I see an engineer; and I look at humanity and I see God. This is what I observe when I look at the world in which we live. It tells a story about the one who created it. This is why the Psalmist says “the heavens declare your glory and the skies the work of your hands; day unto day they utter speech and night unto night, they give knowledge.” The great Apostle Paul accentuates this fact when he declares to the Roman Christians that the creation is enough to tell humanity that there is a God, and that because of this, they “are without excuse.”

(3) I believe that God created everything, because I see no conflict between Scripture and science.
Does this mean that evolution and a creating God can coexist, so that God started things, but used the process of evolution to bring this about? I personally do not believe that this is what happened, but I do believe that it is possible for the two to co-exist. There have been many Theistic Evolutionists who believed both in God and the theory of evolution. While I do not agree with their conclusions, I am able to see how they might have come to those conclusions. Francis Schaeffer wrote a book called No Final Conflict, in which he talked about some puzzling questions regarding the creation of the universe. His point was that there can be disagreement between Christians who value both the truthfulness of Scripture, as well as the discoveries of science. An excerpt from that book, I think, will aid in this discussion, as it is a list of things of which there is room for disagreement concerning the reconciliation of science and scripture:

1. There is a possibility that God created a “grown-up” universe.
2. There is a possibility of a break between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 or between 1:2 and 1:3.
3. There is a possibility of a long day in Genesis 1.
4. There is a possibility that the flood affected the geological data.
5. The use of the word “kinds” in Genesis 1 may be quite broad.
6. There is a possibility of the death of animals before the fall.
7. Where the Hebrew word “bara” is not used there is the possibility of sequence from previously existing things.

Schaeffer does not necessarily agree with any of these conclusions, but he says that they are theoretically possible and should be allowed in the area of Christian liberty. I am thankful for Schaeffer’s clarity about this, because this issue, to me, is not “a hill worth dying on.” As I seek to reach the culture, I will continue to hold out God as Creator, but I will not get bogged down in the quagmire of literary debates about the literalness of the Genesis details, and I will attempt not to become a distraction by infecting them with my narrow-mindedness. If I seek to build these bridges, while holding to the integrity of Scripture, I have hopefully pointed them to God, and not to a mass of argumentative nothingness.

Shit Theology

A few months ago, I was having a conversation with a guy about life. He was asking me some very pointed questions about religion and God, among other things. In the course of the dialogue, he asked me if I thought a child molestor or murderer could go to heaven. My reply was that they could if they put their faith in Jesus Christ to atone for those sins and to forgive them. My friend, at first glance at least, began to cringe and look like he was struggling with my form of Christianity. I then pointed out a few things to help clarify my theology: (1) Paul was a murderer who even took part in the death of Christianity's first martyr, Stephen, and received deliverance and forgiveness for his killing Christians (you can imagine that they were a little hesitant to receive him into their small group when he was converted). (2) David (as a Christian) committed not only murder, but the sin of adultery. (3) Jesus pointed out that if we have lusted in our hearts after a woman, we have all committed adultery (which he agreed with me that we men, at least, have all done that). (4) Jesus pointed out that if we have hated someone in our hearts, we have committed murder (which he also agreed with me that we have all done that). He then followed this up with one of the clearest pieces of theology that I have heard in years. He said, "Jason, if that is the case I am a piece of shit." With that, I responded to him and said, "Sir, I am a piece of shit, too, and we all are. That is why Jesus came to die, so that pieces of shit like us could be forgiven of our sins and delivered from their stinch and sway in our lives, and so that we could be saved from a burning hell.

Now,when some of you read the word that I just said, you will care more about the appropriateness of my saying that word than you will with the theology or truth that I am representing. If that word offends you, then you have probably missed the greater point I am trying to convey, which is that we all suck when we are compared to God. These words might be offensive to some, but it is only because they fail to see the real world in which they live. People will stress out over someone using the word that I just used, and then turn around and use the word "poop" with their grandson. You say tomato and I say tomotto, but we're talking about the same thing.

The point is that we are all sons of Adam or daughters of Eve, and without Christ saving us from the genetic disease called sin that we have, we are helpless and hopeless to die and suffer in a real place called hell. This is not some made up fairy tale, but a true geographical location that Jesus died for us to escape. But the reality that many often miss is that people do not go to hell, because they are pieces of shit, but because they fail to value Christ as the most awesome treasure in the universe. It is much like C.S. Lewis has said, "We have settled for the mud pies of this world, when the greater joy awaits us with a holiday at the sea." We settle for the treasures of money, sex, people, recreation, position, and other things that are known as the stuff of this life. Man's greatest crime is not merely doing wrong, but failing to love and honor Jesus as the greatest treasure. We have settled in pursuing and loving the pleasures of this life, and have not given ourselves wholly to the purpose for which we were created, which is to love Christ. In living this, we not only find peace and forgiveness; we find true joy and life everlasting. This is what every piece of shit in the toilet of this existence needs to hear.

Beer, Bible, and Baptists

Like any good preacher, I am always thankful when I can pull off the skill of alliteration without really trying. The B’s that I am blogging about today, however, may not seem to be very preacherly (pretty sure that is not a word). I am writing about the subject of alcohol hopefully to clarify some issues. Quintillian (no, he is not a quarterback), a Latin philosopher of the first century, offered the following advice to writers: “Write not so that you can be understood but so that you cannot be misunderstood.” Quintillians’s advice is especially pertinent to the area of alcohol, because there is an abundance of misunderstanding.

Let me, first of all, come out and state directly that I am emphatically not opposed to alcohol, and the church I represent is not collectively opposed to alcohol, either. In fact, the truth is that alcohol is not evil in and of itself, just like food is not evil in and of itself (but the sin of gluttony is). This is very important to state at the beginning of this, because unfortunately the Southern Baptist Convention does not agree with me. In fact, the majority of the messengers of the Convention voted in June to oppose anything having to do with alcohol (including servers who make their living by bringing food and alcoholic beverages to customers’ tables). Thankfully, this proposal is tantamount to saying that our country is in favor of the troops staying in Iraq- in other words, there are many dissenters and the issuance of this has no power over me or my church, and we will continue to make decisions about what we perceive is right.

Rather than go off on a rant about the foolishness of this “Let’s boycott-Disney-like” proposal, though, I would like to give several reasons why beer is okay in the bible. I will start it off really simple, and then hopefully progress to more complex thoughts:
(1) The Gospels indicate that Jesus drank wine. It is actually an awesome thought to know that Jesus did indeed drink alcohol. Don’t misunderstand me: I do not believe that Jesus Christ ever sinned, but I think it can be proven that he drank wine. Therefore, drinking wine is not a sin, since Jesus did it, and since Jesus did not therefore sin. I do believe that the abuse or excess of alcohol, i.e. in the form of drunkenness, is a sin, and Jesus also never became drunk. Jesus’ drinking wine is seen by several examples: (a) He drank it the night he was crucified (c.f. Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; and Luke 22:18) The “fruit of the vine” here is considered to be the raw elements of the wine itself. Virtually no one disagrees with this fact. It is no accident that the Corinthian church just a few years after this was practicing the Lord’s Supper by using real wine. It is doubtful that they used anything other than what Jesus actually used, since it is so close to the time of the original Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians’ use of real wine is incontestable, since they were actually abusing it and getting drunk (if it means anything, they were also using the same type of unleavened bread that was used for Passover) in their worship services.

(b) Jesus was accused of being a drunkard. It says in Matthew’s gospel, “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and ‘sinners.’” If Jesus never drink alcohol, then it would be very difficult for anyone to accuse him falsely of drunkenness. In fact, Jesus says the reason for their accusation is that He did, in fact, partake in drinking, just like he ate food (the other ground of their accusation).

(c) Jesus created hundreds of gallons of wine. This fact is seen in his miracle of John chapter two, in which he caused hundreds of gallons of water to turn into wine. There are two logical conclusions to this fact: (1) If Jesus was totally opposed to the drinking of wine, it is not feasible to consider his providing the wine for a multitude of others to sin by drinking. Therefore, Jesus was not against wine itself. (2) Since Jesus did provide hundreds of gallons of wine, and since that means he was not against wine itself, and since he was falsely accused of being a drunkard in another passage, it is probable that Jesus and his disciples drank the wine at this wedding.

(2) The Bible condemns drunkenness, not drinking. A lot of the commentary about the texts under this point is plagiarized from Mark Driscoll’s book, Radical Reformission, because he says some things better than I can. Psalm 104:14, 15 says “God makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate-bringing forth from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread sustains his heart.” If wine is evil in and of itself then God is evil for making it, and Jesus is evil for drinking it. I don’t think anyone is willing to suggest they are holier than God. Wine is for celebration in (Genesis 14:17-20); wine is for medicinal purposes in (Proverbs 31:6) and (1 Timothy 5:23); wine is for worship in (Exodus 29:40) and (1 Corinthians 11:25, 26); wine is for thanksgiving to God in (Proverbs 3:9, 10); and wine is for happiness in (Deuteronomy 14:26).

Why do I bring up all of this? Because we need to understand our culture and not oppose the things it does just because we were not brought up that way, or just because we are not comfortable with it. Don’t oppose cultural things just because you don’t like it. Martin Luther (who was a regular beer drinker, along with his wife) argued against the prohibitionist mentality during the Reformation and said, “Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?” Mark Driscoll has said about this, “People worship rock stars, but we should not abolish music. People worship food, but we should not abolish grocery stores.”

Maybe if my SBC friends were so consistent, they might suggest these measures, or better yet they might actually throw out their cough syrup (which contains alcohol), and no longer order the popular (and delicious) dishes at restaurants which are saturated in alcohol these days. They would certainly object to this as “nitpicking,” but I guess I can object to their hypocrisy, as well, and ask them to stop trying to be holier than Jesus and the Apostle Paul. In fact, true holiness might be actually trying to win our neighbors for Christ’s sake, rather than hold on to moral straw men that affect nothing for the kingdom of Christ. So, what am I saying? I am saying let us become “all things to all men, that we might by all means save some.” Since drinking is not a sin, then let us build all of the bridges necessary to the drinking culture in which we live, holding out to those who are immersed in the bondage of this world system the truest and most satisfying treasure of Jesus Christ.