To be honest, I’m getting a bit extremely tired of Christians who are striving to be conformed to the image of Stuart Scott.

I read a blog post today. Granted, it’s a bit old. I scanned it when it was fairly new, but some personal issues in recent days brought it back to mind, and I was wondering, “Was it really that vomit-inducing or is my memory given to exaggeration?” (Answer: no exaggeration on this one.)

Now let me be clear. A lot of what was in this post — when it was sticking to facts — was very accurate and true. But the way in which it was presented — and garnished with a healthy dose of the author’s opinion — was enough to cause anyone with any intellectual honesty to throw up in their mouth at least a little.

The post discussed the reasons given for leaving the faith and/or never believing in the first place. These reasons were broken down into three categories, the first of which was claimed (by the post author) to be mostly populated by obviously fake stories. In case we missed that, it is re-iterated a bit later that the author doesn’t believe the person telling the story most of the time. This is followed by highly dismissive language that covers the writer in the event that one of the stories turns out to be true.

This is then followed by a deadly logical refutation of 10 possible reasons (how we got from 3 to 10 is anyone’s guess), complete with Scripture references backing up much of the refutation.

(The sensitive of ear should be warned that I am about to use language that — in a different context — would probably be deemed offensive. But I am using it in a Biblically accurate sense.)

So, if we boil the post down (along with some of the comments that followed), what the author has said is this: “Take that, you damned atheist. And if you don’t buy into the logic I’ve presented, then to hell with you.”

Literally.

But that’s not quite the message that I hear from Jesus. In Mark 9, we see the story of a possessed boy and his father seeking healing for him. Jesus told the father, “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.” The father admitted to an incomplete belief (”Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”). And you know what Jesus did? He healed the boy.

In John 20, the disciple Thomas stated unequivocally that he would not believe that Jesus was risen unless he had visual and tactile evidence. And so, the next time they were together, Jesus accommodated him. And He did not rebuke Thomas for his lack of faith.

I’ve yet to meet a hurting person for whom logic was the answer. Yes, it can certainly be a tool to help that person see the truth. But it’s certainly not the answer.   Jesus is the answer.

I am genuinely happy for the author that he has not faced adversity that was significant enough to shake his faith to the core. And I genuinely hope that God doesn’t deem such adversity necessary in the future to build the author’s sanctification.

But, for the rest of us, there’s grace.

First of all, go watch this message. I’ll wait. What I’ve got to say pales in comparison.

Very powerful stuff, IMHO.

One ancillary statement that Matt Chandler made, though, stuck out to me because of prior statements that I’ve read. Several pastors/teachers have been repeatedly thrown under the bus by ODMs* and their ilk because they chose to speak at conferences or churches where the other speakers didn’t agree with them theologically — sometimes with significant differences.

The “unequally yoked” phrase from 2 Corinthians 6:14 gets hideously misappropriated and gross exaggerations like “partnering in ministry” get bandied about. Not surprisingly (and I say this with regret, because I are one), a lot of such silliness comes from those that would consider themselves to be of the Reformed community. I point that out because Chandler is a Reformed guy and this was at T4G, which was lousy with Reformed guys. So when he talked about the issue, this was not two hyper-Pelagians discussing it over a beer.

The embedded video below (in case you haven’t listened to the whole message yet — you heathen) kicks in at the start of the statement that’s relevant to this post. As background, he’s talking about the vision that he had for his church when he first started pastoring. The statement runs for about 1 minute, 25 seconds (you can quit listening when he says “I’ll be working”).

In a minute and a half, Chandler crystallizes what I’ve believed for some time. I don’t think I ever want to hear that “partnering in ministry” crap again.

* so-called “Online Discernment Ministries” — admittedly, they are online, but beyond that …

(or I hate it when that happens)

Luke 18:10-14 (NKJV):

Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the publican (aka tax collector) is something that many of us cling to.  This world is lousy with Pharisees (particularly as described in this parable) and the advent of the blogosphere just gave them a bigger bully pulpit and a louder megaphone.  Trying to disabuse readers of some of their silliness — more specifically, trying to help others avoid the pain brought to me by the Pharisees in my own life — is one of the primary reasons that I write.

Well, apparently, God deemed that I needed to be smacked right between the eyes last night. It occurred to me — rather jarringly — that I have been guilty of living as though the publican prayed:

‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Pharisee.’

In short, I have been proud of my lack of pride.  I’m not sure which this is more — stupid or shameful.

It’s all about humility.

I have a feeling that I’m not alone.  I hope I am, but I kinda doubt it.  If the shoe fits, your mileage may vary, etc, etc ….

In case you were not aware, pastor/author Francis Chan is stepping down later this year after a decade and a half as teaching pastor of Cornerstone Church.  This video gives a short description of the decision. It’s also a bit amusing, as the guy who was interviewing Chan had no idea what was coming.  Watch his face in the first few minutes.

There’s a longer video here — as Chan addresses his congregation regarding the decision.

Now, of those who know who Chan is, there are probably very few who didn’t already know about this transition.  So why bring it up, anyway?  Well, a sure sign that you’re getting older is that you have déjà vu more often (after all, if there’s “nothing new under the sun”, you’re bound to get more re-runs the longer that you’re on the planet).  And I had a massive, two-fold case of it recently.

Piper-esque déjà vu

While some of the reaction to Chan’s decision has been positive — “Wow, rock on, bro; sounds like God is doing some serious stuff in your heart and life” — there has been other reaction that has been quite negative. And the negative reaction isn’t just coming from the far-right fringe bloggers who only care about attaching labels and don’t give a rat’s glutes as to the actual veracity of what Chan writes and teaches.  Rather, it’s coming from writers who, while further to the right than I am, I would consider to be rational and capable of conversation with those with whom they disagree.  While it’s not clear in some cases, many of these bloggers certainly seem to be people who like/admire Chan.  As I said recently about the crucifixion of John Piper, with friends like these …

Actually, a lot of the hub-bub surrounding Chan is quite reminiscent of the firestorm around Piper.  And much of the same reasoning that I discussed in my last post about Piper applies here as well.  For instance, while Chan’s track record is not as extensive as Piper’s — and it looks like it may never be, at least publicly, as God takes Chan off the radar — it’s still pretty clear that the guy has lapped me (and probably you) a few times spiritually.  And while (again) no one gets carte blanche, I’m thinking that a Christian brother needs to be given at least a tiny bit of the benefit of the doubt.

Since the Chan issue has no whipping-boy (a la Warren in the Piper issue), there are some points of divergence in the criticism.  One of them seems to be an appeal to cessationism.  Now while I think it’s a wrong viewpoint, I don’t have a major beef with cessationism.  Unfortunately, in most cases surrounding the criticism of Chan, it’s tied to something with which I do have a major beef.

Many of the writers criticizing Chan would claim to believe in sola Scriptura, and if that’s what they truly believed, I would agree with them.  But what they are actually espousing is not sola Scriptura (the belief that Scripture is the highest and ultimate guide for the Christian’s life), but solo Scriptura (the belief that Scripture is the only guide for the Christian’s life).  Sola places things like counsel from other Christians, teachings, and guidance by the Spirit on a lower level than Scripture.  Solo dismisses them entirely.

Now I would imagine that the writers who espouse solo would argue that that’s not what they’re saying. But when Chan specifically states that he’s been diligently searching the Scripture to be sure that this decision aligns with God’s Word, there are only two conclusions at which we can arrive:  (1) the aforementioned critics are ignorant of Chan’s statement* or (2) the aforementioned critics are genuinely espousing solo Scriptura.  If the latter is true, then — to be intellectually honest and consistent with their beliefs — they need to stop attending church immediately (and throw out chunks of the Bible, to boot).

(And yes, I recognize the conflict of a believer in solo Scriptura throwing out chunks of Scripture. This is simply illustrative of the lunacy of such a belief.)

One other thought on this.  I defy anyone to watch this two-minute video of Chan and tell me that this is not a man who takes the Bible very seriously.

Bobby-esque déjà vu

In Talladega Nights**, there is a conversation between Ricky Bobby and his team’s owner, Larry Dennit Jr., after Bobby has won a race. Dennit chides him on the “obscene gesture” that Bobby made, specifically as it relates to the NASCAR points and sponsorship dollars that it will cost them. The following exchange ensues:

Bobby: With all due respect, Mr Dennit, I had no idea you’d gotten experimental surgery to have your [censored] removed.

Dennit (indignantly): What did you say?

Bobby: Whoa, whoa! I said it “with all due respect”!

Dennit: That doesn’t mean you get to say whatever you want to say to me.

Bobby: It sure as heck does! It’s in the Geneva Convention. Look it up!

(The censored word refers to a portion of the anatomy often attributed to manliness.)

While the criticism of Chan and its theological ramifications are quite disturbing, I find it down-right terrifying that some of Chan’s critics are employing the same logic as Ricky Bobby.  They might not use the phrase “with all due respect”, but they often employ some radical, wild-eyed (and usually generic) example, quickly followed by “I’m not saying this about Chan, but …”

Puhleeeeeze, Sparky.  If you’re not saying it about Chan, then why even bring it up in a blog post that’s all about criticizing his decision?  I’ve looked it up.  The Geneva Convention does not allow you to make crazy accusations about mythical third parties in the midst of a criticism of a real person, but preempt any cry of “foul” by simply saying that your crazy accusation was not in any way related to the real person.

With all due respect, we’re not as stupid as you show yourself to be.

* I know for a fact that this is the case for one critic.  He’s actually proud of his willful ignorance.  Don’t confuse him with the facts; his mind’s made up.

** (not a movie I’d recommend, FWIW)

(And yes, this title is a riff off of one of the more measured — but still wrong — criticisms of Piper’s decision.)

It was noted earlier this year that John Piper has invited Rick Warren to speak at this year’s Desiring God national conference.  This has been public information for at least a couple months, but was more formally announced in recent days.

When this announcement was made, to quote Tillie in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? , “all hell done broke loose”.

Now, admittedly, I was a bit surprised by the invitation.  There are some things that Warren has written which strike me as being in error, as best as I interpret Scripture.  And, then there’s those dang Hawaiian shirts.

But, on the other hand, some of the criticisms of Warren take asininity to a height that would give a Sherpa a nose-bleed.

Either way, I wouldn’t consider Warren to be part of (what I affectionately have termed) “the Piper posse”.  But hey, I have a great appreciation for Pastor John.  And ya know what?  Before further investigation into any issue, if he and I disagree on something, I’m putting my money on him turning out to be the one who is right.

Does that mean that I give him a free pass and blindly follow whatever he says or does?  No, not by a long shot.  (And I’d venture to say that he wouldn’t want that, either.)  In fact, I know there are some issues that he and I disagree on, and I’m fairly certain that my view is correct.

There is, admittedly, a part of me that wants to say, “C’mon; this is John freakin’ Piper we’re talking about!!”  But even setting aside any “celebrity pastor” status, we have to look at the man’s track record.  And ya know what?  At the end of the day, we’re talking about the track record of John freakin’ Piper.

(And the circle of life is complete.)

Seriously, if I’m going to claim anything even approximating intellectual honesty, I need to hear him out even if he says that all 43-year-olds should be painted purple and hung upside-down from a flagpole next Wednesday.  Granted, that one would probably need a long expository explanation; but, to whatever degree I ought to give the benefit of the doubt to any Christian brother or sister, Pastor John should be getting it ten-fold.

And yet we’re hearing nothing but criticism for Piper’s decision.  Some of it may be valid; some is tiresomely obtuse, rehashing sad (and untrue) whacks at Warren; and some of it takes the form of crap like this (referring to Piper’s upcoming sabbatical):

If [I] had just endorsed Rick Warren and brought him to my conference, I’d take a sabbatical, too. Permanently.

But all of it (that I’ve seen, anyway) is ostensibly coming from those that like and/or admire Piper.  With friends like these ….

What I am completely incredulous about, though, is that Piper made clear why he made this decision and some of the criticisms actually quote his reasoning — verbatim — and yet miss the whole thing.  Part of what Piper said was this (emphasis mine):

When I wrote [to Rick Warren] … I said “the conference is called ‘Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God.’ I want you to come. You are the most well-known pragmatist pastor in the world. I don’t think you are a pragmatist at root. Come and tell us why thinking Biblically matters to you in your amazingly pragmatic approach to ministry.”

One of the corollaries to Occam’s Razor says, “Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.”  In that spirit, I’m going to assume that those who quoted Piper (and yet totally whiffed on the content of the quote) did so out of a mistake and not a willful blindness born of a hatred for Warren.  So let me spell it out.  And let me do so by past example.

A few years ago, Piper invited Mark Driscoll to speak at a DG conference.  The God-blogosphere was all abuzz with what a Bad Idea this was.  Most of it surrounded predictions that Driscoll’s invitation would result in a plague of locusts in downtown Minneapolis and a protest headed by Chris Rock and Quentin Tarantino over all the foul language that Driscoll would use.

And when, at the conference, Piper gave Driscoll a mild bit of fatherly admonishment, many of the critics took this as validation of their prognostication, as though Piper had rent his clothes in agony and apologized for screwing up so badly by inviting Driscoll.  When Piper heard that his words were being used to bash Driscoll, he was appalled.

Now, I don’t know if you’ve noticed (and if you only listen to him to find new stuff to criticize, then you probably haven’t), but Driscoll has become a bit more mature and a bit less rash over the last few years.  In short, Mark is growing.  While all credit goes to God on this one, I’d bet dollars-to-doughnuts that his relationship with Piper is one of the tools that God is using in this process.  And maybe, just maybe, the fact that Piper invited him to speak at DG helped to show how much Piper meant business.

So now Piper is cultivating a relationship with Rick Warren.  And here’s what I hear Piper essentially saying:

There are many ways in which you and I, foundationally, believe the same things.  Now in my sphere, the way that this plays out in my life and the lives of many of my peeps is XYZ.  But in your life, this plays out differently.  Show us how you get from point A to point B.

Honestly, this is a challenge that Piper has presented to Warren.  But not in the sense of throwing down a gauntlet.  I believe that Piper truly believes that there is a path from point A to point B, and he is genuinely interested in seeing how this plays out.  Right there is enough reason for Piper to have extended the invitation.

But even if we assume the worst, and there is not a path from point A to point B, and Warren falls flat on his theological face, who’s to say that the whole Piper posse influence doesn’t cause Warren to step back and think some things through?  While Warren is not a young buck (so he probably won’t have the Timothy-Paul relationship with Piper that Driscoll has), it’s hard to imagine him being involved with someone God is using mightily and not being affected in some way.

There are only three conclusions that I can reach about much of the virulent criticism:

1. There are many professing Christians out there that not only think that Warren is in error, but genuinely believe that God is totally incapable of changing him.  Even if we set aside the laughable nature of such a view, it becomes even more ludicrous for someone to claim any affinity for Piper — someone who is all about God’s sovereignty — and yet believe in such a wimpy God.  It would be more logical for Ahmadinejad to claim that he greatly admires the teachings of a particular Hasidic rabbi.
2. There are many professing Christians out there that think that the worst will happen — Warren’s head will start spinning and he’ll vomit pea soup from the pulpit at Bethlehem — and yet Piper won’t do or say anything.  An examination of Piper’s track record would indicate otherwise.  At one conference (and I’m not even sure it was his conference), one speaker said something with which Piper strongly disagreed, and when it came his turn to speak, he made no bones about the disagreement before launching into his message.  (This viewpoint also points to a God who is totally incapable of protecting His sheep from error.  See previous comment about Ahmadinejad.)
3. There are many professing Christians out there that don’t want to see certain people drawn closer to God, because it would upset the apple-cart of their philosophical belief system — something that I doubt God gives a rip about.

Perhaps there is a fourth, more charitable, conclusion out there.  But, frankly, I ain’t holdin’ my breath.

We knew it was coming. Doesn’t make it any easier.  Michael is no longer with us.

I wrote a fairly verbose post about him a couple weeks ago.  Other lyrics from the same song that I quoted then seem more appropriate now:

And it’s easy enough
To say he’s better off
Chalk it up
To the luck of the draw
Life is tough
It was his time to go and that’s all

But I don’t know about that

‘Cause I’m broken and breathless and bent to the ground
And I’m listening; Lord, but I don’t hear a sound

I’m sure there will be more eloquent things written about Michael in the next few days (e.g. T-Wax has a list of some of Michael’s articles that meant the most to him). Just don’t expect much from this corner of the blogosphere.

My pastor once noted the fairly vacuous nature of the statement “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life”, particularly as an evangelistic tool.  Because, to be honest, the human response to that would be “That’s great; I love me, too.  And I have a wonderful plan for my life.”

Jesus, speaking to Peter, said:

Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.”

Isn’t this another way of saying “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your death” ?

I think maybe we’re focusing on the wrong thing.

Last year, in the month or so leading up to the presidential inauguration, we were told definitively by many (who apparently had the gift of “discernment”) that, in delivering his prayer, Rick Warren would not pray in Jesus’ name, thereby proving the fact that he is in league with the devil, incapable of doing anything good, and beyond even God’s saving power.

Then Rick went and prayed in Jesus’ name.

So what was the reaction of the “discerners”?  Did they celebrate the wide exposure to Jesus’ life-changing power?  Are you on drugs, Mr Spicoli?

Reactions included:

1. Xenophobic outrage that Warren included languages other than English
2. Emphasis on “discerning” interpretation of Warren’s motives behind other parts of the prayer, with no notice of the fact that Warren prayed in Jesus’ name (i.e. not bothering to admit that their prediction was wrong)
3. A select few who actually had the chutzpah to insist (after the fact) that Warren did not pray in Jesus’ name.

Fast-forward approximately one year.

2007 Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, were slated to appear in a commercial during the Super Bowl broadcast, sponsored by Focus on the Family.  Despite great potential harm to herself while pregnant with Tim, Pam chose to carry the pregnancy to term rather than have an abortion.

The pro-”choice” crowd of 2010, much like the “discerners” of 2009, were up in arms that Pam Tebow would have the audacity to tell her story of what she chose to do. All media outlets (including sports radio — which I listen to in order to escape political discussion) were giving a lot of play to the alleged controversy.  If we were to believe the pro-”choice” reaction to this ad (which hadn’t aired yet), Tebow himself would be waiting in a back alley with a coat hanger by halftime.

Meanwhile, those with more than 3 brain cells recognized the lunacy of speaking definitively about what was going to occur in the future, and the gross hypocrisy of those who claim to be pro-choice being upset that someone chose not to have an abortion.  Even a self-described pro-choice sports reporter “betrayed” the movement (and her entire gender) by pointing out the stupidity.

Then the ad ran.  Here it is, in all its “controversial” glory:

Frankly, the “Dove Men plus Care” commercial was more overtly about childbirth (it portrayed/described four births, three of which were specifically required) than this ad was.

So the question now becomes, “How does the pro-’choice’ crowd (who only looked like minor idiots before the ad ran) wipe the egg (that’s apparently krazy-glued in place) off their face?”

Even though I’m staunchly pro-life, I’ll throw a bone to this crowd, and suggest a few ways they can recover, based on what we learned from the “discerners” last year.

1. Note the unfairness that Tebow is described as a Heisman Trophy winner, while poor Darren McFadden and Colt Brennan had to go home empty-handed.
2. Focus on other things wrong with the commercial — after all, it clearly endorses violence against women.
3. Like last year’s Holocaust Warren deniers, tell us that the ad was just as you feared, and that it said all sorts of things that it didn’t really say.

Anyone else have any other ideas?

I just finished reading The God Who Smokes by (the ironically-named) Timothy J Stoner. After writing in great length about all of Jesus’ talk (throughout His earthly ministry) of upcoming judgment, Stoner notes:

It’s kind of surprising that Jesus is still seen as this essentially kind, gentle, nonconfrontational, tolerant peace-loving guy. It just goes to show how incredibly appealing this man was. He could say the most offensive, intolerant, even brutal things, and people would keep following Him. It was evident to them that He spoke out of love, not hatred. It was obvious to all that He had no cruel private ax to grind. He did not relish the prospect of punishment. Though He occasionally became furious with His enemies, He did not despise them. The crowd could overlook and forgive His harsh and critical words because this amazing compassion poured out of Him like an overturned vat of perfumed oil.

They tolerated it for almost thirty-six months.

So what does it say about the way I present the truth if I can’t get tolerated for thirty-six seconds?