Girls...ask the right questions please.

I recently heard a Pastor give a message to students graduating entitled, “Ask the right questions.”  He gave 5 negative examples on questions that you should never ask yourself and 5 positive examples on questions you need to be asking yourself.  If you want to know advise he gave, and you probably should, then be conscience of Brian Vinson’s blog.  He will post soon.  Among those we should never ask:  Can I get away with it?  Just because it is available should I do it?  etc.  Among the five we should ask:  What would happen if everyone saw what I was doing?  Does this benefit others as well as myself?  etc.

A dear friend of mine has had a bad “track record” with choosing guys.  She always seems to pick the guys who are in need of fixing or who are just selfish.    Perhaps asking:  "Are you good enough for me?" or "Am I settling?" are good starting points, but I would offer to a few questions that might be helpful when picking a guy to seriously date.  (As if there is anything other than sharing yourself whether it be physical, emotional, or spiritual.)

Questions not to ask:

1.  How long can I delay before I have to introduce him to my family and friends?-- If you are asking this question...he probably sucks.

2.  When will he commit to me?-- Men who are just looking for a fun, intelligent girl to make out (or more) with are like flies on a fresh pile of dog poo.  You get the picture.  If the boy is not a man you are wasting your time.

3.  Should I hope he starts to follow Jesus instead of just being a person of "faith?"-- You are not supposed to carry a man on your back spiritually.  He should be leading and walking with you.  Your role is to support a Leader that will one day Lead your children.  (Even if children are not a factor--that is the kind of guy you want.)

4.  Can I change him?-- No you can't.  The Holy Spirit changes hearts not you.  He has a hard job of it, so what chance do you have?  (none is the implied answer)

5.  Is he ever going to stop treating me this way?—If you are asking this question, then RUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNN!  He won’t.  Trust me.  There are no, “maybe if I…”  Get out.

Questions to ask:

1.  Will this guy be with me when my life is sour and sad?-- If a man will walk the road of lonely with you and keep quiet when he should, then he might just be worth your time.

2.  Does he make me want to be a better woman?-- Not better skilled at aiding his ridiculous antics/bi-polar disorder, but to improve my mind, skills as a musician/artist/professional/etc., devotion to my family and friends. 

3.  Does he extend mercy, forgiveness, and grace to his friends, family, and enemies?-- If he withholds due punishment for someone who has wronged him, wants the best for anyone he encounters, and gives generously to even those who never return the favor, then he is a keeper.

4.  Does He push me to love the God of my faith?-- If the answer is a resounding yes then the other good qualities listed above will most likely be there.

5.  Does he have ambition to be a servant?-- Ambition is a tricky thing.  Some have ambition to be "great men."  A great man is someone who loves God with his mind (never stops learning or neglecting the mind God gave him), heart (is passionate and never satisfied with his current status morally or ethically- he wants to be righteous/honest/good even though he knows he isn't), and strength (will spend his last ounce of strength defending his God, his wife, and his children).  A noble and ambitious man could be picking up your trash and a man running a fortune 500 company could be a total loser.  Know your definitions.

"Is perfection to much to ask?" Taken from April Focus 2009

  Similar movements would be the Keswick view of sanctification and also the Holiness movement which started  in the late 1800s.  Proponents include Charles Grandison Finney, Francis Asbury, Phoebe Palmer, and Catherine Booth (co-founder of the Salvation Army).

   Does this make sense?  Can we really be sinless in this life?  Matthew 5:48 says, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”  Would Jesus give us a command that we could not accomplish? 

   The context and analyzing the Greek word used in Matthew will help.  (Jesus is in the middle of His most famous public speaking monologue known as, “The Sermon on the Mount.”)

  The Jewish culture was constantly holding the Laws of God that were delivered to them by Moses as supreme in their lives.   These religious laws permeated their social structures, their family structures, and even their political structures.  The people of Moses’ day struggled to keep these commands and laws faithfully until God sent a massive judgment on the people. After civil wars and invasions from Assyria the once grand kingdom of the House of David was reduced to the southern Kingdom of Judah.  In 597 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar conquered what was left of the people of God.  King Zedekiah led a failed rebelion that resulted in the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and ultimately the Temple of Yahweh.  These events propagated a resurgence in devotion to the Lord.  Synagogues and religious leaders developed an advanced Law that included many “safe guards” so as not to offend God.  If you were not allowed to “work” on the Sabbath, then the new safeguards would limit the number of steps you took on the Sabbath, etc.  The Jewish people set up a system that would ensure acceptance and approval from their God.

   When Jesus the Galilean began his ministry to the people in Jerusalem, the new system had been in place for hundreds of years.  What ensued was three years of controversial and radical preaching.  Jesus ignored many of the “safe guards” that the people had put on themselves.  He began a campaign of the heart that challenged much of what was considered acceptable in God’s eyes.  In His Sermon on the Mount Jesus illuminates what it means to fulfill or keep the Law.  He heightened keeping the law to the state of the heart.  The result? 

   Keeping God’s Law about murder has its route in keeping yourself from hating anyone.  The Laws about Adultery/Fornication have their route in keeping your heart from improper desires.  Retribution for injury or loss would be forgiven to mirror how God had forgiven.  One was no longer required to obey the Laws of God, but to actually have the heart of God.  This was a scary idea, but not entirely foreign. 

   In Leviticus God called his people to be holy, as I the Lord your God, am holy.” (Lev. 19:2)  The word holy not only means pure but also set apart, unique, or different.  These people were to be like their God who interacted with them unlike any of the man-made gods had supposedly interacted with humanity. 

   Jesus continues in like fashion when regarding God’s love.  He calls them to love their enemies.   He explains that God’s heart loves more than the Law allots.  He ends this portion of His sermon with an obvious conclusion: Be perfect therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.  The word for perfect used by Matthew is teleos (teleos).  This word has more to do with fullness, completeness, reaching the end goal.  Jesus was said to have shouted this from the cross at the end of his life when He said, “It is finished (form of teleos),” in John’s account of the crucifixion. 

   Should we look at perfection like the Jewish people had done?  Should we add on to what we view as God’s Law?  Instead, Christians should see perfection as getting our heart in line with God’s heart.  Our love to look like His.  This author doesn’t see the 2nd Work of Grace as John Wesley and others did happening this side of heaven.  1 Cor. 1:21-22 “Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ.  He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.”

Blessed are the poor in spirit.

As many around me know, I am a friend and foe of Brian McLaren.  He is easy to pick on because he heads (regardless of his protests) a movement that I glean from.  (I can hear Brian now..."I am not a leader of a movement!  Follow Jesus!")  In his book a Generous Orthodoxy, and in the few times I have seen/heard him speak, he makes the comment, "Missional faith asserts that Jesus came to preach the good news of the kingdom of God to everyone, especially the poor." (p. 121 emphasis added) When one reads Brian's books you will see this emphasized a great deal.  The reason for this is perhaps a story he tells of his "Ah-Hah," moment while serving in youth ministry.  Brian sees, as I hope we all will one day, the devastation of poverty and oppression as a great sin to be righted.  But this understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ (or gospel of the Kingdom) is at best... slim. 

Billionaire Adolf Merckle, native of Dresden Germany, made a family business in chemicals into one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world.  With this in hand he acquired building supplier companies and much of a little car company called Volkswagen.  Forbes put Merrckle's fortune at over $9 billion last year.  Some bad business decisions and criticism caused him such distress that he committed suicide at 74 on January 5th of this year.  What?!  Suicide for a billionaire?  How could this be? 

One problem in looking at the gospel as a "here and now only" kind of good news is the alienation it promotes.  Most of the time the only sins or failures proponents of the Emergent movement see in history are "inequality" or "not ending poverty."  (That is a generalization obviously...)  This means that the good news to the wealthy is letting them know how and where to redistribute their funds.  So, as I have said many times, what happens if we accomplish this?  What happens after everyone has indoor plumbing, 2 cars, health insurance, and free education?  What makes the gospel of the Kingdom of God good is not its side effect of ending poverty.  Nor is it good news because it makes the sinner righteous in God's sight.  Adolf Merckle was as "poor" as any person has ever been and needed the good news of the Kingdom of God.  He didn't need it to tell him he should redistribute his wealth to Africa, Asia, or South America (though the Kingdom message would tell him to do so).  And he didn't need it to tell him he should repent of his sin in order to be righteous via God's substitutionary atonement.

Lo I be a proud Arminian/Preterist/Emerging/Unfinished Christian (see subtitle to Generous Orthodoxy), I have found John Piper to be a great source for illuminating the gospel with great eloquence.  In sermon series given to Campus Crusade for Christ:  Is the highest, best, ultimate, final good of the gospel justification by faith, being saved from our sins (redemption), removal of the wrath of God (propitiation), liberation from bondage of sin, escape or rescue from hell, entrance to heaven, eternal life, deliverance from pain, conflict, suffering?--No.  I would add:  Is the highest, best, ultimate, final good of the gospel of the Kingdom the things above, deliverance from poverty, better health care for all, rich people giving up riches for less fortunate, poor people getting rid of their jealousy of the rich, ending of diseases, etc.?--No.  The highest, best, ultimate, final good of the "good news" is none of these things.  Are these things wonderful, amazing, delightful, joyous, exciting, lovely things?--YES!  But the best thing about the gospel is being welcomed into God's presence and being loved by Him.  All the things that John Piper listed are the way that we enter the presence/communion/relationship with our Lord.  All the things I listed are the outcome of entering into the presence/communion/relationship with that same Lord.  Jesus' prayer for the disciples called to teach the Kingdom was that they would be in (presence/communion/relationship) the Godhead.  The ultimate, best, final good of the gospel is not the how or what, but it is the who.

The Kingdom of God is radical.  It calls us to be who we are naturally the opposite.  It calls us to give when we naturally want to collect.  It calls us to be fair and protect others when we naturally want the balance to tip in our favor meanwhile protecting only ourselves.  It calls us to recognize our own spiritual poverty as the root to the distress and destruction we see happening around us.  What makes this Kingdom so great is its goodness to all equally.  The gospel is not "especially good news to the poor" nor "especially good news to the wealthy."  It is good news to all peoples because we are finally all on equal ground with our Creator.  We are blessed when we see that we are poor in spirit.  Only then can the propitiation deliver us into the presence of our God, who changes our hearts to love Him and our neighbors.  This process has changed and will continue to change this world to look like the Kingdom of God.

*Please understand that I love Brian McLaren and have learned much from him.  This was not meant to be a criticism of him personally.  And likewise, I can’t fault John Piper too much for being a Calvinist… he’ll see one day.  J  JK

The Focus article April of Last Year: So what's the deal with Mondays?

  For most Latin-based languages, Monday is named after the Lunar body.  In French “lundi” quite literally is “moon.”  Spanish follows in suit with “lunes.”  English is no different.  It was probably “Moonday,” at some point.  We see the same with “Saturnday” and “Sunday.”  (The other days in English are named after Anglo-Saxon or Nordic gods Tiw-day, Woden-day, Thor-day, and Freya-day respectively.)

  So why have the etymological tirade about Monday?  I think it may be helpful to see Monday with a new perspective.  It is the day that follows Sunday.  For most of us Sunday is a day we set aside to break from work and meet with fellow believers to worship our God.  Sunday, for some, is a day to have that first few moments with Creator God before they make their journey through a week of labor and stress.

  I am frustrated with the way I sometimes look at Mondays.  I myself have looked at it like the farthest point from my next time of worshiping my Lord.  When I enter the church sanctuary and hear excited voices and people saying, “I love you Lord!  You have rescued me from ultimate judgment, whisked me away to joy I would never have found on my own, given me a hand to hold in times of pain and struggle, helped me to love strangers and enemies, encouraged me when I fail, disciplined me when I walk astray, kept me safe, and been more patient than words,” I am lifted to a new plane.  There are others who feel the same way I do about God?!  How exciting!  The excitement doesn’t end there…  After that is time for lunch! ...  Then my sadness begins to creep in.  It will be over soon.  Maybe we should re-name it “Over too Soonday.”

  Enough with this talk Rudy.  It is time to get a new perspective.  Monday is not a day to be sad.  My Lord is still great and glorious twenty-four hours after Sunday!  When I really think about it, Monday is actually the first opportunity I have to express to others what worshiping my God is really like.  It is the first time I can relay God’s love to people who may not have experienced what I did a short time ago.  And who says, “Rudy, no worship on Mondays.  You should know better.”  Boy I feel like a goof.  I have a small proposal for those like me who struggle with Monday sadness.  We should just rename it:  “Second Sunday.”  It would then precede, “Third Sunday, Fourth Sunday, etc.”  I want to have the same excitement and joy that I have entering Sunday Worship Service as I have arriving at work on Second Sunday.  Who’s with me?!

Just as a side note:  The Russian word for Monday is “ponedelnik” which can roughly be translated, “After Do-Nothing.”  The word for Sunday is “voskresenye” which means, “Resurrection.” 

Auto-Deism is the newest and most devastating belief system.

I was at the hospital for almost 13 hours.  A friend of mine was having an organ removed due to a cancerous growth that weighed probably about 10 pounds.  While waiting with my friends son and girlfriend in the hospital's atrium I worried and prayed.  My friend, who is not exactly a follower of Jesus or really anything, has been dating a wonderfully kind woman for quite a while.  As we sat together, cried together, and got phantom phone calls that revealed no new information, I heard my friend's girlfriend (I'll call her Sue) use a curious phrase.  Sue said, in regards to exactly what I cannot remember, "Well, that is not MY truth." 

I sat puzzled for a moment.  Then I asked her, "Sue, what does that exactly mean?  MY truth?"  Sue replied hesitantly, "It is the truth that I hold for myself."  "Could you and I have different truths?"  "Oh sure," she said, "we could have totally opposite truths."

What?  I sat confused.  She could see that this would not be a short conversation.  "How could we have truths that oppose one another?  How is that possible?"  "Well, you believe one thing and I believe something else."  "But wouldn't one of us (or both of us) be wrong and the other right?"  "No." 

So, I posed a scenario for her.  "Is it your truth, that it would be good or beneficial for me to go to the next table and murder that little boy?"  "No.  That would definately not be my truth."  "What if I decided that it was good and beneficial to go and kill him?  Would that be true and good?"  "It would not be MY truth, so it would not be right or good for me."  I asked again, "But would it be right and good if I did it according to MY truth?"  "My truth does not affect your truth," she said, "You'll DO whatever you want regardless of MY truth."  I couldn't help but think that she was confused about the definition of the word truth.  So, I posed another scenario.  "Okay, if MY truth said that if I climbed to the top of this hospital building that I would automatically grow wings and fly when I jumped and YOUR truth didn't say that, would one of us be wrong?"  She sat for a moment and then replied, "This life is all an illusion anyway."  Then I asked her, "If this life is all an illusion, what are we doing at this hospital?  Is your boyfriend really in surgery?  Are your feelings and emotions or tears real?"  She began to get a little flustered.  My goal was not to make her cry on top of this emotional setting we were already so engaged in.  Sue asked me, "Don't you think that this life has great lessons for us to learn and that so many things in life are illusions trying to teach us great lessons?"  "I do believe that there are great lessons to be learned in this life.  But I don't believe any of them are illusions.  Either your tears for your boyfriend are real or not.  Either murdering that little boy is wrong or not.  You can't have both to be equal, true, and good."

Sue continued, "But what I believe is true, MY truth doesn't affect you because you will do whatever YOUR truth tells you to."  I could see that this wasn't going anywhere and that I would offend her if I told her what she was actually implying with her thought process.  Her fault was that she did not understand her own belief system.  I began to explain to her where her beliefs had their roots.  She had never heard of Baha'u'llah, the Ba'hai movement or what it stood for.  But this was only the roots of her belief system.  She was clearly not Ba'hai. 

A simplification of Ba'hai is this:  All religions are right, and they are all wrong.  -- I know that blows the mind.  It is a religion birthed from Hindu roots coupled with writings of a famous philosopher from Yorkshire, England named John Hick.  It is pluralism on steroids.  The Unitarian and Ba'hai understanding of Heaven/Nirvana/Ecstasy is that of a giant stadium with several doors/paths/ways to get in.  One door might have "Christianity" written above it while another "Buddhism" or "Islam."  What makes this silly is the exclusivity of every religion.  Each of the "doors/paths" of which they speak believe that they are the only way into the stadium.  This then makes their believe system just as elite and exclusive by definition.  The true understanding then becomes their way of looking at reality making them just like one of the bunch.  This also means they actually believe NONE of the tennants of the "faiths/belief systems" by which their stadium has doors.  All religions cannot be right and wrong simultaneously.  This movement simply is saying, "We got the truth about it all and nobody else does."  Anyone who says differently hasn't thought long enough about the subject.

But this was not what Sue had perscribed to.  She was not Ba'hai or Unitarian.  She was something else.  She was an Auto-Deist.  Auto-Deism, being both the root of all rebellion and the most arrogant of offenses, has been practiced by mankind since the beginning.  In ancient cultures men like the Pharaohs of Egypt and Emperor of Babylon all considered themselves gods.  They would decide what is right and what is wrong.  This had its problems early and even the most bold Auto-Deists like Caesar adopted codes by which they were bound.  The problem with Auto-Deism or "I am God" is its obvious logical inadequacy.  All humans recognize that gravity is either working well on planet earth or it isn't.  One can hardly argue against gravity's action here on earth or its lack of action in deep space.  But Caesar, Pharaoh, and others who have declared themselves Deity were at least open about it.  This new form of Auto-Deism is deceptively meek.  People who have decided what is THEIR truth in THEIR own universe/reality have taken dangerous steps to hide their god status.  Honestly I don't believe most people who are Auto-Deist even know what they have become.  What makes this situation so alarming is the mass spread of these ideas and how many people adhere to this belief system.  We are not in an era where one man like Caesar has made himself god and all must submit.  Instead we are entering an era of mass meglomania clothed in a false humility.  What will happen to our society if they continue to believe they all are authoritative on what reality is? 

The good news that Jesus brings this society is that He is God and they are not.  What is TRUE and GOOD are above the whims and moods of Sue, Rudy, or anyone else.  May the Kingdom Jesus began in Galilee permeate our society.  May our lives mirror His example of uncompromising and unashamed adherence to God's standards of truth while patiently loving and serving (and correcting) those who have tried to replace those standards with their own.