The Inn that Missed Its Chance

Amos R. Wells

(The Landlord speaks, A.D. 28.)

What could be done? The inn was full of folks!
His honor, Marcus Lucius, and his scribes
Who made the census: honorable men
From farthest Galilee, come hitherward
To be enrolled; high ladies and their lords;
The rich, the rabbis, such a noble throng
As Bethlehem had never seen before,
And may not see again. And there they were,
Close herded with their servants, till the inn
Was like a hive at swarming-time, and I
Was fairly crazed among them.

Could I know
That they were so important? Just the two,
No servants, just a workman sort of man,
Leading a donkey, and his wife thereon,
Drooping and pale, - I saw them not myself,
My servants must have driven them away;
But had I seen them, how was I to know?
Were inns to welcome stragglers, up and down
In all our towns from Beersheba to Dan,
Till He should come? And how were men to know?

There was a sign, they say, a heavenly light
Resplendent; but I had no time for stars.
And there were songs of angels in the air
Out on the hills: but how was I to hear
Amid the thousand clamors of an inn?

Of course, if I had known them, who they were,
And who was He that should be born that night, -
For now I learn that they will make Him King,
A second David who will ransom us
From these Philistine Romans, - who but He
That feeds an army with a loaf of bread,
And if a soldiers falls, He touches him
And up he leaps, uninjured? Had I known,
I would have turned the whole inn upside down,
His honor Marcus Lucius, and the rest,
And sent them all to stables, had I known.

So you have seen Him, stranger, and perhaps
Again will see him. Prithee say for me,
I did not know; and if He comes again
As He will surely come, with retinue,
And banners, and an army, tell my Lord
That all my inn is His, to make amends.

Alas! Alas! To miss a chance like that!
This inn that might be chief among them all,
The birthplace of Messiah, - had I known!

Is it beginning to look a lot like Christmas?

I was so shocked when I heard the statistic on the news that I had to research the finding myself to verify. It's true: 212 million Americans participated in Black Friday 2010. That's 212,000,000. That's two out of every three Americans. Take the elderly and the young and others simply incapable of holiday shopping out of the mix and, well, you apparently have a better chance at getting struck by lightning than finding someone who didn't shop on BF 2010.

What's more, it's estimated that we collectively spent $45 billion on BF. My calculator says that means the average shopper spent about $212 -- what's up with that number? -- on that single day alone. To put it in perspective, $212 can buy, what, about 106 Thanksgiving meals at your local soup kitchen? 212 million x 106 meals = feeding the entire world three square meals.

So we're spending a lot on one another this Christmas. We Americans are really, really good at that. It is ingrained in our conscience that Christmas is gifts. Consider: How many times have you been told about some unemployed person in your family or community, "John's been out of work for a couple months now and his bills are piling up. If we don't help him out by purchasing a few gifts, then his kids might not have a Christmas." I'm not denigrating the need for helping John out in that hypothetical situation, but do you see how we've equated gift buying and receiving with a holiday which celebrates the birth of our Lord? Exactly how did we get to that point?

And yet I sit here less than three weeks from the Big Day and I can't help but notice how Christmas seems to have fallen on hard times lately. I'm not talking about ACLU lawsuits over Nativity Scenes (those bullies!) or how insensitive people are for going all Koine on us and substituting X-mas for Christmas. I'm talking about how it suddenly seems that Christmas has lost its luster, even as we turn out in record numbers to the BF sales.

Children for one seem less excited than those of previous generations. After all, the most spoiled generation in world history already tends to be showered with gifts constantly throughout the year. What's the big deal about another day? Adults are in the same category...we're bored. I mean, how many years is the GPS deal going to be pressed on us as a hot holiday gift idea? Just how many tens of millions of cars already come with an unopened or barely used Tom Tom in the glove compartment? Oh sure, for the high-end buyers there is the novelty of 3-D tv. What's next: scratch-and-sniff?

I don't know, maybe I'm just getting older. In fact, I'm confident that my clumsy transition into adulthood has in some way helped to provoke this blog post. But somewhere deep down I believe that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of Christmas as we've known it since the mid 20th century. If true, this will create a massive void in the American conscience - as well as a massive paradigm shift for retailers who are already resorting to once-unthinkable measures to stave off their own demise.

What will fill the void? It is rather a question of Who. As we wrestle with so many inevitable changes which are threatening to undo our familiar national psyche and values, might we finally have room for the Lord who was first introduced to the world in a barn because there was no room for Him in an inn? I pray so.

Thou didst leave Thy throne and Thy kingly crown
When Thou camest to earth for me;
But in Bethlehem's home was there found
No room for Thy holy nativity.
O come to my heart, Lord Jesus!
There is room in my heart for Thee.

Just Like Startin' Over...

You don't know the first thing about tomorrow. You're nothing but a wisp of fog, catching a brief bit of sun before disappearing.
- James 4:14

This weekend a lot of attention is being paid to John Lennon, and rightfully so. One can go on and on about the ever-growing impact of Lennon on popular culture. His talents as a musician, song writer, self-promoter, and, especially, as a lyricist are legendary and unequaled in music history. Put it this way: 30 years after her last album, Lady Gaga will not get a Google banner in her honor. Lennon did.

For all of his talent and ingenuity, Lennon lived a life that was filled with neglect and heartache. Abandoned by both his father and, ultimately, mother, Lennon grew up with an aunt in the blue collar, working class town of Liverpool. By all accounts the two celebrities who had the most impact on Lennon during his formative years were James Dean and Elvis Presley. Those two superstars fed the future Beatle's rebellious streak and encouraged the lad to combine music with just enough attitude to become both popular and rich. It worked well, but only after the talented Lennon surrounded himself with other talented musicians and hard working self-promoters.

The ultra-success of Beatlemania ultimately never cured John Lennon's growing sense of disenchantment, and actually seems to have driven him even deeper into the pit. What started out as recreational marijuana use turned into LSD experimentation and a full-blown heroine addiction by the late sixties. While many might argue that drugs made Sgt. Pepper's possible, no one questions that Lennon's creative capabilties began to nosedive by the time he started his use of heroine (see Let It Be).

His marriage to Yoko Ono came about when Lennon's first wife, Cynthia, discovered that the Japanese-American "Conceptual Artist" (whatever that means) had been having an adulterous relationship with John. The Lennon/Ono marriage was rocky from the very start and included periods of hardcore substance abuse, mutual adultery, international controversy, and - lest we forget - more ingenious self-promotion which spanned the first half of the seventies. What lacked during this period for Lennon was any actually good music. So Lennon decided to quit writing music and, legend has it, focus fulltime on rebuilding his relationship with his wife and growing a relationship with his youngest son.

In 1980, after a half decade as a stay at home father, Lennon and Ono released the LP Double Fantasy. Ono's contributions not withstanding, Double Fantasy represents John's best work since Pepper, maybe even Revolver. It is far and away the greatest post-Beatle album by any member of the quartet (All Things Must Pass is a distant #2). Lennon's contributions to Double Fantasy focus on themes such as maturity, forgiveness, family devotion, and fatherly patience...themes which are far more adult oriented than songs about anarchy and class warfare and overblown allusions of a post-religious world. Perhaps these themes from the mind of the aging Lennon were more self-promotion, but perhaps they represent the first indicators of a major cultural shift of the eighties: Baby Boomers growing up and entering reality.

Whatever the case, Lennon's artistic creativity was no longer about fusing youthful rebellion to good music as much as fusing a truer and deeper sense of self-understanding to really good music. Or so one might imagine from those few tracks. Merely a month after the release of Double Fantasy, Lennon was shot dead. Just as he began talking about "Starting Over," his precarious life ended at age 40. Saturday will be his 70th birthday.

What Do We Do With Joel?

Ah, Beeson; how you have come into my thoughts today!

Let me say at the outset that I went to what one might call a interdenominational, evangelical seminary. As such, we had many different views on so many secondary and tertiary issues of Scripture and such. I suppose our diverse student body was the apple of the eye of our ecumenically-minded dean, Timothy George. But we also agreed on a great deal: humans are saved by grace through faith; the Bible is the inspired Word of God; Jesus is the Son of God. On and on.

Oh, and then there's this that we also agreed on: something strange is up with that whole Joel Osteen/Lakewood Church thing. Beeson prided itself as a theological institution waist-deep in historical theology, but most everyone seemed much more knowledgeable on the subject of ol' Joel than, say, Karl Barth. We biblical students seemed to care a lot more about what went on in Joel's pulpit than in, say, the prophecy of the prophet Joel.

Can you blame us? For nearly a decade, Joel O has been setting the standard of success among the prosperity crowd (an accomplishment which won him the cover of, not ironically, a magazine called Success). His church, Lakewood Church of Houston, Tex., was recently described as the most popular church in America by BusinessWeek Magazine. His fingerprints on the canvass of the increasingly diverse world of Protestantism are undeniable and should be studied hard by up and coming ministers.

Osteen and the theological framework he represents are no flashes in the pan, neither. There was a time when I thought, "Oh, that guy's fifteen minutes are going to run out soon. The days of the megachurch are over and the religious hope of material prosperity lives and dies with Wall Street. Besides, he's a pretty awful speaker and he looks funny." But Joel keeps on going.

Why? Because I misunderstood how slowly things both materialize and fade away in the world in which Osteen & Co. operate. Popularity in the field of religion and spirituality and philosophical ideals doesn't die out as quickly as popularity in music and art and fad diets. Katy Perry and Lady Gaga will soon enough go the way of Macy Gray and Pink and Atkins, but apparently not so with our name-it-and-claim-it crowd. You would have thought that a housing crash and subsequent recession would have slowed down the prosperity gospel at least slightly. You'd be wrong. Turns out megachurches of all types are still growing and a whole lot of people are still attracted to the idea that Jesus died to give you a two car garage and a nicer vacation than last year's Caribbean cruise (which still needs to be paid off!).

So, what are we to do with Joel and the movement he epitomizes? Let me say here that I do in fact think his brand of...well...performance is a fad which is destined to die out sooner or later. But when is anybody's guess. I suppose that folks who are attracted to the gospel of prosperity have to live through a few financial or physical crises in order to see that more faith, more works, do not cause the Father to become a genie who grants you your heart's material desires. Ultimately, though, Joel's brand of Christianity will only die out when the church in America receives a clear mind, conscience, and will in the matters of materialism.

The American Dream used to represent the ideal that this nation affords anyone - regardless of one's background - the ability to live a better life in secured freedom. Today the American Dream is no longer an ideal, but rather things which are characterized by white, picket fences and having a good college fund for your kids. It was only a matter of time until this materialization and deterioration of the American Dream entered the church, as it has now in so many. Until the serious-minded Christians of our nation stand up for matters near and dear to our Lord's heart (social justice, a serve others mentality, a "He must increase, I must decrease" worldview, etc.), the deterioration will march on. Change here doesn't begin with our jokes about Joel or our self-righteous charges against the theological errors of the prosperity gospel; it begins with an ad fontes call to Scripture from the pulpit, the Sunday school classroom, and the workplace.

A New Phase of Life and Ministry

Since I surrendered (and that is the appropriate term) to God's call to ministry, I have gone through periods where doubts have sprung up: Is this really the right seminary? How tough will it be to find a ministry position after graduation? Will I be able to raise a family on a pastor's salary? Am I cut out for all the tasks a pastor faces? On and on.

Now there was a time when I would've scoffed at Christians who allowed self-doubt to creep into their minds by thinking something such as, "Obviously, he or she didn't take Philippians 4 into account!" The experiences of the past few years of ministry and education have knocked me down from my self-erected pedestal of what I call 'Believer's Snobbery' as the Lord has worked on me by knocking me down to size and simply saying, over and over again, "Do you trust me?"

Now this question hasn't manifested itself as of yet in some kind of call to Jesus-in-the-water, Peter-in-the-boat type of faith, but it has had its difficult moments. This collective expreience has sharpened my own pastoral sensitivities to those who face periods (for some, eras) of doubt; above all, however, it has taught me to rely, rely, rely on the Lord.

Anyway, the Lord has recently merged the combined life of my wife and me with a wonderful church not too far south of Huntsville, Ala. There are some questions which remain, but the overarching doubt of "Will the Lord really provide for us?" has been answered in a way which can leave no doubt, like a 550 ft. homerun or something.

Now there is still a great amount of growing to go, and I still worry about the mistakes I will undoubtedly make and how they might impact the congregation. Ultimately, though, I have learned through it all that my primary concern must not be about how the Lord will provide for His own, but rather how I can better grow in Him and serve His people. And so I enter this new phase of life and ministry recognizing that we serve an amazing Lord and Savior who unquestionably provides for His own in His own way and time. Praise the Lord!

Removing the Mask

The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. -Romans 14:17-19

We all know just how rich and developed Paul's theology is in his letter to the Romans, but when one reads through then entire epistle one can't help but feel that Paul's most immediate concern for that diverse group of believers in the ancient world's most cosmopolitan city is for church unity. Chapter 12's line-of-thinking commences with a short Greek word which most English Bibles translate as "therefore," and seems to be Paul's way of saying, "Now that I've established this rich theological stuff, here's why all that stuff is important." We in the church cannot discard the latter chapters of Romans, though we are often guilty of it.

Now the above quote is from Romans 14, and it caps off Paul's rather striking argument that views on food practices should not divide the Body of Christ. Imagine the shock that it must've been to the Jewish contingency of the church to hear Paul - that self-proclaimed member of the tribe of Benjamin - basically telling them, "I know what Leviticus says, but kosher-smosher! Let's spend more time building one another up rather than tearing each other down."

If I were a Jewish believer in Rome, I would've had to find a way to send a letter back to Paul (who, by the way, hadn't even visited the Roman church to that point) demanding a more satisfactory explanation than chapters 14-15 give. I would've needed more than "make every effort to be a peacemaker in the Body of Christ." That's far too idealistic - naive, really - for me. But such is the call which not only went out to the Jews and Gentiles which worshiped in opposition at Rome, but to the church today as well. Forget denominational fractions, our local churches can't even get past petulant quarrels when all who are involved agree on the consequences of not having a singular focus.

This past Sunday I again witnessed the powerful devastation which occurs when members of the body abandon peace and mutual edification for the sake of individual pride, ego, and comfort. There were no winners - everyone was a loser in this one. Although shock was the initial emotion felt by most people, it is only a matter of time before anger bubbles over and chokes out any momentum which this particular church has been given by the Spirit to save souls and disciple children of God.

Still, there are signs even in this tragic situation that something good and powerful can come about through this experience. But as long as we use our secondary and tertiary differences to mask our dislike of one another (which is the true foundation of the situation mentioned above), the church will never realize her full potential, and the cause of Christ will be weakened by the very people who claim the Name.

What a Difference Sixty-Six Years Make

Just when you thought that the envelope can't possibly get pushed any further...

For all the low, crude, and downright ugly moments in the still-banal history of basic cable, June 6, 2010, stands out as something special...at least until the next awards show on MTV. Although relatively few Americans actually watched the program last night, once again this year's MTV Movie Awards has the internet abuzz with discussions about where - if anywhere - the line should be drawn between common decency and the freedom to do or say whatever one pleases on a channel which unashamedly caters to pre-teens, teenagers, and the odd young adult. While MTV (that network which stopped living up to its acronym about fifteen years ago) will never be confused with family values, the remarkable amount of obscenity on last evening's program shows an absolute contempt for anything remotely pure or valued. And they will find new - check that; there's nothing new under the sun when it comes to sin - ways to push the envelope even further in the future.

As hard as it is for some of my generation to believe, our nation - our world - hasn't always had to deal with this kind of thing. It occurred to me yesterday morning that this very same day was the 66th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of the Normandy region of France. I can't think of two more dramatically opposed pictures than when comparing the biggest event of June 6, 1944, to the most talked-about event of June 6, 2010. What a difference 66 years make.

Feminism, The Pill, and Elijah

At no point since its meteoric rise in the latter 1960s has radical feminism been so overlooked by so many in our nation. The prominence of the ideology of the "new" American woman has been on a downward spiral for well over a decade, and moderate pollsters and even liberal political pundits have charted the descent of the movement for some time now. The signs of the Fall of Feminism are everywhere: abortion rates continue to fall in the U.S. and around the world; pro-life Americans now outnumber pro-choicers; and the education and revenue gap between women and men is teetering on doing a complete U-turn as young women continue to build onto their dominance of the university classroom. There is most certainly a direct correlation between life being good for young women and fetuses on the one hand, and increasingly marginalized feminists on the other. Or maybe feminism was such a success in America that a peaceful retirement is simply owed to all those bra burners? You be the judge.

All that to say that it initially shocked me when I saw Gloria Steinem on television the other day. Thoughts that initially went through my head included: "Seriously? Was Walter Mondale not available?" and "Didn't she die a while ago?" But she was actually talking about the lasting social effects of The Pill. Of course, all of us are familiar with The Pill. On Sunday feminists everywhere will unite in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the FDA's acceptance of the landmark prophylactic. Now, perhaps there is some irony that this will occur on Mother's Day, but maybe I'm reading too much into the whole thing. Anywho, this is a serious milestone with less-than-serious fanfare, and it shows us just how far removed we are from the moral questions which dominated the national conscience in the latter half of the 20th century.

Radical feminism, Gloria Steinem, and family planning medical innovations are just so old hat. Young adults today have moved to more timely topics: things like Justin Bieber's geographical ineptitude and whether or not Greece will lead the world for the first time in millennia (this time for all the wrong reasons). While young women today might certainly--though momentarily--appreciate the milestone, the actual ethical questions which should still dominate the national conscience when discussing this thing is about as relevant to my generation as the Bay of Pigs.

One thing is peculiarly certain: those who should be celebrating this milestone the most make for some strange bedfellows (I beg your pardon!). This group includes most Americans, but specifically responsible young adults who aren't financially ready for children, upwardly-mobile women who also happen to enjoy the club scene, and, we can't forget this group, dead-beat men who probably couldn't care for a child even if they gave every ounce of their physical and intellectual strength to the job. Come to think of it, perhaps this last group has the most to celebrate on Sunday.

Against this group of celebrants, of course, stands the Roman Catholic Church. Like Elijah on Mt. Carmel, the Catholics are outnumbered and ridiculed. But the church's moral voices provide us with a distant, lonely cry in the wilderness which should force us as a nation to at least occasionally consider our ethical boundaries. While I am personally inclined to distinguish between all that is potentially right about preventative contraceptives and all that is definitely wrong about post-conception drugs and procedures, the honest ethical questions posed by these fellow believers has challenged my thinking and pushed me quite a bit. While we my disagree, I'm sympathetic towards Elijah on this one; I'm at least going to hear him out. Too bad most of my generation won't.

Speech seasoned with salt

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. (Colossians 4:5-6)

Towards the end of his letter to the Colossians, the imprisoned Paul asks the faithful congregation to pray that God would “open a door” for Paul to herald his message of salvation (called the “mystery of Christ”) to the world in a clear, understandable manner. Notice: Paul doesn’t just ask that the door might be supernaturally opened for the message to be preached, but that the preacher of the message might be supernaturally allowed to make the message clear and plain. I think we churchgoers today would be much more likely to pray that our dear Brother Paul might be delivered from the unjust chains of oppression than for his vocabulary when presenting the gospel, but Paul sees the two as equal in their necessity to be brought before the throne of God.

But it doesn’t end at prayer. It never ends at prayer. There has to be a response, an action. Here the action is for the Colossians to be ever-mindful of how their conversations with everyone – regardless of standing in the church – must be continuously “full of grace.” This is more than advice that Paul is giving; this is a command from the Spirit-inspired pages of Scripture.

So what does this have to do with us? I wonder sometimes how we Christians can spend hours and hours cooking up evangelism strategies and outreaches on the one hand and then have anything but gracious conversations in our churches, in our homes, and around our company’s water coolers on the other.

With all due respect to the mid and late 1990s, our nation is right now more divided than it has been in any period since the Civil War. On one extreme we have those who are showing an almost militant devotion to their avarice. On the other extreme we have those who refuse to talk about any groups or individuals of a different ideology without resorting to cheap shots about intellect and childish name-calling. Our nation is mired in an inability to discuss important matters of politics and religion - don't get someone from our ESPN-saturated culture started on sports! - without neck veins being protruded and insults being hurled.

Paul says it shouldn’t be this way with the church. Our mission is just way too important to have our people caught in the mire. These people not only make up the mission field, but they make up the church: liberals and conservatives, Tea Partiers and Big Blue Dots, Alabama and Auburn fan. As counter-cultural as it is, we simply cannot afford to be biting and divisive within our fellowship if we intend to be about the mission of saving souls and brining glory to our God.

Flatline

In my reading of current events this morning I stumbled upon the news that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) will not seek another term in the U.S. Congress. Rep. Stupak is a nine term Democrat from the Upper Peninsula area of Michigan. While he has dealt with relative anonymity in the House for almost his entire career, he appears to have always been a somewhat popular Congressman in his district. (As American voters, we tend to hate Congress while typically voting for our incumbent Congressmen and Congresswomen...it has something to do with bringing bacon home or something like that.)

Of course, Stupak's life and career changed dramatically within the past few months. He was really the single politician who could best de-rail President Obama's entire domestic agenda (and, therefore, presidency) by influencing a handful of fellow pro-life Democrats to vote against the mammoth healthcare reform package because it did not contain language banning tax dollars from being used for on-demand abortions in the U.S. Out of our entire 535-member, star-studded, bicameral Congress, it was this unknown anomaly from northern Michigan who suddenly held an incredible amount of power.

Stupak became an immediate sensation. The GOP threw their arms around him as he teamed up with Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA) to attach a pro-life amendment to the original healthcare bill. Conservative talk show hosts clamoured to get the old Democrat on the air. The more I read and heard about the guy, the more I really liked him. Like him or not, Stupak was suddenly the picture of principled ethics within the larger sausage-making documentary known as the healthcare legislative process, and our nation loves it when our politicians seem committed to their ethical moorings. Up until the 11th hour, it honestly appeared that Stupak & Co. were willing to put principle above party, loyalty to life above loyalty to president.

Then March 21 came. The calendar said it was the first full day of spring, that season which reminds everyone of new life. As Stupak's group of pro-life Democrats gave a new breath of life to the administration of Barack Obama, it came at a terrible cost: the death of any lingering pro-life movement within the Democratic Party. I fully believe that one day the American pro-choice movement will be derided and placed on the ash heap of our history--right there next to racial segregation and slavery--and the Democratic Party is doing itself few favors by excluding any anti-abortion mentality from its ranks. In the meantime, on March 21, Bart Stupak did himself absolutely no favors by going against his own amendment and voting for the pro-abortion Senate bill.

I suppose we could continue to pile on this man, but I think he's had enough. Stupak is "retiring" (that is, quitting with some trace of dignity) in the same way that LBJ did in the spring of 1968, as a beaten, lame duck politician whose ethical principles vanished we he began to doubt them. Peer pressure is an incredible thing, and is only increased when those in real positions of power begin to lean in on you. We will likely never know what those in power (such as President Obama and Speaker Pelosi) said to Rep. Stupak in the days leading up to the passage of the healthcare package. We will probably never know if hard-line threats to dissolve his political career were made or if bended-knee pleas to save the party and the president were given.

I think that we can be confident of the following: by March of this year Bart Stupak was either going to sacrifice his political career for the principle of the right to life for all or he was going to sacrifice his political career for the life of Barack Obama's fading popularity. He exercised his right to choose and went with the latter. And now his overall quiet, principled political career is a flatline.

Of Nukes and Men

One of the biggest political news items of the day has to do with President Obama's push to limit the accessibility of our nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons for future use. More indirectly, this new course will have our nation's defense eliminate much of the stockpile, unquestionably cutting into US dominance in the arena of nuclear proliferation. And so we approach this issue with the same question that should pervade our examination of any political or cultural question: how should a Christian think about this issue? (Note: the question is not "WWJD?")

This is a tough one. On the one hand, world citizens - let alone Christians - should despise the very notion of nuclear weapons. By mastering the elemental forces of the universe - those elements upon which God chose to found everything in the cosmos! - scientists in the 1940s developed a weapon which could wipe away entire cities in literally half a second. The extensive presence of such weapons has long brought fear into the hearts of well-meaning humans, those who understood that a misunderstanding could eradicate huge chunks of world civilization in mere moments. Those of us living on the other side of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Dr. Strangelove, the international reaction to the Reagan build-up, and so on, are familiar with the dangers. Furthermore, those believers who realize that Nagasaki was actually brought to life by the great Catholic missionary Francis Xavier (and, therefore, had the largest population of Christians in all of Japan in 1945) know the long-term implications that the use of nuclear weapons has on the propagation of the gospel.

But I am still left hesitant after reading the story above. President Obama, who received his much-discussed Nobel Peace Prize primarily because of his talk about nuclear limitation in the 2008 campaign, clearly wants our nation to set an example to the world. The question is, does our example matter? When North Korea is spotlighted as a rogue state willing to exchange nuclear material for much-needed supplies? When a schizophrenic and bellicose Iranian government is on the verge of developing their own nuclear weapon? President Obama is correct in his assertion that we no longer need Cold War-style nuclear arsenals, but does his administration honestly believe that our "example" will deter the enemies of our generation: terrorists? People who blow themselves up in an attempt to kill a dozen or two civilians don't value or follow examples.

And so what are we left with? If responsible nations can't keep their leverage with the bomb, then what would prevent rogue nations from investing their technology in radical terrorist groups? (An important note: Iran and North Korea are both exempt from Obama's pledge due to their non-compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation agreement...both are still potential targets of US nuclear weapons.) And what about the Christian witness and example? As a believer, the very presence of nuclear weapons is abhorrent, let alone the use of such weapons; yet, in a nuclear age, if our federal government has been good at anything, it has been in showing reservation and prudence when given opportunities after August of 1945 to use an atomic bomb.

Ultimately, this is a sphere where two worldviews must collide and, I think, remain unsolved. I believe that there is honestly no way to think "Christianly" about the proliferation/use of atomic weapons (or any weapon for that matter!), yet if the government cannot protect its citizens, what is the point of government in the first place? And, perhaps ironically, for millions of American Christians, there is a place where nuclear proliferation means protection from global nuclear war, even in this post Cold War era.

Bro. Paul on the Resurrection

If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

1 Cor. 15:12-19

This is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God!

At the Cross

Why do so many of our most popular hymns about the cross have such bright, peppy tunes to accompany them? Certainly because the cross is not ultimately a scene of defeat, but of victory. Still, I feel the need to be reminded on this Good Friday that what happened at Calvary was a brutal execution where our perfect Messiah literally poured out his blood for us. It was not a pretty scene, just as my sin which was washed away at the cross is not pretty.

A Baptist favorite, "At the Cross," is one such hymn which sings about the brutality of the cross with a light and happy tune as it calls to mind the good news of our redemption. But the song we sing is based originally on an Isaac Watts poem which leaves us at the blood-stained foot of the cross. Just for a moment, I ask that the Lord will lead you to linger at the cross and experience the heights of love which our Savior displayed on that first dark, bloody, horrendous, Good Friday. Easter Sunday will come, but not before the darkness of Friday and the emptiness of the longest Sabbath Day in history.

Alas! and Did My Savior Bleed
By Isaac Watts

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such as worm as I?

Thy body slain, sweet Jesus, Thine—
And bathed in its own blood—
While the firm mark of wrath divine,
His Soul in anguish stood.

Was it for crimes that I had done
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity! grace unknown!
And love beyond degree!

Well might the sun in darkness hide
And shut his glories in,
When Christ, the mighty Maker died,
For man the creature’s sin.

Thus might I hide my blushing face
While His dear cross appears,
Dissolve my heart in thankfulness,
And melt my eyes to tears.

But drops of grief can ne’er repay
The debt of love I owe:
Here, Lord, I give my self away
’Tis all that I can do.

Why all the Pharisee hatin'?

What's so bad about Pharisaism in the first place? These men stood for a strict interpretation of the Hebrew Law. They considered themselves the moral conscience of an ethnic group of people who dealt with unimaginable religious and social pressure from the Roman Empire at its height. They thought of themselves as the prime exemplars of how to live a holy lifestyle which would please the God of their forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Yet, the Gospels are unequivocal in their treatment of this group of the socio-religious elite. Along with the even more starch-robed scribes and other religious authorities, the Pharisees are presented as self-important, condescending snobs with no real spiritual connection to the Lord they talked about so often. The Bible doesn't just present these guys as overall well-meaning men who thought the Messiah would be 1 part Plato and 2 parts George Patton--as David 2.0--but they are shown to be a group of power-hungry and egotistical elitists who wouldn't know the Messiah if he were born with a big tattoo on his chest of the first line of Psalm 110.

Think about it: Jesus never hinted at crushing Rome's hegemony in Palestine, but he was always making the devil his punching bag in both word and deed. Consider the following dialogue from my imagination:

"OK, Pharisees, so Jesus didn't raise up a revolt against Rome, but he did raise up Lazarus from the dead in front of your very eyes. He defeated death; that's still not enough for you? Is defeating death, disease--the devil!--not a bit more significant than a coup in Jerusalem?"

"Of course," a Pharisee would undoubtedly agree. "But..."

Interestingly, John places that Bethany incident directly before the passion week experiences of Jesus, because the raising of Lazarus wasn't the last sign that the Pharisees needed to truly believe, but rather the last straw in their tolerance of this blasphemous son of a carpenter from that Podunk, meaningless town in Galilee.

And yet, even with all the negativity about the Pharisees in our Bibles, we Christians actually tend to live just like them. While we love Jesus with our words, I wonder whether or not we also love our church structures which put those with some secret knowledge of God's Word on a pedestal while the rest are simply the dull sheep. Furthermore, in this politically-obsessed culture we live in, doesn't it seem that our most influential church leaders can't keep their noses out of the muck and mire of politics? A current issue in Alabama: Christians should be against electronic bingo because it is a socially unjust vice which preys upon those who can least afford it in the name of better schools (what an incredible justification!). Pharisees are against this form of gambling because the law's protection of it signals further deterioration of our Bible Belt "Christian culture" as more of the church's dwindling authority is lost.

Many of our church leaders and congregants, like Paul, have worn the Pharisee badge with pride for far too many years without even recognizing it. In this Holy Week, I am drawn to my own need to lay aside my biblical elitism and cultural Christianity and embrace anew the radical call of our radical Messiah: take up your own cross and follow me down the Via Dolorosa.

Someone call a doctor: Is there a place for theology in the healthcare debate?

In my pastoral theology class yesterday we attempted to discuss the theological dimensions of the groundbreaking healthcare legislation which has been such a point of high contention in our nation over the past nine months or so. As our professor pointed out, evangelical leaders have been remarkably silent on this issue. Certainly we would agree that items which turn into a national obsession, prompting hours of discussion around water coolers and dinner tables, are never exempt from being brought into the pulpit, and yet we are left with deafening silence from our leaders on the theological justifications or concerns of nationalized healthcare.

Perhaps one explanation for this silence is the fear of partisan backlash from congregants or admirers. After all, I can't think of a more politically polarizing week than what we just had in this country. Every single Republican in the Congress voted against the bill the president just signed into law; if a politician supported this bill, he or she was a Democrat, and most likely not a so-called Blue Dog Democrat. Pastors and denominational leaders understandably should enter this politically and philosophically fractured debate with trepidation.

But I think more is going on here. At issue for many must be the theological tension which exists in this debate due to the biblical understanding of social justice and the hard lessons of recent human history. Church leaders must be aware of the remarkable injustice of the healthcare system as we have known it. And there must be a point at which we cringe at the avarice which was displayed by all sides of this recent debate. Whether the sticking point was our national debt, my increasing taxes, or grandpa's Medicare, greed absolutely propelled a debate which should have only been about the greater good of our society.

At the same time, we Americans who took advantage of collapsing Socialist governments of the 20th century to stake our own claim to world domination are keenly aware of what happens when society depends on government structures to do our good work for us. With a population of over 300 million, the structure necessary for a complete overhaul of medicine must have the most integrity of any social structure in history if it is to stand the test of time in any positive way. A House vote which hinged on pro-life Democrats abandoning their ethical ship in the waning moments of the 11th hour already says something damning about the integrity of this particular structure.

Consider this lengthy quote from the German theologian Helmut Thielicke:

Milan Machovec has classically described the resistance to the fall in the Marxist-Leninist system (in his “A Marxist Looks at Jesus”). As he points out, Marx and his first disciples sharply criticized the social system which left the alleviation of human suffering to private initiative and therefore to chance. Three or four generations of Socialists knew very well what G.B. Shaw portrayed in his plays, namely, that “private Samaritans” do not alter the foundations of exploitive capitalist society but simply promote the allusion of the pure and the pharisaism of the rich—a double deception which has to be radically dispelled. Socialist states, then, set up a system of social security to care for the sick and handicapped and unemployed. But how could these noble 19th century Socialists foresee that in the 20th century a situation would arise in which thousands of people would believe that official institutions alone are responsible for the needy, that the state has taken over everything, that the compassionate and self-sacrificing heart has been replaced, and that at the last resort individuals would feel no discomfort for others suffering around them? Thus the ancient egoism and cowardice and pharisaism come back in new garb. The devil cannot be banished or outplayed by institutional safeguards. The fall cannot be organized away, for it transcends organizable structures. The resistance of the bad as it occurs in a new form gives the lie to the dream that love can be institutionalized and that this institutionalization will give rise to non-alienated man.

Ultimately there is an incredible tension which we believers face between all that is right about affordable healthcare and all that is wrong about the relatively short history of government-structured socialism. This is what our intellectual and theological leaders must wrestle with in the days and years to come. One thing is certain: silence won't cut it any longer.

And I Become Another Statistic

In an attempt to join the rest of the civilized world, I have decided to start a blog. Let the record show that I actually had a blog some ten years ago, long before they were about as common as Social Security cards...but then I got bored. Nevertheless, I feel a need to have some sort of place for writing my thoughts so that future generations can laugh at my expense.

But I'll be dead by then, so ha!

Enjoy.