On vacation…
Leaving town, gone ’til Sunday night. The family and I are going…camping! Wow!
First I get a dog…now I’m going camping…
Clearly it’s the end of the age.
Miss you all - see you when I get back.
David
13 comments May 14th, 2007
The Reactionary Posture of the Emerging Church…
During the break in my seminar for our Israel Mandate Conference a few months ago, a young woman came up to me and asked me about my opinion of the Emerging Church movement. Limited in my time to answer, I had to come up with something succinct to summarize my thoughts. I responded with the following thought:
“The extreme edge of the holiness movement said, ‘before you have fellowship with us, you must totally embrace holiness’; the reaction of the Emerging Church is to say, ‘I’ll love you unconditionally until you choose to be holy.’ What is needed is a more biblical and less sentimental posture towards human nature - that true love does not shrink back from telling one who is in sin the truth about righteousness, yet is willing to love someone freely as they wrestle with truth’s implications.’”
I went on to talk for a moment about the short-term wisdom of a movement that seems so godly as it is so thoroughly embracing and inclusive towards, for example, homosexuals. It seems so loving during the early stages of the movement to freely and unconditionally embrace the sinner with no immediate pressure to renounce their lifestyle - while simultaneously leaving it vague and ambiguous as to whether or not they even need to. To have so many unsaved people, steeped in their sins, filling these churches around the nation searching for truth seems so wonderful - initially. The critical issue is not knit to the immediate inclusiveness and loving embrace. The “success” or health of a movement is revealed ten to fifteen years later. Has the movement produced the fruits of righteousness? If the homosexual that was initially embraced and loved is still a practicing homosexual ten to fifteen years later, can one honestly endorse the movement? If wholehearted love exhibiting authentic, biblical Christianity is not the end result of the journey, can one honestly testify that they had been traveling on the right road?
This was the point I was making, in essence, in my post about Barack Obama’s faith last week. You will know a tree by its fruit - those who follow you will only do (to a measure) what you have done recently. The memory of radical holiness and dedicated godliness is an insufficient motivator for the next generation - only a fresh and vibrant Christianity infused with life from the Spirit has the power to be contagious. The “fever” that is caught from the one who carries an authentic faith in Christ carries the symptoms of longing to know God and a hunger and a thirst to be with Him. In the deep stirring that is awakened within by the Holy Spirit, true faith is likewise awakened to live differently by the power of the Holy One.
15 comments May 9th, 2007
I’m feeling better as some things return to normal…
I’m just getting back on my feet and feeling back to normal again tonight after some forced rest and many different kinds of medicine. Thanks so much for the prayers and kind words.
In fact, it seems as if much is getting back to normal again - the rains have stopped, our flooded basement is drying out, some dude is mowing his lawn at 1 in the morning down the road from me…you know, things like that.
The other thing that is getting back to somewhere around normal is related to the cryptic comment left on my site earlier today:
“Slike - the gravy train of free articles is coming to a screeching halt. I am about to get back in the game.”
Faaaaantastic. This little ray of sunshine as the clouds parted on IHOP-KC’s eighth birthday was left by none other than Randy Bohlender himself, the patriarch of blogging around these here parts. In fact, his re-introductory post can be found here.
I love it. Great news. Welcome back, Randy.
I’ll miss the gravy train thingy, though. Mmmmm. Gravy.
David
1 comment May 7th, 2007
I hate being sick…
I’ve been out of action yesterday and a little today because I’ve been hit with the flu. Yuck. Fever, cough, tiredness, the whole en-hhil-ada. That’s not a typo. I want you to actually say enchilada that way. Someday I’ll talk about that right way to say conga (it’s not “caaanga”, as they say in Boston). Anyhow, I’m recovering and going for it in the prayer room today - but I’m not 100% functional.
The plan is, in my mind, to write something tonight. Or sleep. One of the two.
David
7 comments May 4th, 2007
A Christianity Only the New York Times Could Love…
If you can’t find the time to read “Dreams From My Father” or, “The Audacity of Hope”, then perhaps you can read the “Cliff’s Notes” summary given recently by the New York Times, as reporter Jodi Kantor examines Barack Obama’s faith. I’m not a conspiracy theorist when it comes to issues of media bias - I tend to view conspiracy theories as those musings that attribute far too much thoughtful, strategic thinking and planning on the part of those who constitute any kind of “right-wing conspiracy” or “liberal bias”. Of course a bias exists. Reporters are not automatons or robots able to divorce how they perceive the world, what is noteworthy, or what stories need to be told from their worldview and life philosophy. No one reads the New York Times for the facts. In the information age, the facts come quickly and fade from their importance just as quickly. People want to know more than “what” in our postmodern time - they want to know “why”.
This article, in fact, is exactly in line with modern reporting - particularly in regards to the media pace-setters. It presents, in fact, the reverse of the above premise: it feeds hungry information junkies the “why” as a means of providing a very interesting and noteworthy “what”. In other words, the reporter already assumes you knew the initial “what”, or facts of the matter: Barack Obama is a man of faith. Her job, then, is to report to you why that is. In doing so, she is presenting to Democratic voters in the south and the principled swing voters throughout the nation a very appealing “what” - a presidential candidate that actually possesses a substantive faith. A similar article ran in the Times regarding Hillary Clinton’s Methodist faith a few months ago in Newsweek.
It’s a reasonable faith that is the subject of these presentations, a depiction of the kind of faith that stirs the complacent and provokes the selfish to do similar good works and have a like-minded concern for the down-trodden, or the “underdog”, the concept that Obama credits with his conversion to Christianity. It is a variation of a theme - faith as the vehicle for hope related to great societal change: all that is wrong being set right in a manner that expresses true justice for the weak and the hopeless. Isn’t this what we all are striving for - and isn’t this something that all should celebrate? Obama’s social and societal concerns appear to be noble and his intentions sound? If you are nodding your head “yes”, at this point, you really won’t care for what I say next.
22 comments May 1st, 2007
I’m back.
And I have opinions.
What I don’t have today is time. So I will get back on the horse tomorrow and comment on some of the many cool comments, comment on some of the goings on here and abroad, try to comment on Barack Obama’s faith, and then get back to commenting on the emerging church movement. All while looking to finish my comments on the “peacemaker” of Matthew 5:9. Hey, why not aim high?
David
3 comments April 30th, 2007
Update on me…
You haven’t heard from me in a while, I know - so here’s the update:
The past few weeks I have been consumed by three events -
1. The Steeno / Berglund wedding last weekend (I was in it).
2. The Zadok House of Prayer “End Times Simplified” Conference this weekend (I’m here in South Carolina right now with Tracey and Daniel).
3. The Forerunner Prayer Room next weekend (I’m directing it).
If I have a minute, I’ll comment on all three. For now, I thought you would appreciate the update.
David
15 comments April 28th, 2007
On many issues, my glass is half-full…
When it comes to the abortion issue, my glass is not only half-empty, but filled with the wrong fluid. The Supreme Court ruled this morning to uphold a ban on partial-birth abortions. I must note wryly that they did not vote to uphold the ban or anything close to a total ban on partial-birth abortions. They voted to uphold a partial-abortion ban covering one procedure, based on appeals from California and Nebraska. The Nebraska ban was too restrictive, while the California ban had enough room to get a legal “foot” in the door to allow reason to prevail. Thus, bringing a fetus out of the womb and puncturing its skull is no longer considered to be a right the framers of the constitution intended mothers to have. Glory.
I’m making an assumption here, that politically, a total ban on partial-birth abortions would have been too much ground to take and thus a “middle ground” had to be maintained. Forget for a moment that the framers of the constitution never imagined partisan judges establishing decisions that defy logic, not just the intentions of the constitution. Forget, for a moment, that this decision only covers a fraction of a percentage of abortions in America (90% of all abortions happen early on in the pregnancy). Let’s focus on what’s really being said here.
Humanity Belongs to Those Who Are Exposed to Air
Infanticide is wrong when we take the baby out of the womb; it’s perfectly reasonable as an option for a mother to exercise while the fetus is still in the womb. In other words, the line that is being preserved related to the “personhood” or humanity of a baby is related to contact with air. As long as the fetus remains within the safety of the mother’s womb, it remains an “it” and thus continues to be in a very tenuous legal position.
Forgive me if I’m underwhelmed. Am I encouraged that five justices decided that puncturing the skull of a baby is inhumane? Sure, in the same way I would be encouraged if, say, a judge decided that putting rat poison in baby food is “just wrong”. In other words, I’m relieved that someone has common sense and can see the forest here, but not so happy as to throw a party that obviousness prevailed. I guess that’s better than blatant wickedness being rationalized. It’s hard to celebrate when the womb still remains the most dangerous place in America for a baby to be. I’m not sure I’ll ever be okay as long as babies before they are born are legally rationalized away as non-entities with no rights to live.
So, where some see victory (and others will shout their shrill cries of horror and despair) I see a subtle legal distinction that I am more than uncomfortable with or unhappy about. I am horrified that we have become, as a nation, so blinded and dull in legalities and constitutional wrangling with words that there are some that feel settled in their heart with a less than Solominian solution. That the premature baby has a better shot at life than a fetus that “decides” to hang out in the womb for awhile is one of the most illogical, bizarre, and wicked justifications for murder in human history. I am not comforted.
David
19 comments April 18th, 2007
The Joy of Seeing Her Win…
Everyone is wired differently, as we have “discovered” over the past few days. What is easy for one seems difficult for another. Temptations and trials that would sorely test one man would be a breeze for another. I remember talking with Mike about his annual Mother’s Day sermons a while ago with my wife and a few others present. I was talking about the one that he preached two years ago and noting that it was one of the most incredibly difficult biblical directives a husband could receive. It was, as some of you may remember, the challenge to husbands to embrace and lead the home through authentic meekness rather than strength. Leadership, or headship of the home, means that the man takes the lead in establishing the Sermon on the Mount values of meekness and tenderness by always being the first to genuinely apologize. The man was to find ways to do so even if reasons were not immediately apparent (and the husband was convinced that the wife was 100% wrong).
Thus, winning arguments did not matter anymore. In fact, it could be argued that if allowed myself to “win” an argument, I would be then losing the greater battle of cultivating a godly marriage. I could not use my strength to establish my agenda. I could not use my fast thought processes and ability to lay out a logical argument to end an argument. Though her arguments were emotional and at times seemingly irrational (in my opinion, not reality), I had to find something in the discussion to cling to that was my fault, own up to it, and apologize. I had to let my wife win.
When I told Mike how excruciatingly impossible this was for my prideful ego, he laughed and asked me, for curiosity’s sake, what I thought about that year’s Mother’s Day sermon. It was the one where the husband had to go out of his way to verbally honor and build up his wife - and I commented that I was naturally good at that. I guessed that he would be too. I imagine that the far greater struggle would be the fight for meekness - but again, everyone is wired differently, and not everyone has that “alpha male” personality. I remember being struck by the Holy Spirit during a prayer meeting years ago to pray for my wife and the wives of many of the leaders with similar personality traits. I suddenly felt a wave of compassion and appreciation for them and the way in which they navigated these strong personalities and fragile egos.
14 comments April 17th, 2007
Of Gladiators, Body Bags, Mr. T, and other sundry items…
One side note before I throw some thoughts out there: in all the hoopla about personality profiles and such, it seems that no one had a comment about the Malibu clip or “Put ‘em in a body bag!” How is this even possible? That Malibu clip should be framed and laws should be passed requiring its continuous play in all of your households, in my opinion. The “Put ‘em in a body bag” line should be spoken reverently in quiet whispers throughout the hallowed halls of fellowship. I even snuck a Mr. T reference into my last post. These are just a few necessary observations before we continue on together. These emphatic statements of urgent repose will hopefully color your approach to the personality hullabaloo. Blessings to all.
David
7 comments April 16th, 2007
