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
May 7th, 2007
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
May 4th, 2007
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.
(more…)
May 1st, 2007
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
April 30th, 2007
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
April 28th, 2007
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
April 18th, 2007
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.
(more…)
April 17th, 2007
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
April 16th, 2007
You’re probably not surprised. Did you take the personality profile I talked about a few posts ago? If you want your own descriptive, you can find one on this site. Here’s my description, with a few comments by me (is that too self-indulgent?):
“I don’t care to sit by the window on an airplane. If I can’t control it, why look?” (I actually ALWAYS and ONLY sit on the aisle seat when I fly. I want to get off the plane faster than everyone else and never get trapped. Ever. In any situation. I always gravitate towards, in other situations, the end chair of an aisle, the corner chair by the door in any meeting, and the power seat in any restaurant.)
ENTJs have a natural tendency to marshall and direct. This may be expressed with the charm and finesse of a world leader or with the insensitivity of a cult leader. (Comforting.) The ENTJ requires little encouragement to make a plan. One ENTJ put it this way… “I make these little plans that really don’t have any importance to anyone else, and then feel compelled to carry them out.” While “compelled” may not describe ENTJs as a group, nevertheless the bent to plan creatively and to make those plans reality is a common theme for NJ types.
ENTJs are often “larger than life” in describing their projects or proposals. This ability may be expressed as salesmanship, story-telling facility or stand-up comedy. In combination with the natural propensity for filibuster, our hero can make it very difficult for the customer to decline. (I realize that some of you will never have a conversation with me again.)
TRADEMARK: — “I’m really sorry you have to die.” (I realize this is an overstatement. However, most Fs and other gentle souls usually chuckle knowingly at this description.) I’m very gentle. I’m also very pragmatic.
ENTJs are decisive. They see what needs to be done, and frequently assign roles to their fellows. Few other types can equal their ability to remain resolute in conflict, sending the valiant (and often leading the charge) into the mouth of hell. When challenged, the ENTJ may by reflex become argumentative. Alternatively (s)he may unleash an icy gaze that serves notice: the ENTJ is not one to be trifled with. (I think we can come up with a “Sermon on the Mount” profile for the redeemed…or am I missing something I need to repent for?)
(more…)
April 14th, 2007
I am writing this examination of the concept of “team ministry” for one reason - it is the beginning of a series I am doing that will examine the nature and implications of the Emergent Church movement related to the end of the age. Thus, the purpose of writing this is to establish for you my broader philosophy of the roles different “tribes” and groups play within the body of Christ in this hour. It is important to me that we are on the same page before I say what I am going to say next.
Those that know me know that my aim is to be unusually conciliatory and honoring of different “streams”, movements, and expressions of the body of Christ throughout the earth. I greatly value and enjoy the astonishing creativity of God - the God who birthed what is now 6,000 languages (and counting). Beyond this, I have continually valued and honored what I consider to be an expression of “team ministry” that transcends one corporate gathering or group of people with a variety of gifts and talents.
I see an expression of team ministry reflected in the corporate church of individual cities, nations, and whole generations, depending on the scope of local, national, and international ministries and their God-given spheres of influence. One church in a city might function in a more evangelistic manner that serves the whole city, while another church is more teaching-oriented; still another group might excel in equipping for missions and function as a true sending vehicle to launch skilled leaders to the nations. Everyone can play different parts on the team of a city church, whether they operate in such a manner knowingly or not. Jesus is a skilled Apostolic leader fully able to gather a diverse group of leaders to a geographic location to serve His purposes.
So it is in that spirit that I have been quick to honor brothers in the body of Christ that function in ways that serve cities and nations in broader ways than many desire to give credit for. While it is valid to question some pastor’s motives in the manner in which they establish “seeker-sensitive” expressions, this does not give us license to then dismiss the viability of the entire seeker-sensitive movement. Could it be true that God has actually called some to establish these kinds of ministries in the body of Christ in our day? While others, looking to duplicate or replicate the success of the legitimate structures that have been built, often end up doing so for transparently ambitious and self-gratifying reasons, we must be careful in our judgments and religious opinions in deciding the worth of a thing that might serve a God-ordained purpose beyond our limited perspectives.
(more…)
April 14th, 2007
Next Posts
Previous Posts
