Love Forward, Trust Backward

So many Christians have
the love of a child
and
the faith of an adult.

This is a problem.

"Greater Love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." -Jesus, John 15:13

"Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." -Jesus, Matthew 18:3b

If I asked everybody to name the two most powerful attributes of Christianity, I'll bet the words I would get more than any others would be Faith and Love.

But both of these words are dangerous, because Love can mean a bzillion things, and Faith just sort of sits there, sounding defeated. So let's fix that real quick before we move on.

When I say Love, I mean active, determined selflessness. So we'll hold onto the word love, but utilize it as a fierce and powerful verb instead of a state of emotion or preference, as it is often (mis)used.

When I say Faith, I mean active, daily decisions to put your life in the hands of another. And since we already have a better word for that, I'm going to replace "Faith" with "Trust". In fact, I make this substitution as often as possible in conversation.

So now we have two strong, unwavering verbs: Trust and Love. How we live these actions out in real life makes up a huge part of our Christianity. How we grow in them is a major determiner in what kind of disciples we become. So that begs the question: How does our Rabbi say we should grow in Trust, and grow in Love?

In the John verse above, Jesus is showing us the epitome of love; to care so much more for another's benefit than for yours, that you are willing to die for them. This is how love grows: forward, in maturity. Learning to put yourself last. Let's think about that from the beginning...

• A healthy baby loves only those who provide warmth and sustenance.
• A healthy adolescent loves mostly those who provide for her, but is learning how to be more selfless.
• A healthy adult loves those around him by consistently putting their needs first.

As you can see, most healthy human beings learn naturally how to grow in love, how to put others' needs ahead of their own. Often this comes to people when they develop close friendships, and/or get married; most often it shows up when they have kids. Although it's far from perfect, it still tends to point in the right direction.

In the Matthew verse, Jesus says sort of the opposite thing about trust (or faith.) Although the natural growing up process tends to bring people closer to the ideals of love, it actually takes people further from the ideals of trust.

• A healthy baby trusts everyone.
• A healthy adolescent trusts family, friends, teachers, police officers, perhaps neighbors, but not strangers. Anything beyond that is dangerous.
• A healthy adult trusts only those who have earned her trust. Anything beyond that is naive.

But Jesus tells us we have to change and become like little children. Even as we mature in love, we must go backwards in faith and trust. Obviously he doesn't mean that we should start trusting every e-mail spammer, or conspiracy theorist, or (ahem) politician. After all, we are supposed to live in wisdom. But he does mean that we need to open our hearts to trust God more.

Yet, when it comes to our relationship with God, we routinely get both love and trust backward.

Although we know how to love some people by putting their needs ahead of our own, how often do we put God's desires ahead of our own? How often do we ask God what would benefit him the most, regardless of what it costs us? Do we really love him like adults, seeking to center our lives only on whatever is best for him? Or do we love him like children, with no thought except what's in it for us? The answer is unfortunate: we most often love God like children.

But in the matter of trust, where we're supposed to behave like children, we all tend to grow up too fast. We say we trust God, but are we actually giving him the benefit of the doubt? Do we base all our conclusions about him on the a priori knowledge that he is good? Do we really cast all our worries and doubts at the feet of our Savior? It's a shame, but the answer, once again and all too often, is no.

What else can I say except to reiterate the call that's on our lives?

Put God's desires ahead of your own.
Ask God what would benefit him most, regardless of the cost.
Seek to center your life only on whatever is best for him.
Love him like an adult!

Give God the benefit of the doubt.
Always remember that he is good when forming your conclusions.
Cast all your worries and doubts at his feet.
Trust him like a child!

Let your love move forward, and your faith move backward.



+

Living in Synonyms

If you're going to get involved in this post-modern ministry stuff, you might as well accept that you're gonna have to learn a new language. Don't bother complaining... unless you're reaching out to the same people you grew up with, it'll be the same no matter where you go. You can't help people unless you understand them. And you can't understand them unless you can speak their language.

Of course, translating from Christianese to Post-modernish is like any other translation process... it's not simply a matter of word substitution. There are shades and ranges of meaning, connotation, irony, poetry and inflection that can be caught, but not taught. And even if they were teachable, I wouldn't be the one to teach it.

So instead I will grossly oversimplify the matter for you here, as an introduction, if you will. (Come to think of it, I may have done this before on this blog. But if so, it will be better this time around.)

It is true that Post-Modern culture makes it very difficult to broach certain subjects at all. Some words simply cannot be said in isolation... only in very thoughtful paragraphs, or in connection with narrative or art. Without such cushions, these words are choked by stigma, history, prejudice and pre-conception. That's not what I'll be talking about here. What I want to address with you now, are the subjects which are not difficult to communicate to a Post-Modern society, but which can become difficult very quickly if spoken in Christianese.

To that end, I would like to propose a brief Thesaurus for you; a Christianese-Post-Modernish dictionary. If I were really serious about this, of course it would be much longer. But I hope this can be helpful to you for now.

Truth-------Reality
Sin---------Rebellion
Savior------Messiah
Salvation---Restoration/Redemption
Church------Body/Community
Bible-------Scriptures
Christian---Christ-follower
Commandment-Mandate

Some of these substitutions are handy as pure synonyms, because the institutional church has simply dragged the first word through the mud, and we need a replacement. Other substitutions are better because they actually communicate more effectively to a Post-Modern mindset. I'll go through them to give you my thoughts about each one.

Truth-Reality: This is my favorite one, and it represents both of the above reasons that a replacement word is necessary for Post-Modern communication. In the first place, the word Truth has been wielded like a hammer by modernist ministers. And it's only gotten worse as times have changed, and as Relativism has reared its head. It's as if the louder we say the word "Truth" the more likely it is to sink in.

I prefer to use the word Reality, because no one can fully deny it. We may be able to spin vain philosophies regarding the viscosity of truth, and approach at them the same way as we would approach a math equation involving imaginary numbers (you know, the square root of -1.) But everyone is at least partially familiar with reality, and recognizes the concrete nature of it. You'd be surprised how often you can substitute the word Reality when you're tempted to say Truth. Give it a try.

Sin-Rebellion: Here again, there's nothing wrong with the word Sin. But it's been so misused, usually in the context of legalism and misplaced judgment, that it carries far too much baggage. It is not necessarily a silver bullet to talk to a Post-Modern about Rebellion, but it is easier for most of them to relate to their real lives.

Savior-Messiah: On the left, we have a word that has been beaten to death in formulaic evangelism, and on the right, a word that alludes to Jesus' Jewish culture and context, which is something that Post-Moderns find themselves drawn to. Rob Bell, in his Nooma videos, shows us the philosophical appeal to a cultural/contextual reading of the gospels, and the thrill of understanding what lies behind the words we've heard all our lives. It's like colorizing a black-and-white photo, and has revived many a cold heart to renewed interest in the things of God.

Salvation-Restoration: Salvation has come to refer to the inclusion of a select group for a ticket to heaven, and the exclusion of those who don't fit in so well. I know that's not what it actually means, but still. Even in the best of cases, "Salvation" has become empty, whereas Restoration engages the listener's sense that everything is awry, and must be restored or redeemed. Those with a bent toward social justice will understand this particularly well, and may be more likely to see the need for it in their own hearts.

Church-Body: "Church" has insititutional and corporate/commercial overtones. In Post-Modern eyes, it is often a legal entity that competes with other such legal entities for money, publicity and notoriety. A Body or Community, however, is an organism that functions inter-depentently, relying on one another's strengths, and bearing each other's burdens.

Bible-Scriptures: This one I'm not dogmatic about. But Rob Bell again leads the way by choosing the less stigmatized of the two words... the latter.

Christian-Christ-follower: I've written about this in the past, and I have to admit that, from an objective, etymological perspective, the former word is better. It implies being "in Christ" rather than simply following him. But it has fallen so far in our process of cultural segmentation that its virtue is all but lost. I do not recommend abandoning the word "Christian" whatsoever. But one must seriously consider "Christ-follower" when broaching the topic in the company of skeptics.

Commandment-Mandate: This one just came to me yesterday, and I stand by this substitution only for the sake of its emotional impact. The first word sounds oppressive and confining, but the second sounds like a challenge. Like we're being offered an opportunity, charged with a mission and an objective. I can't back this up with a dictionary, but I'm going to try to make this switch as often as possible, to see how it bounces.

Please feel free to critique my list, or my explanations. But one thing I'd definitely like to see in the comments is more ideas for words substitutions. So have at it!



+

Theologisticianists, Unite!

Biology -- Biologist

Psychology -- Psychologist

Zoology -- Zoologist

Proctology -- Butt Doctor Proctologist

Sociology -- Sociologist

Theology --

Did you say Theologist? Maybe you were tempted to, before quickly realizing that the word is, in fact, Theologian.

Can you think of any other words that end in "-logian"? Really... I dare you to find one.

According to Greek, a "logian" and a "logist" are identical. It's just that the former is dormant, and the latter is active. When I say "active", I mean it is still being used to create new words. If you are a man, imagine you've made a decision to be the first one to truly understand women. First of all, good luck. But if you insist, then you would be undertaking the field of feminology. So what does that make you? A feminologist, of course. Certainly not a feminologian.

But all etymology and etymologians aside, I think I can see a real difference in meaning between the suffixes, even if it's a bit tacked-on. The "logists", if you'll notice, tend to all be practitioners of their respective sciences. Perhaps some of them are primarily academics, but by and large a psychologist will practice psychology, a zoologist makes sure animals are cared for, and a sociologist advises, you know... advises.

OK, so I don't know what most of the "logists" actually do, if they're not teaching or writing a book. The point is, they're practitioners, by and large.

What I'm wondering is, do we expect theologians to be practitioners as well, or is theology just for writing and teaching and teaching other people to write and teach?

Perhaps that is all theologians are good for. In that case, I would like to announce my intention to be a theologist (emphasis on the second syllable.) What I'm saying is, I don't just want to study God, I want to practice God. I want to live and breathe God, and teach other people to live and breathe God.

If you google "theologist" you'll get 81,800 results. So I obviously didn't coin the word. Although I wonder how many people coined it to mean the same thing as I did.

OK, so I'm 0 for 1 on word-coining so far. I'll just have to try harder, then...

1. Theologic - Rational thoughts or theories of the divine

2. Theologistics - The study of how God pulls off all those miracles

3. Theologisticans - Those who study Theologistics

4. Theologcabin - Where pastors go for those silly retreats

5. Theologarithms - Math so hard only God can do it

6. Theologician - An entertainer who can pull interpretations out of Scripture which were not there before

Looks like 4 and 5 are brand-new additions to the internet, and 3 is dang close. It's always nice to add a new word to the world wide web, don't you think?



+

Don't Call Me That

If you look at our website, brochure, business cards, etc, you will see that word behind my name.

Pastor.

Despite all the title-wrangling that's gone on with the emerging church movement, I think one title that has stayed fairly well intact is the word Pastor.

Assuming we even knew what it meant to begin with.

But a pastor is a shepherd, right? In Latin it's the same word. A pastor works in the pasture, shepherding sheep. Of course Jesus is the great high shepherd, or head shepherd, thus the Head Pastor. (Oops. We've been calling certain people "Head Pastor", haven't we?) But Paul and other apostles make it clear that God has designated some to lead in this shepherding kind of way, and we do so under the leadership of the Head Shepherd.

Yesterday I caught a clip of Hank Hanegraaff on the Bible Answer Man radio show, where he was talking about the importance of "protecting the pulpit." Maybe that's why pastors grip it so hard when their preaching gets emphatic... they're protecting it. I actually got images of bullet-proof mylar and security guards on either side, lest anyone should take a shot at the holy lectern. Would you take a bullet for the pulpit?

I'm not saying good ole' Hank is all wet. If you have been entrusted with the role to disseminate God's truth to the community of believers, people will tend to trust whom you trust as well. And that is implied when the pastor invites someone else to speak at the pulpit.

So in essence it's an issue of stewardship. But the problem is, there's something about that "protecting the pulpit" attitude that threatens to swing toward arrogance and vainglory. As if we all as believers are called to be miniature Christs, but pastors are the XL minis. And as in any case of security (think national security, especially if you're a Democrat,) it is easy to secure something so well that you strangle it. (Your neck is in danger, sir! Here, let me protect it snugly with my two hands! Tighter now...)

The truth is that there are many types of pastors. God knows every community of believers is different, and needs a different brand of leader. Some really do need a solid theological expert who can humbly but boldly lift the group to the next level of understanding. But to presume that this is the primary type, or worse, the only type, is foolish.

How do I know? For one, because God called me to do it. Yes, I know a few things, and I like to teach. But I am seriously unqualified to be the ordained protector of the sacred podium.

It is false images like that that spring to mind when people call me "Pastor".

Mark Driscoll, in his autobiographical book Confessions of a Reformission Rev, writes about an experience early on in his church-planting ministry, when a young man calls him in the middle of the night, distraught about his inability to give up masturbating. After Driscoll gives him some very crude, direct, and groggy advice, the young man says, "Alright. Thanks, Pastor Mark." Driscoll recalls this as the first time he was ever called Pastor, and it made an impact on him.

I get called Pastor sometimes, but I usually ask people not to. It may be the title on my card, but you don't hear people getting called "Sales Representative Tim", or "C.E.O. Warren".

I think God has called me to be the type of pastor that holds the pulpit loosely, that stands up for what God has given me, but also empowers the gifts of others. I think there's a lot of community to be had in the process of opening things up, and gently enabling the harmony of voices that God intended when he gave us such a beautiful array of gifts. And this is not necessarily the first thing people think of when they call me Pastor.

Just "Ryan" will be fine, thanks.

Fruits of the Flesh - Happiness

This is the third installment in the series "Fruits of the Flesh". Here is the original post.

The second Fruit of the Spirit is Joy. The second Fruit of the Flesh is Happiness.

I wrote at some length about Love vs. Romance, but for Joy vs. Happiness I'll be brief.

One response to the original post was about the denigration of the word "happiness", and the fact that the Greek and Hebrew words most often translated "blessed" in the Scriptures are just as accurately translated "happy". Such as in the Psalm 1:1 "Happy is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked," or Matthew 5:7, "Happy are the merciful."

The most common approach to Joy vs. Happiness is that Joy is deep and resilient, whereas Happiness is temporary and circumstantial. I have no qualms about that view. But is there a chance we're giving Happiness the short-shrift?

One of the primary post-modern criticisms of Christianity attacks the naive, happy-clappy, see-no-evil disposition. It bothers me, too. But is happiness the culprit, or the victim here? It would be a funny thing to translate Matthew 5:4, "Happy are those who mourn". Mourning people aren't happy, they're sad.

The second fruit of the flesh is a Happiness that is sought in and of itself. But much like Romance, and the other Fruits of the Flesh, Happiness needs to be a by-product of the Spirit, and becomes an evil thing when it is sought directly. Joy, on the contrary, can be sought directly, because we cannot have it without a whole-hearted trust in God. Happiness is an emotion, but Joy is a commitment.

And no matter what emotions joy may lead us through in this life, happy is the one who joyfully perseveres to the end, where happiness is not the exception, but the rule.

Fruits of the Flesh - Romance

Yesterday I lined up the world's counterfeit fruits in the post "Fruits of the Flesh." Now I'm going to hit each one briefly, for a little explanation.

The first Fruit of the Spirit is Love. The first Fruit of the Flesh is Romance.

The Fruits of the Flesh are not, inherently, bad. The only people I know who would call Romance bad are the unromantic. Romance, to them, is what gives the Romeos and Don Juans an unfair advantage. But apart from them, most of us can agree that Romance is a good thing, especially within marriage.

But here's the kicker. God says, "Love." The world says "Fall in love." That's what Romance is: Falling in love. It's not something you have any control over... you're a victim. It just happens. So you get swept off your feet, and carried along by a sweet summer breeze.

And it's only logical that if you don't have any control over the beginning of something, you won't have any control over the end, either. Falling out of love. Breaking up. Divorce. Romance, like money, is a great servant and a terrible master.

One of the great tragedies of the English language is the multi-tasking it often is required to do. I'm not going to ask you to stop saying how much you love Snow, or Motorcycles, or Burger King. But when you talk about loving people, you've got to switch into another gear. DC Talk wrote a hip-hop ditty called "Luv is a Verb" which was cheesy, but right on target.

If Love is a verb, it's not something you can "fall into". It's a bull you take by the horns. And if it's all mushy and emotional then guys will get really quiet when they say "I love you" to each other, and have to add the word "dude" or "man" or "bro".

So I'm gonna finish with a word to the men. If there's anything masculine out there, it's action. Decisive, Aggressive Action. No wonder we've shrunk back from loving each other... our society equates it with sex, sunsets and satin sheets. And those things have their place. But love is a thing of action! It is a thing of reckless sacrifice and relentless devotion. It means making a decision and never, ever swerving from it. Do you think you're stubborn and tough? Make a pact with God right now (or renew the one you already have) to never leave your wife... legally, physically, sexually, mentally... period. Make a pact to never abuse her, or your kids. Never in a million years. Make a pact to work like an ox to provide them everything they need. Make a pact to shut the hell up when they just need you to listen.

Because Love is a verb... bro.

In the Land of Broken Words

A few months ago, I wrote a song called "In the land of broken toys", reminiscent of the rejects portrayed in the claymation film "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer".

A land of broken toys is a very plausible fiction for anyone who knows more than a few children personally. Children break toys. It's a fact. Maybe it's because they get so excited whenever they have a new one that they can't control their energy. Maybe it's because they lack the necessary motor skills and sense of caution and consequence. Maybe it's just because they're, well... immature.

I believe that same immaturity lurks in the halls of the Big House of Evangelism, creating a Land of Broken Words. Because I know I'm not the only one who's noticed the velocity with which words are coined and discarded in an evangelical sub-culture obsessed with progress and results.

Perhaps some of these broken words are, in fact, better off broken. But others are perfectly suited to their purposes, and get broken because of carelessness... too much use, too loudly, with too little love.

I myself have been criticized for replacing "Christian" with "Christ-follower" among other things. Sometimes I make the swap with a hint of sadness... in the above case knowing that the former word implies the state of being "in Christ", unlike the latter. But I received the word already badly beaten, nearly beyond repair. Hopefully it will make a strong comeback one day, but I've always been more of an inventor than a mechanic.

And there is literally no end to the types of words that have fallen victim to this fate. But I'm going to focus here on the words that refer to people who have not surrendered their lives to Jesus, for the purpose of entering into an ongoing relationship to him. I'll be diggin up a pretty wide array, so here we go:

"HEATHEN"

Scripture Context: I Thessalonians 4:5 - a dirty sinner with animal instincts
Modern Connotation: pure insult - "Us vs. Them"
Status: Dead or Antiquated

"LOST"

Scripture Context: Luke 15:6 - Jesus seeking out his lost sheep (who are apparently clueless)
Modern Connotation: Parental concern that borders on pity - belittling & patronizing
Status: Musty but still Common

"UNSAVED"

Scripture Context: All throughout NT - Those not (yet) rescued from danger/damnation
Modern Connotation: Negative, "Haves vs. Have-Nots"
Status: Common

"PRE-CHRISTIAN"

Scripture Context: Possibly 2 Peter 3:9, though we have no reason to believe that every Non-Christian is a "Pre-Christian".
Modern Connotation: Snarky, Presumptuous
Status: Contemporary, but Limited

"UNCHURCHED"

Scripture Context: Not sure if there is any (further explanation below)
Modern Connotation: Unrefined, Unpropagandized (further explanation below)
Status: Common and Gaining

There are a lot more I could hit, but this last one, "unchurched" is what I want to focus on. And as I do, keep in mind that I am mostly speaking on behalf of a post-modern generation, and not attempting serious journalism, so my perspective will be limited, yet I think crucial as well.

Post-modern culture tends to view the Church, and Christianity much the way it views any other large institution. Chock-full of self-serving agendas and schemes to brainwash entire generations into unquestioning submission. In post-modern eyes, a large corporation has achieved its goal when every last individual is walking around as if in a trance reminiscent of Dustin Hoffman's character from Rain Man: "Gotta go to K-Mart. Gotta go to K-Mart."

It has also not escaped their notice they way Missions has been conducted over the last several centuries... where it is just as important to westernize a populace as to evangelize it. They (we?) are convinced, and perhaps with good reason, that the Church is out to destroy all cultures but its own... that a modern Missions Director takes more queues from Alexander the Great than from Paul the Apostle.

Thus, to become "churched" is to become forcibly assimilated, to lose touch with one's own willpower and surrender to the Borg, since resistance is, indeed, futile. It is to fall victim to pervasive propaganda and slick marketing... to sell out.

Many Christians already hold this view toward mega-churches. The larger the church, the more resources available for marketing, and the more people will be accused of selling out when they finally break down and join "Six Flags over Jesus". This is not to be critical... but we close our eyes to the prevailing attitudes. And those belonging to small or medium churches should understand that the way they feel about the Great Conglomeration Congregation out on the highway is the way many people feel about the Church as a whole.

And we have to be aware of that when we use words like "Unchurched". We can't be surprised when people see it as adversarial... like the trash talk on the court that soundly predicts the fate of one's opponent.

But it's not just the talk. I believe that in many cases the mentality is consistent with the connotation. Evangelism-minded Christians often believe that they are in possession of a culture that should be spread like hellenism to the entire known world. So if this what the world hears us saying, perhaps it is not disingenuous at all. Perhaps we truly are communicating accurately with such a word.

And that's even worse. It's no real trouble to deport another sorry ex-patriot to the Land of Broken Words. To turn an attitude around is another thing entirely.

So ask yourself: "Am I more concerned about a population that is unchurched, or one that is unloved?" Did Jesus call me to go about "churching" people, or loving them? Because when you love a person like Jesus does, you're going to tell them the truth, even if it's hard. You're just far less likely to communicate it with a fake million-dollar bill.

One more thing: in addition to being concerned about those who are unloved, we need to take note of the undiscipled. For if there are two Jesus mandates that cannot be disputed, they are: to love people, and to disciple them. And often, the quest for the undiscipled can be conducted within the walls of the church, because sadly, it's like shooting fish in a bucket to find those still subsisting on the milk of the Word, having never cut their teeth on its meat.

I will wrap this up by recognizing that I am still hung up on these negative words that many people have tried to get away from. The fact is that the terms "unloved" and "undiscipled", however big an improvement they may be, are still not fit for public consumption. Believe me... I have tried and tried to find words that are.

But there are so many great words from the past that have been discarded due merely to becoming misused or worn out. Is it time to take a trip to the junkyard for some salvage work? Maybe it is.

So who's got a crowbar?

However and Ever, Amen.

One of the (many) nails I'm always hammering is the idea of "balance". I believe the error most often lies in the extremes, and the healthy view is in the center. Of course there are plenty of exceptions, but it’s a good concept to keep in mind.

So I’ve recently discovered that, in my (or anyone’s) attempt to communicate a balanced view, I tend to use the word “however” constantly. So the entire remainder of this blog will now be dedicated to throwing at you all the examples I can find of the word “however” in my fair-and-balanced journalism. Here we go…

There are plenty of passages in the book of Acts, and the writings of Paul to substantiate a belief that “speaking in other tongues” is a spiritual gift that endures to the present day. HOWEVER, it is difficult to prove that there is enough evidence to say that tongues is the sole or primary evidence of “baptism in the Holy Spirit.”

As Christians, we should be doing all we can to reduce (hopefully to zero) the number of abortions that occur. HOWEVER, we must respect those who disagree with us as to whether that effort should involve a legal ban, or legal restrictions, on abortion.

The Bible makes it clear that drunkenness, like all overindulgences, is sinful. HOWEVER, there is no biblical reason to believe that the mere consumption of alcohol is wrong.

Fallen angels, known as demons, have the ability to tempt, and even possess, humans. HOWEVER, a demon cannot possess one who is already possessed by the Holy Spirit, and no one but God can read a person’s mind.

Denominations can be useful as organizations of specific groups of believers for the purpose of accomplishing the work of the Kingdom. HOWEVER, they become detrimental to the kingdom when they serve to divide us from one another and foster prideful loyalties among their members.

God hates divorce, and there has never been a divorce that was desired by him. HOWEVER, in his grace he permits divorce under the circumstances of adultery or abandonment (which some believe includes physical abuse.)

Over the span of its existence, each species has evolved and adapted to its environment, while some become extinct. This process is known as “microevolution” and has virtually no detractors. “Macroevolution,” HOWEVER, is the theory that all the species we know today have evolved from other, simpler species, and can be traced back eventually to single-celled organisms, and further back still, to a sort of biochemical soup.

This does not mean that all believers must agree on everything all the time. It does, HOWEVER, mean that we must “make every effort” to come to agreement on as many things as possible.

God never tried to entertain anybody. HOWEVER, He does work real and astonishing miracles in the world.

What’s true is true, no matter who challenges it. What’s false is false, no matter who believes it. HOWEVER, God is the only one with a monopoly on the Truth.

There are many more examples where I started to write “however” but was so sick of the word that I found some other way to say it. And it’s a sickness I’m happy to pass on to you, the consumer.

What the Hell?

1. “You’re doing a hell of a job.”
2. “I had a hell of a day.”
3. “It’s cold as hell in here.”
4. “It’s hot as hell in here.”
5. “I’ve just been through hell and back.”
6. “See you in hell!”

One of the beautiful things about the English language is that we have a way of coming up with words (most of which contain exactly four letters) that can mean just about anything you want. Their only real purpose anymore is to add a hard edge to what you’re trying to say. In the six sentences above, the word “hell” means something different each time:

1. great
2. terrible
3. the coldest place you can think of
4. the hottest place you can think of
5. someplace that makes you wish you were dead
6. someplace that makes you wish you weren’t dead

As it were, whenever a word can mean anything, it essentially means nothing. And it’s just as well, because nobody really believes in hell anymore, right? I mean… how old-fashioned is that?

This is where all the self-proclaimed Post-Moderns should sit straight up and take notice. What are the two main reasons people give for not believing in hell? 1) Because a loving God would never send people to a place of torture, and 2) Because the idea of hell is so old-fashioned.

To deal with those in backwards order, the concept of disbelieving an idea just because it’s old is one of the most ridiculous things that Modernism has handed down to us. So if Post-Modernism is going to do us any good, it needs to start by putting all the old ideas back out on the table for reconsideration. “New” does not equal “better” and “old” does not equal obsolete. Just look what that concept has done to our historical buildings and, conversely, to our great-outdoors-come-suburban-sprawl.

Now to take a look at number one. If you believe in a loving God, but have never wondered how he could banish anyone to eternal torture, then I say the hell with you. The rest of us have all lost at least a little sleep over it, and no matter how much we rebuke our doubting spirit, the question remains.

But before we can even go there, we ought to take a look at why we believe the things we do. When somebody says, “The whole situation in Iraq is a disaster”, do you believe it because you tend to identify with Democrats, or because President Bush really annoys you, or because you trust the mainstream media’s reporting? Or maybe you disbelieve it because you tend to identify with Republicans, or because you have a loved one in Iraq and you’re hoping for the best, or because you think God wouldn’t let America make a mistake this big?

Are any of these good reasons for believing anything? The fact is, we believe what we want to believe. That’s why most Americans believe in Heaven, but not in hell. It just isn’t pleasant to think about people going there, so by ignoring it, perhaps it will go away.

I’m not here to whip out the Big Book and change anybody’s theology. Mostly, I just want everyone to take a little harder look at themselves, and whether they’re really prepared to accept whatever God has to say about things.

Because wishful thinking is a hell of a way to search for the truth.

Working On Your Serve

So you want to be a servant...

What's the opposite of classify? Declassify, of course.
What's the opposite of regulate? Deregulate.
Humidify? Dehumidify.
Sensitize? Desensitize.

What about Serve? What's the opposite of that?

In the late 1780s, America's founding fathers were trying desperately to get our government off the ground. But it wasn't until 1791 that the first ten Amendments to the Constitution were ratified, and America had its Bill of Rights. This acheivement served to overcome the final obstacle to a stable and workable government uniting our 13 original colonies, and the Bill of Rights is now recognized around the world as a uniquely American document.

I think everyone I know would agree that the adoption of the Bill of Rights was a triumphant moment in American history, and indeed a turning point in the civilization of humanity.

But it also has a lot to tell us about our character as Americans. Our nation was founded on the idea, among others, that all humans deserve to have certain rights and opportunities. Thomas Jefferson called them "unalienable." The framers of the Constitution broke them down into three categories: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (a modification of John Locke's list- Life, Liberty and Property.) Then, the Bill of Rights put them into lawyerspeak for time immemorial.

And lo and behold, it stuck. 215 years later, what better way is there to identify an American in a crowd than to find the one demanding to get what he deserves (or more precisely, what he wants.) As a nation, we are so focused on our rights that it has become impossible to understand the true character of Jesus.

If you are always thinking about how you can serve others, you are a SERVANT.
If you are always thinking about what you deserve, you, my friend, are a DESERVANT. You are the opposite of what Jesus was, and is calling you to be.

Take a look at Philippians 2:5-7 in the Message.

Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal status with God but didn't think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human!

Jesus would be a terrible American.

If the Creator of Volcanoes, Constellations and DNA can stoop to washing dirty feet, not to mention submitting to a Roman crucifixion, then maybe we can stop thinking about ourselves, and start noticing the pain and desperation all around us. Maybe we can let our church services start serving others instead of ourselves (otherwise maybe we should call them disservices.) Maybe we can stop complaining about how badly people treat us long enough to realize that we've been treating them even worse.

OK? Starting.... now.