God and Culture

The God and Culture Blog Has Moved

2007-02-07T21:23:00.000-05:00

Since old blogger became new blogger I have had INCREDIBLE difficulty acessing the blog to keep it updated. I have made the decision to no longer blog here.

Please visit the new location of the God and Culture Blog here:

http://godandculture.wordpress.com

Lead On, Mr. President

2007-01-24T10:21:00.000-05:00

Those who make it their habit of studying leadership philosophy will have much to muse about for some time in the wake of President Bush's 6th State of the Union Address. Facing for the first time in his presidency a congress controlled by the opposition party, along with many in his own party who have increasingly distanced themselves from his Iraq policy; and facing an American electorate that views him as popularly as Richard Nixon was viewed just 6 months prior to his resignation, George W. Bush proved himself a man and a genuine leader.

Mr. Bush clearly articulated for the first time why and how the situation in Iraq deterioriated into near chaos, pointing to not only the people groups responsible for the chaos, but more importantly giving clear definition to their philosophy and motives. And just as importantly, the president made the case for standing firm in Iraq on the principle of American morality. He pointed to an important fact: Al Qaeda is a group of Sunni extremists, and he cogently identified their objective as overthrowing moderate governments while establishing safe havens for their operations and terrorizing Americans to force us to retreat in fear, abandoning the cause of liberty. The president properly framed the violence and chaos in Iraq as a reaction of the enemy to the democratic processes implemented in Afghanistan and Iraq in an attempt to undo them.We become complicit with the enemy if we allow their strategy to force us into retreat and to abandon the cause of liberty in the Middle east.

Mr. Bush framed his resolve - and his call for our resolve - within the context of Scripture, which he called 'timeless truth':

American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required.

Those words were originally spoken by Jesus in The Gospel of Luke 12:48 as an incentive to faithful stewardship of a master's property. Jesus makes it clear it is not our wealth that makes us successful, but rather what we do with our wealth that will determine our success or failure in the world. America in recent years has lost sight of the source of its bounty and in doing so has abandonded any sense of responsible stewardship for that bounty. When you truly believe that all you have is yours by your own strength, you bear no sense of responsiblity for sharing it with others. Our wealth and our liberty as Americans has been loaned to us by the One who truly owns it: our Creator. How we have stewarded our Master's property will be determined in the end at our judgment before this same Master. Accountability is the true motivator for how we engage the world community, not only when it comes to terror, but more importantly when it comes to the greater social issues of disease, hunger, and poverty. To whom much is given of him much shall be required.

The president showed genuine resolve and true grit, and most importantly he demonstrated how to lead when other voices are pointing in a different direction, especially when he said:

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

Lead on, Mr. President.

Children of Men is NOT The Children of Men

2007-01-06T21:14:00.000-05:00

I've just seen the new film Children of Men and wanted to put thoughts to pen while it is still fresh on my mind.

In 1992 the British mystery writer P.D. James veered from her usual fare and wrote a compelling novel of dystopian London set in the year 2021, 26 years after the last human baby was born. The Children of Men is the diary of the fictional Theo Faron, who turns 50 on January 1, 2021 in an age of despair fueled by the unexplainable infertility of the human race. A Doctor of Philosophy and an Oxford don, Theo's broader claim to fame is that he is also cousin to the Warden of England, Xan Lypiatt, who rules all of Britian as a "benevolent" dictator in the midst of an ever coarsening and darkening culture; "a universal negativism" prevails in a culture characterized by national porn shops, state mandated fertility tests, state funded leisure activities, freedoms limited by the State Security Police under authority of the four members of the Council of England, all in a futile humanistic effort to produce a human life. Policies set by the Council have created an environment which devalues the old, encouraging them to euthanise themselves and spare their relatives the burden of caring for them in their old age, and overvalues the young, creating a generation of maturing children that is more than rebellious; it is despotic, selfish, and cruel: "If from infancy you treat children as gods they are liable in adulthood to act as devils."

In writing The Children of Men, James' vividly portrays the chaos that ensues when a people "move(s) from the theology of sin and redemption to a less uncompromising doctrine: corporate social responsibility coupled with a sentimental humanism." James' thesis conveys the limits of science, along with man's futile search for lasting joy in a transient, uncertain world. The image painted is of a wanderer, struggling, searching for the meaning of it all; of a pilgrim who - even in the midst of dark despair, when suicide and euthanasia are marketed by the government as an acceptable, and even beautiful exit - pursues hope and finds it - a hope that finds its apex in a pregnant woman and her child - not unlike another epic drama that unfolded 2000 years ago.

Children of Men, sans The, on the other hand, is a new film loosely based on the P.D. James plot from her novel, the underlying message of which bears no resemblence whatsoever to the book. In fact, the screenplay for the movie goes out of its way to present the exact opposite worldview James' conveys in her novel. The movie is more violent and profane than necessary to paint the image of dystopian Britan James had in mind in her novel. The film contains very brief nudity and liberal use of the "F" word and other gutter language NOT PRESENT IN THE NOVEL.

Key elements of the novel's plot are missing or significantly changed in the movie, and I cannot help but think that the screenwriters did so intentionally, so as to refocus the entire worldview presented. Among them: Theo's relationship with Julian in the film is not at all as it is in the novel. Understanding Theo's relationship to Xan (identified as Nigel in the film) is critical to the entire plot in the novel, and yet that relationship is totally ignored in the film. The true reason for Theo's remorse over the death of his own child is central to Theo's personal despair and guilt, but is fundamentally changed in the film. Jasper's character in the novel is a respectable retired college professor, yet he is portrayed in the film as a burned out, hippie activist. The true motives of The Five Fishes, their unity of purpose, and Theo's involvment with them is fundamentally different in the film than in the novel. The challenge to Theo's latent faith and its revival in the novel is absent in the film. In the novel the Five Fishes have a common enemy which brings them together, with the exception of a "Judas" figure; in the film they self-destruct as each seeks his own ends. The triumph of hope over despair in the novel's climactic ending, which is dependent on a full understanding of the estranged relationship of Theo and Xan - absent in the film.

All of this fundamentally changes the Christian worldview presented by James in the novel. While the moral of James' story points to a Power outside of ourselves as the ultimate hope of humanity, the moral of the movie elevates man's ingenuity as his ultimate Savior. The novel presents the callousness and inhumanity of euthanasia, while the movie glorifies it, and in this sense, along with the portrayal of the dignity that is intrinsic in human life, the novel is clearly pro-life; the movie clearly is not. The five screenwriters clearly used cinematic license to create an entirely different story than the one given us by the able pen of P.D. James. Skip the movie, but by all means read this novel!

Christmas Doesn't Come Once a Year

2006-12-31T19:18:00.000-05:00

The secular celebration of Christmas came to an abrupt end on December 25th. Radio stations in Detroit began playing [secular] Christmas music the day after Halloween. It all stopped suddenly and without warning late in the evening on December 25th. And with good reason.

Secular radio stations aren't interested in Christmas. They're interested in attracting listeners who are emotionally and psychologically moved by Karen Carpenter, Nat King Cole, and Bing Crosby singing sappy songs about lonely Christmas eves, chestnuts roasting, and pumpkin pie in Pennsylvania. If you get enough of those listeners between November 1 and December 25, your Arbitron ratings go way up - and so do your ad rates!

The sad truth is, even devoted followers of Jesus like us have been so conditioned by the secular celebration of Christmas that the season also came to an abrupt end for us as well. If only we believers took our cues from church history rather than from WNIC radio, maybe for us the season that is Christmas would be significant far beyond December 25.

Church history teaches us that what is now become the secular Christmas season used to be called the spiritual preparation of Advent. Counting back four Sunday's before Christmas day began a time of spiritual reflection. Four solid weeks of musing about the spiritual significance of the incarnation of God's Son in human flesh; scripture reading, worship services, and prayers that focused the hearts of devoted followers of Jesus on the wonder of it all. Instead of being emotionally manipulated by music about chestnuts and snow, our forebears in the church allowed their minds and hearts to be shaped by the lyrics and music of George Fredrick Handel and Charles Wesley. Instead of packing their days leading up to Christmas with holiday parties and frantic mall forays, those who came before us were packing into houses of worship - small, unheated, and candlelit - to focus their spirits on the Word.

The preparation of Advent didn't abruptly end on December 25th either. It continued through what is known on the church calendar as "Epiphany," the day the church marks the coming of the Magi to visit the young child with their gifts (some two years after the manger scene!).

And Epiphany, like Christmas, isn't just one day either. It takes us all the way to the middle of February with more worship, more spiritual focus, more insight into our relationship with the baby born who is the coming King. And Epiphany segues into Lent, and Lent into Pentecost, and before you know it we've been relating to the baby in the manger for a whole year and it's time once again to celebrate Advent! Christmas doesn't come but once a year! Christmas is a perpetual preparation in anticipation of the one endless day we will share together in the permanent presence of the baby born reigning as King of kings.

America Votes Its Values

2006-11-08T08:56:00.000-05:00

Voters went to the polls this past Tuesday in record numbers and turned the ship of state in a new direction: the wrong one. The American electorate voted their values, revealing the extent of the moral decay that envelopes our nation. South Dakotans rejected a ban on abortions; Missourians allowed embryonic stem cell research - killing the next generation to preserve the present one; Arizonans declined to ban gay marriage. And right here in Michigan we re-elected a savvy do-nothing governor who twice during the last four years vetoed bills that would have banned the gruesome procedure that is partial birth abortion, and whose ecomonic policies have driven the Michigan economy into last place in the nation. Look for the unemployment line to get even longer.

The pundits all say that the outcome of Tuesday's election is a referendum on President Bush's Iraq policy. As the Democrats take over Congress in January and implement policies and laws that hamstring the President's ability to prosecute the war on terror and deflate the morale of our courageous military to execute the war on terror, look for the war on terror in your own back yard. They're coming to America - at the open invitation of the American electorate.

Yes, America voted its values on Tuesday. America voted selfishly. We Americans value free sex without regard to its consequences. We Americans value our own health and prosperity without regard to the health and prosperity of future generations. We Americans value freedom without the limits of a God consciousness. We Americans value our right NOT to act reponsibly in protecting the inalienable rights with which our Creator endowed all of humanity - not just selfish Americans.

The Democrat leaders of the new Congress were all photo-oped standing in a line holding hands high in victory Tuesday night with a sign that read: "A New Direction." The next two years will reveal that when immorality reigns, disaster is sure to follow. The new direction is indeed the wrong direction; but the will of the people will prevail - even if it is a will bent on defying the will of God. God's will, however, always prevails in the end.

And it is God's will that prevailed in Tuesday's elections. God raises up governments and kings and takes out governments and kings; and God grants to a people the leaders they deserve. Rigteousness exalts a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people. God exercised His own will through the American electorate on Tuesday. But the American electorate is too arrogant to see that what they have done is only what God has allowed them to do. Our God is in the heavens; He does whatsoever pleases Himself. And if it pleases God to bring judgment on this nation by granting to us immoral and unGodly leaders, so be it. And to God alone be the glory.

The Ted Haggard Affair

2006-11-03T09:41:00.000-05:00

The allegations made against Ted Haggard by a 49 year old gay prostitute are disturbing on several fronts. They are disturbing first and foremost for his wife and five children. They are disturbing for the 14,000 member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, CO, the church Haggard founded and has pastored since 1985. And they are most certainly disturbing for the 30 million members of the National Association of Evangelicals.

There will be (is) a media feeding frenzy. Charges of blatant hypocrisy will be raised given the fact that Ted Haggard has been one of the key leaders in the campaign against gay marriage in Colorado. The moral issues that have been debated in advance of the upcoming election, just five days out from this shocking news, will be adversely affected across the country. Conservative candidates for House and Senate seats across the country will lose votes. There is no question that this is a tremendous setback for the conservative agenda. There is no question that the timing of the accusations is political.

There is no question that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness. There is no question that what has happened here - what is happening here - is more than what can be seen. The fallout is more than political. Frankly, the political fallout is nothing compared to the spiritual crisis at hand. What are we profited if we gain political ground in an election and lose our souls in the process? As we tally the political damage - as we scurry for political damage control in a desperate attempt to save votes - who will rustle the troops to do mortal combat with evil on the spiritual front to save souls - Pastor Ted's and ours? Who will recognize the Ted Haggard affair for what it really is, and by doing so be prepared to fight the real enemy? Who among conservative evangelicals is willing to forget the political fallout, with its ever so temporary consequences, and marshall our spiritual fortitude to deal with the much more important spiritual battle on which the Ted Haggard affair lifts the veil?

The media will be quick to point out the hypocrisy of Ted Haggard's waywardness while justifying and excusing its own indiscretions - and we will do the same thing. More than anything else, the Ted Haggard affair (excuse the pun) is a mirror that reflects each of us back to ourselves. When I heard this disappointing news on my way home from the studios on Thursday evening, God's word in Romans hit me hard: "All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

Sin has wages; Ted Haggard will pay them - is paying them. But you and I will also pay them. Pastor Ted has forfeited so much; but so have you and I. Pastor Ted loses prestige, position and power; but Pastor Ted needs grace - God's more than ours - but certainly ours.

I know the depths of my own depravity. The allegations here provide for me nothing more than a reflection of my own depraved heart, of my own illicit desires, of my own sin-distorted mind, of my own carnal lusts that, if left unchecked by the Holy Spirit ministering grace through the Word, would hurl me headlong into Hell.

This is more than "there but for the grace of God go I." No, no, no! A thousands time NO! There go I! Period! I am Ted Haggard. You are Ted Haggard. Mark Jones - Pastor Ted's alleged tryst partner and accuser - IS TED HAGGARD. Let the evangelical community use the Ted Haggard affair for what God intended it - as a mirror to reflect back to us our OWN depravity - NOT TED'S - and to plead for God's grace and mercy on our own defiled hearts; and as a reminder that cultural and moral salvation does not have its source in fleeting political clout, from our ability to generate votes for or against a particular moral issue, but rather from the power of the Holy Spirit working through a clean Church in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom we shine as lights in the world.

Christian Talk (Again)

2006-10-31T11:37:00.000-05:00

The most difficult part of my job as a talk radio host is knowing when to be nice to the guest (or caller) and when not to be. Because of this conundrum, many who listen to The Paul Edwards Program often express concern (most always in a loving way) that I fail to directly challenge guests who hold positions with which I disagree. This was the case when the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, was on the program. It was also the case yesterday when my in-studio guest was the president of a Catholic media organization.

My interviewing style is not that of your typical "pit bull" Christian talk show host. In many cases, I am interviewing the person because I myself am seeking to better understand the base from which they operate, how they have formed their opinion on specific issues, and to allow them the space to make their point without constant interuption from the host. My hope is that the listener will make a conclusion on their own without merely hearing my position and adopting it as their own.

By hosting the program in this way I open myself up to criticism from listeners. Avid listeners may interpret my failure to articulate a response as a lack of knowledge on my part. A case in point would be when my Catholic media friend was making the point that The Bible itself does not claim to have all of the truth we need, therefore there is room for the traditions of the Church. How I choose to respond to this claim sets the tone and the direction of the entire program. My intent for this particular program was not a debate on evangelical/Catholic differences. Therefore I chose not to debate this point, but rather simply state that I disagree with the position and allow the program to follow my original intent: what is the common ground that Catholics and Evangelicals stand together on? Unfortunately that ground is not theological or even ecclesiological. It is political and social.

Occassional or casual listeners may hear me fail to articulate a response to a guest and conclude that I'm just weak and afraid to confront. I am neither. The truth is while confrontational talk radio makes GREAT radio, it often makes a poor TESTIMONY.

So pray for me, in the same way that the Apostle Paul asked to be prayed for: "...that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel..." (Ephesians 6:19). I want to be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove - an impossibility in the flesh but more than possible through the Spirit.

Christian Talk

2006-10-06T05:51:00.000-05:00

When you add the word "Radio" to the two words that identify this post you have created a near impossibility. Many times radio that is supposed to be Christian is infected by a vitriol that causes the programming to be neither "Christian" nor "Talk" and is often much more caustic in tone than the secular musings of Rush Limbaugh (on the Right) or Al Franken (on the Left).

I host a "Christian Talk Radio" program in Detroit. I listen to a variety of "talk radio" in my car and over the internet. Nothing is more disturbing to me than to listen to talk radio that purports to be "Christian" but leaves one with the feeling he has just been psychologically terrorized. The danger in me saying anything at all about how I feel about "Christian Talk Radio" is that I literally live in that glass house.

I bring this up because it was a true joy to have as guests on a recent program The Reverand Barry Lynn (yes - that one - he of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) and Professor Brendan Sweetman from Rockhurst College in Kansas City, MO. These distinquished gentlemen hold differing views on the subject of the place of religion in the public square, a hot-potato issue if there ever was one. And yet the truly amazing thing is this: the three of us (a Catholic, a conservative evangelical, and a liberal minister in the United Church of Christ) were able to actually "talk" in a Christian way. Which is to say, though we disagreed among ourselves on a variety of issues and agreed on some others, no one raised their voice and no one indictated the other was less than Christian because they held an opposing viewpoint.

To me, what makes Christian Talk Radio relevant is not the decibal level of the participants but rather the depth of understanding one can reach by carefully listening to the reasoned arguments of one with whom one disagrees. Christian Talk Radio is more about LISTENING than it is being heard - and yet so much of Christian Talk Radio is so focused on being heard, no one really hears anything at all.

But I always find that the listener has a different attitude about how "Christian Talk Radio" ought to be conducted by the host. Whenever I have a guest on like The Reverand Barry Lynn, one who is viewed by the majority of the evangelical right as an enemy combatant, if I never characterize that kind of guest as evil personified, the audience comes unglued and believes me to be evil personified. Many "Christians" in a "Christian Talk Radio" audience are much like the crowds of pagans gathered in the Colliseum to witness lions eating Christians for dinner: they don't feel the experience has equaled the price of admission unless and until the host of the program makes his guest lion fodder and plenty of blood is spattered around the studio.

I get the same reaction from Christians whenever Governor Jennifer Granholm (the liberal Democrat Governor of Michigan) or any other liberal for that matter, is on the program. Because I won't call her a baby killer to her face my email inbox is filled with hate from loving Christian brothers and sisters informing me that their experience didn't equal the price of admission, and that I will share eternity in hell right alongside the good Governor (and Barry Lynn).

I want to thank The Reverand Barry Lynn and Professor Brendan Sweetman for allowing me to eavesdrop, and at times facilitate, their very interesting conversation. Christian Talk Radio needs more real conversations like that one. You can stream it here.

DesiringGOD National Conference

2006-09-30T17:29:00.000-05:00

Greetings from Minneapolis where much more than a pennant race is taking place! 3,130 people from across the country and Canada have gathered here at the Minneapolis Convention Center for the fourth annual DesiringGOD National Conference. For those of you who have been living under a rock (hiding from the resurgance of reformed theology sweeping the twentysomething generation), DesiringGOD is the resource ministry of John Piper. If you don't know who John Piper is, just stop reading now.

The theme of this year's conference is "Above All Earthly Powers: The Supremacy of Christ in A Postmodern World." The title comes from a 2005 book by the same name by David Wells, professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He lifted the title from a verse in Martin Luther's hymn "A Mighty Fortress is Our God."

David Wells opened the conference Friday evening with a wonderful exposition of Hebrews which is summarized here: http://www.samshua.com/blog.

The most controversial aspect of the conference is the fact that John Piper invited the cussing pastor, Mark Driscoll, from Mars Hill Church in Seattle to be a keynote speaker. Mark spoke today on the nine areas of theology we must hold and contend for in our left hand as we hold open our right hand to be relevant to the culture. Mark will be a guest on The Paul Edwards Program this coming Monday (October 2) at 5:00 pm ET. Stream the audio of the program LIVE at http://www.godandculture.com. Tonight Donald Carson will keynote. He is the author of "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church."

More later...

A Cussing Pastor and An Atheist Jew

2006-09-23T07:05:00.000-05:00

It's amazing how things converge. Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, first came to my attention about a year ago in Blue Like Jazz, a book by Donald Miller. Without naming Driscoll specifically, Miller described him as a pastor who wasn't adverse to dropping the "F-bomb" occassionally - the cussing pastor. As a recovering fundamentalist I found that perplexing. My nephew told me that this cussing pastor had written a book himself: The Radical Reformission. I got it. I devoured it. I learned from it. Then when I got my registration material for John Piper's DesiringGod National Conference (September 29 - October 1, '06) I was really perplexed: Mark Driscoll was on the program as a keynote speaker. But I trust John Piper. In a passing conversation with a DG staff member, out of pure curiosity and not judgment, I asked him, "What are you guys thinking having Mark Driscoll at the National Conference?" (Notice I didn't say "What the 'h--l' are you guys thinking?" because then I would be the cussing pastor!). He responded by asking me if I had read Mark's book Confessions of a Reformissional Rev. I confessed I had not, but I had read his other one. He confessed that I should read Reformissional Rev. I got it. I devoured it. I learned from it.

Then I'm browsing Borders about three weeks ago and I happen upon Lauren Sandler's first book, Righteous: Dispatches from the Evangelical Youth Movement. Lauren spent some time criss-crossing the country in search of what makes young people who are also evangelical tick. And lo and behold (that's an old english term of amazment for the postmodern reader) one of the places she landed was Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Chapter 4 is all about Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church. What I was reading wasn't flattering. Lauren is a self-described "unrepentant Jewish atheist." And a feminist. A feminist who is really struggling with the biblical roles God has assigned to men and women. She spent alot of time at Mars Hill Church. Mark says she was welcomed there. But Mark and many others felt betrayed by Lauren when her book came out. Mark says that Lauren took out of context some conversations she had with two women in particular who are characterized in the book as really wishing they could have pursued higher education and careers rather than being stay at home moms. Lauren indicated in her book that the only reason these women were not career women is because of the teaching of Mark Driscoll on the distinct roles of men and women. Mark's view is that Lauren did this without even giving him or the other parties mentioned the courtesy of reading what she wrote about them prior to publication.

All of that as background to get to my point: it's amazing how things converge. I have a PR firm I work very closely with in Boston. They contacted me two weeks ago about Lauren's book. I booked an interview with Lauren for yesterday, September 22. I hadn't really thought much about the connection with Mars Hill at that time, until yesterday when I logged on to www.theresurgence.com where Mark Driscoll blogs. From what he wrote there it was apparent he wasn't real pleased with what Lauren said about Mars Hill in her book. On a whim, three hours before air time, I contacted Mark's assistant to see if there was any interest on Mark's part in talking with Lauren live on talk radio in Detroit. Much to my surprise both Lauren and Mark agreed to appear together on my program.

I'm a little disappointed that I was never able to get them to actually talk to each other. I've been in enough marriage counseling situations where the tension was so high between the couples that they talked to each other through me - like an "I Love Lucy" episode featuring the marital woes of a cuban and a redhead. That's exactly what this interview was like. Mark, I think correctly, views Lauren as a high-brow eastern establishment liberal who looks down her nose at anyone who isn't a high-brow eastern establishment liberal. Lauren, I think correctly, views Mark as a man who believes women ought to know their place. But Lauren is mistaken about where that place is. For her, submission to the role God has for women is a concentration camp (to use Betty Friedan's metaphor). But for a man and a woman brought together by God in relationship, the unique role God has designed for each as husband and wife can lead to deep joy and security. Even though Lauren would want a woman to have the right to make choices for herself, she denigrates Christian women who make the choice to enter into a godly relationship with their husbands. Like all feminists, Lauren really struggles with the idea of any woman depending on a man or being subject to a man.

I meant to ask Lauren which is worse: for a woman to choose to stay at home, raise her kids, and joyfully submit to her husband, or abandon the unique role God has designed for her, leave her kids in daycare all day, and go off to the corporate world where in all liklihood that same woman is forced to submit to her boss - who in the majority of cases is another MAN? A man who cannot have the best interests of that woman at heart in the same way a loving husband can.

"Hello, This is Casey"

2006-08-23T22:09:00.000-05:00

When we decided we were going to broadcast live from the Woodward Dream Cruise on August 19, I had an epiphany of sorts. Back in the 50's, when people were really cruising Woodward, one of the stations their car radio would have been tuned to (before the advent of FM radio) would have been WJBK AM 1500. Of course, that's the frequency WLQV is broadcasting on today. During the 50s there was a young Wayne State University graduate who was DJing for WJBK-AM 1500. His name was Casey Kasem.

Casey Kasem is a national treasure. What I wanted more than anything else was to have Casey on the phone during our remote from the Woodward Dream Cruise. How cool would it have been to have THAT VOICE once again coming over the AM 1500 frequency. So I went on a search via the Internet that landed me an obscure email address. I had no idea if my email would ever reach Casey, but four days before the Cruise I sent the email. The day before the Cruise I get a "Restricted" call on my cell's caller ID. I don't answer. It's Casey Kasem calling with his regrets, but he vaguely remembers, he says, those "cruises on the Boblo Boat" and appreciates me thinking of him.

I slap my head. I send Casey another email immediately explaining exactly what the Woodward Dream Cruise is, that it's cars, that it has nothing to do with the Boblo Boat. Alas, I never hear from him again.

Until TONIGHT - four days after the Woodward Dream Cruise is OVER! But alas, this time I don't recognize the number on my cell's caller ID, so I don't answer! And it's Casey Kasem leaving yet another voice mail! He says, "Paul Edwards, thanks for your persistence. You make me feel like a star!" I hear the genuine humility in his voice. I immediately hit redial on the number on my caller ID and I get a woman's voice on a voice mail greeting: "This is the Casey residence. If you leave us a really nice voice mail we just might call you back." I take my chances. I promise Casey that if he'll call me back, this time I WILL answer the phone.

10:40 pm Detroit time (7:40 pm in Los Angeles) the same number appears on my cell's caller ID. (74 year old Rock DJs have no sense of time zone, I think to myself.) This time I answer. This time I am having the most surreal experience of my life. I'm actually talking to the voice of Shaggy!

I say, "Casey, thanks so much for taking the time to personally call me." He says, "Paul, you're important." I sense he means it. Even though his voice is probably insured by Lloyds of London, he thinks I'm important. He tells me about three CDs he's working on, all with the word "Driving" in the title; and how he wishes he had realized sooner that the Woodward Dream Cruise was about DRIVING, and not the Boblo Boat; and how neat it would have been to be back on his old frequency AM 1500 talking about DRIVING.

There isn't a person on the planet who hasn't heard his voice. But the genuine humility of Casey Kasem came through loud and clear to me when he picked up the phone three times to make a call he could have very easily assigned to an assistant. Thanks for your persistence, Casey. It's the best (and only) long distance dedication I've ever had.

Postcard from the Smokies

2006-08-11T09:35:00.000-05:00

Much has been surveyed and written recently about the latest trend - Americans who use only a small percentage of the vacation time available to them (like this recent article in the NY Times: Please Don't Make Me Go On Vacation)- and then when we Americans do vacation we spend up to 60% of our time with our Blackberries, cell phones, and laptops taking care of business back home.

I promised myself that when I headed out for this vacation that I would do my dead-level best not to be a part of those statistics. And for the last six days I have succeeded. I've been in the Smoky Mountains of Tennessee since last Sunday (August 6). It's been beautiful. It's been relaxing. I even went White Water Rafting - totally out of character. But best of all, the week has been "scheduleless" and "agendaless." I have risen with the sun every morning (around 6:00 am), sat on a balcony deck on the front of a cabin with a cup of Venezulean coffee, with Henry Scougal's The Life of God in The Soul of Man. The rest of the day just happened. Whatever possibilities the day offered, and whatever my heart desired to do, is what I did. There have been lots of afternoon naps.

But man was created to work and to produce. So I am anxious and excited to get back to my church and to talk radio. I'll be back in the pulpit at Calvary Baptist Church of Waterford, MI this Sunday morning at 10:30 am with a message I've titled Loving the Lost Like Jesus from Mark 10:17-22. And I've lined up some great guests for the radio program next week: Michael Barone from U.S. News & World Report on Monday; Linda Seger who has written a fun book on the weird things to see and do in Michigan on Tuesday; David Gregory, author of Dinner with a Perfect Stranger, joins me on Wednesday to talk about his new sequel, A Day With a Perfect Stranger; Thom Rainer, President of Lifeway, joins me the following week to talk about his essay in this months' issue of Outreach Magazine on megachurches. I hope you'll be listening - I'm looking forward to reconnecting with you.

What I Should Have Asked Bill Hybels

2006-07-28T10:46:00.000-05:00

While I was talking to Bill Hybels last Tuesday he accused me of "Monday morning Quaterbacking" his evangelistic encounter with a couple in a trendy Chicago restaurant (his description). I've been Monday Morning Quarterbacking the interview ever since. You know: shoulda, woulda, coulda, wish I woulda.

Bill came away thinking that my view was I could have handled his encounter better. What I wish he had come away thinking was that I would have handled it biblically, whereas he handled it psychologically.

The one question I should have asked, and made the basis of the entire interview is this:

"Bill, what is your view of the nature of man and how does that view influence the way you program your church and engage lost people evangelistically?"

I think that one question gets to the heart of who Bill Hybels is. I wish I had made the interview less about his book (Just Walk Across the Room: Simple Steps Pointing People to Faith, Zondervan, August 2006) and more about what makes him tick philosophically and even more importantly, theologically.

My previous post is a more indepth review of Bill's new book. Read it, please.

Hey Bill, Is Coming to Faith Simply a Matter of Positive Thinking?

2006-07-27T09:30:00.000-05:00

What if evangelism wasn't about actually seeing a person commit their life to Christ? What if in our evangelistic conversations with the lost it was never necessary to confront them with what the gospel itself says about sin and repentance? When talking to lost people, what if we never had to mention the fact that we ourselves are Christians, because by doing so it might alienate the other person because of the reputation Christians have for being judgmental? What if during one of these evangelistic conversations, when a lost person indicated a feeling of guilt, or told us that they only associate God with words like judgment and hell, all we had to do was tell them to stop thinking negatively about God and start thinking positively about God?

For Bill Hybels, Senior Pastor of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, such an approach to evangelism is not hypothetical at all. It's what he calls following the "Spirit's promptings" as we engage lost people in evangelistic conversations. He lays out this guilt-free, gospel-free approach to evangelism in his latest book: Just Walk Across the Room: Simple Steps Pointing People to Faith (Zondervan, August 2006).

Hybels believes that believers are not actively sharing their faith because traditional approaches to evangelism emphasize an expectation that the lost will be asked to make a decision for Christ every time an evangelistic conversation occurs, and also because traditional approaches to evangelism require believers to actually confront lost people with the claims of the gospel, which too many of us may feel ill-prepared to do or at least are uncomfortable doing.

Just as Hybels removed the obstacles that kept Unchurch Harry & Mary away from church, so now he has removed the obstacles that keep me and you from sharing our faith. No longer do we need to concern ourselves with the demands of the gospel that confront the lost with sin, their need of a Savior, and the requistite repentance and self-denial that Christ commands. No longer do we need to fear being rejected by the lost because we are Christians (we are free to leave that part out if in revealing it we risk alienating the target). Evangelism in Hybels' world is simply a matter of developing friendships with the lost, discovering their stories (where they are in life, what their needs are), and then discerning next steps - where to go from there, not based on the demands of the gospel, but based on the needs of the person you are attempting to evangelize, which seems to me is nothing more than making the "product" of the gospel fit the needs of the consumer.

Hybels characterizes this approach as following "Spirit promptings," freeing us from the pressure of feeling like we always have to call the person to repent. Rather, Hybels introduces a new understanding that, depending on the situation we are in, the Spirit may only require us to be an "opener" or "the middle guy," and some other believer down the road will actually do the difficult work of bringing the person to faith in Christ. While I agree that every evangelistic conversation is not destined to end in a profession of faith, can any evangelistic conversation have the hope of a profession if the gospel is never presented?

Which leads me to ask, "What spirits' promptings is Bill Hybels listening to?" Would the HOLY Spirit ever prompt a believer to leave the name of Jesus out of a conversation with a lost person? Would the HOLY Spirit encourage a believer to downplay the demands of the gospel - even leaving the gospel message out altogether - for fear of rejection? Would the HOLY Spirit prompt you to tell a homosexual that every time they think of God in terms of judgment and hell to simply "trade out those words" for two positive words: grace and power, and then wait to see what God does? Is coming to faith simply a matter of positive thinking?

Or would the HOLY Spirit prompt us to speak truth, even at risk of being rejected? Would not the HOLY Spirit prompt us to say to a lost sinner who was convicted of sin, "I understand you thinking of God in terms of judgment and hell, because before I met Jesus that's exactly how I viewed God. And the reason we have that view of God is because 'he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed on the name of the only begotton Son of God.' Every man and woman outside of Christ is under the wrath of God. But the good news (the Gospel!) is that we don't have to stay under God's wrath because Jesus traded places with us! 'He who knew no sin became sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.' And even though right now you think of God in terms of judgment and hell, you can experience the grace and power of this same God in your life by placing your faith in Jesus Christ as your sin-bearer. Then you will come to know that 'there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus'!"

When I suggested to Bill Hybels that the above scenario might be more faithful to the gospel, he replied:

"That's why alot of people do as much agonizing on the subject of evangelism as they do, and the very subject matter that you're bringing up right now is why many people even quit trying to evangelise because there is an expectation laid on people that unless you get the full gospel message out in any reasonably timed conversation with someone then you failed to deliver what you should have delivered."

And so Christians are excused from including the gospel in their evangelistic conversations on the basis that too many Christians find the gospel message intimidating to non-believers. The above scenario by no means involves "the full gospel message" or even an in-depth explanation of the theology behind the gospel. But it does INCLUDE the gospel, rather than totally ignoring the gospel in favor of a "power of positive thinking" approach to dealing with your guilt (i.e., trade out the negative words of judgment and hell for the positive words of grace and power whenever you think of God.)

Just Walk Across the Room lifts the veil on the philosophy (and the lack of theology) that underlies Hybels' approach to evangelistic conversations. While Hybels encourages his reader to follow the Spirit's promptings in evangelistic conversations, he denies the power of that same Spirit in favor of a psychological approach to evangelism which focuses on man and his needs rather than on exalting God and His glory.

Hybels denigrates the glory of God when he puts me and you on the same level with Jesus. It turns out evangelism didn't come easy for the Son of God, either. Jesus had to work at it, too. Jesus had to ask the right questions of lost people in order to avoid "unknowingly presuming some deep spiritual diatribe on them." Is Hybels suggesting that Jesus did not possess the ability to know the hearts of men and women without asking them questions? He characterizes Jesus as having "an uncanny ability to look past the obvious flaws in people's lives and envision who they could become..." much the same way a talented entrepeneur or an athletic coach possess the ability to bring out the hidden potential in others. What Hybels sees as "an uncanny ability," most other conservative theologians would call "divinity."

But the gospel isn't about uncovering the potential within lost sinners. The gospel confronts us with our spiritual weakness, even deadness, and claims that our only hope is not within us, but from outside of us in what God did for us in sending His one and only Son to bear our sins. Such biblical theology is lost on Hybels.

It is precisely at this point Hybels departs from orthodox theology and exposes the influence of Robert Schuller. "Jesus capitalized on the possibility in people - the hidden potential inherent in all of us," Hybels writes. "...what God treasures first (and there is no close second) is people." And yet even the Lord Jesus himself said that the FIRST and GREATEST commandment was to LOVE GOD. What God values more than anything is GOD (Colossians 1:15-20). People aren't even a close second.

So it follows that an approach to evangelism that values people more than God would not ever risk hurting people's feelings by pointing out their sin. Just Walk Across the Room is more than "gospel lite." It isn't gospel at all. It trades the power of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin for a mental mind game that encourages hell bound sinners to merely think happy thoughts about God rather than the negative thoughts that derive from their rebellious hearts under the conviction of God's word. And worst of all it encourages believers to shortchange the gospel during evangelistic conversations - because in Hybels world it's more important that people like you than it is for you to confront them with the truth and risk them hating you. Help me out here. Who was it that said, "If the world hates you, you know that it hated me before it hated you"?

Me, Me, Me, Me

2006-05-16T09:09:00.000-05:00

A recent article in the May 1, 2006 edition of the New York Times points out that "...Madison Avenue has become obsessed with using the word 'my' - along with 'your' and 'our' - in advertising slogans.." This is not a new obessession. Focusing on how a product can enhance the individual is as old as Satan in the Garden of Eden "You shall be as gods..."

And it is precisely this obsession with the individual that now drives most churches. There was a time when the individual joined a community of believers (i.e., church) so that the individual could serve others within that social structure of community. But visit the web sites of any evangelical mega church in America, or casually glance at their advertising or marketing pieces. What is readily apparent is that the triumph of the individual prevails even within the context of spiritual communities. Whereas before the purpose of the church was to provide a context in which individuals could serve the community, the obession in our day is on how the community can serve the individual. Everything in your local mega church, from the cafe in the lobby to the cupholders in the pews (oops! forgive me I meant to say theatre seats!) are all about the comfort and needs of the individual.

Peter Augustine Lawler explores this very trend in his latest book Stuck with Virtue: The American Individual and Our Biotechnological Future. The tendency of the church to focus on the individual reflects a postmodern America where its citizens no longer consider themselves members of a larger community, but rather as individuals who are free to pursue freedom, comfort and security as they see fit and as they define freedom, comfort and security.

I have not yet completed my reading of Lawler's book, and I continue to process the implications of this "me" saturated generation on the future of the church.

It's Still Rock & Roll...

2006-05-13T21:26:00.000-05:00

I write this at the end of a long and exhausting day, having just returned from a very fast overnight trip to Cleveland, Ohio and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Some might wonder why I would even bother with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, what with the rap (pardon the pun) that Rock music has received over the last 50 plus years from fundamentalists and right-wing politicians (and even Tipper Gore) who describe it as detrimental to the spiritual and emotional health of a generation.

But I went for two reasons, mainly. My 13 year old son wanted to go. And I love history and there is no getting around the fact that Rock music has made a indelible impression on the history of the United States and of the world.

It was interesting to me to see how Rock music formed, really beneath the surface of the culture, like a dormant volcano. The elements of gospel, R & B, soul (is that the same as R & B?), spirituals, and jazz all fomenting together to produce a lava that erupted in the music of Elvis Presley, Roy Orbison, Jerry Lee Lewis, and cascaded down in the sound produced by so many of the early 1950s groups (The Drifters, The Righteous Brothers, The Inspirations) and cooled through the music produced in the 1960s (The Animals, The Mamas and The Papas, James Taylor, Bob Dylan) and solidified in the music of the 1970s and 80s with its ultimate expression in the artistic work of U2. This history comes to life during a three hour lesiure walk through the museum.

The most moving experience for me was seeing up close the personal effects of John Lennon. Not that I am a Lennon groupie, or even all that personally familiar with his work. With all due respect to Mr. Lennon, I believe him to be a great talent who wasted his life. Seeing his hand written lyrics, the piano he wrote and practiced on with Yoko Ono in the months just prior to his death, the jacket he wore (matching all of the other Beatles) on tour, the costume he wore for the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and finally the AP wire announcing that he had been "murdered." I always knew he had been killed. It never had occurred to me the way it was driven home to me today that Lennon's life was TAKEN from him, from Yoko, from Julian, from Paul, from George, from Ringo, and from the world. And I couldn't help but wonder what might have been...might John Lennon have actually done something with his life that would have made a difference for eternity had he lived it for Jesus Christ? As it stands he lived a life that made a difference in this life only - a difference for world peace maybe, a difference for the environment and other causes he championed. But in the end Lennon gained the world and lost his soul. That moves me in a way that I cannot begin to describe.

It was a great experience and I commend it to you. My only piece of advice? Eat before you go and stay well away from the cafe on the third floor (the only place to eat in the RRHOF). The cafe is pricey ($5.95 for a hamburger that tasted like it had been cooked three days ago and reheated about an hour before I ordered it). It'll take you about three hours to get through the self-guided tour, and then another hour in the museum store (which is really just an FYE on steroids). If you need to eat in a place that memorializes Rock, Cleveland's Hard Rock Cafe is not that far away and you'll get a much nicer environment and a well-cooked meal for the money.

Rock On...

The Return of Jon Meacham

2006-05-13T07:05:00.000-05:00

Greetings to all! I'm sitting in a hotel room in Cleveland, Ohio early on a Saturday morning. After having spoken with James Henke (curator of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame) on-air last Tuesday, I figured now would be a great time to visit the Hall. But the real reason I'm doing it is because my son is a Rock and Roll history buff and he insisted I bring him. So here we are.

I hope you'll tune in to Monday's program at 5:00 pm ET on AM 1500 WLQV in Detroit. Several weeks ago it was our pleasure to have as a guest the managing editor of Newsweek magazine, Jon Meacham. He has just released his new book: American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, the premise of which is that while the Founders themselves were, for the most part Christians, it was never their intent to found a strictly "Christian Nation," but rather a nation characterized by the freedom of Religion (ANY religion). He makes a compelling case. We had him on just before all the national media were clamouring for his attention, and he told me at the end of the program he would come back for an entire hour. Meacham's second coming is this coming Monday, May 15. Please tune in and tell your friends.

What Am I Doing Here?!

2006-05-10T21:37:00.000-05:00

In a previous post I told you about the exciting weekend I had at the Salem Talk Radio Conference in Washington, DC. Well, now that I have my luggage back (after three days) I've been able to develop the pictures taken that weekend. Here are just some of the great participants at the conference! Forgive the fact that I'm in all the pictures!

Looking around the room at all of the influencers every session caused me to truly wonder what it was (and HOW it was) that I was privileged to be present. I thank God for his grace for the platform He has given me (thank you, Ron Walters!). Thanks to Chris MacCourtney, General Manager of Salem - Detroit for snapping most of these photos.

With Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family

With former Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan, Bill Bennett

With Michael Medved, Host of The Michael Medved Show

Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, with Ed Atsinger, President of Salem Communications

Al Mohler, Shirley Dobson, James Dobson, and Michael Medved

With Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY and Host of The Albert Mohler Program

With Dennis Prager, Host of The Dennis Prager Show

What a Weekend...

2006-05-08T10:17:00.000-05:00

We had an absolutely fantastic day last Thursday (May 4) with Nick Adams from Food For the Poor with me in studio all day long raising money to build four new homes for four very needed Jamaican families. We needed $8,000 by 7:00 pm that day to accomplish this enormous goal. We raised $7,100!! Thank you so much for the way you responded! It's not too late to participate. Simply go to godandculture.com and click on the Food For the Poor banner to donate a gift of ANY amount.

After Thursday's show, Chris MacCourtney (General Manager of Salem Radio Detroit) and myself caught a plane for the Salem Talk Show Conference in Washington, DC where we spent Friday and Saturday with the owners of Salem and all of Salem's local and national talk hosts from around the country. It was an awesome weekend, and we had the opportunity to be exposed to the ideas of some very outstanding speakers and guests including Karl Rove from the Bush Administration, James and Shirley Dobson from Focus on the Family and several others. The content of the talks were all "off the record" so I'm not at liberty to disclose details, but suffice it to say I came away with a more somber attitude toward the US war in Iraq, the American Economy, and the Immigration Debate. One of the things we are really going to talk more about on the program is the Marriage Protection Amendment to the US Constitution which Senator Bill Frist will bring to the floor of the Senate for a vote on June 5. Senator Frist spoke to us on Friday morning and I have never been more persuaded about the necessity of this legislation. Join me in praying for its success.

But now it's back to work. On Monday, May 8 we will focus the entire hour of the program in helping us make sense of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code so that we can be properly equipped to answer those who will have many questions about the veracity of Christian truth claims. Three distinguished panelists will join me for the entire hour: Dr. Darrell Bock, Carl Olson, and Dr. Ben Witherington III. Go to godandculture.com for full details.

Tuesday Ramblings...

2006-04-18T12:42:00.000-05:00

We had a short but fascinating on-air conversation with D. A. Carson on Monday regarding his new book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church. Unfortunately because of a mix-up (on MY part) with the phone number, we didn't get the interview started on time and as a result only had about ten minutes with Dr. Carson as opposed to 30! We're hoping he will forgive me and join me again for an extended conversation.

On Tuesday I'll be joined by Karen Kingsbury, one of the best Christian fiction writers on the planet! She's written a new novel that explores the life of Mary Magdalene from a modern day perspective, and what will all the hype surrounding the upcoming Da Vinci Code movie, we're hoping Karen will bring some real life perspective to the use of Mary Magdalene in a work of fiction (as Dan Brown's book is most certainly a work of fiction!).

Speaking of the Da Vinci Code, on Friday of this week Peter Jones, the co-author of Cracking Da Vinci's Code, will join me to sort out the facts about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Dr. Jones was a boyhood chum of John Lennon, so we might bring that up, as well.

I'm having fun doing what I'm doing every day at 5:00 pm. If you have any comments on the program, I'd love to hear them at paul@godandculture.com.

The Week Ahead

2006-04-09T19:06:00.000-05:00

On Monday's program we'll try to bring some clarity to the controversy over the newly revealed coptic manuscripts known as The Gospel of Judas. National Geographic has released the translated manuscripts in book form to much hoopla from theological liberals and others committed to undermining the true gospel (Galatians 1). Suffice it to say for now that this is nothing more than the same attack that Satan has been waging against the word of God since the Garden.

Also on Monday's program we'll be joined by Thomas Oden, Executive Editor of Christianity Today.

Tuesday we will focus the entire hour on the needs of children around the world and our new partnership with World Vision to bring relief to some of them who may not have another chance if we don't act now.

And if you're a U2 fan (or not!) you'll want to be sure to listen on Wednesday when my guest will be Christian Scharen of the Yale Center for Faith & Culture. We'll talk with Christian about his new book, One Step Closer: Why U2 Matters to Those Seeking God.

See me on the radio at 5:00 pm each afternoon on AM 1500 in Detroit, and for those of you outside the Detroit area, hopefully the streaming will be up at some point this week on our new website at http://www.am1500wlqv.com. Tune in!

Meacham and American Gospel

2006-04-07T21:05:00.000-05:00

In the four weeks since I returned to afternoon talk radio in Detroit one of the most fascinating on-air conversations I've had was Friday's conversation with Jon Meacham, managing editor of Newsweek Magazine. Jon's latest book, American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, was released this week by Random House. I received the book from the publicist on Thursday afternoon and devoured it Thursday evening and Friday morning.

The premise of the book is articulately stated in a wonderfully concise introduction: "The great good news about America - the American gospel, if you will - is that religion shapes the life of the nation without strangling it." Having identified "extremism" as the great problem of the twenty-first century, the author cogently defines the issues that divide left and right on the question of the role of religion in our public discourse. "In our finest hours," writes Meacham, "we have been neither wholly religious nor wholly secular but have drawn on both traditions." The balance of the book is an intellectual pursuit of the facts of history related to the role of religion in our Nation's founding and in the personal lives of those who risked everything to establish the new nation.

Beginning in 1606 with the First Charter of Virgina issued by James I of England, Meacham combs the documents related to our founding, as well as the personal correspondence and writings of the founders, presenting us with hard to argue with evidence that this nation was conceived in the minds of men more influenced by Enlightenment rationalism than by religious fervor, and more specifically, conceived as a secular nation rather than as a sectarian "Christian" nation. One of the astonishing pieces of evidence Meacham uses to support this conclusion is Article 11 of a treaty with Tripoli, negotiated under the administration of George Washington and ratified by the Senate under the administration of John Adams. The beginning of this article reads, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."

Meacham concludes that "[t]he preponderance of historical evidence...suggests that the nation was not 'Christian' but rather a place of people whose religious violence and the burdens of established churches led them to view religious liberty as one of humankind's natural rights..."

But if the new nation was not birthed by the Founders as a strictly Christian nation, neither was it the intent of the Founders to create a new nation where all reference to God and religion were stricken from the public discourse. The Left often cites Jefferson's reference to a "wall of separation" between Church and State, yet Meacham demontrates that "Jefferson unabashedly called on God for guidance and blessing in difficult times." Neither the Right or the Left are totally right in their view of religion's place in public life.

When I finished the book, one thing became absolutely clear: this nation was founded by men influenced by religion with a vision of a nation whose laws, and subsequently the moral life of its people, would be guided by the Creator and His revealed law, but a nation nonetheless nonsectarian in its public stance on religion. This conclusion will not sit well with those on the evangelical right who refuse to be persuaded by any amount of evidence that this nation has never been anything other than "Christian."

What made the book so irresitable for me is that I found so much in it with which I disagreed, yet at the same time I was fascinated by the cogent manner and civil way in which Jon made his case for a non-Christian American founding (and subsequently a non-Christian contemporary America). However, non-Christian does not mean anti-religious. American Gospel is not a treatise advocating the dispatching of religion and religious icons and references from our public lives. It is a cogent argument for a secular America founded on a morality with its basis in a humble respect for a Creator to whom we owe all rights we possess as individuals living under His grace and therefore with respect for our fellow Americans, regardless of their sectarian view of religion.

My only criticism of the book would be that Meacham cites several contemporary cases of extremism on the religious Right (Jerry Falwell & Pat Roberston blaming 9/11 on abortionists and homosexuals, the abortion protestor who killed an abortion provider, the perennial court cases regarding holiday displays and public prayer, et al) but cites only Madelyn Murray O'Hare as an example of extremism on the religious Left. No contemporary references to John Shelby Spong, Michael Nedow (the atheist who wants "Under God" out of the pledge) or the activists on the Federal bench who are bent on removing any and all reference to God and religion from public life.

That having been said, the book is worth a second reading - which I am beginning NOW.

Essential Reading for Christians

2006-01-14T21:49:00.000-05:00

I was recently approached by a college student after our Sunday morning worship service who asked me what ten books I would consider essential reading. I couldn't come up with ten at the moment, but after careful reflection, I would consider the following books essential reading for Christians. There are more than 10 and they are in no particular order, except the first is the one that has been most influential on my life (outside of the Bible).

Future Grace by John Piper
Jonathan Edwards: A Life by George Marsden
On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding by Michael Novak
Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity by Leon Kass
John Adams by David McCullough
The Question of God: C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex and the Meaning of Life by Armand Nicholi, Jr.
Augustine's Confessions
The Sermon on the Mount by Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Two Volume Biography of Martyn Lloyd-Jones by Ian Murray
Everything written by R. C. Sproul
Heaven by Randy Alcorn
God's Passion for His Glory by John Piper
Leisure: The Basis of Culture by Josef Pieper
Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman

Of all the sermons I have ever heard preached, besides the one I was saved hearing, two by John Piper have had the most influence:

Boasting Only in the Cross: READ IT LISTEN TO IT
A Divine and Supernatural Light Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the Spirit of God: READ IT LISTEN TO IT

Passionate About Nothing

2006-01-03T12:14:00.000-05:00

I’m finally getting around to reading Blue Like Jazz [Thomas Nelson, 2003 by Donald Miller] (in between chapters of Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin). I’ve had Blue Like Jazz for about two years, since Miller’s publicist sent it to me seeking an interview during my radio days. I judged the book by its cover and thought it was a secular NOVEL! CRAP!

I’ve just passed the 100 page mark (about halfway through) and it is a good read – a radical perspective on living a Christian life that’s real (zits, blemishes, cigarettes, and beer) among real people who are hurting (most who don’t know they are hurting). But I wonder if Miller doesn’t work overtime to be hip, what with all the references to cigarettes, beer and late night parties? Not that I mind that he occasionally smokes and drinks. That’s his business. But it seems all the “angry young (former) evangelicals” work hard at showing they’re not fundamentalists anymore. And they take great pride in letting you know they aren’t – and they do it in ways that seem as if they are intentionally trying to shock and awe.

Nonetheless, the book is a good read (did I already say that?). The best line I’ve read so far came in this morning’s reading, while sitting on my bus waiting for my next run (yes - I'm a bi-vocational pastor - I drive a school bus):

“A friend of mine, a young pastor who recently started a church, talks to me from time to time about the new face of church in America – about the postmodern church. He says the new church will be different from the old one, that we will be relevant to culture and the human struggle. I don’t think any church has ever been relevant to culture, to the human struggle, unless it believed in Jesus and the power of His gospel. If the supposed new church believes in trendy music and cool Web pages, then it is not relevant to culture either. It is just another tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing.”

Like Eminem is passionate about the nothing that is his rap music (see page 106 in BLJ).

Miller just put in words what I’ve been trying to articulate about the emerging church. But it’s interesting that he sort of indicts believing in "trendy music and cool Web pages" when he talks in earlier chapters of coming home and crashing to trendy music (I think he mentions the group Creed) and surfing cool web pages! I’d call him on this if I ever have the chance to interview him.

Just rambling….

Is Narnia an Allegory for Christian Theology? Strictly Speaking, NO!

2005-12-05T10:20:00.000-05:00

C. S. Lewis preferred a strict definition of allegory, as he wrote in reply to the questions of a young fan:

"I did not say to myself, Let us represent Jesus as He really is in our world by a Lion in Narnia; I said, Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as he became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen."

To another fan Lewis wrote:

"The whole series works out like this:
The Magician's Nephew tells the Creation and how evil entered Narnia, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - the Crucifixion and Resurrection,Prince Caspian - restoration of the true religion after a corruption, The Horse and His Boy - the calling and conversion of the heathen,The Voyage of the Dawn Treader - the spiritual life (especially in Reepicheep),The Silver Chair - the continuing war against the powers of darkness, The Last Battle - the coming of Antichrist (the ape). The end of the world and the last judgement."

Spiritual Truth in Narnia

2005-12-05T09:35:00.000-05:00

On Friday of this week C. S. Lewis’ children’s novel, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, will be released in movie form in theatres all across America. Every day this week I'll be adding new posts related to the spiritual truths you'll discover in the movie. I encourage you to see it. But more than that, I encourage you to read the book, because I have always found it to be true that no matter what movie we may be talking about, the book is always better than the movie, and especially so with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

There are at minimum two reasons why Christians should see this movie:

1. This movie will spark a revival in interest in the works of C. S. Lewis, and indeed it already has. C. S. Lewis was the 20th Century’s leading Christian Apologist and for that reason, as Christians, you and I need to be somewhat familiar with who he was and what he believed.

2. There are spiritual truths that lie deep within this children’s story that need to be mined. The best way to engage those who have yet to come to know Jesus Christ is to begin with their own interests. And this movie will generate much interest among people who do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ. And so the real objective of these posts will be to mine the spiritual truths in the story so that you and I can transition a conversation from the story itself to the Christian truth it advocates.

SUMMARY OF THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is the first in a series of seven children’s novels written by C. S. Lewis from 1950 – 1956 (I know - the present order puts The Magician's Nephew first, but don't read it that way! It'll ruin a whole lot of surprises if you've never read The Chronicles before!). It tells the story of four children in wartime England who were sent away by their parents from their home in London during the war because of the air-raids. They were sent to the house of an old Professor who lived in the heart of the country. This Professor lived in a very large house on a very large estate giving the children freedom to explore. It is during a game of hide and seek that the youngest of these children, Lucy, discovers an old wardrobe in a spareroom through which she becomes the first human being to enter the enchanted winter woodland called Narnia. At the time Lucy enters Narnia, Narnia is under the control of Jadis, the White Witch, who has made it “always Winter and never Christmas." What Lucy is unaware of is that all of the inhabitants of Narnia are awaiting the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy: that one day two sons of Adam and two daughters of Eve will sit on four thrones in Narnia, removing the control of the White Witch (and the eternal winter) and establishing a kingdom of peace through the power of Aslan, creator and true King of Narnia.

The place to begin is to understand that The Chronicles of Narnia is NOT Christian allegory. An allegory by definition is truth represented by symbolic fictional figures. Lewis viewed The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as “supposition,” that is to say: “Suppose God moved to save a world other than earth. What would that look like?” And from that supposition he created Narnia. Narnia does not represent Heaven. It represents another world altogether, a world of talking animals, mythological creatures like fauns and centaurs and giants, all created and controlled by the “good but not safe” lion, King Aslan who eventually gives his life in the stead of a treacherous traitor.

So Lewis did not set out from the beginning to write a novel about Christian theology, even though Christian theology is certainly there. Rather, as he related to George Sayer, his former student and eventually best friend, Lewis wanted to make it easier for children who had read The Chronicles of Narnia to accept Christianity when they met it later in life, having seen it in his children’s stories (Jack: A Life of C. S. Lewis, Crossway: 1988, 1994, p. 318).

WHAT BENEFITS CAN BE DERIVED FROM LEWIS’ NOVELS?

George Sayer in his biography of Lewis (Jack: A Life of C. S. Lewis, pp. 315ff) details several benefits we might gain from The Chronicles of Narnia:

1. The development of our imaginations.

2. The natural beauties of Narnia are set against the backdrop of the supernatural and eternal.

3. It is possible to extract from the Narnia stories a system of theology very like the Christian.

4. We learn morality in the best and perhaps most effective way - through story. The story displays the virtues of courage, loyalty, honesty, kindness, and unselfishness (and the benefits of possessing these virtues).

In my next post we'll begin to mine some of the spiritual truths in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Keeping the Cross in Christmas

2005-11-30T22:43:00.000-05:00

While driving to work this morning I passed a Chinese restaurant whose marquee said: "Reserve Your X-Mas Party Now."

I remember all of the hoopla from the Church when it first became popular to "X" Christ out of CHRISTmas. Bronner's CHRISTmas Wonderland in Frankmuth, Michigan ("the world's largest Christmas store") answered this trend by capitalizing the word CHRIST in the name of their store. (Bronner's is owned by a family of Lutherans. Garrison Keillor would be proud).

There may be any number of reasons why the owner of this establishment opted for the "X" instead of for Christ. Limited space on the marquee. He (or she) is a Buddhist. "X" marks the spot. Who really knows.

But an epiphany of sorts occured to me as I whizzed past this marquee. The "X" may be just as significant a witness to the true meaning of Christmas as the name of Jesus. The "X" is nothing more than a CROSS. Take a closer look at the signs marking the next Rail Road CROSSing you approach. And the CROSS is why Messiah came in the first place (Isaiah 53). I'm all for keeping the cross in Christmas.

So the next time your pagan friend "X's" Jesus out of Christmas - rather than stroking out like a raving fundamentalist, tell him what the "X" stands for! "God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Why Didn't God Create the Seeker Church Sooner!

2005-11-30T21:47:00.000-05:00

If you ever needed proof that the seeker types tend to overstate their own importance, here it is! One such seeker pastor congratulated himself on his church racking up the sum total of 1,879 "decisions for Christ" in a twelve month period by ranking his church in the few churches EVER that have accomplished as much for God!

"God has given us, here at [NorthRidge Church], a profound impact. There have not been in all of church history that many churches that have touched as many lives as God is giving us the privilege of touching." [italiacs mine]

Brad Powell,
CEO of NorthRidge Church in Plymouth, MI
Talk Title: The Price of Extraordinary Impact
Sunday, September 25, 2005

In ALL of church history, Brad? Does this include the Day of Pentecost when 3,000 lives were touched by the Spirit IN ONE DAY? The First Century Apostolic period when the gospel spread throughout the entire Roman Empire? The Middle Ages?The 16th Century Reformation? The Great Awakening of the 17th Century in New England? The Second Great Awakening in the 18th Century? The birth and growth of the church in Africa and Korea in the last 50 years? ALL of church history is a LONG time!

The Emerging Church: Trading Modernism for Postmodernism

2005-11-29T21:27:00.000-05:00

My nephew commended David Fitch's new book to me, The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism and Other Modern Maladies, which I immediately purchased at my local Borders. His recommendation sprang from a discussion we had at the dinner table on Thanksgiving Day about the emergent church. Admittedly my relationship with the emergent church is akin to that of a scientist with a Petri dish: extremely analytical but NOT skeptical. My nephew is 29 years old and becoming versed and immersed in the emergent church conversation. I'm 44 years old and believe myself open to new ideas, but not without discernment.

I began reading Fitch's book at chapter 5 [The Myth of Expository Preaching: Why We Must Do More Than Wear Scrolls On Our Forehead] because the idea of expository preaching as "myth" intrigued me. Fitch compares the Pharisees abuse of Scripture in Jesus' day with the evangelical/modernists use of Scripture in expository preaching and concludes that expository preaching has become "the means to control the power associated with the authority of Scripture for evangelical preachers" (p. 128). Fitch rightly points out that the Torah did enjoin the Jews to bind Scripture on their forehead. The fact that one group of Jews legalistically abused this practice is no indication that the practice itself was inappropriate. Merely because there are some evangelicals who use Scripture to abuse authority is not an indictment of ALL evangelicals who view expository preaching as the appropriate process for engaging the text. And yet this is the conclusion Fitch has reached: that those who employ expository preaching "...seek to control information about God from Scripture for [their] own personal uses" (p. 141). Is it fair to force all evangelicals who value expository preaching into this box?

Fitch also opines that correct interpretation of the text of Scripture can only be arrived at in the context of a community. That is, one person studying and exegeting a particular text of Scripture using the modern tools of "scientific methods of historical exegesis" (p. 131) cannot truly arrive at the one true interpretation of the text. To believe that he or she can is a myth in Fitch's view (p. 131). A true interpretation of the text can only be arrived at via a community of people who consent together as to the meaning of the text. Which leads to the question: What community? A community of Muslims would certainly arrive at a different interpretation of Matthew 16 than a community of Southern Baptists. Are both interpretations therefore equally valid simply because a consensus was arrived at in the context of community?

The other issue I have with The Great Giveaway is that Fitch derides everything modern while at the same time uncritically accepting anything and everything that is postmodern. The Great Giveaway advocates the replacement of one philosophical outlook shaped by its culture (modernism) with another philosophical outlook shaped by its culture (postmodernism). And isn't one (postmodernism) merely the outgrowth of the other (modernism)? Can it not be said that without modernism there would be no postmodernism; and just as postmodernism emerges from modernism, in the same way the practices Fitch desires for the body of Christ to implement have emerged out of the evangelical movement of which the emergent church leaders are so critical? And through such criticism the baby devours its mother!

The emergent church seems NOT to value the immediate past from which it sprang. The leaders of both the emergent church and the seeker churches before them both seem to have an aversion to their immediate pasts - a desire to start the church all over again by ostensibly returning to the ancient without regard to or value of the immediate past.

Maybe it's because I haven't read far enough yet, but Fitch has yet to define and identify the ONE unchanging standard by which the church ought to shape its calling and ministry. He rightly argues that modernism is dead, but his recommended remedy is replacing the tools developed in the context of modernism ("scientific methods of historical exegsis" focusing on "original languages, grammar, lexicography, and historical backgrounds" of the text) with tools developed in the context of postmodernism ("consensus interpretation" in the context of a community via "the practices of the authoritative gifts, liturgical submission to Scripture, intercommunal testing of truth, as well as a chastened historical-critical exegesis", what Fitch later defines as "communal consensus," holding up Roman Catholic tradition as a model of such consensus [p. 137].

My view thus far is that Fitch trades one fleeting culture for another, rather than pointing us to an eternal, unchangeable standard. Is it not true that postmodernism (and its tools) will also eventually "crash and burn" (to use his descriptive) in the same way modernism has or is?

Is the standard by which the church shapes its calling and ministry the rapidly and ever changing ("crashing and burning") culture? Or is there an unchangeable standard that transcends all times and all cultures? If so, what is it?

At the end of each chapter Fitch provides practices for returning the church to its calling as a body which I find extremely valuable. However, is the standard for those practices the unchangeable word of God, the traditions of the historic church (or those of the church in local community), or the whims of the culture in which the church exists, or ALL THREE?

I commend the book to you. And then recommend you read D. A. Carson's recent treatise on the subject: Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church.