Would Jesus Wear a Rolex?

Friday I got a little long-winded (OK, very long-winded) waxing elephants about false doctrine. I suggested that in the NT sense, there is a difference between being wrong on a doctrine and teaching false doctrine. False doctrine (literally “unhealthy teaching”) is that which in some way perverts the gospel of God’s redeeming act at the cross. If every mistake in theology is a false doctrine that makes one a false teacher, then every teacher is a false one! The only other alternative is for us to be perfect in what we believe and teach, and we can’t do that any more than we can be perfect in our lives.

But the fact that not everything is false doctrine does not mean than nothing is false doctrine! Any religious system that perverts the basic nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ is false doctrine. I think Cindy Fleenor was taken in by false doctrine. Fleenor is a 53-year-old accountant from Tampa and a believer in Jesus who got into the habit of watching well-known television preachers, and that for her became church. The message that she heard preached was basically the same— be faithful in your living and in your giving, and God will shower you with great material prosperity. This led here to give regular and large donations to Benny Hinn, Joyce Meter and Paula White.

Well, not only did Fleenor nor become wealthy, she went broke. She was reduced to borrowing money from friends and even going to those shady payday loan companies just to buy groceries. And just as bad, she accepted the stock answer as to why the blessings of God didn’t overflow into her life—she didn’t have enough faith. She said, “I wanted to believe God wanted to do something great with me like he was doing with them. I'm angry and bitter about it.” Coincidently, the ministries to which Fleenor contributed are three of those that are currently being investigated by the Senate.

As mentioned yesterday, one of the characteristics of false teachers is that they “think that godliness is a means to financial gain” (1 Tim 6:5). Can you twist some NT passages to make it appear that Christian faith will bless you with overflowing prosperity? How about Luke 6:38?

“Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

That is a favorite verse of the Rolex and Rolls-Royce religion set. Of course, that pesky thing called context makes it plain that Jesus is talking about forgiveness here and not money. But then, what’s a little proof-texting among friends?

It is one thing to point to verses talking about God’s blessings and make it appear that this always means money. But it is another thing to show how this prosperity gospel worked in the lives of the first Christians. Jesus Himself died penniless with only the clothes on his back. Did He not have enough faith? Paul was rich and successful BEFORE he met Jesus on the Damascus Road, but he counted all of that as garbage (Phil 3:7-8). The only material “wealth” Paul mentions are some books and a coat he wanted Timothy to bring to him before he died in prison. And the only shot the Apostle Peter had at wealth and prosperity was before he was an apostle when his boat was miraculous filled with fish to the point of sinking. He walked away and left them there to rot so that he could follow Jesus (Luke 5:11).

Christianity didn’t make Jesus materially rich. It didn’t make the first Christians rich. In fact, they were hounded and persecuted because they dared to wear the name of the Nazarene. To preach that “God wants us to be prosperous and we will if we have enough faith” perverts the gospel of the cross. And that is the essence of false doctrine.

False Doctrine

I grew up hearing a lot of sermons about false doctrine, a label branded on just about any teaching that was different from that of our fairly conservative Church of Christ. Those sermons were generally gentle and loving (rather than bombastic and cutting) because the man who preached them was a gentle and loving man. But there was no doubt that we were the only true church, and that all other churches were guilty of false doctrine.

The term “false doctrine” was applied to just about any divergent practice or belief from using instrumental music in worship to believing in a literal indwelling of the Holy Spirit to believing that Jesus would one day literally reign on earth for 1000 years. And even more strict (we called them “anti”) churches that condemned things like multiple communion cups, eating in the church building or having Sunday School classes—they were guilty of false doctrine. I had someone accuse me of false doctrine once because the church where I attended, though it did not actively support an orphan’s home, thought that it might be OK for other churches to do so!

The expression “false doctrine” was thrown around much like some throw around the word “liberal.” Most people who use that term have little idea of what it means. In theological terms, a liberal is someone who does not take the Bible as literally true; a conservative is someone who does take the Bible as literally true. It would be hard to see how anyone in a Church of Christ could be a theological liberal. Ironically, two of the positions that we condemned as “false doctrine” (the literal, bodily indwelling of the Spirit and a literal millennial kingdom reign by Christ on earth at the endtime) are actually more “conservative” views since they take a more “literal” approach to scripture.

In the NT, the term “false doctrine” is not used like the word “Gentile.” A Gentile is someone who isn’t Jewish; some use the term “false doctrine” to mean any doctrine that isn’t mine. In the NT, the term is used much more narrowly of teaching that perverts the basic gospel. Most often that would mean either Jewish legalism (adding human works to the cross) or “pre-Gnosticism” (as in Colossians and 1 John) that basically denies the incarnation and/or atonement. Having a difference of practice in how one cares for the needy or how many cups are used in communion is never called false doctrine.

2 Peter 2 has an extended discussion of false teacher who were causing problems with their false doctrine. While Peter never gives us full description of what they taught, we can clearly see what it was that made their doctrine false--

• First, they are evil men who “follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature” (2:10a). These men are not spiritually motivated; they followed the dictates of the sinful, fleshly nature. Paul and Jude talk about godless men who change grace into immorality (Jude 4). They don’t serve Christ, but their own appetites (Rom 16:18). Their god is their stomach; their mind is on earthly things (Phil. 3:19). The motivation of these false teachers is not to glorify God, but rather to serve the appetites of their flesh. Peter will get even more specific later in the text.
  
  
• Second, Peter’s false teachers “despise authority” and are “bold and arrogant” (2:10b). They slander celestial beings in arrogance and ignorance. We don’t exactly what Peter is describing, but part of the problem with these false teachers is their pride and arrogance.
  
  
• Third, the false teachers have “eyes full of adultery,” they “never stop sinning” and they are “experts in greed” (2:14). These false teachers are immoral and greedy, not just honestly mistaken in their theology.
  
  
• Fourth, the real motivation of these teachers is money. That the point of “the way of Balaam”(2:15-16). Balaam prophesied for financial reward, and that led him to destruction. These guys have Balaam’s motivation and share his fate. Paul says that false teachers “think that godliness is a means to financial gain” (1 Tim 6:5).
  
  
• Finally, they prey on those who are “just escaping from those who live in error” as “they promise them freedom” (2:18-19). These false teachers had their success with new converts who were not firmly grounded in the truth. Their immoral doctrine led to these new converts returning to the immorality of the world.

This is how false teacher who preach false doctrines are described. One of the orphans in Annie described her abductors to Daddy Warbucks by saying, “These are not good people, Mister.” That is what Peter is saying about these false teachers. Honest, honorable Christians who seek God with their heart and life but who gets a bit twisted around the axle on some aspect of theology or interpretation is not a false teacher. At some point, that describes us all! We are all limited by backgrounds, maturity, presuppositions, prejudices, and our fallen humanity. We are all wrong about some things, no matter how certain we are that we are right. That’s why we need a cross!

OK, this lasted MUCH longer than I intended. In fact, I started writing on a whole different topic, and this was the introduction. I’ll just save that for another time.

Boxing Day

Tis’ the day after Christmas, and all through the house, not a creature is stirring… except me because I gotto go back to work— so I’ll grouse! OK, awful attempt at poetry. But here we are with Christmas behind us, and it’s back to the old grind (except for teachers and students... in other words, everyone else at my house). One of the benefits of the kids growing up and Christmas ceasing to be such a big deal is that the day after Christmas is not so much of a let down. And besides, I kinda like my old grind.

If you lived in Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand or Australia, you would also get today off because it is Boxing Day. Two guys in the AMC parking lot thought last night was Boxing Day. These two “gentlemen” decided that, being Christmas and all, they needed to get into a fist fight right in front of the theater. We had just seen “The Great Debaters” (BTW, outstanding movie) that stresses using one’s “righteous mind” and words as a weapons of change; these two nitwits were evidently unarmed for a battle of wits, so decided to have a boxing day. Perhaps it was too much Christmas cheer, but then I digress.

Today is Boxing Day. Boxing Day is a traditional time to give gifts to the poor. It dates back to the Middle Ages, but there is some disagreement concerning the specific origin of the name. Some suggest it comes from the practice of the lord of the manor giving boxes of used clothing and food to his serfs. They had to work on Christmas Day; someone had to make the figgy pudding and wassail. So the day after Christmas was their day off, and they received their gifts. Other say the name comes from the practice of workers who carried boxes to their employers on the day after Christmas to be filled with coins or other items, the forerunner of the Christmas bonus. Others suggest that churches opened the donation box (or “poor box”) and the money was distributed to the poor on the day after Christmas. Whatever the exact origin of the name, our British cousins have another day off from work. But then, they likely don’t celebrate July 4, so it all equals out.

So Boxing Day is a time for giving, not to family and friends as on Christmas, but to the poor and less fortunate. It is a time to do what Jesus tells us to do, to give to those who have no opporunity of returning the gift. It is a time to give for no other reason than it is good to give. At least that is the theory, In practice, Boxing Day is a time when "family and friends to gather with lots of food and fun. Outdoor sports such as soccer, horse racing and hunting are popular on this holiday. Retailers offer huge savings on many items on this day, making it the biggest shopping day of the year in Canada."

One problem with our traditional Christmas season is that it is all about families and gifts. We travel to be with our family, and we lug the presents along with us. Christmas morning is often an almost sacred time when families gather around the Christmas tree to open gifts and then giggle and gripe (depending on what you got) with those closest to us. We then gather around a special family dinner that usually consists of enough food to feed several families. It is a very special time for families.

So what is the problem? What about those who have no families? Some people are separated from their family by space and circumstance. Some people simply have no family at all. And then, what about those who do have families around them, but they can’t afford to give gifts or even have a special dinner? Sometimes the very things where we isolate ourselves in families actually serve to exclude and isolate others who have no family. Maybe the church needs to be better at becoming that family. Maybe we need more traditions like “Boxing Day” that point us outside ourselves and focus us on the needs of others.

Redefining Christmas

Yesterday I talked about my Christmas past which embraced the secular parts of the season (giving/receiving gifts) while denying the religious aspects (the birth of Christ). Obviously, many still choose to opt out of seeing Christmas as religious holiday. Paul says out choice of whether to observe or not observe special days is not nearly as important as our motivation to praise and glorify God (Romans 14:5-6). My own opinion is that a yearly focus on "true meaning of Christmas" in the coming of Jesus into our world and God's mighty work through Him is a good thing. OK, so Jesus wasn't really born on December 25... but he was really born!

I think the real danger that we face from our traditional observance of Christmas has to do with our acceptance of the secular part, not the religious. We may complain from time to time about the crass commercialization and rampant materialism of the holiday season, we we generally dive right in and participate in it. We spend so much holiday energy buying things for family and friends, things that they often really don’t need. And we go into debt to doing that almost without thinking about it. We wander through stores and websites because we gotta get stuff for people who already have stuff. They don't need more stuff, but we gotta get it. I remember Tony Campolo talking about “spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need for people who already have everything.”

Check out Redefine Christmas for a refreshingly Christian idea for the Christmas season. The idea is to encourage people to give to charity rather than spending so much on one another. The website suggests—

What is Redefine Christmas? It's simply the idea that our holiday gift giving could be more meaningful and do more good. In addition to the gifts we enjoy shopping for and giving, we're often compelled to give gifts that aren't so meaningful. Imagine if we replaced those gifts by giving others donations to their favorite charities. And we requested that others do the same for us.

What a great idea! Instead of buying someone electric socks or executive dart board or a block of fruit cake (does anyone really eat that junk?), why not make a donation to some worthy charity. Wouldn't the absolute perfect thing to get for the person who already has everything be a contribution in their name to something like Churches of Christ Disaster Relief or Christian Relief Fund or our own "At My Gate" program? If we all started doing that for each other, Christmas might just become a more meaningful time of year.

Remember Jesus’ instructions on how to throw the perfect banquet of which God will approve? OK, so Luke 14:12-14 isn’t really talking about Christmas giving, but there may be an application here somewhere.

“When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Who do we tend to give Christmas presents to? People who give to us? Have you ever had to go out and buy someone a gift you didn’t intent on getting a gift for because they gave you an unexpected gift? Jesus tells us to invite people that can’t invite us back. So how about we give to people who can’t gift in return. Maybe we need to turn Christmas into a true time of giving.

Christmas Tree, O Christmas Tree

I was walking to the auditorium the other day to retrieve something out of the sound booth when I skidding to a halt in the foyer. There was a tastefully decorated Christmas tree set up in our foyer. I have no idea where that came from or how long it has been there. I’m not the most perceptive of people, so the tree may have been there for 3 weeks for all I know. It is large enough to touch the ceiling, and set up in a corner of the lobby—so I should have noticed it. I couldn’t help but smile when I saw it.

You see, when I grew up it was taboo for the church to acknowledge the Christmas season. There was no mention of it at church, except to insist that there should be no mention of it at church. Oh, it was OK to set up a tree at home; it was great to exchange gifts at home. But the Bible doesn’t mention (“authorize”) Christmas as a religious day honoring the birth of Christ. So we thought it was wrong to give any religious significance to Christmas as a special day. (It was OK to preach about motherhood on Mother’s Day, but that was different somehow).

We were free us to participate in the crass commercialization and major materialism of the gift-giving season, but we were not free to give it any religious significance. In effect, we were multicultural before multicultural was cool. Today many approach the season with “Happy Holidays” and decorate with winter themes and avoid any hint of religion. Well, that was basically our approach long ago. We were trendy before it was trendy!

Well, I’m glad we have a Christmas tree in our foyer. No, Christmas decorations are not some kind of indicator of spirituality. But when I think back, our old “Bah, Humbug” view of the holidays was not very helpful. This is the one season of the year that people are thinking about the story of Jesus. I think we need to celebrate that. So, I’m glad I can preach on the birth of Jesus (without spending 5 minutes defending why that is OK). I’m glad we can sing carols like “Silent Night” and “Angels We Have Heard on High” during this time of the year (we sure don’t sing them any other time of the year). And I’m glad we can point to “the reason for the season” without feeling obligated to point out that December 25 is a traditional (not historical) date and Christmas is a traditional (not Biblical) season (although I’ll probably point that out too).

But maybe the most important part about redefining Christmas is what I’m going to talk about in tomorrow’s blog.

Leader of the Band

Singer/songwriter Dan Fogelberg died yesterday from advanced prostate cancer at the age of 56. According to my doctor, it is extremely rare for someone under 60 to have prostate cancer; he has had only one such patient in his 30+ year practice. (We weren’t discussing Dan Fogelberg at the time). Fogelberg’s website carried the news of his passing followed by an impassioned “sermon” pleading with men to have yearly PSA and DRE tests to detect the disease.

I don’t know if you would say I was a Fogelberg fan, but I played his album “The Innocent Age” (released in 1981 when albums were big vinyl) so often that it probably had groves worn in some of the tracks. I really hadn’t thought about Fogelberg much in the last 20 years (after I decided it was OK to listen to Contemporary Christian music). But ever since I heard about his death, I cannot seem to get his song “Leader of the Band” out of my head. The ballad is a tribute to Fogelberg's father, a big band musician. Of course, the song is about more than just a legacy of music. The last verse and chorus goes like this—

I thank you for the music and your stories of the road
I thank you for the freedom when it came my time to go
I thank you for the kindness and the times when you got tough
And, papa, I don’t think I said “I love you near” enough

The leader of the band is tired and his eyes are growing old
But his blood runs through my instrument
And his song is in my soul
My life has been a poor attempt to imitate the man
I’m just a living legacy to the leader of the band.

That song nearly always brings a lump to my throat (like “Butterfly Kisses” brings a lump to my throat). “Leader of the Band” makes me think of my own “Papa” and all that I owe him. Dad turns 80 this March, so I guess the leader of my band is growing old too. But then, he walked me into the ground the last time we played golf together! The music parts of the song don't really apply to us. Dad did play bass in a boogie-woogie band when he was a kid, but he didn’t pass down any of those musical genes down to me. But the part of the song that says “thank you for the kindness and the times when you got tough” fits. And I’m afraid so does the part that says “Papa, I don’t think I said ‘I love you’ near enough.” I’m trying to make up for that.

Just the other day, Mom told me, “Your getting just like your Father!” I said, “I take that as a compliment.” She laughed and answered, “Well, I didn’t mean that way!” I know... But in every way that really matters, I really am “just a living legacy to the leader of the band.”

If you haven’t heard Dan Fogelberg’s “Leader of the Band,” you watch him sing it here.

On Expiration Dates

One of the magazines that I read is call Rev!. As you can probably tell by the title, it is a magazine for preachers (and it attempts to “Rev!” up our engines, I guess). I usually have to wait awhile to read it because Lynn snaps it up as soon as it comes to the house; funny, but I don’t have that problem with PC Magazine! The January-February issue came Friday, and this time I beat Lynn to it.

I was reading it Saturday morning when I came to the back-page article, a humor piece (“Off the Sanctuary Wall”) by James Wadkins entitled “Check the Expiration Date.” The article is an impassioned plea for preachers to update things in their ministry that should have a “Best if used by 1950” label on it. It talked about things like comb-overs worn by many TV preachers and preacher jokes that begin, “Three guys were sitting in a rowboat…” Of course, the part that really caught my attention was this—

How many times does poor Horatio Spafford, the author of “It is Well with My Soul” have to lose his daughters in a sinking ship? (He eventually moved to Israel to await the Lord’s return, but not many worship leaders mention that).

As it happens, I was to tell the old Horatio Spafford story in yesterday's sermon before we sang “It Is Well With My Soul” (it was recorded with the sermon if you want to listen to it). Well, so I guess I’m old fashioned. OK, but several people did mention how much they liked the story, so maybe it works OK even with the expiration date. (I found a box of salad croutons in our pantry last night while getting ready for our small group dinner that had a Sept 03 expiration date; that is a real expiration date!) Oh, and I did tell the part about Spafford moving to Israel… I just didn’t share the part about the mental illness that he suffered near the end of his life that caused him to think he was the second Messiah. It’s a good story and I’m glad I used it even though it’s old! So there! It was funny that I read this article the day before I mentioned ol’ Horatio.

But then, some old stories hold up pretty well. Like the one that we remember in a special way during this time of year—the one with shepherds in the field and angels singing and the star and the stable. Watkins is right—some stories need to be updated because some stories get outdated. But the old, old story still holds up after all these years. And because it does, it is still well with our souls.

New Guy in Fayetteville

The big news in the world of sports is that the Arkansas Razorbacks have found their new football coach. It was announced yesterday that Atlanta Falcons coach Bobby Petrino was leaving Atlanta and the NFL to become the new guy in Fayetteville. One would assume that it was not his something less than stellar 3-10 record as the Falcons front man that won him the job. No, it was his something more than stellar 41-9 record while at Louisville where he was the offensive genius that produced some of the highest-scoring teams in the country. It has been awhile since Arkansas has had an offensive genius for a coach… like never.

This is something of a “history-repeats-itself” deal. In 1976, Lou Holtz coached the New York Jets for 13 games, going 3-10 before he left the team before the end of the season. He quit to become the head coach at Arkansas. I hope this is history repeating itself. Arkansas went 11-1 in Holtz's first season, including a New Year's rout of Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl. The big obstacle in the way of a Holtz-type debut for Petrino is that Darren McFadden (most certainly) and Felix Jones (most likely) will be leaving Arkansas early and with them goes 98% of the Hog’s offense. It is hard to be an offensive genius without an offense!

So Very Sad

Last Sunday while we were enjoying a day of worship and fellowship as usual, Matthew Murray walked into New Life Church in Colorado Springs. Earlier in the day, Murray had murdered two people at a church mission training center 70 miles away. And he had just killed two teenage sisters and gravely wounded their father in the parking lot before entering the church. He was intercepted by Jeanne Assam, a former policewoman who was volunteering as a church security guard, exchanged gunfire with the killer. He missed; she didn’t. After being hit several times, the gunman went down. He then killed himself.

In an CNN interview, Assam, who is also a member of the New Life Church, gave an interesting perspective on the incident. She said that she was thankful she was able to end the tragedy before it go worse. She believed that God was with her and used her to end it. She prayed for the Holy Spirit to give her strength. She had been fasting for three days and was weak--

“I was weak, and where I was weak, God made me strong. He filled me and he guided me and protected me and many other people. And I'm honored that God chose me.

She said that believes God kept her calm and focused even though the shooter was more heavily armed—he had two handguns, an assault rifle and 1,000 rounds of ammunition. She said that she has prayed both for the families of the victims and the shooter.

This incident will almost certainly be used by BOTH sides of the gun control debate. I say that because every gun tragedy is used by both sides in this highly charged political debate.

• The anti-gun people will likely point to the mentally unstable gunman who because of current gun laws (or lack thereof) was easily able to arm himself to the teeth and murder innocent people at two different church sites.
  
  
• The pro-gun side will just as certainly suggest that it was an “armed response” that put down the shooter. If the church security force would have had whistles or walkie-talkies rather than a gun, many more people would have died.

Which side in the dedate is right? Both? Neither? Pat Paulsen's solutions was to give everyone a gun and require thery wear it... and lock up all the bullets. That makes about as much sense as what the non-comedian politcians are suggesting.

Personally, I just don’t think that what we need in our world are MORE people with guns. I think what we need are more people who have GOD. But sometimes it is good that the people with the guns also have God.

I hope that the next thing the elders have to decide is NOT which of our deacons we need to arm!

Not Quite Finished

This morning as I started my daily Bible reading, Lynn said, “You should be about finished with that....” And then she added, “… it is December already, right?” Of course what she meant was that I am about done with this year’s read-through the Bible plan. It is about time to come up with a new daily plan or start all over with this one. But really, no matter how many times we read through the Bible, we are never really finished with it. There is always something new to learn, some new perspective to gain. And not only are we never through with the Bible, but the Bible is never really through with us. That is the point, right? We continue to learn more and more of what God wants of us.

If we ever get to the point where we already know “the truth” and there is no possibility that we could possibly learn anything new, then there is no reason to continue to read the Bible. But if God is constantly revealing Himself afresh in His word, if there are parts about Himself that He has revealed but which we have not yet mastered and if God’s Spirit within us is constantly prodding and probing us, well, then maybe we need to keep on reading.

We don't read the Bible just because we gotta— we don’t get a chip or gold star or something for being a “Daily Bible Reader.” We read scripture because God has revealed Himself there. And God in scripture calls us to grow and change and become more like Him. So, no I’m not quite yet done with the Bible yet… and it’s not quite done with me.

Me and Paul and Contentment

I got “stuck” here at the building during lunch today. I dropped Tressa’s car at the mechanic this morning for her, and Cathy gave me a lift back to the building. I was going to drive the church van home for lunch, but the battery was dead. Lynn is home with laryngitis, so I don’t have to go let the dog out. So we decided that I would just skip lunch and keep on working. That was a good plan, except it wasn’t long until the bowl of cereal that I had at 5:00 a.m. had long ago worn off. I was really hungry.

Fortunately, someone had left a loaf of (rather stale) bread in the kitchen. And there was some individually-wrapped cheese slices (or was it imitation cheese-like food product) in the fridge. Have you ever noticed that individually-wrapped cheese slices taste a lot more like the cellophane wrapper than they do cheese? And we even had a couple of squirt jars of mustard left from our last church cookout… probably in 2005? It tasted a little funny, but I had a cheese sandwich for lunch.

So I was going to write about how I can make do with just about anything for lunch. Like Paul, I can make do with a little or a lot. “I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry…” (Phil 4:12). Yep, me and Paul. But my object lesson on contentment sorta fell apart. After all, I did complain a bit about the bread, cheese and mustard that made up my sandwich, didn’t I? Is that really contentment? And then I went back and made a second sandwich!

Contentment is a lot easier to write about that it is to practice. Excuse me me while I go hunt around for a left over cookie or something for dessert!

An Inconvenient Truth

A recent study suggests yet another reason why divorce is bad—it harms the planet. Two researchers at Michigan State University found that divorced households used much more electricity (73 billion kilowatt-hours) and water (627 billion gallons) than married households. They found that about 38 million extra rooms were needed with associated costs for heating and lighting because of divorce. Divorced households use 42-61% more resources than their married counterparts, and they spend 46% more for electricity 56 % more on water. So this study reveals another inconvenient truth-- divorce is not green.

Divorce has many negative impacts, and this is only one surprising one. Of greater concern is way divorce impacts children. Paul Faulkner points to a study that shows that adolescent boys from families that experience divorce begin sexual experimentation at a much earlier age. Teenaged boys who had not experienced divorce were 59% more likely to be virgins, and only 18% of teenagers who acted out in antisocial or delinquent behavior came from intact families. So the ripples of broken marriage vows spread to affect more people than just the two people getting the divorce.

The simple fact is that everyone believes that divorce is a bad thing. Perhaps those who have been through it will be the first to say that divorce is a bad thing. But then, those who have had root canals will say that it is a bad thing—it is just that sometimes it is necessary to get one done. I think that may be the inconvenient truth for many Christians and divorce. We know it is a bad thing, but we also suspect that sometimes it may just be unavoidable. That attitude just might keep divorce on the table as an option for us. It must—the national divorce rate and the divorce rate among Christians is virtually the same rate. That is another inconvenient truth.

In God We Trust

Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow sued the Elk Grove Unified School District in federal court for forcing public school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because referring to one nation "under God" violates children's rights to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.” I guess that if nothing else, Mr. Newdow is consistent. He also has sued the federal government to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, claiming that it violates the separation of church and state. One can only hope that when the Supreme Court makes a final ruling (and there seems to be little doubt that eventually the high court will have to rule), the court will allow “In God We Trust” to remain on our money and forbid Mr. Newdow from having or using money, thus not offending his conscience. That would be consistent!

Should the courts stay out of all issues that relate to faith? The courts recently ruled that a Jehovah’s Witness family could refuse blood transfusions to a critically ill child-- the child died not long after the ruling. Is it a misuse of scripture to forbid transfusions as a violation of Leviticus 7:26-27, "You must not eat the blood?" Yes. Should the feds be able to step in and force treatment against the religious beliefs of the family? Does that violate the “in God do we trust” for that family? Would that not allow the feds to step in and prevent me from following what I believe the Bible teaches (which, of course, would be the truth)? I think I have strong feelings both ways on this one!

One thing is certain—the stamp of approval of the federal government on religious beliefs will not make them any more or less right or wrong. We must see to live faith even as doing so falls out of favor in our culture. Of one thing I am certain-- we must continue to trust in God whether or not that continues to be printed on our money!

What a Day!

What a day! Our friends and family “Jubilee Sunday” went great. OK., so maybe the title “Pig-Out-After-Church-Sunday” really would have been a more descriptive title, but it also felt like a Jubilee! I have never seen so much food before! We added about 30-40 chairs to the auditorium… and that is about how many extra folks we had… and most stayed for the meal afterward. It was a great day. I really appreciated all the folks who stayed afterwards to help clean up. It was a great day. We need to have special days like that more often, I think. Here’s an idea—what if those who prepared food (which was most of our members) donated the money spent on food preparation and then we catered the whole thing? Would that work? What do you think?

I have to say something about the BCS mess! What a fitting end to a bizarre college football season—both #1 (Missouri) and #2 (West Virginia) lost on the last week of the season. I feel bad for Roger (WVA is his team), but I never thought that Missouri and West Virginia were the best two teams. Of course, I never thought that OSU and LSU were the two best teams either? I guess that if you have to choose two teams at random, those are as good as any… except maybe USU and OU. I hope the mess continues until they come up with a playoff system.

One more football observation. I enjoyed watching the Giants play last night.... Not because they are the Giants (nobody really like the Giants). Not because it was a good game and the Giants came back to win, although both of those are true. I enjoyed it because Tank Daniels from Harding was activated to the Giants main roster and played last night. Tank (#52) is a linebacker and plays on special teams, so keep an eye out for him.

I did have a sudden flash of insight after we watched several of the players after scoring touchdowns or making tackles. Lynn said, "That reminds me of Jaxon." Jaxon is Tank and Courtney's very animated 3-year old Jaxon who does indeed act just like NFL players, mimicking their jumping around and strutting antics. Here's my flash of insight. It's not so much that Jaxon acts like NFL players... it's more that NFL players act like 3-year olds! I liked the good old days then Dick Butkus and Mike Curtis just tacked people and got up and glared at 'em without having to dance around like Fred Astair. But that's just me.