Is anyone else sick and tired of paying outrageous gas prices because, as the evening news calls it: "Gas prices rose due to investor's fears," or "The price of oil rose today because investors feared 'x'," or "Crude oil prices rose sharply today on investor's concerns for the future of 'x.'"?
C'mon!! What, do we have a bunch of pansy-pants ninnies running around the NY Stock Exchange, wringing their hands and literally cowering in fear of the crude oil boogy man? Seriously, these folks need to stop off at the local cemetary and pick up a new spine! If it is truly over concerns, fear, or questions, then why not simply address the issue by being confident in our lives. If it's truly just a bunch of oil investors that are scared of Ahamedinijad forcing his Hobbit-framed body to jirate in tyrannical contortions, then let's get rid of these investors!
Just once I would like to hear, "Oil prices dropped today because investors confidently ignored the 4 foot nothin' supreme ruler of Iran's rants, daring him to lose his best customer based simply on false ideological grounds." Or even, "Gas prices plummeted today because, even though Middle East turmoil exists, investors confidently invested their money anyway."
Instead, it appears that we simply have a bunch of namby-pambies who are saying, (insert whiniest mental voice you can conjur) "Ooooo, no! Tomorrow my VW Cabriolet might not get to work because Kim Jong (Makes me) Il is having another fashion show, lit with barrels of oil he stole from Mother Russia."
TOUGH COOKIES!! Buck up man!
Or, open ANWR to drilling.
Perhaps this is why Christ taught us, "Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble." (Mt. 6:34) The solution preceded the command: "But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you." (Mt. 6:33).
Don't worry. Be happy. Trust Jesus.
Drill ANWR.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Men and worship
Worship songs and men's repsonse thereto have been bouncing around in my head. On Sundays, I see less than 2/3's of our men actively engaged in "worship," a word that has in modern day come to mean more "singing" than anything else.
To lay my cards out, I think that many of today's choruses are effeminate (see my post, "The Effeminization of Worship" below). Because of this feminacy, men are shrinking from worship or ceasing to attend worship services. Choruses, to be certain, are not alone. There are songs in the hymnal that fall prey to this issue as well, but the higher incidence is in the CCM module adopted by most evangelical churches today.
One song that pretty much typifies my angst is "Jesus, Lover of My Soul." Ugh! Here's a few of the lyrics, "Jesus, Lover of My Soul. Jesus, I will never let you go...I love you, I need you...My savior, my closest friend, I will worship you until the very end." There's a lot of frustration for me in there. First, what man do you know that wants to sing the words, "I love you, I need you" set to the cadence of a top 40 ballad to a male deity?! Men don't like that; so they disengage - conciously or subconciously. Second, most men don't think they need anything or anyone. They don't ask direction, let alone ask for need for their eternal souls. This may not be the right approach to salvation, but it's a fact that we must acknowledge whem ministering to men. Third, "my closest friend?" That's not what men call their "buddies." Fishin' buddy, huntin' buddy, my pal, my "boy" - never my closest friend. It's subtle, but it's a descriptor more commonly ascribed to the female gender. Finally, "I will worship you until the very end." Uh-oh! If men are this apathetic now in worship, do you think it excites them to consider that they might be doing this for all eternity? I don't think so.
There is some good in CCM music, but it is few and far between. We need to get more music that consults the Psalter for inspiration. Many of the Psalms are "flowery" and highly emotional and, therefore, more feminine. However, there are, as I'm sure you know, many different types of Psalms. There are the Royal Psalms which talk about the majesty and power of God, Psalms that record David's confessions, Psalms that essentially teach the doctrine of the faith, Psalms of judgment, Psalms where the writer Pleads for mercy or deliverance, and those Psalms that are simply filled with praise. It seems that those who do solicit songs based on the Psalms usually pull from the last category of Psalms, and leave out many of the others. And even in the more "flowery" ones the more "manly" parts are left out.
For example, let's take Psalm 8.
1 O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory
above the heavens.
2 From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise
because of your enemies,
to silence the foe and the avenger.
This is where most songwriters stop. The focus is on the praise, on the adulation, and the ascribing of glory to our God. Nothing wrong with that, but it is, certainly, incomplete. Oh, and v. 2, if any of it is used, it will quote the first two lines, but leave out the part about avenging and enemies. That's judgment, a more masculine quality. But, isn't it juxtaposed against the praise of babes? When did you last see that in a CCM chorus?
3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
Here the modern songwriter picks up again, includes a bit about how awesome God's creation is, how pretty, how lovely, and how it was started by him. But they leave out....
4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
This requires self-examination and sincere reflection. That's not often in the modern praise chorus.
5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
Crowned with glory and honor?! That's pride! That's status! Not something to be sung in a church preaching on humility!
6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:
7 all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,
8 the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.
Ruler? Manager? Forager? Hunter? Farmer? Steward? Aren't these talking about many 'manly' characteristics? The modern songwriter doesn't often include these words. If they do, the focus of the song is more on the buccolic, or couched in a way that suggests that man needs to get along with animals like the quintessential lion and lamb. Why not teach the men and boys of our congregations that not only is it ok to be a manager, here's how to understand your managerial role: God put you in charge; therefore, do it well, b/c you answer to him.
9 O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
Back to the likeable language. But did you notice the in between? See how wonderfully balanced this Psalm is? Even though this Psalm is well-balanced, what song is going through your head right now? I wager it is that chorus, "O Lord our Lord, how ma-jes-tic is your na-ame in all the Earth....Ohoooo Lord, our Lord, we magnify your na-hame, Prince of Pe-heace, Mighty God, Oh-ho Lo-ord God almi-highty!" (The hyphens are the breath/slides I remember from the Amy Grant version of the song). Maybe that's a different Psalm, but why not include the verses that are in between verse 1 and verse 9 of Psalm 8 in another, new rendition?
Others are like unto it as well. Psalm 149 spends the first 5 verses commanding the people to Praise God for this or that, to rejoice, to make music with instruments, to (gasp!) dance, to be humble. But the bottom half of the Psalm says this:
6 May the praise of God be in their mouths
and a double-edged sword in their hands,
7 to inflict vengeance on the nations
and punishment on the peoples,
8 to bind their kings with fetters,
their nobles with shackles of iron,
9 to carry out the sentence written against them.
This is the glory of all his saints.
Praise the LORD.
WOW!!! God wants to use my voice like a double-edged sword?! He wants to use me to inflict vengeance and punishment? To shackle kings and nobles? And you mean to tell me it's to the glory of God AND part of praise to the Lord to execute his just sentence on sin?!!! WHOOO-BOY!! This is the Christian equivalent of giving a boy a G.I. Joe during a worship service! It says to him that it is ok to have the indignation at sin, it's all right to use your voice and your actions to stand strongly against the most popular rulers of your day in the name of God. In other words, those strong, innately driven emotions of power and strength that the world says that you need to pacify or else your a chauvenist are actually encouraged by God and viewed as a part of praising him. Those innate passions must be focused into doing the work of God. Doing so allows the flame to burn as fuel for the kingdom of God without putting a wet blanket on their essential maleness.
I think those are some good examples and there are more -- there are 150 Psalms!! Then, you can look at Proverbs too, Song of Songs, Ecclesiates for similar content. Look at what the leaders in the OT did when the vanquished an enemy -- they wrote a Psalm praising God for his justice. There's just so much fodder for good, quality worship music! Please, just use it! The men of our congregations need it!
The point, of course, is that the focus has been only on those "flowery" Psalters (or portions thereof), and not on the powerful images of our salvation! That's unbalanced. Combine, as David and others did, the flowery with the powerful and you have one amazing worship service that will really challenge a man, not lull him to sleep and submission.
To lay my cards out, I think that many of today's choruses are effeminate (see my post, "The Effeminization of Worship" below). Because of this feminacy, men are shrinking from worship or ceasing to attend worship services. Choruses, to be certain, are not alone. There are songs in the hymnal that fall prey to this issue as well, but the higher incidence is in the CCM module adopted by most evangelical churches today.
One song that pretty much typifies my angst is "Jesus, Lover of My Soul." Ugh! Here's a few of the lyrics, "Jesus, Lover of My Soul. Jesus, I will never let you go...I love you, I need you...My savior, my closest friend, I will worship you until the very end." There's a lot of frustration for me in there. First, what man do you know that wants to sing the words, "I love you, I need you" set to the cadence of a top 40 ballad to a male deity?! Men don't like that; so they disengage - conciously or subconciously. Second, most men don't think they need anything or anyone. They don't ask direction, let alone ask for need for their eternal souls. This may not be the right approach to salvation, but it's a fact that we must acknowledge whem ministering to men. Third, "my closest friend?" That's not what men call their "buddies." Fishin' buddy, huntin' buddy, my pal, my "boy" - never my closest friend. It's subtle, but it's a descriptor more commonly ascribed to the female gender. Finally, "I will worship you until the very end." Uh-oh! If men are this apathetic now in worship, do you think it excites them to consider that they might be doing this for all eternity? I don't think so.
There is some good in CCM music, but it is few and far between. We need to get more music that consults the Psalter for inspiration. Many of the Psalms are "flowery" and highly emotional and, therefore, more feminine. However, there are, as I'm sure you know, many different types of Psalms. There are the Royal Psalms which talk about the majesty and power of God, Psalms that record David's confessions, Psalms that essentially teach the doctrine of the faith, Psalms of judgment, Psalms where the writer Pleads for mercy or deliverance, and those Psalms that are simply filled with praise. It seems that those who do solicit songs based on the Psalms usually pull from the last category of Psalms, and leave out many of the others. And even in the more "flowery" ones the more "manly" parts are left out.
For example, let's take Psalm 8.
1 O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory
above the heavens.
2 From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise
because of your enemies,
to silence the foe and the avenger.
This is where most songwriters stop. The focus is on the praise, on the adulation, and the ascribing of glory to our God. Nothing wrong with that, but it is, certainly, incomplete. Oh, and v. 2, if any of it is used, it will quote the first two lines, but leave out the part about avenging and enemies. That's judgment, a more masculine quality. But, isn't it juxtaposed against the praise of babes? When did you last see that in a CCM chorus?
3 When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
Here the modern songwriter picks up again, includes a bit about how awesome God's creation is, how pretty, how lovely, and how it was started by him. But they leave out....
4 what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
This requires self-examination and sincere reflection. That's not often in the modern praise chorus.
5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
Crowned with glory and honor?! That's pride! That's status! Not something to be sung in a church preaching on humility!
6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:
7 all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,
8 the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.
Ruler? Manager? Forager? Hunter? Farmer? Steward? Aren't these talking about many 'manly' characteristics? The modern songwriter doesn't often include these words. If they do, the focus of the song is more on the buccolic, or couched in a way that suggests that man needs to get along with animals like the quintessential lion and lamb. Why not teach the men and boys of our congregations that not only is it ok to be a manager, here's how to understand your managerial role: God put you in charge; therefore, do it well, b/c you answer to him.
9 O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
Back to the likeable language. But did you notice the in between? See how wonderfully balanced this Psalm is? Even though this Psalm is well-balanced, what song is going through your head right now? I wager it is that chorus, "O Lord our Lord, how ma-jes-tic is your na-ame in all the Earth....Ohoooo Lord, our Lord, we magnify your na-hame, Prince of Pe-heace, Mighty God, Oh-ho Lo-ord God almi-highty!" (The hyphens are the breath/slides I remember from the Amy Grant version of the song). Maybe that's a different Psalm, but why not include the verses that are in between verse 1 and verse 9 of Psalm 8 in another, new rendition?
Others are like unto it as well. Psalm 149 spends the first 5 verses commanding the people to Praise God for this or that, to rejoice, to make music with instruments, to (gasp!) dance, to be humble. But the bottom half of the Psalm says this:
6 May the praise of God be in their mouths
and a double-edged sword in their hands,
7 to inflict vengeance on the nations
and punishment on the peoples,
8 to bind their kings with fetters,
their nobles with shackles of iron,
9 to carry out the sentence written against them.
This is the glory of all his saints.
Praise the LORD.
WOW!!! God wants to use my voice like a double-edged sword?! He wants to use me to inflict vengeance and punishment? To shackle kings and nobles? And you mean to tell me it's to the glory of God AND part of praise to the Lord to execute his just sentence on sin?!!! WHOOO-BOY!! This is the Christian equivalent of giving a boy a G.I. Joe during a worship service! It says to him that it is ok to have the indignation at sin, it's all right to use your voice and your actions to stand strongly against the most popular rulers of your day in the name of God. In other words, those strong, innately driven emotions of power and strength that the world says that you need to pacify or else your a chauvenist are actually encouraged by God and viewed as a part of praising him. Those innate passions must be focused into doing the work of God. Doing so allows the flame to burn as fuel for the kingdom of God without putting a wet blanket on their essential maleness.
I think those are some good examples and there are more -- there are 150 Psalms!! Then, you can look at Proverbs too, Song of Songs, Ecclesiates for similar content. Look at what the leaders in the OT did when the vanquished an enemy -- they wrote a Psalm praising God for his justice. There's just so much fodder for good, quality worship music! Please, just use it! The men of our congregations need it!
The point, of course, is that the focus has been only on those "flowery" Psalters (or portions thereof), and not on the powerful images of our salvation! That's unbalanced. Combine, as David and others did, the flowery with the powerful and you have one amazing worship service that will really challenge a man, not lull him to sleep and submission.
In Defense of Life
Ok, I couldn't resist writing on this topic. And, it's quite timely. In fact, though rare, I have to tell you that I have something in common with a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Woo-woo!
Irishwoman Betty Williams won the NPP for circulating a petition demanding an end to the ravages of the war in Northern Ireland. It was her brutal descriptions of the violence and the sympathetic portrayal of human suffering - especially the children - in times of war that won her the accolade of the sons and daughters of Nobel. All this from a former receptionist turned CEO of a major nonprofit whose goal it is to be the voice for children. Oh wait. That was supposed to be political voice for children. Hmmm.
As she was visiting Austrialia the other day she addressed a roomful of children and their teachers, The Australian records her words, "It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life." Wow! I agree. That makes me feel great, knowing that I see eye to eye with a Nobel Laureate. I think I'll send my donation to Oslo right....huh....what's that? There's more?
Apparently, Ms. Williams, in her Irish brogue also questioned her own non-violence: "I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence', because I don't believe that I am non-violent." Hmmm, what was her award for? Peace? Huh?! Continuing she said, "I don't know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize, because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief." Well, that's not so bad, it angers me too. I don't like seeing it and I despise that sin has had that effect on our human race.
But this cinched it. Now I know I was wrong. I have nothing in common with a Nobel Laureate after all. For, to thundering applause, shaking the very Brisbane City Hall in which she spoke, Ms. Williams gave word to the virulent, political voice for which she is now committed: "Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." Apparently, her speech writer has spent time working for Al Qaeda and Hizbollah.
I hate the senseless destruction of human life. I stand committed to the proposition that life is sacred, that we must stand for it or find ourselves at risk of being terminated. But here is the fundamental difference between Ms. Williams and me: Whereas Ms. Williams bases her belief in protecting life on the basis of a duty as a human, my conviction to protect innocent life stems from my belief in God and in his command to stand for and against it.
So I can hear the objections now, "Hey, Chief, if you stand so much for life, than why are you ok with war and the death penalty and any other action that takes a life. Shouldn't your God be the one who decides when life ends?" Certainly, if I were simply walking down the streets slashing throats, that would be an offense to God and the dignity of human life. But that's not for what I stand.
I stand to protect innocent life. I give voice to those who have no voice. I stand to execute judgment on those who have intentionally and maliciously taken innocent life. I act to protect life by removing life. It's not contradictory. Babies in the womb have no voice, they are the picture of innocence; I give them their voice and demand that they have dignity as a distinct being, not a wad of flesh attached to a woman's uterus. Capital punishment, to me, is just because that baneful human removed an innocent life and must, therefore, suffer a like consequence - another chance to give voice to the voice that was silenced by the act of the murderer. I support war, especially war that seeks to root out evil, to keep wretched men bent on my destruction from killing me, my family, and my fellow citizens. That is a just reaction to such a careless, cowardly act of taking life in the name of Allah.
Ms. Williams may endeavor to accomplish a good work. But the answer to saving life is not to suggest taking more life, especially the life of a man who has striven to protect our lives. It's interesting to see how blatantly contradictory her words are: "I am a human, I must protect life, I want to take Bush's life."
Christ came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly. He came to take his own life in sacrifice. In other words, he came with the sole intent of killing himself so that he would protect innocent lives, knowing that our lives were not so innocent. He could have addressed a synagogue full of school children and claimed he stood for life and then taken pot shots at the head Levite of his day. But he didn't. He stood for lives drenched in guilt that they might become innocent. What a marvelous contradiction.
For the full article about Ms. Williams, go the The Australian, here.
Irishwoman Betty Williams won the NPP for circulating a petition demanding an end to the ravages of the war in Northern Ireland. It was her brutal descriptions of the violence and the sympathetic portrayal of human suffering - especially the children - in times of war that won her the accolade of the sons and daughters of Nobel. All this from a former receptionist turned CEO of a major nonprofit whose goal it is to be the voice for children. Oh wait. That was supposed to be political voice for children. Hmmm.
As she was visiting Austrialia the other day she addressed a roomful of children and their teachers, The Australian records her words, "It's our duty as human beings, whatever age we are, to become the protectors of human life." Wow! I agree. That makes me feel great, knowing that I see eye to eye with a Nobel Laureate. I think I'll send my donation to Oslo right....huh....what's that? There's more?
Apparently, Ms. Williams, in her Irish brogue also questioned her own non-violence: "I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence', because I don't believe that I am non-violent." Hmmm, what was her award for? Peace? Huh?! Continuing she said, "I don't know how I ever got a Nobel Peace Prize, because when I see children die the anger in me is just beyond belief." Well, that's not so bad, it angers me too. I don't like seeing it and I despise that sin has had that effect on our human race.
But this cinched it. Now I know I was wrong. I have nothing in common with a Nobel Laureate after all. For, to thundering applause, shaking the very Brisbane City Hall in which she spoke, Ms. Williams gave word to the virulent, political voice for which she is now committed: "Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." Apparently, her speech writer has spent time working for Al Qaeda and Hizbollah.
I hate the senseless destruction of human life. I stand committed to the proposition that life is sacred, that we must stand for it or find ourselves at risk of being terminated. But here is the fundamental difference between Ms. Williams and me: Whereas Ms. Williams bases her belief in protecting life on the basis of a duty as a human, my conviction to protect innocent life stems from my belief in God and in his command to stand for and against it.
So I can hear the objections now, "Hey, Chief, if you stand so much for life, than why are you ok with war and the death penalty and any other action that takes a life. Shouldn't your God be the one who decides when life ends?" Certainly, if I were simply walking down the streets slashing throats, that would be an offense to God and the dignity of human life. But that's not for what I stand.
I stand to protect innocent life. I give voice to those who have no voice. I stand to execute judgment on those who have intentionally and maliciously taken innocent life. I act to protect life by removing life. It's not contradictory. Babies in the womb have no voice, they are the picture of innocence; I give them their voice and demand that they have dignity as a distinct being, not a wad of flesh attached to a woman's uterus. Capital punishment, to me, is just because that baneful human removed an innocent life and must, therefore, suffer a like consequence - another chance to give voice to the voice that was silenced by the act of the murderer. I support war, especially war that seeks to root out evil, to keep wretched men bent on my destruction from killing me, my family, and my fellow citizens. That is a just reaction to such a careless, cowardly act of taking life in the name of Allah.
Ms. Williams may endeavor to accomplish a good work. But the answer to saving life is not to suggest taking more life, especially the life of a man who has striven to protect our lives. It's interesting to see how blatantly contradictory her words are: "I am a human, I must protect life, I want to take Bush's life."
Christ came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly. He came to take his own life in sacrifice. In other words, he came with the sole intent of killing himself so that he would protect innocent lives, knowing that our lives were not so innocent. He could have addressed a synagogue full of school children and claimed he stood for life and then taken pot shots at the head Levite of his day. But he didn't. He stood for lives drenched in guilt that they might become innocent. What a marvelous contradiction.
For the full article about Ms. Williams, go the The Australian, here.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Eternal Hope
Those of you who know me know that I graduated from Taylor University. TU has been in the news of late due to an unfortunate (understatement of the year) series of circumstances. In April, a 15 passenger van owned by TU was driving back from Ft. Wayne carrying a number of catering staff members. About 10 minutes from campus, an 18 wheeler jumped the median and plowed through the van, killing 4 students, 1 staff member, and injuring others, including putting one student in a semi-comatose state for about 5 weeks. This week, she woke up.
The semi-comatose student was thought to be Laura Vanryn. During her less responsive days, the other families, including the family of Whitney Cerak, buried their siblings, son, and daughters. During that time, the deceased students were eulogized, memorialized, given posthumous degrees, memorial scholarships were set in place, and (since I'm an attorney) probate proceedings were likely begun. But, this week, it became apparent that things were not what they seemed.
The person thought be Laura Vanryn became more conversant and, in the process, started calling people by the wrong nickname and saying things that the family did not understand. Cautiously, the therapist asked her if she knew her name. "Whitney Cerak" she replied. Stunned, the family and the therapist asked her to write her name: "Whitney Cerak," she scribbled. The joy at the knowledge that their daughter had survived a horrific accident was turned to utter dismay at the realization that another family had buried their daughter, another family had eulogized the wrong memory, and they had expended their love and affection upon the wrong woman.
But, here's what has been so striking to me: the Vanryn family has exhibited nothing but joy and grace. Their comments have been filled with the love and understanding that only comes from God. In a word, they have demonstrated hope.
"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope." I Thess. 4:13.
During this time, the Vanryn family has faithfully kept a blog about, who we now know to be, Whitney. Please visit it at http://lauravanryn.blogspot.com. One of the over 1,000 comments left on that blog after the announcement of the mistaken identity was a from a person in Australia who said (in paraphrase), "I wish I had what you had. I know it must be your faith, but I do not have the hope that you have. I want to have it." What that person from Australia seeks, Titus saw fit to explain to us in Titus 2:13, "...waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ..."
Our lives, our work, our play is all subject to that one thing: hope. Minutes from now you, your friend, or loved one may be taken from you, do you have hope? The circumstances involving the Cerak and Vanryn families is tragic, horid, unspeakably painful. But for both, it is overwhelmingly joyful. For the Ceraks, their daughter, whom they thought dead, is alive and will be able to spend more hours here on earth with her. For the Vanryns, their daughter is dead, but alive in Christ. As they said on their blog, "For us, we will mourn Laura's going home and will greatly miss her compassionate heart and sweetness while knowing that she is safe and with her King forever. " Their hope, which instills them with joy, is the knowledge that someday they will meet their daughter again and spend eternity praising their King together.
It's been a painful time for TU students and alumni. But, truly, solo deo gloria - only for the glory of God!
The semi-comatose student was thought to be Laura Vanryn. During her less responsive days, the other families, including the family of Whitney Cerak, buried their siblings, son, and daughters. During that time, the deceased students were eulogized, memorialized, given posthumous degrees, memorial scholarships were set in place, and (since I'm an attorney) probate proceedings were likely begun. But, this week, it became apparent that things were not what they seemed.
The person thought be Laura Vanryn became more conversant and, in the process, started calling people by the wrong nickname and saying things that the family did not understand. Cautiously, the therapist asked her if she knew her name. "Whitney Cerak" she replied. Stunned, the family and the therapist asked her to write her name: "Whitney Cerak," she scribbled. The joy at the knowledge that their daughter had survived a horrific accident was turned to utter dismay at the realization that another family had buried their daughter, another family had eulogized the wrong memory, and they had expended their love and affection upon the wrong woman.
But, here's what has been so striking to me: the Vanryn family has exhibited nothing but joy and grace. Their comments have been filled with the love and understanding that only comes from God. In a word, they have demonstrated hope.
"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope." I Thess. 4:13.
During this time, the Vanryn family has faithfully kept a blog about, who we now know to be, Whitney. Please visit it at http://lauravanryn.blogspot.com. One of the over 1,000 comments left on that blog after the announcement of the mistaken identity was a from a person in Australia who said (in paraphrase), "I wish I had what you had. I know it must be your faith, but I do not have the hope that you have. I want to have it." What that person from Australia seeks, Titus saw fit to explain to us in Titus 2:13, "...waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ..."
Our lives, our work, our play is all subject to that one thing: hope. Minutes from now you, your friend, or loved one may be taken from you, do you have hope? The circumstances involving the Cerak and Vanryn families is tragic, horid, unspeakably painful. But for both, it is overwhelmingly joyful. For the Ceraks, their daughter, whom they thought dead, is alive and will be able to spend more hours here on earth with her. For the Vanryns, their daughter is dead, but alive in Christ. As they said on their blog, "For us, we will mourn Laura's going home and will greatly miss her compassionate heart and sweetness while knowing that she is safe and with her King forever. " Their hope, which instills them with joy, is the knowledge that someday they will meet their daughter again and spend eternity praising their King together.
It's been a painful time for TU students and alumni. But, truly, solo deo gloria - only for the glory of God!
Thursday, May 18, 2006
The Effeminization of Worship
I've been doing a lot of thinking about the lack of masculine involvement in Evangelicalism these days. I suppose it's because of my work with the Men's Ministry at our Church. I have shared with a few my theory: men are not involved in church because worship has become effeminate.
R.C. Sproul has written a piece entitled, "Off with the Skirts. On with the Pants" (found at www.cbmw.org under Web Resources-Articles) wherein he says, "I’m not sure whether our men in the church wear skirts because we worship a god in a skirt, or whether we worship a skirt-wearing god because the men in the church are so weak." Another author, David Murrow, has written a book entitled, Why Men Hate Going to Church. I have not read the book, but I have read excerpts. The book confirms my theory: men don't go to church because it is effiminate.
Interestingly, another article I read somewhere compared a man's role in Christianity with Buddhism and Islam. This is very interesting. In Islam, men are revered, honored, and highly active; but there is a hardness, a lack of compassion within them. Their "rule" is dictatorial, unkind and often radical. In Buddhism, men are also highly active, but characteristically nonconfrontational. But, with Christianity, men are simply not present. Those who are present are really divided into two categories: the active and the apathetic.
Do you need evidence for this? Murrow posts the following stats on his website (www.churchformen.com):
R.C. Sproul has written a piece entitled, "Off with the Skirts. On with the Pants" (found at www.cbmw.org under Web Resources-Articles) wherein he says, "I’m not sure whether our men in the church wear skirts because we worship a god in a skirt, or whether we worship a skirt-wearing god because the men in the church are so weak." Another author, David Murrow, has written a book entitled, Why Men Hate Going to Church. I have not read the book, but I have read excerpts. The book confirms my theory: men don't go to church because it is effiminate.
Interestingly, another article I read somewhere compared a man's role in Christianity with Buddhism and Islam. This is very interesting. In Islam, men are revered, honored, and highly active; but there is a hardness, a lack of compassion within them. Their "rule" is dictatorial, unkind and often radical. In Buddhism, men are also highly active, but characteristically nonconfrontational. But, with Christianity, men are simply not present. Those who are present are really divided into two categories: the active and the apathetic.
Do you need evidence for this? Murrow posts the following stats on his website (www.churchformen.com):
- The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61% female, 39% male. This gender gap shows up in all age categories.
- On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America’s churches.
- This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands.
- Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants.
- The majority of church employees are women (except for ordained clergy, who are overwhelmingly male).
- As many as 90 percent of the boys who are being raised in church will abandon it by their 20th birthday. Many of these boys will never return.
- More than 90 percent of American men believe in God, and five out of six call themselves Christians. But only two out of six attend church on a given Sunday. The average man accepts the reality of Jesus Christ, but fails to see any value in going to church.
Staggering stuff, isn't it?
While the statistics certainly show a lack of manly presence in churches today, society is proving the effects. Jails are filled with men whose father's neglected them, children are raised entirely by a single parent or grandparent - usually maternal. In mainline denominations, what have been two of the most contentious issues of recent years? Ordination of women and/or homosexuals.
Are we really that surprised? Culturally, this generation of men have been beaten down, told that they are no different than women, they are neanderthal, crude, rude, and stupid. Men are portrayed by society as nothing more than Homer Simpson simpletons, Jim Belushi connivers, and Peter Griffin loafs. Meanwhile, the feminist movement presses for "equality of the sexes." Whatever that means, it does not recognize the innate difference and the absolute necessity of maximizing such differences - an it certainly means a misconstruction of "chain of command" established by God. In short, the feminist movement of the past half century has left men without an identity, without a purpose, and unwilling to stand for who they are.
You see, there's a second dynamic at work: men are inherently lazy. I will not put the blame entirely on women and the women's movement because men have simply abdicated their leadership role simply because they have chosen the easy way out. "You want leadership and the frustration such responsbilities bring, be my guest," said many a man in recent years, "I just don't want to argue anymore."
As much as women have overstepped their roles, men have retreated from theirs. All the while, the Church as acquiesced to the change.
The servant leadership role men are commissioned to fulfill has swayed erratically towards subservience, and away from leadership. Sproul suggests a solution, "The calling to men is to be bold and strong, to lead with courage." Leadership means having the maturity to make a decision; the conviction to stand by it; the articulation to explain it; the ability to execute it; the empathy to encourage those struggling with it; the perseverance to carry it into fruition; and the knowledge to know that it is right. But that's what men are missing.
Christian men are missing the knowledge of the God who created them, who they were created by God to be, and what they were created by God to do. This must be the starting point for men to recapture leadership.
In no way am I advocating a quick swing of the pendulum back to ardent leadership devoid of compassion. That's dictatorship, not service in leadership. I am challenging men (and women) to discover Christ and the purpose for which He created men. I am putting out the gauntlet, daring men to identify their convictions and stand by them. It is my admonition to men to be unwavering in their love for the gospel, their leadership of the home, and - as a result - their leadership of the Church.
At the same time, I challenge the church and its current leadership. Do you want men to be more active in your church? Do you want a living men's ministry that will fuel your congregation? Do you want to see women be who they were created to be because the men are being the men they were created to be? Do you want the use of pornography by 70% of the men of your church to stop? Do you want the illicit sex engaged in by 25% of your congregation to cease? Do you want to see a reduction of crime, unwed pregnancies, abortions, drug use, and abandonment of the faith?
Then challenge your men. Tear down the namby-pamby posters of Jesus with the long flowing Breck shampoo hair and flowing gown, and paint a picture of Jesus doing battle for the souls of men and women around you. Eliminate the wussy worship times that have men standing zombie like while women around them sing "Cum-bay-ya" and "Precious Jesus." Replace it with worship that rocks - not in musical style - but in a way that challenges the head, not just the heart, of men. Structure your sermons to appeal to the mind, not just the heart; put in an accomplishable challenge for the men of your congregation to fulfill. Dare them to be men of God and, if they won't, call them a coward!! Tell them to take off their Nancy skirt and put on a pair of BDU's. Challenge them to lose their garters and put on the belt of truth. Admonish them to kick off their Florsheims and shod their feet with the Gospel of Truth.
It is my firm belief that if those in church leadership will accept this challenge, our churches will change. If our churches will change, our families will improve. If our families improve, our society will be bettered. If our society is bettered, our message will spread. If our message spreads, the Kingdom will come.
But, it must begin with men.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Friday, January 20, 2006
Joshua 9
Leaders of the Old Testament Israelites had it rough. When you think of Moses, I wager a strong, yet tired image comes to mind. Certainly, Moses did remarkable things with his leadership. He trusted in God and that provided him the ability to lead a whining nation out of Egypt.
But then came Joshua, the successor in leadership to Moses. No doubt Joshua had witnessed Moses' fatigue with the Israelites. He was there. But when he took over leadership, things changed. Joshua was told to conquer the promise land. Not just conquer, but destroy. In today's world we think of conquering as a brief battle followed by an armistice of some sort. Well that wasn't God's plan for the Israelites. Joshua had a calling. Where Moses was called to lead the people out of Egypt, to the doorstep of the promised land, Joshua was called to take possession of it. This meant those in the land at that time, had to go: all of them.
In no uncertain terms, God told Joshua to destroy all that live in the promised land. Destroy, i.e., kill all the inhabitants. But Joshua wasn't ready for a ruse that the leaders of the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, and others pulled on Joshua and the leaders of Israel. Why? Because the leaders trusted in themselves, not God. After making a sacred oath not to kill these leaders and their people (who looked to have traveled far to be where they were, but actually lived down the street), Joshua and the Leaders discovered they had been fooled. Why?
"The men of Israel sampled their provisions but they did not inquire of the Lord." (v. 14). They trusted in their own assessment of the situation and did not pause to consider what in put the maker of the universe would have. I can't say that I blame the leaders of Israel. Because I know in my fallen heart, I would likely have done the same.
Here's the point. God had given Joshua a specific calling: to take possession of the entirety of the promised land by purging the sinful nations from it. Say what you will about such an occupation, when God gives you a calling, you had better follow it. There is no compromising with God. It's either yes or no, obey or disobey. Here, the leaders disobeyed and the results were catastrophic. While there was no immediate harm (these nations were enslaved because Israel was forced to honor their oath), in the subsequent history of Israel, the descendants of these people influenced the disobedient hearts of the Israelites and led to many spiritual downfalls.
In your day to day living out of your calling, do not stop short of obeying God. Remove the evil from your heart and surroundings as God calls you to do so. Do not give an inroad for a latent plunge into sin. Remove it. In living out our calling to follow Christ obedience to the Truth must be our standard.
But then came Joshua, the successor in leadership to Moses. No doubt Joshua had witnessed Moses' fatigue with the Israelites. He was there. But when he took over leadership, things changed. Joshua was told to conquer the promise land. Not just conquer, but destroy. In today's world we think of conquering as a brief battle followed by an armistice of some sort. Well that wasn't God's plan for the Israelites. Joshua had a calling. Where Moses was called to lead the people out of Egypt, to the doorstep of the promised land, Joshua was called to take possession of it. This meant those in the land at that time, had to go: all of them.
In no uncertain terms, God told Joshua to destroy all that live in the promised land. Destroy, i.e., kill all the inhabitants. But Joshua wasn't ready for a ruse that the leaders of the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, and others pulled on Joshua and the leaders of Israel. Why? Because the leaders trusted in themselves, not God. After making a sacred oath not to kill these leaders and their people (who looked to have traveled far to be where they were, but actually lived down the street), Joshua and the Leaders discovered they had been fooled. Why?
"The men of Israel sampled their provisions but they did not inquire of the Lord." (v. 14). They trusted in their own assessment of the situation and did not pause to consider what in put the maker of the universe would have. I can't say that I blame the leaders of Israel. Because I know in my fallen heart, I would likely have done the same.
Here's the point. God had given Joshua a specific calling: to take possession of the entirety of the promised land by purging the sinful nations from it. Say what you will about such an occupation, when God gives you a calling, you had better follow it. There is no compromising with God. It's either yes or no, obey or disobey. Here, the leaders disobeyed and the results were catastrophic. While there was no immediate harm (these nations were enslaved because Israel was forced to honor their oath), in the subsequent history of Israel, the descendants of these people influenced the disobedient hearts of the Israelites and led to many spiritual downfalls.
In your day to day living out of your calling, do not stop short of obeying God. Remove the evil from your heart and surroundings as God calls you to do so. Do not give an inroad for a latent plunge into sin. Remove it. In living out our calling to follow Christ obedience to the Truth must be our standard.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Consider....
Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias recently said, "Jesus did not come into this world to make bad people good. He came to make dead people alive."
This really changes our mandate. If we are simply bad people hoping to be made good, we'll never really succeed due to our propensity to be bad. Yet, if once we, as dead people, are made alive (Jonathan Edwards may say, "Quickened") in the person of the Eternal God, how can we once again die?
If you view God as simply chastising you for being bad, wishing He could make you just good enough, I hope you'll reconsider Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death. BUT the gift of God is eternal life."
This really changes our mandate. If we are simply bad people hoping to be made good, we'll never really succeed due to our propensity to be bad. Yet, if once we, as dead people, are made alive (Jonathan Edwards may say, "Quickened") in the person of the Eternal God, how can we once again die?
If you view God as simply chastising you for being bad, wishing He could make you just good enough, I hope you'll reconsider Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death. BUT the gift of God is eternal life."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)