God and Country in Jesus' Words

^“Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to trap Him by what He said. They sent their disciples to Him, with the Herodians. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘we know that You are truthful and teach truthfully the way of God. You defer to no one, for You don’t show partiality. Tell us, therefore, what You think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?’”

Trying to trick Him, the self-appointed arbiters of righteousness in His day broached the issue of the relationship between civil government and the sacred. In 1^st Century Palestine, the government was that of a foreign power. While there was a fairly high degree at the time of freedom of religion, the Jews resented being part of a Gentile empire, which, as any government does, taxed them for whatever provisions Rome supplied.

But no culture/state wants to be ruled by others. Every nation desires autonomy. In Judea was a rebel faction called zealots who sought the overthrow of Roman occupation by violent means. They hoped to convince Jesus, who was quickly gaining the following of the masses, to not only join them, but also be their “Messiah” and lead them to conquer Rome. He wasn’t so persuaded because overthrowing a political regime was not His mission.

His enemies then sought to use politics as a way to trip Him up and present Him as urging the people to refuse to pay taxes. Now there’s a way to win the approval of the people! But it wasn’t to win the favor of the citizenry that they posed this question to Him. It was to run back to the Roman authorities and charge Jesus with being a revolutionary and have them end His life and with it, His growing movement.

Jesus saw through their scheme. ^“But perceiving their malice, Jesus said, ‘Why are you testing Me, hypocrites? Show Me the coin used for the tax.’ So they brought Him a denarius (a Roman coin). ‘Whose image and inscription is this?’ He asked them. ^‘Caesar’s,’ they said to Him. Then He said to them, ‘Therefore, give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’”

Not only did Jesus recognize the place of civil, human government to look over the affairs of mankind, He also gave support to the ability of government to impose taxation. Note that when the opportunity arose He did not condemn either Rome or taxes. We know from another story in the Gospels that Jesus was a taxpayer Himself.

At the same time Jesus clearly drew a line. Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter, called it a “wall of separation”. The framers of our Constitution also recognized Jesus’ “line” in the Bill of Rights’ 1^st Amendment. Some areas are clearly the domain of the government, especially protecting our freedoms and rights. But others belong to a higher power – the Creator. He is the author of morals, faith, ethics and what we call “personal conscience”.

Jesus’ made it so simple. Give to Caesar (the civil authorities) those things that belong to “him”. Give to God those areas of life that belong to Him. It is when we mix the two or allow one to take over the other that we move away from Christ’s words of wisdom.

The message seems simple. Let the government rule over that which God has given it. After all, government is God’s idea. But don’t allow the government to rule matters of faith and the morals and institutions over which He alone should have control.

And giving back to God the things that are His can be far more difficult a choice than filling out a 1040 and mailing a check.

This article is taken from The Outer Banks Sentinel, April 18, 2012

Rick Lawrenson is the Lead Pastor of Nags Head Church.

Copyright 2012 Rick Lawrenson

Oh, that again. It's Halloween...

As we creep upon the eve of All Hallowed (Saints) Day, the posts and tweets multiply on why Christians shouldn't participate.

But I'm not going to get into a debate about whether or not Trick or Treating is some kind of pagan ritual that celebrates a spirit of anti-Christ. When I was a kid it was strictly about one thing: loading up on candy. Period. I never heard of the Celts.

But I wonder what Jesus meant in Matthew 16:18 when He said the "gates of Hell" would not be able to "prevail" or "overpower" the church.

If Halloween is a tool in the hands of the powers of Hell, as many claim (and, yes, I'm aware of its pagan origins), is it something from which we retreat or is it something we charge as an army with the Gospel?

I mean, if Jesus was being truthful, what about Halloween do we fear? And aren't we called to invade the culture to proclaim the chains have been broken by the Cross?

Doesn't the Gospel have the power to not only overcome but convert evil to good? And if so, does that not apply to how we approach Halloween?

I'm reminded of Larry Norman's radical lyrics that challenged the church in my teenage years. "Why should the devil have all the good music?" Likewise, why surrender to the devil a fun celebration by hiding from it? Why not turn it into something that points people to Jesus?

So, do we crash the party, or do we run away? Are we truly "like a mighty army" as the old hymn says, on the offensive, or are we monastic and reclusive, hiding out in our bomb shelters until the 2nd Coming?

Just thinking out loud.

Should they put prayer back in schools?

One of the latest Facebook "polls" going around is asking that question. I don't participate in those kinds of things on FB (primarily because I don't trust that someone isn't using it to hack my account), but I do have an opinion.

No! Please, no!

(Let the hammers in the hands of some begin to pound the nails. I fully expect it.)

I can remember our class in early elementary school bowing our heads as we stood in line to go to the cafeteria (I think we called it the "lunch room") almost 50 years ago and someone leading us in "God is great, God is good....". However, that was another America, two generations removed. It was still the "Leave It to Beaver" era. And no one (to my knowledge) ever abused the prayer or found it "unconstitutional". Everyone, it seemed, believed in the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Those who didn't were a huge minority.

But in the 60's things began to rapidly change, didn't they? Court rulings found such things as prayer in school "unconstitutional" - a violation of the so-called "wall of separation" between church and stated. So it was stopped in government schools.

Those weren't the only changes, however. Our nation as a whole, since World War II increasingly became more and more secular. Families, that had for generations been regular church-goers curbed their attendance to Easter and Christmas, if that. Organizations led by atheists (remember Madelyn what's her name... She was a real activist before becoming an email forwarded hoax), People for the American Way and the ACLU lobbied and sued to strip any vestiges of religion, especially Christianity, from anything public, despite the efforts of the "Christian right".

That led us into the 21st Century and what has been rightly labeled a "post-Christian America". Nowadays, if the preacher in the pulpit proclaims the historic orthodox faith of his church he is likely to be criticized by the membership for being intolerant! Our national religion is pluralism.

"But won't restoring prayers to the public school life help bring our nation back to God?" That's the question and reasoning of those who think it would be a good thing. Our kids need to pray!!

OK. Who in the government-owned school is going to lead that prayer? To what "God" is that prayer going to be directed? Remember, we now embrace multi-culturalism. So do you really want someone who believes in praying to "Mother Earth" or some other pagan entity leading your child in prayer in school? When it's Islamic prayer day, do you want your child bowing toward Mecca (so as not to offend the Muslim students) while a prayer to Allah is being said? That's the only way in the America in which we now live that it would ever happen. Is that what you want?

"But", some reply, "why not just have a moment of silence and let everyone silently pray to the deity of their own faith?" Now we're getting somewhere... almost. But do we even need that?

Guess what? There is no law prohibiting a student from praying while in school. Now, if someone insists the prayers be made aloud and before an entire class or over the intercom, maybe we should read Jesus words on "public" prayers in Matthew 6.

No one can stop a student from praying silently before or after a class. Who said a Christian student can't pray while walking to and from class for his/her classmates and teachers? No one can stop a student from bowing his/her head in the cafeteria to thank God for the meal. And there is no law prohibiting like-minded students from gathering at the school before or after classes to pray together. (Heard of "See You at the Pole"? I just wonder why it's only once a year.)

So what is it that we really want? The days of Wally and the Beaver are forever gone. We surrendered our cake by apathy. It's too late to eat it now. So, instead of trying to get back what we began to give up three generations ago, why not teach our kids that their ability to pray never stops and that God can hear their hearts' utterances, even in the midst of a geometry exam? That was when I found myself doing a lot of praying.

We don't need a regimented time to pray, do we? If we do, then the real question should be, "Should we put prayer back into the everyday lives of Christians?". What did Paul mean by "Pray without ceasing"? Do our kids need someone to tell them when it's the legalized time to pray?

Maybe the answer should be found in Christian parents and churches teaching students that prayer can happen anywhere at anytime and that the answer to our spiritual needs as a nation won't be provided by legislation. If it is, can we truly call it prayer?

As long as there are Christian students and teachers in our public schools there will always be prayer in school. It can't be stopped.

The Company You Keep... Part 2

(Part 1 is the preceding post.)

"How dare that Jesus! He knows that Matthew and his buds are the devil's children, yet there he is, eating and conversing with them. I even hear him laughing at one of their jokes! Who knows what they're doing in there! How can he call himself a holy man? I knew he wasn't the real deal. Messiah? Are you kidding?"

My imagination, but the context of Mt. 9:9-13 makes it pretty obvious those were the kinds of comments coming from the lips of the Pharisees. They just didn't get it. Jesus' behavior was far too radical and revolutionary for them.

This preacher/rabbi/prophet was rapidly becoming the most popular religious figure in the land. He was sought after by outcasts, wealthy business men, community leaders and military officials. He went to places no one else would enter and touched people considered "unclean" by the guardians of the faith. Before his ministry was over he would be invited to appear before the religious elite and government officials. The conspiracy to murder him was orchestrated by those of his own race and creed who rejected him.

What we don't understand we tend to disagree with. And when we disagree, in order to defend our position we tend to fight against with straw man arguments. A recovering Pharisee myself, I understand that side well.

What happens when a well-known pastor (that would exclude me) steps out of the box and finds room at the tables of infidels, atheists, liberals and people otherwise considered "tax collectors and sinners" by the self-appointed "defenders of the faith"?

Billy Graham was boycotted in the 60's and 70's by "Bible believing" pastors in every city where he came to preach. Why? In order to get the biggest crowds to come to his crusades he routinely invited ministers of every persuasion to sit on the platform, knowing that if they attended, their churches would likely attend, too, giving many the opportunity to hear for perhaps the first time a clear presentation of the Gospel. Yet my wife heard a pastor at her church in the early '70's proclaim that Graham's ministry was "of the devil".

Jerry Falwell was called "the anti-christ" by the president of a fundamentalist Christian university in the late '70's. Why? He dared build friendships with people like Teddy Kennedy, Larry King and Larry Flint - a porn publisher - so he could share the Gospel with them. Poor Jerry! He was despised by the left and right until the day in died in 2007.

Rick Warren is the current punching bag for the sons and daughters of Graham's and Falwell's critics. Why? He has sat down at tables with "tax collectors and sinners" to insert his Christian beliefs and influence where he is the lone representative of evangelical Christianity to address issues like AIDS and starvation. And because no one else dares to go out on the same limb, the separationist bloggers are abuzz in their attacks!

I've been around the block a time or two, and here's what I've come to accept. I may not have a clear understanding of why those men used the methods they did. There are others on the scene today whose beliefs are essentially the same as mine, but they do things that cause me to take a step back and raise an eyebrow. And my conclusion might be, "Well, I wouldn't do it that way."

But attack them because they are different in their methods? Find them guilty of a "crime" without giving them an opportunity to at least try and explain themselves? I hear enough of that kind of thing about my own church and ministry. So for me and the church I serve that would be the pot calling the kettle black.

If I don't "get it" my best response is no response and let God sort it out. Their fruit will reveal their validity. And that may not be known until eternity.

Rather, I take to heart what Jesus did and said. He was quite the non-conformist, wasn't He? Years ago two older, godly preachers said some things I heard that I'm still trying to apply to my life.

1. "When I've won as many people to Christ as *Billy Graham, then I can start to criticize him." (Sumner Wemp) That narrows it down considerably for me.

2. "I'll be friends with the friends of Jesus." (B. R. Lakin) Whether I agree with every thing they do or not.

*He said "Billy Graham", but you can fill in the blank with whoever.

You're Known By the Company You Keep...Or Are You? - Part 1

I grew up in a "camp" of conservative Christianity that placed high value on what is referred to a "doctrine of separation". The proof text for their doctrine is a verse in the New Testament that says, "Come out from among them and be ye separate". (I use the KJV wording because they would be offended if I didn't.)

And throw in the verse that says, "Avoid all appearance of evil", too. That's a biggie among that camp.

At the heart of their thinking is the idea that Christians, who now have a new "family" (the church) and a new life (the life of Christ) and a new citizenship (the Kingdom of Heaven) should be tee-total avoiders of anything "sinful", including hanging out with infidels (the unfaithful).

That doctrine kept me out of movie theaters my entire adolescent life. The Christian college I attended even had a rule prohibiting attendance at movie theaters! It was the idea that even a decent family movie was taboo because the money paid to see such was going to support evil, wicked people in Hollywood. As I recall Liz Taylor was the poster girl for that crowd.

Even as a teenager I found it interesting that while going to see the movie at a theater was unchristian, watching the same movie at home on TV was somehow OK.

And I remember the shock I created one Sunday night when I went to church wearing a collar-less shirt and "hippie" sandals!!

Is that what God meant by "being separate" or "being holy as He is holy"?

Questions I asked as a Christian teenager in such an environment were...
...Why is it wrong to go to the theater and see the movie but OK to see it on TV at home?
...If we are so separated from "worldly" people, how will we ever get to talk with them about Christ?
...If that's what holiness is about wouldn't be all do better by becoming monks in a monastery?
...Why should the devil have all the good music? OK. I stole that one from Larry Norman.

And if being separate wasn't enough, a doctrine of "secondary separation" was also in vogue. Secondary separation says that even if my life radiates Christ, if I associate with someone who doesn't fit the bill, then I'm in sin. I'm "unclean".

Then I read this about Jesus.

As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office, and He said to him, "Follow Me!" So he got up and followed Him. While He was reclining at the table in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came as guests to eat with Jesus and His disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked His disciples, "Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" But when He heard this, He said, "Those who are well don’t need a doctor, but the sick do. Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. For I didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mt. 9:9-13 HCSB)

The "Pharisees" were the strictest of Judaism's "denominations". Today they would be called "fundamentalists" (a word that has been twisted, by the way). They saw appearances as the standard of holy living, and Jesus was violating every standard. And He did so just to push their buttons. He intended to get them to question their legalisms, which were man-made standards not God-given.

Certainly nothing indicates Jesus became a tax-collector, a drunk or a prostitute because of this lunch. His purpose wasn't to indulge in their lifestyle but to invade their lifestyle with His own. He was able to connect with them without conforming to them.

So, is this call to holy and separate living so much about where I go and with whom I associate? Or is it something deeper. And can we impact a world that doesn't know Jesus by avoiding them?

Just be warned: if you attempt to mimic Jesus and "eat with tax collectors and sinners" you can expect the Pharisees to rise up against you.

You're judging me!

The farther our society moves away from the acceptance of absolute values the more it perceives those who hold to absolutes to be curmudgeons and self-righteous. So, whenever an absolutist, like a Christian reacts negatively to what his/her values hold to be immoral, those whose moral beliefs are dictated by culture and time are offended. "How can you dare to judge me?"

The Bible is clear regarding judgments.

First, Christians are not to be judgmental of non-Christians. This is where so many, especially those in "fundamentalist" circles fail. - 1 Corinthians 5:12

Second, Christians are to hold one another in the church accountable for the lives we live. That requires making judgments based on the Scriptures. You can't/won't tell me that the lie I just told is wrong if you don't believe it to be so. And to do so requires a judgment to be made. - 1 Corinthians 5:13

Third, because a Christian or a moral absolutist believes there are rights and wrongs does not mean they are judging those with different beliefs. The judging is done by the absolutes and the creator of them. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Here are a few theoretical scenarios.
Scenario 1
I want to join your church. I work as a prostitute, but I believe in God.

Our standard of morality is the Bible. It says that your lifestyle/occupation is sin. Are you willing to turn away from that life and embrace a life of following Jesus?

No. I do what I have to do to survive. Are you judging me?

The answer is "Yes". If you claim to believe then you place yourself in the position of behaving as though you do. And it is a judgment necessary to the health of the church.

Scenario 2
I work as a prostitute. Can I come to your church?

Of course you can. Anyone and everyone is welcome to attend our church.

Will people judge me as unfit if I show up on Sunday?

If they do then they aren't behaving like Christians.

Is that judgmental? No. We can be welcoming but not affirming. We can accept the person without accepting the lifestyle.

Scenario 3
I'm a prostitute. Can I come to your church on Sunday?

No. We don't allow your type in our church.

Is that judgmental? Yes, and it is inappropriate judgmentalism.


Scenario 4
Would you come with me to church this Sunday?

I'm a prostitute and no, I won't come to your church because I hear you people think what I do is wrong. You're a bunch of judgmental hypocrites.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Anyone is welcome to attend our church.

Who made the judgment there?

It's become more obvious for Christians that if we hold to an absolute standard of morality we are out of step with much of the world. In fact, we are considered fools for doing so. And as a result we should expect to be judged as harsh, uncaring, unloving and without grace by those who have a different standard. Be prepared to be misunderstood and even hated.

But we ultimately know that the judgment that truly carries weight isn't the opinion of any mortal. One day every Christian will stand before Christ and give an account of how he/she fulfilled the calling of God.

Our Newfound Annual American Tradition: Ban Christmas

Every year now, around the first of December we begin hearing of American governments, mostly local, working hard to please "progressives" and "civil libertarians" by ensuring the word "Christmas" and anything related to it is removed from any public venue. Hence, public schools have banned traditional carols, trees are now given the adjective "holiday", manger scenes are prohibited. In NYC there's a battle over billboards. The athiests telling passersby that "You know it's (Christmas) a myth" vs. the Catholic league - "This season celebrate Jesus as the reason".

This story is current on the news and comes from Philadelphia, which ironically is the location of our freedoms' birthplace as Americans. Those freedoms include the right to worship as we please, to be free from governmental interference with our religious choices, and the right to free speech. Yet in Philly it seems the word "Christmas" must come down from a German village scene. It seems the thought is that Christmas is exclusive to Christians (who would ever have thought that?!) and the village should be inclusive.

Why is it that Christmas is so offensive? After all, most of what is disguised as Christmas these days really is not. Of course, the answer is that the foundation of the holiday is a celebration of the birth of Christ. And there is the dig for those wanting to keep any mention of Christmas out of public space. The offense is bringing Christ into the matter.

Some Christians are so outraged they want to mount a crusade. Personally, I feel it is sad to watch our own freedoms so rapidly eroding in a country that feels it necessary to attempt to bring freedom to other countries. While we're fighting for others we're losing the battle at home.

But as a Christ-follower the attacks against religious freedom when Christ is mentioned are no surprise. Jesus told His disciples to expect rejection because of Him. Peter, who heard those words later wrote to the 1st Century believers, "but for the unbelieving, the stone [Christ] that the builders rejected—this One has become the cornerstone, and a stone that causes men to stumble, and a rock that trips them up. They stumble by disobeying the message; they were destined for this." (1 Peter 2:7-8 HCSB)

As Americans citizens we may be seeing our rights eroded, but as Christians and citizens of the Kingdom of God we have no such rights. What is happening is part of God's plan for redeeming this world, whether we understand or like it or not.

So, what do we do? Do we surrender "Christmas" to those bent on stamping out any mention of Christ? Well, do we really believe that any government or kingdom can keep Christ out of our hearts and lives? Of course not. Witness what is happening in China, an atheistic communist regime with no freedom of religion. Yet, perhaps the greatest growth of Christianity in the world is taking place behind the "bamboo curtain". How do they deal with Christmas?

The greatest thing we can do is to teach our children about Christ and about faith and live it before them. They may live to see an America where religious freedoms have been totally removed, and they need a strong foundation of faith should that come to pass. Let's hope and pray it does not. But it may.

We can share Christ with our neighbors and friends. Explain to them in conversations that may begin with a simple "Merry Christmas" why Christ is at the heart of your celebration. When the cashier at the store wishes you a PC "Happy Holiday", smile and return their greeting with "And a Merry Christmas to you." Invite your unchurched friends to your church's Christmas concert or Christmas Eve services. There is no greater opportunity to talk about Jesus than the Christmas season.

And while we still have the freedom to speak up, do so in a Christ-like way. Too often in this country it is a vocally loud minority who pressures our officials to bow to their wishes. Vote for those who oppose such nonsense as neutralizing Christmas into a generic holiday. Be a good citizen. But keep in mind, you are also a citizen of another kingdom, and that citizenship is more precious than being a citizen of any nation on this planet.

Now, go out and have a Merry Christmas. May your celebration this year be the best ever, and may the gift of God be passed on by you who believe to your children and your friends. Let's redeem the time. Our purpose on earth is to spread the Good News, not to attack those who don't get it.

Grabbing Attention or Taking a Stand?

Do churches need to burn Korans in order to demonstrate their opposition to Islam?

I'm not sure I understand how having a bonfire fed by a religious book accomplishes anything good or is in any way Christ-like. Jesus didn't burn the books containing the religious traditions He found so offensive. Nor did He advocate His followers to set books on fire.

There is an occasion in Acts 19 where books were burned. But the story has no resemblance to what the Gainesville, FL church plans. The Ephesians who burned their books had been converted from pagan sorcery to life in Christ. It wasn't a protest. It was for them a rejection of their own past. It was a declaration of their new-found freedom. My hunch is the folks who will be pitching Korans into a fire were never Muslims.

The ramifications of their planned book burning are far reaching. General Patraeus warns that going ahead with the burning will only serve to ignite a greater hatred for and inspire an increased effort on the part of Taliban against US servicemen serving in Afghanistan.

I truly doubt that we can fight spiritual warfare - which is what the Gainesville church claims it is doing - with book burnings. There are better ways of evangelizing the world than by alienating those who need to hear the Gospel by extremist acts.

Or could it be that this is mostly a publicity stunt? If so, it's way over the top. Have they burned any other religions' books? If not, they should be consistent and do so. Why just pick on one?

A better way to observe Sept. 11 - the date of the planned burning - might be to remember those who died and honor those who gave their lives in efforts to save lives.

Wish Me a Merry Christmas!

Can Christians just sit back and allow the politically correct and secular whims of a culture moving farther away from our moorings to secularize the birth of Christ?

Here's a movement that says they shouldn't.

The Manhattan Declaration

WASHINGTON — A diverse group of Christian leaders joined together Nov. 20 to declare a commitment to defend the sanctity of human life, biblical marriage and religious liberty without compromise.

Read more here.

Where do I sign?

Falling off The Edge

The wealthy rancher needed to hire a new driver for his family's carriage. Three applied for the job. The interview consisted of one question: "You are driving my family on a mountain road that had no shoulder, and going off would mean certain death. How close to the edge can you drive my carriage and feel safe?"

There is among the Christian community, especially among pastors who desire their churches to be "relevant" or "contemporary", a mindset that the "edgier" a ministry can be, the more effective it will be at its purpose (whatever that might be). I should add that the trend seems to be most prominent in younger pastors. It's an "anything goes" or perhaps more aptly, "everything goes".

I'm all for relevancy in churches. I believe most churches in my circles today, though they may be orthodox in their faith, are lost in the past, which explains their decline and inability to reach the non-churched population in their communities. The church I pastor seeks to be "contemporary in our methods yet unchanging in our message". Sunday, for example, our band (a full rock-style band) followed my talk (ie. sermon) with a secular song that worked perfectly with the message. So we do tend to be "on the edge" in many regards.

But what happens when you push the envelope over the edge? And Who determines where that edge might be? Here are some thoughts from an old guy leading a young church:

• Whether we eat or drink or whatever we do, it should all be for God's glory. Building a reputation for being the "shock and awe" church that is the most entertaining show in town is fluff if that's your goal. This implies that some things can glorify God; some things only glorify man.
  
• Church is meant to reach and build. There are many things that we can creatively do to accomplish those goals. There are some things that only serve to entertain. I don't believe entertainment at church is a bad thing. The alternative is to bore people. (Look up the meaning of "entertain" and contemplate on it before getting on a soap box.)
  
• It doesn't matter how good and slick our presentation if God's Spirit isn't the power behind it all. We strive at NHC for excellence. At the same time, if a church is poorly organized and led and flies by the seat of its pants I doubt God is involved. He does all things well. But it's not by might or by (our) power.
  
• When we get so enamored with our skills, our magnetism, our daring, our charisma and our perceived success that we as pastors begin to believe everyone who tells us how wonderful we are, we're ready for a big time fall. I've heard the pedestal called "The Glorification of the Worm". I'm not that good, no matter what others say. Ego and pride are dangerous traps.
• Just because we are bold enough to try new things doesn't make us superior. There are churches that are conservative and traditional in their methods and are knocking the ball out of the park. Chances are they are also not only practicing excellence but have found their niche in reaching a segment of their community that a church like mine isn't reaching. And that's a good thing. We're on a team here.
• When your search for relevance requires you to throw out all standards of what is appropriate it has become inappropriate. But who decides that? See my first point. I don't have to use certain questionable language, for example, to communicate God's Word even though in today's culture it is acceptable. Isn't part of what we do the idea of raising the bar?

Back to the story. The first driver said, "I could confidently drive within 1 foot of the edge and feel safe". The second driver said, "I could confidently drive within six inches of the edge and be safe". The third driver said, "I would stay as far away from the edge as possible." He was hired.

Here's my point: if our purpose becomes being edgier than anyone else in town, could it be that we may very easily go over the edge and destroy everything, including people's lives and faith. Pushing it to the limit may go beyond the limit and bring it all crashing down.

Stuffing the ballot box?

Will Kris win American Idol because Christians around the country vote for him solely because of his faith?

I'm sure I'll get some emails from zealots urging me to vote for Kris because he loves Jesus. You know, those forwards that the naive and shallow send out.

First, it's a talent competition. It's not about choosing someone because he/she is/isn't a Christian, a Hindu, or an athiest. To rally around a singer solely because he is a Christ-follower and not because he is the more talented cheats the system.

Worse, it makes "Christians" seem incredibly selfish and out of touch. Such campaigns only serve to weaken our potential influence, not strengthen it.

Don't send me the email. Don't ask me to cast the "Christian" vote on AI. Please. For the record, I like Kris. I thought Danny was better. I think Adam is hands down the most talented. And in case you're wondering, I don't vote. Never have, never will. It's just not something I take that seriously.

May the best singer win, regardless of his beliefs. And may Kris skillfully and effectively use the incredible platform he's been given to shed the light in places most of us will never get to go. If you vote and you vote for him, why not do it just because you think he is the better talent?

Let's not bring Jesus down to our level.

Walking a fine line, cont.

If you haven't already, you might want to read the first installment here before continuing.

In yesterday's aired interview with Sean Hannity, he asked Miss CA about some rather racy photos that have been publicized of her in pre-Miss CA years. I'll repeat what I said earlier that her past is her past. Most of us do things in our youth that we later regret.

But if that is the case, do we excuse them? Here's how Hannity defended the photos in question. "These were for application not publication". In other words, they were to be seen by modeling agencies, not the general public. But still, they are photos and photos are taken to be seen. Was she naive? Of course. She was 17 when these photos were taken. A minor. Hello. But that's another story.

But here's the part of the interview that makes me uncomfortable. Hannity said: "Being a model...it's not a job for you know...somebody who's concerned about modesty". Miss CA nods in agreement. He goes on, "In the pageant you have swim suit competition".

Her reply: "Right. Exactly. I'm from California. A swim suit for us is no big deal." Then she goes on to take the defense that at another photo shoot for a surf magazine she asked "OK. What am I going to be wearing for this photo shoot." When the photographer produced previously taken photos for the magazine which were of topless models, Miss CA put her foot down and said no. Then, unbeknown to her, while she was changing tops and the "wind was blowing" the photographer took some shots of her while she was uncovered.

Again, she was likely naive. But in one breath she argues that you can't be modest and have a career as a model and in the next breath tells how modest she was.

Now for you who wish to comment, please read what I'm saying here. This is not about free speech. [If you want to know my comments on the free speech issue, then go here and feel free to comment on that post]. It's about where do we (or should we) draw the lines between what's Christian and what's not. Where does one's Christianity come into play with issues such as modesty? Can we who are Christ followers say, "At work I'm this. When I'm not working I'm that".

And can it be that what appears to be an inconsistency between our faith and our actions be the thing that turns people off to us when we claim to be following Jesus? But Donald Trump was impressed!

And if you're from California or let's say, Brazil where most anything goes, does that give you license to be immodest?

(OK. I'll confess. As a teenager in CA I went to the beach and my boxers hung below my baggies. It was a CA thing. You wouldn't understand. Just coming clean here.)

For the record, I hope good things do come from this whole escapade. I really do. And I'll repeat, I do not question her relationship with Christ. But this is not about her. It's about something that looms much larger. I grapple with where we do or don't draw the line.

Walking a fine line

OK. Here's my mind wrenching "I'm trying really hard to justify" dilemma.

Miss California/USA continues to be a news item. Most of what I've read makes me cheer for her boldness in saying "This is what I believe. These are my values." It's American. Free speech. Freedom of religion. All that.

She also is very vocal about her faith in Christ. Again, no problem there.

But here's where I have this uncomfortable feeling that I just can't quite rectify. And I know some will blast me for sounding judgmental toward her, but for the sake of discussion on the issue I'll take that risk. (For the record, I believe she is a sincere believer in Christ.)

It is no secret that she views homosexual marriage an aberration; a moral step down from the ideal of marriage. And she is willing to take the heat for her views. But at the same time is she promoting a form of adultery?

Follow my thinking here. Jesus said that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart it is the same as if he had committed adultery with her. I think He was serious.

Let me speak for a moment as a red-blooded man to the men. If our testosterone is still active then flowing then you know that we all have difficulties in this area. So there, walking down the runway in bright lights and before essentially all the world, is drop-dead beautiful Miss California in a bikini. If you saw her, I'm not going to ask you if your first reaction was "Preach it, Sister!". (I'm really tempted to post a pic of her bikini pose just so you can see, but probably I shouldn't. What do you think? You can google it or oogle it for yourself.)

Regardless of the point of the swimsuit competition - and I think the point is obvious - the fact is men are drawn to it for one reason. (I wonder what the wives think as their husbands are riveted to the screen? "Maybe he's wondering about her high heels?")

So here is my dilemma. Where is the line? Is it a Christian witness to publicly display what God has blessed you with knowing that men are not thinking the purest of thoughts? True, you can't control anyone elses thinking or lusts. But can we be agents of temptation, even in the name of gaining a platform to speak? Can we be both evangelists and stumbling blocks at the same time?

Should we walk the line, or is there a place where we draw it instead? If we don't are we sending mixed signals?

Do you really think God cares?

I saw this comment on Facebook tonight during American Idol: "I'm praying for Adam to win".

Do you really think God cares who wins a TV competition? I mean, I'd like to think His favor and grace shines on the Redskins (especially when playing the Cowboys), but come on.

Could it be that someone who prays for something that trivial and totally non-spiritual (AI is purely entertainment, feeding a hunger for "idol" worship in American pop culture. Yeah, I suppose the same could be said for most everything in the entertainment world)...could it be that God is going to get involved with who wins and who loses? Are such prayers a waste of precious breath that could be praying for starving children, swine flu victims, lost sinners, confused pastors...whatever?

I wonder. Do you?

(BTW, Adam is still alive in the competition. Maybe there's something to that prayer?)

Poll: Obama More Popular Than Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Story here.

Before we blow a self-righteous gasket, maybe we should honestly stop and think about how many times Jesus comes in second in our own lives.

The Transfer of Power

Like many (if not most) Americans, I watched the inaugural proceedings with interest and a background of history. We have a new President. It's a great testament to the strength of our country.

As a Christian I'm instructed to pray for him and all of our leaders. Paul wrote, Pray for rulers and for all who have authority so that we can have quiet and peaceful lives full of worship and respect for God. 3This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all people to be saved and to know the truth. (1 Timothy 2:2-4 NCV)

How should we pray? Here's a good article that just came to me from Leadership Weekly, written by Pastor Mark Labberton.

Food for your thought and prayers.

"What would Jesus do?" How far are you willing to go?

Ed Dobson, a retired pastor, prolific author and wannabe soccer icon decided to find out last year what it would be like literally to "live like Jesus". Everything from Old Testament dietary limitations (no chicken cheese burritos) to picking up strangers who needed a ride. Read the story.
I'm impressed with Ed. He's no crackpot luny. He has been quite the example of what it means to go into the world for the sake of Christ while leading and transitioning a large church in Grand Rapids, MI.

Not only that, I know Ed. I sat in his Dean of Students' office one day as a college senior arguing the point that I should be able to grow a mustache (they were taboo at my school then) if older guys in another related school could grow them. I was surprised when Ed told me that he didn't disagree with me, but it wasn't his call. It was then I began to see past his office in a fundamentalist college and into his heart.

A few years later I was back at the same university attending seminary. In response to a major inconsistency in a disciplinary matter with a high profile football player, I challenged Ed in a letter that for the sake of his integrity he should resign and make better use of his life. I knew that this particular "oversight" was also made higher up than Ed's office, although at this time he was the university's VP. I was again surprised when the phone in our apartment rang and the familiar Irish brogue said, "This is Ed Dobson. Thank you for your letter." What I had written resonated with him and he appreciated my encouragement.

So don't read this story and think he's totally wierd. He's just totally sold out to Christ, and decided to do something radical to learn more about who He is. My hat's off to you Ed.

And God bless you in your struggle with ALS. Here's one of your former students who is proud of how you've followed God's call.

And, yes, Ed, soccer is still the most popular game in the world. You don't have to remind us.

Just so you know

Before President-elect Obama ever had his picture taken with Rick Warren, I did. If I can find it, I'll post it.

Obama's getting flack for inviting Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration because of Warren's conservative views, esp. in the issues of homosexuality and abortion.

Warren's sure to get flack from the extreme religious right for being "chummy" with a liberal like Obama. But, as a pastor, how do you say "No" to an invitation to give a prayer, esp. when the Bible tells us to pray for those in governmental authority?

Kudos to Obama for demonstrating some diversity. And for my bud RW, can you get me tickets?

If he had invited me to pray, I would. Just so you know.

Happy Birthday Billy

Billy Graham is 90 today.