One post in 2016

I probably should just kill this blog: one post in 2015, and one in 2016.  But there's a part of me that just can't let it go.  I like that I have a blog; I don't like that I do nothing with it. 

We'll see where it goes.  I'm not really worried about it.  I just wanted to say I posted something in 2016.

Here's to a better year

So I only blogged three times last year.  I have no explanation for it other than I don't have a lot of free time, and the time I do have I want to spend doing other things.  Maybe I should kill this blog, put it out of its misery.  When I write, I feel compelled to write, not necessarily inspired to write, and that makes it sometimes feel like a burden more than a joy. 

I need to seriously assess whether I want to continue having a blog or not.  I obviously don't make it a priority.  But what if I did?  Would anyone notice?  Is it worth the time to add my small voice to the ubiquitous chorus of whiny bloggers out there? 

So here's the plan.  I can either take this blog a little more seriously, and seek to write at least once a week, or I can just kill it.  It needs direction - right now I write about whatever I want, so there's no focus and it's random.  It needs thought - a blog can be a great place to test out ideas that might become a lesson, sermon, or book some day. It needs audience - what's the point if no one reads it?  Why put it out there for the world if the whole world just walks on by?  If I'm just writing stuff to get ideas out of my brain, why not just do it in a Word doc that no one ever sees?

Sorry to be so existential and angsty.  I want this year to be better in many areas of my life, and knowing what to do with this blog will help me have a small win in that journey.  Here's to a better year this year.

Some random thoughts on P90X

I'm well aware that it's beyond time to get in shape.  This year I have hit some fitness milestones that are, shall we say, not the kind of PRs I want to achieve.  Ever since I ran a full marathon in 2011, I have struggled greatly with gaining weight very quickly.  Almost nothing I do is easier than gaining weight (except maybe sleeping and breathing - I'm pretty good at those).  What accompanies weight gain is a decrease in strength.  You'd think, "oh, he must have strong legs, carrying all that extra weight around."  You'd be wrong.  My sedentary job coupled with my sedentary lifestyle and poor nutrition combined to puff me up to about 262lbs, an all-time high.  I knew I needed to make a change, and I'm happy to report that I just completed my first step in that direction: P90X.

 

 That's not me in the photo.

So am I ripped?  Am I, as Tony Horton assures in the videos, in the best shape of my life?  

No, but I don't blame Tony or P90X.  I blame me.  Losing weight has more to do with diet than with anything else, even exercise.  That is where I failed; I didn't drastically change the way I ate.  I didn't even come close to following the nutrition guide.  I did get a little better with many of the food choices I make, and it did help.  I lost 10lbs.  I worked really hard.  I "brought it" every day, and I definitely saw some results.  For example, standard push ups: the first workout, I could only do 15 pushups on my knees.  By the end, I was doing 20 real push ups.  Last night, at the end of my final workout (Core Synergistics), I did 20 push ups (Core Syn has 5 different types of push ups in the workout, so this was my 6th set of push ups).  

So, some random Q&A:

Why P90X?  No real reason.  I have tried some other Beachbody products, and liked them enough.  Also, whether through word of mouth and informercials, I have heard that this was challenging and builds muscle.  Finally, because it was cheap: I found my copy on craigslist for $20.

How hard was it? Depends on how good of shape you're in when you start.  For me, I was tragically out of shape, so I feel that by the end I was finally in good enough to start P90X!  This is probably why many people will do multiple rounds of P90X.  I need to take a break from this program; the thought of doing it all over again for another 90 days is slightly dreadful.  I'm ready for a change.

The workouts are very demanding, usually lasting 45 minutes for the resistance workouts and up to 90 minutes for Yoga X (my least favorite workout of all time).  Here's a sample of the program:

Weeks 1-3

Day 1 - Chest and back (lots of different kinds of push ups and pull ups).

Day 2 - Plyometrics (very difficult for me; I never could do every rep of every exercise).

You do all these exercise for 30 seconds...twice.

Day 3 - Shoulders and Arms (lots of curls, presses, and extensions)

Day 4 - Yoga X

Day 5 - Legs and Back (lunges, calf raises, etc.)

Day 6 - Kenpo X (kickboxing, much more fun and a better workout with my Torso Bob)

Day 7 - Rest or X Stretch

What are you going to do next? Insanity (this time I'm borrowing it from a friend for FREE!)

Would you recommend this to others? Yes, if you are looking to build muscle/strength, or if you need the structure and "just show up and do what Tony says" ease.  It worked for me because I didn't know what to do, and I would take too much time on breaks and between sets, thus sabotaging the success of the workouts.  The variety of moves pushed me and made me try new things, difficult things, but things that produced results.

P90X was the first step down a long road to health and fitness.  The best thing I can do for myself is to clean up my diet and keep exercising.  I'm taking two weeks off in between P90X and Insanity to give my body time to rest and recover.  I'll take my final fitness test next Saturday, and I'll post the results here.

 

Theobiology

[NOTE: This was found in my Drafts folder from last August.  I'm publishing it now but it refers to the events at Sandy Hook Elementary School)

I've been thinking a lot since last Friday's terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  I have also been reading about great acts of heroism and bravery shown by teachers and staff at the school, whereby dozens of children were saved by teachers willing to put themselves in between their precious students and a killer.  As a Christian, it's difficult to wrestle with the questions that inevitably come in the aftermath of tragedy, especially this kind of tragedy, when innocent, defenseless children were cornered and murdered in such a frightening way.  Along with millions of others, I pray for the families of the victims.

With the questions comes finger pointing and politicking.  It's complicated as a Christian to balance practical matters (protecting your family from home invaders, for example) with the teachings of Scripture ("love your enemies" and "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'  But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.  And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well."*).  It's tragedies like this that make anyone revisit the difficult questions that have haunted countless Christians through the ages.

I am disturbed when people try to offer up simplistic (and often unintentionally hurtful) answers like, "God just wanted those precious children in Heaven sooner than we thought" or "there's a reason for everything."  Sometimes, in this world God created, people make terrible choices and the rest of humanity suffers the consequences.  God didn't cause Sandy Hook just so he could have those children in Heaven; that's a disgusting thought (and theologically stupid: God is omnipresent - those children are already in his presence on earth).

What I have to remember in moments like this is that God has the final word on history.  Scripture is clear that God will punish those who disobey him and those who harm children.  Criticizing God for not "doing something" about Sandy Hook is like criticizing J.K. Rowling for not resolving the Harry Potter series in The Prisoner of Azkaban.  It's not over yet, and God doesn't forget anything.  We shouldn't attach conditions on our belief in or love for God that say "God must resolve every tension, every mystery, every tragedy, immediately, visibly, and obviously before I will believe in/love Him."  Faith waits in frustrated assurance that God will not forget and will deal justly with all.**




* = I did not put "you shall not kill" in this example because that's not a proper translation of Exodus 20:13.  If the commandment was meant to prevent all killing, then God probably shouldn't have commanded the Israelites to kill, as he did on several occasions (Joshua 10:40, for example).  This commandment is against murder, premeditated killing of another human.

** = the truth is, we don't really want God to deal justly with all, at least not me, because that means we all go to Hell.  Thank God that through Jesus, he treats me the opposite of what I deserve!  Thank God his love is not fair!

Is "bigot" the new "sinner"?

It seems that, at one point in history, you could tell someone that they were doing something wrong and they'd either agree, try to justify their behavior, or would apologize and quit doing it.  It seems that, anymore, you can't tell someone that they're doing something wrong.

For example: if you say that sex outside of marriage is wrong, then prepare to be called a prude, archaic, outdated, judgmental, and so on.  Now if you say that homosexual sex is wrong, then dear Lord are you going to be labeled: homophobe, bigot, intolerant, hateful, Nazi, KKK, and many other awesomely negative things. 

The irony here is that those who disagree with me (when I say that homosexual sex is wrong) are often the ones to escalate the hateful rhetoric.  I'm just saying what the Bible says pretty clearly.  It doesn't mean I hate gays; just because hetero sex outside of marriage is wrong doesn't mean I hate those people either.  They all need Jesus.  This makes me a hateful bigot, so they say. 

Does anyone else here see the irony, the hypocrisy behind saying, "you can't label people, you label-label, labeled, label label LABEL!"  I call someone a sinner (we are all sinners, by the way).  They call me a bigot.  I believe that "bigot" is the equivalent of "sinner" for the nonreligious. 

How does this advance the discussion?  How does this make them tolerant, open-minded, and accepting of all?  Because it's not tolerant (b/c they don't really want opposing views to exist), it's not open-minded (b/c they're not really interested in hearing the other side), and it's not accepting of all (b/c anyone who disagrees with them is evil, even though there really is no right and wrong, so they say).  This seems to be where decades of debate has led: if a gay person disagrees with me, I can respect that.  If I disagree with a gay person, I'm a hate-filled bigot.  Our society doesn't let you say anything is "wrong" anymore, except for saying that it's wrong to say that something is wrong.

Why I Suddenly Dislike Promise Keepers

I received a letter the other day from Promise Keepers, an end-of-the-year-gift-appeal letter to be exact.  The envelope in which it came was a zoomed-in section of this photo, taken by a pastor with his iPad at the Cedar Falls PK conference this year (which I attended with several men from my church, and you can see me in the photo below).  The photo was intended to be just a photo of a bunch of guys worshiping Jesus together at this men's rally.  However, after taking a closer look, the photographer noticed that in the center of the stage there appeared to be an angel manifested, right there in the center of the worship band.  PK picked up the photo and has gone berserk with it, using it for all kinds of publicity purposes, including this year-end fundraising letter and the envelope in which it arrived.

Here is the photo (with a terrible Photoshop job done by me to show you where I am in relation to the "angel"):

 The caption to the photo is a quotation from Matthew 1:20 (it's actually a part of Matthew 1:20): ". . . and the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. . .").  It appears again at the top of the letterhead with faux handwriting font pointing to it saying, "This is not a doctored photo!"  The entire appeal letter is focused on this "appearance" of the angel at the Cedar Falls conference, including this section of text:

God uses angels as messengers to convey phenomenal news.  And when God visits, the people feel extremely blessed.  Promise Keepers was blessed to receive a very special message from an angel this year.  We've suspected that angels joined us in worship, but now we have the photo. . . . men worshipped loudly, forcefully, vigorously, and whole-heartedly!  That's when the angel appeared, during the praise and worship as men confessed at the altar.

Here's THE MESSAGE that we believe God was sending through that angel - He is pleased with our depth of spiritual pursuit.  He is pleased with our focus on the Word of God.  He is pleased with the impact of the ministry of Promise Keepers. (all spelling, punctuation, and emphasis original)

The letter is "signed" by PK President and CEO, Raleigh B. Washington, and by Chariman Emeritus/Founder Bill McCartney.  I would hope that, like Mark Driscoll, they themselves did not write this but have a team of marketing people to write it.  At least then they could claim ignorance.

Several things drive me nuts about all this.  (btw, this is serving as a place to organize my thoughts before I write PK a letter of complaint)  One is their taking Matt. 1:20 out of context completely and using it in conjunction with the "angel" photo for fundraising purposes.  That verse describes what happened to Joseph after he learned that Mary was pregnant before they had been together as husband and wife.  Joseph planned to divorce her quietly, but an angel appeared to him in a dream to tell him the truth and to tell him not to be afraid to take Mary home as his wife.  It was a one-time, unique appearance for a specific purpose, and it has nothing to do with what happened in CF.  Additionally, PK has never (to my knowledge) played it safe with this image with a statement such as, "while this is probably a well-timed capture of a lens flare + reflection of the stage light on the floor, if it is an angel, then . . . cool!"  From the moment this photo was made public, PK has loudly and carelessly flaunted it as proof of angels at PK conferences and has commented on their facebook page with numerous other Scriptures taken out of context because they have the word "angel" in them (such as Psalm 34:7: "The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and he delivers them.").  They have done nothing to prevent a hyperbolic, superstitious, blind acceptance of an obvious photographic light effect.  Talk about a confirmation bias!

 They have embarrassed themselves and Christians in general who also will fight tooth and nail for its "obvious" angelic reality.  Listen, people: I was there.  I had a great line of sight to the entire stage.  There was a moving spotlight behind the keyboardist (under the arrow) that was shining in the direction of the photographer.  You can see similar lights (an orange-ish and a pink-ish one as you move from right to left at that same height) on the stage, some of which are the same color as the "angel"!  (For example, look just above the guy in the orange shirt by the American flag) Why does that fact escape these people?  And why would an angel only appear in one man's camera, when there were undoubtedly hundreds of other photos taken about that same time but from different angles?  If there were an angel (one that, apparently, can only be seen by cameras), why aren't there more photos?


Here is a photo I took during the Lincoln Brewster concert (he used the existing lights and did not set up his own):

 

 To the right, you can see one of the swivel lights on top of a large box.  That is the light shining in the photog's eyes in the angel pic.  Yes, the lights can change color.  (You could almost argue that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove in this photo, right behind Lincoln Brewster at center stage!)

I suppose what irks me the most is the combination of the fact that the angel photo is easily explainable as a case of strong lights+perfect timing/angle, and the fact that PK is using this for pure propaganda, now including a shameless "you should give us money because, look, an ANGEL appeared (to one person's iPad) at one of our conferences (not any others), which clearly can mean only one thing: God endorses PK's mission."

Do I believe that PK is a good ministry to men?  Yes.  Do I believe that they should keep doing conferences?  Yes.  Their message is absolutely right: be the man God called you to be - love, cherish, serve your wife and family, be there for them, be sexually pure, be bold for Christ.  But do I believe they should advertise, promote, and fundraise with this photo?  Absolutely not.

It's desperate.

It's ignorant.

It's embarrassing.

It's manipulative.

PK, you can do so much better than that.  I'm really disappointed.

Abortion and the argument of implantation

I've heard pro-abortionists argue that the embryo is not a person until it implants itself on uterus.  The argument generally goes like this: the process from conception to implantation on the wall of the uterus takes several days.  Beyond that, some 20-50% of embryos miscarry prior to implantation.  Once the embryo does implant, it sends out hormones to “signal” its attachment which also ceases the mother’s menstrual cycle.  Therefore, it is ridiculous to think that every embryo is a person.  Therefore, the embryo is not a person.

In response to this decisive moment being the moment when personhood is achieved, we can say a couple of things.  First, if it were universally agreed upon that personhood begins at implantation, then there would hardly be any abortions except for the spontaneous kind, which are also known as miscarriages.  However, personhood is not dependent on other people (in this case, the mother’s body) being aware of it by the hormone signal it produces.   Most people in the world are not aware that I exist; am I therefore not a person?

Second, the essence of the nature of the embryo is not dependent on how many of its kind survive.  Just because a large number of pre-implantation embryos do not survive does not change what it is in its essence.  Those that do miscarry die natural deaths are not being aborted in the same way as is what’s being debated in our country these days.  By the way, 100% of all people die.

Are you really saying that the potentially millions of frozen embryos are real people, just like you and me, with rights?  If so, why aren't you trying to save them?

Yes, I'm saying that.  It doesn't matter how incredulous you feel about the logic of it; what matters is whether the embryo is a person, and in every way that matters (i.e., the embryo is genetically distinct and alive) it is.  This is why I'm against embryonic stem cell research and am alarmed at the cavalier way fertilization treatments make dozens of embryos without ever intending to implant them all.  A pro-life couple can use IVF if they're willing to eventually implant all the embryos made for them (not necessarily all at once) and at least give them the same chance at development as a naturally-conceived embryo.

And in the way in which I'm capable, I am trying to save them by trying to change people's minds about what embryos are: very small, undeveloped human beings, but human beings nonetheless.

The argument of implantation fails to be valid because it defines one's essence by other people's awareness of its existence, and it arbitrarily assigns personhood to whether most of its kind survive.  

Abortion and the Argument of Pain

So I preached a sermon about abortion last Sunday (which you can listen to here).  It's far from perfect, and I feel I left out some important things (such as the effects of abortion on fathers), but the aim was not to attack women; rather, the aim was to attack the arguments used by pro-abortionists, which usually center around the woman and her rights.  Here, and in a few forthcoming entries, I want to state why I do not think any of the most common pro-abortion arguments are valid.  

Let's start with this one, one I recently saw in the comments section of a very edgy Matt Walsh blog article which goes roughly like this: I hear what you pro-lifers are saying, but before a certain point in its development, the fetus cannot even feel pain.  So abortion doesn't even hurt the so-called "baby."  This argument is ridiculous because, as ethicist Scott Rae points out, it confuses the experience of harm with the reality of harm.  If I were paralyzed from the waist down, and you cut off my legs, I would not feel pain, but could we say that there was therefore no harm done?  If I am anesthetized for surgery, and the doctor slips and pokes a hole in my heart, I didn't feel it - did he hurt me or not?  Harm is done when YOU hurt someone; it doesn't matter if they feel it or not.  Hurting someone does not depend on them feeling the pain of the harm done. 

This argument does not answer the question, "Is abortion wrong?"  It answers only the question, "How much pain will the baby feel when she is killed?"  

To which I ask, "Does it matter?"  We need to shift the focus of the discussion away from questions of convenience to questions of essence.  Convenience questions are questions such as is this child wanted?, is the woman/girl ready to be a mother?, will the fetus feel pain?, is the fetus viable?, etc.  Essence questions are is the embryo/fetus a human person or not?, what is the difference between a baby who has completely exited the birth canal and one that has only exited up to its head?, why is the killing of a healthy, 8-month-old fetus justified on the basis of concerns for the mother's health (which is defined arbitrarily by her physician)?

It's all about what the embryo/fetus is.  If it is not a person, then no justification for abortion is necessary.  If it is a person, then no justification is adequate.

Porn: Marriage and Integrity Killer

Yesterday I preached a sermon about pornography and how Christians should stand against it.  In my research for this topic (which was all done under the watchful eye of a trusted accountability partner), I came across miserable stat after miserable stat that left me frustrated and angry.  There are many lies that people buy into about porn in order to justify their use of it, but no justification is sufficient to conclude that porn is harmless entertainment and doesn't hurt anybody.

Here are some stats I found (mostly from Covenant Eyes and several of their research projects): (Note: p = pornography; it was shorthand in my research notes)

Worldwide

-       -More than 1.6 billion searches for porn so far this year

-       -1 in 5 mobile searches are for p

-       -24% of smartphone users admit to having p on their handset (and of that group, 84% say their significant other didn't know about it)

-       -Political persuasion doesn't make any difference; all political groups use p at about the same rate

-      - There are nearly 2 million p sites

-       -In a 2008 online survey of over 560 college students, 93% of boys and 62% of girls were exposed to p before 18.  Nearly 75% say their parents had never discussed Internet P with them.

o   In a 2009 survey of 29,000 college students, 51% of males and 32% of female students first viewed P before their teenage years.

-       -In a 2004 report from Message Labs, 70% of IP traffic occurs between 9-5, when most people are at work.

In the Church of Jesus Christ

-       "If you think you can't fall into sexual sin, then you're godlier than David, stronger than Samson, and wiser than Solomon."  - Bill Perkins

-      - Regular church attenders are 26% less likely to look at p than non-attenders, but those self-identified as "fundamentalists" are 91% MORE likely to look at p.

-     -  A 2006 survey reported that 50% of Christian men and 20% of Christian women view p regularly.

Effects on marriage and family

-       -Prolonged exposure to P leads to:

o   An exaggerated perception of sexual activity in society

o   Diminished trust between intimate couples

o   The abandonment of the hope of sexual monogamy

o   Belief that promiscuity is the natural state

o   Belief that abstinence and sexual inactivity are unhealthy

o   Belief that marriage is sexually confining

o   Lack of attraction to family and to child-raising

-     -  In 2002, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reported that

o   56% of divorces involved one party having "an obsessive interest in p websites."

o   33% involved excessive time spent speaking in chat rooms.

-       -"Never before in the history of telecommunications media in the United States has so much indecent (and obscene) material been so easily accessible by so many minors in so many American homes with so few restrictions." (US Dept. of Justice)

-      - in 2004, 70 million individuals visit p sites each week, 11 million of them are younger than 18.

-       -Nearly 2/3 of parents do not use online parental controls or filtering software.

 

Amusement and the god of entertainment

Sometimes I feel like I could preach for an hour on a particular topic.  I'm pretty sure I'm the only one at church who feels that way, but some topics can easily be soapboxes for me.  This past Sunday, I preached on the god of entertainment (we are in a series on false gods).*  In doing an early Sunday morning run through of the sermon, it quickly became apparent that this sermon was way too long for me, coming in at nearly 40 minutes (I try not to preach more than 30, with rare exceptions).  So the difficult question surfaced: what do I have to cut to get this down to 25 minutes?  This is probably a good situation in which to find yourself; it's better than having to face the question, "What can I add to get this up to the right length?"  If you find yourself with a 10-minute sermon and you can't think of anything else to add, it's going to be a tough time for you sermonically.

So the gist of the sermon was this: entertainment is a gift from God, but it becomes an idol when it diverts and distracts us to the point that our most important relationships suffer.  The main part that was cut was a section on the concept of "amusement."  Here it is:

     Many forms of entertainment we seek because we want to be amused.  I never realized what the word "amusement" meant.  The Muses, according to Greek mythology, are the personification of knowledge and the arts: literature, dance, music, science, geography, math, philosophy, drama, and inspiration.  Music is an art of the Muses, and a museum used to be where you'd go to worship the Muses.  They were all about thoughtfulness, reflection, and creativity. 
     Now when you take a Greek word and put an "a" on the front of it, it negates the word.  It makes the difference between "theist" (someone who believes God exists) and "atheist" (someone who believes God does not exist).  Therefore, the word amusement basically means the lack of thoughtfulness, reflection, and creativity. 
     There's nothing wrong with a good laugh; it can help us cope with things that would otherwise drive us crazy.  But I have to wonder, does the god of entertainment really want to help us or hurt us?  Are we, as Neil Postman so aptly titles his book, amusing ourselves to death?  TV, movies, games, social media all promise to add value to your life - but they take it from you, one hour, one game, one newsfeed at a time.  We sit in front of the TV and say, "there's nothing on!"  maybe what we mean is "meaningless!  Meaningless!  It's all meaningless!"  As Kyle Idleman writes, "never in the history of humanity has there been so much entertainment and so little satisfaction."

* - shout out to Kyle Idleman for his excellent book Gods At War: Defeating the Idols that Battle for Your Heart (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013).

"Into this world"

I have an honest question for those who assert that abortion should be allowed at any time before birth (although this question also applies to those who only support abortion up to a certain point) because, if a person doesn't want to, they shouldn't have to "bring a child into this world."  My question is this: isn't the baby already in the world?  Just because you can't see an unborn baby (with the naked eye; you CAN see her with ultrasounds) doesn't mean that she isn't "in the world" already.  They are behind some layers of skin and muscle, not in another dimension.

Some Random Thoughts as I Sermonize

I'm writing a sermon on Revelation 3:16 (where Jesus says to the church of Laodicea, "So, because you are lukewarm - neither hot nor cold - I am about to spit you out of my mouth.").  This is a challenging verse for many reasons, and I want to list out some random thoughts about it, why it's challenging, and some implications for us today.

• Why is it better to be cold than lukewarm? (see verse 15, where Jesus wishes they were either hot or cold, but not lukewarm).
• Their lukewarm status derived in part from their sense of self-sufficiency; "I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing" (v. 17).
• It is apparent that the city's water supply itself was neither hot nor cold.  Nearby Hierabpolis was known for their hot springs, and Colossae for their cold water, each of which serves a purpose (hot for washing and healing/bathing, cold for drinking and gardening).  Laodicea brought their water in through aqueducts from several miles away, and the water lost much of its heat in the process.  And it is possible that the mineral content of the city's water made it barely drinkable.
• Laodiceans were wealthy, which is attested through several facts: the city was famous for producing black wool; in AD 60 there was an earthquake which leveled the city.  Rather than accept imperial aid for rebuilding, the citizens rebuilt out of their own means; the city minted its own coins, the wealthy erected statues all over the city, and Laodicea was home to a well-known medical school.
• What was the church there doing before it went lukewarm?  What does a "hot" church look like?  (Please read that question in the right context!)
• Some great thoughts by Spurgeon on this text:
• "[God] judges a church not merely by her external activities, but by her internal pieties; he searches the heart, and tries the reins of the children of men.  He is not deceived by glitter; he tests all things, and values only that gold which will endure the fire."
• "To be slandered is a dire affliction, but it is, upon the whole, a less evil than to be thought better than we are; in the one case we have a promise to comfort us, in the second we are in danger of self-conceit."
• On what the lukewarm Christian says: "We are not to be so greedy as to be called miserly, but we will give as little as we can to the cause.  We will not be altogether absent from the house of God, but we will go as seldom as we can.  We will not altogether forsake the poor people to whom we belong, but we will also go to the world's church, so as to get admission into better society, and find fashionable friends for our children!"

Christians and Drinking Alcohol

"Can Christians drink?" isn't really the most important question in the wider discussion on "gray areas" of the faith.  "Should Christians drink?" is a better question, because it avoids the unnecessary question of permission (yes, Christians can drink - a little, in moderation, without getting drunk, when it poses no stumbling block for a weaker brother) and moves to the question of benefit: Does social drinking help Christians make friends with/evangelize/become all things to non-Christians?  Does it help, or hinder, our witness for Jesus?

I am of the opinion that it probably doesn't help in most circumstances, and that most people will understand if you politely and non-judgmentally decline to drink (there are a hundred ways to do that without being offensive or snobbish).  Sometimes, though, I do think that it might hinder your witness not to drink.  Case in point: in Albania, where I have been on mission trips three times and have stayed with local families every time, there is a traditional drink of hospitality in the villages called raki.  Raki is basically moonshine, and although I'm not sure what proof it is, it's probably triple digits.  It's disgusting, potent, and a gesture of hospitality and good health to guests.  So if you refuse it, it's insulting to your guest and will hinder their receptivity to anything else you'd say, no matter how loving.  So I drank it, at least a little bit, even in the morning when it was served with my breakfast and Turkish coffee!  When the host would go to another room, I'd pout it out a window or something, but I always tried it.  But does this happen in the same way among Americans?  Probably not: people understand when you say, "No, thank you, I don't drink."

The argument from those who insist on their right to drink is that it breaks down social barriers with friends and acquaintances with whom you are developing a friendship, and it leads to a shared experience in which more openness and honesty is likely.  The argument from those who insist on not drinking is that drinking, even lightly, harms the consciences of those for whom drinking is unconscionable, i.e., it causes them to stumble in their faith.  Further, they argue that drinking blurs the line between being in the world but not of the world.

Jesus, as he often does, blurs modern distinctions.  He turned water into wine for a friend's wedding feast.  He was accused of being a drunkard (probably an accusation you can't earn without ever taking a drink), and he hung out with drunkards and other "sinners."  Most Christians know that what the New Testament condemns is drunkenness, not drinking.  In fact, in one place, the apostle Paul urges his disciple Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach (1 Tim. 5:23).  I believe the best place for us to turn is Romans 14 and 1 Cor.8.  Interestingly, the discussion at the time wasn't alcohol, but meat sacrificed to idols.

Romans 14:1-3, 15-23  Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.  2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.  3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. . . .  15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.  16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.  17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,  18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.  19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.  20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.  21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.  22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.  23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.  

1 Corinthians 8:8-13  8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.  9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.  10 For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols?  11 So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.  12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.  13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

But there's also 1 Corinthians 9:19-23: 

19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.  20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.  21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law.  22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.  23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

An important question to ask about 1 Cor. 9:19-23 is in what way did Paul become like the ______?  In their drinking?  The text does not specify.  I don't think we can confidently stand on this passage to justify social drinking for the sake of evangelism.

Do I think it's wrong for a Christian to socially (and very moderately) drink?  No.  Do I drink?  Almost never.  If some friends invited me to go to the bar with them, and there was no schedule/family time conflict preventing me, I'd probably go and drink Dr. Pepper and enjoy the company of my friends.

But however you feel on this issue, we shouldn't only share the gospel with people when they are comfortable, on their turf, and loosened up by a couple of drinks.  Let's share Christ at work, at the gym, with the daycare staff, with the server at the restaurant (extreme politeness and big tips), with the customer service agent, etc.  And if you do drink with your non-Christian friends, don't forget to tell them about Jesus.

Striking a Nerve (aka, Kids in Church)

So several friends of mine shared this blog post on Facebook.  If you'd rather not navigate away to read the article, called "Dear Parents With Young Children in Church," here it is:

You are doing something really, really important. I know it’s not easy. I see you with your arms overflowing, and I know you came to church already tired. Parenting is tiring. Really tiring.

I watch you bounce and sway trying to keep the baby quiet, juggling the infant carseat and the diaper bag as you find a seat. I see you wince as your child cries. I see you anxiously pull things out of your bag of tricks to try to quiet them.

And I see you with your toddler and your preschooler. I watch you cringe when your little girl asks an innocent question in a voice that might not be an inside voice let alone a church whisper.  I hear the exasperation in your voice as you beg your child to just sit, to be quiet as you feel everyone’s eyes on you. Not everyone is looking, but I know it feels that way.

I know you’re wondering, is this worth it? Why do I bother? I know you often leave church more exhausted than fulfilled. But what you are doing is so important.
When you are here, the church is filled with a joyful noise. When you are here, the Body of Christ is more fully present. When you are here, we are reminded that this worship thing we do isn’t about Bible Study or personal, quiet contemplation but coming together to worship as a community where all are welcome, where we share in the Word and Sacrament together.When you are here, I have hope that these pews won’t be empty in ten years when your kids are old enough to sit quietly and behave in worship. I know that they are learning how and why we worship now, before it’s too late. They are learning that worship is important.

I see them learning. In the midst of the cries, whines, and giggles, in the midst of the crinkling of pretzel bags and the growing pile of crumbs I see a little girl who insists on going two pews up to share peace with someone she’s never met. I hear a little boy slurping (quite loudly) every last drop of his communion wine out of the cup determined not to miss a drop of Jesus. I watch a child excitedly color a cross and point to the one in the front of the sanctuary.  I hear the echos of Amens just a few seconds after the rest of the community says it together. I watch a boy just learning to read try to sound out the words in the worship book or count his way to Hymn 672. Even on weeks when I can’t see my own children learning because, well, it’s one of those mornings, I can see your children learning.

I know how hard it is to do what you’re doing, but I want you to know, it matters. It matters to me. It matters to my children to not be alone in the pew. It matters to the congregation to know that families care about faith, to see young people… and even on those weeks when you can’t see the little moments, it matters to your children.

It matters that they learn that worship is what we do as a community of faith, that everyone is welcome, that their worship matters. When we teach children that their worship matters, we teach them that they are enough right here and right now as members of the church community. They don’t need to wait until they can believe, pray or worship a certain way to be welcome here, and I know adults who are still looking to be shown that. It matters that children learn that they are an integral part of this church, that their prayers, their songs, and even their badly (or perfectly timed depending on who you ask) cries and whines are a joyful noise because it means they are present.

I know it’s hard, but thank you for what you do when you bring your children to church. Please know that your family - with all of its noise, struggle, commotion, and joy – are not simply tolerated, you are a vital part of the community gathered in worship.

So if I can summarize the arguments on this side of the discussion (not just from this article), then it would be this: children of all ages should worship (by that I mean sit in the entire church service) because...

• it encourages families to worship together
• it communicates to children that they are part of the community
• it communicates that children are welcome as fellow worshipers, even if they worship a little differently than grownups.
• it illustrates the diversity of the body of Christ
• to send children somewhere else during the worship service communicates that they aren't ready for church, that church is only for grownups, and it doesn't prepare them to enter church later.
• to send them somewhere else caters only to the grumpy old-fashioned people who can't "worship" without silence and no interruptions.

There may be more reasons, but I think this fairly well represents many of the main ideas I've come across.  But there is another side to the issue, and I think those arguments are the following: little children (under 8-10 years old) should not be in the worship service OR should not be with the grownups during the sermon because...

• parents are not able to focus on the singing and/or sermon if they are constantly having to entertain/distract/chastise their children.
• the sermon is not an age-appropriate teaching tool for today's children.  Sitting still and paying attention to a 25 minute sermon is hard enough for adults; kids just aren't wired for that.
• making little children sit still and be quiet and not have fun in church sends a negative message to the kids, roughly that "church is where you have to do things you dislike because Mom and Dad say so," and "church is not a fun place."  This is related to the age-appropriateness argument.
• (for those who desire it) a short break from the kids can help parents relax, pay attention to the service, and gear up for the kids again.  30 minutes away from Mommy and Daddy won't tear the family apart (and might actually be good for them!).

Again, there are more reasons on this side as well.  But to me it looks like a case of people wanting different things for different reasons.  Those who want kids in the entire service do so out of a philosophical foundation, and those who don't want kids in the entire service do so mainly out of pragmatic/logistical reasons.  Will the two sides ever agree?

Even if they don't, let's all agree not to demonize the people whose convictions on this subject differ from ours.     That said, what do you think?  Should all ages worship (not just singing, but offering, communion, sermon, and prayer time) together every Sunday?  Why or why not?