with Brian Tubbs
Personal Ramblings
Obama Backs the Redefinition of Marriage
010 days
It’s now official: President Barack Obama backs gay marriage. During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama said: “I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman.” Today (May 9), now-President Barack Obama reversed that position, saying in an interview: “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”
Obama says his change in position stems from the biblical admonition to “to treat others the way you would want to be treated.” Obama’s admiration for the Golden Rule conveniently ignores Jesus’ other teachings, including the Lord’s teaching on marriage (Matthew 19:1-12). Nevertheless, Obama’s shift away from Jesus’ statement that God “made them male and female” has been in the works for some time. In the last couple of years, Obama has moved closer to supporting same-sex marriage, telling the media that his views were “evolving,” a statement many took to mean (it turns out correctly) that he was on the verge of supporting same-sex marriage.
Obama’s shifting statements on gay marriage notwithstanding, the fact is that a growing number of Americans (now a slim majority of those surveyed) support same-sex marriage. If that trend continues, it is only a matter of time before all 50 states sanction gay marriage. Unfortunately, in our relativistic and hyper-emotional Postmodern Age, most people are not reflecting on the ramifications of what the redefinition of marriage will mean for our society. In years past, there was a recognition of and a respect for traditional understanding. Language had intrinsic meaning. Definitions meant something. In the case of marriage for instance, most civilized societies understood for centuries that marriage was an institution that superseded government and that it consisted of one man and one woman. Such respect for language and tradition is evaporating in our postmodern age. Lest you think this is a minor concern, I would point out that this debate isn’t over hospital visitation rights, estate rights, or anything along those lines. It is solely about definitions and linguistic meaning.
Abraham Lincoln once asked: “How many legs does a horse have if you call its tail a leg?” The answer: “Four.” As Lincoln points out, “Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” In Lincoln’s day, language had meaning. Definitions mattered. If only that were the case today, for we are fast becoming a society that would find Lincoln’s question ridiculous. In their minds, the answer would be “five.”
Dissing Tim Tebow: Why the Denver Broncos are (at this point) Not a Team Worth Cheering For
360 days
Peyton Manning is in and Tim Tebow is (apparently) out. That’s the news coming out of Denver, as the Broncos front office, led by former NFL quarterback John Elway, has lured the legendary quarterback Peyton Manning into their lineup. They will now send the promising Tim Tebow either to the bench or to another team. Supporters of this decision point to the greatness of Peyton Manning as well as Tebow’s less-than-stellar passing accuracy. Opponents of the decision (like me) point to the fact that Manning is coming off a major injury and several operations — something that kept him on the sidelines all last season. This makes the decision to bring in Manning a gamble at best. We likewise point to the fact that Tebow is a proven winner. Say what you will about his passing accuracy, the man can win football games. He took over as quarterback when the Broncos were 1-4 and led them into the playoffs.
There’s an old saying: “Stick with the one that brung ya.” Tebow is the workhorse that turned the Broncos around in the 2011 season and took them to the playoffs. He is a consummate student of the game and a relentless workaholic. He is a strong leader with solid character and a dedicated fan base that any NFL team should appreciate. An amazing athlete, Tebow has a bright future. He will get better in the areas he’s lacking. Barring some unforeseen tragedy, injury, or psychological setback (like a team he’s loyal to not being loyal to him), Tebow has all the makings of becoming a Hall of Fame quarterback himself one day. The Broncos had every reason to build their team around Tebow for the next few years and ride the “Tebow wave” back into the playoffs again and again. But rather than think long-term and invest a player that’s worth cheering for, they’ve chosen to chase the dream of instant gratification with Peyton Manning.
I understand that football is a business, and I understand that it’s tough to pass up on an opportunity to bring someone like Peyton Manning into your organization. What I object to is the way this is all being handled. One gets the impression that John Elway and Co. were never comfortable with Tim Tebow. They never really liked him. Is it his Christian faith? his high moral character? his solid work ethic? or the fact that legions of fans adore him, hungry for a sports role model they can believe in? Which of those things made Elway wince when Tebow would score a touchdown and do his “Tebow” thing to thunderous crowd approval?
Why is it that NFL teams are quick to support players with criminal records, off-the-field antics, brazen showmanship, and horrible morals, yet (at least in this case) are uncomfortable with a player that any kid in America should strive to emulate?
I understand the desire on the part of NFL front offices to put a winning team on the field. I get that. But, speaking as a fan, I feel we’ve lost something with the NFL. We’ve lost the “why.” Are we just supposed to root for teams that win? Is winning in-and-of-itself the end-all, be-all of which team to which we give our support? Do we want fans bouncing from team to team chasing the “winner” just as players now bounce from team to team chasing the money? If that’s what the NFL is now all about, count me out. I want to root for a team that’s worth rooting for — a team that supports its community and that has players who serve as true role models for the people in that community, especially its youngest citizens. I want a team with heart and a team with character, a team that’s proud (in a healthy way) to celebrate an honorable man like Tim Tebow.
We’re talking about a guy who invests his free time into charity work and helping those who need a helping hand. He’s raised money for numerous worthy causes, including pediatric cancer treatment, a children’s hospital in the Philippines, playrooms in children’s hospitals around the world, and sending disadvantaged kids on a Disney vacation. While some athletes spend their time gambling, boozing, doing drugs, sleeping around, partying at drunken orgies, committing felonies, or more, Tebow spends his with disabled children and veterans, prisoners who need a second change, and poor kids who need hope and encouragement. Please tell me why I shouldn’t believe in an athlete like that!? We’re talking about a guy who takes his status as a role model seriously and who cultivates that opportunity to serve and help as many people as he can. This is a guy worth believing in, and any team who is loyal to him is likewise a team worth believing in and cheering for.
Tim, keep your head high. You may not have the respect of greedy men like John Elway, but you have won the hearts of many football fans like me, who understand there’s more to life than getting a football across the goal line or cashing in on ticket sales. Hang in there. I’m praying for you, and I know God will bless you!
Kony 2012: White Man’s Burden or Genuine International Concern Over a Real Problem?
071 days
If you’re at all tuned into the cyber world of social media, you’ve heard about Kony 2012, a new viral video about African warlord Joseph Kony and his barbaric legacy of suffering and devastation. Kony is the deranged leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a militant, cultish “army” which has been internationally denounced for severe human rights abuses, including murder, mutilation, child abduction, sexual enslavement of women, and more. The makers of the film, which has now racked up over 30 million views, have been praised in many circles for raising awareness about this truly evil despot, while also being criticized for inaccuracies, questionable financial practices, and fostering the “White Man’s Burden” view which Europeans previously used to justify colonialism in Africa.
African leaders, activists, and bloggers are among those criticizing Invisible Children for its apparent encouragement of the “White Man’s Burden” mindset. They say the filmmakers oversimplified the regional strife of which Kony is a part and that they are encouraging the type of “White Man’s Burden” mentality that led to years of European-driven colonialism and oppression. (See 14 African Reactions to the Kony 2012 Campaign). Many Americans agree. Writing for The Atlantic, Max Fisher charges the makers of Kony 2012 with “soft bigotry.” He writes, ”The viral video campaign reinforces a dangerous, centuries-old idea that Africans are helpless and that idealistic Westerners must save them.”
I have no problem with people, especially those living in Africa near where Kony operates, setting the record straight. In fact, I encourage it. But I find the whole “White Man’s Burden” allegation to be deeply distressing. This is not a situation where a bunch of white people in America are advocating colonialism in Africa. On the contrary, they are trying to raise awareness of a problem that should be on the world’s radar screen. This isn’t about colonialism. It’s about cooperation.
It strikes me as reprehensible that, on the one hand, the United States is criticized for not doing enough to help people in Africa. Then, when it does, it gets criticized for fostering the whole “White Man’s Burden” thing. If the makers of the film had said the U.S. needs to unilaterally send in troops and occupy the region, it would, at that point, be completely legitimate to play the “White Man’s Burden” card and accuse the filmmakers of bigotry. But that is not what’s happening here. They are simply calling on the U.S. government to help and they are calling on the world to pay attention and be willing to support the people of Africa who want to bring Kony to justice. There’s nothing wrong with this.
There have been other allegations made against Invisible Children. I just don’t have enough knowledge or information to weigh in on these charges. I will simply refer you to this post critiquing Kony 2012 and this post criticizing Invisible Children. And then, in fairness, here’s Invisible Children’s response. My post here is not about Invisible Children itself or its staff or its financials or fundraising practices. That is all beyond the scope of what I’m addressing here. I will leave it to others to debate those things. My concern is with the unjustified and unfortunate notion that Americans, specifically and especially white Americans, should not concern themselves with “African affairs” because to do so encourages bigotry and colonialism. It is that notion I wish to debunk.
Some Americans, while not necessarily raising the whole “White Man’s Burden” issue, are nevertheless arguing that we have enough problems here at home and we don’t need to be jumping on every trend about problems in different parts of the world. It’s a fair point, and we do need to be concerned about trendiness and misplaced priorities. We shouldn’t be too quick to jump on every bandwagon that comes along. We simply can’t get involved in every international situation. We do have our own share of problems here in America. But let’s not be isolationist in our compassion and concern. Yes, we need to police our own house, but we also need to be aware of what’s happening in other parts of the world, and we should care about those things. And we should, to at least some extent, be willing to lend a helping hand when needed.
Christians in particular should be praying and working for Kony’s reign of terror to come to an end. This is, after all, a deranged madman who claims some ties to Christianity and believes he is a spokesperson for God. We Christians should be making it abundantly clear to everyone who will listen that Joseph Kony is no Christian and that what he is doing (and has done) is morally reprehensible and categorically opposed to everything Jesus Christ stands for.
I believe the makers of Kony 2012 deserve credit for raising international awareness about Joseph Kony, a dangerous and evil terrorist who has brought way more pain and suffering than should be tolerated. There’s nothing racist about Kony 2012, and shame on those people who say otherwise. We need to put the race card away and instead unite around the need to bring Joseph Kony to justice and help bring relief and healing to a region of the world that desperately needs it.
Michigan Lottery Winner Collecting Food Stamps Reveals Important Lesson on Morality for American Society
071 days
Last September, Michigan’s Amanda Clayton won $1 million in the Michigan state lottery. A few days ago, Clayton acknowledged she still received $200 in monthly food assistance. Following the very understandable public outcry, the state revoked her benefits. The story came to light when local media revealed the lottery winner “shamelessly” racking up purchases with her lottery windfall, including a new car and house, while also receiving and utilizing $200 per month in food assistance, courtesy of the Michigan taxpayer.There are several things very disturbing about all this, not the least of which is the apparent inefficiency and lack of communication within Michigan’s state government. But for this brief blog post, I want to focus on Ms. Clayton’s apparent indifference to the whole situation and the complete absence of anything resembling a moral compass.
When asked about all this, Clayton was quoted as saying, “I thought that they would cut me off, but since they didn’t, I thought maybe it was okay because I’m not working.” First, a million dollar windfall is enough to help anyone get back on their feet. At age 24, there’s no reason why Clayton shouldn’t use that money to enhance her education and professional skills and….start working. But let’s leave aside the troubling “I’m not working” part of her statement and focus instead on the premise that essentially says: “If the government lets me get away with something, it must be okay.” Is that the new standard of morality in America? It gets worse.
Clayton was asked if she felt she had a “right” to this taxpayer-based food assistance. Her response was “I kinda do.” To bolster this (ahem) articulate response, she cited the fact that taxes claimed close to half of her winnings, leaving her with really only about $500,000 in cash, which she is apparently burning through pretty quickly. While I sympathize with anyone’s frustrations over high taxes, I have to concede there’s an important distinction between the government taxing lottery winnings (what Clayton experienced) versus the government taxing earnings (what most Americans experience). I’m much more sympathetic with the earners. Nevertheless, Clayton is correct that, when it comes to lottery winnings, the money can go quickly. This is all the more reason not to spend it so quickly and irresponsibly. It would be far better for her to invest this money for the long term. But, again, I’m not going to get into that for now. The thing I want us to focus on is Clayton’s apparent cluelessness. For someone who, at one point, was apparently in legitimate need of public assistance, she is seemingly unaware that those who abuse the system make it more difficult for those in valid need to receive the help they legitimately require. Not only does this escape her, but she is apparently without any personal remorse that she herself abused a system that once helped her.
Clayton’s amoral worldview and lack of personal responsibility should not be what grabs our attention so much as the fact that this type of dysfunctional thinking is widespread throughout society. Our society has all but lost any kind of clear, objective, moral standard to which individuals and our nation as a whole should be held accountable. We once had it, which is what makes great speeches like Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” so compelling, as when he appealed to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It’s that kind of objective standard to which the retired General Douglas MacArthur appealed when he spoke of “Duty, Honor, Country” before the cadets at West Point. Great leaders, like Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and more have always used appeals to an external, objective, moral standard to sway public opinion and call people to conscience. That kind of thing is fast disappearing, however, in a society where we can no longer agree on what’s right or wrong or what a marriage is or what a family is or…well…you get the idea. We are now a postmodern, relativistic society where people’s feelings, “heart,” and opinions are celebrated more than bedrock, time-proven virtue.
I am reminded of the words of C.S. Lewis: “We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” It’s a sad time for America and hopefully our nation will wake up before it’s too late.
Where Does the Redefinition of Marriage End?
082 days
One of my favorite biblical illustrations is the contrast between the builders who erected their house on the sand and those who built theirs upon a rock. When you build something — be it a family, a church, a country, or a culture — it better be on a firm foundation. I had hoped that, with the United States anyway, the family would remain on a solid foundation.
For most of American history, that was certainly the case. The family was always understood to be two or more persons joined together by birth, marriage, or adoption. And marriage, being at the center of the family, was widely understood to refer to one man and one woman who had made a loving, legal, and lifelong commitment to one another. Sure, there were people living together outside of marriage and sure, there was divorce. But these things were seen as something distinct from the ideal. The definition and understanding of marriage itself, even if only in the ideal, was secure. For most of its history, the United States respected this understanding of marriage, something that was reflected in the church, in city hall, in Congress, in literature, in movies, television, music, etc. The foundation of the family, i.e., marriage, was clear and solid.
But then, things began to change. In the last few decades, the consensus has been breaking down. The definition of marriage has been challenged and our culture’s understanding of the family is now unraveling. As a result, this redefining of marriage, coupled with all the problems our society has with marriage (abuse, divorce, infidelity, etc.), is turning our foundation from rock to sand.
The state of Maryland is now the latest to jump on the redefinition of marriage bandwagon. On March 1, 2012, the governor of Maryland will put his signature to the Civil Marriage Protection Act, which redefines marriage to include couples of the same gender. The state of Maryland now joins seven other states and the District of Columbia in allowing same-sex marriage. It is yet another victory for the gay rights community and, in the words of The Washington Post, one more step in “expanding nationwide momentum for gay rights.” And this momentum will likely carry the redefinition of marriage to even more states, and probably fairly soon, the entire United States.
For a growing number of Americans, including a great many who profess to be Christians, the redefinition of marriage raises no alarm. To them, the fact that God is the One who created and defined marriage (see the book of Genesis) is not worthy of serious, if any, consideration. I expect non-Christians to disregard God and the Bible, but when Christians do it, it’s something else entirely. But I’ll set that issue aside for the moment, and simply ask this…
Since gender is no longer a relevant consideration when defining marriage, what’s to stop society from saying that a NUMBER (as in the number “two”) is likewise no longer relevant?
For the record, I agree that the government shouldn’t stop consenting adults from living together. Back in the 1990s, gay rights activists won a major victory when the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas struck down all laws barring sodomy and homosexuality. Even though I believe the Bible is clear on homosexuality being a sin (and thus I believe churches should teach the truth on the issue of homosexuality, regardless of what the government says), I nevertheless fully understand gays and lesbians seeing Lawrence vs. Texas as a civil rights issue. The redefinition of marriage is, however, a different story altogether. By using the strong arm of government to force a redefinition of marriage onto society overall, they are no longer advocating simply for their rights.
Supporters of same-sex marriage often point to concerns over wills, estate settlements, hospital visitation, etc. Nevertheless, these considerations can be addressed through a number of means, including power-of-attorney agreements and civil unions. Many states have, in fact, set up civil partnerships to confirm that gay and lesbian couples have the same exact rights as married heterosexual couples. And on this point, I agree that states have every right to oversee and define contracts (including civil unions). Yet civil unions aren’t good enough for the gay rights community today. They want a redefinition of marriage to include them. And they are getting their way.
If trends continue, it won’t be long before the United States of America redefines marriage, probably by edict of the Supreme Court. Gays and lesbians are actively pushing for this by trying to get the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) overturned in Court or repealed by Congress. Once that happens, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely rule that all fifty states must accept gay marriage, given the “full faith and credit clause” of the Constitution. All that is coming. It’s only a matter of time, unless there’s a major shift in public opinion. Not only that, but this redefinition of marriage in society and culture will permeate even more into our schools, television, movies, music, and the church. Those who remain opposed to same-sex marriage will be increasingly ostracized and marginalized. So, given the likelihood of gay marriage being legalized across the nation and thus marriage being fundamentally redefined, I return to my question…
What’s to stop society from saying that three people can marry (instead of two)?
Obviously, the government should do everything it can to prevent the type of scary, polygamous cults that crop on the news now and then. These cults usually involve one man with a harem of women, some of whom are underage. That type of twisted exploitation should be opposed by government, and I fully expect it will continue to be opposed by government. However, what about three or four consenting adults? What if you have three consenting adults (three men, two women and a man, two men and a woman, whatever) who say they love each other and want to be together and they want to be married? What do we say to that? If we say “no,” on what objective grounds do we deny them marriage?
Please don’t respond to this with a red herring accusation that I’m equating homosexuality with polygamy. I am not doing that. I’m simply saying that some of the same arguments being used in favor of gay marriage can also be used to favor polygamy. If we should allow two consenting adults of the same sex to marry because they love each other, then shouldn’t we also allow three people or four people (regardless of the gender mix) to marry one another? Once you redefine marriage to no longer take gender into consideration, then you are on a slippery slope.
And that slippery slope brings me back to my favorite Bible illustration. If we, as a society, can no longer agree on the definition of marriage, then what does that say about the kind of foundation we’re building families on? In this case, not only do we disagree fundamentally over the definition of marriage, but no one has really any idea where the redefinition will end. Our foundation is fast becoming slippery sand, and everyone knows what happens to a house built on sand.
Six Things Pastors Love to Hear From Church Members
0110 days
When it comes to a post like this, I wish I were NOT a pastor, so that I could post it without any apprehension that it will be dismissed as self-serving. I’m going to have to take that risk, though, as I believe God has allowed me to learn some things over the last 5 years I’ve served as a senior pastor…a few of which I want to pass on through this note. Let me say clearly that, yes, I’ve been hurt at times in ministry, and perhaps some of that frustration will come through in this. I hope not, because I’m not writing this with that kind of spirit, but I’m human, so I welcome you to set aside anything that comes from my flesh.
The TRUTH is…I am blessed. I count myself VERY blessed to serve the church I now pastor as well as the previous congregation I served in Ohio. I have nothing but gratitude and love to convey to each of those congregations. Even the times I’ve been hurt pale in comparison to what I’ve seen and heard from others in the ministry. So many of my pastor friends have had far worse situations. I hope you’ll take it in the humble spirit it’s offered and think of these things in relation to your own pastor in your own congregation.
Here are six things every pastor wants to hear and loves to hear from members of the church he serves:
1) “I’m praying for you.”
Every pastor wants to know that the members he serves are lifting him and his family up in prayer. Spiritual warfare is real in ministry, and pastors need prayer cover. Many years ago, when I learned that a pastor I loved fell into sin, my first and painful realization was that I wasn’t praying for him. Pastors are human. They are susceptible to stress, anxiety, temptation, etc., etc. They need prayer.
Prayer is especially pertinent when it comes to grievances. We are quick to complain and slow to prayer. Christians spend a great deal of time, in fact, complaining and griping, and very little in prayer. When you’re upset about something in the church or something with your pastor, why not devote the majority of your time to prayer over the matter? And when it comes time to talk about the issue, rather than complain about it, follow Jesus’ prescription for church conflict in Matthew 18.
Pray for your pastor and let your pastor know that you’re doing so.
2) “Thank you.”
Sometimes, a simple thank you goes a long way. If your pastor preaches a message that touches your heart, why not thank him for it? After all, he spent many hours in prayer and preparation before giving that message. Why not thank him for that time and effort? If the pastor has helped you through a crisis in your life or was there for you when you needed it, thank him. Of course, it doesn’t have to be anything dramatic. It may simply be that you recognize he did something nice for the church or for someone else – or maybe you just want to acknowledge his overall commitment. It’s never wrong to let someone know you appreciate his or her efforts.
3) “We’re glad to have you as our pastor.”
You may not realize it, but even the most beloved pastors have a few disgruntled members in their congregation that would prefer they find somewhere else to pastor. And those are the voices, either directly or indirectly, that pastors tend to hear the most. Obviously, in some cases, pastors have disqualified themselves. In those cases, they need to be lovingly removed. But failing dereliction of duty or some kind of moral failure (see I Timothy 3), the pastor deserves the support of his congregation. And the congregation should show that support by encouraging him. It’s a biblical command, in fact, that we are to “encourage one another” in the church. Encourage your pastor.
4) “Did you take your day off this week?”
It is one of the Ten Commandments, and yet many pastors do NOT take a day off of work. In fact, I dare say that most pastors fail to truly set their work aside completely for at least one day a week. Not only is it a biblical command that they do so, but numerous medical and psychological studies will tell you that it’s healthy to take at least one day off of work each week. And labor unions have conditioned the American workforce to, in fact, expect two days off a week. This is the toughest challenge for me, because ministry is never done. There’s always another phone call to make, another meeting that I need to attend to, or another family that needs pastoral care. It never ends. I have to force myself to stop and take a day of rest. And it’s not easy. Yet, it’s healthy and it’s biblical…and essential for a solid family life. I hope your church is the type of church that not only allows its pastor to take a day off each week, but FORCES him to do so. 
5) “How can I help?”
A pastor is human. He can only be at one place at one time. He’s not always available. When he’s visiting with one family, he can’t simultaneously visit with another. When he’s in a close door, sensitive meeting, he can’t take a phone call, unless it’s a dire emergency. When he’s on a date with his wife, he should NOT take a phone call. And when he’s in prayer or in Bible study, he needs to guard that time, because those are the most important aspects of his job (see Acts 6). The pastor is limited in his time, his presence, his availability, and his energy. In his great book “The Disciple-Making Church,” Bill Hull makes the argument that churches are NOT supposed to center around pastors. He writes: “Can one man preach Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night; attend committee meetings, Sunday school socials, and denominational meetings; and still do all the counseling and administration of the church? No!” Hull makes the point that it’s not supposed to be that way anyway. The pastor not only needs help, but is SUPPOSED to get help. Why? Because the entire body of believers in each church is to do the work of the ministry, not simply the pastor (see I Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4 and Galatians 6).
What’s more, the pastor does NOT have all the spiritual gifts, yet (deep down) many church members think that when God calls a pastor, He equips that pastor with all the talents, gifts, and abilities needed to meet the expectations of the church to which the pastor is called. It’s ludicrous…not to mention completely unbiblical. It’s not the pastor that is supposed to bear the burdens of everyone in the church. The church members are supposed to “bear one another’s burdens” (see Galatians 6). The pastor’s call is very specific, and God will equip the pastor with the gifts, talents, and abilities he needs to fulfill that specific call…a call that must be performed to God’s specifications, not the individual preferences or demands of every church member. Nevertheless, the myth that the pastor should be good at everything and meet every need persists. Bill Hull writes mockingly of such expectations, taking on the role of a disgruntled church member: “[The pastor] doesn’t preach as well as Chuck Swindoll, counsel like James Dobson, care for others the way MOther Teresa does, manage like Peter Drucker, and motivate like Ronald Reagan.” Some pastors are great at casting a vision and/or planning out their ministry and/or managing staff. Others are great at visitation, counseling, and hospitality. Others are supremely gifted in teaching and preaching. Some pastors are big picture oriented, while others are great at details. Some pastors excel in large churches, while others do great in small churches. Some pastors thrive in the associate, support role, but struggle as a senior pastor. Very few pastors are highly gifted in all of preceding areas.
Pastors are diverse in their personalities, gifts, talents, strengths, etc. Unfortunately, this is not always accepted by churches. Hull explains: “People will accept one another’s strengths and weaknesses, but they do not extend the same courtesy to the clergy. They look at the pastor’s strengths, and instead of thanking God for his gifts and allowing him to concentrate in those areas, they roundly criticize his nongiftedness and hound him to work on his ‘weakness.’ Few people could survive the ridiculous expectations churches place on their leaders. We stand them up in front and proceed to pick them apart.”
Rather than “pick apart” your pastor, help him. Get involved in the church and fill in the gaps. Don’t complain about the areas of weaknesses. Step in and support those areas. Ministry is a team effort.
6) “We love you.”
There have been some dark times in ministry…times of loneliness and, yes, discouragement. Times when I’ve felt like “What’s the use?” Just being real with you. And almost every time, God has sent a church member my way to encourage me and say those words: “We love you.” When the words are sincere, I can’t tell you how much they’ve meant to me. One time, after a week that I’d been slammed by one of my critics and was feeling pretty low, one of the deacons in our church reached over, gave me a one-arm bear hug and said: “Love you, brother!” That meant a lot to me.
Your pastor isn’t just your pastor. He’s your brother in Christ. And God wants His family, His children, to be united in love. You should love your brothers and sisters in Christ as if they were your real flesh-and-blood family. This should especially be the case in your church. God wants unity, harmony, and joy in His congregations….not gossip, slander, division, and petty squabbling. “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples,” declared the Son of God. “That you have love one for another!” Do you love your pastor? If not, you should. And, if you do, then tell him.
Let me close by saying I count myself blessed to serve a wonderful congregation in Olney, Maryland. I love them and they (at least most of them ) love me. I’m not writing this to send a message to them or my previous congregation in Ohio. I truly am not. I’m writing this, because it’s been on my heart to write something like this for months. After much delay, I felt God push me to do so. I hope it will give my readers a window into a pastor’s heart. That is the extent of my “agenda” (such as it is). And hopefully, a few of you will be encouraged to pray a little more for your pastor and perhaps take some of these ideas to heart.
God bless you.
The Faith of Ronald Reagan
0115 days
This is a wonderful tribute to Ronald Reagan, with an emphasis on his Christian faith…
Since the President Referred to Christ, Can We Now Have a Christmas Party?
0152 days
Is it okay to say “Merry Christmas,” now that the President of the United States publicly identified the December 25 holiday as being about the birth of Christ? Since our public schools tend to be among the most sensitive battlegrounds of political correctness and the censorship of anything religious, I wonder if it would be okay with the American Civil Liberties Union or the Americans United Against the Separation of Church and State for public schools to post the President’s Christmas message. Maybe that might be pushing it, so how about just calling their season parties “Christmas parties”? No, still too much?
Pardon my sarcasm, but the Christmas season always brings out the ridiculousness in our society. In order to avoid offending people who don’t believe in Christianity, our society (local schools, government agencies and offices, private businesses, stores, restaurants, etc.) will often bend over backwards to offend only those who consider themselves “Christian,” which, interestingly enough, describes the majority of the American population! “Merry Christmas” is out. “Happy Holidays” is in!
Well, this “holiday season,” the President of the United States publicly linked Jesus Christ with the December 25 holiday that still legally bears His name. He did so, while lighting the National Christmas Tree. So, if the President can do that before the nation, is it okay if we mention “Christmas” in our schools and communities? Hopefully, for most of you, the answer is yes.
Merry Christmas!
What a Father Punching His Son at a Youth Basketball Game Says About Parent Involvement in Youth Sports
1154 days
Recent news about a Lakeville, Minnesota father punching his son after a youth basketball game has many people understandably shaking their heads at such a horrific display of child abuse. And while this tragic and shameful incident should cause us, as a nation, to consider the horrible reality of child abuse, it should also cause us to soberly consider the state of parent involvement in youth sports. If news reports are correct, this hot-tempered Minnesota dad is the natural outcome of a society full of hot-headed, overbearing parents in youth sports today. We shouldn’t be surprised. We should be sobered.
Youth sports are a great opportunity for boys and girls to get exercise, learn the importance of teamwork, develop important leadership and social skills, and discover much about themselves in terms of their gifts, talents, likes, and limitations. It should also be a place where they encounter positive role models and learn respect for authority. Unfortunately, many parents involved in youth sports make this increasingly difficult. Overbearing parents who push their kids to excel in sports, often beyond their kids’ maturity or physical capacity, have added tremendous stress and anxiety to their children and those around them.
In fact, overbearing parents can often be seen cursing officials at sports games, berating coaches in front of their kids (and other kids too, for that matter), screaming at other parents, and chewing out their own children for mistakes on the field. This kind of toxic influence is disheartening and, in some cases, destructive. How in the world can kids gain any kind of positive influence from this?
Years ago, I read a letter to the editor in a community paper that was written by a 15-year old referee in youth sports games. The teenage referee publicly expressed his sadness at how parents often conducted themselves. To be cursed out by a grown man or woman in front of dozens of spectators for an alleged bad call is not something any teenager involved in community service should have to go through. And it’s not something a child should have to watch his parent engage in. Yet this kind of thing is common.
Several years ago, I myself witnessed a father reprimanding his son for a poor performance after a football game. When the son defended himself, the father told him to “shut up.” I remember thinking, Is a ball game worth that? I recall my father having strong words for me when it came to issues of honesty or respect, but not about what I did on the ball field. Dad would never have chewed me out for making a mistake or having a bad day…in any arena of life, certainly not sports.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a big fan of politically correct, excessively egalitarian sports leagues that strip out all aspects of competitive achievement. I’m all for competition. It’s good for kids to learn to set goals, strive hard for those goals, and sometimes recognize that they will fall short. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the idea of kids getting trophies just for being on the team. I think that’s also bad. Children should learn that it takes hard work, discipline, and solid teamwork to win at sports. And not every team can win every game. Sometimes, they will be on the losing team. There’s nothing wrong with that.
I also think parents should encourage their kids to be the best they can be. But there’s a difference between a child being the best he or she can be versus a child being the best of what the parents want him or her to be. Parents don’t have the right to impose their lives on their children. They may want their children to be star athletes with sports scholarships and all that, but they shouldn’t decide their children’s lifelong fate. My parents never pushed me to a specific career path. They wanted me to follow God’s call on my life, wherever that would lead. They focused on shaping my heart and teaching me important life lessons in discipline, integrity, and faith. With that in mind, my parents encouraged me to be involved in sports, even though they knew I had very little athletic ability. (I still have very little athletic ability). They encouraged me to do so, for the benefits of learning self-discipline, teamwork, physical fitness, and (frankly) being able to take a hit and get right back up again! Mom and Dad wanted me to do my very best in every area of life. They knew I wasn’t great at sports, but they knew youth sports would teach me some important lessons that I would apply in my life overall.
Allow me to cite a personal example of picking up life lessons in youth sports. I recall my days in high school football. While I never amounted to much in football, I remember the punishing hits I took in football practice and the times I wound up at the bottom of an unpleasant pile-up, and the coaches encouraging me to get back up again – and get ready for the next snap. At one summer football camp, I experienced a minor injury, which I saw as an opportunity to skip out of a few practice sessions (and thus postpone any additional pain). I wasn’t very good anyway. I knew it. The coaches knew it. And I figured I wouldn’t play anyway, so what’s the big deal? Well, it was a big deal. Looking back, I remember Coach Perdue taking time to give me a lesson in following through on my commitments. I had a made a commitment. I was part of the team. I needed to participate and give it my very best. While I unfortunately didn’t fully embrace Coach’s lesson that day, I did years later. In fact, lessons like that have stuck with me my whole life. They are important lessons for life. And they are what youth sports are all about.
Youth sports are great. And I applaud parents who encourage their kids to get involved and who faithfully attend games and practices to show their support. There are wonderful coaches and parents in youth sports.
Nevertheless, this tragic incident in Minnesota should give all parents in youth sports an opportunity to reflect. A child deserves to know that, no matter how many mistakes were made on the field or how much of a bad day he had, he can always count on coming home with a father and mother who love him unconditionally and will encourage him to get back up and, once again, do his very best.
Farewell Christopher Hitchens
4155 days
Christopher Hitchens, one of the most outspoken critics of evangelical Christianity (and religion, in general, for that matter), died yesterday, December 15, of esophageal cancer. A powerful intellect with acerbic wit, Hitchens was both prolific and provocative. In fact, his entire public identity revolved around provocation. Matt Schudel of The Washington Post accurately describes Hitchens as a “sharp-witted provocateur who used his formidable learning, biting wit and muscular prose style to skewer what he considered high-placed hypocrites, craven lackeys of the right and left, ‘Islamic fascists’ and religious faith of any kind.”
My first brush with Hitchens came several years ago, when I explored some of my own doubts with Christianity. Having been brought up in a Christian family and placed in church at a young age, my decision to accept Christ as a pre-teen was more a natural outcome than turning point. Starting in my twenties, however, I began to experience sharp emotional and intellectual doubts about the faith my family and I had always claimed. In my early to mid thirties, I went on a spiritual and intellectual journey, willing to set aside my Christian beliefs if I could not find some logical and compelling justification for them. As part of this journey, I read, watched, and listened to several of the so-called “New Atheists,” including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and (yes) Christopher Hitchens.
I became somewhat of a debate addict, watching recorded encounters between atheists and Christians. YouTube was a favorite place for me to go and watch these clashes. And I experienced mixed emotions as I saw Hitchens sarcastically and convincingly eviscerate standard Christian arguments that, in my youth, I had all too casually accepted. In the book of Proverbs, we’re told that “iron sharpens iron” and that “one person sharpens another.” I doubt Hitchens wanted to sharpen my faith, but that was the outcome. My journey through doubt led me to become even stronger in my faith.
When the Reverend Jerry Falwell, founder of Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University, passed away in 2007, Christopher Hitchens displayed an animosity that can only be borne out of a bitter and hateful heart. By the time Falwell passed, I had already emerged from my period of doubt, though there remained a shadow of appreciation for some of Hitchens’ more effective arguments. That appreciation all but vanished as I watched Hitchens celebrate Falwell’s death and more or less dance on the man’s grave. Hitchens viciously assaulted Falwell’s character, intellect, appearance, and very soul. In one TV interview, the atheist Hitchens openly wished hell were real, so that Jerry Falwell could go there.
As angry as I was at Hitchens’ over-the-top antics and insensitivity to Falwell’s family and friends, I nevertheless glimpsed the hatred that propelled Hitchens onto his atheistic crusade in the first place. This was not a man with honest doubts about God. It was a man who, deep down, suspected the Judeo-Christian God may indeed exist – and hated the very thought, idea, and concept of such a God. Christopher Hitchens didn’t simply disbelieve God. He hated God and all of God’s followers. I believe it’s the same for many atheists, in fact. If you doubt me, I encourage you to read The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens, younger brother of Christopher Hitchens.
I take no pleasure in the demise of Christopher Hitchens. On the contrary, I extend my sincere best wishes to his family and friends. I sincerely hope he read his younger brother’s book and that he and Peter had many talks since its publication. I hope that, by some miracle, God broke through the bitter walls around Hitchens’ heart. I hope that, as Hitchens entered the last days of his life, that he reflected on the loving message of Jesus Christ. After all, God did it before nearly 2000 years ago with a vicious anti-Christian named Saul of Tarsus. Why not Christopher Hitchens as well? We can hope.
