NFL Response

Posted on Jul 17 2007 | Tagged as: Christianity and Society

I just received this note from the NFL - responding to the one I sent them last Christmas:

————————-

Dear Mr. Parkinson,

The National Football League has absolutely no objection to churches and others hosting Super Bowl viewing parties as long as they do not charge admission and that the game is shown in a television of the type commonly used at home.

We are simply following copyright law and have done so consistently with regard to hotels, theatres, museaums, schools, arenas and other such venues.

This is nothing new. It is a matter of longstanding policy and the law.

We have no rules that relate to viewing at home on any type of television.

Sincerely,

NFL Public Relations

 ————————

I appreciate them getting back to me. I also note that they did not address the substance of my comments to them, concerning the way their regulations were applied to churches during the last Super Bowl.

There is no Transporter

Posted on Jun 27 2007 | Tagged as: Ministry

A significant segment of baby boomers has spent decades yearning to play with the toys of Star Trek. Cell phones were stimulated by the passion to own a Communicator, PDA’s quench the thirst for Tricorders (or PAD’s, if you are especially into Next Gen), Tasers passibly function as phasers on stun, and we get to experience Bones’ bio-bed each time we have a CAT scan. Every Trekker knows warp drive really exists - we just have to figure it out.

But the real Holy Grail of Trekdom is the Transporter. That column of twinkling lights thoroughly captured the imagination of a generation that is traffic-bound and over-busy. How I long to be able to “beam” myself across distances instantly. Short circuit cause and effect. No need to travel … just be there.

I think baby boomer believers like myself - especially minister types like me - have a secret yen for a ministry Transporter. We know where we are, because we are very conscious of our own well-being. If we are well trained biblically, we even know where God wants us to go. The result is a prayer that we transmit to a divine Scotty, “Beam me over there, Lord.” No cause and effect. Just be there instantly.

One of the saddest facts of life for a Trekker is that there is no Transporter. It is highly unlikely that such a device could ever exist. It was not even a serious science fiction prediction, but only a cheesy special effect created to save production money. What a shame.

There is certainly no Transporter when it comes to ministry. Typically, real life ministry is cause and effect. God does not beam us or others from one condition to another. If we need to get to a different place, we have to travel there. Need to get past grief? Escape drugs? Rebuild trust? You have to travel there. Spiritual change is a time and energy consuming cause and effect business. The Lord certainly acts behind the scenes with divine power. We even get to experience that power consciously, as we do when we are regenerated and come to faith. Yet, even with being born again, what we consciously experience is not regeneration, but rather conversion - the process of changing our mind about life in repentance, so that we build a new life around faith.

Change is always experienced as a process. James says that “you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance.” Just as you don’t get stronger muscles without a process of exercise, you don’t get stronger or more mature faith without excercising it - often in challenging situations.

There are days when I would give anything for a ministry Transporter. From one high point in life’s terrain, my Tricorder senses another high point some distance away. The Tricorder of wisdom works - that is where I need to go. I flip open my Communicator and ask the Lord to take me there. The Communicator of prayer works. God hears. God cares. God answers my godly request and procedes to take me where I need to go.

But there is no Transporter. To get to one high point from another, I have to travel through the valley in between. In order to mature and grow, faith has to be pounded, stretched, hardened and shaped. “Solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to discern good from evil.” (Hebrews 5:14) Constant use. Trained discernment.

There is no shortcut around hard-won experience, because the change we are after is not really a change in terrain, it is a change in ourselves. The Lord God does not circumvent our souls or our wills by beaming us through challenging trials, because it is our souls themselves that need to change. Rather, he travels with us through the valleys and trains us along the way.

“Gentlemen, the Transporter is out. Phasers on stun. Let’s get moving!”

Spiritual Readouts

Posted on May 07 2007 | Tagged as: Uncategorized

On our recent Men’s Retreat, two different ideas merged in my mind into a third, which was, for me, a new concept.

In one message, we were urged to evaluate our inner spiritual life and relationship to God by the external and visible measures of our lives - the way we actually spend our money, use our time, etc.

In another message, we were directed to consider 1 Corinthians 11:3, “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” The topic was headship, and we were urged to lead our wives as Christ leads us.

All this led to a flavorful “chocolate runs into peanut butter” moment when the two thoughts collided in my brain. The result is a new observable indicator which makes faith visible: the way that I believe Jesus leads me can be clearly observed in the way I lead my wife. That is, the way that I lead my wife, Micki, expresses my concept of headship. It therefore expresses for all to see (especially me) my own notion - right or wrong - of how Jesus Christ functions as my Lord.

While my words, my confession, express what I think I ought to believe about Jesus’ headship, or Lordship, the way I treat my wife expresses what I actually believe about headship. Therefore, the way I think about her, speak to her and physically treat her captures the way I actually believe Jesus thinks about me and treats me. Do I believe Jesus ponders my welfare every day, or takes me for granted? Do I believe Jesus secretly harbors negative thoughts behind smooth words? Do I believe Jesus treasures who I am (warts and all), or only wishes to “use” me for his purposes?

Indicators (gauges, readouts, etc.) are useful to help us understand what is going on in a system, so we can monitor it and make changes when necessary. As I see deficiencies in the way I think of, or treat Micki, I see deficiencies in my faith. As I see devotion, joy, thoughtfulness and sacrifice in my relationship to my beloved, I observe the confidence I have in Jesus’ Lordship over me. Here is another gauge to monitor my soul and encourage a more biblical faith.

A Culture of Crisis

Posted on Apr 18 2007 | Tagged as: Christianity and Society

I wonder if we are developing a culture of crisis – not a culture in crisis, but a culture of crisis?

Of course, this perspective may be personally skewed by a horrendous year of two family deaths, a difficult inheritance for me to arbitrate, and the depressing impact of Alzheimer’s. No – make that three difficult years of serious back operation and recovery for my beloved, Micki. No – better make that six difficult years, including the divorce and re-formation of my daughter. Anyway, you get the point. My perspective may be skewed by a whole heap of personal stress (and I haven’t begun to talk about my current stress points, which are doozies).

But watching the coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre, I began to wonder if “crisis mode” is becoming the mode of choice, or the common way to think about life. The first statement from the mouth of a major TV news anchor was, “In the future, we will all know where we were when we first heard about the massacre.” Hmm. I hadn’t thought to remember where I was when I first heard of it, and that made me feel that somehow I wasn’t taking it seriously enough. My point is not that the shootings were anything but horrific – I literally wept, thinking of the anguish of the parents involved, and imagining what such pain would be like. But if I had not already wept, the TV coverage was determined that I would – and more than once, if possible. And this horror will be drained of all possible emotional content until another arises to replace it.

The nature of modern media – not just TV, but now the internet and cell phones – assures that selected crises can and will draw the attention of the entire nation. In other words, our own personal trials are no longer enough. Now, we must enter into the personal torment of others – others we do not know, and whose agonies are chosen for us by the whims of the larger media.

I suppose this only seems natural to generations who have watched thousands and thousands of brief stories on TV and in the movies, from westerns to comedies to dramas. Every one of them, from Gunsmoke to CSI, to Mash to Lord of the Rings, are designed to grip our souls and take us through a crisis to its resolution in one sitting. Before movies and TV, people would only be exposed to that kind of theatrical art on only a couple of occasions in a lifetime. Earlier, most drama had been in the form of reading, which invites the thoughtful, active participation of the reader, rather than the hotter medium of theater, which is much more passive for the participant.

Anyway, my point is that I wonder whether managed newscasting has added another dimension to modern theater, and that using theater to model our response to crisis has become our chief method for learning how to live. In other words, are we learning how to behave by imbibing scripted crises and watching how they are resolved?

If so, this is especially significant because in this country, Christian faith used to play a larger role in such a response, even in the media. This response included not only comfort and hope, but also humility before God’s judgment and supplication for his grace.

Now, however, secular institutions have largely taken over that “priestly” role. Alongside the traditional impact of TV and movies, the news media determines what emotionally stresses us, while the comments of institutional leaders and the reactions of the newscasters give us the cues that condition how to respond correctly.

Case in point: the memorial service at Virginia Tech. Representatives from four religious traditions – Islam, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian – all said essentially the same thing as the psychologist, which was that we simply had to hang in there and collectively cope with the insanity of life. No answers, no reason. Just the well meaning but ultimately empty encouragement to cling to others until you can once again get on with your own goals.

Presenting the gospel in such a setting would have been hard for most to hear. Not that it is hard to speak of God’s love, of course. But after a bit, we need more than that. We need to understand the issues that put God and mankind against each other and justly expose us to the horrible consequences of our own sin. Unfortunately, those who condition our collective response these days demand that religion – all religions – fall in line and contribute to the liturgy of “we are wonderful; God is nice; too bad life is insane; let’s help each other get through this sad-but-temporary blip so we can all get back to our personal dreams.”

The Virginia Tech community and families deserve more than that. I deserve more than that. As a creature made in the image of God, I deserve to be faced with the real truth about sin, and the truth about real redemption.

But day after day, one horror after another works to emotionally tear us down and condition our response. An increasing number of these crises are forced upon us by the larger media and shepherded by a new priesthood of secular institutions who use community spirit to maintain the “sacredness” of personal aspirations in a world they insist makes no ultimate sense at all. In the long run, this will only cultivate more and more self-centeredness and despair.

Obviously, my intent is not to impune or denegrate any the people who are trying their best to deal with an unimaginable horror. I appreciate their efforts, and my heart goes out to them. My point is that contemporary Christians live in a mileu in which the biblical worldview is desperately needed, while those who condition cultural behavior maintain a death grip on a philosophy that insists on personal meaning without any rational underpinnings. As a consequence, one of the most difficult challenges for those who love the biblical gospel is to find an effective way to speak in today’s public forum. There will be no way to avoid sounding ”foolish,” as the Apostle Paul put it, but we must try to find a way to compellingly offer the gospel of rational hope as an alternative to brave despair.

Public Prayer in the Public Square

Posted on Mar 20 2007 | Tagged as: Christianity and Society

Today, I had the privilege of offering the invocation to begin the day at the Maryland State Senate. When asked to participate several months ago, I was not sure how to respond. I knew that they want ecumenical prayers, by which they mean prayers that use generic names for God, and are crafted so as not to offend people of other faiths.

I share my experience because I know that many Christians struggle with what is appropriate in such situations.

One concern, of course, is the use of Jesus’ name in prayer. On the one hand, I realize that we are told to pray in Jesus’ name, not to say those exact words at the end of a prayer (no prayers in the New Testament end that way, yet I assume the apostles were praying in the name of Jesus). On the other hand, however you communicate it, prayer that is acceptable to God must be authorized by Jesus. As it turns out, the Senate assured me that their guidlines were only that, and I was free to pray as I wished, so I did, in fact, use Jesus’ name.

My greatest concern was leading a number of non-Christians in prayer. How could I lead in what would be idolatry for many? My solution was to inform the Senate that I would not lead in prayer, but would instead pray for the Senators. I would be especially mindful that there were many non-Christians present (a matter for my own conscience, not only the government’s sensitivities), but I would pray as I understood how to pray.

I think this distinction of praying for a mixed group instead of leading them in prayer may be a helpful avenue for Christians to explore. I would be offended if a Muslim tried to lead me in prayer to Allah. However, I would not be personally offended if a Muslim offered prayer for me. I do not recognize his god, but there would be no harm done to me, and I would appreciate any positive sentiments he expressed on my behalf. Similarly, it would be an offense to God for me to try to lead an atheist or idolater in prayer. But it would not offend God (and probably would offend no one) for me to offer Christian prayer invoking God’s common grace upon non-Christians.

I’ve included the prayer I actually prayed below. Others may come to different conclusions about what is appropriate; I share my journey in this matter to give food for thoght, and to encourage us to find good and helpful ways to serve Christ in a pluralistic society.

———————

Holy and compassionate Creator of all, I humbly bow before you this day, as these Senators and staff prepare to do the hard work of government. I lift them up to you. You have called them to this task; I ask you to help them accomplish much this day.
In every soul, stir up their best insight, courage and graciousness. Enable them to weigh each perspective appropriately, and make decisions that best conform to your common grace for mankind. For the sake of this State, guard them from the temptations that power brings. Grant them this day the mutual respect and good humor that can make sharp differences less abrasive. Help them to find wisdom from each other, and always heed the conscience you have given.
Lord God, I thank you for these men and women. I ask you to give them the health and strength they need to do their job. I ask you to mercifully lighten the personal burdens each one carries into this chamber, and be near to anyone who calls to you for help.
In all, enable them to do what is good, act justly and love mercy.
Almighty God, I know that each of us who prays does so the best we know how. For me, that means that I offer this prayer to you in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. 

Evangelistic pamphlet: “The Empty Tomb of Jesus”

Posted on Mar 08 2007 | Tagged as: Biblical Questions, Christianity and Society, Jesus' Tomb

I promised a pamphlet Christians could use to further discussion about Jesus’ resurrection as a follow-up to ”Lost Tomb” interest. You can find a pdf file of “The Empty Tomb of Jesus” at our church web site. If you could use printed copies, contact the church office.

Reactions to “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”

Posted on Mar 07 2007 | Tagged as: Christianity and Society, Jesus' Tomb

I watched last Sunday night’s Discovery Channel presentation of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” with some trepidation. I was truly concerned that I might be at least facing a major headache in future evangelism, and at worst something that would set up a tremendous emotional strain in me pitting my faith and science against each other.

The bad news is that the film is slick enough to be persuasive to someone without the resources to do critical thinking and explore professional reactions. The good news is that it is a shoddy piece of pseudo-science. The UK blog Strata-Sphere  (not a natural friend of evangelicals, apparently) summarized it well, speaking of Cameron:  ”The man has no concept of what science is all about and sees everything through the Hollywood intellectual model of “it’s close, why can’t it be true?”

This seems to be the general reaction - evangelical responses are drowned out by secular voices either embarassed or outraged at a piece of nonsense dressed up by Simcha Jacobovici as science.

If you are interested in sampling some reactons, check out the Huffington Post, or this piece from Scientific American, documenting the outrage of a scientist quoted in the film.

The key assertion of the film involves identifying one of the names on an ossuary as Mary Magdelene. A scholar who was referenced has done further work and explains in a clear, though technical, explanation why the name should not be identified as Mary Magdelene, cf. Richard Bauckham’s post.

The upshot of all this is that Cameron and Jacobovici have given Christians a wonderful opportunity to talk about the resurrection of Christ. To stimulate discussion, I am writing a small pamphlet summarizing the significance of the resurrection and inviting the reader to study the issues. I’ll post a link soon.

Love and Marriage

Posted on Mar 03 2007 | Tagged as: Uncategorized

Just got back from officiating at a wedding. I always appreciate the kind remarks about a nice service. Today, I heard a number of comments about how nice it was to be at a Christian wedding, as if it had been ages since various folks had seen such a thing.

That got me to thinking about the uniqueness of a truly Christian wedding, not so much the format and music, but the concept of what is happening at a wedding. A Christian wedding is the creation, by God, of a new family. That is, God is authorizing a man and woman to help each other live well, bear children and build society. A Christian wedding does not center only on the Bride and Groom, but on two families who are being joined, the witnesses to the vows, and God himself. A Christian wedding is about private, social and religious obligations and privileges.

I think that what several people were telling me today was that the weddings they have experienced have been centered almost exclusively around the happy couple. Such weddings are usually a lot of fun, but they lack a great deal of substance, portraying life as something essentially all about us and our current desires.

I left, not angry at our society, but sad that it is becoming so shallow. And I am reminded how biblical religion can make great contributions to social stability through the shaping of fundamental institutions.

Does God Love Everone? Hate Anyone?

Posted on Feb 27 2007 | Tagged as: Biblical Questions

This question came from a study group. The issues are large and personal. This is simply an eagle’s view of the biblical terrain …

Does God love everyone?

Do you love everyone? The question immediately raises the question of what you mean by “love” - it can mean a number of things: warm affection, respect, goodwill, passionate commitment - it depends on the nature of the relationship.

That God has a measure of good will towards all mankind is clear in that he continues the blessings of common grace during our rebellion (Matthew 5:44-45), and offers a full pardon and eternal blessedness to anyone who believes in his Son (John 3:16-18; 1 John 2:2).

It is also clear in Scripture, however, that God has chosen those whom he will love redemptively before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-12; John 6:37-39; 15:16; Acts 13:48, etc.). Since his judgment of a multitude of humanity is taught in Scripture, it is obvious that the Lord has not determined to love all humanity in this way. While it is certainly true that everyone who chooses to believe is saved, it is also true that the gospel has not been heard by everyone (cf. Romans 10:9-15), and the initiating work of the Holy Spirit is necessary in order to revitalize the dead human spirit to embrace the gospel (John 3:3-8; Ephesians 2:1-7). God’s redemptive love is only for those in Christ, and is a matter of intense loyalty to his promises.

Does God hate anyone?

Similarly, do you hate anyone? More questions. Does that mean disapprove of, or despise with unreasoning rage?

God hates in the sense of being absolutely opposed to evil. In that sense, God hates people who sin (Psalm 11:5; Proverbs 6:16-19) - he doesn’t just hate sin, he hates people who sin, in the way that you not only condemn firearms, but those who use them to commit crimes. God hates humanity enough to swear our collective destruction (Genesis 2:16-17; 6:5-7; Revelation 19:11-18). This is not the sort of blind rage we often experience, however, since God takes no enjoyment or delight in our judgment at all (Ezekiel 33:11). He is simply determined to oppose and in time remove those who embrace and worship evil.

Loving the Unlovely

The message of the gospel is that God chooses, for the sake of his own glory, to redirect his hatred away from a multitude of sinful humans, and redirect his love for Jesus to them, all through the cross of Christ. Through the cross, Jesus’ reputation was exchanged for ours. On the cross, God hated us - Christ represented us, and God “saw” us receiving his just and aweful wrath. In a judicial sense, we died on the cross. At the same time, Christ’s righteousness is credited to us, so that God “sees” us just as righteous as Jesus, therefore loving us eternally, warmly and completely.

So, the answer to your question is complex, but pondering it takes us right through the gospel message: God offered his love to all mankind (through Adam); God swore his hatred against all mankind (through a fallen Adam); God revealed his self-sacrificial plan to love an undeserving multitude (through Christ); God patiently offers mankind a taste of his love in this broken age as he offers the gospel to the world.

Two related questions:

Does God love me?

God has treated me well (I exist, for instance!). But my assurance of his love will not be found in my current happiness. My moral shortcomings make it clear that my confidence in God’s eternal love can only rest on his grace and forgiveness, and the moral transformation he works within me. The gospel of Jesus tells me how that grace is available.

Does God love [that particular person over there]

God has already been very good to them. Moreover, he offers to love them eternally as his child. But that requires that they turn from the self-centered ways of humanity and embrace his offer of grace in Jesus and the new lifestyle that will arise out of it.

Oscar Night

Posted on Feb 26 2007 | Tagged as: Uncategorized

Last night I watched part of the Academy Awards. I make myself do that every couple of years. The spectacle touches my heart.

I always marvel at how this most secular of events tries so desperately hard to emulate the heavenly reception so few of the participants seem to anticipate. The wonderful clothes, the appreciative onlookers, the praise and often false modesty. I am particularly moved by the obvious deep need that many apparently have to win an Oscar before they die, as if it would justify their lives and affirm that their lives were worthwhile. I always leave the Oscars impressed with how I am aiming for a much, much higher prize.

I also leave with a renewed appreciation for how much it means to all of us to be recognized for a job well done. There are hard working, creative people all around us who deserve such recognition. An appropriate praise in private or in public can mean as much to many of us as an Oscar. It encourages us to press on in hope of the highest reward of all - our Lord’s greeting of “good and faithful steward.”

Next Page »