Category: Uncategorized

I am afraid that I offended a fellow blogger with my post about what I believed to be the damage done to the box office totals of End of the Spear  by an Evangelical backlash. Byron Harvey wrote to let me know that I was wrong, that I had misrepresented his intent about his opposition, and that my logic was flawed. I suspect he has also removed me from his Christmas card list.  Byron has a blog called The No Kool Aid Zone (love that title) and he took offense that I had lumped him in with some of the more extreme reactions to the controversy about Chad Allen. I made some broad statements about the treatment the movie and the production company received. I may be a “Bad Christian” but I try to be a fair one. I hope that readers understand that not everyone who disagreed with casting Chad Allen was angry or graceless. Forgive me if I gave anyone that impression. That was not my intent. I am giving Byron a chance here on the big page to respond to my post. I may be overreacting, but I don’t think he liked it.

Dave, I write as one of those bloggers who took issue with the casting of Chad Allen by ETE—but I find some of the characterizations you make to be over-simplifications. I took—and many of my responders took—what I consider to be a quite balanced position on the subject, far from ranting and raving, far from gratuitous attacking.

First of all, I am totally capable of oversimplification and I do believe you when you say your comments were far from ranting and raving. However, I was addressing comments like this one from Kevin Bauder that were, in fact, gratuitous.

“Once again, I have to say that I am not in the habit of calling for boycotts. I cannot imagine, however, why any reflective Christian would want to pay money to view this debacle. If Every Tribes Entertainment hopes to garner a profit, let them get it from Queer Nation and NAMBLA.”

That just makes me cringe. It is not helpful nor does it contribute to the kind of dialog most of us want to achieve.  And that is what I was addressing in my article called Won the Battle – Losing the War?  Blogger Phil Johnson wrote about Mr.Bauder’s comments that the response from many evangelicals was not strong enough.

“While suggesting that Jason Janz hadn’t called for a strong enough response, Bauder injected this droll hyperbole: “Granted, we must not overreact. And it would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men’s houses. But what they have done is no mistake. It is a calculated strategy.No one who bothered to read any three random blog entries by Kevin Bauder could possibly imagine that his remark about firebombing houses was anything but humor and hyperbole. Ironically, Bauder’s remark was probably meant to lampoon the tendency of some folks who thoughtlessly and habitually overreact to issues like this with fleshly displays of anger.”

Droll hyperbole? I think I have a pretty well defined sense of humor. That is not funny nor is that droll hyperbole. Back to Mr. Harvey’s critique of my post.

If “cyber-flogging” went on regarding the position I took, it was from those who saw nothing wrong at all with ETE’s decision. I was called a Pharisee, a legalist, and even Satanic for raising concerns; my motives were questioned by more than one commenter who was sure that he could look into my heart with certainty. There is no place for judging motives, for name-calling, for attacks—and those who did that on both sides of the question are wrong. But is there no place for the raising of concerns? Is there no place for debate?

I never called anyone a name.  I never claimed to look into anyone’s heart. There is absolutely room for the raising of concerns. I thought that is what I was doing and you were doing when you disagreed with ETE. At the risk of sounding like a bad pop song…it’s only you and me and we just disagree.

Allow me to address several things you say. You begin by saying that the “backlash” accomplished its goal—and then ASSUME that the “goal” of the “backlash” was to cut the movie’s take. Personally, I did not see the movie and said so; at the same time, I did not call for a boycott, and told my church that while I could not endorse it, I wouldn’t presume to tell them what to do. Can’t speak for others, but only for myself. My goal had nothing to do with people seeing this particular movie—or not seeing it. It had to do with raising the issue of how we go about honoring God in the way we as evangelicals do things. 

I believe that when you say that you cannot endorse the movie you have effectively called for a boycott without using the “B’ word. Such a comment from a pastor carries that much weight. I want to make very clear that I do not mean to presume your motives were to hurt box office. My post had to do with the flip side of your argument. It had to do with raising the issue of how we go about honoring God in the way evangelicals disagree about things. 

Paragraphs 3-5 above are a big red herring. You ask, “What is wrong with having a movie that you can take a unchurched friend to and then discuss the supernatural response from the people that this story portrays?”; I ask, “who says that there is?” You launch then into three paragraphs built upon that faulty premise. While there may be some who say that, I didn’t read anyone who had an issue with such a movie PER SE.

Okay, this one made me laugh out loud because of my weird sense of humor. When I produce a red herring it is not just regular size. I give you grande red herrings in my posts! Which got me to thinking. Why do we say that faulty logic designed to divert people from the real argument is a red herring? Turns out that the red herring has a very strong odor and early settlers would drag the herrings across the trail to throw off the scent of the tracking dogs. I don’t think my argument is a red herring but, after all, it is my red herring. So maybe my left brain logical tracking dogs got thrown off.

“Apoplectic”? Please. Perhaps there were some; perhaps certain commenters upon posts (even on my site) might have fallen into that camp. But the posts I read seemed, for the most part, to be well-reasoned criticisms. Then again, I certainly didn’t take the time to visit dozens of sites, so perhaps there were more that were “apoplectic”.

Definitely some apoplectic ones. And you are right, some were indeed well reasoned. Some were just heartbreakingly mean.

Personally, again, I accept all concerned at ETE as sincere brothers in the Lord, people trying to do something good, people whose future works I may well take in. I think that that qualifies as “grace”. At the same time, can we not have this discussion, or must their decisions since they are “good, Godly men” be considered off-limits?

Sure. Can we also discuss the reactions to all of this? Should those questions of “good, Godly bloggers” be considered off-limits? Just curious.

Can their thinking/rationale not be discussed (particularly since some of the defenses that were raised by ETE and by Steve Saint were very dubious Biblically)? Can a discussion of this sort, as long as it is carried on in a Christlike way, not be beneficial for future decision-making? Can it not ferret out issues that ought to be considered?

Absolutely. Are you comfortable that some of these comments demonstrate a Christlike way? By the way, excellent use of the word ferret.

I tried to do all of these things—interestingly, my most commented-upon post was begun when I allowed Jim Hanon to post (unedited) anything he wanted to say. We had a gracious exchange about the subject. Further, your logic regarding Steve Saint, carried to its logical end, would suggest that Mr. Saint’s judgment is above the possibility of error; in fact, his rationale for okaying the casting of Mr. Allen was disappointing, involving dreams and imagined conversations with God that could be very easily countered (and I did).

Of course we can have this discussion. Of course you can question their decisions and you did. I am not suggesting that Steve Saint’s judgment is above the possibility of error. I am still suggesting that he has the most ownership because the story is about him and his father.

A further issue is that you seem to make the mistake, as so many have, of confusing the sovereign will of God with His moral will. Sure, He can use all of this to His glory, because He is sovereign! That doesn’t mean that the right choices were made in casting. I guess my final beef with your posting is that there is a pervasive “end justifies the means” context. You cite numerous “negative” consequences that flowed from the decision of some of us to raise these issues. You seem to strongly suggest that such issues ought to be glossed over/kept to ourselves so that a greater good can be accomplished. But the end doesn’t justify the means…we cannot justify just anything done in the name of “evangelism” or “tribal financial support” or whatever good cause.

After being accused of assuming earlier I think I have to throw a flag here. You are assuming (notice the all lower case letters) that I am always willing to accept anything if there is evangelism involved. I believe I was writing about this one movie, this one group of men, and this one story. Are you presuming to look into my heart?  In fact, there were negative consequences to this controversy and I wrote my opinions about those results. I may be wrong. I have been before.

I agree wholeheartedly with speaking the truth in love…

All right…we have reached some agreement here.

but it seems as though some want to smother the truth for the sake of…whatever.

That was short lived.

I believe that long-term good can certainly come out of this discussion. Hopefully, there are some (ETE?) who will take a second look at HOW we go about sharing the gospel—and that goes for all of us, whether we make films, or preach sermons, or write books, or blog, or… The body of Christ in America is badly, badly, badly in need of learning discernment. If this discussion advances the cause of discernment—which IS at the heart of MY “goal”—then a great good will have been done.

I hope and pray that long-term good does come out of this discussion. My goal is to introduce people to the saving grace of our Lord Jesus. I pray that God will bless both of us in our humble pursuits.

The box office run of End of the Spear is likely drawing to a close. The backlash from a number of Christian blogs, publications, and from many  pulpits accomplished its goal. Estimates are that the controversy cut the box office return by one-half to two-thirds. I wish congratulations were in order. But I am simply burdened and discouraged by our choice of battles in the evangelical community.

I should never be allowed near a keyboard when I am angry. But I hope that all who advocated a boycott are happy with the results. Your efforts kept a lot of people away from a movie that has a powerful message. I have not talked to a single person who saw the movie (and that would be dozens) who was not moved by the portrayal of forgiveness and redemption. No one that I know cared who played the role of Nate Saint. Typical response. “Oh, he was gay? (pause) He did a good job.” Just for the record…I go to a conservative church.

What is wrong with having a movie that you can take a unchurched friend to and then discuss the supernatural response from the people that this story portrays? Evangelism is planting a seed and then watering that seed. There is plenty in this movie to accomplish that task. A heavy handed gospel message would have made it much more difficult to get unchurched friends to the movie. If you can’t find enough in End of the Spear to generate a wonderful discussion of the power of the Holy Spirit and the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross then you are just not trying.

For example, how about this scene where Mincayani takes Steve Saint to the scene of the killing and he is overcome by his role in the death of Steve’s father. Because he still lives by the rules of the Waodoni he wants the younger Saint to take his life. But the young man says, “No one took my father’s life. He gave it.” This affects the Mincayani profoundly. It’s an effective and powerful scene. Are you telling me you can’t parlay that drama into a discussion of Jesus giving His life on the Cross? How about discussing the story of Waengongi  (God) who once had a Son who was speared but did not spear back? Can’t find the gospel message in there anywhere?

The world is fascinated by the question of life after death. This movie clearly communicates that the warrior Mincayani believes he saw a heavenly host coming to escort Nate Saint and the other missionaries to their reward, or in the terms of the tribe, “jumping the Great Boa.” No way you can dig up a little salt to sprinkle from that scene?

I visited dozens of websites that were apoplectic that gay actor Chad Allen had been picked to play the role of Nate and Steve Saint. Most of these bloggers seemed like the Stanley Johnson character from the Lending Tree television commercial. Nice guys. Wonderful families. Lovely home in the suburbs. But on this issue they just seemed to go a little too far.

Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote this is a column posted at Sharperiron.org.
 
“It is disappointing enough when unsaved, worldly culture-mongers cannot see clearly on basic moral issues. It is even more distressing when professing Christians betray complete moral confusion. That is the case with the new movie from Every Tribe Entertainment, End of the Spear. ETE is supposed to be a Christian maker of Christian films. End of the Spear is supposed to be the film biography of Nate Saint, the missionary pilot and martyr who gave his life to get the message of the gospel to the Auca Indians of Ecuador.”

Comments. First of all, it is not surprising nor disappointing when unsaved, worldly culture-mongers cannot see clearly. That is called sin and that is what sinners do. That is why we are having this discussion to see how we can communicate the gospel to a world that cannot see clearly. I was frustrated by his comment that ETE is “supposed” to be a Christian maker of Christian films. That is just flat wrong. ETE is a group of Christian men and women who are committed to making good stories with a message that can be used to communicate Christian values. They are hoping that people who willing to change out of their judges robes into their “civies” will use these stories to generate salt and light dialogue.

Here is an example of how I think we are fighting the wrong battles. This was a letter that was sent to radio talk show host Janet Parshall.

Mrs. Parshall,

Thanks so much for representing the Gospel and Biblical positions on Larry King Live last night. I was encouraged to hear the truth communicated in your reasonable and articulate fashion.

However, I was discouraged to hear you indiscriminately endorse the film your co-panelist on the program Mr. Allen stars in. By allowing Mr. Allen to play an active role in creating this film, End of the Spear has, I believe, given a platform for the exclusivity of the gospel to be undermined. His activist agenda has been given a wider audience because of his connection to this story. Furthermore, the public response and perception of Every Tribe Entertainment and Steve Saint has been to defend their choice and express support for Mr. Allen, further adding to the public perception of the legitimacy of a pluralistic gospel. I plead with you to reconsider your endorsement of this film. I ask you to call for ETE and Mr. Saint to take decisive and public action acknowledging the grievous error in casting a gay activist in their film. Encourage them to take a public and prominent stand for the exclusive Gospel- to state clearly and unequivocally that Jesus is the only way, and that the only hope for anyone trapped in the bondage of homosexuality or any other sin is to repent and turn to Jesus Christ for deliverance.

In Christ,  A Pastor.

His name is not important and I do wish to throw him under the bus for sincere objections. My point is to look at the opening sentence and then what follows. Janet Parshall represented the gospel well and communicated the truth of the gospel on the Larry King show! What an incredible opportunity and she did a great job. But then comes the dreaded however. If Janet did a great job of communicating the truth of the gospel how about taking the wild tact of praying that her words would fall on fertile ground and the Holy Spirit will work in the hearts of those who heard.

I have had the privilege of sitting with some of the leaders of ETE in recent weeks. These are good, Godly men trying to fulfill what they believe is a calling of the Holy Spirit. Can we allow that perhaps God has called them to something different from your vision and can we allow that the vision may ultimately have a great impact? Can we have enough grace to offer the possibility that maybe they just made an honest mistake in casting Chad Allen? Is it possible to offer grace if you feel that it was a mistake? Can we consider that we should be praying and supporting the mission they feel called to do instead of trying to hurt them financially just because we don’t like how they made this movie? Perhaps their next project will meet your criteria. Is it possible that a Sovereign God ordained Chad to play this role because that influence will change his life and that he will have a great ministry someday? Or do you, like Job’s friends, already know what God is doing? Perhaps we are just too busy icing down our elbows from the stone throwing session to seek the Holy Spirit and pray for these men and women who are actually trying to do something unique in the arena of popular culture.

Yeah, I know. I need to get out the paper sack and breathe into it for a few seconds. But I am angry at many of my Evangelical family. I am an Evangelical but I am not a particularly proud one over this debate. You see, I live in the secular world and I know how all too well how Evangelicals are perceived. And we just added plenty of fuel to that perception fire with this ridiculous overreaction to who played Nate Saint. Have you thrown away your VHS or DVD of Chariots of Fire yet? Two key roles in that powerful movie (including the part of Christian runner Eric Liddel) were played by gay actors. Tossed your Lord of the Rings trilogy in the trash? Gandalf was played by an actor who has been a gay activist. The only difference with those movies was that we did not know or, at least, it did not create controversy in the blogosphere.

I read outraged comments from bloggers and readers who seemed to feel they owned the story of the slain missionaries because their parents had read it to them when they were kids. This is not your story! This is not my story. This is God’s story. If this particular story does belong to anyone on this planet that person is Steve Saint. If Steve Saint is okay with the person who played his Dad then I am quite prepared to quietly drop my stones and slink slowly away.

Others were criticizing making this story as a for profit movie. They did not take the time to research that half of the profits were going to tribal missions. So what is the sum total of our high minded cyber flogging of End of the Spear and Every Tribe Entertainment? Thousands and thousands of people did not see a story that could have helped them see how forgiveness looks. Maybe thousands more lost a chance to be moved by the power of redemption. The financial contribution to the tribes will be reduced and that will impact the outreach. The people who worked so hard to make this movie have been wounded by the attacks (and some of the commentary was far less than graceful) of their brothers and sisters in Christ. But I know they will press on. Because I have looked in their eyes and I have seen the conviction of their calling. I know that many will disagree with me on this issue. But I am going to suggest one thing before we react to the next “crisis” in the Kingdom. Can we stop down, pray, and see how the Holy Spirit would have us communicate. Jesus communicated the truth in love. We must seek  His Spirit to do the same.

So we have won another battle. The evangelical community has won many battles in recent weeks. But my fear is that we continue to lose the war.

 

 

 

 

Americans apparently know more about “The Simpsons” than they do about the First Amendment. Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half can name at least two members of the cartoon family, according to a survey according to a story released today by the Associated Press. The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.

The survey found more people could name the three “American Idol” judges than identify three First Amendment rights. They were also more likely to remember popular advertising slogans. It also showed that people misidentified First Amendment rights. About one in five people thought the right to own a pet was protected (it’s not?), and 38 percent said they believed the right against self-incrimination contained in the Fifth Amendment was a First Amendment right. I’ll bet that is why defendants take the “fifth” when testifying and not the “first.” That is the kind of intellectual prowess you get from this humble blog.

The telephone survey of 1,000 adults was conducted Jan. 20-22 by the research firm Synovate and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. So, to be fair, we may be slightly less or slightly more stupid.

So what do we make of this? I think it is really sad that so few know the essence of these amazing documents. This embarrassing and even dangerous lack of civic knowledge also finds its way into our Christian journey. I wrote a tongue-in-cheek ode to our Christian ignorance in When Bad Christians Happen to Good People. I did a little rewrite of the lyrics of Sam Cooke’s classic song “Wonderful World” and came up with this.

Don’t know much about theology,
Don’t know much Christology.
Don’t know much about Leviticus,
Don’t know why they had the Exodus.
But I do know that God loves you,
And I know that if I’m real good too
What a wonderful faith this would be. 

You have to buy the book to get the rest of my lyrical genius. But buried in the light hearted poke at our lack of knowledge is a very serious problem. That same ignorance discovered in the AP story above infiltrates the church. And I would suggest that a part of the struggle of the church in America is that we don’t really have a clear understanding of what we believe. George Barna has done considerable research on this topic and the results are appalling. For example, here are some examples of widely held beliefs among Christians that are clearly in opposition to the Biblical view. Barna found that 74 per cent of respondents (apparently no one with a two year old in the house) thought that when people are born, they are neither good nor evil; they make a choice between the two as they mature. Forty two percent believe that when Jesus lived on earth, He sinned like other people. Fifty nine percent thought that Satan was just a symbol of evil. The list goes on and on but it identifies a major problem. When Christians don’t have a fundamental and basic understanding of Biblical theology we go through the buffet line of beliefs and select what looks or smells good.

Barna writes that “because we remain a largely Bible-illiterate society, few are alarmed or even aware of the slide toward syncretism – a belief system that blindly combines beliefs from many different faith perspectives.” In other words we are becoming a society of blended faith. How about three-quarters of Americans believing that God helps them that help themselves is a Biblical teaching? (instead of a quote from Ben Franklin)

I first became convicted of my need to solidify my Biblical and theological knowledge when I realized that I could name the starting lineup for the 1961 National League Champion Cincinnati Reds but I could only name slightly more than half of the Apostles. We must know what and why we believe. The resources are out there. Most of us have Bibles laying all around. And the sad and very convicting truth is that we make time for what is important to us. I spent twenty minutes with the sports page today and yet I am prone to say I don’t have time for Bible study. 

I am not able to take the “fifth” in my journey with Jesus. A lack of theological and biblical knowledge is an incriminating fact that can be changed. If we care to change it.

 
—

 

Thomas Jefferson is an enigma for many. A recent article by Bruce Tomoso in the Dallas Morning News noted that his enemies accused him of being an atheist and yet he started the statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom with the phrase, “Almighty God hath created the mind free.” But he certainly would not have been invited to speak at an evangelical conference to share his beliefs that most clergymen are “soothsayers and necromancers.” You likely have a bigger brain than I do but I will confess that I had to look up necromancers. It literally means one who interrogates the dead. Okay. Not sure what church Jefferson was frequenting but clearly he had some issues with clergy and he believed that most of what they preached was a mockery of Jesus’ teachings.

Jefferson “believed that an authentic Christianity had long ago been hijacked by the Christian Church,” wrote Erik Reece in the December Harper’s. Jefferson decided to just fix the problem. So he took out his scissors and cut out the parts of the Bible that he didn’t believe. “Jefferson,” Mr. Reece wrote, “cut out the virgin birth, all the miracles – including the most important one, the Resurrection – then pasted together what was left and called it ‘The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth.’ ” (Later, he added portions of the Bible as translated into Greek, Latin and French.) Jefferson described his work as separating the “diamonds from the dunghill.” Out went all references to Jesus as divine, all accounts of healings, of walking on water, of making loaves and fish appear out of thin air. What remains? His teachings about helping the needy, shunning earthly wealth and power, treating people as we would have them treat us – in Jefferson’s words, “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.”

Mr. Tomoso wrote that “not all scholars are impressed.” Historian Garry Wills, a Catholic, writes that Jefferson’s Gospel, “cleansed of all the supernatural hocus-pocus, is the tale of a good man, a very good man, perhaps the best of good men.” But, he argues, the Jesus of Jefferson is boring, utterly without mystery, “shorn of his paradoxes and left with platitudes.”

It is so easy to criticize Jefferson. What audacity! The incredible chutzpah to modify sacred texts to fit your own views! But then I took a breath and stepped back. Do I do the very same thing at times without the in your face honesty of Jefferson? When I choose to ignore the hard teachings of Jesus I have, in practice, done the same thing. When I say that some command in God’s Word is too hard I have essentially taken my scissors of doubt and cut that teaching out. When I point out that I cannot forgive or love or give because you don’t understand my circumstances I have clipped out the challenge of supernatural living. In my book When Bad Christians Happen to Good People  I wrote a chapter called “This is a Hard Teaching” about the challenging and difficult things that Jesus taught that I tend to mentally, emotionally, and practically excise from my walk. Let me give a couple of examples.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven,  Matt 5: 11-12

Do I believe that? Does feeling blessed even cross my radar if I feel insulted? Do I rejoice? Or do I simply pull out the scissors, clip, and concentrate on the ones I am more comfortable with like this.

Blessed are the merciful,
      for they will be shown mercy. 

That’s better. I can live with that. But when I read words from Jesus like this I start to squirm again.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

Are you kidding me? Love your enemies? Pray for them? Scalpel please…that must be removed. I often feel like the disciples of Jesus who struggled with His teaching about the bread of life.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” 
 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?

That is the bottom line isn’t it? Sometimes the hard teachings of Jesus offend me. Or at least annoy me.  I don’t want to forgive the unforgivable or love the unloveable. I don’t want to serve the least of these because it is inconvenient, messy, and hard.  But I have a choice to make. I have to accept the entire Word of God and be open to allowing the Holy Spirit to move in every area of my life. Or I have to take the scissors of my lack of faith to His Word. As for cutting out the miracles and just making Jesus a profound and amazing teacher. I don’t think that He gave us that option. He clearly let it be known that He was the Son of Man sent by His Father in heaven. If that is not the truth then Jesus was not a great man and teacher. He was, in the famous words of C.S.Lewis from Mere Christianity, a liar or a lunatic.

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon and you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

So I am praying for the grace to embrace the hard teachings and leave the scissors in the drawer.

 

 

Why would anyone ask a self-described “Bad Christian” a question? And yet, for some reason, readers of this daily rambling have recently posed a number of inquiries for me to consider. Some forced me to think, some made me laugh, some made me a little angry, and a few made my heart ache. I have decided to tackle a few of them so here is the first (and very possibly the last) edition of “Ask a Bad Christian.”

Dear Bad Christian,

Did Paul who preached at Ephesus have a wife?  

Evelyn

Dear Evelyn,

The Bible does not state whether Paul was married or not. So we can only try to piece together bits of evidence to reach a conclusion. Clearly Paul felt that marriage was cool because he wrote this to the Church at Corinth. “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?” (I Cor.9:5) He never specifically mentions a wife in any of his writings and even notes that he has the gift of celibacy. (I Cor 7) Others say that he must have been married because members of the Sanhedrin were required to be married. But Paul never wrote that he had become a member of the Sanhedrin before his little encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. So the best answer I can give you is that it does not appear that Paul was married at the time of his writings. It is possible he had been married earlier and was widowed but that is only speculation.

Dear Bad Christian,

Question for you: Today in church the pastor said both he and his wife were asked this week if they are ever down. He said they both replied negatively since they have the Wonderful Counselor on their side they are never down or negative. I felt as if I should throw up a BS flag or something. Or is there a level of communion with Christ where you never feel down? He didn’t mean it like this, but I twisted his words in my brain that if you are ever down you aren’t a real Christian.

Bridgette

Dear Bridgette,

First of all, you have to know that Bad Christian loves the idea of a “BS flag” to throw when we feel a member of the family says something that does not past the authenticity smell test. Throwing the “BS flag” would be like a replay challenge in football. The pastor would review the tape and see if the statement is valid and defensible.

“After further review, the statement made from the pulpit stands as proclaimed. Start the clock, the sermon resumes from point 2”

Or the ruling might be,  “After further review the pastor withdraws the comment, is penalized 5 minutes from the sermon, and will resume from the spot of the flag.”

As for your actual question, I would have to respectfully disagree with your pastor. And I do mean respectfully. I would say that as you grow in your relationship with Christ that you will not stay down or negative. But I cannot say that you never get down or negative. I have found that the time frames that I remain down or negative grow shorter as I  mature a bit in my faith. But I have not personally reached the point in my journey with Jesus that I never get down. I have not come close to the point where I am never negative. Remember, I am a guy who has scoured the Bible to see if cynicism is a spiritual gift. But I can tell you that I am much better than I used to be. And that is what the journey is all about. I understand what your pastor is saying about the Wonderful Counselor retooling your emotional responses and that has and is happening in my life. But to say you are never down is unrealistic. As Jesus prepared for the Cross at Gethsemane it appears He was both down about the agony that was ahead and negative toward His sleeping Apostles.

Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” 
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”   (Matt 26)

So Bridgette…you have the full support of “Ask a Bad Christian.” And I am sure that is reassuring!

Dear Bad Christian,

I am 17. I describe myself as a “bad christian.” Why can’t I be a good christian?

Charles

Dear Charles,

Can I tell you something from the depths of my heart? You are well on your way to being a better Christian because you are honest enough to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal your condition. Calling myself a “Bad Christian” is not done to make me feel bad about myself or to punish myself. I use that description as a daily reminder of my potential to sin and the need to depend on Christ in every moment.

Do I really think that I am a “Bad Christian?” I often feel like the Apostle Paul who said this to Timothy.

“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.” (1 Tim 1)

Notice something very important here Charles. Paul says “of whom I am the worst” instead of “I was the worst.” Paul knew that his walk was a daily dependence on Jesus. But I do not think that I am a “Bad Christian” in the sense that I am any less in the eyes of Jesus who shed His blood for me. The description is simply a daily reminder of my need for Him.

Honesty and the realization of your need for help is the first big step to becoming a good Christian.  I would suggest you spend time in God’s Word. Find a older mature Christian to mentor you (if you can). Try to enlist a couple of Christians who will help you be accountable. Realize that all of us are “Bad Christians” now and then. Also realize that not all of us admit that. When you are a “Bad Christian” you need to repent, repair any damage you might have done, forgive yourself, and keep going. This is not a sprint but a long and sometimes difficult marathon. I am praying that a few years from now you will look back and say what I often say. “I may still sometimes be a Bad Christian but I am a whole lot better than I used to be!”

I am praying for you Charles. Thanks for being real.

Dear Bad Christian,

Are you going to do this again?

Fake Poster Invented By Author to Conclude Blog

Dear Fake Poster Invented by Author to Conclude Blog,

I await the feedback of my dozens of readers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My dear friend and e-mail pest Nelson deposited this story in my cyber mailbox this morning.
With more than 1 million copies in print, “Marley and Me — Life and Love with the World’s Worst Dog” has struck a chord with dog lovers who are laughing and crying over author John Grogan’s account of his yellow Labrador retriever. The story is more than a recounting of Marley’s antics that include chewing through doors, expulsion from obedience school, clawing paint off concrete walls, devouring furniture, swallowing valuable jewelry and swooning over soiled diapers.

“It’s really not just a dog book,” Grogan said in an interview with Reuters. “Before Marley, our life was about career, relationship, and ourselves,” said Grogan, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. “He helped us shift from an egocentric life to something more generous.” In the book, Grogan wrote: “Marley taught me about living each day with unbridled exuberance and joy, about seizing the moment and following your heart. He taught me to appreciate the simple things — a walk in the woods, a fresh snowfall, a nap in the shaft of winter sunlight. “And as he grew old and achy, he taught he about optimism in the face of adversity. Mostly, he taught me about friendship and selflessness and, above all else, unwavering loyalty.”

The Marley story reported by Yahoo News noted that the nonfiction book has been on The New York Times bestseller list for 17 weeks.

It reaffirmed what I have been saying for years. I need to combine my dog stories with other Christian best sellers in order to get enough book sales to retire. So I have begun work today on “The Power of Praying for Purpose Driven Dogs who are Left Behind.” Finally I will get some shelf space at the local Christian chain store! (Note to spiritual hall monitors: I am joking. I don’t write Christian books to generate income to retire. However, I wouldn’t mind getting enough to pay Baylor University tuition)

I realized the amazing connections we have with our canine partners after a tongue in cheek piece about the Canine School of Evangelism became the third most read rambling in the brief history of this blog. A follow up dog story about the Touch of the Master was also well received by readers. I had decided to take a break from the dog days of winter but a recent development from scenic Waco, Texas changed my mind. It started innocently enough with a phone call from youngest son, Baylor student, and dog lover Brett. He had spotted three abandoned puppies along the side of the road and he stopped to try and help them. Two ran off but he managed to round up one of them. Brett called to let me know that he intended to bathe, feed, care for the dog, and then take him to the Humane Society on Monday for adoption. I knew I was in trouble when Brett decided to let me know what his rescued puppy looked like. This arrived via cell phone messaging.

                                                                                                                                   

I called the lovely Mrs.Burchett. “He is working me,” I told her. “He is falling in love with this dog.” On Sunday I was driving through Waco and I stopped to see Brett and his alleged short term friend. The way this puppy followed Brett around and looked at him was astounding. He appeared to sense that Brett was, for him, the canine version of Amazing Grace. That dog seemed to understand that he once was lost, and now was found. Maybe if we remembered our dramatic rescue along the side of the road to destruction we might gaze at our Rescuer more consistently with such a look of adoration.

But now we had a bigger problem. I started falling in love with this improbable mutt. I took my own photo to show to Joni.

                                                                                                                           

I laughed with her and we realized that our family dog population had just increased. Brett was scheduled to take the temporarily named “Trigger” to the vet for shots and a checkup on Monday since the Humane Society was no longer on the radar. On Monday another phone call came. Trigger had become violently ill overnight. The scourge of all abandoned puppies seemed to have attacked this sweet little ragamuffin mutt. Trigger had  probably contracted the parvovirus. Brett’s words were heartbreaking in their honesty and love.

“Dad, I don’t think he is going to make it. But at least he knew he was loved for a few days.”

Okay. I cried at Old Yeller. I am a soft touch. But that remark from my youngest touched my heart and made me think that this is a microcosm of ministry. Sometimes it is heartbreaking. The results don’t always match our desires. But if we can love the down and out like Jesus at least they know they have been loved and they will know the source of that love.

For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’ 
“Then these righteous ones will reply, `Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?’ And the King will tell them, `I assure you, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’ Matt 25 – NLT

The results are not guaranteed when you minister to the least of these. But when we do minister to the least of these we show them the very face of Jesus. The lyrics from the group Casting Crowns fit nicely here.

Just love them like Jesus, carry them to Him
His yoke is easy, His burden is light
You don’t need the answers to all of life’s questions
Just know that He loves them and stay by their side
Love them like Jesus

Postscript:  “Trigger” is being released from the animal hospital today. Ten days of intravenous feeding, medication, and a major hit on my MasterCard saved his life.

 

 

 

I try to sample various schools of thought and I attempt to understand how others think. Part of my assignment on a recent road trip was watching Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO. To say that Maher doesn’t like Christians is one of the great understatements of all time. He would have to double his respect for Christians to ratchet up to contempt. Whew…Maher is so cynical he makes me look like Mr.Rogers on Prozac. But he did have one segment that was kind of amusing. Maher does a segment that he calls “New Rules.” He outlines the old rule and then he comedically (at least in his mind) unveils the new rule. To be fair, some were funny.

I got to thinking about how that applies to us to as followers of Christ. We often look at the struggles of the journey and declare “new rules” for ourselves. Part of the spiritual battle is being deceived into believing that we are exceptions to the rule. Pride whispers that God is pretty lucky to have me on the team. Perhaps we imagine we are special like those selfish folks who drive down the shoulder of the highway instead of waiting in the traffic jam like everyone else. Or like the person who kept jamming their seat into my knees on a flight today and gave me an opportunity to field test my forgiveness blogs of recent days.

Rewriting the rules could result in the making if a special set of Dave rules that only I get to play by. For example, here is your rule followed by my rule.

When you gossip it is sin….
When I gossip it is “sharing.”

When you stand up for a belief you are stubborn and rigid…
When I do I have the strength of my convictions.

When you make a mistake you are an immature Christian…
When I screw-up I am going through a “difficult time”.

You are selfish…
When I act selfishly I am looking out for myself because no one else will.

When you miss church you are letting down the fellowship…
When I miss it is because of my difficult week that you can’t even begin to understand.

When you don’t work at a church function you are lazy…
When I don’t volunteer it is because I can’t possibly take on another thing (sighhhh)

When you take initiative you are self-centered…
When I take charge I am following God’s direction.

When you get angry you have a terrible attitude…
When I get ticked off I am “filled with righteous indignation”…or something. 

I think I have made the point. I can run my sin through the Dave filter, apply my special Dave rules and remove every shred of personal responsibility and accountability.  C.S. Lewis pointed out our nature when he said, “It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.”  The good things I do are me bein’ spiritual, the bad things I do are because of whatever excuse I can muster that day. I have had enough of the excuses in my own life. George Washington said that “It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.” For Christians there should be no excuses…good or bad. On those “Bad Christian” days (and all of us have them) we just need to learn the following phrases.

I am sorry.

Forgive me.