Entertainment of Fear

As any good morning show would do, today CBS had a Halloween related segment. A psychologist was analyzing why so many people are drawn to scary movies. After all, Saw IV was number one at the box office last week. How crazy is that?

He explained something that we probably already knew about fear and excitement. The adrenaline of fear invokes that fight-or-flight response in us, and gives some sort of high. So this kind of fear makes people actually feel good, in addition to being entertained. I don't get it, because I hate scary movies, because well, they scare the Hellsinki-Finland out of me. They really do. But there's no entertainment involved.

And of course many Christians see such horror movies as well, and on that I shall not comment. But I know for a fact that some of them go for the same reasons mentioned by the psychologist.
If fear truly is of entertainment value, then why not do something even more scary than going to a scary movie.

At this moment may I suggest something? How about sharing the gospel with someone? How scary is that? It still scares me today-what if I forget something, what if they think I'm weird, what will this do to the relationship? It is scary, but along with that fear comes some excitement. There is adrenaline rush, particularly when it is uncharted waters.

Or inviting those you already know to church? Or how about stepping outside your comfort zone and meeting new non-Christians? That is hard. It's hard for me. Sometimes I hate it. Sometimes I wish I could just work out at the gym, and not talk to anybody. But as I extend myself, submitting myself to Christ's Lordship, there is fear mixed with excitement.

And as I look back on each new relationship that starts (not knowing where the Lord will take it-I'm scared to even think about it sometimes), I'm always glad I took that step. Always. And it never costs me 8 dollars, or 2 dollars if I wait for the other theater.

Even if you share the gospel/meet new folks/invite friends to church to get a fear-high, you would still be getting encouragement from Paul. He wrote that even if Christ were preached out of envy or to cause problems to him in prison, he was glad that Christ was preached(Phil 1:15-18). I think he would probably look at this fear-high in the same light.

Welcome to the Hotel Rwanda: "Such a lovely place?" Part I

During our Christian Ed hour this past Sunday, we had a delightful discussion on a not so delightful (although extremely well done) movie on a not so delightful subject. The movie was Hotel Rwanda, and it told the story through the eyes of a dude named Paul.

Particularly appropriate in the movie were scenes which revealed his reluctance to help (which made him seem more genuine, not flawless). Now this was at the beginning of the movie, and his heart obviously changed very quickly when a bunch of Tutsi refugees showed up in his living room!

But one of the excuses given to not help his neighbors was, "They're not family." Clearly there is an obligation in scripture to honor your father and mother, be gentle with your children, and to provide for them (one who doesn't is worse than an unbeliever and has denied the faith-according to I Tim 5:8). Ouch. So I would admit there is a special primacy to the immediate family. But there is NOT an exclusion to those outside, is there? That's often what happens.

Is there any explicit command or obligation to help those outside your own nuclear/atomic/whatever you call it these days family? Since many Americans (especially Christians-because this seems less heinous than drugs or sex) hold their family, or their children as their number one idol, I think this is an extremely appropriate question. An issue which I shall some day have to deal with as well.

In Deuteronomy 16, Moses gave specific instructions for families to invite aliens (outside covenant), fatherless and widows (outside family) to the Feast of Weeks. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the neighbor whom we are supposed to love becomes everyone-even enemies. And Jesus described those who obey his commands as his brothers and sisters (Matt 12:47-50).
Do you realize how offensive this would have sounded to his conservative Family First Jewish audience? Seriously offensive.

While your immediate family certainly takes priority (and I understand many have given themselves to jobs, ministry, hobbies first), those within the family of God take a close second, Even those outside the covenant, take a close third. Like it or not, in Christ, "We are fa-mi-ly!"and that obligates us to love, help, serve, and paddle the extra mile for each other. Thanks for reminding us Sister Sledge.

Even the Ravens obey

A week or two ago I heard an amazing rescue story. I really love rescue stories, particularly when folks are rescued from the sea. But land rescues/survival stories are still pretty cool.

A 76 year old woman had been lost in the woods while hunting (which probably goes to show they should stick to driving in the left lane for their sense of excitement!), and the main search party had been called off after 10 days. Her daughters had already finished planning her memorial service when she was found. Talk about emotional roller coaster.

The interesting thing about her discovery was in the how: ravens. Ravens were circling overhead, and the rescue party simply followed those ravens. God is sovereign (in control) over all of the earth and everything in it. This time he used ravens, but He is free to use whatever means He deems fit.

Seeing God use these ravens reminds me that He is still involved in our every day affairs. And to quote Gandalf, "You were meant to find the ring, and that is a comforting thought indeed."

If you want to check out the article, click here.

Emerging Lecture-seriously though, its good

You may or may not have heard of some loose entity known as the "emerging" or "emergent church." Mark Driscoll, pastor of a mega-church in Seattle called Mars Hill, gave a lecture at Southeastern Seminary on the main three streams of thought out there in this non-denominational lumping. At one time he was connected with some folks as part of this "emerging" whatever-you-want-to-call it. So he speaks as a former 'insider' and does so quite honestly, and difficultly, since some of the men are/were his friends and he knows their families and vice versa. This would no doubt be a difficult lecture to give.

In case you don't feel like listening to the hour long lecture (but it goes quick because he is absolutely hilarious), I'll briefly summarize some of his main three divisions, of which only one he really refers to as "emergent."

1.) "Cool/hip churches." These are churches which are completely evangelical, and are willing to consider different ways of ministering to a totally different audience than we had 50 years ago. As far as methods and what each church looks like-that will be different-but they may look a little different than your church (possibly). However, they are distinctly Evangelical and do not compromise the gospel. Such names in this stream include Donald Miller, Dan Kimball. However, they probably don't fit into "emerging church" status.

2.) "Emergent Village"-These are churches who in seeking to win the lost, have really, in Driscoll's opinion, lost touch with the true gospel. He calls them "revisionists"-wondering what God really meant when He said stuff about homosexuality, gender differences, and atonement/symbol of the cross. Reaction to scripture is not obedience, but dialog and conversation. Such names include Brian McClaren, Rob Bell (Velvet Elvis) and Doug Pagett. Unfortunately some of their professed influences include John Dominic Crossan (a dude from the Jesus seminar-denies Jesus' resurrection), Marcus Borg (panentheist-no creator/creature distinction), and Ken Wilbur (wrote A brief history of everything-a Buddhist intrepretation).

Some of McClaren's books are A Generous Orthodoxy and A New Kind of Christian (which won the Christian book award several years ago). NPR's religion editor calls him the "new Martin Luther." Winsome and relational, he has a strong following.

However Driscoll questions whether or not these churches are actually growing. They've compromised to reach people, but they really aren't doing that.

3.) Calvinist stream-These are young, reformed (at least in regards to salvation)
pastors who see an importance in a return to expositional (verse-by-verse) preaching, usually an hour long, elders, more charismatic in worship, and have more of a connection to the historical church. They agree culture has changed, and need to think of new methods to reach the lost. Such include having night services as well (Seattle has more dogs than kids, but many singles), hosting secular concerts in a building they purchased, and more relational evangelism-specifically hospitality.

Pastors include Driscoll, CJ Maheney, Sovereign Grace folk, Matt Chandler, Acts 29 Church planting network.

They tend to be younger but are willing and to sit under older men and be taught by John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller, and J.I. Packer. Those are names I trust.

Driscoll closed his lecture with some questions that folks in his camp are asking: Why are so many people into video game "World of War Craft" or Ultimate Fighting (the demographic which is least churched 18-34). Paul looked at the idols at Mars Hill and saw what they believed. His goal is to have people take a peak into these cultures and see what's going on-then they will know how to minister to them. To be biblically faithful and culturally fruitful.

Forgivness in a fallen world

I watched a 48 Hours Mystery special (as usual) this week. In every story, it looks like a perfect family from the outside until they dig up something like porn, infidelity, drugs, or other illicit activity. And when they have Christian families, often all or some of the above have been included.

However this time, I found an interesting/wonderful/bewildering display of grace. Thanks CBS.

On the outside the family looked as though it were an all American Christian family in Sugar Land Texas. But I think 3 out of 4 actually lived out the part quite well.

Unfortunately, the oldest son, repeatedly arranged to have his family killed. His 3rd attempt was successful, and his doting mother and younger brother (who looked up to him) were killed that night. His father survived his wounds and forgave him immediately. How?

I know its not easy, but God has granted me the grace to forgive. I know my son and wife are in heaven, and I want the same for my son (who obviously didn't believe at that point).

You bet that forgiveness only came from God. So the father pleaded for life in prison. His pleas fell on deaf ears. Texas kill that joker after some time. Could you forgive your son whom you loved, and yet spurned that love? After all, he claimed the only people he ever hated, were his family members! Repeatedly trying to kill them? He said he never felt loved or accepted by them.

I can't verify or deny those claims, but it sure looked as if the mother and father cherished their son. And it would seem to show in the father's willingness to forgive him! I don't know what I would do, but if my son killed my wife and other child, would I forgive him that quickly? Would I seek the death penalty for him? Hard questions to answer. I know for sure God's grace would allow me to forgive, but how long would it take? Long time I think. As far as the death penalty goes, wow, I don't know.

Neighborly Warmth

Last night while watching the Colts dismantle the Jaguars, Amy and I heard a sustained honking/"car-alarmish" sound. As I turned the corner around the back of my house, I first felt a little fear: I've seen too many movies where if the person just didn't round the corner out of curiosity, he would haven not been killed.

But I had to take my chances, after all, this was real life. I noticed some lighting reflected on the side of my neighbor's house. So I expected something bright. Well I got it.

There was the large, jacked up, pimped out, technicolored dream Oldsmo-Buick with tall flames spewing forth. Because the car was so high, the trees almost caught the blaze. Eventually fire trucks came out and doused the flames.

Apparently yesterday, very early in the morning, someone was shot inside that house. The victim described it as a home invasion, but the cops questioned the veracity of this account. Regardless, the car fire all but proves that something else was going on. But we'll leave that to the authorities, and I'll try not to connect the dots.

This ought to shed some light into the differences of men/women, or perhaps just Amy and myself. I was concerned primarily about property values: what would this do to an already unsellable neighborhood?

Amy was concerned about safety: is the area safe? Are we more likely to get hurt in this neighborhood? We talked about it for a little bit and concluded with this.

Car fires actually do happen in all kinds of neighborhoods (my parents' a few weeks ago/my friend's a year ago), as do break-ins and home invasions. On the 48 Hour Mystery specials, all the murders take place in upper class neighborhoods.

In the end, we can't protect ourselves sufficiently to prevent any worry or 'concern.' But God can protect us sufficiently, wherever we are. We believe, or at least try our hardest to believe in a Sovereign God who doesn't succumb to circumstances, statistics, or trends.

"Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases." Psalm 115:3

He will protect us in the end and bring us safely into His heavenly Kingdom no matter what (II Tim 4:18). I'm just glad Amy and I can see He is "our God (meaning He is in covenant relationship with us)." That should provide sufficient security, and help out my concerns about property values!

If you'd like to read the Bradenton Herald Article about this event, click here!

News reporting from Palestine

While reading Mark Driscoll's book The Radical Reformission: I came across one of the better explanations/illustrations of why we have 4 different (but true and reliable) gospel accounts.

First of all (not in the book), regardless of how similar or different the gospel accounts look, there will ALWAYS be a problem for skeptics. The fact that the synoptic gospels are so similar is actually known as the "synoptic problem." How did they get so similar? Well obviously they just copied each other-such is the argument. So for them to be even more similar would could actually make them less believable!

But of course there are some differences, and these differences are often used by some to discount their reliability (perhaps even the same people). However, the differences actually prove that there were numbers of different eye witness accounts; not just one who was the main 'lead.'

Driscoll provides a solid illustration here. Imagine the different gospel writers to be 4 different news sources. CBS, NBC, ABC news affiliates correspond to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But then you have different news sources with more unique perspectives, think of CNN or Fox News. This would represent John's gospel.

News always comes from a biased perspective (regardless of what Fox News thinks), and so the writers presented their accounts, including, and excluding certain details (based upon their Holy Spirit inspired purposes)-you can't record everything. That which is included is intentional; the same goes for that which is excluded.

So we need not be worried about the gospels being too similar or too different. They are just as God intended them to be. Arguments one way or another ought not to dissuade us. Only by God granting faith can they be accepted as true and reliable; but it is also good to be able to express the evidences when evidences do exist-both to ourselves and others.