Thinking about Robert Jeffress

Well, pastors sometimes say things they shouldn't.

Are you surprised that I would admit such a thing?  You shouldn't be.  I've been guilty of such a thing.  And when I do, in the back of my mind comes that little-addressed verse in Matthew 12:  we will stand to an account for every careless word.  Wow.

And now along comes a pastor who tells his people (and the rest of the world, since he was standing in front of media cameras) to vote for evangelical Christians and not cultic Mormons.  Well, what's wrong with this?

First, President Obama is a Christian, though not necessarily what you would call evangelical.  So, do you vote for him instead of Mitt Romney, even though Romney more aptly and ably represents the conservative side of the political aisle of which you are so fond?

Second, Mormonism isn't a cult.  It's a separate religion.  I don't know of many cults (in the classic sense, not the TV camera sense) that have opened a major university with a fairly renown faculty.  Certainly, Mormonism and Christianity are separate religions - they share a common language but NOT a common theology.  Mormons are not Christians.  Don't confuse that.  But neither confuse a cult for a religion.

Third, where does the boy get off telling me how to vote anyway?  I think it was Luther (someone correct me) that said he'd rather have a competent pagan than an incompetent Christian in public office.  God can (and does!) give common grace through all sorts of people (Steve Jobs, anyone?).

Lastly, out of all the things to say in front of the camera, that's what you're going to say?

If you would've asked me, I hope I would have said this:

I'm for electing competent leaders who can get us out of this mess that we're in.  We need social help.  We need economic help.  We need moral help.  And it'll take real leadership to do that.  But honestly, my hope isn't in any politician from any party.  My hope is in Jesus Christ who gave His life for individuals who needed help and is in the business of transforming them to bring His kind of help to the rest of the world.

But that's just me thinking thoughts...

Idolatry of Religion (pt. 2)

Yesterday I posted about the idolatry of religion and how it leads to pride and fear.  I'd like to pick that back up from the other side of the coin.  Because there's an idolatry of religion that irreligious, a rebellion against religion that leads to the same outcomes:  pride and fear.

You think about the college student who, once out of the house, goes on a hedonistic rampage.  Anything he wants, he goes after.  Whatever her heart desires, she tries and then tries again.  Prodigals who find a distant country so inviting and so exciting that they throw their lives away, often until they hit some sort of rock bottom.  You know people like this?

We all do.

Maybe you're one of them.

But just like in yesterday's Pharisee, pride and fear are the outcome of the Prodigal too.  And they keep that person from God.

Pride shows up when they want to make it up to God in some way.  It can also manifest in the refusal to turn to God because you're going to get yourself all cleaned up before coming back home.  But let's face it:  we all stink and we all stink at this.  We smell like a dead skunk covered in cow manure.  And there's no way we can get it off of us to pass as socially (much less spiritually) acceptable in the presence of someone else.  Isolation (with its root in pride) is often the wretched rose that follows.

And fear?  That's an easy one to grasp.  When you stink that bad and are that bad, you don't want to come home for fear of what someone might say.  You can play the tapes in your head of predicted messages:  oh sure, now he wants to come home; well it's about time a girl like you came to her senses and cleaned up her mess.  On and on they could go.

But great news.

Jesus died for Prodigals just like He died for Pharisees.  And He rose again to give them both a new kind of life, far from the putrid poignancy of religious idolatry.

There's no need to run anywhere but into His waiting arms.

But that's just me thinking thoughts...

Idolatry of Religion (pt 1)

There are two ways to be a religious idolater.  Many voices throughout the history of the church have pointed this out.  In our day, no one has been more analytical, adept, or accurate as Tim Keller at Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan.  You should check him out and get your soul fed.

The first way to be an idolater is to be a religious rule keeper.  Having just preached on Philippians 3.1-11, Paul certainly falls into this category before he came to know Christ.  He said of himself that he was a Pharisee, a persecutor of the church, and found faultless before the righteousness of the law.

In short:  he kept all the rules.

And what did it produce in him?  Humility?  Godly character?  A desire for God and the things of God?  No.  But instead pride.  Instead, sin upon sin.  Instead, a desire for self-exaltation.

And that's what this kind of religion produces in us.  Pride and self-reliance drive us to perform more and more and more.  The only relationship with God we have is the one that is mediated by the actions we take, the mistakes we make, and our promises to do more and do better next time.

Strange, isn't it?  We pride ourselves on doing good and doing right.  We go to God with those things, standing before Him like a peacock strutting his stuff.  But deep down, the question lingers as to whether or not we've done enough or done the right kind of enough that would make God happy (at best) or keep Him off our back for another week (at worst).

Pride.  Fear.  Symptoms of religious idolatry in the human heart.  And bad news when those symptoms arise.

Because the truth is that you and I could never do enough or the right kind of enough to merit God's favor.

Earning our way into His presence and pleasure doesn't come by way of our "enough."  It comes by way of Christ's declaration:  "It is finished."

We don't live in relationship with God on the basis of our sacrifice.  We live with Him on the basis of Christ's sacrifice.

Recognizing and reveling in this means pride goes away because we didn't do it.  And fear goes away because it wasn't on the basis of our "enough" that we got in anyway.  Lay down pride.  Lay down fear.  Embrace Christ.  Enjoy God.

But that's just me thinking thoughts...

Sermon Notes from 10.9.11

Here are the sermon notes from today's sermon on Philippians 3.1-11.  To get these notes in PDF and the sermon audio, visit sermons.heritagepark.org.  You can also get the sermon audio via our podcast on iTunes.

Philippians

Crying over Trash

Philippians 3.1-11

Marks of the True Believer

• Worship by the Spirit of God
• Boast in Christ
• Put no confidence in the flesh

Principle:  surpassing significance of Jesus

• Lay down your heritage (v.4-5).
• Lay down your accomplishments (v.5-6).
• Lay down everything else (v.7-8).
• This is the way you enter and live in the Kingdom of God.

Passion:  interactive intimacy with Jesus

• It’s not knowledge about Him – theology doesn’t save anyone.
• It’s not knowledge of Him – enjoying God’s blessings without a relationship.
• It’s pursuing knowing God in a deeply personal way no matter what. 

Snakes are Scary: for my brother

My little brother is quite literally a rocket scientist.  PhD from Texas A&M in aerospace engineering.  He has stuff he's working on that he can't tell me about I'm pretty sure.  But I know stuff on him that he doesn't want me to tell you...

In honor of Troy.

How do you define success?

How do you define success?

I was asked that question by a group of people in the past couple of weeks.  It's a good question to ask someone, don't you think?  It tells a lot about who they think they are and what they think is valuable.

What would you answer?

If you were in front of a group of people who asked, what would you say?  After you envisioned everyone in their underwear or employed your favorite other trick to make you not-so-nervous in front of people, what would you open your mouth and say?

I said, "Faithfulness."

In my most important relationships, it comes down to that.

Faithfulness to Jesus.

Faithfulness to my wife.

Faithfulness to my kids.

Faithfulness to my church.

Faithfulness to my calling.

As far as I can read it, it simply comes down to that.

But that's just me thinking thoughts...

Bill Bennett on Manhood in Crisis

This article is written by William Bennett, former Secretary of Education and is reprinted in its entirety from CNN.  Lots to think about here, folks...




For the first time in history, women are better educated, more ambitious and arguably more successful than men.


Now, society has rightly celebrated the ascension of one sex. We said, "You go girl," and they went. We celebrate the ascension of women but what will we do about what appears to be the very real decline of the other sex?


The data does not bode well for men. In 1970, men earned 60% of all college degrees. In 1980, the figure fell to 50%, by 2006 it was 43%. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three to two. Women's earnings grew 44% in real dollars from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% growth for men.


In 1950, 5% of men at the prime working age were unemployed. As of last year, 20% were not working, the highest ever recorded. Men still maintain a majority of the highest paid and most powerful occupations, but women are catching them and will soon be passing them if this trend continues.


The warning signs for men stretch far beyond their wallets. Men are more distant from a family or their children then they have ever been. The out-of-wedlock birthrate is more than 40% in America. In 1960, only 11% of children in the U.S. lived apart from their fathers. In 2010, that share had risen to 27%. Men are also less religious than ever before. According to Gallup polling, 39% of men reported attending church regularly in 2010, compared to 47% of women.
If you don't believe the numbers, just ask young women about men today. You will find them talking about prolonged adolescence and men who refuse to grow up. I've heard too many young women asking, "Where are the decent single men?" There is a maturity deficit among men out there, and men are falling behind.


This decline in founding virtues -- work, marriage, and religion -- has caught the eye of social commentators from all corners. In her seminal article, "The End of Men," Hanna Rosin unearthed the unprecedented role reversal that is taking place today. "Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing—and with shocking speed," writes Rosin. The changes in modern labor -- from backs to brains -- have catapulted women to the top of the work force, leaving men in their dust.


Man's response has been pathetic. Today, 18-to- 34-year-old men spend more time playing video games a day than 12-to- 17-year-old boys. While women are graduating college and finding good jobs, too many men are not going to work, not getting married and not raising families. Women are beginning to take the place of men in many ways. This has led some to ask: do we even need men? So what's wrong? Increasingly, the messages to boys about what it means to be a man are confusing. The machismo of the street gang calls out with a swagger. Video games, television and music offer dubious lessons to boys who have been abandoned by their fathers. Some coaches and drill sergeants bark, "What kind of man are you?" but don't explain.

Movies are filled with stories of men who refuse to grow up and refuse to take responsibility in relationships. Men, some obsessed with sex, treat women as toys to be discarded when things get complicated. Through all these different and conflicting signals, our boys must decipher what it means to be a man, and for many of them it is harder to figure out.


For boys to become men, they need to be guided through advice, habit, instruction, example and correction. It is true in all ages. Someone once characterized the two essential questions Plato posed as: Who teaches the children, and what do we teach them? Each generation of men and women have an obligation to teach the younger males (and females of course) coming behind them. William Wordsworth said, "What we have loved, others will love, and we will teach them how." When they fail in that obligation, trouble surely follows.


We need to respond to this culture that sends confusing signals to young men, a culture that is agnostic about what it wants men to be, with a clear and achievable notion of manhood.


The Founding Fathers believed, and the evidence still shows, that industriousness, marriage and religion are a very important basis for male empowerment and achievement. We may need to say to a number of our twenty-something men, "Get off the video games five hours a day, get yourself together, get a challenging job and get married." It's time for men to man up. 

Religious Freedom Under Attack

This column is posted in its entirety from USA Today and was written by my friend Tommy Kidd.  It's an important read.  The implications are far-reaching (like hiring practices in churches and even Matthew 18-esque discipline of church members).  Sounds like a great opportunity to pray.


What do evangelical Christians, Mormons, Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Hare Krishnashave in common? Normally, you wouldn't expect these groups to agree on much. In the Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC, however, an incredible array of faith groups — including representatives of these and other religions — have filed amicus briefs in favor of the church. Led by the non-sectarian Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Hosanna-Tabor's defenders know that a decision against the church could have terrible consequences for freedom of conscience in America.


This case — which will be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday — began when the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church in Michigan dismissed a teacher, Cheryl Perich, from its church-run grade school. Perich taught a variety of subjects, including religion classes, and she led students in daily prayers. She also began a lengthy struggle with narcoleptic symptoms — including unpredictable bouts of sleep — in 2004.
When the church signaled that it wished to amicably release her from her "calling" as a teacher (a congregationally approved position), Perich threatened to sue the church for disability discrimination. Her principal reminded her that civil lawsuits within the church contradicted Lutheran teachings, but Perich persisted. Hosanna-Tabor accordingly voted to rescind her call, and Perich sued, saying the church retaliated against her for asserting her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. She asked for reinstatement to her position.


Honoring 'ministerial exemption'


This case could strike at the heart of the "ministerial exemption," which protects faith-based organizations from political meddling, especially on questions related to the employment of religious workers. The First Amendment's ban on a religious "establishment" assumes that politicians and judges should not adjudicate matters of faith.


But in a jarring departure from precedent, the Department of Justice argued in an August brief that the ministerial exemption, if it even exists, is exceedingly narrow, applying only to clergy whose duties are "exclusively religious" (forgetting that even ministers have many earthly duties). Justice lawyers insist that Perich's position as a Christian school teacher is not subject to the ministerial exemption.


The Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment's religion clauses to restrict the government from interfering with religious matters. Secularist advocacy groups, including those supporting Perich, always seek to restrain the government from assisting faith organizations, even indirectly. They would howl with protest, for example, if Michigan provided vouchers to help students attend Hosanna-Tabor's school. So why would secularists and their partners at the Justice Department approve of the government directly interfering with that same religious school by ordering it to hire a certain teacher?


To understand the First Amendment's context, we have to go back to early America, when mother England and most of its colonies had established, tax-supported denominations. Being a Church of England parson effectively made you a government employee, and politicians had a great deal of say over what a religious leader could teach, and under what circumstances he could be removed. Colonial authorities fiercely persecuted Baptists, for instance, because they did not accept the state church's preferred mode of baptism. (They baptized adults rather than infants.)


When framing the Bill of Rights, James Madison and the other Founders wanted the government to have no power to mandate church policies. They wanted no national denomination, either. So they prohibited Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion, and guaranteed churches and other religious organizations the "free exercise of religion."


The dangers
One cannot imagine a more obvious feature of an establishment of religion, or a clearer violation of free exercise, than the government dictating to a church that it must rehire a religious teacher, especially a person who has violated church teachings or behavioral codes. The Justice Department's position, if vindicated, raises the possibility that courts and bureaucrats may, in the name of contemporary norms of fairness, begin requiring religious organizations to hire any number of candidates who do not accept that faith's tenets. One could easily imagine future decisions forcing churches, synagogues, or mosques to hire employees who do not adhere to the tradition's norms of sexual behavior, for example.


Religious liberty will be severely damaged if faith groups cannot hire and fire according to their beliefs. That's why leaders from such an impressive range of religions are united by the threat of a government clearly overstepping its well-defined boundaries.


Thomas S. Kidd is senior fellow at the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University. He is also author of God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution and Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots (forthcoming in November).

Bemoaning politics

Well, we have over 13 months until the presidential race is concluded.  Seems like we've been in this for about 13 months now too.  Sheesh.

I'd like, once again, to beg everyone and anyone and all the other ones who will listen that we raise the level of political rhetoric in the conversations, debates, and commercials to something other than gutter level.  And it's terrible on both sides of the aisle.

Witness the last two Republican debates where a homosexual soldier was booed and another idiot from the crowd thought we should, "Let 'em die!"  Wow.

Democrats do the same thing.  Numerous examples could follow but I'll refrain.

Raising the level of rhetoric in the public square...

1.  Helps focus on issues and actually think through them.

2.  Holds in high regard the citizenry of this country and the sense of citizenship of the candidates.

3.  Keeps civility in the public eye.

4.  Demonstrates true tolerance.

5.  Sets us up for working together afterward because of the goodwill exhibited and the understanding of the other person's position.

6.  Trains another generation of debaters, politicians, and voters.

7.  Reflects the true political freedoms we have under the constitution and for which the framers and founders fought so hard and sacrificed so much.

I don't know how to make the politicians of our day do this.  But I sure wish they would.

But that's just me thinking thoughts...

Sermon Notes from Sunday, October 2nd

Here are the sermon notes from today's sermon on Philippians 2.19-30.  To hear the sermon audio and get these notes in PDF, visit sermons.heritagepark.org.  You can also find the sermon audio on iTunes via our podcast.

Philippians

A Tale of Two Men

Philippians 2.19-30

American Relational Ethos:

• I’ll pull myself up by my self without your help
• You must pull me up without my help

We need each other.

• Everyone mentioned needed someone mentioned.
• We need each other to become who God wants us to be.
• We need each other to accomplish what God wants done

We need vertical relationships.

• When older, vertical relationships give us purpose.
• When younger, vertical relationships give us inspiration.

We need horizontal relationships.

• People we share with and who share with us.
• People who will bear our burdens with us.
• People who bring us joy.