Archives For Just stirring up trouble

Cake My Ass.

bob —  May 25, 2012

I read a blog post today that compared being a pastor to “cake.” The claim (made by a house church advocate) is that “a professional pastor’s job is mostly cake… By “cake,” I’m referring to the fact that his job is easy.”

The basis for this claim is “2.5 years” as a pastor while sitting in Starbucks a lot studying.

Let me just say, for the record, that while there are pieces of pastoring that are HUGELY rewarding and enjoyable, anyone who would claim that the job as a whole is “cake” is speaking foolishly about something he didn’t engage in long enough to really know. 2.5 years may seem like a long time, but it’s not. It’s just long enough to see most of the high points of ministry without many of the lows.

It’s not enough time to see marriage after marriage unravel as you sit with couple after couple. It’s not time enough to walk through an adulterous relationship and the aftermath as you work to bring reconciliation. It’s not time enough to see the ebb and flow of multiple people’s faith and feel the weight of their walk with God and your responsibility to them. It’s not long enough to make disciples. It’s not long enough to try and do all these things while also equipping people for mission and ministry, encouraging the broken, exhorting the faithful, correcting and teaching the immature and trying to maintain a growing relationship with God yourself. And it’s not long enough to know that the half-assed way you are doing it is not necessarily how thousands and thousands of others who are literally pouring themselves out on behalf of the Gospel, their congregations and their neighbors/neighborhoods are doing it.

Cake? Not by a long shot.

I get the whole bi-vocational pastor thing. After all, I now am one.

But those in the house church movement seem to denigrate what they should be affirming. Just because you have chosen a different way doesn’t invalidate the way others have felt called to go. And your consistent appeal to Paul in his bi-vocationality is both tiresome and misguided.

Paul was not a local pastor. He was an itinerant evangelist/apostle who helped start churches where there were none. As such he worked a job rather than ask for support from those who were hearing the Gospel for the first time. But he also consistently maintained his right and the right of those in full-time ministry to earn their support from that ministry and so be freed into it fully. (1 Cor 9:14)

Are there lazy pastors who are gaming the system? Sure. Show me a job that isn’t true of.

But the vast majority of pastors are in full time ministry for different reasons, and to suggest otherwise is hugely insulting.

This article was sent to me with a question I wholeheartedly agree with: “Why are house church guys so consistently obnoxious?”

In Ecclesiology, Just stirring up trouble, leadership, organic church, Pastoral
permalink

Last Chance For a Win-Win on Same-Sex Marriage?

bob —  May 15, 2012

This week, two important things happened. First, the voters of North Carolina passed a State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. And then shortly after, President Obama reversed his long-held position against same-sex marriage and said, “It ought to be legal.” In addition, the polls now show that the country is almost precisely divided in half for and against changing our laws on this issue.

All of which lead me to believe that we will soon reach or have already reached the last chance for both sides of this issue to lay down the all-or-nothing mentality they possess, and find a win-win scenario where each side gets the essentials of what they want.
Is it possible to have a win-win on same-sex marriage (SSM)? I think it’s not only possible- it’s imperative.

Because, at least at this point, neither side seems willing to try and see the issue from the perspective of the other and look for something other than a binary, up or down, yes or no kind of solution. And where will that lead us? Certainly no place good. Look for more protests of churches, more of those who speak out in favor of the biblical understanding of marriage to be labeled as “haters”… and fewer and fewer gay men and women even giving the Gospel a hearing because in their mind, the Church simply doesn’t care about them as people.

In order to avoid an exacerbation of this cultural war, some common sense compromise is going to be necessary- each side is going to have to give up something for the sake of the other.

On one side, the Church is going to have to realize that gay men and women, in wanting what everyone else has, are asking for something reasonable. Rights of inheritance and property, custody and visitation- all of the rights granted currently by the state in marriage are good things, things we can affirm, even in relationships that we wouldn’t necessarily endorse. After all, even if we hold a more conservative view on divorce, I don’t see many churches advocating for divorced couples to lose the right to have custody over their step-children should something happen to their spouse. We may not endorse the relationship, but we can certainly try to understand the desire of those in it to have the same legal rights as other couples. And more than understand it- I think we can advocate for it, and practically demonstrate that we do in fact “love everyone.”

At a bare minimum, those who claim the stance “Welcoming but not affirming” must come to grips with the very practical question of what that looks like not just on Sunday morning, but it the public/civic arena too.

On the other side, those pushing for SSM need to understand the depth of feeling involved in and around the word marriage- what is for many Christians a sacrament and for all Christians sacred. To have the State legislate an understanding of what is essentially a religious term, and to legislate it in a way contrary to the faith and practice of so many is profoundly offensive. This goes beyond legalization into the realm of endorsement and definition, and as such, is qualitatively different than many other culture war issues.

As long as we’re talking about “marriage” we’re going to continue to see a stalemate on this issue as those who believe in a traditional, biblical view of sexuality and those who want the basic rights afforded to others all around them each refuse to give an inch.

So what’s the solution?

The State needs to get out of the “marriage” business. It should recognize that as long as it uses that term, and continues to privilege certain types of relationships over others this issue is going to divide us as a nation, and is only going to become more and more contentious. We need to move towards the system used in many European countries where the State issues nothing but civil unions to anyone who wants them, and then those who desire it may seek a marriage from the Church. When I pastored in the Netherlands, this was the system- you got a civil union certificate at the courthouse and then a Marriage ceremony at the church. This division largely negated the culture war aspect, and allowed those churches who objected to same sex marriage on biblical grounds to not only opt out, but to be able to continue to teach their biblical view of marriage, uncontradicted by the State.

But more even than changing our system, we need to change our hearts. I don’t know how many proponents of gay marriage will be reading this, so I won’t make much of a plea to them beyond this: please stop labeling the other side of the argument as “hate speech” and bigotry. It’s not. It is a working out of deep convictions and a particular understanding of sexuality as a good gift from a good Creator, to be used within certain boundaries. Personal animosity doesn’t enter into the argument- and when it does, it deserves just as much sanction and rebuke from the Church as anything else.

And that means that in addition to rethinking how we talk about LGBTQ issues in the church, and what it looks like to actively welcome them in the name of Jesus, the Church needs to rethink its political strategies. We ought to stop worrying about ballot measures and propositions which declare same sex marriage illegal, and ought to start focusing on the new realities of this Post-Christendom world in which we find ourselves. Our efforts would better be spent on trying to get the government OUT of marrying anyone. Will this mean giving up one more piece of privilege and power in the public sphere? Sure- the Pastor’s signing of the “Marriage License,” a document issued by the State is exactly that. But if it gets us towards a place of peacemaking with a community we are not doing very well at sharing the Gospel with, isn’t laying that down worth it?

Ultimately, we in the Church need to change our hearts as well. It is our primary goal that the Gospel of Jesus be heard and understood and that the person of Jesus be esteemed. As we often say in marriage counseling, “perception is reality,” and the sad truth is that right now, the gay community in America doesn’t think much of us or our Jesus, not based on the offensiveness of our Gospel, but on the offensiveness of our fighting what they see as fundamental human rights. My fear is that we may (for a while longer at least) continue to win battles like The recent one in North Carolina… but ultimately lose the war in the hearts of a portion of our population who become convinced that the Gospel couldn’t possibly be Good News to them, based on what they do (or don’t) see in us.

In Current Affairs, Just stirring up trouble, Sex
permalink

From the Archives: Funniest Email Exchange… EVER.

bob —  November 17, 2011

From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 9.15am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Poster

Hi
I opened the screen door yesterday and my cat got out and has been
missing since then so I was wondering if you are not to busy you could
make a poster for me. It has to be A4 and I will photocopy it and put
it around my suburb this afternoon.

This is the only photo of her I have she answers to the name Missy and is
black and white and about 8 months old. missing on Harper street and my
phone number.
Thanks Shan.

From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 9.26am
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Poster

Dear Shannon,

That is shocking news…

Although I have two clients expecting completed work this afternoon, I will, of course, drop
everything and do whatever it takes to facilitate the speedy return of Missy.

Regards, David.

From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 9.37am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Poster

yeah ok thanks. I know you dont like cats but I am really worried about mine. I have to leave at 1pm today.

From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 10.17am
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Poster

Dear Shannon,

I never said I don’t like cats. Once, having been invited to a party, I
went clothes shopping beforehand and bought a pair of expensive G-Star
boots. They were two sizes too small but I wanted them so badly I
figured I could just wear them without socks and cut my toenails very
short. As the party was only a few blocks from my place, I decided to
walk. After the first block, I lost all feeling in my feet. Arriving at
the party, I stumbled into a guy named Steven, spilling Malibu &
coke onto his white Wham ‘Choose Life’ t-shirt, and he punched me. An
hour or so after the incident, Steven sat down in a chair already
occupied by a cat. The surprised cat clawed and snarled causing Steven
to leap out of the chair, slip on a rug and strike his forehead onto
the corner of a speaker; resulting in a two inch open gash. In its
shock, the cat also defecated, leaving Steven with a wet brown stain
down the back of his beige cargo pants. I liked that cat.

Attached poster as requested.

Regards, David.

From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 10.24am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster

yeah thats not what I was looking for at all. it looks like a movie and how come the photo of Missy is so small?

From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 10.28am
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster

Dear Shannon,

It’s a design thing. The cat is lost in the negative space.

Regards, David.

From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 10.33am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster

Thats just stupid. Can you do it properly please? I am extremely
emotional over this and was up all night in tears. you seem to think it
is funny. Can you make the photo bigger please and fix the text and do
it in colour please. Thanks.

From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 10.46am
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster

Dear Shannon,

Having worked with designers for a few years now, I would have assumed
you understood, despite our vague suggestions otherwise, we do not
welcome constructive criticism. I don’t come downstairs and tell you
how to send text messages, log onto Facebook and look out of the
window. I am willing to overlook this faux pas due to you no doubt
being preoccupied with thoughts of Missy attempting to make her way
home across busy intersections or being trapped in a drain as it slowly
fills with water. I spent three days down a well once but that was just
for fun.

I have amended and attached the poster as per your instructions.

Regards, David.

From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 10.59am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster

This is worse than the other one. can you make it so it shows the whole
photo of Missy and delete the stupid text that says missing missy off
it? I just want it to say lost.

From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 11.14am
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster

From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 11.21am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poster

yeah can you do the poster or not? I just want a photo and the word lost and
the telephone number and when and where she was lost and her name. Not
like a movie poster or anything stupid. I have to leave early today. If
it was your cat I would help you. Thanks.

From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 11.32am
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Awww

Dear Shannon,

I don’t have a cat. I once agreed to look after a friend’s cat for a week
but after he dropped it off at my apartment and explained the concept
of kitty litter, I kept the cat in a closed cardboard box in the shed
and forgot about it. If I wanted to feed something and clean faeces, I
wouldn’t have put my mother in that home after her stroke. A week
later, when my friend came to collect his cat, I pretended that I was
not home and mailed the box to him. Apparently I failed to put enough
stamps on the package and he had to collect it from the post office and
pay eighteen dollars. He still goes on about that sometimes, people
need to learn to let go.

I have attached the amended version of your poster as per your detailed instructions.

Regards, David.

From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 11.47am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Awww

Thats not my cat. where did you get that picture from? That cat is orange. I gave you a photo of my cat.

From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 11.58am
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Awww

I know, but that one is cute. As Missy has quite possibly met any one of
several violent ends, it is possible you might get a better cat out of
this. If anybody calls and says “I haven’t seen your orange cat but I
did find a black and white one with its hind legs run over by a car, do
you want it?” you can politely decline and save yourself a costly
veterinarian bill.

I knew someone who had a basset hound that had its hind legs removed after an
accident and it had to walk around with one of those little buggies
with wheels. If it had been my dog I would have asked for all its legs
to be removed and replaced with wheels and had a remote control
installed. I could charge neighbourhood kids for rides and enter it in
races. If I did the same with a horse I could drive it to work. I would
call it Steven.

Regards, David.

From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 12.07pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Awww

Please just use the photo I gave you.

From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 12.22pm
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awww

From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 12.34pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awww

I didnt say there was a reward. I dont have $2000 dollars. What did you
even put that there for? Apart from that it is perfect can you please
remove the reward bit. Thanks Shan.

From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 12.42pm
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awww

From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 12.51pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awww

Can you just please take the reward bit off altogether? I have to leave
in ten minutes and I still have to make photocopies of it.

From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 12.56pm
To: Shannon Walkley
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awww

From: Shannon Walkley
Date: Monday 21 June 2010 1.03pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awww

Fine. That will have to do.

 

(ht:http://www.27bslash6.com)

In Just stirring up trouble, odd and wrong
permalink

Why Church Planter Conferences are SO much better than Church Growth Conferences.

bob —  March 12, 2011

I’ve been incredibly blessed over the last couple of months to be able to attend two gatherings of Church Planters. The first was the Ecclesia Network‘s National Gathering and the second has been Christian Associates International‘s Leadership Summit.
I’ll blog more in depth about both soon, but for now- it’s got me thinking about why Church Planter conferences are so great and church growth/pastor’s conferences are so not.
(By church growth/ pastors conferences I’m thinking of the big, national events with lots of big names, big ticket prices and big… Well, big EVERYTHING.)

Some reasons:

1. Church planter conferences tend toward collaboration, Church growth/pastor conferences toward competition.
The big question at pastor conferences? How big is yours? (Church that is). The feeling is very middle school, with people sizing themselves and others up, clear pecking orders, cool kids, nerds and outcasts… And plenty of comparing yourself against the superstar A-listers on the stage and the B-listers who get invited to tell how cool what they’ve got going is at the various breakout sessions.
It tends to be a different world at Church planter conferences- everyone is either at the same place or only one or two steps removed and can remember clearly and identify with where everyone else is at. The spirit tends to be sharing of stories and wisdom/ resources, rather than the “Let me tell you how I innovated our way to WINNING and how you can too!”

2. Church planter conferences are about encouragement- pastor conferences try, but because of their emphasis on celebrity, end up being demoralizing.

I’ll say this- the big conferences TRY to encourage pastors/leaders, they really do. And often, in spite of the lasers and smoke machines, God does show up and brings encouragement. But because of the very nature of the big stage, the inaccessible superstars, the cutting-edge everything, the end result is often men and women who leave thinking “If only I could speak like that. If only MY church was like that. If only…” they go back not necessarily encouraged in what God is doing in their community/context, but determined about what THEY are going to do next- driven to “take it to the next level.” And when, year after year, the “next level” is not reached, but growth, if at all remains slow, a certain “Why does this work for everyone else but ME?” tends to set in.
Church planter conferences, however, tend to do the opposite. They confirm God in the slow and steady, they help us see God in what is now- however small, however seemingly insignificant. And because of that, while I leave church growth/pastor conferences determined and with a list of things to change and to implement, I tend to leave church planter conferences not with new level of drivenness, but new levels of clarity- clarity about what I’m doing, where God is in it, and what I long to see God do next.

3. Church planter conferences are about connection and you meet new people, while growth/pastor conferences tend to be about resources and programs.

Church planter conferences, at least the ones I go to, tend to be smaller, and that means a different relational dynamic. I went to a large conference in Southern California for years, heard many amazing speakers, got a ton of great ideas- but never made a *friend* I didn’t have already when I walked in the door. And generally, at the end of the day I came to realize- I could have saved a lot of money, listened to all these talks on the internet, bought the books the A and B Listers were inevitably selling, and gotten largely the same result and maybe better if I’d just taken those books and MP3s and sat by a pool somewhere.
But over the last three years of attending small church planter-oriented conferences, I’ve actually made friends. People who know my name, who pray for and encourage me when I need it. People who get the unique challenges I’m facing and that I can pick up the phone and call when I need to… And believe me, I have. I’ve found not just the latest resource or model, but an actual learning community I hope to be journeying with for a long, long time.

4. Church planter conferences are about the small ways we see the Kingdom breaking in, both personally and corporately. Pastor conferences tend to be showcases not of what God is doing, but the best and the latest of what WE are doing.

Gather with five thousand other pastors, pay hundreds of dollars to be there and you have a right to expect exactly what you will get: The best speakers and the latest methods and technology. Watch Ed Young Jr ride an elephant onto the stage? Heck yeah! See some guy dive off a hundred foot tower into a bucket of water? Why not? Listen to one of three sugar-stick messages this superstar is touring the circuit with this year? Absolutely.
This isn’t to say there’s not a sense of inviting experienced and authoritative people to speak to the church planting conferences. But those folks come for a lot less money, they tend to actually hang around and have conversations with people, and all in all, it ends up feeling like someone who actually wants to contribute to your ministry- not fly in, do their thing, grab their check and jet out.
The planter conferences look more like what we actually do- simple worship, dialogue, sometimes bad PowerPoint. But in spite of (and maybe partially because of?) all that, they tend to deepen – not distract you with THE SHOW. The church growth conferences dazzle, but they don’t tend to deepen. They show you what you can have if you just spend more money, hire the right staff, adopt their model…

Am I exaggerating? Sure- a bit. But I’m editorializing here! :)
Does small mean better? No, not necessarily. Ive been to some great larger conferences and some scary smaller ones. Can and does God show up at Catalyst Or some conference with “!” in the title or “Q”? Sure (but even HE has to pay $800 to get into Q). If you can go, go. Have a good time- get out of things like that everything you can.
But understand- we try to convince people that what’s flashy, what’s new, what appeals to our consumer instincts isn’t always what’s best- that God (as Elijah found) is often heard in the still silence, not the flash and bang… And then we often turn around and choose exactly that. The glitz, the show, the “experience.”
I’ve simply become convinced that there’s a whole lot more to the small and non-slick than meets the eye. That maybe my time and money are better spent in smaller environments that can’t “compete” with these big mega-conferences, but also offer some things they could never hope to.
And maybe, if you are in ministry, yours too?

In church planting, Just stirring up trouble
permalink

Yet more sense on the gay marriage issue…

bob —  August 9, 2010

I posted last week something from the archives re my views on issues of marriage and the State, specifically as regards the current tug of war over definitions of marriage, Prop 8 and all the rest.

Here's someone (with no religious POV, as far as I know) who agrees with me- the only way out of this cultural quagmire is to get the State out of the "marriage" business altogether.

 

"While I don‚Äôt think that this is an easy path to adopt, it‚Äôs going to be the eventual solution.  Not only does it take government out of people‚Äôs private lives, it also means an end to a divisive and essentially meaningless debate ‚Äî and it protects houses of faith and ends a potential government interference in matters of religion."

Read the rest here…

 

 

(ht: F. Turk)

In Current Affairs, Just stirring up trouble
permalink

Is It Possible to Have a Win-Win on Same-Sex Marriage?

bob —  July 29, 2010

From the archives (written in 2008)

Is it possible to have a win-win on Same-Sex Marriage (SSM)? I think it’s not only possible- it’s imperative.

The recent passage (and subsequent furor and church protests over) Prop 8 in otherwise reliably liberal California shows just how divided we are over this issue. Want to start an argument? Bring up same-sex marriage and watch the sparks fly and the tempers rise. 

Why? 

Because, at least at this point, neither side seems willing to try and see the issue from the perspective of the other and look for something other than a binary, up or down, yes or no kind of solution. And where will that lead us? Certainly no place good. Look for more protests of churches, more of those who speak out in favor of what they see as the biblical understanding of marriage to be labeled as ‚Äúhaters‚Äù… and fewer and fewer gay men and women even giving the Gospel a hearing because in their mind, the Church simply doesn‚Äôt care about them as people.

In order to avoid an exacerbation of this cultural war, some common sense compromise is going to be necessary- each side is going to have to give up something for the sake of the other. 

On one side, the Church is going to have to realize that gay men and women, in wanting what everyone else has, are asking for something reasonable. Rights of inheritance and property, custody and visitation- all of the rights granted currently by the state in marriage are good things, things we can affirm, even in relationships that we wouldn‚Äôt necessarily endorse. After all, even if we hold a more conservative view on divorce, I don‚Äôt see many churches advocating for divorced couples to lose the right to have custody over their step-children should something happen to their spouse. We may not endorse the relationship, but we can certainly try to understand the desire of those in it to have the same legal rights as other couples. And more than understand it- I think we can advocate for it, and practically demonstrate that we do in fact ‚Äúlove the sinner.‚Äù 

On the other side, those pushing for SSM need to understand the depth of feeling involved in and around the word marriage- what is for many Christians a sacrament and for all Christians sacred. To have the State legislate an understanding of what is essentially a religious term, and to legislate it in a way contrary to the faith and practice of so many is profoundly offensive. This goes beyond legalization into the realm of endorsement and definition, and as such, is qualitatively different than many other culture war issues. 

And as long as we’re talking about “marriage” we’re going to continue to see a stalemate on this issue as those who believe in a "traditional", biblical view of sexuality and those who want the basic rights afforded to others all around them each refuse to give an inch.

So what’s the solution?

The State needs to get out of the ‚Äúmarriage‚Äù business. It should recognize that as long as it uses that term, and continues to privilege certain types of relationships over others this issue is going to divide us as a nation, and is only going to become more and more contentious. We need to move towards the system used in many European countries where the State issues nothing but civil unions to anyone who wants them, and then those who desire it may seek a marriage from the Church. When I pastored in the Netherlands, this was the system- you got a civil union certificate at the courthouse and then a Marriage ceremony at the church. This division largely negated the culture war aspect, and allowed those churches who objected to same sex marriage on biblical grounds not only to opt out, but to be able to continue to teach their biblical view of marriage, uncontradicted by the State. 

But more even than changing our system, we need to change our hearts. I don‚Äôt know how many proponents of gay marriage will be reading this, so I won‚Äôt make much of a plea to them beyond this: please stop labeling the other side of the argument as ‚Äúhate speech‚Äù and bigotry. It‚Äôs not. It is a working out of deep convictions and a particular understanding of sexuality as a good gift from a good Creator, to be used within certain boundaries. Personal animosity doesn‚Äôt enter into the argument- and when it does, it deserves just as much sanction and rebuke from the Church as anything else. 

Ultimately, we in the Church need to change our hearts as well. It is our primary goal that the Gospel of Jesus be heard and understood and that the person of Jesus be esteemed. As we often say in marriage counseling, ‚Äúperception is reality,‚Äù and the sad truth is that right now, the gay community in America doesn‚Äôt think much of us or our Jesus, not based on the offensiveness of our Gospel, but on the offensiveness of our fighting what they see as fundamental human rights. My fear is that we may (for a while longer at least) continue to win battles like Prop 8… but ultimately lose the war in the hearts of a portion of our population who become convinced that the Gospel couldn‚Äôt possibly be Good News to them, based on what they do (or don‚Äôt) see in us. 

In Current Affairs, Just stirring up trouble
permalink

Just in time for the Fourth… “Be Careful What You Worship on July 4″

bob —  July 1, 2010

New article up on Out of Ur… join the discussion!


July 1, 2010

Be Careful What You Worship on July 4

Is national patriotism inconsistent with Christianity?

by Bob Hyatt

I’ve been a part of numerous churches that celebrated American Independence Day with abandon: 80-foot flags hanging from the ceilings, singing the “Star Spangled Banner” and “I’m Proud to Be an American” and even— most disturbing to me as I reflect back—saying the Pledge of Allegiance during our corporate worship.

If some visitor had asked us on those Sunday just what we were worshiping, I think that might have been a very perceptive question.

For many, the Fourth is about gratitude for the blessings of freedom. And as far as that goes, I‚Äôm in complete agreement‚Äîthough to see only the ‚Äúblessings‚Äù of freedom and not also repent of all the many varied and creative ways we‚Äôve abused it might be a bit short-sighted. Still, yes to gratitude.

For others, these celebrations go beyond merely the gratitude and obedience that Scripture commands, into something else, something entirely absent from God’s Word: Patriotism.

Read the rest here

In Just stirring up trouble
permalink