4 CONVERSATIONS

(A short post tonight - it's been a crazy few days.)

Somehow, opportunities arose this week for me to speak with four missionaries. Three current and one former. 

These four conversations had some things in common:

• None descended into small talk.

• Each was longer than my normal day to day conversations. (The longest was several hours.)

• If time had allowed, all could have gone much longer.

• Each wrestled a bit with how to recognize God's will and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

• Any discussion of other people was done with nothing but compassion.

• Each challenged me and stoked a desire to go deeper into my own experience of faith. 

• And finally, each gave me hope.

Maybe I should make this a regular habit!

PLAGIARIZED THEOLOGY

Before the advent of AI, plagiarism was the English teacher's reigning "bane of existence".

I spent hours warning students against plagiarizing the work of other authors. 

From a lawyer's perspective, plagiarism is theft of intellectual property. And it carries a penalty. 

It is not illegal to steal ideas, of course - those are there for the taking - but one cannot "borrow" someone else's words or even their sentence structure. (You don't avoid a charge of plagiarism by using a thesaurus to swap out a few of the original words with their synonyms.)

I would often push the possibility of legal consequences of "copying and pasting" to instill a bit of fear in my students.

But my real concern over any student copying his source was that it proved the student had been lazy and had not really gained understanding of the concepts under review. 

This is the reason English teachers repeat the refrain "Put this in your own words". It is proof of comprehension.  

So the first problem with plagiarism is that the student has not actually learned anything at all.

A second and related problem sometimes occurs: With no understanding of his own, the student has no way to judge his source's expertise or veracity. He can only hope it is valid and relevant information. Every English teacher heaves a great sigh at finding Wikipedia in a student's bibliography. 

I say all this to draw a parallel to how theology and doctrines are conveyed and "learned" by most Christians: 

• Being able to parrot your sources - books, podcasts, or your own preacher - does not prove you have true comprehension. You will not be able to fool the Teacher. 

• Worse yet, if you possess no independent, firsthand understanding of Jesus or Scripture, how do you know you can trust your sources? 

CAN YOU EXPRESS IT?

“The person who says he knows what he thinks but cannot express it usually does not know what he thinks.” - Mortimer Adler

If this happens in the context of Christian beliefs, it's a sound bet the person conceives of faith as primarily a mental assent to various propositional truths. 

He can repeat "what" he has read in books or heard from the pulpit, especially if it has been repeated often. 

But if you ask him the "how" and the "why", you will get nothing but stammering or shrugging. 

In the best case scenario, that momentary embarrassment becomes the impetus for digging into Scripture with a genuine desire to gain a firsthand faith. 

In the worst case scenario, the status quo of the American church is preserved at least one day more. 

WRITING TO LEARN

This is true and it's one of the main benefits I have discovered from writing daily:

"Writing is the process by which you realize that you do not understand what you are talking about. Of course, you can learn a lot about something without writing about it. However, writing about something complicated and hard to pin down acts as a test to see how well you understand it."

From The Farnam Street Blog

Every believer would benefit greatly from daily journaling, even if nobody else ever laid eyes on it. 

NEEDING TO BE CONVINCED

"Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!"

Peter almost ended his relationship with Jesus before it got off the ground.

He listened to Jesus' teachings for a short time, and then Jesus caused Peter's fishing net to overflow with fish after being lowered into waters where the experienced fisherman knew there were no fish to be had. 

A miracle.

And then?

Overwhelmed with the sense of his own sinfulness, Peter wanted to put distance between himself and the Son of God. 

It's almost as if Peter, anticipating God's rejection, decided to beat Him to the punch. 

Preachers and evangelists are always saying "People have to hear the bad news before they're ready for the good news".

By this they mean "I need to convince unbelievers they are God-haters, incapable of good, and unworthy of God's love." 

Worthy, in fact, only of death and hell. 

(I can't imagine a better foundation for a close, lifelong relationship with God!)

What if the thing people really need convincing of is that God has not rejected them? 

FEAR NOT

When Jesus first used Peter's fishing boat as an impromptu pulpit and then commanded him to put down his nets for a catch, the haul was so large that the nets began to tear under the weight.

What happened next seems to be the climax of the story. And perhaps the most significant aspect was what did not happen.

Note carefully: It was not that Peter asked to follow Jesus - only to have Jesus respond, "Depart from me, for you are a sinful man".

No, it was the exact opposite. 

Peter fell on his knees and pleaded with Jesus, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man" ... only to have Jesus invite him to follow. (Luke 5:8) In fact, Jesus promised to put Peter to work as a "fisher of men". 

After the very first sin, it was Adam who hid from God.

Not vice versa. 

Jesus told Peter, "Fear not". 

DIRT OR DUST?

Certain preachers (especially those of the Calvinist persuasion) paint humanity as dirt - foul and worthless.

Certainly not something to be loved. But something to be disdained. And punished. Avoided, maybe, too.

Even from birth.

Voddie Baucham likes to say that babies are "vipers in diapers". 

And his audience laughs and applauds.

He speaks this way of Yahweh's image-bearers!

The ones whom He made "a little lower than the angels" and then "crowned ... with glory and honor". (Psalm 8:5)

Inspired by the Holy Spirit, King David reminded God's people:

"As a father has compassion on his children,

so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.

For He knows our frame;

He is mindful that we are dust." (Psalm 103:13-14)

God doesn't see dirt when He looks at us. 

He sees dust. 

And that's not to say He sees us as filthy and disposable. 

It means He sees us as fragile and needing extra care.

BLESSED

So many reasons to consider myself blessed this year. But much too tired to list them all. So here's one:

Thanksgiving Day was our first full day together as a family since last May and it was a good one. Here are a couple of photos of the four siblings enjoying a ride together in Sarah's little convertible. 

Imagine that: the baby of the family driving the other 3 home from Grandma's house after a big turkey lunch! Times are a-changing.

ASYMMETRY

I came across a concept that might help explain the present state of American culture. And much of life in general. 

I heard it explained on Chris Williamson's Modern Wisdom Podcast #675.

Since this is a family-friendly blog, we shall call it The Bullsnot Asymmetry Principle.

Simply stated, the principle goes like this: 

It takes far less energy to produce bullsnot than to refute it. 

Therefore, the world is filled with unrefuted bullsnot.

When I was younger, I often wondered, if the Truth is the Truth, why does it always seem to be the minority position? 

The BS Asymmetry Principle says there will always be much more BS in this world than Truth. 

(At least until the trumpet sounds and a certain Someone comes down on the clouds.) 

[P.S. Melissa and I will head to the airport in about 30 minutes to pick up Samuel - returning from a trip to Mexico - and Caleb - on a short leave from Fort Moore, Georgia. Though unplanned, they will land within 30 minutes of each other. What are the chances? Hannah is already home, so the whole family will be together for about 3 days, starting Thanksgiving Day and we are thrilled.]

THE MORE I LEARN

I listen to theological debates on YouTube sometimes in the mornings while I exercise or get myself ready for the day.

A large part of the fascination for me is how two people can confidently hold diametrically opposed opinions, try to persuade each other ... and not gain an inch of concession.

I always end up rooting for the one who strikes me as most humble.

Albert Einstein famously said, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”

Too many Christians seem to operate more like this: "The more I learn, the more arrogant, condescending, and dogmatic I become."

SCIENCE SET TO THE RIGHT JOB

In my dissertation I intend to put what social scientists have learned about habit formation, willpower, and self-discipline to use in helping believers achieve a healthy and consistent personal study of Scripture.

I anticipate needing to make the case that science is not opposed to faith and is not to be distrusted. 

(I know this because one of my professors already expressed reservations about my using scientific findings in this way!) 

I came across reinforcement for my approach while listening to C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity today:

"Christianity has not, and does not profess to have, a detailed political programme for applying ‘Do as you would be done by’ to a particular society at a particular moment. It could not have. It is meant for all men at all times and the particular programme which suited one place or time would not suit another. And, anyhow, that is not how Christianity works. When it tells you to feed the hungry it does not give you lessons in cookery. When it tells you to read the Scriptures it does not give you lessons in Hebrew and Greek, or even in English grammar. It was never intended to replace or supersede the ordinary human arts and sciences: it is rather a director which will set them all to the right jobs, and a source of energy which will give them all new life, if only they will put themselves at its disposal." (Emphasis mine, page 82)

Isn't it strange? If we applaud the expertise of linguists and historians and gladly use their discoveries to further our understanding of Scripture, why would we distance ourselves from the expertise of the social scientists and neurologists who can give us insight into developing the discipline needed to do that study on a regular basis?

Science is not the enemy of faith. 

It can and should be the servant of faith and "set to the right job". 

EZEKIEL IS INTERESTING!

Can anyone point me in the direction of a Calvinist sermon on Ezekiel 18?

Particularly verses 20 to 23:

20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. A son will not bear the iniquity of his father, and a father will not bear the iniquity of his son. The righteousness of the righteous man will fall upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked man will fall upon him.

21 But if the wicked man turns from all the sins he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the transgressions he has committed will be held against him. Because of the righteousness he has practiced, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Lord GOD. Wouldn’t I prefer that he turn from his ways and live?

Or 30 to 32: 

30 Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, so that your iniquity will not become your downfall. 31 Cast away from yourselves all the transgressions you have committed, and fashion for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, O house of Israel?

32 For I take no pleasure in anyone’s death, declares the Lord GOD. So repent and live!

Actually, I would love to hear ANY preaching on these verses. They seem a little problematic for lots of traditional approaches to theology. 

"Fashion for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit" sounds rather monergistic, but with the human doing all the work rather than God! It is certainly not a verse you would want to rip from its context and build a systematic theology around.

SELF-DISCIPLINE ADVANTAGE

Successful business people, Olympic athletes, and professional musicians have this in common: they are known for their extraordinary self-discipline.

Are Christians? Do we eat healthier, exercise more, and foster positive morning routines like prayer and Bible study?

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see that trend among the general church population to any noticeable degree.

If we aren't known for self-discipline, what are we known for?

Are believers known for their love?

For being joyful?

Are we full of peace?

Known to be patient and kind?

Do we have the reputation of being good, faithful, and gentle?

It seems to me that all those characteristics would be associated with believers to a much greater extent than "self-disciplined" would be.

But you may have already recognized that list of good characteristics. 

These are the fruit of the Spirit from Galatians 5.

Self-control is also on that list, though. So why don't we see more of it? 

After all, we have a pronounced advantage over any secular business people, athletes, and musicians - We have available to us a self-control fostered by God's Holy Spirit!

THIS BLOG'S GREATEST ACCOMPLISHMENT

Next month I will be completing three years of writing (almost) daily here. I guess I am "proud" of that accomplishment and it has improved my writing and editing skills.

And that's been valuable to me.

But as far as having eternal value to the Kingdom goes, the greatest accomplishment of this little blog has been playing a not-insignificant role in introducing two individual missionaries to Cap Haitien Christian School. And they are both currently serving there.

The first, Kacie, has been there many years now! 

The second just arrived in country two weeks ago: Joel Zizi is there to teach 6th grade through 9th English and PE. 

Tonight he sent me his first photo-packed newsletter from the field and two things struck me:

1. He looks like a natural fit in the classroom. And in Haiti in general. 
2. I am homesick for Haiti.

Tomorrow is Vertieres Day - a national holiday in Haiti. It's the day all the missionaries always made our substitute Thanksgiving. We have so many great memories of November 18ths in Haiti in particular. 

I miss it dearly!

If you have a heart for Haiti and want to support either of the two missionaries this blog has had a small hand in getting to Cap Haitien Christian School, you can go to their support pages by clicking on their names below:

Joel Zizi

Kacie St. Fidor

I know they both are doing great work for God's Kingdom and both could use a little extra financial support.

WHICH CREED DO YOU HOLD TO?

I got the attention of a Calvinist YouTuber - Daily Theology 1689 - by posting the following comment on his video, "Election is Biblical":

"It's good to see a Calvinist openly admit they see "faith" as a "work". (Although Scripture obviously does not.) Most go to great lengths to dance around this."

He chose to engage with me to show me where I was wrong in opposing Calvinism, and before long he was asking me, "What is the gospel?"

I replied: "Everlasting life and reconciliation with your Creator has been made available to humanity through the life, death, and resurrection of God's Son for whosoever believes."

I thought that would rile him up (because of the "whosoever"), but the whole thing threw him for a loop. He next asked:

"Do you affirm that God is a Trinity? Jesus is fully God and fully man? What creed or confession do you hold to?"

I had no doubt what the answer was for him - it's right there in his YouTube name: He's a devotee of the London Baptist Confession of 1689. 

(Those guys apparently got everything 100% correct and there's been no need for any believers to do any digging or questioning of their own in the past 334 years.)

I wrote back, "Yes, Yes, and there's no particular creed or confession that I pledge allegiance to. Why do you ask?"

This really got to him:

"Without a statement of faith it's difficult to discuss or understand where you are coming from. It may be helpful to write your own statement of faith, affirmations and denials."

But you know what? That's what I am actively avoiding these days. 

I don't have a problem with saying something like "Here's what I currently believe regarding X, Y, and Z theological issues."

But I will not tie my identity to any such position.

And I refuse to equate the affirmation of certain propositions about God - what we casually call "beliefs" - with actual saving belief in Christ. 

INROADS

For 3 years, my mission agency - Mission Resource - has been praying and advocating for the innovative work of OrganiLock, the Kentucky  company with an organic fertilizer we believe could revolutionize farming worldwide and revive soil everywhere. 

Kind of a big deal.

Since God first introduced Mission Resource and OrganiLock, we have wanted to see the potential of their fertilizer unleashed in soils across Africa. 

Not long ago, Mission Resource sent our first shipment of OrganiLock fertilizer to Ghana. Now we are helping to send 4 tons to Malawi. 

And other opportunities are starting to multiply!

Just last week an OrganiLock representative, Joshua Miller, attended the International Agriculture Conference in Florida, coming away with serious inquiries from operations in Cameroon, Cambodia, and India! For 30 years this conference has been gathering together missionaries and agricultural specialists to network and share advances. It is sponsored by ECHO, a Christ-centered ministry focused on teaching farming best practices. 

ECHO's work reaches 190 countries!

By conference end, ECHO itself decided to use OrganiLock fertilizer at their test farm in Florida! 

Please pray for OrganiLock's leadership and the doors opening for our partnership on the mission field. 

I am convinced: Big Things are Coming!

ROCKSTAR

When I was teaching teenagers, I would sometimes point out to them how easy it would be these days for them to distinguish themselves from teenage peers in the workplace.

The bar is set so low that all it takes to stand out is basic considerations like showing up on time, refraining from phone scrolling during work hours, and being friendly to customers. 

If you do those things, I would tell the teens, you will be considered a rockstar by your employer. 

So simple.

And it seems to me that one could say something similar to American Christian adults.

(I try not to be too negative about the modern American church, but there's also no use in denying reality.)

 It would be super easy to stand out among American church members these days: pray regularly, study the Bible on your own time, and support the church and missions with your resources - time, energy, and dollars.

So simple, but you would automatically be in the top 5% of believers nationwide.

A rockstar of the faith.

So why don't more believers do it? I suppose for the same reason more teens don't put effort into their afterschool jobs ...

Not many care to be rockstars.

THE LORD

What do you do when faced with a faith tradition nearly universally honored and almost never questioned but you decide is kind of suspect?

This is how it is with Bible translations substituting "LORD" for God's proper name, "YHWH", usually transliterated as "Yahweh". 

"Yahweh" is specifically given first to Moses as God's name all the way back at the burning bush. It then appears nearly 7,000 other times throughout Scripture.

But somehow a few centuries before the birth of Christ, the Jews started substituting "Adonai" (which meant lord or master) for Yahweh in both the copying and the public reading of Scripture. 

The justification was this: We don't want to risk breaking the 3rd commandment of "taking (Yahweh's) name in vain". And so, because it is so holy, we won't say it or write it.

Later, Christians followed suit and continued this tradition.

But why did the scribes and teachers decide it was within their rights to make such a major change to Yahweh's inspired word? Why would He offer His name in the first place - and tell Moses to use it with the Israelites when explaining Who sent him - if He didn't want anyone to ever utter it? 

To me, it's not that it is inappropriate to refer to the Supreme Being of the Universe as "God" or as "Lord", obviously, but either of those options creates quite a bit more distance than His personal name would. 

Jesus' use of "Father" brings a distant "God" or "Lord" much closer again, which is good. But how should a modern Christian preacher deal with "LORD" throughout the Old Testament? 

Just ignore the underlying reality? Or start reading it as "Yahweh"?

GOD IS GOOD

You have probably heard this short back and forth repeated during a worship service:

    Leader: "God is good."

    People: "All the time."

    Leader: "All the time."

    People: "God is good."

I used to roll my eyes at preachers who would make weekly use of this mantra. I thought it was so simple and so obvious that I couldn't imagine any reason to repeat it. 

But these days I am convinced that God the Father has a PR problem. 

But it's not of His own making.

I suppose it is a result of our shame and guilt, but we imagine God to be angry, vindictive, and demanding. We only avoid the burn of His wrath and disappointment from day to day because - thankfully - He is also standoffish and distant. 

But what if God is much kinder, more loving, more gentle and patient and compassionate and ... simply GOOD than we tend to give Him credit for?

I am beginning to think believers cannot be reminded often enough: God is good.

FLOATING

For several weeks I have been chewing on a recurring mental image: my experience years ago at Porter Pool, learning how to float on my back.

Did you learn the back float too? It is so counter-intuitive. 

If you relax and tilt your head back a bit, keep your chin up, you will find the water will support you. And it is magical. It's like the water is your bed!

But it's so difficult to get to that level of trust for the water. 

The beginning floater sees the water as a threat. And because the water is dangerous, he tries to protect himself. He tries to keep his head up out of the water so he can watch his own toes, to make sure they are near the surface.

As soon as he does, though, down his toes sink and he finds himself flailing about in the water. Maybe even getting a nose full.

I think putting your faith in Jesus is like that. As long as you lay back in his arms, you find that he supports you entirely and you are at peace. It's without effort on your part beyond the posture of your heart.

But if your fear of God - the unhealthy sort of fear - gets the better of you, you take matters into your own hands and then down you go. Flailing.

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: When you are trusting in your own efforts at self-protection, the water becomes dangerous.  

PREACH IT?

Maybe I have just missed it, but I don't recall ever hearing a Calvinist preach on Luke 15, the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

And that makes sense since it seems like the most counter-Calvin parable of them all:

• One son strays but the other never does.
• The straying son "comes to his senses" and takes the initiative to return to his Father. He's not dragged home irresistibly by his Father.
• The Father declares that this son was "once dead but is now alive". But how? The son simply returned to his Father. The Father was certainly full of grace, but there is no work of the Holy Spirit even hinted at here. And no regeneration preceding faith.

I think the last point should be the most troubling for the Calvinist. They are the ones who say, "Dead means dead, and a dead man can do nothing" - as a proof for total depravity requiring unconditional election. 

But here the Father uses the deadness metaphor with a single clear meaning: 

Deadness and Lostness = Separation from the Father.

The son becomes "alive" and "found" by returning to the Father.

There is one aspect of this parable, though, I would think a Calvinist preacher could relate to:

The older son. 

SENDING OF THE FICKLE

This Sunday I am preaching on Luke 10 where Jesus sends 72 disciples out to proclaim, "The Kingdom of God is near".

I went back to Luke 9 to make sure I understood the context and - wow - there's a lot going on in chapter 9.

And most of it casts the disciples in a very poor light.

Here's what they get right:

• The 12 are sent out to preach the Gospel door to door (9:6). They go willingly and apparently accomplish the task.
• Beyond preaching, they also heal the sick (9:6). 
• At least one of the disciples, Peter, correctly confesses Jesus as God’s anointed, the Christ (9:20).

But otherwise, their record throughout chapter 9 is dismal:

1. They fail to imagine how it could be possible to feed the 5,000 (9:13).
2. Peter wants to camp out on the Mount of Transfiguration (9:33) It's clear this was a mistake: Scripture pointedly states, “He did not know what he was saying.”
3. The 9 disciples left behind while 3 accompanied Jesus up the mountain fail to cast out a demon torturing a boy and his family in Jesus' absence (9:40). Jesus is ticked off. (He had already specifically given them authority to cast out demons in 9:1.)
4. They don't understand what Jesus is talking about when he says he will be "delivered into the hands of men", but they are too afraid to ask him for clarification (9:45).
5. They argue among themselves about who is the greatest (9:46)
6. John wants to stop an outsider from casting out demons because "he is not one of us" (9:49).
7. James and John offer to call down fire from heaven to destroy a Samaritan village which refuses to welcome Jesus (9:54).  “Jesus turned and rebuked them.” (9:55)
8. Several disciples on the fringes make half-sincere pledges to follow Jesus: “I will follow, but first …” (9:57-62). Jesus is stern with them: “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.” (9:62)

Do these not parallel some of the worst tendencies of the modern American church?

1. Failure of imagination. No expectation of the miraculous.
2. Seeking out mountain top experiences and camping there.
3. Underestimating our role - and authority and power - as Jesus' hands and feet, and so, unable to minister to those who are truly in need.
4. Misunderstanding Jesus' teaching, but taking no initiative to get clarification.
5. Using religion as a means of exerting power and influence and furthering our own reputation.
6. Opposing those outside our theological circle. They can't possibly be doing God's will!
7. Jumping at opportunities to pronounce God's judgment on the culture around us.
8. Wanting to have Jesus ... just not as a genuine priority in life.

And yet, there is Jesus at the start of Luke 10 again sending out these fallible, fickle disciples - this time 72 of them - to proclaim, "The Kingdom of God is near". 

DID LAZARUS WRITE THE 4TH GOSPEL?

What if the traditional assumptions are wrong?

I hope you find the following question intriguing rather than controversial:

Could it be that the real author of the Gospel of John - known only as the “Beloved Disciple” in the text - is not John, the son of Zebedee, as traditionally assumed - but instead Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha, whom Jesus raised from the dead?

This possibility has been proposed by Dr. Ben Witherington III, a well-respected New Testament scholar and author who teaches at my alma mater, Asbury Theological Seminary.

It seems a strange theory at first, but if it is true, it answers so many questions!

• If he's just a Galilean fisherman, how does the author of the Gospel gain entrance to the High Priest’s house on the night of Jesus’ arrest?
• If he's one of the original 12, how is the author at the cross when the other 3 Gospels make clear the disciples all scattered?
• Why does the author take note of Jesus' grave clothes at the tomb ... and then believe? Is it because he remembers stumbling out of his own tomb wrapped in similar clothes?
• Why does a rumor get started that the author will not die? Is it because he's already been dead once?

Dr. Witherington’s blog post is a fairly lengthy read, but well-worth the effort.

THE JOYS OF CAR OWNERSHIP PART 2

Lesson #4: "Persist in Prayer". 

And her father returned to the park the next morning with a leaf blower and persistent prayer. 

And after several hours of searching, when he found the one and only key to her cute little VW convertible, he screamed "Yes!" and called to a sweet older couple walking close by, "Rejoice with me for I have found the key which had been lost!"

And the older couple kindly obliged.

And I literally cried. And not just because I knew I wasn't going to have to pay hundreds of dollars to break into Sarah's car, have it towed somewhere, and then have a key made from scratch.

It was because I learned some things about prayer today.

Which in itself, at the metalevel, was an answer to my persistent prayer for the last few months - "Lord, teach me how to pray."

(P.S. It is still a mystery how the key fob fell off the key ring in the first place. There's no readily apparent rational explanation.)

THE JOYS OF CAR OWNERSHIP

Sarah got a lesson today after school: Intro to The Joys of Car Ownership. 

It was a rare November day with temperatures hitting the upper 70s, and since Sarah has owned her VW Bug convertible for just a few (cold) weeks, she was looking for an excuse to drive somewhere with the top down.

I suggested taking the dogs to Mill Race Park on the other side of town.

The dogs were not sure what to make of open air driving, but Sarah and I were in 7th heaven.

Lesson #1: "There's a reason people love convertibles."

I admit I have been a bit skeptical of this car. It was purchased not because it was practical or got great gas mileage or was rated high in safety. 

No, the only thing that really mattered was that it was "cute".

It had some issues from day one - most notably the fact that it only had one key. Not a big deal, though - we all agreed - we just need to prioritize getting a copy made soon. 

Other little issues have cropped up since Sarah brought it home: touchy power windows, the vinyl detaching from the inside of the driver's door, and a little puddle on the passenger seat after a heavy rain.

But all of that faded into the background as we buzzed through downtown Columbus with the top down in Sarah's cute car.

We parked, Sarah put the top up, and locked her Bug up tight before we headed toward the pond at the center of the park.

And what an afternoon to be outside! We ran through leaves, walked across the covered bridge, and roamed the banks of the river.

After at least an hour of time and a mile of distance, the dogs were tuckered and we were ready to get back to the car. 

Mission Accomplished: Perfect afternoon in the bag.

It was time for Lesson #2.

As we approached the car, Sarah went to pull her key from the side of her purse and found the key ring empty! 

Lesson #2: "You really should have prioritized getting a second key."

@#%*!!!!! 💩

We retraced our steps - through half a million fallen leaves - until we lost all light and all hope. 

All to no avail. Melissa rescued us and the dogs at sunset. 

Tomorrow morning I will pray and look again, hopefully aided by a magnet or a metal detector. 

We are hoping to avoid Lesson #3: "How much it costs to get a key made when there is no original to copy."

A MEME

I made a meme about Calvinism. 

Specifically its doctrine of exhaustive divine determinism. (Which Calvinists tend to call God's "sovereignty".)

R.C. Sproul once said that God has meticulously decreed and controlled every atom in the universe throughout all time. And if there was a single "rogue molecule", then God's sovereignty would be negated. 

So in the Calvinist system, the thoughts, actions, and words of every human to ever live were all decreed by God before the foundation of the world.

And yet somehow humans exercise enough "free will" to make them guilty of the sins they commit, and God - though He is the first cause of all things - is not held responsible as the author of those sins. 

On the contrary, the Calvinist God is worthy of all glory because He has pre-elected a few human beings to experience His love and grace for eternity. (The others He created for the sole purpose of damning - for the sins they committed by His decree from the foundation of the world.)

Not sure how all that fits together exactly!

To me it looks like this:

(In the original Simpsons episode, Homer was toasting "alcohol".)

NOT A FAN OF JC

This is a follow up to yesterday's post about author Dennis McKinsey and his apparent obsession with proving the Bible to be full of errors. While I was on his Amazon page for his masterpiece The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, curiosity drove me to read some of the reviews. 

I discovered that McKinsey's audience is happy to consume what he is feeding them. Lots of 5 star reviews!

Below you will find a review fairly representative of McKinsey's readers and their impressive analytical skills.

(I found it equal parts hilarious, tragic, and frustrating.)

[McKinsey] shows that the Bible is so loaded with errors that it can't possibly have been guided by God. It is a purely human work, and a lousy one at that. McKinsey proves that beyond all doubt. A few specifics about JC (Jesus Christ):

He spoke mostly about morality and about his intimate relationship with God, but his behavior was anything but what "God's son" should be. He was rude, impatient, violent at times, insulting, and quite anti-family. Bibliolaters who say Christianity is the last hope for the traditional family apparently don't know beans about JC. And JC's moral teachings such as the SCILF (Sermon on the Contradictorily Identified Landscape Feature: Matthew-mountain but Luke-plain) said very little that's not implied by the Golden Rule. And despite desperate assertions by fans of JC, he was NOT in the earth for 3 days; Friday night to Sunday morning is 1.5 days, even with the Jewish way of counting days.

Seems like he learned a lot!

I don't know about you, but this almost makes me want to read the book for myself. 

Unfortunately, it's $60.

PAUL'S "MISQUOTE"

As I was doing some research for my sermon today, I came across a quote from an author I had never heard of: Dennis McKinsey.

Apparently McKinsey has made a career out of criticizing the Bible. Over the last several decades he has maintained some sort of journal on "Biblical Errancy" and produced an "encyclopedia" filled with all the mistakes he has located in the Scriptures. 

But the snippet I read from McKinsey was rather unimpressive for a self-professed "scholar" of the Bible. It was in regard to Paul making his farewell speech to the Ephesians in Acts 20 which concludes with this line in v.35: "In everything, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus Himself: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

Everyone knows Jesus said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive", but I have to admit that I had never realized this sentence never shows up in any of the Gospels. It's found only here in Acts, quoted secondhand by Paul.

This is the sort of "mistake" that catches McKinsey's eye and engages his sharp skills of textual criticism:

"One of the great misquotes of Paul is found in Acts 20:35 where he says: “…ye ought to support the weak and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus make such a statement. Paul’s oratory apparently got away from him."

Did you catch that? It's a "misquote" because the sentence isn't found anywhere in the Gospels! 

It's a safe guess that McKinsey operates with the presupposition that the supernatural does not exist, so one can't blame him for ignoring the fact that Paul claims to have met Jesus on the road to Damascus and then later to have been "taught by Jesus". It seems Paul might have been able to claim he heard things from Jesus that nobody else heard - which makes sense if one believes in the supernatural.

But even if McKinsey refuses to buy into the possibility of the supernatural, surely he does not assume that every single word of Jesus' teachings were recorded in the Gospels? Or that none of Jesus' teachings that didn't get written down by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John could have possibly been preserved and spread by other people? 

In fact, many actual biblical scholars don't believe that Paul necessarily had access to ANY of the Gospels during the lifetime of his ministry. The early church grew in an oral culture and the only Scripture it held collectively was the Old Testament.

Now THAT is something to ponder. 

TEACH ME TO PRAY

There are so many great books out there with useful teaching about prayer, but if you are looking to grow in your prayer life, today I offer a simple but life-changing approach to prayer that has impacted my spiritual life immensely over the last 4 months. (And I am just getting started!)

And it is straightforward: If you truly want to learn how to pray, do what the disciples did and ask Jesus Himself to teach you. (Luke 11:1-4)

So each day I make this request of God: “Lord, teach me to pray”. And then I listen as closely as I can. 

It sounds too simple to be useful, but this practice has become a check on:

• My sincerity: Do I REALLY want to grow in prayer?
• My ignorance: There ARE ever deeper levels of prayer to explore!
• My dependence: Prayer doesn’t come naturally - I NEED guidance.

If you want to try this for yourself, here’s a practical tip: To make “Lord, teach me to pray” part of your daily routine, set a reminder on your phone or use a reliable cue like the moment your feet hit the floor first thing in the morning or when you pour a cup of coffee or brush your teeth. 

And if you DO choose to take this as a daily habit yourself, I would love to hear your experience with it … a few weeks or months or years from now!  

There is so much to learn about prayer! Thankfully, Jesus is a patient teacher.

One day at a time.

EAT LIKE AN ADULT

In his book Reframe Your Brain, Scott Adams talks about how it is often possible to change your actions and habits simply by reframing your reality.

For example, he speaks of giving up alcohol by moving from the familiar frame of "Alcohol is a beverage to enjoy" to a new frame of "Alcohol is poison". 

Over time, by identifying alcohol in his own mind with something as negative as poison, Adams simply lost interest in drinking. 

Throughout the book, he suggests various reframes to combat common life challenges, but he says the real power is in finding your own. They can pop up at any time and, if they are "sticky" for you, they can shape your focus and your habits.

I am beginning to test one that I hope will help me eat healthier on a daily basis (and stop putting on extra pounds). 

My usual frame has been: I am trying to eat healthy.

My new frame is: I am going to eat like an adult.

The truth of the matter is that although my diet IS probably healthier than the average American's, I eat ice cream almost daily and I snack on way too much candy. 

Since I haven't been able to kick my ice cream and candy habits by telling myself these things are "unhealthy", I will be curious to see if reframing them as "childish" might help. 

I am just getting started, but "childish" does seem sticky to me and somehow I feel my desire to "be a grown up" might prove stronger than my desire to be healthy.

Not sure why! But Adams says that reframes don't have to make sense or even be true to work. They just have to redirect your thinking.