Previous month:
August 2018
Next month:
October 2018

Posts from September 2018

The Real Results of the Kavanaugh Hearing

Some of you remember Robert Bork. I was a sophomore in college when President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Bork to fill the vacated US Supreme Court seat of retiring justice Lewis Powell. I remember reading about Judge Bork and observing the process of his nomination and subsequent denial by the Senate as part of a US Government class I was taking that semester. I was intrigued that this man was being opposed in such a strong way by the senators of the opposition party to the President. It was a clear that a political wrestling match was occurring before the American people. Ultimately, Judge Bork was rejected and his name became a verb. From that moment, regardless which US President was serving, when a Supreme Court nominee faced challenging questions and opposition from those on the judiciary committee, the threat of being "Borked" has come up.

Now, another name may become a verb. Judge Brett Kavanaugh has gone from being well known in a small area of the legal and political world to being the lead story on all American news networks in addition to many international ones. His name has been trending on social media for over a week. 

Kavanaugh's Nomination

When US Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement earlier this summer, speculation began regarding whom President Trump would nominate. This is the second court seat to be filled in the Trump presidency and while there was clearly opposition to Justice Neal Gorsuch when nominated, he was approved and began serving on the court in April 2017.

Supreme-court-building-usa-washington-front

Justice Anthony Kennedy has long been considered the swing vote on the Supreme Court. President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Kennedy after Robert Bork was "Borked" and when Reagan's second choice, Douglas Ginsburg withdrew his name when it was discovered he has smoked marijuana (boy - how times have changed.)

Kavanaugh's Accusers

For the first few weeks after Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh the nation was presented with images of the judge and his family with stories of their meeting, public service, and family stories centered around their daughters and sports.

Then an accusation of sexual misconduct and attempted rape appeared. At first, it seemed like an old-fashioned "whisper campaign." The accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and research psychologist at the Stanford School of Medicine, claimed that while in high school she attended a party with other students from the area. At that party, one of the students, Brett Kavanaugh, attempted to sexually violate her. 

Once her story was made public, it spread like wildfire. It became the political weapon for the opposition to Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. 

If We Could Get Beyond the Politics

I won't go through all the machinations that have taken place over the past week regarding Dr. Ford's accusations and Judge Kavanaugh's denials. Those stories are provided in depth in various places.

Yet, on Thursday of last week both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh were given time to present their respective cases and answer questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Since this is 2018, the events were televised and livestreamed so that all who wished to be in the room, could be. 

I watched the spectacle on Thursday as did many Americans. I read the trending tweets and updates throughout the day and it became clear that many were not to be swayed in their opinions of either Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh. In fact, some were clearly stating that regardless what may or may not have come from the questioning, their minds were made up.

Interesting. But, that's politics in a divided nation.

These two professionals were placed before the nation to discuss incidents that allegedly had occurred over 35 years ago. The events in question are terrible, traumatic, and not to be ignored nor taken lightly. Suddenly the mystery accuser was more than a blurry two-dimensional image copied from a social media page. At the same time, the smiling father and husband was presented as an accused man trying to clear his name. 

While these two individuals and their families were basically on trial for the nation, political posturing, preparation for future elections, and attempts to win in the "sound-bite" wars by the Senators at the dais. It was nasty. It was disturbing. It was embarrassing.

Who was credible?

Regarding Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, I agree with Dr. Albert Mohler's take on this from Friday's "The Briefing" podcast:

There are objective criteria, but the judgments that we make about whom we consider to be credible, that turns out to be very subjective. It's subjective when we think about buying a car from an individual. it's subjective when we think about calling someone as pastor of a church. It's subjective when we think about the entire process of courtship and marriage. There are objective realities, but sometimes the most fundamental disposition of the heart is nothing that can be stipulated or measured in objective terms.

That doesn't mean, however, that it is not important that we face these kinds of questions, even running the risk of that kind of subjective interpretation.

Now, what was the interpretation made by the American people? It's going to be virtually impossible to come to know that except in general terms. But even in the immediate aftermath of the hearings, it became very clear that to most keen observers looking fairly at the process, both of these individuals came across as credible.

As I have talked with others, and from the mouths of Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh themselves, I believe that Dr. Ford did face a sexual attack that has scarred her since age 15. I have no idea if it was Brett Kavanaugh. He denies that vehemently. I believe that, under oath, each of these individuals have sought to tell the truth. I only believe that because they do come across as credible and because of the severity of punishment if found to be lying under oath. 

Can There Be Two Truths?

In the postmodern era of truthiness, we often hear of "your truth" and "my truth" and there is an acceptance of this. Yet, there is no such thing as individual truths that contradict. You cannot have your truth where 2+2=4 and then I have my truth where 2+2=8 and both be true. One will be true. The other will not. Or, in many cases, both will be untrue.

So, in the case of the high school party in question, there are two accounts where each individual affirms with 100% accuracy that their version is true. It cannot be. 

Does that mean someone is lying? Well, that's always a possibility. People lie all the time. It's part of the sin nature of humanity and has been documented since the days of Adam (Genesis 3). It could mean that someone is mistaken, unintentionally. Maybe that's my offering of the "benefit of the doubt?"

The Real Results of This Hearing

Regardless how this Supreme Court appointment plays out, I could not help but think of how this spectacle has played out and what this means for people in our communities, our families, and our churches. 

  • The #MeToo movement is real. We've seen the takedown of such notables in society as movie producers, actors, religious leaders, and politicians. This is actually good and has needed to occur. Based on how Dr. Ford has been utilized in this story by political power players, my concern is that women who have been attacked, molested, and traumatized will hear a message that unintentionally come across. That message is that their accounts are not valid and are best kept quiet. Sure, there are cases where women (and men) make up stories to draw attention to themselves. I'm not saying Dr. Ford has done so. Her testimony was credible. There's no reason to think that she had not experienced such an attack. 
  • An accusation is all it takes to take out someone. This is an unfortunate result of the fast-growing #MeToo movement. In this moment, an accusation of misconduct can and has resulted in men (mostly, but women as well) being judged in the court of public opinion, regardless of verifiable proof of wrong actions. In some cases, jobs have been lost, positions of influence abandoned, and a public trust forsaken.
  • Politics is dirty. It always has been, but these hearings have presented a posturing for future power along with a "civil" debate from false friends who are at times more concerned with holding onto their positions of influence rather than seeking what is best for the nation (regardless how many times they state that they are doing what they're doing for the good of the nation.) Though this is a generalized statement and it is easy to pick on politicians at times, there were and are some on the dais and serving in our state and nation who rise above the rest. The discerning eye and ear can find the outliers.
  • There is no condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1) but there are consequences. If you were to have watched the hearings and could possibly set aside the sexual misconduct accusations (you cannot, but for the sake of this point, work with me here) you see a man who has had a thriving and successful career. For over 30 years in public life, he has been lauded and affirmed. He has received many accolades and awards. By all accounts, he has been a model husband, father, and citizen. But, then his teenage self is presented. His yearbook photo is presented for all to see with a paragraph of personal account next to it. This is in his own words, printed in his high school yearbook. There are inside jokes, likely innuendo, and references to what many would say are "typical American high school antics" from the 1980s. He testified that he drank beer as a teenager and that he and his friends would attend parties. He used language back in high school that would be inappropriate to put on this blog post (by his own admission) and was defending his honor while his 18-year-old self stared back at him in a blown up photo from his yearbook. I could not help but think how each of the Senators questioning him were praying that no one dug up their old yearbooks or brought stories to the forefront of things they had done decades prior. Yet, that's not the point. The point is that the sins of the past remain sins of the past. While forgiveness is complete in Christ and there is no condemnation for us in Christ Jesus, there is still this reality that consequences this side of heaven remain. As an 18-year-old I didn't get that. In fact, I likely didn't care. As a 50-year-old, now sounding like the old guy imparting words of wisdom to the younger generation, now more than ever the message is to live holy. The culture celebrates youth and hands out permission to misbehave and "sow one's wild oats" or whatever the modern term may be, but sin remains sin and there are always consequences. So, whether or not Kavanaugh did what Dr. Ford has accused him of in this case does not eliminate the reality that he is now defending the acts of his 18-year-old self in areas that likely are indefensible (maybe personally excusable or justifiable, but that's different.)
  • The collateral damage is severe. In each individual's case (Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh) there are others who are hurt due to the alleged actions and the subsequent televised accounts. I'm not speaking of the public in general, but of family members, dear friends, and even children. 
  • Half the nation will be happy. The other half will be angry. Whether Judge Kavanaugh becomes Justice Kavanaugh or not, there will be no unity in our nation. We really didn't expect there to be anyway, but this story will remain in the annals of our nation for decades to come. If we're still talking about Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas based on their appointment hearings, rest assured that people will be talking about Kavanaugh for years to come.

The Church in the #MeToo Era

The church cannot remain silent on issues of sexual misconduct and morality. In an age where Catholic bishops have become the sick punchlines for inappropriate jokes regarding sexual abuse of children, the world sees all churches and Christians in the same vein. This is not unlike in the past, but regarding sexual misconduct (i.e. rape, sexual abuse, ignoring "no", adultery, etc.) the church often remains on the sideline refusing to enter the fray. Perhaps this is due to the inability to talk biblically on subjects without devolving into political banter? Maybe it is fear-based, knowing that stories within the local church that have been ignored will come to light? Regardless, to ignore this darkness in our world is to essentially refuse to shine light where it's needed. <TWEET THIS>

Regarding Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh - these people need God's people praying for them. The church must remove the robe of political partisanship and pray for these two image-bearers of Christ. Pray for them individually and for their families. In the meantime, trust God that ultimately, truth will set us all free.


Nothing's Going As Planned...That's Normal

I began preaching through Paul's letter to the church at Philippi in September. The overarching theme of this incredible, God-breathed book is joy. I knew this. I have read the book prior (a few times) and it should come as no surprise that the theme of the book is the same it always has been. In case you didn't know, there is no revision to the book - it's always been about joy. Nevertheless, as I read through this book now, studying it for personal edification in addition to seeking God's lead in preaching through it, I am struck by the fact that joy sometimes seems so elusive in my life.

Lightstock_190452_medium_david_tarkington

Now, you may have no problem with your joy quotient. You may be that person who always sees the glass half-full. Maybe your glass is overflowing (sounds like Psalm 23) and you have this holy perspective that is right and wonderful. I envy you. Wait...that's probably a sin. Hmmm...I'm excited for you and want to be like that. There, that's better.

God is so very good and gracious, and as just since beginning this series, I am awestruck at how joy remains my choice.

Yep - it's on me.

Joy is not something that just happens. It's not what we drift toward. Joy is intentional. It's a choice. It's a response, not to circumstances, but to God. And joy is not defined as a giddy happiness that pretends everything is okay. That's more of a Pollyanna perspective. Joy is a contentedness that keeps us focused on the one who is truly in control.

Paul, while writing this letter to a church that he dearly loved should have been on their prayer list (he probably was) but he makes it known that they are on his prayer list. He's praying for them, for his friends, his brothers and sisters in Christ, this new church that he helped launch and was instrumental in growing and leading...all while he is in prison. It's likely a prison in Rome. Some have declared that it may have been more like house arrest, as if that lessens the severity of what he is experiencing. Paul is chained to a guard. He is imprisoned. His freedoms are gone. His rights...well, what rights? This was the first century, not America so rights are not highly regarded.

This morning as I was reading from Paul David Tripp's excellent devotional book New Morning Mercies, I could not help but see how God was once more getting my attention on a subject that apparently I need constant reminding of.

Some thoughts from Tripp...

What captures your mind controls your thoughts and dominates the desires of your heart.

That which dominates your meditation shapes the way you view yourself, life, and God, and your view of those things shapes the choices you make and the actions you take.

It is not biblical faith to try to convince yourself that things are better than they actually are. It is not biblical faith to work to make yourself feel good about what is not good. Biblical faith looks reality in the face and does not flinch.

On the other hand, there is a crucial difference between facing hard realities and allowing those realities to dominate the meditation of your heart (see God's counsel to Joshua, Josh 1:1-9). Here's what biblical faith does: it examines reality, but it makes the Lord its meditation. It is only when you look at life through the window of the glory of the One who has been the source of your meditation that you see reality accurately. The more you meditate on your problems, the bigger and more insurmountable they seem to be. Meditating on God in the midst of your trouble reminds you once again that the God to whom grace has connected you is magnificent in his grandeur and glory. He is infinitely greater than any problem you could ever experience. Then your responses are shaped by his glory and not by the seeming size of your problems.1

Have you ever read a Scripture passage or devotional and thought "Wow! It's like that was written just for me." Yeah, me too. That's what this was like and as I continue to pray and study the book of Philippians I am reminded that my joy is not contingent on my circumstances. This is because so often things do not go as planned (by me.) Paul (the Bible guy, not Tripp in this case) didn't plan to go to prison, I am sure. He didn't plan to be shipwrecked, run out of town, stoned, or even have that "thorn in the flesh" but he did. And despite all that, he had a a faith, a biblical faith as Tripp calls it, that gave him proper perspective. 

That's the Christian life. That's normal.

It doesn't necessarily fill up stadiums or sell books, but it does allow for a joy that is indescribable and a lasting faith.

So choose joy today (and tomorrow and the next day). It's your choice. 

______________

        1Paul David Tripp, New Morning Mercies: A Daily Gospel Devotional (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2014). September 25.

 


The Blessing of Qualified Deacons Who Serve

It is the time of year once more in our church where the members will prayerfully nominate biblically qualified, faithful men to serve in the office of deacon. We recognize two offices within the church - pastors (elders) and deacons. 

It is at this time of the year I sometimes feel like Bill Murray in the movie "Groundhog Day." We have been nominating deacons to serve in our church for decades. This is something that has occurred every single year that I have been here (the past 25 years) and for many years prior. Yet, every year the same questions come up regarding qualifications, expectations, and responsibilities of the men who serve.

Each year, the answers remain the same. At least the core answers do, for those are based on the only passage in Scripture where qualifications of deacons is given (1 Timothy 3.)

So, as we prepare for this time once more, we must go back to Scripture to ensure we understand what is required for men who answer this high calling for the lowly position.

Lightstock_63004_small_david_tarkington

Often when looking at the qualifications for deacons, we begin reading in verse 8 of chapter 3 while ignoring the qualifications for pastors (elders) listed in the first portion of the chapter. While these are two distinct offices, there is a connecting phrase in verse 8 that leads the reader to see that which is required of pastors is true for deacons as well. That phrase is "Deacons likewise must be..."

While the offices of pastor/elder and deacon have been affirmed in the modern church, the roles of the offices have often been misunderstood, if not fully modified. Based on the New Testament, the pastor/elders are the primary spiritual leaders of the local church. Pastors are to teach or preach the Word and shepherd the souls of those under their care (Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:2; 5:17; Titus 1:9; Heb. 13:17).

Deacons are to serve. The church needs deacons to offer practical, logistical support and service to the pastors and the church body so that the pastors may focus on the study of the Word of God and prayer. 

The Similarities of Offices

It is clear as one reads through the passage that character counts. Men who serve as pastors and men who serve as deacons are held to high standards of character. They are to be proven, Christian men who are dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy, holding to sound faith and doctrine, and blameless. They are expected to lead their families well and, if married, to have wives who are above reproach as well. Clearly, if a moral character qualification is listed for elders, it is expected of deacons as well. 

The Differences of Offices

The character qualifications are similar, but the roles and expectations of the offices do differ in some significant ways. The most distinguishing difference in the passage is found in 1 Timothy 3:2 where pastors are required to be "apt to teach." 

This has caused confusion for some in that some churches have required their deacons to be serving in a teaching capacity in the church. What deacons are called to do is "hold" to the faith (1 Tim. 3:9).  The office requirement is clear on holding strongly to the doctrines and mysteries of the faith. The passage clearly suggest that deacons do not have an official teaching role in the church.

Nevertheless, while a deacon may not actually be leading a small group or Bible study in the church, he must have the capacity to answer questions regarding biblical truth and doctrine. He must be able to share this truth with others. He should also be willing to serve where needed in the local church...and that may be in a teaching capacity (for various age groups.) 

Character & Doctrine Matters

The deacon is an office of necessity so that the members of the church are served well. The pastor ensures they are taught well. God has positioned these offices in his church for his glory and the good of the church. 

So, as the questions come, the answers remain consistent. There are interpretative variances on some of the qualifications. For example, while "husband of one wife" literally means "a one-woman man" some churches have read this to mean that a divorced man is not qualified for the office (this is our church's understanding.) Other churches have held this to mean a man should be married to only one woman at a time, which was an issue in the day it was written and will likely be again as marriage laws and redefinitions of acceptable relations continue to occur. Some hold that if a man became a believer after a remarriage, he qualifies. 

Our church also has chosen to refrain from the drinking of alcoholic beverages for all pastors and deacons. While we concur that drinking alcoholic beverages is not a sin, we acknowledge that in our culture the command to ensure we not be stumbling blocks to newer believers has led to the continuation of this guideline. 

While the "Groundhog Day" feeling continues, there are things that come up during this season of "deacon nomination" that causes me to reevaluate our guidelines, processes, and roles in our church.

Things We Need To Reconsider

  • GET RID OF THE TERM LIMIT - We have "inactive deacons" and I keep looking in Scripture to see where that is validated. Our practice, as with many legacy churches, is to call a man to serve for a "term" as a deacon. In our case, it's for three years.  It seems to me the concept of "inactive" is wrong. Now, there are cases where a man should step down from service. Obviously, the abandonment of solid doctrine, immorality, divisiveness, or opposition to pastors (who are leading biblically) would be reasons for a removal from office. However, a year off after three years on seems to be nothing more than a passive way to remove men from office without having to address personality conflicts or more importantly, issues such as those listed above.
  • STOP NOMINATING THE UNQUALIFIED - The process of nomination is challenging. Yet, there are men nominated by well-meaning church members each year who are not qualified for the office. 
  • STOP TRYING TO FILL A QUOTA - We have abandoned this, but many churches still are focused on having the right number of men as deacons a required by their by-laws. The church is better off having the right men, even if it's a smaller number, than a large group of men who do not qualify.
  • SELECT QUALIFIED DEACONS WHO ALREADY SERVE IN THE CHURCH - Calling a man who does nothing in the church with the hopes he will once he is called as a deacon is akin to giving a person who never attends small group a teaching position in hopes that he/she will start attending regularly. It's futile. It's wrong. It lowers the bar. 
  • CALL TO REPENTANCE THOSE THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED, BUT WON'T NOW - There are some who do not serve actively due to health or serious familial reasons. Then there are the men who refuse to serve for reasons that are less than godly. A deacon who has served in the past but won't currently due to differences with pastoral leadership, anger, laziness, or simply a desire to not serve within the church, must be called to repentance. Why? Because this is sin. If the man has disqualified himself from the office, that too must be addressed. However, it seems that at times, certain men are begged by other church members to serve again as they did prior to their refusal to be "active" once more, but to do so without calling them to repentance is to affirm the sin keeping them out of the office. 

The Bible charges pastors with the tasks of teaching and leading the church. The deacons role is more service-oriented. By handling such issues within the church, the pastors are freed up to focus on shepherding the spiritual needs of the church. Deacons are a blessing. They honor God through their service to him and his church.


When Everything Offends

We are now living in an era of offense. It seems that everyone is just one tweet or Facebook post from being totally offended at … well, everything. This age of offense seems to be leaving us with an inability to have discourse. It’s not that humanity had ever mastered this in the past, but the immediacy of posts with responses typed in anger and frustration now has seemingly become the norm.

Last week it was In-N-Out Burger that offended some, so a boycott was called (then quickly recounted when it became clear that not eating an “Animal Style” In-N-Out Burger when you have the opportunity (I live in Florida, so I only get these when I travel) was not worth boycotting. The boycott was called by the head of the California Democratic Party through a tweet because the restaurant chain had made donations to the state’s Republican party. However, it was soon disclosed that that the restaurant chain had also donated to the state’s Democratic party. Dakota Smith and Melissa Etehad wrote in their Los Angeles Times article [Read Here] about the politicization of hamburgers. They shared the quote from In-N-Out Executive Vice President Arnie Wensinger.

“For years, In-N-Out Burger has supported lawmakers who, regardless of political affiliation, promote policies that strengthen California and allow us to continue operating with the values of providing strong pay and great benefits for our associates.”

So much for just being able to enjoy a burger.

Calls for boycotts are not new. They’ve been going on for generations. These, in my opinion, were needed and valuable.

  • Back in 1769 Philadelphia merchants began boycotting Great Britain over a little thing known as “taxation without representation.” You may have heard of that.
  • In 1933 the American Jewish Congress boycotted Nazi Germany for what should be obvious reasons.
  • Throughout the 1950s and 1960s black Americans launched and participated in various boycotts due to the racial segregation issues in the United States. African-Americans were not the only ones participating, but definitely were prominent in turning a boycott of Montgomery busses into a movement.
  • In South Africa a boycott of South African universities was launched in the 1950s and lasted until the 1990s.

There are many others. Some were connected to sporting events such as the 1980 Olympic games when the US boycotted the Moscow games. Payback came in 1984 when the Soviet Union stayed away from the Los Angeles Games.

The list of historical and current boycotts is long. Just Google it or check out the Wikipedia page.

In Southern Baptist life, there have been boycotts. The most prominent one to come to mind was against the Walt Disney Company in 1997. The national news presented it as a mandated boycott, not understanding the autonomy of local churches and the role of resolutions. Eight years later the boycott was ended, but I’m not really certain of its effect. In fact, I don't believe it was effective at all. For SBC churches in Florida, we never really saw a decline in Disney annual passes or weekends at the park. Perhaps Universal Studios benefitted when Night of Joy (the Christian concert event at Disney) began losing attendees while Rock the Universe grew in popularity. Who knows?

Believe

Burning Nikes

Now we have another boycott happening. This one has to do with Nike and their recent decision to feature former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick as the face of their “Just Do It” campaign.

Boy, has this one blown up.

As I watch the vitriol flow online, I see a number of camps developing. These groups are dividing politically, racially, regionally, and in various other ways. Some are angry at  the NFL based on the league’s inability to address the anthem kneeling. Others are angry at Nike because they are paying Kaepernick. Some are stating the Nike promo is disrespectful (that’s the nicest way to put it) of those who have served our country in the military. Others are angry because of the disrespect from some to those who serve our communities in law enforcement. Still others are angry due to the accounts of police brutality that have occurred in our nation. Others are simply stating the reality of the dissolution of community and growing violence in our neighborhoods.

The lists of the angry are long, varied, and at some level are all valid.

Pastors are trying to find ways to address these issues. As varied as the responses above are the responses from pastors and spiritual leaders. Some are wrapping themselves in flags (figuratively.) Others are wearing their Nike shoes as a way to protest (or support.) Some are ignoring the issues. Others are ignoring the Scriptures (unfortunately, but not just due to the current newsfeeds.) Some sound more like political pundits for the party of choice than as proclaimers of the Word.

What are we to do?

The answer to that question is as varied as the personalities in our nation.

We can get angry and stay angry. That’s the easy thing to do.

We can ignore the problems in our society, hide in our church buildings, and talk (or post) about those “out there” who are the problems.

We can remain silent when wrongs occur, believing that it’s not our problem or our issue. However, here’s what happens when this is the response. When the church is silent, someone else will speak into the void. This is always the case and unfortunately, we (the church) have allowed this many times in the past.

Screenshot 2018-09-05 17.10.35

TWEET THIS

Maybe, these options would be better …  

We can pray for wisdom.

We can speak truth.

We can love our neighbors.

We can love our enemies.

We can engage the world for the sake of the Gospel.

We can be the church we must be.

Here’s the problem when we choose well – the world won’t like it. In fact, some in your church won’t like it. There will be pushback from all sides. Some will claim you’re being too political (even when you are seeking strongly to stand only on the truth of the gospel) while others will declare you’re not political enough. Some will call you a political conservative and align you with an agenda or person you did not choose. Others will state you are a political liberal and put you in a camp that you would not wish be in.

Outside of politics, you’ll be chastised for the shoes you wear or don’t wear, the games you watch or don’t watch, and perhaps even the fast-food restaurant you choose to eat at, or not.

Should Christians Boycott?

That’s a good question and rather than re-hash the subject, I recommend you click the link here and read Joe Carter’s post from a number of years ago on The Gospel Coalition’s website.

Does This Help?

Does this post fix everything? Does it fix anything? Well, probably not really.

Yet, it’s forcing me to have a conversation (at least a contemplation) about what we, as Christians must be doing, or at a minimum talking about. Consider this self-counsel.

At some point the concept of living missionally means we must actually be “in the world” while seeking to be not of it. Sadly, many seemingly have so strongly lamented being in the world that they have sought and accomplished the creating of  safe places that effectively leave them sequestered somewhere in a “Christian” version of everything while not being truly Christian in anything.

In the meantime, I would say that we as Christians, to change the Nike slogan just a bit, must truly believe in Someone (Jesus) who sacrificed everything so that we may have life. Then, we must live that life for the glory of God, knowing that will be for the good of His church and others.