Here’s a letter to a pastor friend of mine (with some introductory personal pleasantries removed) regarding something I had said to him about my church’s focus on keeping the gospel central, ahead of any other teaching or action we pursue as a church (even very good things, like fighting abortion, or homeschooling our children, etc.). 

Dear _____, 

 
You ask a good question about what I meant about keeping the gospel central.  I think maybe my statement needs some clarification or application so you can see how it’s being applied by Pastors _____ and _____.
 
The driving force is to keep anything from supplanting the gospel as the foundation behind everything.  The example you give as to the current focus in your church (men taking more a more active role in their homes) can easily be tied with regularity and consistency to the gospel. 
 
For example, why is it that men ought to be more involved in their families?  Because it’s a Scriptural teaching.  But what is the goal behind that Scriptural teaching? 
 
The goal is that the children of God fearers (in our time, the children of believers) will learn to know, love and fear God themselves.  That’s imparting the gospel!  As more families concretely impart the gospel to their own children by living out the Word with regards to fathers leading their homes (and in any/every other way), the kingdom of God grows and the gospel spreads.  That’s what I mean by keeping the gospel central, and that’s the way I’ve interpreted how Pastors _____ and _____ are applying that in our church.
 
In my own life, the concern I was bringing up had to do with a nagging concern I have that if I don’t do this and that in my kids’ lives, if I can’t “rescue” them from certain conditions that I would choose not to have them in if I had the power, then I must be failing them (or maybe I get to the point where I believe God is failing us). 
 
The remedy is for me to remember that trials are a normal part of following Christ, and my focus on imparting God’s grace to the kids amid our circumstances allows them to experience the gospel in a tangible way.  As you said last night, we are citizens of a better country. 
 
Also, regarding homeschooling, it could be that we get tempted to put homeschooling (and all the goals, processes, curricula, competitions, and worldly recognition) ahead of the foundation, which is imparting the gospel to our families in a concrete way.  Any of us could raise our kids to win the next national spelling bee (or whatever contest), and have the kids with the best manners, but that’s not the Bible’s purpose for the education of our children.  The Bible’s purpose for the education of our children is so that they will fear, love, and serve God.  Once again, that’s imparting the gospel, and it can have an impact for generations.
 
Hope that clears things up.  If the Holy Spirit is truly convicting you that your focus is drifting away from the gospel, I think it would be very easy to tie everything that you’re emphasizing back to the foundation of the gospel.
 
Grace in Christ to you and yours today!
Greg

I suppose I shouldn’t really call this an underrated or underused word, because it’s a French word, and since I don’t converse or read in French all the time, I have little-to-no idea how often it’s used.  I guess I should just consider this one of my favorite words in the French language.

un soupçon – Definition: suspicion; hint, drop (figurative)

David est à l’abri de tout soupçon – David is free of any suspicion.

Je sens juste un soupçon d’ail – I taste just a hint of garlic.

Veux-tu un soupçon de vin ? – Would you like a drop of wine?

See http://french.about.com/od/vocabulary/g/soupcon.htm (Mot du jour)

Also, see
Underrated, underused words, pt. 1

Here’s yet another article describing the lunacy and abusive nature of this country’s child support laws – abusive towards men and children.   Man pays $12,000 in support, finds out child not his.

If you think this story is isolated, think again.  The reporting of these stories is what’s isolated.

The most insane part is near the end, when they discuss the real father, who claims he always supported the child, a pretty believable claim since the child actually now lives with him.

Here’s a letter I wrote to a friend of mine who had recommended I read the wildly popular book, The Shack, a work of theological fiction.

Hi _______,
 
I debated whether I should even write this email.  I pray you won’t consider it too abrupt.  Part of the abruptness is because it’s late, I’m tired, and I’m preparing for yet another move.  However, if I don’t write this now, I fear I won’t write it at all.  And since I’m plagued with thoughts of Ezekiel, trumpets, and watchmen, I must write to you about this (see Ezekiel 3:16-21 and 33:1-9).  Please forgive me if I don’t come across smoothly.
 
You had recommended to me the book The Shack.  I can see why people are captivated by it; it’s a compelling narrative.  But being compelling and being truthful are not always the same thing.  I must say there are some deeply troubling redefinitions of Biblical Christianity that take place in the pages of The Shack.  For example:
 
1.  The Father is an African-American woman??  The Bible claims God is a Father and always refers to Him as “He.”  He is not genderless in the way presented by this book.  Although He has some qualities that we often consider feminine in humans, the Bible still calls Him a Father, always calls Him “He,” and even once refers to Him as a “man of war” (Exodus 15:3). 
 
2.  Jesus is the best way to the Father???  The Bible says Jesus is the only way (John 14:6 – “I am the way, the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me”).
 
3.  There’s no hierarchy in the trinity?? All hierarchy comes from sin??  John 4:34 – “My food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work.”  There are more Scriptures I could include here about all things being subjected to the Son except the Father, and so forth. 
 
4.  The Father doesn’t punish sin???????  Yes, the results of sin can be their own punishment, and it may be His joy to cure sin, but that doesn’t mean He doesn’t punish sin.  John 3:36 – “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (emphasis added by me). 
 
5.  Jesus is merely a perfected human??  This sounds more like Mormonism than Christianity.  Shall I list all the Scriptures that attest to the divinity of Christ? (Start with John 1:1). 
 
More could be said.  This list is heavy enough, but I’m noticing as I reread what I typed that even a reading of just the Gospel of John clearly denounces the theology put forth (in such captivating fashion) by The Shack.  One could almost say the presentation of theology by The Shack is seductive, as in seducing people into a false understanding of God and a false gospel.  Remember what Paul wrote to the Galatians:  “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.  As we have said before, so now I say again:  If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8-9).
 
It’s not possible for me to judge the intentions of the author of the book, but it is possible to judge the theology presented (and it’s Biblically right to judge the theology – “Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?” 1 Cor 5:12b).  ________, the theology of The Shack will lead you off the narrow path and away from the God of the Bible and away from the true Christ who can save you from your sins.  I pray that God will grant the grace to smooth the rough edges of my message so that you may receive what is presented here. 
 
The grace and peace of Jesus Christ be upon your life,

Greg

Well, it’s always nice to get “published,” even if it’s only someone answering a question.  But it’s probably the most widely read column I’ve ever appeared in.

I’m not a huge fan of sportswriter Peter King, who writes for Sports Illustrated and CNNSI.com.  I don’t really consider him a good writer, and he doesn’t seem to ever have much good football insight.  I only read his column for the sheer volume of information within, because he has managed to form good relationships with many of the NFL players, coaches, and administrative personnel. 

But because much of his material seems to be little more than pandering, when I read his columns, I usually want to respond by calling him names I shouldn’t use, and I just generally have to allow myself to cool down after reading him.  So it surprised even me when I saw something he wrote about former NFL wide receiver Cris Collinsworth (now an announcer and commentator) in King’s MMQB column (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/11/16/week11/1.html - see Quote of the Week II on pg 2) that prompted me to ask him a sane question (did King think Collinsworth would ever consider coaching, or was he happier doing what he was doing?).

Well, if you saw King’s MMQB Tuesday Edition column, he actually responded to my question (and gave a helpful answer even):  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/11/18/mail/1.html

I have two predictions.  I’ve been meaning to write this post for almost two months and just never got around to it.  Unfortunately, my first prediction is already in the process of coming true, so it won’t really seem like a prediction.  Here are both predictions:

1.  It will become obvious to everyone that Casey Anthony, mother of missing toddler Caylee Anthony, is guilty of some heinous crime towards her daughter, probably murder.

I’m all for the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty, but I’m making a prediction here, not attempting to try her case.  I’m more than willing to believe she’s innocent if the evidence doesn’t completely stack up against her.

2.  When it is all said and done (and I mean all), Casey Anthony will get off with some measly slap on the wrist, because no one with the power to do anything about the situation will have the courage to say that women are as capable of heinous crimes as men are.

This is the sad, ugly issue here that no one is talking about.  If you don’t believe me, tell me, how much outrage has there been against Mary Winkler, the woman who murdered her husband in cold blood?  She walked away while he was still dying without ever calling for medical help, then claimed the gun went off by accident.  She fled with their children, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter (not first-degree murder), and then in court claimed that she had been physically, sexually, and emotionally abused by her husband.  What was the result?  She spent five months in a county jail and two months in a mental health facility.   As of August 2008, less than three years after she murdered her children’s father, she now has full custody of those children again.  Where’s the outrage from Family Advocacy groups and children’s rights organizations? 

Had that been a man in this country who had committed that crime, he would never see those children again (actually, he’d probably never even see the light of day again). 

There are plenty more stories to choose from.  Think back to the Duke “rape” case.  Who was the one person who got off scot-free from the whole nasty affair?  The false accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum.  Actually, her stripper partner, Kim Roberts, also got off scot-free, even though there was some hushed-up suspicion that Roberts pushed Mangum into the false accusation to hide the fact that Roberts had robbed Mangum (see Who Robbed Crystal Gail Mangum?).   Sure enough, it was men who suffered all the consequences to this ridiculously false accusation.   Men like the DA, Nifong, who deserved disbarment for his “tragic rush to accuse,” but certainly did not deserve to be the only one punished out of that situation; men like the lacrosse players, who suffered far more than their share of the consequences for their hedonism.  What happened to Mangum and Roberts?  Nothing. 

That’s why I predict that, in the long run, nothing serious will happen to Casey Anthony.  Even though it will be obvious to the entire country that she did something horrendous to her daughter, she will spend a little time in jail, a little time in some mental institution, and will walk away still at a very young age, never having shown any repentance or even remorse for what she did. 

Few else will say it, but I will say it:  women are every bit as capable as men of the most heinous crimes, even against children (if you still doubt this, I suggest you begin by reading this extensive collection of studies that shows women are often as or more physically aggressive towards their male partners – this is just scratching the surface of this research).  Our judicial system (driven by our society at large) continues to let them get away with it.

Ever since I became a believer more than a dozen years ago, I have enjoyed reading biographies of other men of God and seeing how their faith and ministry grew throughout their lives. 

Early on, I didn’t really know what to look for, so I would read any biography of anyone I had ever heard of.  Some of these were good, some not so good.  But one thing stands out in my mind that I’ll never forget.

Nearly every time I was reading one of these biographies, people who knew the person would comment, in the process of saying what a great and godly person he was, that this man of God was also a tremendous practical joker.  I specifically remember reading something much like this in Billy Graham’s biography, Just As I Am. 

I don’t remember when I had first read these two verses, but it must have been very early on after my conversion, because whenever I read about someone described this way (Godly man + practical joker), I always thought immediately of Proverbs 26:18-19: 

“Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death, is the man who deceives his neighbor, and says, ‘I was only joking!’”

Is this a direct command not to play pranks on people (Thou shalt not prank)?  No, but after looking closely at what this Scripture is saying, it’s difficult to say anything good about playing pranks on people. 

What exactly is a madman throwing firebrands, arrows, and death?  Well, picture in your mind someone who has gone literally insane, and is throwing flaming arrows around at anyone and anything.  This madman isn’t necessarily causing you any specific grave danger, but who knows what he’s going to hit, and who knows if he’s going to hit something that will dangerously explode?  What if one of these sharp, flaming arrows hits you right in the chest or the eye?  It’s hard to imagine anything good coming out of this scene; the best outcome would merely be if nothing disastrous or injurious happened.

Now, the verses in question take this image and apply it to someone who “deceives his neighbor, and says, ‘I was only joking!’”  It’s hard to come up with a clearer description of a practical joke.  So what does this say about Christians and practical jokes?

If you apply the image, it says the best outcome a person can hope for after playing a practical joke on someone else is that nothing instantaneously bad will happen.  Most of the time this is the case.  But what about the potential for that one time when the prankee (the person on the receiving end) is already having a really bad day, or is distracted by something serious, and violently flies off the handle, or becomes so depressed at what he thinks is the truth (your prank or deception) and does something drastic?  How hollow will your “I was only joking” be then? 

For believers, it’s hard to imagine anything about practical joking that is edifying, encouraging, or strengthening.  If anything, it seems to me to be a childish act of self-indulgence at another’s expense.  Even worse is when the prankee chastises the prankster, and the prankster accuses the other of needing “to lighten up.” 

The worst thing for me has been when I’ve had friends who regularly play practical jokes on their kids (or employees, for that matter).  I can’t remember one of them who responded well to the verses above I suggested they consider.  I mean, whew, if a child can’t trust his or her father, who on earth (or in heaven) will they ever trust?  In the relationship of a father to his children, it seems playing practical jokes on them would fall directly under a clear instruction like not provoking your children to wrath (Ephesians 6:4).  And some of these men wondered why the relationships between themselves and their children were strained.  Puts a bit of a damper on April Fools’ Day, too, doesn’t it?

Note:  If you’re reading this, and you’re a big fan of Billy Graham, please don’t write to tell me what a great man of God Billy Graham is and how I must be misunderstanding something.  Billy Graham is merely the only one of several that I specifically remember reading about.  My point is about what appears to be a clear teaching of Scripture.  And, frankly, if Billy Graham is that much of a man of God, why is it he never seemed to grasp such a clear teaching of Scripture?

I’ve probably never before agreed with Paul Begala (Democratic strategist and former counselor to Bill Clinton in the White House).  But I pretty much agree with everything he said about John McCain’s VP choice, Sarah Palin, first-term governor of Alaska. 

McCain, currently 72 years old, if he is elected, would be the oldest person ever elected as president.  His health is a huge concern, since he has suffered several bouts with cancer.   So Begala is quite right to point out that we’re not just asking if Palin is qualified to be the VP, but we need to ask if Palin is qualified to be the next president. 

Even the opposing view offered by Ed Rollins, Republican strategist, screams, “Gimmick!”  Some of Palin’s qualifications are listed, but Rollins then goes on to offer all the reasons while Palin will help McCain garner votes (namely, by bringing in disaffected women voters and social conservatives).  So even major Republicans are quite comfortable with the choice for gimmicky reasons, not for reasons of whether she could effectively handle the presidency if anything were to happen to McCain (if he were elected, of course).

Don’t even get me started on how all the descriptions of Palin insist on labeling her “mother of five.”  Is that supposed to be helpful?  Am I supposed to be impressed?  When was the last time you saw a male candidate called “father of three” or whatever? 

Don’t misunderstand my point.  I absolutely support having many children.  Several of my best friends have six or more children.  I myself am from a large family (youngest of eight); I wish I had more than the three children I have (I’m still thinking about adopting more, but that’s just not possible right now).  And I know intimately well the challenges of raising a family.  But how on earth does one go from “mother of five” to US VP candidate and “one heartbeat away” from US president?  If we want to talk qualifications, skip the mother-of-five rubbish. 

Besides, reports have said Palin’s youngest child has Down’s syndrome.  If I’m supposed to be impressed by her mothering, would someone care to explain to me how she, as the governor of Alaska, is being a mother to this child?  How would that mothering situation possibly improve if Palin became the VP (or president) of the US?  So, again, skip the mother-of-five rubbish in the qualifications list. 

So her son serves in Iraq.  Does that mean she knows how to be commander in chief?  I served as an officer in the US Air Force for six years, and I studied the ins and outs as much as I was allowed, and I still barely scratched the surface of what there was to know about the Air Force and the military. 

Yes, there’s definitely something to be said about Palin not being a DC crony, not entrenched in beltway politics.  But if one is going to crack such a monolith as beltway politics, a massive amount of discretion will be required. 

I can’t see this choice as anything but a gimmick to garner votes.  And with McCain’s age and health, I agree with Begala:  the choice is irresponsible.

I’ll be voting third party or independent….

Here’s a short post on what I hope will be a recurring topic:  underrated, underused words. 

Today’s underrated, underused word:  subterfuge.  What a great word!  The spelling, the pronunciation, and the meaning:  exquisite!  Subterfuge is a deceptive device or strategem or the art of deceiving, eluding, or evading. 

Thanks to Larry Felser, who’s been a sportswriter for longer than I’ve been alive, for this gem.  See the third paragraph in his commentary here.

I can’t even remember anymore all the times I have told people I voted for Ron Paul in my state’s primary election and got the following response:  “You’re just throwing your vote away.”  Or even worse were the people that replied, “Yeah, I would have voted for him, too, but that would just be throwing my vote away.”  It was quite a while before I came up with a clear way of responding to people like that.

Admittedly, if all the people who said, “Yeah, I would have voted for him, too…” had actually voted for him, think of how much support he could have gotten.  But, honestly, that’s just a symptom, a superficial point.  And the actual identity of the candidate is irrelevant.   

What’s the rationale such people give for believing their vote is “thrown away” if they actually were to vote their conscience?  “I have to vote for [insert popular candidate here] to make sure that [other popular candidate] doesn’t win.”  Do they actually agree with the candidate they’re voting for?  Often not, or maybe only a little.  But their whole voting pattern is to vote against the person they think is the worse candidate.  If that’s truly your reasoning, then you pretty much have to believe anyone who didn’t vote for the winning candidate threw his vote away.  That’s often almost half the population (or maybe more, given the quirks of the electoral college).  What’s going on here?

The real issue, in my opinion, is that these people, some of whom are professing Christians (some are not, though they may profess a belief in some God) don’t really believe in the sovereignty of God on a practical, day-to-day level.  They’ve put their own voting power (though only in a collective sense) ahead of God’s sovereign rule in their minds. 

My reading of the Bible says that we obey His commands and leave the results (which we can’t ultimately control) up to Him.  Martin Luther said it so well in his famous declaration at the Diet of Worms:  “[M]y conscience is captive to the Word of God…to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”  Of course, it’s crucial to note he’s talking about a conscience held captive to God’s Word, not, for example, a seared conscience that can’t even discern right or wrong. 

What’s bizarre in a twisted sort of way is that if such people really believed that strongly in the collective power of the vote, they’d do everything conceivable to get people on the side of their candidate, rather than just going along with the herd, even against their own conscience.  But, it’s always easier to go along with the herd, isn’t it?

I say, vote your conscience and leave the results up to the sovereign, omnipotent God, before whom we are no more than a vapor.