Eternal Perspectives

This blog, along with Lord of the Kingdom, has been quiet for the last several months. Given that silence, I thought I’d let the few of you who might stop by or still have me on an RSS feed know what I’ve been up to.

There are basically two things that have occupied my time and energy during this time; I’ll tell you about the more temporal and frivolous first before moving on to the (ahem) spiritual and godly thing I’ve been about.

It all started with this one. One of my good friends – also a colleague – has a Harley- Davidson Fat Boy and has been after me to get one so we could ride. Early February of this year I found this ‘96 Vulcan 800 Classic for $3150 (4400 miles) and decided to go for it. I hadn’t ridden in 35+ years so I took a basic motorcycle safety class that was worth every penny I paid for it. I was licensed shortly after that and took off. That, happily, led to this:

My wife absolutely loves to ride with me on the motorcycle. It’s nothing for us to put three or four hundred miles on the bike during a good weekend (weather permitting, of course). We’ve discovered a lot of excellent country roads here in south central Texas – or wherever we are – and my wife, who is a very good photographer, has me stop whenever there’s a picture to be taken. In our 28 years of marriage there has never been anything we’ve so thoroughly enjoyed doing together – well, you know what I mean. We’ve also discovered some great places to eat, like:

Being Yankees ourselves, we love the idea of going to a biker bar in the heart of Texas named “Yankees Tavern.” Now, I’m no longer stupid enough* to drink, let alone drink and hop on a motorcycle. But the food at these kind of places is usually remarkably good, although it may just be that after swallowing bugs for the last 100 miles anything taste better. It was a little daunting, I must confess, to roll into one of these places with so many bikers: I’ve seen the shows documenting all the violence associated with biker gangs. After awhile, though, I came to realize that most of the riders there were just like me: fathers and professionals. There are no “gangs” at the places we frequent: if there were, we wouldn’t be there!

Inevitably (I suppose), the Vulcan 800 gave way to this:

I got this last Friday. It’s a 2006 Vulcan 1600 Classic; I was able to buy it (with just 1680 miles) for $7K. I didn’t feel completely safe when my wife and I were on the 800 and had to accelerate rapidly at higher speeds, so I knew I had to get a bigger bike. I never anticipated anything like this, though, and am still getting use to it. It’s all the bike I’ll ever need and is far safer than the other. Plus, it’s black. All motorcycles should be solid colors and dark. Pretty motorcycles are an oxymoron. I’m surprised at how differently it handles – especially at slow speeds – than the 800 and am also surprised at how much heavier it feels, although it’s only 150 pounds more. It weighs in at about 700 without passengers; with passengers it’s . . . more.

Here’s a couple of other views:

That’s another of my good friends – a local physician and former tennis adversary – on the back. I took him and his wife for rides – not at the same time! – last Sunday. Not being totally adjusted to the bike, I’m sure I scared the crap out of them, which was OK in his case but completely unintentional in hers. I’ll take them again in a few weeks when I’m better on the 1600.

This photo was taken in Montgomery, TX, last weekend. This time of year is great for riding.

I’m going to Ruidoso, NM, at the end of May: four of us are going to make the 650-mile trip and stay at one of the guys’ summer home in the mountains nearby. We’re planning on taking two days each way and then taking some day trips while we’re there. Sadly, my wife won’t be able to go; happily, I will! But I’d rather have her go, too.

Oh, the other thing? I’ll post about it very soon.

*I drank enough before I was a believer to last me until the age 78 years, 7 months, and 18 days.

Most of my current and recent writing can be found at my other blog, The Lord of the Kingdom. Click the link: it might be worth the trip! And you can’t beat the price, especially given the cost of gasoline these days.

On the ninth day of the eighth month in the sixth year of George II, a dream came to me, Mike of Texas, of the house of Russell. This, then, was my dream:

A man appeared to me in my dream and his appearance struck fear into my heart: he had the appearance of a Navy SEAL and his countenance was fierce and grim. I fell to my knees, trembling. He lifted me with his strong right arm and said, ‘Do not fear, for I am here to protect you and warn you, and to show you terrible things that have been done against the Lord and His creation.’

“In my dream, he took me to a zoo where animals from all over the world were housed. ‘Look at the zoo,’ he commanded, ‘and tell me what you see.’ I looked and saw that many of the cages and places for animals were empty, while in many others the animals were sick or dying. And I saw the zoo keepers standing far off. I told the man these things and he said,

“‘You have seen well, for this is indeed the state of the zoo,’ he said sadly. ‘The zoo keepers were placed here to protect, nurture, and cause the animals to prosper but instead the wicked zoo keepers have plundered that which is under their care. They have annihilated many animals, neglected others, and selfishly used the animals for unnecessary luxury or entertainment.’

“Then, in my dream, he took me to high mountain where I could see all the plants and trees in the valley below. Again, the man asked me what I saw.

“‘I see a ravaged land,’ I told him. ‘Where there should be deep forests in which animals and people might dwell, I see only stumps of trees and fallen trees left to rot. The earth appears scorched and unable to bear fruit, and the water is discolored because of what man has done. And far off, I see a vast multitude of people praying and worshipping God. Tell me, sir, what does all this mean?’

“The strong man said, ‘What you have seen is God’s creation marred by the abuse and negligence of man. God placed man in His creation as a steward, to care for and protect all life and all aspects of creation. But this man has not done. Instead, man has declared himself lord over the earth and the animals, and has dealt treacherously and selfishly with creation. And the multitude are those for whom Jesus Christ has died, and who praise God but prey upon God’s creation.’

“‘The day will come,’ said the man, ‘when God will take away man’s stewardship of the earth and give it to another, to One who will faithfully tend it as a shepherd cares for a flock under his care. No longer will animals languish and the whole of creation will rejoice and reflect the glory of God, and the evil man has done will be undone, and the evil man will bear the responsibility for his hateful stewardship of God’s creation. This will surely come to pass.’”

Then I awoke and mourned for creation, and confessed my failure to be a good steward of all that God has entrusted to my care. And I thanked God for His forgiveness, but also repented of my selfish and rebellious attitude toward Him and His commands. And He did forgive and I am forgiven, but still the creation suffers and groans.

Related Posts: Al’s Inconvenient Truth at Broken Messenger; Why I Did Not Go to Church Sunday at Blogotional; “A Plea for Green” at It Takes a Church

Yesterday I posted “First Thoughts on Christian Writing” at my other blog, Lord of the Kingdom, a site devoted to Christian themes in the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Because I’d like feedback on my thoughts there, I thought I would shamelessly promote it here: LOTK is relatively unknown, even more so than this blog!

But I would appreciate your comments, if any are provoked.

Psychotherapists are typically pretty reserved and unanimated with clients, but every once in awhile extraordinary situations require extraordinary measures. I mean “extraordinary” in the sense of being outside of what is ordinary or, perhaps, even orthodox. Here’s what happened with a male colleague of mine recently:

A husband and wife came for counseling after 15 years of marriage. When asked what the problem was, the wife went into a passionate, painful tirade listing every problem they had ever had in the 15 years they had been married. She went on and on and on: neglect, lack of intimacy, emptiness, loneliness, feeling unloved and unloveable – an entire laundry list of unmet needs she had endured over the course of their marriage.

Finally, after allowing this to go on for a sufficient length of time, the therapist got up, walked around the desk and, after asking the wife to stand, embraced and kissed her passionately. The woman shut up and quietly sat down as though in a daze.

The therapist turned to the husband and said, “This is what your wife needs at least three times a week. Can you do this?”

The husband thought for a moment and replied, “Well, I can drop her off here on Mondays and Wednesdays, but on Fridays, I fish.”

Thank you. How would you like to pay for your sessions?

I was reading some of the throw-away verses in the Bible last night – you know, those verses we read with our eyes while our brains are going “Blah, blah, blah” – when (with a nudge from a dead guy) I was struck by something I had not before considered.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. The passage I was reading was Lk 1.41-45:

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said,

‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.’”

Typically, whenever I decide that it’s time to do a few laps around the gospel block with Luke, I either skip, skim, or glaze over the first two chapters of the book and hurry ahead to get to the Really Important and Truly Inspired part of his two-volume work. But with Norval Geldenhuys (NICNT, 1951) whispering in my inner ear, I was struck by something that I had always missed in earlier non-readings.

To set the stage, let me remind you about who Elizabeth was. She and her husband, Zechariah, were both from priestly lines: he of Abijah, she of Aaron; they were also “advanced” in years and, sadly, childless. To be childless was no small matter in those days, as Craig Keener explains:

To be childless was economically and socially disastrous: economically, because parents had no one to support them in old age . . . socially, because in the law barrenness was sometimes a judgment for sin, and many people assumed the worst possible cause of a problem. Most people assumed that barrenness was a defect of the wife, and Jewish teachers generally insisted that a man divorce a childless wife so he could procreate . . .

“Contrary to conventional wisdom, however, Zechariah and Elizabeth are clearly righteous . . . and the Jewish reader would immediately think of righteous Abraham and Sarah, who was also barren.” – IVP Background Commentary: New Testament, p 188.

The angel Gabriel appears to Zechariah while he is in the temple burning incense, telling him that his wife will be with child and that their son will be the prophet sent before the coming Messiah. Zechariah, who would have been better off remaining speechless, expresses some doubt about the message and is thus rendered speechless and deaf until the baby is born and circumcised.

So Elizabeth, who is likely in her sixties at this point, becomes pregnant – and not just pregnant, but pregnant with a prophet, the first in four centuries! It is hard to imagine her incredulity and thankfulness at this highly unexpected turn of events.

As she is marking the days to her delivery, having reached the sixth month of pregnancy, she is visited by one of her relatives: the youthful Mary, who has been sent to her by the same angel with news of her own. Elizabeth may be pregnant with the prophet, but Mary is pregnant with the Messiah.

Meaning no disrespect to any women that might read this (because men are little different), I was struck by Elizabeth’s response to Mary’s arrival and news: she praises her and expresses her sense of honor at being visited by the mother of the Messiah. Some – maybe a lot – of women might have felt slighted, upstaged, or resentful that Mary showed up and “ruined” her pregnancy. Elizabeth had waited at least forty years longer than Mary – who was just a teenager in all likelihood – to have a child and now she is thrust into the shadows once again by (of all the luck!) a relative.

But Elizabeth’s response is totally selfless: she is honored that Mary has come to visit her and thrilled that her relative carries the Messiah within her womb. She praises Mary for her faith and happily takes a lesser role in the drama which is only beginning to be played out in their countryside. It is no wonder that her son, John, could say of himself that he must decrease while Christ must increase. Humility was a family trait and handed down from parents to child in the home of Zechariah and Elizabeth.

Lest I be guilty of slighting Zechariah, it should be noted that when he finally regains his hearing and speech that he exults twice as much about Jesus than about John. After stating that his own child’s name is indeed John, he says:

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people, and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David His servant

“— as He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old—

“salvation FROM OUR ENEMIES, and FROM THE HAND OF ALL WHO HATE US; to show mercy toward our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant, the oath which He swore to Abraham our father, to grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies, might serve Him without fear in holiness and righteousness before Him all our days.

“And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go on BEFORE THE LORD TO PREPARE HIS WAYS; to give to His people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, with which the sunrise from on high will visit us, TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” – Lk 1.68-79

Zechariah speaks eight verses (although he probably didn’t know he was speaking in verses at the time) about the Messiah and just four about his own son, John. He rejoices first in the coming of the Savior and only then about his own son.

Clearly, both Elizabeth and Zecharish looked at and lived their lives from an eternal perspective. So were they able to rejoice greatly in the birth of their own son, but far more in the birth of the Son of God. An example for us all to follow.

(Tim Challies has a thought-provoking – but not necessarily influential – post up at his site. I left the following there as a comment but thought I would post it here for anyone who reads EP but not Challies - although I cannot imagine such a person actually existing.)

I’m not sure what the value is of determining who is “most influential” in the Kingdom of Blog. If that appellation is bestowed, should we all rush to the site to be influenced? I don’t understand the point. I read blogs that edify rather than influence me: edifiying blogs facilitate the work of the Holy Spirit; influential blogs facilitate the work of . . . the flesh? the blogger?

Or maybe I don’t understand what is meant by the term “influence” as used here.

This discussion also reminds me of the disciples squabbling over who was going to be greatest in the Kingdom of God. I think we all need to stop looking at our own numbers and accomplishments and begin looking to God for His estimation of what we write. I might be caustic, abrasive, and arrogant (come to think of it, I am all those things) and be very influential and very popular – I won’t name any other names here – or I might tell the truth and spend my time in relative obscurity with only a handful of readers.

(Or, as in my case, I might be caustic, abrasive, and arrogant and then languish in total obscurity!)

Who is greater? More importantly, who among us is fit to say who is greater?

Or maybe I’m just too old for this kind of competition.

Why not this: you read what you want to read and find edifying, and I’ll do the same. What you (Tim) find edifying in the writings of some dead Calvinist, I might find uninspiring; conversely, what I think is profound in the writings of an “heretical” dispensationalist, you might find to be the source of all problems in Protestantism.

Who is most influential is likely to come down to who confirms the biases of most blog readers. Cynical? Perhaps, but probably true all the same. Ultimately, we are influenced only by those whom we allow to influence us, for better or for worse.

Addendum: I was thinking this morning about a sermon I heard long ago by Ron Dunn, a remarkable, expository, Baptist preacher. One of his points in his sermon on prayer was that the apostles had virtually no influence in Jerusalem following the Day of Pentecost. In the corridors of worldly influence, they were paupers.

But, although they didn’t have the influence to keep Peter out of jail, they did have the power to pray him out!

We have mistaken influence for power; we have settled for the influence of political lobbyists, book sales, and blog hits but neglected the power available to us by the Holy Spirit as He answers our prayers.

So there may be blogs of influence, but that is not the same as being a blog of power. Keep the influence, if you like, but I’m hoping to tap into just a small bit of the power of God that He offers to His children.

That’s not meant to sound smug, superior or like “sour grapes” from someone on the far end of the tail, but just a reminder about what is important and what is not, what is valued in the eyes of God and what is valued in the eyes of men.

My posting has been so sparse of late that I feel as though I need to apologize to those readers of Eternal Perspectives that click by to see if I’ve gotten around to anything new. I don’t think my dearth of writing is due to the well being dry but rather to my wondering if I drink from the same well as most Christians in the cyberchurch.

Hear my confession (Part Uno): I get bored – quickly – with vast majority of the so-called discussions that take place online. Take, for example, the current skirmish that could erupt into a genuine massacre at any time. (I say “massacre” not because one side is going to so devastate the other, but because it will be yet another instance of the Name of Christ being sullied as two or more bloggers attempt to tear theological limb from theological limb from one another. Shades of the Black K-nig-it. Not a great testimony to either the love or unity to which we are commanded.)

The simmering feud to which I’m referring, of course, is the “Name-that-Beast of the Week in Revelation” between Tim Challies, Joe Carter, Andy Jackson, and the sometimes-incindiary posts of John Schroeder. Tim says the Roman Church “seems to be,” “might be,” “could be” the Beast, or, uh, antichrist, I mean some metaphorical being from John’s final writings, while Andy says, “no way.” Joe takes Tim to task for being illogical in his post and John faults Tim specifically and generally for hedging his statements behind statements with plausible deniability. iMonk comments that he’s in favor of people saying what they mean and meaning what they say, i.e., speaking dogmatically and not tiptoeing around. This is not surprising coming from Michael, who is anything but hypocritical in this regard and could be the poster boy for straight talking – even if sometimes his message might be a tad bent. Like mine. And yours.

Regardless, I find all of this tediously boring and an utter waste of time and talent. Is this what Paul meant when he told us that we should be “making the most of your time, because the days are evil”? I seriously doubt it.

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that I have been able to accurately identify the Beast of Revelation. After years to exegetical, historical, and theological work – and also reading the Gnostic gospels and even The Da Vinci Code – I determine that the Beast of Revelation is Alec Baldwin, erstwhile actor and expert on everything.

(Now, I could have picked Ann Coulter except (a) the Beast seems to be male and, unless I need new glasses, there’s not much about Ann that looks masculine, and (b) I like Ann a lot more than I like Alec. I’m also confident that some of you have noticed that I put Alec on the right and Ann on the left: this is what’s known as irony in my own sardonic, iconoclastic mind.)

At any rate, so I determine beyond any doubt that the Beast of Revelation is Alec Baldwin – and maybe even that Ann Coulter is the whore of Babylon. Now what? What do I, as a Christian, do about this amazing discovery? First, of course, being pretribulational in my theology, I have to make some changes to my eschatology. Nothing too earth-shattering about that. I also might have to change my feelings about Ann but, again, it’s not like we exchange Christmas cards or she has me on speed dial.

So what’s the point? Knowing the identity of the Beast or whore doesn’t change my life one bit: I’m no more responsible now than previously to love people, share the gospel, care for the poor and needy, be a faithful steward of creation, and live a holy life. The only benefit, as far as I can tell, is that I have ruled out myself as either the Beast or the whore, along with a lot of others. I suppose I’m freed from having to love Alec or Ann, but – and this is a horrible confession (Part Dos) I am about to make – I really don’t pray for either one of them anyway.

That may make me a horrible Christian but, thanks to my discovery, it doesn’t make me the Beast or the whore.

Whew!

So I languish in my thoughts about whether or not to spend my time trying to talk sense into people who know more than they understand or need to establish an identity by being contrary. I’m not sure that is the wisest investment of my time or a practice of “making the most of” my time during these evil days.

Thus, posting may continue to be sparse. When I do write something, however, I hope it will be something of a reality check for those of you who do read. One of my missions, as described in the header of Eternal Perspectives, is “searching for sanity in a Christian culture gone mad.”

When the patients are running the psych ward, it’s not easy.

Related Tags: Catholic, Beast, Antichrist, Revelation

A brief excerpt from the book:

In 1989, Piper was heading home from a Baptist conference when he hit a truck head on. ‘A light enveloped me, with a brilliance beyond earthly comprehension or description.’ 90 minutes later, Piper returned to life.”

OK, so it’s Don Piper instead of John, but Christianity Today’s series of articles on heaven, hell, and the afterlife provide a wealth of information – some funny, some sad, all worthwhile.

The lead story is “Travel Writing from the Afterlife,” Rob Moll’s wry and sardonic look at the claims of Don Piper’s 90 Minutes in Heaven and Bill Wiese’s 23 Minutes in Hell. Worth your time, too, are the many links to additional, related articles. I’ll provide snippets to whet your appetites for some of the writings.

Travel Writing from the Afterlife

Regarding Wiese’s time in hell:

Hell, Wiese says, ‘was hot—far beyond any possibility of sustaining life.’ (Thankfully, it being hell, everyone but Wiese had already died.) ‘My flesh should disintegrate from off my body at any moment. The reality was that it didn’t.’ Lots of other things happen in hell, says Wiese, which don’t normally happen on earth.

“‘I was extremely nauseous from the terrible, foul stench coming from these creatures. It was absolutely disgusting, foul, and rotten. It was, by far, the most putrid smells I have ever encountered. … The odor was extremely toxic, and that alone should have killed me.’ Somehow it didn’t.

“Wiese was also given information that he ordinarily wouldn’t have known. The creatures in his cell were speaking in a blasphemous language, Wiese says which he was supernaturally able to understand. Then, ‘one of the creatures picked me up. The strength of the beast was amazing. I was comparable to the weight of a water glass in its hand. … Instinctively, I knew that the creature holding me had strength approximately one thousand times greater than a man.’

“Jesus told Wiese to tell people that hell is real. Wiese says he was brought to hell in order to warn others about its torment. Twenty-three minutes after first being catapulted from his bed, Wiese woke up. He was lying on the floor of his living room, screaming in horror. His wife, hearing his screams, woke up and brought Wiese a glass of water.”

Of Piper’s time in heaven, Moll reports,

For those considering the comforts of heaven, Don Piper, a Texas pastor, tells his story. In 1989, Piper was heading home from a Baptist conference when he hit a truck head on. ‘A light enveloped me, with a brilliance beyond earthly comprehension or description.’ 90 minutes later, Piper returned to life . . .

“Interestingly, Piper’s vision corresponds to American Christians’ view of heaven. ‘Nearly all Christians think that union with God, peace, and tranquility, and reunion with relatives are likely to await them,’ writes Alan F. Segal in Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion.

“So, either Piper proved American views of the afterlife correct, or he saw what he expected to see, because he expected to see it.”

What Will Heaven Be Like?
Thirty-five frequently asked questions about eternity.

Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, tackles the FAQs of heaven. A sampling from his article:

3. Will we recognize our loved ones in Heaven?

George Macdonald answers this question with a counterquestion: ‘Will we be greater fools there than here?’ Of course we will know our loved ones. This is a divinely designed, essential part of our joy. We are not designed to be solitary mystics, lovers of God alone, but to be, like God himself, lovers of men and women as well.”

9. What happens in hell?

Nothing.

10. What happens in Heaven?

Everything.”

14. Do differences include sexual differences? Is there sex in Heaven?

Of course. Sex is part of our divinely designed humanity. It is transformed, not removed, in Heaven. We will be ‘like the angels’ in ‘neither marrying nor being given in marriage,’ according to Christ’s answer to the Sadducees (Matt. 22:30), but not in being neutered. Sex is first of all something we are, not something we do. I do not think we will be “doing” copulation in Heaven, but we will be busy being ourselves, and that includes being men and women, not genderless geldings. Vive la difference!”

Harleys in Heaven

John G. Stackhouse Jr. begins his article,

According to a recent snippet in Harper’s magazine, the reach of American entrepreneurship has exceeded that of the builders of the Tower of Babel and extends into heaven itself. Afterlife Telegrams offers to deliver messages to the dead for a price of $10 a word (with a five-word minimum) by way of terminally ill patients who promise to deliver the messages upon ‘passing into the afterlife.’

In the fine print of the agreement, however, it warns customers that it cannot guarantee the message will get through. ‘The truth is,’ Afterlife Telegrams solemnly warns, ‘no one knows what happens when someone dies.’”

Additional articles:

What’s a Heaven For? – by Philip Yancey

The Believer’s Final Bliss – by John Murray

The Eternal Weight of Glory – by Harry Blamires

Afraid of Heaven – by Kenneth Kantzer

Plus many more. Scroll to the bottom of this page for a full listing.

And, thank you Christianity Today!

Dan Edelen of Cerulean Sanctum recently sent me a solicited email giving me a baker’s dozen worth of tips about blogging. All were very good and helpful; one was outstanding and one was a blow to my considerable ego.

To address the latter first, the “slap” – wholly unintended, I’m sure (I should think so! He couldn’t possibly have read any of my stuff and suggested such a preposterous thing!) – was his recommendation to take a class or two in journalism. I’ve but two things to say in response to that: first, that I spent 12-13 years as a newspaper reporter/writer, even winning a minor Associated Press Award once; second, if I ever thought I was a journalist or becoming one, I would immediately seek out the nearest low-speed freight train route and superglue my fingertips and lips to the respective rails. I am a writer, thank you very much, and would not deign to associate with the bottom feeders of all-things-written, i.e., journalists of any and every flavor.

But I think Dan said that generally or because he had cut-and-pasted some things from an earlier post of his (which I think I read, but may have written – I get confused sometimes).

The quite valuable point he made (in two-parts) was the following:

1. Establish a brand. All the best Godbloggers can be expected to deliver something specific. At Cerulean Sanctum, my brand is that I talk about the American Church. I stay on topic about 80% of the time. What is Eternal Perspectives’ brand?

“2. Write to your brand. People expect something from me when they read my blog. I have to deliver my brand. Fortunately, I staked out a position early on and have been able to ride it through the blog explosion. The earlier you got in the game, the better off you are.”

Dan is, as he says, very good at this: he writes about the church and makes a lot of good points – and by “good” I mean constructive and positive in addition to putting his finger on problems.

(He also suggested using a lot of images, in case you couldn’t tell.)

I started thinking about my “brand” (as Dan calls it) and wondered if I shouldn’t do something more narrow and specific (something I’m already doing at The Lord of the Kingdom, my other blog that looks at Christian themes and values in the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien and for which I have just given a self-promoting plug). Since I have a couple of graduate degrees in psychology, Christian education, and discipleship, that brand seemed like a natural. Then I thought about sanctification in general: I was struggling to find my niche and write to my target audience, you know? In an effort to do that, I changed the name of the site (for less than a day) to Eternal Prospectus and was quite pleased with my cleverness. I would discuss santification and discipleship since we are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, which was kinda like a prospectus.

This thought was utterly boring to me. I have a minor in Marketing and detest the Madison Avenue approach to ministry; was I now going to succumb to the temptress (I would say “whore” but I don’t want to offend people)? Then I was struck with a rare sighting of common sense, truly an endangered species in the ecological system which is my mind.

Why not think about what I had been writing and write more of that? Only do it intentionally and unabashedly (I started to write “unapologetically,” which might be more accurate, but I like the sound of “unabashedly” much better; don’t you?). So I changed the title back and altered the description to “Searching for sanity in a Christian culture gone mad” since that is what I think of the state of Christendom these days: it’s nuts, both in the pulpit and in the pews.

I almost went with my life’s mission – “Comforting the Disturbed, Disturbing the Comfortable” – but it seemed like too much of a cliché. It is what I do, both professionally and personally, but I’m tired of the phrase.

So there it is. For now. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? One thing I think is here to stay, though, is what I posted a couple of days ago and what I wrote in an email this morning. I’ll close with the pertinent portion of the email to a friend who thought I had been more caustic than usual (is that even possible?) of late:

As far as being caustic: (1) it’s short of profanity and, if it makes people think, then that’s all I seek: “comfort the disturbed, disturb the comfortable; (2) my “Tiptoeing through the Tulips” post pretty much explains the disgust I have for Christian prima donnas and prima dons that can’t stand to have their tender little toes stepped on or soiled. What kind of cloistered world do they live in, anyway? They can pretend ’till the cows explode that there are nothing but holy thoughts in their heads and virtuous acts in their lives, but they need to face reality. Is it any wonder that Driscoll, McLaren, Miller, and others are reaching people by being genuine? I don’t embrace the means often used, but people – whether lost or MIA from the church – are starving for someone to be real. I am very tired of the Christian Monkeys (see no, hear no, speak no) getting apoplectic because of the presence of sin in the world. They are among the worst theologians: they believe in the concept of sin, but not the reality; is salvation any different to them, i.e., a concept but not a real-world fact?

“Really, I’m not caustic. I’m just pissed. Not at you but at all the you-know-who’s.

“My theology anticipates the failure of the church but that doesn’t make watching it’s pitiful death throes (at least in our countries) glorious. Instead of sharpening the rails on our sled, we ought to be doing everything we can to slow this avalance of insanity.”

I’m thinking about coming out with my own new paraphrase of the Bible. There is little doubt in my mind about the inestimable market for this idea and how widely it will be embraced. It is a version whose time has come, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

Let me give you a taste of what this will be like (following the practice of The Amplified Bible, my additions will be italicized with the NASB text in boldface font). Here’s a sampling of my new version – which I’m calling the “Non-abusive Version Expanded Loquaciously (NaVEL) – that improves and sanitizes a famous verse from the life of Jesus Christ:

Now, I realize that this is only My perception of things but – even though I have laid aside certain aspects of My divine nature – I hope and pray that there is something you might find helpful or at least heuristic in my words. I say this as someone who cares, not as an enemy. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Even though I use the somewhat-loaded words “woe” and “hypocrites,” I am doing this only to get your attention and with the hope that it may enable Me to connect with you in a meaningful way. For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful – and on the outside you really are beautiful, so white and freshly washed, and my hope in saying any of this is so that your inward nature might approach the wonderful person you seem to be on the outside – but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Please don’t fail to note that I said that you “are like” these things, not that you actually are. I’m not saying, or, at least, I don’t mean to imply that you are somehow defiled or defiling others. I’m just trying to help. Sorry if I’ve gone too far.” – Mt 23.27 (NaVEL)

It’s obvious and remarkably instructive how my version facilitates connecting with the lost! It is no less effective, however, in speaking with fellow believers, as is apparent from another famous verse from the lips of our Lord and Savior:

But turning around – by which I am not at all suggesting that Jesus was repenting at this point, since the Greek word here is different from that which is typically translated ‘repented’ wherever it occurs – and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter, in the nicest and least offensive fashion possible, in that He was perfect, and *said, ‘Get behind Me, Satan; (although when I say ‘Satan’ I’m being figurative and with a twinkle in My eye and a smile on My face, thus letting you know that you shouldn’t take this too seriously and certainly not personally) for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s, even though there’s nothing at all wrong with your interests: some of your observations and ideas may (and probably many times are) superior to My own. But you might want to consider that in this particular instance I could be correct.‘” – Mk 8.33 (NaVEL)

Again, we see the strength of the NaVEL: not only does it put Jesus in a better, more socially acceptable light but it also cleans up the language of the gospel writer by explaining some choices of words that could have been better. (You also may have noticed my own clever marketing scheme, i.e., “NaVEL.” This way “Quiet Times” can be replaced with the more appropriate “NaVEL Gazing”!)

This stroke (of genius) came to me this morning as I was writing a comment elsewhere and became aware of how much I was bending over (backwards, I think) to make sure that I wasn’t misunderstood or taken the wrong way by the author of the post or any of his sycophants that might be lurking in the cybershadows, waiting to pounce at the first whiff of criticism.

Shifting gears (to a more serious consideration of this phenomenon), this seems to be required and necessary a great majority of the time on far too many Christian blogs, but the essential question is, “Why is it necessary?” Are our egos so inflated that we are unable to accept criticism, even when it is poorly offerred? Time and time again I find myself carefully crafting a comment so that (a) it will very difficult to shoot the messenger, and (b) it will be hard or next to impossible to seize upon a minor, parenthetical comment and ignore the heart of the criticism.

Take, for example, the subtitle of this post. I added the “apology” to Calvinists because “Tulip” is a word that has theological value for them. I doubt that Tiny Tim had them in mind when he grabbed his ukulele and sang “Tiptoe through the Tulips” on television during the last century. But since many Reformed bloggers and readers are easily offended, I put up a disclaimer – albeit only partially serious.

The truth is that no single denomination – whether Reformed or Unreformed – has the corner on an inflated sense of self-importance. We all do and we would all do well to let a lot of air our of our puffed up egos. We take ourselves far too seriously and then regard the message far less seriously than we should. I am as susceptible as many, I suppose, to imagining that others are guilty for hurting my feelings – but I’m trying, Ringo. I’m trying real hard. (Guess the reference, win a prize.)

Why I or anyone else should imagine that we are above being maligned, misrepresented, and mistreated by others is beyond me. After all, none of us is really that important. As Christians, we should be quick to state the obvious when some of our own strut around like peacocks in their new Emperor’s clothes; as those who are caught naked, we should be quick to repent and thank a brother for their faithful wounds. And we should avoid those who plant deceitful kisses on our backsides.

Too often, my toes get stepped on because I’ve got them sticking out where they don’t belong. That is, I take offense even when none is given. That, without question, was the problem of the Pharisees, Sadduccees, scribes, and others during Christ’s days: they drew and we draw circles or boundaries that are far too restrictive or expansive. Too restrictive in that we don’t tolerate the criticisms of others very well; too expansive in that our sense of personal holiness is violated with Pharisaical regularity.

The bottom line is this: we need to stop whining about how someone said what they said and, instead, pay attention to what they said. It may be God trying to reach us through them but, if we’re always disqualifying the messenger because they don’t meet our unbiblical standards of niceties, we’re asking for God to body-slam us into true spiritual awareness and sensitivity.

Here’s my vow, as of today: I will not intentionally give offense to anyone, but neither will I tiptoe around the ridiculous, tender, over-developed sensibilities of others. I’ll speak straight and directly in (hopefully) language that is at once easily understood and gracious. I’ll try to speak the truth in love, not the truth in some 21st century, misguided, impotent, non-offensive gibberish that winds up saying nothing. That’s not love.

If I offend others, I’ll apologize; if others take offense, I’ll remember two things: one, that what other people think of me is none of my business and, two, my life-verse: “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way” (lk 6.26).

It’s important to have the right enemies, after all, and to have the wrong people saying wrong things about you.