I must also admit that I started quite inauspiciously being quite ignorant of the way the blogging world worked. While WordPress makes it phenomenally easy to set up a blog, I was totally clueless about the use of tags, categories, and such things. But I finally began to get hang of some of the ins and outs of the blogosphere.

Now after being at this for about three years I think I have finally figured out some of the reasons why I do this. There should some decent reasons since it does take a certain amount of time and energy.

#1–Writing–One of my mentors years ago said that if it is worth thinking about it is worth writing down. I am afraid I never really took that to heart. You would think that a pastor who is writing Sunday School lessons, Bible studies, and sermons every week that writing would come rather easily. But somehow writing those things that are meant for verbal communication and putting thoughts down that are meant for someone else to read are two very different things–at least for me. Therefore, blogging has been very helpful for me simply for the discipline of expressing ideas on paper (actually on monitor).

#2–Thinking–Even though I am writing about anything from “the sublime to the ridiculous” the way I articulate it does matter. So writing regularly for an audience forces me to consider things like word choice and sentence structure and flow of thought (admittedly, there are times I do that better than others). I try to take seriously the final product, although more than once I have to do a quick edit of an already published piece after finding an error that I somehow missed during 2 or 3 proofreadings.

Another thing that has been helpful is the need to think about things in a way I may not have necessarily done so before. I am trying to regularly write a post approximately 400-500 words. That means there are days that I need to give an idea more than a passing glance and other days that I need to tighten up my presentation. Hopefully I have been successful most of the time.

#3–Interaction–This was the wonderfully pleasant surprise. The most enjoyable part of blogging is the conversation. This has taken the form of encouragement, correction, and disagreement. But the vast majority of has been very respectful. This interaction is the reason bloggers are consistently requesting feedback. That can take the form of doing something as simple as pressing the “like” button, rating the blog, or preferably commenting on the post. This lets me know you are out there and how the things I am writing connect with those of you who are reading. Another helpful thing you can do, if you think it is worth doing, is to share the post with others through one of the “share buttons” at the end of the post. This is simply a way of widening the audience and maybe expanding the conversation.

So while I am constantly grateful for those that have been willing to read and interact with my “ramblings” it may be something you would like to try your hand at. You might enjoy it more than you think. If you do, let me know.

This viewing experience caused me to think about the way we understand the Christian life. There is the Christianity that is best categorized as attending church on Sunday (maybe). Statistics tell us that the person that has adopted this lifestyle hardly reads his/her Bible. While they claim to “believe” the Bible it has made no difference in their behavior (entertainment choices, relationship stability, ethics, etc.). This “Christianity” can best be described as casual.

Then there is biblical Christianity. This is the kind of life that Jesus described:

“Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”

Jim Elliott, who was a martyr for the faith toward the middle of the twentieth century, said it like this, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.”

Most people, when responding to the gospel of Christ, have this kind of call to make–if they will choose to live as a “casual” Christian, or a biblical one. A number of years ago a song was recording with the following lyrics:

You paid far too high a price for me your love, your tears, your pain, to have my soul just stirred at times, and never really changed. You deserve a fiery love, one that won’t ignore you sacrifice, for you paid far too high a price.

When you look up the definition of “friend” online you find examples such as “a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard” (dictionary.com) and “a person whom one knows, likes, and trusts” (Free Online dictionary). Friendship is a fascinating study. I have often told my children that if they have a single friend in high school or college with whom they are able to maintain a relationship through the rest of their life they will be fortunate indeed. That is not a blessing that most people have.

One of the things that has intrigued me about friendship is it’s evolution. While I certainly cannot speak for the experience of another person, I have found it almost impossible to trace when a friendship truly began. We just simply remember ourselves as friends. It also seems that it can be the strangest of circumstances that bring about a friendship. As this progressing relationship forms, a friendship (in it’s truest sense) can survive some pretty difficult things. I began ruminating on this today as I considered a statement written by C.S. Lewis in The Four Loves:

“What draws people to be friends is that they see the same truth. They share it.”

Most of us have had this experience. Maybe it is sharing a love of the same books. Maybe it is finding yourselves think on the same wavelength (as strange as it may be ). Possibly it is simply that you value the same things. Maybe it is because the gospel of Christ has ministered to you both in the same compelling way. But whatever it is, it has drawn you to one another–and it has created a bond that has allowed you to survive not just good times and bad, but strengthen one another in the process. One of the greatest joys of my life is to be able to say with sincerity that my bride of 23 years remains my best friend on this earth.

I am so thankful for the many friendships that I have been privileged to enjoy. And if you have those you call good friends then you know that friendship is a serious matter. Goerge Washington understood that quite well:

“Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence.”

I started with the idea that we are living in a time when friendship can often be taken far too lightly. One of the things we know is that at the base of true friendship is commitment. No one showed the depth of friendship like the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He that said:

“Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”          (John 15: 13)

By the way, I am thrilled to be able to say that I have some wonderful friends. But there is not a friendship that matters more than the one I share with Jesus. I hope you are able to say the same.

When I got sent this picture last night I was reminded of a passage we had recently studied in the book On Guard by William Lane Craig. The point being made is that, as most atheists understand, it is very difficult to prove a universal negative, so the definition of atheism as the belief that there is no God has been backed off on recently, for what is considered a more workable definition. It is no longer the view that God does not exist, but an absence of belief in God (or in His existence). We will pick up Dr. Craig at this point:

“This is not only contrary to the traditional meaning of the word, but it is really hopeless as a definition. For on this new definition atheism is no longer a viewpoint or position. Rather it’s just a description of someone’s psychological state, namely, the state of lacking a belief in God. As such atheism is neither true nor false, and even babies turn out to be atheists! But can you imagine the following conversation between two young mothers?

Brooke: “Julie, I heard that you just had twins! Congratulations!

Julie: “Yes, thank you! But, you know, it’s so sad . . .”

Brooke: “What is?”

Julie: “Well, they’re both atheists!”

On this definition even our cat, who I’m sure has never even thought about the question, turns out to be an atheist!

Hmmmmm.

Secondly–Why is Job categorized as wisdom literature as opposed to historical narrative? Even a slightly careful reading will surface some rather obvious clues that it is the life lessons in the story which are important, rather than the details in the history. Here are a couple of examples–chapter 1 begins with a description of Job’s personal blamelessness and his worship of God. The chapter ends with his commitment to worship and his refusal to charge God with sin. Literally the character of this man becomes the bookends for responding to the suffering he begins to experience. The “wisdom” nature of the writing is also seen in the formulaic reporting of the compounding tragedy that comes upon Job’s possessions and family–repeatedly we read, as if it were scripted, “I alone have escaped to tell you.”

Allow me to make a disclaimer lest I be charged with heresy. I am not saying that Job was not an actual historical figure to whom some really bad things happened. What I am saying is that the point of the narrative is not in its historicity, but in it’s wisdom. This is vitally important because it affects the way we understand the opening scene in the “heavenly court.” We will almost immediately find ourselves in theologically murky water when we start attempting to build an understanding of “the accuser” (Satan) based upon a literal understanding of these verses. These questions normally center around Satan “being in heaven” and being numbered among the “sons of God.”

When addressing the question of the main thesis of this familiar and powerful book of Scripture the terms that normally get used are things like perseverance, suffering, patience, etc. I will suggest that while these are certainly present in the narrative, the principal overarching theme is that of the sovereignty and worship of God. As Job famously states in the first chapter–“The Lord has given and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.” In the good times and in the bad times–God is in control and worthy of worship!

There are a lot of people that have problems with “organized” religion–and rightfully so. Jesus Himself had some pretty choice words for the religious leaders of His day. I guess it could be argued that He might have had some problems with organized religion Himself–at least a certain form of it. What always must be kept in mind, of course, is that Christianity is not a religion–it is a relationship with Jesus Christ. So even if “organized religion” would “bite the dust” true biblical Christianity will never be eradicated–never! Which I am sure will be somewhat of a letdown for Dr. Dawkins.

These comments, by the way, were made yesterday at the Jaipur Literary Festival in Jaipur, India. I should probably point out that the reason I find Richard Dawkins mildly amusing on occasion has to do with the foolishness he starts delivering when he gets outside of his realm of expertise. It is my understanding that he is a world class evolutionary biologist. I say “it is my understanding” because I don’t know enough about biology to know how much he actually knows in that discipline–but he certainly is considered to be at “the top of the class.” Therefore, I would never attempt to take him to task in the biological field. I will leave that to the theistic biologists.

Unfortunately, a few years ago this preeminent scholar decided he was also an expert on theology and the Bible–that was a dumb move–and the more he speaks about it the more obvious it becomes. He can get some rousing responses from the friendly crowds he speaks to–but it is common knowledge that you can sound pretty astute when speaking to people who know even less than you do about any given subject. Keep in mind, this is the same man who won’t even debate Dr. William Lane Craig.

I did find it rather telling that when asked, in the midst of his normal vitriol against religion, how to stem the tide of religious fundamentalism in India, he demurred that he didn’t know enough about the situation in India to answer with any authority–however, that lack of knowledge has never stopped him before.

My favorite moment though was when asked when we might see the first atheist President of the United States. Now this is the man who condemns belief in God as being without evidence–“I suspect Lincoln was an atheist, probably so was Kennedy. Obama is an intelligent man, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a closet atheist.”

It doesn’t get much richer than that!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Look-forward-to-the-death-of-organized-religion-Richard-Dawkins/articleshow/11609561.cms

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/24/south_carolina_message_112875.html

That being said, receiving ridiculous amounts of money to play a game is one thing–being paid ridiculous amounts of money to sit on the sideline for an entire season is an entirely different matter. If you follow sports then you know I am making reference to the $28 million bonus due to Peyton Manning, former (most likely) star quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts, who, because of neck problems, did not play a single down the entire season. I am sure there are some die-hards out there that will attempt to convince me that he is owed this because of what he has done in the past and it is his legal due, but it is his own ethical make up (or unethical) that actually provides the answer to this indefensible situation. From my perspective this is completely “out of hand.”

But that is not the only outrage that occurred in the football world yesterday. The second item relates to something that took place at the end of the Giants and Forty-Niners game. Due to an injury to the starter, the back-up punt returner for San Francisco was in the game–his name is Kyle Williams. He made two key mistakes during the contest. First, staying too close to a kick that had already hit the ground which resulted in it touching his knee which allowed the Giants to recover the ball with excellent field position. Secondly, he fumbled the ball on a kick return in overtime which led to a field goal by the Giants which resulted in the win. All of that is simply a back-drop for the real outrage. It is in the news today that following the game Kyle Williams has been been receiving some very threatening messages–I will quote from a local paper in San Francisco–”And while there was support for Williams in the locker room, there were people tweeting death threats on his Twitter account. Sunday night, several hateful messages and veiled threats were posted. Many of them were taken down that specifically talked about wanting him to die.”

I will admit that I can get somewhat passionate watching a football game. There are teams that I like to see win and teams that I like to see lose. Therefore I can be as exhilarated or disappointed at the result as the next person–that of course depends on who “the next person” is. But the response of these fans clearly has gone way, way overboard. Out of hand and way out of line.

But as I consider these two seemingly different scenarios I have to wonder if they represent a common thread. When the fans see and contribute to an athlete receiving millions of dollars to play a game, those same fans expect million dollar performances. And as unrealistic as it may be, they expect mistake free performance. And when those expectations don’t get met–well let’s just say they are less than satisfied.

This came to a head Saturday night following Newt’s shellacking of Mitt Romney in the South Carolina primary. The circling of the wagons around Mr. Romney became embarrassingly obvious. In light of the rantings of the Romney apologists it would have been easy to mistakenly assume that you been secreted away to an MSNBC broadcast. Anybody that watches Fox expects this kind of behavior from people like Juan Williams. There are times that he is able to mask his liberal leanings, but that is a rarity.

However, one of the things that was so astounding was watching similar behavior from people like Brit Hume–a conservative voice that many of us felt could be trusted. One can only assume that an order came “from above” to do everything possible to show what a fluke this was and that this certainly was no reason to support Newt and every reason why Rick Santorum should stay in the race. Lest I be misunderstood, this may have been a anomaly for Newt and Rick should probably stay in the race, but for Fox News it was shameful to present this argument in the breathless and desperate way in which they did.

It will be very telling to see if this intensifies tomorrow as I expect it will. They will join forces with the Republican establishment in attempting to prematurely coronate a nominee. The common mantra being that Mitt Romney is the only candidate that can beat the President–a thesis which I believe is easily challenged. This will, I believe, create a bit of a backlash among many conservatives. Specifically because, as a rule, people do not like being told what they are supposed to think and who they are supposed to follow–at least a lot of the people I know. It will be quite interesting to see how all of this plays out.

On to Florida we go!

However, one of my favorite elements of the film is what it does not do. So often in a storytelling environment the “storyteller” is so concerned you get the message that “the point” is put forth so forcefully and “in your face” that it loses it’s impact. Such is not the case for this film. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close allows the images to speak for themselves. When a mere look or a single image suffices to convey volumes, the movie does not turn preachy–and in doing so (or not doing so) the impact is all the more palpable. And there are many of those moments in this movie.

As a vehicle for reliving the pain of 9/11 it is a disturbing film–and we vicariously experience that pain through nine year old Oskar Shell whose father (Tom Hanks) died in the World Trade Center. Meant as a tool to get his socially awkward son to get out among people Thomas Shell had created an elaborate “scavenger hunt” for his son. This had been an ongoing part of their relationship. Soon after the death of his father Oskar finds a key and he is assured that his dad meant for him to find this and his mission is to find the lock this key fits and Oskar is convinced that if he is able to do so then there will be a “message” that his dad meant for him. So the “hunt” goes on.

As we walk through this narrative with Oskar as our guide we will address the best and worst of the human condition, issues like belief (and disbelief), forgiveness, love, hatred, trust and the lack thereof), anger, abandonment and redemption. There are ways in which it is a very difficult story to watch and yet it is absolutely necessary that we do so.

This is a movie that you will reflect on long after leaving the theater. I would imagine that important discussions will ensue. There are scenes and moments that you will revisit. And in spite of the tears you may have shed you will be very, very glad you afforded yourself the opportunity.