Offering Your Body to God

After listening to and evaluating hundreds of sermons and biblical talks, Will contends (and I agree) that three things (or a combination thereof) distinguish a great sermon from a merely good one: tension, emotion, or insight. We often evaluate each other's sermons based on whether any of these factors were present in a significant and meaningful way.

I would venture to say that the sermon Will preached this morning (7/29/07) was one of the best in the history of Coram Deo. It started with a great biblical text (Romans 12:1-2) and was packed with profound insight. Don't miss it - visit the Resources page or follow this link. The title is "Don't Let Satan Pimp You Out."

(After a few weeks of technical and procedural complications, the Coram Deo podcast is live again. Thanks to all of you who participate in the conversation from geographical locations outside of Omaha. We count it a privilege to serve you by teaching the Bible.)

Looking Back and Moving forward

In light of our reflection together on Sunday, and in anticipation of the next section of Romans, this quote seems appropriate:

"Commitment without reflection is fanaticism in action. But reflection without commitment is the paralysis of all action." - John Mackay, former president of Princeton Seminary

Luther Quote of the Day

The Christian life does not mean to stand still, but to move from that which is good to that which is better. St. Bernard [of Clairvaux] rightly says: 'As soon as you do not desire to become better, then you have ceased to be good.' It does not help a tree to have green leaves and flowers if it does not bear fruit besides its flowers. For this reason [not bearing fruit], many nominal Christians perish in their flowering. The Christian is always... in the state of becoming, always in the state of potentiality, always in the condition of activity. He is always in sin and always in justification. He is always a sinner, but also always repentant and so always righteous... No one is so good as that he could not become better; no one is so evil, as that he could not become worse.
- Martin Luther, writing on Romans 12:1-2.

(Note: If you read this quote of Luther as justifying your comfort in your sin, then you have read him incorrectly. If you hear him to be saying that it's OK to always struggle with the same sins and never make progress in sanctification, then you have read him incorrectly. On the other hand, if you 'see' the 'cross chart' (increasing awareness of sin -- increasing awareness of God's holiness -- increasing repentance and trust in the passive righteousness of Christ) as you read his quote, then I dare say you are reading Dr. Luther correctly.)

God Saves Sinners

For almost a year now, the Coram Deo community has been sinking our collective teeth into the theologically rich and ethically challenging book of Romans. This Sunday, as we linger on the cusp of chapter 12, we will pause to meditatively reflect on the teaching of the first eleven chapters and especially on the theme of the book: "God Saves Sinners." Our worship gathering this Sunday will be different - in a good and meaningful way. Don't miss it.

Rome Pulls One Over on Palau

(see post below for context)

Just two weeks prior to the Luis Palau Heartland Festival, which was endorsed by Omaha's archbishop, the Vatican released a clarifying statement regarding its view of Protestant churches. Here is an excerpt:

QUESTION: Why do the texts of the [Second Vatican] Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

In other words, while Palau and his organization were inviting Roman Catholics to participate in their festival in the name of unity, Rome was clarifying that it does not consider any Reformed or Protestant church to be worthy of the title "church."

Congrats to the Catholics for being very clear on where they stand theologically. I only wish Omaha's evangelical community could be equally clear on where it stands theologically.

Palau and the Roman Catholics?

In the interest of playing well with other churches in Omaha, we at Coram Deo have not said much about the Luis Palau festival which took place last weekend. Though Palau's methodology is vastly different from ours, it seems that God in his grace often brings good even out of these sorts of events. If there's one thing we know from Scripture, it's that God is capable of making himself known through some less-than-orthodox means (see Numbers 22).

However, late last week, I became aware of some troubling developments that have bothered my conscience all weekend - specifically, the fact that the Archdiocese of Omaha was going to have a "confessional tent" at the Palau festival where priests would take confessions from festival-goers. When the Catholic archbishop endorses an evangelistic event, thoughtful Christians should ask why. So it's time to open Pandora's box.

According to the Catholic Voice newspaper, Palau reached out to the Roman Catholics and asked them to be involved in the festival. This is apparently a "first" for the Palau organization, and those who agree with it are defending it on the premise of "unity."

I love my Roman Catholic friends, and we have much to learn from their leadership on social justice and human rights issues. But anyone who has studied Roman Catholic theology should know that the gospel is one thing we do NOT agree on. Unity at the expense of the gospel is not biblical unity. And it's time someone stood up and said so. What more confusing message could we send to our city than to say, "Luis Palau, Catholics, Evangelicals, and liberal Protestants all agree on the essential message of the gospel?"

My friend in the gospel Erik Reymond did an interview with NPR on this issue last week... they unfairly represented his point of view, but I appreciate him for speaking out and being the "contrarian" on this issue. Read his blog for more. Let us be willing to go against the grain (even disagreeing with our evangelical brethren) when faithfulness to the biblical gospel requires it!

Providence

In May of 2005 our family began the process of trying to adopt a little girl from China. We have 3 biological children and could certainly make more, but we were impressed by God in prayer that there are plenty of orphaned children in the world who need parents as well. Especially in China.

China's communist government has an official "one child policy." Having multiple children is punished by heavy taxes and fines, and in some cases, forced abortion or sterilization. Since China is a highly patriarchal society, most Chinese want their one child to be a boy. 98% of the orphan population in China are little girls... girls who are going to grow up without a daddy or mommy and, if not adopted in childhood, will likely end up in prostitution or sexual slavery. God brought a strong conviction to us that this is a gospel issue. If the gospel is really at work in us, we will be at work to bring redemption (right the wrongs) in the world. We do not have the leverage to change government policy in China or to mount a global human rights campaign. But adopting a baby is a beautiful way to redeem a life and live out our conviction that every human person is an image-bearer of God. The macro picture (political action, global human rights) is important, too... but the micro level is where we take personal ownership of redemption.

The time has finally come. After 2 long years of waiting, we finally received yesterday a photo of the little girl that God, in His providence, has chosen from the beginning of time to add to our family. Here she is!

Redemptive Radio?

Today on a local “safe for the whole family” radio station, I heard the song “How to Save a Life” by The Fray.

My first thought was, “Cool,” because The Fray is a cool band and I think their music is pretty decent.

But then I got to thinking: why is “How to Save a Life” suddenly a feature on the Christian radio station? I don’t know much about the spiritual history of the band members, but I do know that The Fray does not claim to be a “Christian” band. They worked their way up through the alternative rock radio ranks in Denver. They write songs that are broadly appealing. They didn’t release their album on a Christian label or distribute it in Christian trinket I mean book stores. When The Fray played Sokol Hall, they weren’t running ads on Christian radio trying to get an audience.

And what’s more, “How to Save a Life” wasn’t being featured on Christian radio a year and a half ago, when it first hit the charts and became a feature song on Grey’s Anatomy. So I got to thinking: what changed? Why is the song now worthy of Christian radio airplay, more than a year after it found major commercial success?

I’m interested in your thoughts on the comment thread. Here’s my two cents: "Christian" radio, which started out as a vehicle for biblical preaching and teaching, has become primarily a “safe” (i.e. “subcultural”) alternative to major commercial radio. So what qualifies a song to be played on the Christian station has almost nothing to do with the faithful witness of the musicians, or the style of the music, or the biblical worldview of the lyrics. Rather, the simple criteria are: 1) is this song commercially attractive to the masses, and 2) are its lyrics “safe for the whole family?”

In applying these criteria, occasionally Christian radio is out front with a Christian artist who has solid commercial appeal (a la Mat Kearney). But more often, Christian radio is behind the ball, suddenly discovering that yesterday’s commercially popular songs also happen to be safe for the whole family (a la “How to Save a Life”). Since people are listening to such songs on secular radio anyway, why not play them on the Jesus station once we’ve confirmed that they’re indeed “safe”?

Some Christian radio defenders will undoubtedly spin this as a faithful attempt to engage culture. But I contend that it is not. Rather, it is another example of picking up the culture’s scraps and slapping a Christian label on them. If God’s people would seek to shape culture in a redemptive way, we’ll have to do more than figure out which songs qualify as both “cool” and “safe.” We’ll have to encourage and promote artists who sing about the complexities of Creation, Fall, and Redemption – including even the ugly parts – and who spur us to think more deeply about such complexities. Such artists are neither neatly “Christian” nor plainly “secular.” They are simply human.

Your thoughts? (Especially if you work in Christian radio, you're entitled to a rebuttal. Fire away.)

Weird Sight of the Day

So I know there are some weird people out there, but this one took the prize for today: I saw a guy who lives in the apartment complex next to our office was walking his cat this morning. I mean on a leash, like it was a dog.

I know cat people can be kinda strange... but honestly... is this normal? I have never owned a cat (and never will), so you guys will have to tell me if this is normal cat-owner behavior.

The Uni-Perspectival Church

Last week my wife and I had the privilege of gathering with our brethren in the Acts 29 church planting network for a few days of refreshment, renewal, and conversation. When A29 guys and their wives get together, the conversations are always the best part. Lots of bantering about theology, missiology, contextualization, culture, and church planting.

One of the best topics of conversation this year was about the word "missional," which has been co-opted by everyone as the cool new word in Christianity. Dr. Ed Stetzer guided us through a semantic history of the word. That led my friend David Fairchild, pastor of Kaleo Church in San Diego, to post a very insightful blog about the 3 common errors churches fall into by failing to be appropriately nuanced in their understanding of the gospel. Read Fairchild's post here - it will give you a whole new lens for thinking about what church should (and shouldn't) be.