Days Off:

Straight AheadFridays are my days off. Saturdays are not technically days off; but I don't keep office hours and usually don't go over to the church. I take care of any unfinished sermon work, have no set schedule, but always am available to do any visitation, go to hospitals, or do anything necessary in emergencies. (Sometimes on Fridays, there are wedding rehearsals; and of course, I will certainly take care of critical situations--but they have to be truly critical.) I don't usually take work on vacations, though I'm usually ready with my Braillewriter or other necessary items to make notes of thoughts, any reading I may do, or information that might come in handy. I can't quite understand those ministers who are not very definite about their days off, or who don't really take vacations--even if they can't always afford to leave town. While it is true that some people are too eager to "watch the clock," and wouldn't put in any extra time if their lives depended on it, there are others who are almost conscientious to a fault. I think it's largely, though not entirely, a generational thing. I have found that if I don't take my time off, the time I put in becomes less effective. All of this is simply to say that I had a perfectly and lazily enjoyable weekend. I just thought it was worth reflecting on this subject at least once in my blog. But tomorrow is Sunday. I try to take it easy on Sunday afternoons after preaching; but I'll be hard at work in the morning. And usually on Sunday evenings, I'm starting to work on the bulletin for next week. Of course, it is not uncommon to make pastoral visits on Sunday afternoon.

Of Elections, Politicians, and Voting:

Yesterday was Election Day.  Yes, I voted.  I started not to vote, since I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about any of the candidates; but I did vote.  After all, as we always say, if you don't vote, you don't have any complaint coming if things don't go your way--or something like that!  And actually, most of my candidates won here in Alabama and in my local races.

 

I'm not cynical about politics.  I've heard people say that they don't vote because it doesn't make any difference, anyway, or because "they're all bums."  Well, they're not all bums.  And it does make a difference--even though sometimes, it seems very insignificant.  And I figure there are about the same percentage of bums involved in politics as in any other line of work--even including preachers.  If you took all the car salesmen and all the professional sports stars, and all the doctors and lawyers, you'd have about the same percentage of good and bad in all of them, I believe.  Human nature doesn't change just because of your occupation.

 

No, I've always enjoyed politics; and I'd love to run for office some day--at some level.  (It'll probably be only after I retire from active ministry, though' so don't worry if you think this pastor is going to embroil some church in politics.)  If you look at the political campaigns of good candidates who lose, you can usually figure out plausible reasons for the loss without becoming cynical about the process in general.

 

As a result of yesterday's election, for example, the Democrats will now control the United States House of Representatives and, most probably, the U.S. Senate.  That didn't happen because of the virtues and vices of the electorate, or because one party is virtuous and the other party is a bunch of non-Christian thugs.  Rather, it happened for some very plausible and interesting reasons.  It'll be the first time the Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives since 1994; and rankly, I think the next two years will be very interesting to watch.

   

What It Means to Believe in Jesus

Straight AheadAs part of my daily devotions, I am currently reading through a book called "Daily Walk with God," by Herman W. Gockel, copyright 1982, by Concordia Publishing House in St. Louis, the publishing arm of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. It's a good, basic devotional book. I have the privilege of reading it in Braille because it was given to me about a year ago by a wonderful Christian woman who works in rehabilitation of the blind for the state of Alabama. I have enjoyed the book and found it helpful. In the devotional for today, November 7, however, I found some statements that troubled me. I mention them here because they reflect an attitude that is very prevalent among evangelical Protestants. Gockel says that Each of us must ask himself: "Am I putting my primary trust in a system or in a Savior--in a long catalog of doctrines or in the Christ who is the heart and center of those doctrines?" Gockel, of course, is emphasizing the fact that Paul said to Timothy, "I know whom I have believed." (2 Timothy 1:12.) Gockel is right to insist that our primary faith must be in Jesus, and not in doctrine or denomination; but as soon as you say that you believe in Christ, you are moving into the realm of doctrine. What do you believe about Christ? What does it mean to believe in Christ? Is He the God-Man, fully human and fully divine? Is He the only way to salvation? Is faith in Christ necessary for your salvation from eternal condemnation? Are you justified by faith in Christ alone by God's grace, or must you also accomplish certain good works to earn your way to Heaven? These and other matters are all questions that must be considered if anyone truly is to know what it means to believe in Christ and what it means to be a Christian. I once was riding back to Davidson College with another student after a weekend with my girl friend at Mars Hill College in North Carolina. This other student from Davidson held to a very different kind of Christianity than I did. In fact, we hardly agreed on anything. Finally, in desperation to find some common ground, he said to me, "Well, at least we both believe in Jesus." I had to say, "I don't know about that. Your Jesus is so different from mine that I can hardly say that we even believe in the same Jesus." I am beginning a series tomorrow night at my church regarding what it means to be a Presbyterian. One of my sources is the video series by R. C. Sproul called, "What is Reformed Theology?" In this series, Sproul makes a compelling case for theology. Theology is simply the knowledge or study of God. In our day, many seem to think that theology is dead, irrelevant, or simply too difficult for most people to understand. With this kind of thinking, it is no wonder that our churches are losing their influence, their biblical center, and their appeal to the masses. It is true that our primary confidence and faith must be in a Savior and not in a system; but we'd better stop to ask ourselves what it means that we put faith in a Savior named Jesus!

Small Churches Revisited:

Straight AheadSome time ago, I wrote some comments about small and rural churches in the PC(USA. ) (Some of the comments would apply to small churches in most of the mainline Protestant denominations.) Today, I read an interesting article in the November 6 "Presbyterian Outlook" about churches that have a hard time getting full-time pastors or that cannot really afford full-time pastors. The article had some interesting facts. For example, 48% of our congregations in the PC(USA) have fewer than 100 members. The article also pointed out that we do not have a dearth of ministers. On the contrary, we have a decline in the number of small churches that can afford full-time ministers. The article also made a point that I've been trying to make for some time--namely, that even a small church needs an operating budget of about $100,000 a year to pay a full-time pastor and still have meningful missions and programs. We seem to be conflicted in our attitudes toward small churches. On the one hand, we see how important the small churches are--particularly in rural and small-town America. The small churches are the life-blood of many small communities and rural areas. They are also important to the people who belong to them and to the denomination. Yet, we seem unwilling to put the time, money and effort toward maintaining the small churches that could yield enormous benefits to present and future generations. Denominational leaders say it's a matter of stewardship. They want to put the money and the effort where they feel there is the greatest opportunity for numerical and spiritual growth. In many small towns, however, there won't be any numerical growth. Populations are either stable or declining. In other instances, Presbyterianism is not as well-established as other denominations; but that doesn't mean that our Presbyterian churches should be allowed to die. The stewardship of our presbyteries, synods, and General Assembly should begin with encouraging and supporting the work of small churches in hard-to-call areas where our services can still be very important. It is true that in some situations, the small churches themselves are to blame for their decline. Leaders have not encouraged the sharing of responsibilities. Pastors have not delegated authority. Evangelism has been neglected. I also believe that much of the decline of mainline denominations is due to the radical social positions taken by some ministers, congregations, and denominations. After all is said and done, however, our denominations need to re-examine their priorities. Instead of supporting questionable controversial causes and social policies, funds should be reallocated to make the life of the small church viable and lively across America once again. There are other areas where the expenditure of funds could be reconsidered. Some programs are not being widely used or supported. In many cases, denominational programs do not really touch the people in a meaningful way, whereas the work of the local church touches whole communities and presbyteries. We have talked for a long time about the marginalized and the disadvantaged. It now seems that one of the most marginalized and disadvantaged groups in America are the small churches. Wake up, church! Come back to the heartland so that Christ may live in the hearts of a nation in need!

Hebrews 9:24-28, November 6-12, Year B:

Straight AheadAs Arthur Pink notes, this passage shows how the "nobler victim" was morally necessary to pay the sacrifice for our sin. In other words, the sacrifice of goats and lambs, and the atonement of the high priests of Judaism as they entered the Holy of Holies in the temple was not permanently or completely sufficient to satisfy the justice of a holy God. Christ paid the price once for all. He didn't have to be offered up time after time for our sins, but only suffered once on the cross to pay the penalty and endure the punishment we deserve. This was necessary for God's glory and for our good. Ultimately, the Holy of Holies, as represented here, is Christ's ascension into Heaven, where He sits on the right hand of God. He is anointed. By right, He rules with the heavenly Father. He serves in the office of priest and He alone has the "ability," the capacity to be our High Priest and Saviour. He is unique. His offering was His suffering. Again, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews continues to pound away at the comparison of the imperfect Jewish priesthood with the perfected priesthood of Christ. Through Christ, and only through Christ, there truly is remission of sin. The only way the blessing of forgiveness can be conferred is through Christ--hence, the necessity for accepting Him as the Son of God and the Saviour. I should point out before I close that this passage clearly eliminates any speculation about reincarnation for the Christian since it reminds us that "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:...." (Hebrews 9:27.) Belief in reincarnation is not in harmony with Christian teaching.

Inside Sports: Long Seasons--and Seasons on Top of Seasons:

Straight AheadAnd next weekend, some of the college basketball teams will start playing games--I mean, for real. There may already have been some regular season games. (That's in addition, of course, to the one or two exhibition games a lot of schools are playing now.) And next year, the major league baseball play-offs are going to expand by about three days as they extend the division series from five to seven games. But of course, they won't consider rolling back the season from 162 to 154 games, the way it was when I was a kid! So the World Series will probably end in November! This year, the major college football schedules were expanded from eleven to twelve games, and the season started in late August. When I was growing up, a lot of teams--I mean, even the big ones like Alabama--didn't start the season until late September. And some of the big schools were still just playing nine games. And college basketball season started the first weekend in December! Of course, we know it's all driven by money. The TV revenue is huge. Extra ticket sales for additional games and post-season tournaments are also part of it. I'm not against money; and I enjoy the college football season as much as anybody, and more than most. But really now, is it too much? And does it help baseball to be playing the World Series in a cold, northern stadium in November--possibly with snow flurries in the air? And why do the TV networks and the major leagues and the NFL insist on putting some of their best games on the air when all the kids are sound asleep and all the grown men should be? No, I'm not disgusted with sports, and I don't plan to quit watching or quit picking the games. I plan to keep enjoying this diversion in my life because it's fun and I like it. At some point, however, shouldn't common sense return to sports in America? I don't see anything immoral about it--but I do remember something about "bread and circuses."