Straight Ahead

Of Hymns and Hymnals

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 12:25:00 +0000

These days, it's hard to find a good hymnal. We have those of the mainline denominations which have their own liberal bias. They are usually obsessed with their need to be "politically correct." They omit hymns with any military imagery, or other references which they find offensive. Their language must be gender-neutral. Their collections of hymns are theologically slanted toward social messages and modern symbolism which is often hard to follow. As a result, they are not usually very good literature. These hymn books also contain collections of modern hymns which meet these criteria, but which few congregations know or would even care to sing. Then, there are the other hymnals, often produced by independent publishers, attempting to capture the more evangelical church market. They are not obsessed by the need for gender-neutral language; but they do feel the urge to be contemporary and relevant. One result of this is that they try to purge hymns of all language that smacks of the King James Version of the Bible. And since they do want to seem socially relevant, they may include many hymns that are left out of the more liberal hymnals, but with a twist--to make them more acceptable to modern sensibilities. In either case, you wind up with many hymns which purport to be what they in fact are not. Some of the names are the same, but the hymns are effectively rewritten to reflect 21st-century sensibilities. I prefer the older hymnals. I know that even in the older hymn books, the verses which were actually used for certain hymns could vary. But at least, they were not often changed. The choice of hymns would reflect certain biases of a committee or publisher; but at least, the familiar words were not ripped to shreds for essentially political reasons. The theology reflected in those hymns was more in keeping with traditional teachings of the churches. These days, whether trying to appeal to a certain kind of evangelical on the conservative side of the spectrum or the more liberal and "progressive" Christians of another ilk, those who compile and publish hymn books seem to be trying to outdo one another in tampering with the musical heritage of the church. The big losers in all this will be the next generation of Christians.

2 Thessalonians 2, selected verses; November 6-12, Year C:

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:38:00 +0000

This passage testifies to the certainty of dark days for the church near the end of the present age. There will be great deception, with Christians following false christs, and with many rebelling against the true faith. There will be delusions and false teachings, and great falling away. I'm sure that these things happen to a greater or lesser extent during every phase of church history; so to some degree, when we see these things happen in our own day, we are right to be on our guard and to be watchful for the Second Coming of Christ. But we dare not be so presumptuous as to predict times or days or years or seasons. Nowhere does the Bible give us warrant to do that. At the same time, this chapter closes on a hopeful note. It speaks of those who have been chosen from before the foundation of the world who will be sanctified and preserved. All of the elements of God's sovereignty are here--His love, His preservation, His election, His decrees. To some, these truths speak of an arbitrary, cold, and aloof God. Instead, we should think of this passage as a reminder that God cares very much for His world and is very much involved in its care--both spiritual and physical. This is an indication of how much God cares for His children. He will make us who believe in Christ more like Christ; and He will preserve and protect us to the end.

2 Thessalonians 1, selected verses; October 30-November 5, 2007:

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 01:24:00 +0000

In our lectionary epistle reading for this week, Paul is acknowledging the faith and the love of these Thessalonians. These Christians are a subject of conversation among all the churches. They have endured persecution and tribulation with patience and steadfastness. Paul expresses certainty that a righteous God will repay with His judgment those who have troubled this church. Those who do not know God or obey the gospel will be visited with the vengeance of Almighty God. Everlasting destruction and punishment will be the final end of those who reject the gospel and hinder the churches, and they will be cast out of the presence of God. But the saints who have followed Christ and have endured will ultimately be glorified. So Paul and the other Christians pray for these Thessalonians who God counts worthy to suffer in this great cause and to participate in this great calling. We are reminded in this text that to suffer for Christ is honorable. Paul gives thanks for this church and encourages them to do even better. They are worthy of praise in part, at least, because they are suffering--not just suffering for *any cause, but for Christ. They are serving, working together like a true family, struggling, but bound together in love by Christ to God and to each other. They are wrestling with the meaning of discipleship, born, as they were, amid persecution. Are we today suffering for God's kingdom? Are we even worthy of such suffering? We do not consider our projects and our missions efforts worthy unless they succeed; and the standards for success are *our standards, not those of God. We do not know too many churches that are persecuted today. Perhaps most churches in our country are not persecuted because they stand for nothing spiritual that can be clearly identified. Suffering honors God only when it is visited upon a church or a Christian that honors God! We need not adopt a martyr complex and say that suffering is good for its own sake; but we know that if we seek truly to live a Christian life, we will, at some point, be persecuted. This is assumed in the pastoral epistles and elsewhere. Andwhen I speak of suffering for Christ, I'm not speaking of that suffering which is often identified by activists of the left or the right politically as suffering for Christ. Suffering for a cause which you or I believe to be Christian is not the same thing as suffering because we *are Christian, or because we affirm the Christian faith. I believe there are many Christians who even suffer within their own congregations or denominations simply because they affirm the Christian faith. And clearly, there are many who suffer because they are Christian and yet are seeking to maintain their faith as they live and work in a hostile world. Other causes may seem good or right or virtuous, and may be perfectly valid areas of Christian involvement; but the world will tolerate an activist and may likely ignore a fanatic! The question is: What will it do with a Christian?

2 Timothy 4:6-8, 16-18, October 23-29, Year C:

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:15:00 +0000

Paul knows, as he is writing this, that he is near the end of his life's journey, and that his ministry is over. In this passage, he gives to Timothy and to us a faithful testimony and a faithful example. This is a particularly significant passage for Reformation Sunday because it reminds us of our responsibility to those who have gone before us and to those who will come after us. We have a responsibility as Christians faithfully to preserve the witness of the past and pass on the heritage of the faithful witnesses of the early church and of the reformers to new generations of Christians. Paul knew that the verdict of the Roman courts had gone against him, and that the sentence of death would soon be carried out. But he also knew that there was a higher court, and that in that court, another judge would award him the crown of life. He knew that his was a faith worth keeping. Paul knew the importance of giving witness to a consistent faith in life and doctrine. How easy it is today to begin well; but how hard it is to stay the course to the end. Even though all his friends and followers had abandoned him, Paul had experienced the confident assurance that the Lord was with him in his moment of trial, and had even used his trials as a means of proclamation. Today, we are so afraid of being seen as unfair or manipulative that we often even hesitate to pass on our beliefs to our children. We are hesitant to stand for the truth because we aren't sure we know what the truth is. Yet, we have a charge to keep--a faith to keep, not only in doctrine, but as we guard our personal faith in Christ. Many struggle with personal doubts, especially in times of crisis. This is where the mature Christian can be a great help and comfort to others. We may not think that what we are doing is very important; but we may be doing that very thing which is necessary in our particular time and situation--that very thing to which God has called us. Paul knew that he was not without sin; but he had a clear conscience as to his testimony and his example. He knew that he had done his best, that it had been possible only by God's grace, and that the glory was to go to God alone. We have wonderful opportunities to set an example for our children, for new Christians, and for those around us as we seek to be faithful to our calling and to the message of the Christian gospel. Let us not for one moment think that we have nothing to pass on to our children and grandchildren. Our greatest legacy is our Christian faith and testimony. For that biblical truth, people have been persecuted and have given their lives. How dare we be so timid that we won't even give a few minutes of our time to pass on these great truths to a needy world?

Jesus as Lord and Savior for Members?

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:46:00 +0000

At the meeting of Mission Presbytery in Mission, Texas, last weekend, we approved an overture to next year's General Assembly of the PC(USA.) This overture would include certain questions in our Form of Government of the Book of Order which will be asked of those who wish to join a PC(USA) congregation as members. These questions have been part of the Book of Common Worship; but that resource is simply for liturgical purposes. These questions would be elevated to Constitutional significance. Questions for membership used to be part of the Form of Government of the church in years gone by; but with the reunion of the PCUS and the UPCUSA and other changes which took place over the years, they dropped out of Constitutional importance. Someone who wants to be a member of the church should at least be willing to affirm that they understand that they are sinners without hope apart from the mercy and grace of God; that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior; that they are willing to participate in the work of the church and be subject to its government. I answered questions of a similar tone recently--apart from the affirmation of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior--when I rejoined the Lions club. It should be at least as difficult to join the church as to join a civic organization. Someone opposed making these questions part of the Constitution of the church on the grounds that he "joined the Presbyterian church so I could think for myself." How about thinking for yourself before you decide which church to join, and then affirm allegiance to the teachings of that church? Of course, these days, we want to join an organization and then reshape its beliefs to what suits us; but it wasn't always the case. Those who wish to be officers and ministers in the church should, of course, be held to a much higher standard; but that's another subject for another day. We've discussed it before; but it seems we always need to be reminded. Beliefs are important. Theology matters.

2 Timothy 3:14-4:5 October 16-22, Year C:

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:48:00 +0000

This passage speaks of the authority of Scripture and the necessity of sound doctrine. Simply to read these verses of Scripture is to invite controversy. In what sense do we believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit? How do we determine sound doctrine? Paul tells Timothy that "all Scripture" is given by the Holy Spirit and profitable for correction, rebuke, reproof, and instruction in righteousness, I take that very seriously. I believe the words of Paul or the prophets or the other gospel writers are just as much the word of God as are the words of Jesus. (I think those red-letter Bibles can be confusing.) When I stand up to read the Scripture lessons in church, I do not say, "Listen for the word of God," suggesting that somehow there's a nugget in here for you if you just listen for it. When I was growing up, I never doubted that the Bible is the word of God. At a certain point in my development, I did ask myself quite seriously why I believed the Bible to be the word of God; but I thought it through, came to my conclusions, and went on from there. Many today want to put the revelation of God in Christ above the Bible in terms of authoritative truth or revelation; but where do we learn about Christ if not from the Bible? There is the witness of the Holy Spirit, of course; but even that witness must eventually be tested in terms of the Bible. Then, we come to the warnings about those who will not endure sound doctrine. Where do we find sound doctrine today? Again, sound doctrine must be that which is based on the Bible. How else will you know whether the doctrine of a preacher or a church is sound? But some will say that the Bible has to be interpreted. I agree that parts of the Bible are very difficult. And with the radical Christian preachers and teachers on one extreme and the "prosperity" preachers and legalist fundamentalists on the other, the sincere seeker of sound doctrine may often feel that the quest is hopeless. I wonder however just how much of the Bible is so difficult to understand--at least, at the most basic level of truth. To hear some talk today, you'd almost think it would have been better if the reformers had not been successful in their efforts to get the Bible translated in the vernacular of the people. Some will say, "Ah, but you can't take the Bible literally." That's true because some of the Bible is meant to be poetic, some parable. On the other hand, if you're not going to take a particular portion of Scripture literally and follow its precepts, you'd better have a very good reason! I'd much prefer to be out of accord with culture than out of accord with the word and will of God! Yes, we have to read the Bible in its proper context. And if we know something of the background and culture in which a certain portion of Scripture was written, it can make the meaning clearer and richer for us today. But I like what one person said when discussing the paraphrase called the Living Bible. One wag commented, "My Bible never died!" While I agree that genuine scholarship is helpful in reading and understanding the Bible, I am also convinced that much of what we consider scholarly today is just an attempt to make the Bible somehow conform to our own desires and behavior. When the Northampton Presbyterian Church, in Hampton, Virginia, was considering withdrawal from the PC(USA) and joining the EPC in 1991, a member of the congregation commented that the people no longer felt that the mainline denomination was as clearly based on Scriptural principles as it had been when the congregation was established in 1962. In reply, a Presbyterian minister from a neighboring town said, "Well, surely you don't read the Bible today the same way you did in 1962!" The church member who had made the comment was amazed by this reply; and so was I! Yes, we do still read the Bible today the same way we did in 1962! Why shouldn't we? What has changed?

What Changed?

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:18:00 +0000

I received an email recently from someone who had been raised in the Catholic church and is now committed to the reformed faith. She was thinking back to her teen-age years and the consternation many Catholics felt about Vatican II. She said that as a teen-ager, she wondered how it could be that after teaching for many generations that a Catholic couldn't eat meat on Fridays, all of a sudden, it was "no big deal!" What changed? This is the big question that haunts modern Christianity today. How could abortion be seen by the church as such a bad thing in the early '60's and be perfectly acceptable ten years later? How could it be that the Bible was "the only infallible rule of faith and practice" to Presbyterians in the mid-1960's, and then become simply "a unique witness to Christ" only a few short years later? What changed? Well, of course, nothing changed, except that the church decided to pursue what one friend calls "a theology of accomodation." Questions about morality, the attributes of God, the authority of Scripture, and other matters of faith are not questions that require new scientific discoveries or new technological insights. These are eternal, unchanging matters of right and wrong, truth and error. They are matters that have been decided by the church many times; but not until recently has the church been so unsure of the answers. Of course, there have always been dissenting opinions. Because we are sinful creatures, error is always mixed with truth. But the church has usually been able to distinguish heresy from the true understanding of the Christian faith. Are we now losing the capacity to preserve and distinguish the good from the bad, the true from the false? Certain segments of the church once defended some social practices we now find evil, or resisted the discoveries of science which seemed to fly in the face of church doctrine. But these were not questions that struck at the very heart of the gospel; and, in the case of science, it was soon apparent that one could prove that the earth is not flat, or that the sun does not revolve around our planet. Too many today are simply looking for ways to make the church and orthodoxy appear ridiculous. Actually, the ones who wind up appearing ridiculous are the ones who are so eager to destroy Christendom. No, the principles of God's Word and righteousness are eternal. If God's Word teaches a thing in 1961 or 1875 or 2007, it is still teaching it today; and so should we. God's Word requires interpretation, but not revision. If it was wrong to steal or lie or commit adultery in the time of Christ, it's still wrong today. What changed? Unfortunately, in too many cases, it is the church that has changed!

2 Timothy 2:8-15, October 9-15, Year C:

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:28:00 +0000

Paul is reminding Timothy here to remember Christ; for this Christ is worth any amount of suffering, even including imprisonment and death. This Christ is the Davidic descendant, the Messiah, the Promised One, risen from the dead. Paul may be in prison, but the word of God is not bound. The gospel is not restricted by earthly authorities or by time or place. And then, Paul quotes a saying which is trustworthy, probably one of the first formulations of a creedal statement in the early church. In order to be a true disciple, the Christian must learn that living is dying, that endurance is reigning, and that to deny Christ is to be denied by the Father. Yet, even if we are faithless, He remains faithful. Therein lies the grace and forgiveness and ultimate power of God--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That is the wonder of the gospel message. God has made a promise. He cannot deny Himself. He has set the plan of salvation in motion. This is what will redeem the elect and ultimately restore the creation. The passage closes with a reminder from Paul to Timothy of certain pastoral responsibilities. He is to remind his flock of these truths and steer clear of quarrels about words. He is to do his best to present himself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed. The requirement to study is part of this pastoral duty. Study is necessary because our minds are limited and prone to laziness. A minister, and even one who desires to be a Christian disciple, must be faithful; but faithfulness involves more than just giving assent to certain doctrines. It involves diligence, preparation, and hard work. It involves prayer, and seeking the mind of the Son and the power and illumination of the Holy Spirit. Faithfulness requires a knowledge of the Bible and the wisdom and the willingness to use that knowledge in the service and under the direction of God Himself.

Tradition?

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:41:00 +0000

I was listening to a colege football game on my XM Satellite radio yesterday afternoon when an ad. came on for an eatery in the Clemson, South Carolina, area. The tag line caught my attention. The announcer said: "A Clemson tradition since 1988.) 1988? A Tradition? As I write this, that wasn't even twentyyears ago! Why, we already had MTV and CD's by then. I'd had cable TV for more than ten years by 1988; and lots of people already had computers. Heck, 1988 isn't even a generation ago! Tradition since 1988? How long does something have to exist before it becomes a tradition? Of course, if we do something every day, it can become a tradition within a year or two--maybe even less time than that! But 1988 sounds so recent to me as I sit here in my 57-year-old body. Then again, think of 1988 from the perspective of a college student. Many of them weren't even born in 1988. To them nineteen years seems like an eternity. Things move so much faster today than they did back in the '50's or '60's. "Traditions" come and go so fast that we don't even realize that something was becoming a tradition until it's gone. TV shows can become a family tradition after they run two or three seasons, and then they're taken off the air! I don't know how long something has to be around before it becomes a tradition; and I probably won't be in Clemson, South Carolina, any time soon to try out that restaurant. Pastorates seldom last nineteen years; but I sure hope this church and I become something of a tradition in Schulenburg, Texas! I do know about a really good steak place in Nashville that's been around since the days of Prohibition. Now *there's tradition for you!

2 Timothy 1:1-14, October 2-8, Year C:

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:02:00 +0000

Several things in this passage merit comment, if not necessarily in a particularly systematic way. We see that Timothy was raised by devout women. They were definitely Jewish, although perhaps his mother or grandmother even came to know Christ. In any case, we clearly see the value and the potentially very significant influence of a godly upbringing for our children. Let us never forget this as we consider our families and the role of the church in the proper training and Christian education of children today. Paul reminds Timothy that we are not given a spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and a sound mind. He encourages Timothy to "stir up" the gift that is in him. This goes well with the gospel reading for this Sunday, Luke 17:5-10, in which Jesus is encouraging a quality of faith and obedience that was a real challenge to the disciples as they sought to understand their new ministry. Let us too take these challenges seriously. Timothy was young. His temperament may have been one that tended to be too cautious or too easily intimidated. He may have also had his share of physical ailments. He no doubt had many spiritual gifts; but the gift to which Paul seems to refer here is the gift of the ministry itself. Paulhad laid hands on Timothy and conferred this ministry, this responsibility, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Now, he urges Timothy to trust God as he exercises this gift. Be brave and fearless in the Lord. Paul knows that he himself is but a weak and sinful vessel; but "I know whom I have believed." (In fact, we're going to sing that old gospel song Sunday.) We are persuaded that God is able to keep that which we have commited to Him. We are sometimes tempted to be ashamed of the gospel message. We see it abused by some, even within the church. We see it ridiculed by the secular media. We watch our churches struggle to do meaningful ministry or, in some cases, even to survive--and we wonder! But the gospel, though it be contained in weak vessels, is powerful truth. It is a mystery, but it is God's mystery! We need not, we dare not, be ashamed of a message that originates with the Father, is lived out in Jesus Christ His Son, and that is given life and breath by the Holy Spirit! Paul was reminding Timothy of his great potential and of the spiritual authority with which he had been blessed by virtue of the laying on of hands. Every Christian, whether ordained or commissioned in an official way for ministry, has been given a specific and wonderful calling. This is part of what we mean when we speak of the "priesthood of all believers." Our calling to service and ministry is not of our own making or choosing, but of God. The gift we have been given is irrevocable, but can become ineffective. We should live a life of discipline and self-control; but we must not doubt that we will be given the power to do what we are called to do. That is part of what it means to trust God. Be ware of trying to discern God's calling for someone else, or of assuming that someone else can discern God's calling for you. The advice and encouragement of others can be helpful, but probably cannot be determinative. Our minds must also be disciplined; and we must walk with intellectual integrity. There is inevitable conflict between the world and the Word. Paul knows that Timothy will face pressures from within and from without. He will be faced with temptation, opposition, and discouragement. Some will reject him because of his youth. Still, he is to put his trust in the truth of God, the grace of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit. This passage should be a great encouragement to our youth, or to any new Christian; but it is also necessary for those of us who have been Christians all our lives, or who are involved in Christian ministry, to remember where we get our power and our message. Truly, we have been given a special gift.

Single-Gender Education

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:16:00 +0000

David Chadwell is South Carolina's statewide coordinator of single-gender education. No other state has any education official like David Chadwell. It is his goal that every child in the state of South Carolina will have the available option of single-gender education in the public schools of that state within five years. It is said that there are already some 300 single-gender schools operating within secondary public education in America. This is according to a recent AP article. Chadwell is primarily interested in making this option available to kids in middle school. The article did not say whether he would later like to expand this available choice to elementary or high school. David Chadwell, who has many years of experience in various types of educational settings, believes that girls and boys of a certain age learn more effectively if they have the opportunity forsingle-gender education. Predictably, the head of the National Organization of Women has come out in opposition to Mr. Chadwell's plan. She fears the rise of sexism and certain stereotypes which she believes hold women back. But Chadwell is careful to point out that it is not the type of curriculum that he wants to change, but the method by which children learn. He says that boys and girls are attracted by different types of learning and have different learning skills. In short, he says that they learn differently. Many girls actually seem to be less intimidated in single-gender settings than they are when boys are present. And no doubt, boys and girls both may be less likely to be diverted from their studies by trying to make an impression on members of the opposite sex. Whether or not you agree with David Chadwell, the important point to be made here is that this option is viable and worth pursuing. Remember that it is only a voluntary option. No parents are required to send their kids to single-gender schools. My dad tells me that single-gender public education was more common for kids in his generation. There was a Boys High School and a Girls High School, for example, in Atlanta back in the '30's. And of course, private high schools for girls and boys were everywhere. Nowadays, most of those schools have gone co-ed. Often, when public education seeks to do something experimental or innovative to improve the quality of education, the whole project gets bogged down in politics, social sensitivities, and bureaucratic red tape. I remember when Davidson College's Board of Trustees voted for the college to go co-ed. I was a senior that spring; and I remember thinking that I was glad I wouldn't be around to see the changes take place--not because I don't like women, of course, but because I felt, and still feel, that something significant was being lost. Today, we say we stand for diversity, but we don't appreciate distinctives; we say we want to celebrate pluralism, but we can't abide too much non-conformity or obvious differences in method or objectives. We have too often sacrificed quality for novelty--in education, theology, and so many other aspects of American life. I don't know if David Chadwell is on the right track; but I think that those who believe he is have every right to make that choice.

Sports: Another Great Collapse

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:40:00 +0000

In 1964, it was the Philadelphia Phillies who blew a big lead late in the season and lost the National League pennant to the St. Louis Cardinals, who then went on to win the World Series. This year, it was the New York Mets, who led the National League eastern division by seven games in mid-September, only to lose the regular season division championship to--of all teams--the Philadelphia Phillies. Not only did the Mets lose the division championship, but they didn't even make the play-offs via the wild card route. Tom Glavine lost the last game of the season. The Mets gave up seven runs to Florida in the first inning of yesterday's finale. The sad thing about it, from my perspective, is that the Braves weren't able to cash in on the Mets' misfortune. Even after a late-season trade that seemed likely at least to get us in the play-offs by bringing us a big-time bat, the Braves pitching let us down, as the Braves could manage only slightly better than a .500 record for the season, with 84 wins. So the Braves have missed the post-season for two years in a row now after all those years of winning the division. Next year, TBS will no longer be telecasting the Braves as they have in the past. It will be interesting to see what the financial and ownership structure of the team will be in 2008. I hope the Braves get back in the play-offs next year; but I wonder if I'll be as big a fan of the Braves by then. For now, I have little sense of how the post-season will go this year. I expect either the Yankees or Boston to win the World Series. I just don't think the National League teams are that strong this year.

Freedom and Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:24:00 +0000

It is doubtful whether certain forms of Islam will ever be able to co-exist side by side with our American way of life as we have known and practiced it for the last 200 years. The reason is simple. Islamic extremists do not understand the balance between religion and freedom. And unfortunately, these extremeists are increasingly influential within Islam, not only in the Middle East, but in the daily lives and worship of Islamic adherents everywhere. They are seeking to impose their way of Islam on every aspect of life in western Europe and the United States. Their understanding of Islam does not appreciate freedom; it demands allegiance. Moslems are demanding that businesses be guided by Sharia Islamic law. What's more, they and their Arab allies increasingly have the economic muscle to give these demands teeth. Where money doesn't do the trick, they appeal to sympathy and fear to get an intimidated citizenry on their side. The public applies pressure to business or government leaders, in the mistaken belief that conscience and fairness are on the side of the extremists; and before you know it, western culture, freedom, and civilization are compromised again. Some are asking if Christian evangelicals are not guilty of the same kind of religious arm-twisting. Christian fundamentalism is being equated with Islamic fundamentalism. Most of us realize that this is an absurd comparison. Christian fundamentalists do not strap weapons to themselves and run into crowds as human suicide bombs, or fly planes into buildings. In fact, Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism do not even have the same view of God or eternity or truth! But the real difference between Christian and Islamic practice is a distinction that is more subtle and that the Christian evangelicals need to guard vigorously. Christians understand the proper place of religion in a free society. We realize that not everyone is going to agree with us. We wish everybody did. We would like to persuade everyone to accept the Bible as the Word of God; but we don't demand that acceptance. The conservative Christians I know and represent do seek to influence legislation along the lines of traditional western practice; but they do not seek to impose new, strict interpretations of Scripture that would alter the freedoms we have known since the founding of the nation. We do not wish legally to ban rock music, for example, or bring back strict Sunday "Blue laws." We no longer seriously promote national prohibition or demand the enforcement of dress codes on religious grounds. I have been very wary of certain evangelicals who seem to think that if we could just elect the right people, get the right political party in power, all our problems as a nation would be fixed. I believe that involvement by the church in politics, whether of the conservative or liberal stripe, is very dangerous for just this reason: It blurs the line between the practice of religion and the practice of freedom. It is all well and good for Christians to come together to work for certain laws or causes. But when the institutional church tries to display its political muscle, or when evangelical Christians become overly zealous in enforcing their own understanding of a particular religious principle, they border on misunderstanding the balance of religion and freedom. The Christian way of influencing society is by preaching, waiting upon the work of the Holy Spirit, praying for genuine revival, and transforming society as Christians come to understand what their faith means in practical terms. As one becomes more aware of the implications of Christianity, one will desire to put Christian principles into practice in daily life. We do not, however, seek to impose these principles on those who are not yet part of the family of faith. As Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was fond of saying, "A person cannot live like a Christian until he is a Christian." The Islamic fascists are a threat to our way of life, not only because they have the capacity to launch terrorist attacks against us from almost anywhere in the world, but also because they seem to have the will and the ability to intimidate us in the practice of our Constitutional liberties and a total disregard for the freedom of the individual. They have not yet made the distinction between the state and the practice of religion that western civilization finally made with the rise of Christianity. This failure on the part of Islam must be fully understood and appreciated for the threat that it truly is. Christian zealots need not make the same mistake. We dare not allow the Islamic extremists to abuse the religious freedoms of the West in order to promote their own intolerant agenda; and Christians need not become so fixated on politics--whether liberal or conservative-- that they forget the real message of Christ. Salvation comes by grace through faith, not by Congressional legislation or forced conversions!

1 Timothy 6:6-19, September 25-October 1, Year C:

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:51:00 +0000

This passage is primarily a warning against a wrong attitude toward riches. As is often pointed out, Paul does not say here that money is the root of all evil. Rather, it is the love of money that is the root of all evil. The desire to grow rich can easily lead people into temptation, causing them to make decisions for primarily materialistic rather than spiritual reasons. As a pastor, Paul tells Timothy to be content with godliness, only having the necessities of life. He should shun the lust for money that is so common among men. This suggests many questions which are relevant in today's church climate. I have known pastors who only desired a salary which would give them the least possible amount they could live on. I understand somewhat, from a spiritual standpoint, why these pastors might feel this way; but it seems to me to be misguided. In fact, it could be a matter of spiritual pride for a pastor to claim that he has voluntarily been willing to accept a low salary. This would be especially wrong-headed in a church where most of the members are relatively affluent and the church can afford to pay a good salary and still maintain a vigorous missions ministry of outreach and evangelism. On the other hand, should judicatories require that local churches pay a certain minimum salary to pastors, or does this make the local presbytery seem too much like a labor union for ministers? And for those in our congregations who are not ministers, does this mean that they should never seek to put themselves in a position to earn more money for fear of seeming ungodly or too materialistic? Clearly, such extreme interpretations of this passage are too legalistic and are unnecessary. The issue here is one of attitude. Our decisions should not be driven primarily by a desire for riches. If opportunities come to the Christian for financial advance, it is not wrong for us to take advantage of these; but the desire for money should not be the driving force of our lives. In addition, those who employ Christians, whether in the secular or spiritual realm, should not take advantage of our humility in order to pay the bare minimum allowable. If a Christian desires to return a goodly proportion of his wealth to the work of the Lord--whether pastor or businessman--he can certainly do that; but churches must still practice sound stewardship principles in their administrative decisions. A final question is the matter of contentment. Paul urges Timothy to be content with food and raiment. (1 Timothy 6:8.) Today, Paul would certainly say that the pastor and other Christians are permitted to have whatever is necessary to do that work to which they are called. So long as we are seeking first the kingdom of God and are truly grateful to Him for those blessings we are given, I think gratitude is a far healthier response to God's bounty than guilt. John Calvin said that we are given the blessings of prosperity that we may better perform the duties of charity. If we can honestly maintain this balance, I think we are being faithful to Paul's words to Timothy. It is a fine line; but it is, as with so many things in the Christian life, a matter of degree, balance, attitude, and integrity of motivation.

Non-Discerning Non-Believers

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:15:00 +0000

We are seeing more and more news items about the supposed disintegration and decline of Christianity and, indeed, of religion in general. I am quite certain that, along with Mark Twain, the report of the demise of Christianity is quite premature! I have no doubt, for that matter, that religion of all types will be around long after its current detractors have left the planet--or, as Rush Limbaugh would say, "assumed room temperature." But what if anything can we learn from the present hysteria about the state of erligion in the world today. For one thing, we can learn a great deal about the non-discerning non-believer. Many of those who are abandoning religion are not coming to a coolly calculated decision that their past beliefs were wrong. C. S. Lewis said in one of his writings that most people are not reasoned out of Christianity; they just drift away. Many of those who are giving up on religion today are doing so based on an emotional reaction to things they see in the world around them. They see suicide bombers blowing themselves up or fanatic zealots carrying out terror attacks by flying into buildings or attacking people in subway stations and they come to the conclusion that they want no part of religion! This is, of course, quite absurd. It would be like someone who has been a music lover all his life going to a concert of heavy metal rock and deciding that if that's what music is all about, they want no part of it! This would go against all reason and past experience. Not all religious groups are made up of Islamic extremists! And if you abandon Christianity because you don't like Christian conservatives, I can assure you that there are plenty of people who profess Christianity who are not conservative at all. It also seems that religion is on the decline for other reasons in places where it was once quite thriving. Christianity was once on the rise in many Third World countries and places where the church was under severe persecution. Now, many of those places are enjoying a degree of affluence; and in other nations, religious persecution is much less severe than it used to be. So the rural folks are moving to the cities. Many who scratched out a living as best they could on rugged farm land are now earning wages in city factories. The sons and daughers of those who came to know Christ through the work of western missionaries decades ago are now turning away from the faith of their parents. This is truly sad. I do not deny that the church needs to be more vigorously engaged in evangelistic and mission work, spreading the Gospel again in nations around the world. Too often, mission efforts seem to have replaced proclamation with public service. Again, however, we are not dealing here with an inherent flaw in Christianity. We are dealing with the age-old problem of worldliness, the sin of self-centeredness. People will find any excuse they can to turn away from godliness. The problem is not our message, but mankind. Let us deal realistically with the non-discerning non-believer and realize that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, the worldly person will be blinded to the glorious gospel and the saving truth of Christ. I hope to have more on the changing impact of religion, especially Christianity, in later posts.

1 Timothy 2:1-7, September 18-24, Year C:

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:06:00 +0000

First of all, Paul tells Timothy that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings should be made for all people, for "kings and all who are in high positions." And he gives a very good reason why these prayers should be offered. It is for the purpose of aiding us in leading a quiet and ordered life. It is conducive to the process of evangelization. God desires that all those who are predestined for salvation will come to a knowledge of the truth; but this process is made more difficult when society and nations are in turmoil. In our culture and throughout western civilization, we are more likely to criticize those in authority than we are to pray for them. We act as though we know everything we need to know and can pass judgment on those we don't like. Certainly, we may share our opinions; but the greatest tool we have in our efforts to encourage godliness in life and government is the weapon of prayer. The prayers should not be simply that everybody does what we want; but that all in authority--in church, government, or business--should seek the will of God. In this way, the spread of the Gospel can be facilitated and societal transformation can occur. We will not bring in the kingdom; but we can pray for those who may be seeking to hinder God's purposes. And note that Paul even urges that "thanksgivings" be made for the subjects of our prayers. This gives credence to the idea that even a bad ruler is better than none. All of this is important because, as Paul reminds Timothy here, "there is one Mediator" between God and men; and that Mediator is Christ Jesus. The testimony of this fact was given in God's own time, at the proper time; and it was for this purpose that Paul was made an apostle. Our pluralistic world today resists the notion that there is only one Mediator between God and humanity. This goes against our human pride, our desire for autonomy, and our sense of fairness. However, this is the clear teaching of Scripture that was affirmed throughout the history of the early church. It is presumptuous of modern man to think that we have some understanding that corrects or transcends the apostolic teachings. Let us again consider the context of this chapter. Paul is saying that because there is just this one Mediator, we need to be especially careful to pray for the conditions that will aid in worldwide evangelization. Clearly, this would be to the glory of God and for the good of His creation. Would we not prefer a Christian world to a world of clashing conflict and noisy confusion? It is not arrogant of us to desire those things which God Himself desires. We should pray that all would come to a knowledge of the saving truth of Christ Jesus.

Dinosaurs in the Parsonage?

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:51:00 +0000

I heard of a pastor who writes articles each week for a weekly newspaper--only, he apparently doesn't write them! He confessed to someone who complimented him on his article that he got it from an outside service of some sort! In this blog, we have previously discussed the rethinking that is occurring about the pastor's home visits. A lot of pastors get most or all of their sermon material from sermon books or Internet services. Many pastors do very little counseling because they refer their counseling cases to specialists in various fields. I even know pastors who don't train their own officers, but have someone from the outside come in to do the work. Is the local pastor becoming a dinosaur in the parsonage--or, in the case of Presbyterians, the manse, or the rectory for Episcopalians, or--well, you get the point? I doubt if very many ministers are guilty of all these omissions. And certainly, there is some value in using various "tools of the trade," so to speak. I have used some illustrations from on-line services. And I often follow the lectionary, which means that I don't necessarily have to ponder over choices of Scripture the way I did twenty or more years ago. (I do often vary from the lectionary, however.) But when I think of ministers who don't even put their own sermons together or write their own thoughts, or train their own officers, or do any significant counseling, I wonder what in the world they are doing. but then, I remember. Someone told me of a minister in another Texas city who is fighting for the rights of illegal aliens to get preventive health care! Ministers are increasingly involved mostly in public relations and community service organizations. Many are expected to be their church's youth leader. Many seem to find plenty of time to push their own social or political agenda--be it conservative or liberal. I believe it is a good thing for ministers to be involved in the activities of their denomination. I even think that community involvement, with the right motivation and the best interests of the local congregation at heart, can be a positive thing. It does seem however that the local ministers have drifted farther and farther away from their major responsibility. Didn't Jesus say something about "feeding my sheep?" Do we really think he was talking about soup kitchens? There are areas of ministry that others can do better than I. Certainly, some counseling situations are handled best by professional counselors who are trained in a particular field. For ministers, however, simply to abdicate that whole aspect of ministry would have been inconceivable fifty or 100 years ago. Increasingly today, we even have churches with worship leaders! Can't the minister even lead his own worship service? Obviously, mministers are finding themselves in a self-conscious crisis of confidence and competence. Do we have dinosaurs in the parsonage, or do we just have men and women who need to be renewed in their sense of call and purpose? I truly don't know; but for my part, I don't plan to become a dinosaur yet. My sermons are my own work, hopefully under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. If I write an article for a newspaper, it will be my own writing. If someone comes to me with tears streaming down their face in need of counseling, I won't automatically assume that I am totally useless. I will visit as much as I can, seek to facilitate the youth work and encourage the leadership, train my officers, and try to be as good in administration as possible. I have personal interests in many areas outside the church; but those shall remain outside the church. My ministry is not the perfect ministry. I am guilty of many flaws, oversights, and shortcomings; but at least, I won't borrow those flaws and shortcomings from anywhere else. "Out-sourcing" is big today; but I would hope that it would stop at the minister's study!

Ambivalent Christianity

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:19:00 +0000

I received a mailing yesterday announcing the upcoming National Pastors Conference in San Diego. One of the participants, a professor from Baylor, is going to lead a presentation called, "How to be evangelical without being Conservative." And therein lies the ambivalence of Christianity today. We want to be "all things to all people" in the worst possible sense of that phrase. To be evangelical today has, for many people, connotations of the "religious right," in the political sense, of course, and probably some connotations of theological conservatism from which some religious academics would like to distance themselves. It is unfortunate that those beliefs which were considered mainstream Christian orthodoxy 50 years ago have now come into such disrepute that they are considered conservative. The church is largely ambivalent about traditional Christian language and teaching, and largely ambiguous about what it really believes. Ask the average mainline Christian preacher to state beliefs on Christology, the Bible, the attributes of God, or any number of key Christian topics, and you'll get few clear-cut answers. If you ask in what sense certain words are being used such as "salvation," "evangelism," the "Gospel," you may find that the meanings long attached to those words in past decades are not necessarily what is meant by a lot of ministers today. We seem afraid to stand for traditional Christian doctrines. Are we scared of science or technology? Have we been so spooked by pluralism that we are afraid to speak the truth, not wanting to offend anybody? Are we shocked by all the "New Age teachings," and fear our Christianity has run its course? Philosophies come and go. We need not fear worldly systems or skeptical constructs. Even liberal Christianity is not new. And the church has always had to resist heresies and call them by their right name. Whether one desires to be a "conservative" is not important. I will, however, seek to be evangelical and orthodox. Today, that may make me a conservative; but there was a time that it would have just meant that I was a Christian.

The President Speaks--and We Want to Talk Back!

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:57:00 +0000

Last night, the President spoke to the nation about the war in Iraq! Don't worry, this is not going to be about the war in Iraq! After the President's speech, however, there was a response from a member of the opposing party. How times have changed! When I was a boy growing up in the '50's and '60's, that didn't happen. If the President wanted to speak to the nation, he did--on all three major networks--and nothing else was on the radio or TV until he was finished. And nobody talked back! The other party, of course, had their prepared statements and reactions on the news programs; but there was no idea that just because the President was of one party, the other party should expect to be able to give a response to the nation. We clearly do not have the same respect for authority in this country that past generations have had--not for authority at any level, of any type. When the President speaks, we want to talk back! When leaders lead, we're not always so eager to follow. Those wielding authority had better be careful how they use that authority because they may just find they don't have any. This is not altogether bad, of course. Blind, unthinking obedience is not what any President or responsible leader desires or deserves. And many people feel that their government has lied to them too many times about important things. This goes all the way back to Vietnam and Watergate and Iran-Contra, and maybe even weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure there were other times in our country's history when people suspected that in some ways, the government was being less than totally truthful; but it was also often conceded that there may be in fact good reasons for withholding certain information. People at least felt relatively sure that the government had the best interest of the country at heart. All that old-fashioned respect for authority is pretty much a thing of the past now; and it affects the way we relate to government, to the church, to our teachers, to business executives, and to political and civic leaders in the public and private sector, all the way from Main Street to Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. It costs us muchof our sense of national unity and sense of purpose, too. This national division and skepticism can be reversed. Men and women of good faith, from all across the political spectrum could make a commitment to bring our country together. Leaders must take seriously the call for integrity that is coming from so many quarters across the nation. We need to pray that true statesmen will emerge for next year's elections. We need to pray for national revival that will bring our nation back to godly principles in politics at home and abroad. And with all that, we need to pray that God will teach us again the proper and respectful way to relate to those in authority over us; and will put people in authority again who understand their responsibilities to be a sacred trust from the Almighty. Then, and only then, will we be more eager to listen than to respond, to act out of duty rather than in defiance, to rally in support of common goals, rather than talk back to the President!

1 Timothy 1:12-17, September 11-17, Year C:

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:22:00 +0000

In this passage of this first epistle to the young pastor Timothy, Paul gives thanks for the mercy and grace shown to him by God. He is thankful that God put him in the ministry, though he was formerly a blasphemer. But he says that the reason he was enabled by God was because the apostle's persecution of the church and of Christ was done in ignorance. He affirms that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom "I am chief." The apostle believes that he is to show long-suffering, as a pattern for those who will later come to believe in Christ. Then of course, the passage closes with one of the most powerful, beautiful, and all-encompassing verses of benediction in all of Scripture. God's grace relates directly to our weakness, His pardon to our sin. Paul stresses in this chapter that it is not important just to know the gospel, but also to believe it. It is God who enables ministry, but not simply for the purpose of winning arguments. (One commentator reminds us that "argument does not prove spirituality.") God can transform anyone. Though we are unworthy, God still graciously calls us to Christian duty and gives us responsibilities in His service. As we minister and serve God in the 21st century, some are reluctant to use terms such as "God" or "grace." To the apostle, grace is everything; and we represent God's mercy and grace to a lost and dying world. It is God and His grace, and the communication of these concepts, that distinguishes the church from all other institutions. This is our unique contribution to the well-being and "rightness" of the world. God's grace is glorious. We proclaim the wonder of God's grace. We can affirm with Paul by example that "if I can be saved, anyone can be." In an impersonal and intense world, people need relationships--relationships with God through Christ and with other loving and caring people. The church is incarnational in the sense that, for many people, we are the only evidence of God's grace that they will ever see. Some today like to showcase their sin. But the only reason to recount our sin is to show the power of God's mercy and grace toward us. We are to point people to Christ, not to ourselves. This passage also highlights the majesty of God, especially in 1:17. God alone is capable of such grace and of dealing with the incomprehensible brokenness we see throughout His creation. Computer technology, science, physics, and "New Age" philosophy all pose challenges for the believing Christian. When we consider, however, the natural world and the capabilities God has given His creatures, these problems should not concern us. Think about the capacity of your own mind, the homing instincts of certain animal species, and even the design of the universe. The existence of God and the validity of His Scriptures should pose no problem to the Christian. God is truly the Majestic King-- eternal, immortal, invisible, all-wise, who alone is worthy of our worship and praise. How could we even imagine that our modern concepts are any match for an eternal God? We need not fear the new century so long as we worship,through Jesus Christ, the eternal God and King.

D. James Kennedy

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:13:00 +0000

A giant has passed. I did not know about his failing health; so when I heard late last night that D. James Kennedy had died, I was surprised. His only pastorate was that of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He began his ministry there in 1959. Within a few months, the church membership dropped from 45 to 17. But by 1967, it was one of the fastest-growing churches in America; and by the 1970's, it was viewed as one of the first "mega-churches." Of course, Dr. Kennedy was the founder of Evangelism Explosion. He was best known for this worldwide approach to evangelism for most of his ministry. During the 1980's, however, and especially by the 1990's, he had begun to be more and more identified with conservative social and political causes. At one time, I remember my mintor and I discussing Kennedy's involvement in politics and lamenting the fact that he had become more widely known for his political views than for his evangelistic approach. That is probably an unfair criticism. One may disagree with Kennedy's views; but to him, the principles he espoused were so closely connected with his understanding of Christianity that the two could hardly be separated. I personally believe that mmost of his views have intellectual integrity and are grounded in sound biblical scholarship and a proper view of reformed theology. Even his critics, however, could not deny his capability and his intellectual power. His death is significant for many reasons. I am particularly impressed at the moment, however, with the great hole it leaves in the leadership of evangelical and reformed Christianity. So many of the great leaders have fallen in recent years; and Billy Graham is no longer an active force, as his health fails and his life nears its end. God does not need any of us to do His work or accomplish His will. And yet, there is a tremendous responsibility, a great burden, placed upon the shoulders of those of us who have been called to ministry--either as pastors and church leaders or simply as Christian individuals--to carry on the work that is so vital today. The need for leadership within the Christian evangelical movement has never been greater. We must turn to God, praying for Him to raise up new leaders among us. When one man goes down--whether in the field of athletic competition or among the laborers in the kingdom, those who are left must double their efforts, raise their level of commitment, and strive for new heights. We must do that which, humanly speaking, cannot be done. But in Christ's strength, it can be done. We must rededicate ourselves and renew our determination to stand where this man stood. Few of us may think of ourselves as being in positions of leadership or as having great opportunity to affect our communities, nation or world; but that is because we are too prone to think as the world thinks. We must take the eternal view, the divine perspective. I am a minister of a small church in a mostly rural area of Texas; and I have been here but a short time. You may be in a position that seems insignificant and unlikely to change the world. Yet, with our prayers, with the opportunities God gives us, with our conversations and our influence, with this little blog, with whatever resources God gives us, we can carry on and take up the torch that has been passed to us by great men and women of faith. And our churches can explode. And our communities can be renewed. Recently, our congregation sang that old gospel hymn, "Revive us again." I think of the words of the prophet who pleaded with God to "revive thy work in the midst of the years." Dr. Kennedy spoke of reclaiming America for Christ. Maybe that doesn't mean the same thing to you that it meant to him; but one thing is clear. Dr. Kennedy never gave up on revival. Neither should we.

Philemon; September 4-10, Year C:

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 13:50:00 +0000

This letter was written by Paul to Philemon, a native of Colossae. It was not ecclesiastical or doctrinal in nature, but simply a letter to a friend--thereby making it a unique treasure among the epistles. Paul sends greetings to Philemon's wife and family, even referring to the slaves. This is a rare look into the private lives and correspondence of Paul and the early Christian church. Paul expresses his love and thanksgiving for Philemon. Paul expects soon to be set free from prison and to visit Colossae. We do not know whether these expectations were actually realized. Paul finds himself in the role of a gentleman respecting a friend. He could have commanded that certain things be done by virtue of his apostolic authority; but he did not do that. Paul could even have acted to keep Onesimus, the runaway slave who is the primary subject of this letter; but he did not do that. Onesimus could have been of great use and comfort to Paul during his imprisonment; but Paul respected the situation of his friend, Onesimus. He chooses to make an appeal to Onesimus, based on love. He respects the legal rights of Onesimus, his friend and fellow Christian. This is a request from one dedicated Christian to another. The position of the latter was quite vulnerable at the moment. This was not an apostolic command, but an appeal, based on Christian service. Paul is a Christian gentleman who respects the laws of his day. He seeks action by Philemon in harmony with the Christian position on slavery. Onesimus, the runaway slave, is now a changed man. He too has become a Christian. So Philemon is urged to receive Onesimus not as a slave--even less as a runaway slave--but as a brother in the Lord. This gives us some great insight into the basis of our relationships with other Christians. We need to be careful how we try to make our influence for Christ felt in our communities, churches, and the world at large. The gospel is Christ-centered. It's more than just theoretical ideas about the rights of man. It is also based on Scripture, not just the authority of our own opinions. Paul makes no request that Philemon set Onesimus free. He does make an appeal to Philemon, based on the transformation and conversion of one who had broken the law. Based on his friendships with Philemon and now with Onesimus, Paul indicates clearly what he expects and hopes will happen. This is not a protest letter; but it is an appeal to Christian integrity. We don't know how all this turned out. Certainly, we have no warrant from this letter to think that Paul or the church of his day approved or ignored the wrongs of that culture. We should, however, ponder several meaningful insights as to how Paul and the early church dealt most effectively with the institutions of their day. We can learn a lot from studying the context out of which the early church sought to bear its witness. In our day, Christians can come together as individuals and are free to make their views known. As we do this, however, we must realize that even among Christians, viewpoints will differ. We must speak our truth and express our understanding of Scripture with integrity, but also in love and patience and forbearance, genuinely seeking to show respect and appreciation of other Christians who have opposing views. We also have to try to discern when it is helpful or necessary to respect the institutions of our day and when it is necessary to reject and even confront those institutions and certain elements of our culture. These are not issues that can always be easily resolved. It is vital that we consider these issues with a balanced perspective, remembering that Paul was a true gentleman as he worked his way through the mine field of conflict with the culture of his day.

Appalachian State, and Other Sports Notables

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:49:00 +0000

"It's football time in Tennessee," as John Ward used to say. I was pleased to hear the current Tennessee announcer keep that phrase alive the other night at the beginning of the broadcast of the Tennessee--California game, even though Tennessee lost the game! And it's football time everywhere else, too--especially in Boone, North Carolina! The folks in Ann Arbor, Michigan, probably had never heard of Boone, North Carolina a few days ago; but they have now! Appalachian State, the defending Division I-AA champion in college football, went up to Ann Arbor and came away Saturday with perhaps the biggest upset in college football history! Michigan had been touted as the probable Big Ten champion for 2007 by a lot of folks, and a likely contender for the BCS national championship. But Appalachian State stayed with the Michigan guys stride for stride throughout the first half, and then pulled away to an eleven-point lead before Michigan threatened to shatter the dream. Michigan scored a touchdown in the fourth quarter which made the score 31--26 in favor of the Mountaineers. Michigan went for two points and missed. But with under two minutes to go, Michigan scored another touchdown to pull ahead 32--31. They went for the two-point conversion again, but again, failed to make it. With just over a minute to go, Appalachian got the ball again, but with no time-outs left. Still, they drove down the field, and kicked a field goal. Michigan had one more shot, but had their attempt at a game-winning field goal blocked. And Appalachian State won the game 34--32! This was a football fairytale ending, if ever there was one! Of course, Division I-AA teams have beaten the bigger schools before; but never has a Division I-AA team defeated such a highly-ranked major college football power. I've heard the last few seconds of the play-by-play from the Boone, North Carolina, radio station! It was great; but just like the Boise State win over Oklahoma, I'd love to have the whole thing on cassette or at least hear a recording or see it on ESPN Classic! The kids in Boone tore their own goal post down and carried it to the chancelor's house after the game! What a great thing for college football! You gotta love it, if you're a real fan of the game! ******** I heard today that this will be the last year that the Braves will be telecast on WTBS, in the form we've come to know. (I guess that means they'll still carry some Braves games in the future, but not as Braves announcers, or in the present format. So 31 years of Braves fun on the "super station" come to an end. That's kind of sad for a lot of us who live outside the Atlanta area. Some of the changes that have come about in media coverage of major league baseball teams in recent years have not been good for the fans or the game! I may have more to say about this in later blog entries.

A New Take on the Pastoral Visit

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:59:00 +0000

A recent "Dear Abby" column presented a different take on the pastoral visit. Apparently, many church members consider the traditional pastoral visit to be an unwelcome intrusion. They would rather see the pastor at church; and the pastor who wants to get acquainted with church members is advised to do it at church gatherings and fellowship activities. I don't know how accurate this is; but it does reflect changes in our culture over the last fifty years or so. I have actually been criticized in a couple of instances for not making enough pastoral calls in non-crisis situations--even though I have always believed that the best way to get to know the members of my congregation is to see them in their natural habitat. (A few members seem to have thought I should visit them every few weeks, whether they actually needed a visit or not.) The traditional pastoral visit is more difficult now because of more two-income households, more activities in which the kids are expected to participate, and, in some cases, just the distances required to travel between and among our various spheres of interest. Yet, Christians are expected to practice hospitality. This is mentioned throughout Scripture. Pastors are expected to love and guide their flocks. I have had situations where church members definitely did not encourage a visit by the pastor. Times are definitely changing. What this tells us about the future of the relationship between the pastor and the church member, I am not sure; but I do know that as I begin this new pastorate, I will have to be very diligent and discerning as I seek to determine how best to minister to each member and each prospective member of my church, not to mention ministering to the wider community.

Hebrews 13:1-7, 15-16; August 27-September 3, Year C:

noreply@blogger.com (Daniel Berry) — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:53:00 +0000

For the most part, this passage consists of general exhortations--a common method of concluding New Testament epistles. Most of these do not strike us as particularly controversial; but they do take on additional meaning when we remember the context in which they were written. These Hebrew Christians were encouraged to show brotherly love and to extend hospitality even to strangers. This was quite a lot for these people to take in. For one thing, most of these were Jewish converts to Christianity who were not used to being friendly to Gentiles. For another, showing hospitality, especially to fellow Christians, could be a matter of risking one's life or livelihood. The Christians, it must be remembered, were often persecuted--and for nothing other than worshipping Jesus Christ. Most of us are not inhospitable to anybody; but sometimes, we get so caught up in our own schedules or personal concerns that we forget that by showing hospitality to strangers, we could be "entertaining angels unawares"--a clear reference to the Old Testament story of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 18. The writer then reminds these Christians to remember those who are in prison or ill-treated, an obvious reference to those who are being imprisoned for their faith, since he goes on to say that "you also are in the body." I wonder if most of us pay enough attention to the plight of the persecuted church around the world. The writer goes on to speak of such vices as sexual immorality and the love of money. We sometimes do not like to remember that the early church, though very conscious of God's grace, was also very conscious of the other aspects of God's character. They knew that no sin was acceptable to God. These Christians were urged to remember that God was their Provider and their Teacher. Scriptures are quoted to remind them of their heritage in God. This was a powerful way to affirm the communal nature of Christianity, pulling together the truth from every culture and generation. The most precious sacrifice to God may well be the sacrifice of praise and the willingness to do good, in the name of Jesus Christ.