-The Lakers, Stan Van Gundy, and The Church-

Well, they pulled it off. The Lakers managed to secure the franchise's 15th NBA Championship title in just five games relying on excellent play from, among others,  Pau Gasol, Derek Fisher, and Kobe Bryant and being commanded by Head Coach, Phil Jackson. This is the 10th time Phil Jackson has coached a team to the title, a new record for ANY of the four major American sports, (Basketball, Football, Baseball and Hockey).

What struck me most about this whole series however was something that Stan Van Gundy, (Head Coach for the Orlando Magic who lost the series to the Lakers), said in a post-game interview after a gut-wrenching loss in game 4. An interviewer asked him to comment on the importance of experience in a Championship series like this, alluding the the fact that several Lakers players have been in Championship contention before but none of Orlando's players had been. He responded by saying the experience had nothing to do with it. He said it was "too chiche" to say it has to do with experience and that this was simply just another basketball game.  I wonder if the fact that this was HIS first time to the NBA Championship Series had anything to do with that opinion. I also wonder if he'll be saying the same thing if he gets there again in the years to come. Something tells me that the more times he coaches a team to the Championship, the more he'll come to realize just how important experience is.

I think many young and new Christians, (especially Christian leaders and professional ministers), have the same problem as Stan Van Gundy though. Right now the Church as a whole is in the middle of a paradigm shift. New voices are starting to be heard and even sought out within the Church. This is a fantastic thing. It happens every few generations and is important to the survival and growth of Christianity. But, as it often happens, many of these "new voices" are blatantly critical of the "old voices." What an remarkable tragedy this is. It is 100% unBiblical, 100% counterproductive, and 100% ignorant. It makes absolutely no sense for someone to criticize and berate those who came before them and claim they didn't do anything right when they, themselves, would not be where they are in their faith had it not been for the very people he or she is criticizing. In other words, If yesterday's Church couldn't do anything right then their wouldn't be a Church today.

Don't get me wrong, I'm am by no means saying there is nothing to improve upon. I believe wholeheartedly that the Church has dropped the ball in many ways and hope we can pick it back up and start making the difference God calls us to make rather than the difference we think we should be making. But we have nothing to gain by pointing fingers at those who came before us. In fact, we should be honoring them and even seeking their council. At the church I am currently serving in there are many who have been loving God and loving people for longer than I have been alive. I have learned to listen when they talk. I have learned to seek out their opinion. I have learned that there is wisdom in experience. I may not follow their advice to the letter. I may not do exactly what they think I should do. Often times I will reinterpret their thoughts to meet the needs of those I mean to minister to.  But there is a wealth of knowledge and wisdom that comes from age and experience, (just read the book of Proverbs if you don't believe me), and I don't want to be like Stan Van Gundy and deny that while I lose. Because the Church losing is just a basketball game. It means people miss out on a life changing message that brings them closer to God now and forever. Please, lets reinvent the church for the emerging generations. Lets see their needs and adjust our methods without adjusting our message. But let us not forsake the experience of those that came before us. Let's take advantage of it. Let's leverage it for the betterment of our endeavors for God. Because experience is wisdom. And we could all use more of that. 

-Silencing The Stones-

For a little while now I've been putting a lot of thought and consideration into God's act of creation. And I don't just mean I've been pondering Adam and Eve's story. I've been wrestling and meditating and praying and studying and examining and really investing myself into the creation poem of Genesis. I think that there is so much in the first chapter of the bible that we either miss or simply ignore. As the poem unfolds you can feel that God is going somewhere with this whole creating the universe thing. He creates and creates and then creates things that can create. God saturates our universe with the ability to keep creating itself. To move itself from on level to the next. Because God isn't just creative, He is Creativity itself.

Finally, in His last act of creation, (that we know of), God forms man in His own image and plops us down smack-dab-in-the-middle of all this creative potential. He charges us with helping to continue in the creation of the world. To help bring order and balance and at the same time for humanity to grow and create and learn. It's like God says to man, "I made all this and it's GOOD. But I've given you the ability to take hold of it and make it even better." Now the question is: where do we fit in the grand scheme of creation?

Let's not kid ourselves, mankind is NOT the focal point of creation. I know many of us would like to believe that but it's simply not true. God did not create the universe for man. Why did He create then? Simple. For Him. Creation exists to bring glory to God. Everything that is good and right and true and beautiful in our universe has the singular purpose of crying out to it's Creator in gratitude, admiration and yes, even worship. That means that mankind, as God's most beloved and important creation, has the responsibility to do the same thing. To cry out to God in gratitude, admiration and yes, even worship. Because God is going to get His. But what happens when He doesn't get it from us?  Check this out:

"When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen: "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!" Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!" "I tell you," he replied, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."

(Luke 19:37-40 TNIV)

I wonder what that looks like. I wonder what it sounds like. What does it look like when the "stones cry out"? What would we hear? Would we see the molten spews of an erupting volcano? Would we hear the rumbling of an earthquake? Would stars fall from the sky? What does it look like when the "stones cry out"? I wonder if they aren't crying out already. If we have grown so proud and so "wise" that we simply don't stand in awe and terror and wonder and admiration of the Creator of all things. If we for got how to "cry out" in utter amazement of who and what and why He is. Maybe the stones are already crying out. Because God is going to get His. He is supposed to get it from us. But if we "keep quiet, the stones will cry out." And I think it's about time we start silencing the stones.

-First Name Basis With God-

My son turns two in just a few months here. He's an interesting kid so far. Having a very outgoing and affectionate older sister has made him fairly aggressive and independent. He wants to turn the lights off and on, feed himself and sometimes tries to dress himself as well. If you try to help him, you get yelled at. He LOVES his mommy which, for me, is great to see. "Mommy" is by far the word he uses most with "no" coming in second and "mine" a close third. Other favorites of his are "doggie," "sissy," "thank you" and "bye-bye." Did you notice an important word that is strangely absent from that list?

For whatever reason, my son refuses to call me "daddy." He also won't say "dada," "dad' or even "pop." No, when my son is talking to or about me he calls me "John." That's right, my not even two-year-old son insists on calling me by my first name. And it's not as if he doesn't know to call me "daddy." When he calls me "John" I don't answer him and when my wife hears him she tries to correct him. He'll say, "John!" and she'll tell him, "Daddy," and he'll tell her, "No!" and then proceed to call me "John." The fact that my son thinks we're on a first name basis doesn't bode well for me when he gets older.

Now, I don't think Ian realizes that when he calls me by my first name other than "daddy," he is refusing to acknowledge my relationship to him. He is not properly recognizing me as his father, provider, protector, teacher, caregiver, and giver of life. What he doesn't realize is that by using my first name, he is putting himself on the same level as me. I wonder how often we do this with God. I wonder if we think we're on a first name basis with the Creator of the universe. My son has an excuse in that he is merely a toddler. Do we have an excuse?

As a worship leader I sometimes play a song called "Friend of God" written by Israel Houghton and Michael Gungor. This is a great song that I think really illustrates how amazing it is that the Creator of time and space and everything in it still longs for a relationship with us, His creations. But I think there is a danger when we get TOO caught up seeing God as our friend. Yes He is that but He is so much more. And when we fail to recognize that we are essentially putting ourselves on His level. And that is a tragic mistake.

Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't call God our friend. Jesus himself called His disciples His friends and so it's safe to assume He kinda feels the same way about us today. But what I am saying is that when we focus only on THAT aspect, we run the risk of forgetting that God is also our father, provider, protector, caregiver and giver of life. When we get to comfortable calling God by His first name we lose site of the fact that He is also the one who sustains us. The one who provides the very oxygen we breath. The one who keeps our hearts pumping. The one who in vast enough to imagine and create the infinite universe. When we think of God primarily as our friend, we forget to stand in awe and wonder of who He and what and why He is. Growing up my dad used to tell my brother and I that he wanted to be our friend but that he was our father FIRST. I think we need to see God as our God first, and friend second. It doesn't mean He's not our friend. It just means that He's our God first.

-Gay Marriage Questions For Everyone-

I've been pretty deliberate to not blog when it comes to politics or my political views. I usually try to keep my blogs to spiritual issues or, in most cases, my own mindless ramblings about things I think are fascinating but the rest of you wonder what I'm even so interested in. And while I think this post is more spiritual than political, many people will view it as the reverse. With that disclaimer, I'll begin.

Yesterday, (05/26/09), the California Supreme Court ruled to confirm the November 2008 California ballot initiative known as Proposition 8. In a nutshell, Prop. 8, which passed by a margin of 4%, defined marriage in California as being between 1 man and 1 woman, effectively closing the door to gay couples getting married. The State Supreme Court basically said, what the majority of voters want is OK with us. (Of the 7 judges, 6 voted to confirm Prop. 8 and only 1 voted to overturn it.)

I don't know where any one of you stands on this issue. Due to the general content of most of my blogs, I am persuaded to believe that most of you are against gay marriage. I'm some of you aren't and quite frankly where you stand on this issue is not my concern. The point of this blog is NOT to influence anyone to one side or the other. What I want us ALL to do is ask ourselves a few questions and really consider then before "towing the party line," whatever party you may be in. So, below are some questions we need to ask ourselves before we get so emphatic about this, clearly, polarizing issue. 

1. Are we all prepared for the probability that gay marriage will be legal within the next 2 election cycles?

It is VERY likely that gay marriage will be legal in California in a matter of just a few years. Those against gay marriage should not simply plug there ears and pretend this isn't true. This is the direction that our culture is headed and that's all there is to it. I am not suggesting you change your beliefs or that you give in and vote contrary to your own convictions. I am simply suggesting that, baring an act of divine intervention, (which God rarely does in matters like this), the outcome will eventually turn toward legalizing gay marriage. Now, if you are for gay marriage you should prepare for this day with a certain degree of anticipation but please, if and when gay marriage is legalized, accept it with humility and not with an "in your face" attitude.

2. If gay marriage IS legalized, where then do we draw the line?

What happens when we redefine marriage? Other groups will come out of the woodworks with a cry of "Hey, what about us?" Will polygamy, (the practice of having more than one spouse at a time), be allowed next? Will someone be able to marry a dog? A tree? A corpse? I know these sound like far-fetched examples but if there is anything we have learned about people in our society it's that there is not limit on how far we can take something. Look up an organization called NAMBLA and you'll find proof of what I'm talking about. We need to be aware of where the line should be drawn.

3. Are we too hung up on the word "marriage"?

This is a question for both sides. If you are against gay marriage you probably feel that way because of certain faith-based morality and applaud your commitment to your convictions. But if God doesn't recognize a union between a gay couple then do we really care if the State of California does? Why are we OK with it if a heterosexual couple who had sex while they were dating gets married? Isn't their life-style just as sinful? If you are FOR gay marriage you may not be aware that same-sex couples who had civil unions already have the exact same rights as married couples in California. So why the NEED for the word "marriage"? Is it out of spite for "those religious people" who you just don't like?

4. What happens to clergy and church rights if gay marriage is legalized?

One of the reasons many churches are against gay marriage is because it creates a concern that the ministers, pastors and priests will be FORCED to perform ceremonies for a same sex couple regardless of their own personal convictions. As a pastor, I could be fined or jailed for refusing to perform a wedding ceremony for a same sex couple because I would discriminating. Doesn't this infringe on my Constitutionally protected freedom of religion? The same is true for the actual church facilities. Churches could theoretically be fined or lose their tax-exempt status for not allowing a gay couple to be married in their church. I think this is a travesty. You don't extend rights to one group, and in doing so trample the rights of another. And before anyone starts the, "Gay people don't want to do that to churches" argument, let me just say this. You're wrong. While the VAST majority of the gay community wouldn't want this to happen, there are activists in that community that would do just out of spite for how they've been, "mistreated by those religious people for years." It's the few that WOULD make an issue out of it that worries me.

5. For all our talk of love and equality, what's our real agenda?

All of us need to check our hearts. If you are against gay marriage out of your commitment to Biblical principles then you must also take into consideration the attitude with which you express those principles. Are we, as Christians, being an extension of God's love and grace? Is that the message we are sending? I believe there is way to disagree with someone's lifestyle without alienating them. I believe you can be against gay marriage but not against gay people. because Jesus was and is always FOR people. He expressed our need to change by dying for us. As Christians, are we willing to express others need to change by dying for them? If you are for gay marriage, is it really about equality for you? Or is it just about winning? If people against gay marriage should just accept you for who you are then shouldn't you just accept them for who they are? 

I have made a VERY concerted effort to not list where I stand on this particular topic. Those of you who know me probably know that. But the point of this blog wasn't to express where i stand but to try to help all of you have a better understanding of where you stand and, hopfully, where others are coming from. All of these are highly personal questions that I am not saying an entire people group should ask themselves but that individuals should ask themselves. Don't answer for the group of people who share your point of view but answer for yourself. With brutal honesty. Then encourage others to do the same. Only by seeing someone else's point-of-view will we really grow. I am not saying we have to agree with them. But I am saying that we should make an honest effort to understand them. Then, maybe we can disagree without demonizing our opposition.

-Reverse Theology-

There is this method of motivating people that I think I probably first heard about in an episode of The Brady Bunch or some other old sit-com. The idea is that you deceive another person to believe that the results that you want to happen are actually the opposite of your real desired results. This type of approach is called "reverse psychology" and I'm quite sure you've heard the term before. For some reason this came to mind the other day as I was reading the passage in the Bible that can be heard in about 86% of all weddings. 1st Corinthians 13.

  

As i came to this chapter, which describes what love is, isn't, does, and doesn't do, I began to try to look deeper. I mean, I've read and heard this passage countless times but I knew there was still more to draw out of it. That's when the reverse psychology concept hit me. I thought to myself, what if I looked at the opposite of all the things this chapter says about love to draw out a more specific understanding of it? What if i employed a system of what I am calling; "Reverse Theology?" (By the way, I don't believe for a second that I am the first person to use that term so please don't send me comments about how I stole someone else's idea. Besides, in ministry there is no such thing as plagiarism.) What could I learn about love that way? Lets see shall we?

If "Love is patient" then we can also assume that it is not in a hurry. It doesn't need everything RIGHT NOW. This may be a great thing for single girls and guys to remember when they're in a relationship, (especially girls). If the person you are with is not being patient then you have to wonder how much they really "love" you. Love is not in a hurry.

 

If "love is kind" then we can also assume that it is not mean. I realize this sounds elementary but it's true. Love does not mistreat others. It doesn't dehumanize people either. Doctors are taught to detach themselves from their patients to avoid emotional involvement. This is a cold approach that love doesn't take. Love is kind and values people and life.

 

If love "does not envy" then we can also assume that it celebrates the fortune of others. That means when someone else gets the promotion instead of you, love celebrates their achievement. It doesn't mean you're not disappointed, but it means you don't target your disappointment at someone else. Love is happy when good things happen for anybody. Even when it's not us.

If love "does not boast" then we can also assume that it remains humble even when it has reason not to. So when you DO get the promotion, love takes the responsibility seriously and doesn't talk about how much it deserved it. When good things and blessings come, love quietly accepts it with gratitude.

 

If love"is not proud" then we can also assume that it doesn't need accolades and credit for every accomplishment. Ronald Reagan said it well, "There is no limit on what a man can accomplish if he doesn't care who gets credit for it." Love doesn't seek credit, rather it seeks to pass credit on to others.

 

If love "is not rude" then we can also assume that it is polite. Love says things like, "please" and "thank you." And especially things like, "after you" and "please take MY seat." It's not always easy, but love is polite and has manners.

 

If love "is not self-seeking" then we can also assume that it is generous. Love gives more than it takes. In fact love doesn't even take, it accepts when it is offered something freely. Love is willing do without so that others don't have to. Love is generous.

 

If love "is not easily angered" then we can also assume that it keeps a level head. Love realizes that other people are not perfect and makes allowances for that just as James instructs us to. Love has a looooong temper. Not something that is easy to have.

 

If love "keeps no record of wrongs" then we can also assume that it does keep a record of "rights." Love remember the good that others do. Love learns from the positive contributions people make and helps them learn from their mistakes. Love doesn't allow itself to become bitter.

If "love does not delight in evil" then we can also assume that it mourns it. Love sees injustice and hurts with those that are suffering. Love feels sorrow and grief when it sees senseless acts of ambition at the expense of others.

 

If love "rejoices in the truth" then we can also assume that doesn't keep the truth hidden. Love seeks truth in everything it sees and when it finds it, love celebrates it and shares it without prejudice. Love cannot keep the truth under a rock. It understands that truth exists for all people everywhere.

 

If love "always protects" then we can also assume that it never lets other be exploited or taken advantage of. Love is moved to action by the suffering of others. Love protects the image of God that all people were created in and recognizes that no one life is more valuable than any other.

 

If love "always trusts" then we can also assume that it is not suspicious. Love doesn't look for reasons to accuse people of wrong-doing. Love takes things as they are not wondering what someone might be up to. Love believes in others and works to bring the best out in them rather than assuming the worst about them.

 

If love "always hopes" then we can also assume that it isn't pessimistic. Love always hopes for the best instead of assuming the worst. Love recognizes that as long as there is a tomorrow things can be better and works to make it happen.

 

If love "always perseveres" then we can also assume that it never gives up.  Love does not end. Love has no expiration date. When love is abused is still loves. When love is taken for granted, it still loves. Love is willing to go all the way to the end, even if that end is on a cross.

 

So there's my exploration of 1st Corinthians 13:4-7 using "reverse theology." It was a good experience for me so i thought I'd pass it on. I hope you got something out of it. I'd love to know what you think I missed. Surely I didn't cover it all so please, comment and tell what else we can assume about love from reading this passage. I hope you'll try some "reverse theology" next time you come across a passage that it could apply to.