Continue reading »]]> Do you know who Joseph, called Barsabbas was?  No?  Doesn’t ring a bell?  Well then, let me ask you another question.  Do you know who Matthias was?  Ah, that you know.  He was the man selected to replace Judas as an apostle.  The other man who was not selected was Joseph, called Barsabbas.

Joseph, called Barsabbas was a man who was a disciple of Jesus.  He was a disciple of Jesus from the time of Jesus’ baptism till the day of his ascension.  He therefore was with Jesus through thick and thin.  Then Judas kills himself, and a vacancy for apostleship becomes open.  His name is mentioned as a candidate.  Can you imagine his excitement?  The honor?  The opportunity.? The plans that must have run through his head?  Then just like that, he is rejected and Matthias is selected.  His dreams were dashed, his plans were trashed.

So now what?  Does he pout?  Does he become critical of the very ones he wanted to become a part of, especially Matthias?  Does he become disillusioned and stop living for Jesus?  I wish I could answer those questions for you, however Scripture is silent about Joseph, called Barsabbas after this event.  I want to believe that he took this disappointment in stride and continued to serve Jesus as a faithful disciple, who was at one time honored to even be considered as a possible apostle.  Someday, maybe we’ll get to know “the rest of the story” with respect to Joseph, called Barsabbas.

But now, what about you.  What’s the “rest of the story” you’re writing with your own life?  Ever been disappointed?  Ever been overlooked?  Ever been hurt and rejected?  Of course you have; we all have.  But how do you plan to deal with it?  Quit?  Withdrawal?  Vilify those who hurt you?  Or will you continue to be a faithful disciple of Jesus?  How will the “rest of the story” be written with respect to your life?  Give it some thought.

Continue reading »]]> Once upon a time, there was a man who fell “sort-of-in-love” with a woman. I say, “sort-of-in-love” because he would never make a commitment to her. They dated for a long time, enjoyed each others company, shared the same interests, had the same hobbies, and spent hours together every week. However, whenever the subject of marriage was introduced, the man hurriedly changed the subject. In fact, he expressed his belief that marriage was unnecessary. He tried to reassure his female friend that there wasn’t anything wrong with her, he just liked the freedom of single-life. He didn’t want to be “tied down,” and he didn’t want to have to answer to anyone for his actions. He wanted to come and go as he pleased and didn’t want to be burdened with the obligations and responsibilities that come with marriage. Yet at the same time, he wanted this woman that he was “sort-of-in-love” with, to continue to devote her time, energy, and attention into his life and to meet all of his needs.

Likewise, once upon a time there was a Christian who began attending a local congregation of God’s people…

From time to time, I hear some people express their disdain for the process of “placing membership” with a congregation. They want to visit, attend worship services, participate in special activities, but they don’t want to be accountable to anyone. They don’t want to accept responsibility for involvement in the local work of the congregation, and contribute little more than their sporadic attendance to the local church, yet they want the church to continue to meet all their needs.

But friends, responsibility is a two-way street. We wouldn’t tolerate an eldership who tried to overstep their bounds and “shepherd” sheep from another shepherd’s flock. We would quickly remind these men that there’s no such thing as a “brotherhood eldership” or an “at-large eldership,” and that they are to shepherd the flock that is “among them” (1 Peter 5:2). But now, that raises some questions:

• If we will not tolerate a “brotherhood eldership” or an “at-large eldership,”  then why would we be inclined to tolerate an “at-large membership?”
• How can elders do no more and no less then shepherd the flock that is among them, when the sheep refuse to acknowledge they are a part of the local flock?
• Why would Christians not want to assist the shepherds of a local church in making known to them that they are under their oversight?

While I certainly understand that one should be very cautious before submitting oneself to the care of an eldership. I also understand that in coming to a wise and prudent decision, a certain amount of time is needed to learn about the congregation and it’s shepherds. However, I am also aware that there comes a time when one should submit himself, not just to a local eldership, but to the divine plan of God for the church.

What do you call such a practice?  I don’t know.  We commonly refer to it as “placing membership.”  If you don’t like that, call it “identifying with a local church.”  If you don’t like that term either, then come up with one that adequately conveys what is taking place.  I’m not so much concerned about the designation we give, so long as we do it.

Continue reading »]]>

Credit: NBCnews.com

What would it take to get a phone call from the President of the United States?

For Neil Armstrong it took flying to the moon on Apollo 11.  President Nixon actually called and congratulated him while he was on the moon.

For Hank Aaron, it took 715 home runs.  After breaking Babe Ruth’s long standing Home Run Record, and in the midst of many racially motivated death threats, the President called Mr. Aaron in the locker room after the game.

And again, just this week, the President of the United States took time out of his busy schedule to make a personal call to a civilian.  However this call wasn’t prompted by some heroic event; no one landed on the moon and no one broke a long-standing sports record.  The President of the United States took time out of his schedule to call a Jason Collins to congratulate him and tell him “he couldn’t be more proud of him” for professing to the world that he is a homosexual.

On Monday, Jason Collins, a professional basketball player in the NBA, announced in an interview that he was a homosexual.  Reaction to this announcement, the Presidential phone call, and media response has brought this story to the headlines.  Here’s my offering on the matter.  Just a few observations.

• Times have changed.  There was a time, not very long ago, when a call from a President was precipitated by some great accomplishment.  After all, how much time can the President of the United States spend on the telephone talking to 350 million citizens.  It must be a special occasion for him to do so.  Is publicly admitting to the practice of sexual sin worthy of our President to call a citizen and tell him he “couldn’t be more proud of him” for publicly stating he is a homosexual?  Times have indeed changed!
• The world is the world.  The world has always and will always adopt an adversarial role against Christianity.  Therefore, I shouldn’t be surprised by discrimination against Christians (John 15:18-20).  Do you remember how many pundits called for Tim Tebow to stop talking about his profession of Christianity because it had no place in professional sports?  Yet, Jason Collins is being praised by these same pundits for coming out and being vocal about his sinful lifestyle.  Unfair?  Yes.  Frustrating? Absolutely.  But justice and righteousness won’t be fully experienced until the Lord returns.  Until then, we must not lose heart.
• Good is called evil, and evil is called good.  Isaiah pronounced a “woe” upon those who do this (Isaiah 5:20).  Scores of people have commended Collins for making his homosexuality known, while ESPN commentator, Chris Broussard, has been heavily criticized for saying that the practice of “homosexuality is open rebellion against God.”  Affirming sin is called “courageous,” but upholding truth is called “judgmental” and “intolerant.”  Those who wave the banner of “Tolerance” are inconsistently intolerant of anyone who opposes their agenda.
• Discriminate.  Learn to separate the sin from the sinner.  Don’t take the easy route and lump everyone in the same basket.  Learn to show patience and support to those who struggle with and seek to resist temptation to sin, no matter what that sin might be, and those who surrender to it.  The Christlike response to any sinner fighting to live in rebellion to the Devil should be compassion, love, patience, and understanding.  I’m against the practice of homosexuality, however I’m for those who are tempted by this lifestyle and seek to resist it.

Voices, voices, voices.  Friends, there are so many voices.  We find ourselves in a cultural firestorm and everyone has their opinion and is freely expressing it, just as I have done here.  But here’s my challenge to you.  Stay balanced; don’t veer to the right or the left, and make sure you’re listening to the voice of God and not public opinion.

Continue reading »]]> After Elvis would finish performing at one of his concerts, his fans would be left cheering for more, hoping that he would come back on stage to sing another song.  Then the P.A. announcer would make the statement, “Elvis has left the building.”  That was the cue to the fans that the concert was over and it was time to leave.

Well, if I may use that phrase as a jumping off point, I think the church needs to realize that “Jesus has left the building.”  This leaves us with a decision to make.  Will we stay huddled in the building, practicing a very limited in scope, form of Christianity?  Or will we leave the building too, and follow Jesus?

Friends, Jesus has left the building, and he needs his church to follow him and leave the building too.  Our assemblies of worship and study are wonderful.  And Jesus joins us in them.  However, Jesus doesn’t stay in an empty building all week long, just waiting for the next worship service.  Likewise, the church needs to assemble, but it also needs to follow Jesus and “leave the building.”

When Sunday’s over, let’s leave the building and throughout the week, engage society, challenge culture, call men to holiness, be lights in the workplace and at school, and point people to Jesus.

Continue reading »]]> In 1995, Joan Osborne released a song that asked the question, “What if God was one of us?”  Every time I heard this song play on the radio, I would think to myself, and frequently answer aloud to the radio, “He was!  In the person of Jesus” (John 1:14).

Can I have your imagination for a moment?  What if, in God’s great scheme of redemption, the “fulness of time” (Galatians 4:4) would have been now, 2013?

If that were the case, Jesus would very likely have a Facebook page, wouldn’t he?  Surely he would utilize a medium that has the potential to reach millions of people instantaneously.  But if Jesus did have a Facebook page, I’m afraid it would look very different from those who claim to be his followers.

Because God was one of us and we saw his glory, we know some of the things he would and wouldn’t “Like.”  He wouldn’t “Like” pictures that depict people immodestly dressed (1 Timothy 2:9-10).  He wouldn’t “Like” videos that depict lewd and suggestive behavior (Ephesians 5:3).  He wouldn’t “Like” off-color jokes, or references that reinforce racial prejudices (Ephesians 5:4).  He wouldn’t “Like” public airing of personal problems (Matthew 18:15), and nor would he “Like” posts that disrespect our civil authorities (Romans 13:1-7), just to name a few.

Friends, the next time we get ready to “Like” someone’s status, maybe we should slow down just a bit, think twice about what it means to be a follower of Jesus, and ask ourselves, “What Would Jesus Like?” (WWJL).

Continue reading »]]> I am a “Preacher’s Kid,” otherwise known as a “PK.”  I must admit that I had never even heard of a “PK” until I went to college.  For me, growing up as a “Preacher’s Kid” wasn’t any different from growing up as a “Lawyer’s Kid,” or a “School Teacher’s Kid.” 

But as I got older, I learned from others that being a “Preacher’s Kid” was a bad thing.  I was supposed to be scarred from a heavy hand of discipline.  I was supposed to resent the church for being scrutinized throughout my childhood.  So I got to thinking, “Was I raised differently from other kids?  And you know what, I determined I was raised differently.  Here’s a list of some of my memories as a “Preacher’s Kid” that other kids probably don’t have.  I remember…

• Folding church bulletins on TV trays every Saturday night (and fighting with my sister over who had to fold the most).
• Being the last to leave the church building, turning out the lights, and locking up.
• Staying up late at night, anxiously anticipating my Dad’s return after being away in a two-week or ten-day gospel meeting.
• Going with my Dad as he conducted Bible studies with Jule Miller film strips and sometimes simply sitting around a table with open Bibles.
• Waking up to Dad’s “get psyched up” music (as I called it) every Sunday morning.
• Witnessing the evolution of sermon preparation (from chalkboards, to “sheet sermons,” to overhead projectors, and now to PowerPoint presentations).
• Visiting scores of funeral homes and from a distance staring at bodies in caskets and imagining I could see them breathing.
• I was the only four-year-old that I knew of who knew how to tie a double Windsor knot (okay, maybe a bit of an exaggeration).
• Transients being fed meals by my mother when they would come to our house asking for help.
• My mom conducting a Bible class in our house for the kids in the neighborhood.
• Listening to visiting gospel preachers swap amazing and humorous stories in our living room.
• Having the best place in the neighborhood to play “Hide-n-Seek” – the church building

So yes, I do remember some things that made my childhood different from other kids.  But I wouldn’t change any of them if I could.

Today, I hear several angry and resentful young adults who said they were neglected because their father’s were preachers.  I would offer two observations on that.  1) If a child is neglected, it’s not a problem with a parent’s “occupation,” but rather a problem with a parent’s parenting skills. Don’t drag the honorable profession of preaching into this. Leave preaching out of it!  Parenting, not preaching is the problem in such cases.  I think we can all acknowledge that parenting is difficult whether you’re a preacher, a plumber, or a salesman.  Preacher’s, like everyone else, are human and sometimes make mistakes.  2)  I will also say that sometimes the resentment that some have toward their preaching fathers is because they stood in the way of their children making immoral choices, and those children have to blame someone for their unhappiness.

The fact that my sister and I have no such resentment must be an indication of the kind of parents we had. They successfully balanced their responsibilities to their family as well as to the church. I’m proud of my Mom and Dad and what they’ve accomplished together. I’ve never been ashamed of being a “preacher’s kid.” Do I have any regrets growing up a “preacher’s kid?” Maybe a handful, but they had nothing to do with being a “preacher’s kid.” Mostly, they involved my misbehavior and the little paddle my parents kept handy in the hall closet.

Mom, Dad, Thanks!

Continue reading »]]> No sooner than Tiger Woods won the Arnold Palmer Invitational at Bay Hill and regained his #1 Ranking on the PGA Tour, Nike came out with a new ad.  The ad was a picture of Tiger lining up a putt with the words, “Winning Takes Care of Everything.”

Whether you’re a fan of golf or not, most people know of the troubles Tiger Woods has had over the past several years.  Infidelity, adultery, and divorce seemed to take a toll on his golf performance.  During this period of time, Tiger dropped from the #1 ranked player on the tour, a position he had previously held for nearly every week spanning the previous decade.  Following his win at Bay Hill, Tiger recaptured the #1 ranking, thus prompting Nike’s new ad.

But what are we to make of this message?  Does winning really “take care of everything?”  Is this ad intended to suggest that winning excuses, justifies, or nullifies his moral failures?  While Nike denies that this is the intent of their message, countless pundits don’t know what else to make of the message.

From my perspective, the ad is misleading and irresponsible.  Winning doesn’t take care of everything.  Oh, winning can “buy” you a lot of things, but it doesn’t repair a damaged marriage.  It doesn’t give children their father back.  It doesn’t justify outbursts of foul language of the worst kind in the presence of innocent children who look up to him as a hero.  And it doesn’t take care of guilt, shame, and harm inflicted upon self and others.

Regardless of what Nike may say, winning doesn’t take care of everything.  Validation isn’t regained by winning, but rather by humility and God’s forgiveness; now that’s what takes care of everything!

Continue reading »]]> The highly publicized mini-series on the Bible has been airing on the History Channel for the past three weeks.  Roma Downy, the former star of “Touched by an Angel” and her husband, Mark Burnett, a renowned Hollywood producer are responsible for this mini-series.

Whenever Hollywood attempts to retell stories from the Bible, I must admit, I always get a little uneasy.  Biblical accuracy has apparently never been high on their priority list.

Now I understand “poetic license,” and grant the right to retell a story without using the exact same words as the text in so doing.  If I were tasked to preach a sermon on Genesis 1, I’m sure that I would abbreviate some matters and expound more upon other matters.  Picking and choosing what to include and exclude in a limited time is up to the one telling the story.  However, “poetic license” does not give one the right to substantively change the parts of the story that one chooses to include.

As Christians, we know the Bible to be the inspired word of God.  To Hollywood, at the very least, the Bible is a recognized and respected literary work. That being said, imagine Hollywood creating a mini-series on the works of Shakespeare, and prior to each episode they state that this version “endeavors to stay true to the spirit of the [work] book.”  Do you think they would then end “Romeo and Juliet” by having Romeo run off with another woman, and Juliet committing suicide in despair?  Do you think they would have Brutus coming to Julius Caesar’s defense and dying along side him as “friends to the death” in “Julius Caesar?”  Can you imagine them having MacBeth push King Duncan to his death rather than using a dagger?  Of course not!  It would be unthinkable!  Who would be so presumptuous as to trifle with Shakespeare while trying to “endeavor to stay true to the spirit of the work?

So why then does Hollywood feel free to trifle with the Bible?  Regardless of whether they view the Bible as inspired or not, it is at least a literary work of historical significance.  Yet, there seems to be no hesitancy in taking such liberties with the Bible.  Why change Noah’s grown, married sons, into young boys while on the ark?  Why portray an ark with many windows when the Bible says it had just one?  Why have the Persian King Cyrus throw Daniel into the lion’s den rather than Darius the Mede as the Bible states?  Why have Satan taking Jesus to the top of a mountain and tempting him to throw himself off when the Bible says it was the pinnacle of the temple? And the list could go on and on.

While being interviewed about the accuracy of their mini-series, Roma Downy stated that they “had a great team of scholars and theologians helping us, making sure that we told these stories accurately and truthfully.”  If that’s the case, I would suggest that next time, they should skip the “scholars” and “theologians” and interview our little children in Sunday Bible School for a more accurate telling of the story.

Continue reading »]]> Imagine it’s Sunday morning.  You and your family put on jeans and t-shirts and get ready to go to the mountains.  You carry with you a large picnic basket, and your children carry with them a baseball and a couple gloves.  You arrive at the mountains, pile out of the car and take about a two mile trek on a trail that apparently leads to your picnic area.  As you make your way along the trail, you keep a watchful eye to make sure that no one is following you.  Finally, you arrive at a bend in the trail where you are greeted by two men who point to a hidden cave off the trail about a hundred yards away.  The two men remain on the trail, keeping a vigilant watch.  As you enter the cave, you are warmly greeted with embraces by several other families who have already arrived.  The gloves and ball are put aside, the picnic basket is emptied, a false bottom removed, and four Bibles are distributed to your family.  Lanterns are lit, and the group moves deeper into the cave.  Meanwhile, the two men who were watching the path, now make their way to the cave, cover the entrance with brush, and also join you in a deep recess in the cave.  Everything is now ready.  It’s now time for worship services to begin.

While such a scenario seems so unlikely to ever become a reality for most of us reading this, it is what countless brothers and sisters in Christ have had to do in other times, and in other places in order to worship God without reprisal.

Now, I’m not an alarmist suggesting that such a scenario is just around the bend.  Nor is the purpose of this article to discuss the erosion of our religious freedoms in our present political climate. Rather, the point of this article is to ask this question, “If the above scenario were to become a reality, how would it change you?”

“If you were a member of a persecuted church, how would it change you?”

Would worship become more meaningful to you, and less rote?  Would the bonds of fellowship you have with those who share the same convictions about Jesus be strengthened and treasured more so than they are treasured presently?  Would your prayer life be stronger and more vital to your daily life?  Would you be more willing to overlook personality differences and even conflicts with those who share your faith and who share the willingness to risk their lives?  Would you be less likely to pick flaws with each other and more likely to search out ways to maintain peace?  Would you be less critical about peripheral matters that really seem to bother you today?

“Lord, help us behave more like a persecuted church!”

Continue reading »]]> Wade Webster wrote an excellent article here that is responsible for my article below.  Thanks, Wade.

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln had a rather rocky relationship with his General-in-chief of the Union army, George McClellan.  Lincoln thought he was frequently too slow to act on the offensive.

It is said that on one occasion, Lincoln, out of frustration, wrote to McClellan saying, “If you are not using the army, I should like to borrow it for a short while.”

On yet another occasion, Lincoln and the Secretary of State went to McClellan’s home to encourage him to be more aggressive with the Union army.  However, McClellan was not at home at the moment, and the President and the Secretary of State were escorted to the Parlor to await his return.  However, when McClellan returned home and was notified the President was waiting for him in the parlor, he went directly upstairs and went to bed!  Outraged at such insolence, the Secretary of State encouraged Lincoln to fire him.  Even though Lincoln was frustrated with McClellan, he didn’t allow his personal pride and the power of the Presidency derail a greater cause, victory.  Lincoln reportedly said, “This is no time to be making points of etiquette and personal dignity. I would hold the reins of McClellan’s horse if it would bring us victory”

Friends, we need more men in the church who share that sentiment.  Are you one who must defend and justify yourself, prove you’re right and they’re wrong at all costs, and demand your rights?  Or are you willing to swallow your pride, suffer offense, endure humiliation, and “hold the reins” of your “tormenter” in order to promote peace and victory?  Give it some thought.