Prayer Ads

Quite a while ago I went to a church because I saw it's ad in the newspaper and I happened to be looking for a church. When I told someone there I came because of the ad, he was astonished. Nobody had every come before because of the ad. While I'm sure some people do pick a church from an ad, I doubt that very many do. While this might suggest that churches simply should not run newspaper ads, I think before they stop they ought to give it another try - but do it differently, with a bit more creativity, and a bit more committment behind it.

What if a church ran an ad something like this:



It is nothing but an offer to pray. Readers don't have to come to the church or do anything except let the church know what they would like prayed for. For that reason alone I think an ad like this might be attractive. But also, I think all the white space in the ad - in addition to being practical - would grab the eye. Finally, this ad requires a reliable prayer team at the church that will take the requests seriously. Otherwise it would just be a bad joke.

The Missing Art

The pastor of my church believes in the arts. Painting, sculpture, film, music, literature, drama, and so forth. They can all be used to glorify God. And I certainly agree that they can, and I welcome the church's renewed interest in the arts.

But of all the arts that the church promotes, the really obvious one seems to have eluded it (or maybe I've just missed it). This is an art form that has been associated with the church for not just years or decades, but probably for well over a thousand years.

Stained glass.

The great churches I've visited in Europe are filled with stained glass. Many traditional American churches also use stained glass.

It seems to me that the association of church with stained glass gives the church in the West a platform.

Why shouldn't churches sponsor stained glass art festivals? A stained glass festival could feature local stained-glass artists, speakers, demonstrations of stained-glass technique, history of stained glass (which would present plenty of opportunities to discuss Christianity), tours of the sponsoring church's stained glass windows (which probably feature biblical themes and could be used as a bridge to explain the gospel). Plus, the whole event would lend itself to local press coverage and raise the church's profile in the community.

I doubt any of this is world-changing, but for some people it could be life changing.

[Update: Dr. William N. Brown sent me a great link to an article on his Web site about a friend who does some amazing stained glass work in China]

No Problem with Bunnies, But...

It's getting near Easter, and bunnies are rampant, so I thought I'd share a non-bunny article I wrote years ago. You know how Christmas has a lot of Christian symbols? So why not Easter? Why is it just bunnies and eggs? So here's my Better Easter Tradition.

Israeli Restraint

Something that really bothers me in the discussion I hear about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is this sort of "they're both equally bad" attitude. I just can't understand that attitude.

This is what would make the two sides equally bad: If the Palestinians blew up a bus filled with unarmed Israeli civilians (men, women and children) and then in retaliation the Israelis dropped a bomb on a marketplace filled with unarmed Palestinian men, women and children. That would be close to equivalent, but not quite since the one who started it is more to blame.

But I'm not seeing that. When Palestinian terrorists blow up buses, I see the Israelis trying to attack just the terrorists. I see restraint in the face of the most brutal provocation.

Europeans and Cowboys

The latest disagreements between the U.S. and Europe remind me of how some Europeans think they can insult Americans. They call us "cowboys."

I've never really figured this one out, and it suggests to me a real ignorance of American culture.

What's weird about the insult is that the mythology of cowboys in America is very positive. The cowboy is a tough man who can make it on his own in the wild, he's a hard worker, he loves the outdoors and horses, he has a straightforward sense of justice, he's honest, he treats women with respect, he's polite in an unaffected way, he panders to nobody, he's cool under pressure, and he's a man of few words but strong actions.

Granted that real cowboys probably didn't (and don't) often live up to this ideal, but it's the ideal we Americans have in our heads, and its really hard for us to feel insulted when we're accused of being cowboys. We're more likely to be secretly flattered, even if we know it is intended as a put-down.

Pray for Denmark

As I mentioned earlier, a friend and I have started a little Web page called Pray for Denmark, a site for those who want to pray that Jesus will revive his church in that land. It's pretty rudimentary at the moment. We'll have a better design and more pages shortly, but we wanted to get it up and running. Stop by and visit, and say a prayer. Thanks!

What's the Problem?

Something I am trying to figure out in the current uproar about homosexuals wanting to be married is this: What do they gain from it? What rights are they being denied?

Inheritance? I don't think so. Homosexuals can leave their belongings to whomever they please, just as everybody else can.

Insurance? This is a matter for employers and insurance companies. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know that there are any laws that require companies to offer insurance at all; or if they do offer it, that it needs to cover spouses.

Taxes? Not exactly my area of expertise, but for a while there were complaints about the "marriage penalty," because married couples actually paid more taxes than two singles.

Maybe there is some material loss homosexuals suffer from not being able to marry, but if so, I'd like to know what it is. And if it exists, I'd like to know why it couldn't be corrected by simply changing the relevant law or laws.

Unless I can be convinced that homosexuals suffer some specific, material loss that can't be corrected by narrowly aimed legislation, but only by marriage, then I have to think that the whole movement for homosexual marriage is simply an effort to dilute the meaning of marriage.

What I mean is this: If marriage is not just between one man and one woman, but can also be between two men or two women, then by what logic can it even be limited to that? Why can't three men and a woman be "married?" Why can't polygamy be considered a legitimate form of marriage? Why can't a whole frat house be married? If "marriage" means any living arrangement among human beings, then marriage means nothing.

Geneva Collars

A friend recently wrote me about some people he knows who have left evangelical churches to join more traditional churches, such as Lutheran and Orthodox churches. I don't know that there is a flood of this going on, but I would certainly say it's a trend.

I wonder if the reason is that there is a longing for structure. When I became a Christian (early 70s) there was a lot of rebellion against authority and its structures. The cry was that, "Jesus can set you free." Now, I think that longing for freedom has spent itself, possibly because there don't seem to be a lot more freedoms to get. I think people are free to do just about anything they please, including - they percieve - in their Christian lives. Perhaps now people are missing a sense of structure, and insofar as churches have structure - and I think more ritualistic churches at least appear to have it - they will attract people. Maybe it's time to bring back the black robes, Geneva collars and candles.

A Mini Review of The Passion

I've just seen The Passion of the Christ and it is a powerful retelling of the Gospel account of Jesus' death. No surprise endings; no car chases; no nonsense. Its affect on me is to make me think of how much Jesus gave for me and this makes me so grateful.

Also, I have to warn any anti-semites out there that they're going to be deeply disappointed if they go to this movie expecting it to be some sort of slam against Jews. It ain't. And as for violence, I kind of wonder what people who go to a movie about the scourging and crucifiction of Jesus expect to see. Shirley Temple doing a little dance number? I mean, duh. Having said that, though, the violence is not over the top. It is appropriate for the topic and probably a lot more moderate than the violence in other films that critics have just yawned at.

Go see it if you haven't.

Exit Polling

I had a few minutes free today and spent those minutes at Google News repeatedly refreshing the page and looking at new stories about the Passion movie appear almost every minute. There were apparently some early screenings and I was interested to read what people had to say as they came out of the theaters. They didn't say, "It was the Jews fault." Instead, they were all saying things like, It was my fault, or it was our fault, or it was all of our fault. And if that's what people are coming away with, I think the movie is hitting the nail on the head. My sin put Jesus on the cross. He died for me, to take the penalty of my sin upon himself, and I can never repay it. I can only say, Thank you, Jesus!

Pray for Denmark, Etc.

A friend approached me the other day with an idea he believes God laid upon his heart - to create a Web site to encourage people of Danish ancestry to pray for Denmark. He's of Danish descent, as am I, so I agreed to help out. There's really nothing at the Web site yet, but it'll be at PrayForDenmark.com when its ready.

The reason I'm talking about this is not to promote the site - which is, as I said, pretty much blank - but because it occurred to me that this could be a model for similar Web sites.

Why shouldn't all ethnic groups (particularly in the United States, which is almost entirely made up of immigrants or immigrants' descendents) have Web sites to promote prayer and missions work for their ancestral homes? Why not have a PrayForGermany site, or a PrayForItaly or PrayForJapan web site? Why shouldn't Danes take it upon themselves to pray for Denmark, Chinese to pray for China, Mexicans to pray for Mexico, and so forth?

Protestant Catholics?

I was chatting with a Catholic friend about the movie The Passion. I mentioned that it strikes me as odd that the main base of support for the movie appears to be evangelical churches. What's odd about this is that I haven't heard of similar support by Roman Catholic churches. I mean, Mel Gibson is a Catholic, so why isn't the Catholic church behind him to the hilt?

My Catholic friend replied that the reason the Protestants are providing a better support base is that they are better organized than the Catholics. This struck me as a pretty weird since Protestants have no central leadership and the Catholic church does. Why, I asked, doesn't some bishop pound his desk and just say, "Get cracking on this!"?

Well, he thinks the bishops aren't very interested in promoting what Gibson is doing. I wondered if that might be because Gibson belongs to a traditionalist Catholic congregation which practices the Latin mass, which is really not what the Catholic church officially does any more. Perhaps that is why the church hierarchy feels uncomfortable with Gibson. He agreed.

That, in turn, got me to thinking about the traditionalist Catholic churches. Though I'm sure they wouldn't see it in this light, it seems they are almost Protestant in their refusal to go along with the modern mass, which, to my understanding, is the direction set by the church hierarchy and the Pope. Since one of the main facets of the Reformation was the rejection of the Pope as the final authority, the traditionalists (oddly) appear to be doing precisely this -- denying the authority of the Catholic church, and ultimately of the Pope,

But take this with a grain of salt. What I know of the Catholic Church is pretty limited, so I may just be talking through my hat.

Which Is Most Effective?

On most pages of my Web site I have links to a Web site that tells how to become a Christian. (You can see one here.) For a long time I've had these links pointing to this Four Spiritual Laws site. What I like about this site is its simplicity. It's light on graphics, so it loads quickly; it's clear and comes to the point. And besides, it is the online version of the pamphlet that led me to Christ, so I have a sentimental feeling about it.

But as I look around, I find other sites designed to let people know how to become a Christian, and some of these are beautifully done. I just noticed this one, Who Is I Am? And this one, Who is Jesus? These are beautifully designed, and I'm sure they do a lot of good, probably answering a lot of people's questions about Jesus and hopefully moving them toward accepting Christ. But on the other hand, they're a bit heavy on graphics and rather complex. If I was interested in how to become a Christian, it's not entirely clear from a glance how I might do that.

I wonder what you all think. Which of these types of online tract is most effective?

Public Baptism

Baptism, as I understand it, is a public identification with Christ's death and resurrection, and is a symbol of his cleansing of our sins. But I think that the public part of baptism seems to be a bit overlooked, and what public-ness there is in most baptisms is almost accidental.

I was baptized in a canal in Germany, to the amusement or confusion, I imagine, of those on the tour boat nearby. But because it was public, I think that in some small way it was a testimony to the world. But I suspect that was accidental. I think we went to the canal because the church didn't have the facilities. I imagine that is frequently the case.

But is the public part of baptism just supposed to be public before the church, or public before the world?

I think that generally baptisms should be public before the world, as when John and Jesus baptized in the Jordan River. The exception might be in countries where a public identification with Christ could endanger believer's lives.

I think there are several reasons public baptism is valuable. First, as I said earlier, because it is a testimony to the unbelieving world. Just the sight of a baptism says to the world, Over there is a man or woman who believes following Christ is important.

Second, the person being baptized often has (at least at my church) the opportunity to say a few words about how he or she became a Christian. Again, this is a testimony to the world.

Third, this public act of faith is a milestone that the Christian can look back upon during hard times and remember. There, on that day, I stood before all those people and obeyed Christ in baptism. I'm committed. I can't turn back now.

I'm not sure, but I wonder if the public-ness of baptism couldn't be much greater. What if baptisms were held at public pools, lakes, or at the seashore, by design, not by necessity? Or what if churches took out ads in the local paper with the picture, name and testimony of each person who was baptized?

Just a thought...

The Passion of Christ

I'm a little bit of two minds about going to see Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ. On the one hand I'm impressed by the reviews and the assurance I'm hearing that it follows the biblical narrative closely. On the other hand, I am uncomfortable seeing the suffering of our Lord portrayed so forcefully, as I've heard Gibson does. I know Jesus' suffering intellectually, but I suspect seeing it portrayed with no holds barred will hit me a lot harder. But then again, being hit a lot harder would probably be a good thing for me.

One thing that doesn't trouble me at all is the charge that the movie is anti-semitic. From everything I've heard, this charge is just nonsense. I think it was Michael Medved (a Jew) who said that some of the Jews in the movie are good guys, including Jesus himself, and some are bad guys, but all the Romans are bad guys. I guess from that you could argue that the movie is anti-gentile, or you could conclude - as Medved does - that the whole discussion is silly.

Here are some Passion related links:
The official movie site
Using the movie as an outreach
A fan site

Animals in Heaven

A while ago, my daughter, whose cat had just died, asked whether animals go to heaven.

Hmmm. I was a bit doubtful, but instead of giving an instant answer my wife and I gave it some thought. As we studied our Bibles, we remembered that in addition to heaven, God promised to create a new earth (And what better to have on a new earth than a nice orange cat sneaking through the warm grass?), and we read that someday the lion will lie down with the lamb and eat hay (Since lambs are still on lions' afternoon snack list and hay is not, I think this refers to new and improved lions inhabiting a new and improved earth). So anyway, we're hopeful that whether there are animals in heaven, that there there will be animals on the new earth (our cats, too, we hope).

Evangelism and Missions

My church has historically had something of a focus on missions, by which I mean reaching people outside of my country with the gospel. I've really appreciated that focus.

But I had a talk with one of the leaders of my church today, and it appears we are considering redefining "missions" as meaning reaching people with the gospel, regardless of where they live.

In a way that sounds noble - after all, we want to reach everybody with the gospel - but it discourages me.

If, for my church, "missions" has meant "reaching people outside of the U.S. with the gospel," and now just means, "reaching people with the gospel," then I fear we will consider we are "doing missions" if we simply reach out to our community. Being in our face, lost people nearby compel our attention much more easily than lost people hundreds or thousands of miles away, but distant people are just as real. I fear that if we don't differentiate between near and far, that people will look at the missions budget and if it is a healthy percentage of the church's budget, they'll incorrectly feel the church is doing what Jesus commanded.

For that reason I prefer the word "evangelism" for reaching people nearby, and "missions" for reaching people far away, though some people feel if you cross cultural boundaries with the gospel, that's missions. I'm not inclined to argue that, but if people hold this view then I would insist on dividing missions into "home missions" and "foreign missions," or "A" and "B," or "cat" and "dog." I really don't care what the word is, I just want the concepts kept separate.

The Raj

I just finished reading an interesting book by Lawrence James called Raj, The Making and Unmaking of British India, about the time of British rule in India.

The British, starting from a trading post, acquired control of India in a higgledy-piggledy, unintentional sort of way, as a result of a mish-mash of treaties and wars, some defensive and some aggressive, and to a great extent determined by local commanders. I've heard the British acquired their empire "in a fit of absentmindedness," a description which seems to describe this situation fairly well.

Anyway, once they acquired India, despite plenty of black marks against them, the British seemed generally quite concerned about improving it's lot. I did not read the book for inspiration, but being a Christian, this summary quote in the Epilogue about the Raj (the name for the British-Indian government) caught my eye:

"It [the Raj] had been the most perfect expression of what Britain took to be its duty to humanity as a whole. Its guiding ideals had sprung from late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth-century Evangelical Enlightenment which had dreamed of a world transformed for the better by Christianity and reason. The former made little headway in India, but the later, in the form of Western education and the application of science, did."

Armageddon and the Environment

I went to lunch with some co-workers today, and one of them said that it is the Christian belief in Armageddon that is spoiling the environment. His logic was that people who believe the world is coming to an end figure they might as well grab what they can get regardless of its affect on the environment.

Oh man! I kept quiet, but now I'm going to vent a bit.

First, I've been a Christian for a long time and I do not recall ever hearing that argument from anybody who believes in Armageddon, so I think this theory has little if any grounding in reality.

My strong feeling, based on my experience when I thought Armageddon was near (now I'm just not sure when it will be), is that when Christians are convinced Armageddon is near, it is far more likely to make them focus on heaven and their rewards there. After all, what's the point of grabbing a bunch of stuff that will just turn to dust in their hands? Further, Christians are encouraged to consider others more highly than themselves, and destroying the environment - and thus harming other people - is in contradiction to that, regardless of how soon Armageddon may occur. In other words, if Jesus was coming back tonight, would you want him to catch you torching someone else's house?

Further, I can switch this theory around and make a much more plausible argument that athiesm exploits the environment. Let me give it a try.

The athiest does not believe in God or an afterlife, therefore if he (or she) is going to get desirable things, it's gonna have to be in this life! The realization that life is temporary and there's no heaven leads athiests to try to grab all they can get regardless of its effect on the environment. Further, there are no athiest scriptures that enjoin kindness to other people, so there is no limit on their potential avarice.

I don't know that this is true, but I suspect it has a greater probability of being true than the "Armageddon destroys the environment" argument.

Focus

I was watching the Rose Parade on New Year's Day and recall hearing the announcer mention that the service organization, Kiwanis, the sponsor of one float, has as its goal the elimination of a form of mental retardation caused by lack of iodine, if I recall correctly.

This is the kind of thing that excites me: organizations that take on tasks that are tightly focused and where success is very measurable. My bet is that Kiwanis accomplishes its goal.

This reminded me of the time I attended a meeting of The Gideons, a group of mostly businessmen, which, as you may know, has as its main goal putting Bibles in hotel and motel rooms.

What struck me about these Gideons folks was how ordinary they are. Just regular people. But think what these ordinary folks have done! Probably most of the hotels in the world - at least most of those that are willing to accept them - have Gideons' Bibles in their rooms.

I suppose The Gideons could have done a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and done most of it poorly, but instead - either from humility or good sense - it has focused on doing essentially one thing, and has done it remarkably well. It's a very interesting model.