My Brother Speaking on his Son's Death

As some of you know, my brother Dave lost his son in a dreadful car accident last November. In this interview on Canadian news broadcast tells how he is dealing with his loss

We Have Officially Moved

My friend Vince has convinced me. I am moving this Blog over to Wordpress. There is so much more I can do there. Please click here to be redirected, or if you want to make maximum use of those typing skills, go to natomaschurch.wordpress.com.

Mike

Memorial Day for a Called Man

I am sorry for the fuzzy quality of this picture, but all I had time to do was grab my camera phone and make this. On thursday afternoon, I had the awesome privilege of taking part in the ordination interview for Ted R. who will soon be serving the Lord as a military chaplain. Ted was interviewed for 3 grueling hours as we went through every aspect of biblical knowledge, theology and practical ministry. Ted came through it all with flying colors (after all, these colors don't run) and exemplified himself as a man that can lead other men in their spiritual walk.

This Memorial Day, remember Ted and his wife as they embark on this courageous career. Pray for them and their three kids that they can make the transition from Church life (Youth Pastor for 14 years) to military life. This picture is Ted receiving the oath of office from a senior chaplain. God bless you Ted!

WDDJD

In actual words…What Devotions Did Jesus Do? By "devotions", I mean that spiritual moment or time when we spend time with God, whether by reading Scripture, praying, worshipping or even appreciating aspects of his creation. It can include disciplines (like Contemplation or Solitude), attitudes (Confession or Thanksgiving) and even actions (Journaling, kneeling, imagining). These are all human creations to attempt to solidify our tenuous-feeling working relationship with our Creator.

Jesus, the one who was both God and Man, spent time solidifying that Daddy-Son intimacy. Since he is completely human as we are, he felt those moments of isolation and responded to them with discipline and a process of thinking through the day. So what "devotional life" did Jesus have?

My favorite glimpse into his life with Abba comes in Matthew 4. I won't take time to deal with the entire section, but the first part of Jesus' encounter with the Father of Lies (satan) in the wilderness shows us something of his life with God. Jesus has just spent 40 days alone with the Spirit of God. This time followed his incredible filling with the Spirit at his baptism and the earth-shaking voice of the Father who said "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased". But that was 40 days ago, and as all of us face, Jesus cannot recapture the words spoken over a month ago. Every day has a new impact and even yesterday's exciting victories ring hollow in the face of attack and hunger.

In verses 2 and 3 of Matthew 4 it says

2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

The word "tempter" means "tester". As I noted a few weeks ago, this is satan's role: he is the Proctor, he delivers our tests. We prove who we are through these tests. He designs the tests individually for each of us. This test was for Jesus. It was not as simple as it sounds. Jesus heard the Father, saw the Spirit come down on him. Felt the baptism. But our humanity is frail. He cannot hold onto that memory. Now satan wants to see if he will doubt the Truth of Abba's words.

Here is what Jesus answered:

4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

His answer can seem glib on paper, but it reveals so much at the first level down below the bare words. First, this quote is from Deuteronomy 8. In fact, every answer that Jesus gives to the Proctor is from Deuteronomy, chapters 6-8. They didn't have chapters in those days, so let's just say it came from the same general region in the same historical book. Coincidence? Hardly. You don't have these answers unless they are recently familiar to you. I get a kick out of teachers who look at this section and tell people this is a takeaway suggesting we memorize Scripture. Don't bother. The Proctor knows the Bible better than you do. Simply quoting the Bible back to him when your heart hasn't processed Truth and embraced it won't pass this test.

Second, Jesus' understanding of the Truth in Deuteronomy 8 was deeper than just quoting something to do with Bread. The passage in Deut. 8 speaks of Manna and humbling. To go out every day and collect bread in the desert and have to rely completely on God to feed them was humbling in the sense that they had to completely rely on him. Jesus got that! He is telling the Proctor that if God tells him to turn the stones into bread, he will do it. But not a second before. What an incredible answer. He also uses the word "word" correctly in Greek. The Greek word is rhema, which means a message intended for a specific reason, situation or person. If God told Jesus directly to turn the stones into bread that day, for a particular purpose and for God's glory, then, and only then, would Jesus do it.

Do you prepare yourself in the Scriptures that way? It means bringing the Spirit into that time and preparing your heart with Truth that can be lived (as opposed to Truth that is just memorized to win a discussion). Then when the test comes, you will pass the essay questions as well as the fill in the blank ones.

This Was the Church to Be at On Mother's Day

I love the group that hangs at our church. It is an awesome group doing the Journey together. But I have to give props when they are deserved. I was swinging through a few blogs I love and their links lead me to a few more links and then I found this church. It's the New Spring Church in Anderson, SC. Here is a sampling from this blog page recounting the Mother's Day events:

• Today we saw the church be the church!
• We gave a handicapped accessible van away to a mom & her family.
• We gave away a house to a single mom…AND informed her that we were paying her utility bills for the next year to help her get on her feet.

It gives me a lot of ideas, and maybe you too. What would you give away next year on Mother's Day to a deserving mother?

The Largest Church in the World

At least, this video, produced to give some idea of Oprah's religious beliefs, claims she leads the largest church in the world. Though I wouldn't go so far as to call her group a "church", she certainly wields a lot of influence. Her particular brand of religion is actually called "New Thought" and one should research it carefully before accepting Oprah's belief system carte blanche.

Gift Transference is A Disease

Years ago, I was having lunch with one of my mentors and he began talking of the concept of Gift Transference. Paul mentioned how much he hated when people did it to him, but despised it even more when he did it to others. He explained what it was, but I confess I didn't truly understand it for awhile. I don't think I grasped its nature until someone did it to me, and then I realized how much I laid it on others.

So what is gift transference? Simply, it is the act of assuming that others should desire all the gifts and callings of God that we possess. In addition, it is the tendency to believe that our own ministry and burdens should be of primary importance to everyone. By this definition, Gift Transference is temporary self-absorption. With some people, it becomes permanent. Like most manifestations of self-absorbed Pride, Gift Transference is so hard to see in ourselves and incredibly annoying when we encounter it in others.

For me, the learning process started with a revival. I don't mean "revival meetings" where we announce to the world on a bumper sticker or a mailer that God is going to show up on particular dates and at a place of our choosing. I mean real revival, where God shows up wherever He feels like it, whenever He desires, and turns the Church upside down. Usually in revival there is a lot of repentance, miracles, signs and wonders and a lot of God's Presence. This revival turned my world inside out and I had to rethink everything I knew about God's Power and Presence. It may sound strange to say, but after 18 months of revival going on in our town (a time when over 400 people became Christians in our congregation alone) I actually began to get used to God's Presence and manifestations of power. I don't mean that I took God for granted as much as I stopped shaking every time I felt God.

During the end of that season, I moved my focus away from evangelism and power back to Counseling and Pastoring. After all, these are the callings God has laid on my shoulders. I stopped focusing on revival every day of the week and got back to the more mundane, but necessary, aspects of leading the Church. During that season, those who wanted to see God's revival power touch even more people began to reach out to other communities and congregations with the message of holiness and renewal. I had no problem whatsoever with that. But then they began to chastise me because I didn't want to go with them everywhere to minister God's power. They accused me of quenching the Spirit of God. They were annoyed that I would "play church" while God was doing something tremendously important. In short, they could not see anything beyond revival. Revival and its fruit were all that mattered to them, and anyone who could not see this was "out of touch with God".

I admit, it hurt deeply and I consciously stopped associating with the people who did this. I even acted as if revival didn't matter any longer. Of course, that isn't true; revival means as much to me now as it ever did. But I was reacting to Gift Transference and the implication that I was out of touch with God because I didn't go along with their viewpoint. I stopped trusting anyone who talked about revival, I deliberately ignored things that were going on around the country which hinted at more revival and avoided preaching on topics that might lead to a human-inspired repetition of the things we had experienced during days of God's Power. It was a wrong reaction and I have since re-embraced what God did during those days. But I didn't forget that ugly feeling I had when certain people laid their schtick on me.

I only wish I had never done that to anyone else. But lately God has fastened my gaze on the many formats in which I have used my Pride to practice Gift Transference. I have employed it with beliefs about: Cell Church, Full Gospel teachings, Hearing God's voice, Prayer and Intercession and most lately, the Unity of the church. It is not just that I have a burden for each of these foci. There is nothing wrong with that. But I find that I can look at anyone who does not feel as burdened as I am as out of touch with God in that area. I see a disease that creeps in my heart when I do that: an attitude of superiority that relegates other people to the place where I heap scorn. I do. I scorn people in my heart who will not or cannot see the burden I see.

What happens when I do that? God drifts away from being involved in my thoughts and stops giving me input in my burdens. Therefore, I have to carry the burden alone and it no longer feels like a light burden. Believe me, it is not worth it.

Search your own heart. Where do you practice Gift Transference? It is in parenting, marriage, your job, your ministry, your burdens, your theology, with money, with computer ability, with politics? Notice the creep of attitude sickness?

Some Children are Smarter

We are entering a new era in Education in this country; unfortunately, the reason for this emergence into unknown territory is quite by accident.

The "No Child Left Behind Act" of 2002 required that by 2014, all children in the public school system reach a mean average in ability. That means that all children are legally required to become average by 2014. You can immediately see that this is one of two things: a) Mathematically impossible, since "average" means you are in the statistical middle and you can't have the middle as the bottom standard; or b) Philosophically impossible, since you cannot achieve a goal when it ignores societal relationships and the fallen nature of man. "No Child Left Behind" assumes that all children are relatively on the same playing field with regards to ability.

As we study how far we have come since 2002 in achieving the goals set in the act, the realities are depressing. We are at a statistical dead-heat: we have not progressed at all, especially in math. Perhaps the reason is that we are ignoring a simple fact. Some kids are smarter than others and some will never do well in school by any measuring rod (other than the mother's measuring rod where she sees all of her children with rose-colored glasses). But we don't like to come to that conclusion. Why? Because we want to hold onto the concept that all students can achieve academic success.

Three studies have helped to foster this idea. First came the landmark book "Pygmalion in the Classroom" which claimed to study children and teachers and found that when teachers were told their students were smart, the children's grades improved. When they were told they were stupid, their test grades dropped. Hence, it is not the ability of the student that determines what the grades will be, it is the expectation of the teacher. The problem that has emerged from this study in years since is that it has never been shown to be repeatable by other researchers. There is no doubt that teacher expectations can have an effect for a year or two, but not over the life of a person.

The second study taught that poor self-esteem lead to poorer grades. But since that 1982 study came out, it has been clearly shown that good self-esteem does not raise grades with anyone! That was depressing, but it is reality.

The final study is not wrong, just not helpful. It showed that most kids have abilities in some area, but not always in language and math. This has been shown to be consistently true, but most schools are not equipped (and may never be) to train in the arts, cooking, relational skills and building trades that would release kids to their full potential. Also, we have been told that the only real route to success in America is through a college degree and a vocational plan. To alter that stereotype is going to take decades if it happens at all.

Charles Murray, writing in the "New Criterion" has a simpler answer:

Educational romanticism characterizes reformers of both Left and Right, though in different ways. Educational romantics of the Left focus on race, class, and gender. It is children of color, children of poor parents, and girls whose performance is artificially depressed, and their academic achievement will blossom as soon as they are liberated from the racism, classism, and sexism embedded in American education. Those of the Right see public education as an ineffectual monopoly, and think that educational achievement will blossom when school choice liberates children from politically correct curricula and obdurate teachers’ unions.

In public discourse, the leading symptom of educational romanticism is silence on the role of intellectual limits even when the topic screams for their discussion. Try to think of the last time you encountered a news story that mentioned low intellectual ability as the reason why some students do not perform at grade level. I doubt if you can. Whether analyzed by the news media, school superintendents, or politicians, the problems facing low-performing students are always that they have come from disadvantaged backgrounds, or have gone to bad schools, or grown up in peer cultures that do not value educational achievement. The problem is never that they just aren’t smart enough....

There is much more to be said about these harms (and I have said it, in a book that will appear in a few months). For now, it is enough to recognize that educational romanticism asks too much from students at the bottom of the intellectual pile, asks the wrong things from those in the middle, and asks too little from those at the top. It short-changes all of them.

Read the full article (much of which I have summarized already for you) here.

Review of William Young's "The Shack"

This is a reprint of a review that I did on Goodreads about this book. What started out as a minor sensation has evolved into a Christian Bestseller. I also welcome the comments of others who have read it and want to make their views known here.

So many of my friends have recommended this book that I knew I would read it and feel strongly about it. That's an understatement. (btw....there are no Spoilers in this review).

Before I began reading, I wanted so much to like this book. Partly because I respected the friends who recommended it and partly because this is the author's first book. As some of you know, I personally believe that most authors have one great book in them and it is often their first (see Tracy Chevalier and J. K. Rowling). That is why I was somewhat disappointed with my reading of the first few chapters. . He overwrites like an inexperienced author. Specifically, he uses too many deliberate similes and altogether too many adjectives. In fact, on the same page he uses three different similes to describe the wind. Can it really be a food group and a sigh at the same time? I digress.

He also gets "cutsie" with his description of the main character Mack. The author needs to choose a voice to speak from. The third person omnipotent is not working for him. If you're not familiar with that POV, it is the tendency to describe what every character is thinking. Usually writers choose third person specific, meaning they know the thoughts of only one person. But later the author figures this out and sticks with the main character and lets him discover the story as it happens. So, I guess my main criticism is that the author is not a tremendously skilled writer.

Therefore, a quarter of the way through the book I was ready to be done with it. Then I was delightfully surprised by what happened next. It seems he did an about-face as soon as he came to the heart of the story. After the tragedy that forms the spine of the tale, he tightens up the writing and I never noticed the shortcomings after that. It is like the author himself really just wanted to get to this point in the story and realized the book wouldn't make sense and would be too short without the introductory part. So be it. From this point on, I was enthralled. His meeting with God and the subsequent discoveries of God's character and the meaning of the events he has recently lived are gripping in their poignancy. At one point near the end I actually was in tears. It may be 20 years back to the last time a book brought me to tears. I ended the book totally satisfied.

The reader should note that this book is not a theological work. It falls into the same category as Frank Peretti's "This Present Darkness" in its theological importance. The point of "The Shack" is the reconciliation of the main character with God. It is not a book about Goddess worship, hierarchy within the Trinity, or the personification of Wisdom as a fourth member of the Godhead. Many have criticized Young for these, but in so doing they miss the point of the story. This is a personal encounter between God and one man. It is not supposed to represent every man.

Allow me to take one or two more liberties in criticizing a book I really enjoyed. As much as I appreciated the folksy presentation of God in this story, there are parts that don't work. Holy Spirit still feels ethereal and standoffish. Wisdom's speeches are canned and the meals they eat together get repetitive and slow the story down. Major editing could have made this one of the great new books of Christianity. He could easily have left the Afterward on the shelf and not missed it at all. Because of these things, I doubt anyone outside Christianity will read past the first few chapters. That's a pity, but it is true. It is not written well enough and there are still too many obviously contrived parts to the plot to make it seem real to someone who is bent on criticizing Christian writers.

Some of my friends who love this book will really be annoyed that I am being over-analytical. But that is what a proper book review is about. These things need to be said in order to balance the attitude which says we must exalt anything with a good message. This is a phenomenal message hiding in a slightly below average package.

May Day Celebrating

Every Sunday, we went through a religious ritual in our house. All hushed and all unnecessary activity ended. It was the hour for The Wonderful World of Disney. At 7 p.m. all of us, including my mom and dad, waited for that explosion of fireworks and the Disney castle which signaled the show's opening. The others hoped it would be a movie or a cartoon. I wanted one of the nature documentaries.

You remember those don't you? The narrator had the greatest folksy faux-texas/colorado accent you could imagine. You instantly trusted anything he said. And it was like he knew those bear cubs or the raccoon family personally.

One of my favorite lines in some of those documentaries was this one that he would croon out: "Springtime came late to the Rockies".

I've lived in those Rockies. And it is true that Spring arrives later there than most habitable places in North America. Spring starts in March in Vancouver, February in Northern California and January 1st in San Diego. But the rule of thumb we had in the mountains of B.C. or Montana was that you didn't plant your flowering annuals or vegetables until Memorial Day (so you could avoid the last killing frost). When I moved to Sacramento, I asked my neighbor when she planted her bedding plants. "Usually on a Saturday" she answered as she walked away. She kept looking back at me occasionally as she walked to her house, slowly shaking her head.

Obviously she didn't understand Springtime where I grew up.

May Day, May 1st if you will, was always the harbinger of Spring and then summer for us. But even if it isn't that for where you grew up, it is still a day of new possibilities. Life is flashing out all around us. Taxes are paid, it isn't too hot to golf, fish or go for a long hike, the kids can see the end of the school year but they aren't so antsy as to prevent them from learning the occasional morsel of truth. The only real casualties of May Day are the college students either writing exams or anticipating them.

But you can't ruin May Day for me; even those years I had exams I loved the promise of this month. Traditionally May is known as the month of music around the world. And I love music. May Day celebrations are often called Music Month celebrations. Even the old Celtic holiday Beltane was dedicated more to music than to anything else. It was the day the old Irish would send out their flocks to the summer pastures to get big and fat. They would send them on their way with music and laughter. What a picture for those of us who follow God. This is a day that could celebrate the sending out of the Flock to pastures outside the safety of our comfort zones.

What can you venture out into today that you enjoy and that will bring the joy of the Lord into your life? That would be a May Day question.

Unfortunately, I looked for songs that celebrate May, and outside of a few celtic ballads, I couldn't find any. So I opted for the next best thing. I looked at what was on the Hit Parade the May I graduated from High School. Here was the music that tipped the scales on the May Day of my youth. By the way, no one celebrates the coming of May like a graduating High School Senior. In honor of that day, here are the top ten songs of May 1975.

1. Black Water - The Doobie Brothers
2. I'm Not in Love - 10cc
3. Saturday Night - Bay City Rollers
4. Jive Talkin' - The Bee Gees
5. Get Down Tonight - KC and the Sunshine Band (technically, this is an April song but it was so popular it kept going in May)
6. Have You Never Been Mellow - Olivia Newton-John
7. Laughter in the Rain - Neil Sedaka
8. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds - Elton John
9. Thank God I'm a Country Boy - John Denver (yeucchhh)
10. The Boys are Back in Town - Thin Lizzy

In honor of May Day, I went on Rhapsody and loaded these ten songs into today's long-walk hit parade. I can hardly wait to take the dog out on the run and listen to these old May melodies. I may even listen to John Denver.

What songs were popular in May the year you graduated?

UPDATE: Beltane is also International Labor Day and therefore it would be more than appropriate to just stop working and enjoy the day. Thus saith the Lord.

Name This Rose

There are those occasions when I get peopled out and I have to get alone to meditate and enjoy the non-human forms of life. I have chosen to cultivate and work with roses in our garden, among other things.

First prize to the one who can identify this climbing rose that is currently showing off by my fence. I know the answer, but do you?

And yes, this is just one rose variety. That should be enough hint for the real rose-ophiles.

The Truth About Angels

I think there are some basic misunderstandings about the nature of angels and especially those angels that are mentioned as our enemies. I see this misunderstanding in many places – when people are praying, when they instruct children, when they ask questions about spiritual warfare etc. Not knowing the facts can hurt our lives deeply and also cause us to fight battles that should not be fought. Hold onto your seats for a very quick guided tour to those spiritual beings known as Angels.

They seem to already be in existence when we were created and there are many who believe they are the first of the created beings in this Universe. Who knows? It never says so in the Bible, but when Adam and Eve were the entire population of the first Garden on this planet, there was already an angel there. So what do we know about angels for sure? Hebrews chapter one gives us many clues about angels…but one of the clues is a startling revelation to say the least. In v. 14 we read "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?". The question, of course, is rhetorical. In the original Greek language, the answer "yes" is anticipated to the question. That means we can confidently assert that ALL angels are ministering spirits. That word "all" is not just hyperbole. It really means all. And if it means "all", then it also includes Lucifer, an angel we sometimes refer to as satan.

Think about that: satan is a ministering spirit. Not only that, but his job is to serve those who will inherit salvation. He is sent to serve mankind. But how is that possible since he is also called our Adversary, Enemy and Father of Lies? This is where the misunderstandings begin. Because he is called our Adversary, we naturally assume it is not possible for him also to be our servant. Servants don't usually oppose their masters, do they? Well, it never says that we are his masters. God is his master and he must serve God whether he likes to or not.

In Job 1 we read:

6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

The words "present themselves before the Lord" literally mean "made an accounting before the Lord". God makes all angels account for their actions and their whereabouts. That includes satan apparently. Satan can also come into the presence of the Lord and speak with God. And he has to obey God. In this account in Job, satan asks to attack Job, but God puts restrictions on that attack. God shows Himself clearly to be the master and satan the servant. But some would say that this is simply a passive service. Is it? Well, let's look at a few other examples of other fallen angels to see if this trend continues.

In 1 Kings 22 we read "

"Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?'
"One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'

22 " 'By what means?' the LORD asked.
" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'

23 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

The Lord allowed a spirit to be a lying spirit. Another time, he allowed another unclean spirit to be a "deceiving spirit" in the kingdom. King Saul had to deal with an "oppressive spirit" from the Lord. It seems that there are numerous examples of unclean, fallen spirits still being used by God to accomplish God's purposes. But why would God use such evil and fallen creatures to do His work?

In the wilderness experience of Jesus, we see a hint as to satan's continuing existence. He comes to Jesus in Matthew 4 to "tempt him". The word in Greek for tempt is "peiradzo" which means "to test". The testing that our enemy, our adversary brings is a test to see if we will be obedient to God. Jesus passed the test with flying colors. Many times we do not. In essence then, satan is the Proctor of the test that God wants to bring to us in order to see if we will be obedient in all things. We are told in Scripture that "to obey is better than sacrifice". There is no way to obey unless there is an opportunity to disobey. Since all humans are free agents, we must therefore be tested to see if our free choice will line up with God's will for our lives. And the best thing is that we can learn from these tests and clearly grow through them. Testing can be one of the best learning environments there is.

This is why Paul can say on two separate occasions in the New Testament that he was handing certain people over to satan. He did not do this because he hated them and wished for satan to torture them. Satan cannot do anything that God will not allow. Paul hands people over to satan to be tested and taught…in one case, to be taught not to blaspheme. Our adversary is a very good teacher for sure. We have nothing to fear from him for God has put him on a short leash.

A Cool Stewardess

The stewardess had us wave to dad out on the tarmac as he was working to direct the flight out of the gate. His 9 year old son was on-board the plane and was crying as he left. We all waved excitedly and dad hid some of his tears.

During the flight, the stewardess allowed the young man to help her with several of her in-flight chores. I was delighted to see that he did so with gusto and joy. As I gave my plastic cup to him and allowed him to put it in the garbage bag, he beamed with delight. I have no idea what the situation was with his dad and him, but her actions certainly lit up the life of this young man, helping him to put off his pain for awhile.

Kudos to you flying waitress in the sky. You made a difference in his life and showed the rest of us that a little act of kindness goes a long way.

Advice from an Old Husband

The best part about boring airplane trips is that you can sit around and listen in on other people's conversations (especially when they think a tune is actually playing on your ipod). In a ten minute stretch of snooping around the floating conversations, I caught two younger husbands making some fundamental mistakes in their marital communication.

This got me thinking about the things I would have loved to know when I first got married that I should pass on to other men. If any of these is new to you, you're welcome, and please pass them on. None of these is meant to slam or in any way denigrate my wife. That last sentence is actually the first thing you should learn as a husband: Never slam or denigrate your wife. The old adage still stands - never piss off the person who helps prepare your food.

1. Never start a conflict after 9 p.m. This should be obvious, but you would be amazed how many men do it. For the most part, men are usually winding down mental acuity earlier in the evening than this and we don't stand a chance being good listeners at night. Plus, depending on your bed-time, you will weary of the battle and not accomplish anything before both of you are exhausted.

2. Looking after your children is not called "babysitting the kids". You put the seed into the equation, therefore you are a caregiver as much as your wife. Mutually shared exhaustion, especially in this day of mutually shared income, is a given. I never knew that and paid a medium-sized price for it.

3. You both can be good at different things and still be a couple. You don't have to do everything together, dress with the same colors and spout the same philosophy in life to have a good marriage. If both of you agree on everything, one of you is unnecessary. Also, you will annoy the crap out of the rest of us.

4. You don't have to tell your wife everything. Oh, I don't mean have dark secrets from her. What I mean is, you don't have to tell her about every person you're angry at and every person who is angry at you. Some things really are your yoke to bear in life...our wives tend to defend us if they sense we are being attacked. We might get over an imagined offense in a couple of days and wonder why, two years later, she doesn't want to hang out with that person.

5. It is okay to ask your wife if she is agreeable to having more sex. Just as it is okay for her to ask you the following:
a. Can you please shower first?
b. Can I wake up first?
c. Can I be warm, and assured that no one, including our children, will walk in on us?
d. Will your ego handle it if I don't react with delight after 14 hours of looking after little people with dirty hands?
e. Can we avoid any positions that require me to know the five basic ballet moves?

6. If she says she likes flowers, buy her lots of flowers. Don't ask why she likes them, just do it.

7. Don't let your wife put a scale in the bathroom, unless you want to deal with a regular bout of "I just need to lose five more pounds". If she owns one when you get married, then break it or set it back monthly. Remember, no one is sexier than the person who likes the body they currently have.

8. You ask her if you can pray together each evening. Don't make her ask. She will be in love with you forever if you do this.

9. Asking your wife ten straight questions when you are doing finances together is intimidating to her and usually ends up badly.

10. The phrase "all I said was" is a rationalization...always. If you want to communicate as well as she does, learn to recognize tones of voice, body language and timing...your own!

Beauty - Part 2

Violet Blue, writing in the San Francisco Examiner, interviewed a Burlesque dancer who admitted the following:

“I have shared dressing rooms with thousands of ravishingly beautiful women over the last 12 years, and the one thing they all have in common is … none of them think they are beautiful enough. Our society teaches women to pick themselves to pieces, analyzing each and every feature individually and keeping a list in our minds of each and every perceived fault. No one comes out of this scenario feeling good, and when women are in this mind-set, nothing you can say will change the way they feel about themselves. Believe me, I’ve tried. (Have you noticed that most women will argue with you when you give them a compliment rather than just saying ‘thank you’?)

What is this "our society" that she criticizes as the real culprit? Some would say it is men who ogle women and comment on their physical attributes out loud as if they were examining horses at a sale. Others would say it is the millions of women who analyze models to death and love reality shows that parade "almost perfect" women to discover their flaws. Some blame their mothers, others their fathers. There are some who see advertising and television as the villains and still others who find the source of physical self-hatred in the school system.

Who is to blame?

Might it just be "beauty" itself? I think there is an existence or thing we can call "perfect beauty" which none of us attain. Just as there is a holiness that sin has put out of our reach (apart from the gift of God in Jesus), so too there is a beauty that we cannot get a hold of because sin has mostly ripped it away from us.

As I said last time, when man sinned, the consequence was that we were lead down a garden path. At the end of that path is an idea that the physical realm is the only reality. Or if not the only reality, the only reality that we can evaluate. The naturalist would say: "Prove the existence of any other reality and then I will believe". What they mean by that is "reduce any other reality to physical laws and I will accept it." That, of course, is ludicrous.

Keats said "Beauty is Truth and Truth, Beauty. That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." He did not mean Truth in the absolute sense, but naturally verified truth...as in "how many legs does a spider have" and "what colors are represented in this sunset". Being a naturalist, he believed that all matter is beauty.

Tell that to the burlesque dancer with legs that go on forever and she will ask "do these sequins make my butt look too big?" She doesn't believe all matter is beauty and I suspect that when Keats looked at other women as he was walking down the road with his wife, he didn't believe it either.


I do remember that moment I held my first child while his body was greasy with afterbirth and his lungs were filling up with air and emptying with wails for the first times. My wife was being cared for and the nursing staff rushed around oblivious to me and my son. I held John and looked into his eyes for the first time. There was nothing for me to see that was appealing. He looked like an overdone lobster. He was messy, noisy, squirmy, and he made me nervous. But for a moment, I saw another realm leaking through. There was a glimpse of beauty, a Shining that came through him. I was tied to him as tightly as my Father in Heaven is tied to me. All three of us were joined and I felt "beauty" as a reality. It was like that moment when looking into a "Magic Picture" where your focus catches the real picture. That is what happened when I caught Beauty in my soulsight.

Beauty lasts...it cannot fade, since it is permanent...but my focus went elsewhere after awhile. I have caught other glimpses of Beauty at the strangest moments. So have you.

Beauty Examined – Part 1

A number of fascinating, coordinating searches have lead me back to the concept of beauty. I am beginning to learn that beauty is much more powerful a reality than I first imagined. The further I looked into it, the more complicated and ominous the subject became.

Take this verse in Psalm 27 for example:

Psalm 27:4

⁴ One thing I ask of the Lord,

this is what I seek:

that I may dwell in the house of the Lord

all the days of my life,

to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord

and to seek him in his temple.

David speaks of the "beauty of the Lord" as something he is seeking after in the house of the Lord. But what are we always told about beauty: That 'it' (beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. The implication is that all things can be beautiful if someone sees them that way. As prosaic as this subjective view of beauty really is, there is little to recommend that viewpoint. God Himself has beauty whether you or I agree upon it. God by definition is absolute and complete beyond any of our opinions. Therefore, there is beauty which exists apart from anyone's opinion of it. Evolutionary biologists suggest that beauty is found in being most average. Really? That is what they believe. For instance, there are 22 measurements of symmetry in the human body (ears, eyes, breasts, shoulders, legs, etc., etc.). The more these features are symmetrical, the more beautiful someone is perceived…even by babies. The more a person looks like the average person of that race or culture, the more they are perceived as beautiful…even by babies. (We can tell that babies find someone pleasing by their facial and vocal reactions). Symmetry and culturally normal features make beauty. But do they? God is spirit, yet God has a beauty that cannot be denied. Can something be beautiful even if no one acknowledges that beauty?

There is a theory that Eve had a dynamic beauty that took Adam's breath away. And I contend that Adam and Eve were more focused on the spirit realm bfore the fall of man than the physical (after all, once their eyes were opened, they saw the physical for the first time as important…they hid, the covered up etc.). Eve had a beauty that must have been more than physical, emanating from the deepest parts of who she was.

I was reading a book last week on Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD), an all-too common emotional problem. With BDD, a person obsesses over one physical feature that they believe is damaged or marred, whether this is true or not. A classic example of this would be a pop singer who thinks their nose is ugly, so they go through surgery after surgery to correct it; and end up creating an ugly proboscis. BDD patients not only obsess over body parts, but they can think of little else. They are convinced everyone is staring at their nose, their hair, their breasts, their tummy, their skin all the time. Even when they actually have a deformity, if it isn't the same one that they have been obsessing on, they will ignore it and just focus on their supposed defect. It can destroy their school life, home life, love life. They are firmly encamped in the idea that they can never be beautiful or even normal. Beauty is always elusive to them. This obsession seems to have an ideal behind it: Is it possible that sufferers of BDD actually have an intuitive sense of beauty and are devastated because their fear and shame get in the way of finding it?

Is that what the daughters of Eve are always pining away for? Is that what the sons of Adam wish they could recapture? Is beauty a quality of life? And if it is, can we have it and not know it? Can we have it for awhile and lose it? Will we know it if we see it in others and in nature? Can it be found in nature? Is it found in all of nature? These are some of the questions that come up when I look at Beauty.

Internet Porn Panic Button

If you aren't already familiar with it, the best resource for accountability in the use of the Internet is called "Covenant Eyes". This program is not designed to stop you from visiting a site (try looking up anything on "Breast Cancer" with NetNanny or SafeSurf") but rather it sends out a report each week on where you've been. There is virtually no way you can trick the program and get around it. For a very small fee each month, you can have your report sent to anyone…your spouse, your boss, your pastor, your counselor…or maybe even an accountability partner. I have my reports sent to two different people. Knowing that my wife and my accountability partner would be able to see everywhere I go on the Internet virtually eliminates the temptation for me.

But now, Covenant Eyes has another feature. It is called "The Panic Button". It is reserved for those people who still struggle with porn and are totally committed to removing it from their lives. As you use the Internet, if the temptation to view porn is too great, and you don't want to give in, you can hit the panic button and it will completely prevent you from using any part of the Internet. Then, when you feel your self-control returning, you can call them up and they will reset it in your computers.

Of course, I advocate getting Theophostic therapy for any addiction, but this is a good additional tool to help with the occasional mental slipups.

Back from the Dead

In view of the message I am giving this Sunday on what we are told by one who comes back from the dead, we will go from the ridiculous to the sublime. Today, the ridiculous

Telling Part of My Story

I'm not entirely sure if this blog entry will turn out to be instructive or cathartic. Perhaps a little of both. I'll tell you what I did first, what happened as a result, and then we can discuss together what it means.

Reading this book by Viola and Barna last week brought back memories of 1997. I spent a lot of that year working on a book I wanted to market on a similar theme as Pagan Christianity. I had been thinking for a long time about Christianity's American expression and not happy at all with what I saw. In particular, I took exception with how much American pastors were still playing the dominant role in church ministry and how individual members felt like second-class citizens in the Kingdom of God. This problem is nothing new: It has existed since the first century. On this point, Viola is accurate and astute. The concept of the Priesthood of all Believers has not worked out well in practice.

The book I decided to write was going to be called "Releasing God's People". At the time, I was still marketing my first book and doing radio interviews with stations across the country.

A Denver radio station asked to do a 15 minute interview with me which was to be followed up with listener questions. In the minutes before we started, the interviewer told me that they usually had one or two callers at that time in the morning and I shouldn't expect to be on the phone for more than 20 minutes total. During the first ten minutes of on-air time, we talked about my book on parenting techniques and he pretty much followed the "questions list" my publicist had sent him. At one point, he stopped and asked if I was working on any new projects at that moment. I blurted out that I was writing a book on "Releasing God's People" which would center on taking much of ministry out of the hands of the pastor and giving it back to the average disciple of Jesus. It was like I had woken the interviewer up with a slap on the face. He went from disinterested radio jock to curious enquirer. I should point out that this was not a religious radio station.

After ten minutes of questions, he opened it up to the listeners. From what he later told me, they had never had that kind of response. The phone lines were jammed with people wanting to ask questions of this "pastor guy". After almost an hour of the question/answer banter, the radio guy cut it off and finished his slot for the day. When we got off the air, he asked me if I would send him a copy of the book when it was done. I assured him I would send it upon its publication.

He never got a copy of the book. It was never published. The manuscript still sits in the bottom of a file drawer awaiting its day. I am going to explain the two reasons for that in a moment.

I was approximately 80% finished with the book when I did that interview. The portion I was working on not only was the most difficult, but also the section I felt the least amount of peace over. It was the part where I explained what I thought should be done. In preparation for one of the chapters, an idea occured to me. It seemed so brilliant at the time that I really didn't ask anyone if they thought it was a GOOD idea. That might have saved me a lot of anxiety.

Here was my idea. If anything was going to change, it probably needed to come from the people at the center of the problem: pastors. And if I was going to write a book about what I thought should change, I should be willing to lead the way. I still believe that. I just realize now that my idea was faulty. It didn't seem that way at the time, but it was.

Here is what happened. I was teaching a series on Ephesians 4 in preparation for presenting some of my new ideas on the role of the pastor. During the week before the message, I had taken a sign off my door. The sign had given my name and my title and was situated at the front right hand corner of the sanctuary. I took off the words "Senior Pastor" and just left my name there. Then, at the beginning of my message, I announced I was resigning as "The Pastor" of the church. After allowing the gasps and emotions to subside a bit, I then explained myself. I looked at the Scriptures concerning the role of leadership in the church and found that it is rare for one person to be called by God to lead alone. It did happen a few times in the Bible, but the more common pattern was for God to raise up many leaders and give them various degrees of spiritual authority. What I was "resigning" from was the idea that I was the only leader in the church, the only minister, the only real servant of the Lord, the only one who could be called "God's Anointed".

After that service concluded, several people came up to me with concerned and worried looking faces and told me "I love you Mike, but I don't think this is going to turn out well for all of us". Several of the people I saw as the most mature members of the Body shared this same opinion with me. I hate to say that my wife was one of them. In fact, the people who loved what I had to say the most were the scariest ones: The rebellious, goofy and immature. Immediately I had to ask "what have I done?"

The next year was a horror story for me and the church as a whole. As I sought to bring changes to the leadership structure of the church and to have those changes filter to every level of the church's experience, more and more incidents of sin, rebellion, and people trying to exert improper control over each other happened. In one year, 8 members of the church had to be disciplined for sinful behavior. We had only disciplined a half dozen in the 9 previous years. There was a huge split in the leadership team. A year later, half the board split off and formed their own church. The church voted to leave the fellowship of churches they had been a part of since their founding 16 years earlier. We had been the fastest growing church in town at that point and now we were shrinking like an iceberg in the Sahara.

And all I did was remove my title from the door. What harm could that have done? I mean, it was only a title, right?

Some of the wisest leaders in God's church that I know have pondered this situation with me. I have written several people whose books sell millions and who are acquaintances...and they have shared their wisdom. I have sought the Lord and He showed me some things. Ministry leaders, prayer warriors, worship leaders, deacons, elders, small group leaders, Bible College presidents and evangelists have weighed in on this situation. Their wisdom amounts to three principles that I didn't see the full value of at the time.

1. Human beings want God's authority vested in other human beings. This goes right back to Israel's first King. God didn't fight it...he realized we have trouble with being lead by the unseen God. The Bible is clear that God raises up leaders (even secular leaders) to bring his hand of order and discipline.

2. The spirit realm is all about authority. When someone relinquishes authority, there is a vacuum into which the enemy can work more freely. King David is the classic example of this when he committed adultery with Bathsheba after refusing to be the leader of the Army going into battle. Never were there more ominous words in the Bible than these: "It was the time that Kings went out to war, but David stayed home."

3. Rebellion is always waiting to show itself as soon as there is anarchy. You cannot have a group of people without a leader. For if you do not designate a leader by some means, the strongest and most power-centered person will take charge.

By not recognizing these three principles, I had caused God's church irreparable harm. I have publicly confessed that sin to that congregation almost before it was too late. God did repair some of the damage, but most of it remains to this day. I refused to finish that book and publish it as a result. I think I know what the answer can be. I am waiting for someone else to write it, since I believe I have lost my right to be the one to say it. May God raise that person up.

I Love How this Sounds

Here is the 8th Psalm as translated in "The Message". I don't normally do this, but the word images are so crisp and poignant.

8 God, brilliant Lord,

yours is a household name.

² Nursing infants gurgle choruses about you;

toddlers shout the songs

That drown out enemy talk,

and silence atheist babble.

^3–4 I look up at your macro-skies, dark and enormous,

your hand-made sky-jewelry,

Moon and stars mounted in their settings.

Then I look at my micro-self and wonder,

Why do you bother with us?

Why take a second look our way?

^5–8 Yet we’ve so narrowly missed being gods,

bright with Eden’s dawn light.

You put us in charge of your handcrafted world,

repeated to us your Genesis-charge,

Made us lords of sheep and cattle,

even animals out in the wild,

Birds flying and fish swimming,

whales singing in the ocean deeps.

⁹ God, brilliant Lord,

your name echoes around the world.

Eugene H. Peterson, The Message : The Bible in Contemporary Language, Ps 8:1-9 (Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress, 2002).

Apology is Needed

I do want to apologize to readers of this blog for my vain attempts at humor regarding pastors. I admit that I don't do sarcasm well...and for that I am grateful. It does reveal to me that I have some issues with a few of my colleagues which would be better served by praying for them or talking to them...or both.

I have removed the entries that don't belong in this blog. That's the reason you no longer see them.

Now I've Read the Entire Book - Pagan Christianity

After reading every word of PC, I feel a little better that my pre-review was pretty accurate. That also bothers me because it means that Viola and Barna are getting type-cast and predictable.

By way of background, there are a few things you need to know about the book. It doesn't just attack the role of the pastor, but almost everything about today's church. It attacks instruments in the service, worship services themselves, youth pastors, most contemporary ministry, charismatic churches, all clergy, all tithing, all contemporary study of the Bible, all Bible college, seminary and monastic education and practices. It even says that dressing nicely on Sunday is unbiblical. Wow! That's quite a list. Add to that their attacks on Sunday School, Communion, Baptism, teaching, public prayers, layout of the Bible, any logic whatsoever in a lecture, breathing, happiness and apple pie (I made those last three up...I was on a roll), and you can see that Viola and Barna really don't like anything to do with today's church. It is 300 pages of why today's church is wrong and needs to disappear and allow the Organic Church (unorganized, no leaders, no money, no influence etc.) to take its place.

Primarily, this is a book of inconsistencies. Because of these ones in particular, he has little credibility:

1. Viola and Barna Can't Live What they Preach: They teach that no one should make a living off of the body of Christ. But Viola makes a living off of his books and lectures...to the Body of Christ! And no one is given more money from Christians these days than the Barna Group. They would counter that they don't pressure people to give them money...they offer something for their services. So does today's pastor and youth director and counselor. Viola castigates anyone who calls themselves a spiritual "expert". But his biography in the back of the book says that he is the "nationally recognized expert in new trends in the church". They say that the church is unbiblical because all it cares about is marketing and image. But I find this curious. I've been saying that for years; but one of the books given to me to counter that notion was a volume titled "Marketing the Church"...by George Barna!!! In Pagan Christianity, he fails to mention that title in his resume. Viola also sees higher education as an impediment to true Christianity, but he himself has a college degree and makes mention of it on his website.

2. Overdependence on One Chapter: Viola is actually the writer of the book...Barna only adds his name to it and a short introduction. The book actually came out in 2002, but sold sporadically. Barna has now "seen the light" and wanted it to be more prominent, so he added his name to it. Notice that it took an individual leader with credibility and stature to give the book prominence. I thought they were against leaders. Oh sorry...they are just against leaders they don't like. Back to my point...they emphasize in many places that today's pastor takes Bible truths out of context and preaches their favorite soapboxes. Yet, most of the structure for the church they emphasize comes out of 12 verses in 1 Corinthians 14! They say that the existence of the pastor is negated because it is only found in Ephesians 4, yet they make much of a House church worship structure that is really only mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14. Inconsistent.

3. Reliance on Verses, not context: Viola criticizes today's church for reliance on chapter and verse designations (that are admittedly a Middle Ages creation). But everywhere in the book, he uses chapter and verse designations. Not only that, but his treatment of most bible passages in his book lacks any explanation of the historical context whatsoever. And even though Viola seeks to give historical perspective on almost every practice in the church, he completely glosses over several key passages of Scripture and gives no background of the church to which it was written (the most egregious example is Ephesians 4...which he attacks for poor exegesis, but he gives no historical background to the Ephesian church).

4. Use of the Old Testament: Viola has a dual way of dealing with the Old Testament. If an Old testament practice is still being used in the church, he admits it is biblical, but then says it is not Christian. He defines Christian as something written about in the New Testament. But the early Christians, who only had the Old Testament, would hardly agree with him. But, when the post-new testament era church added something to the practice of the Body which diverges from the Old Testament, he says it is not biblical but pagan. By doing this, he eliminates everything he doesn't like or agree with.

5. Preaching from the Choir: Not that Viola accepts the legitimacy of choirs, but he sure does a lot of preaching from them. In his hundreds of footnotes, the vast majority are from those who already agree with his stance on the house church movement. He tries to overpower the reader with quotations, but many of them are from the same sources. These sources are not necessarily recognized historical scholars, but rather modern apologists for an unorganized church. When he does quote historians such as Will Durant, he uses some of their pithiest slogans and little of their research.

6. Out of Context: He hates when preachers take the Scriptures out of context, but he does it with several of the most famous people he quotes as support. His favorites are F. F. Bruce, Karl Barth and A. W. Tozer. These three men (all Seminary-trained theologians btw....something Viola can't stand), are quoted as supporting Viola's argument against a modern pastorate. Yet, when I looked up several of the passages he mentions, none of the men are saying that we should eliminate the pastorate. If Viola could find one credible, non-house church writer that agrees with his stance, it might hold more water.

7. Overemphasis on Catholics: Viola...there was a Protestant Reformation; Remember? Many, if not most of his criticisms in the book are leveled against Roman Catholic practices. Though I think he is overly harsh with some things, I recognize his point. But so does the entire Protestant world! When he says that Luther, Zwingli, Bucer and Calvin did not go far enough with their reforms, few Evangelicals will disagree with him. But in this book, you would think that no churches have improved upon the early days of the Reformation. For instance, I haven't heard a 3-point Hegelian sermon in a decade. I haven't seen a pastor in a boxed-in pulpit in 30 years. Yet, he makes a great case to eliminate both. Wake up Viola...have you been to a church lately? Many of them meet in schools, warehouses and on beaches. Most church members wear jeans to church instead of sunday clothes. The fact that he lives in the South probably clouds his vision.

8. Behind the Times: To be fair to Viola, some of the things he says are very good and ought to be changed. But the time to say them was 40 years ago. Today we have spontaneous singing in church. Today we have people in congregations writing new songs. Today, we have meetings where everyone brings a teaching or a prayer or a prophetic word. Has he not heard of the Emerging church or the Charismatic church or the Cell church or the Third Wave movements? Many of his proposals were being brought forward by Gene Getz, David Mains and Ray Stedman a quarter of a century ago. Ralph Neighbor talked about these views of the Scripture eons ago. There is nothing new about his viewpoints on the Bible, preaching, worship and ministry.

In short, I could give a dozen book recommendations that would be more helpful and more accurate than this one.

A Pastor By Any other Name

I am almost finished with Viola's book "Pagan Christianity". I have to say this about him. He definitely makes it sound academically rich (i.e. His theory on the pagan roots of modern Christianity). But when I did a cursory background check on some of his "facts", several of them were not accurate. Naughty, naughty. That was just a tease. I will do a thorough analysis of the book next week.

But for now, let's keep talking about the role of the pastor in today's church.

(Note: If I occasionally slip and say "him" or use male pronouns in my description of the role of the pastor, it is not because I am in that camp that thinks only men can be pastors. It is because the vast majority of pastors are men and it is hard for me to break away from that stereotype completely. But I will try).

In the last entry, it was noted that today's church pastor is not functioning like the pastor of the New Testament days. The modern pastor is not as much a coach, discipler and curate as we would hope to see if things had gone unchanged over the 20 centuries of Christianity's existence. But should we have hoped for things not to change?

All organizations, no matter how loosely structured or how spiritually inclined, adapt and become more complex. Add one person to two and the amount of relational connections doubles. Add a third person and the relational connections triple (from two to six). This number gets larger on an exponential scale as you add more people. Not only that, but all organizations get more specialized in time. Today's doctor does not look like the MD of yesteryear. Gone are the barbers who did surgery, the surgeons who only cut off body parts and the leech mongers. But also, gone are house calls; gone is bedside compassion; gone is the doctor who doesn't take much money for their services. Now we have doctors who never see a patient (see the movie "Awakenings" for evidence of that), but only do research. Others specialize so completely that they know more than any other physician about the secretions of the pineal gland, but know very little about other parts of the body. Surgeons today cannot diagnose, but they know where and how to cut and which laser tools to use. My wife's nephew has a job where he make a quarter mill. a year showing surgeons how to use the specialized tools his company makes. That is a far cry from old Doc Brown who delivered twins in the morning, cut out ingrown toenails in the afternoon and visited his six patients with TB in the Sanitorium before going home for dinner at 10 p.m.

Should things have changed for doctors? Probably. But were the changes all good? Probably not.

The same is true of the pastorate. Viola is wrong when he claims that the emergence of the Pastor owes its existence to the Roman governmental system. The concept of a person or persons in charge of Christian enterprises existed from the first days of the church. Only one person got up to preach at Pentecost. Only Philip went out to preach in Gaza. He didn't bring a team with him. Only Peter got the vision of the gentiles coming into Christianity.

But in the early church, they also had other labels for their leaders. Some were called evangelists (Philip), others prophets (Agabus), and still others Apostles (Paul, Junia, a woman). Some of them weren't given a title (Mark, Timothy), but because they were sent out by an Apostle, we assume that's the role they played. But in another sense, Timothy really does sound similar to today's pastor in some of the things that Paul exhorts him to do. Teachers show up in Antioch, but are not mentioned other places. Paul teaches as well - in one case all night long - but no one calls him a teacher.

People were known by their giftings in Corinth but nowhere else. Others were known by their calling (Saul of Tarsus) and others by their position (James the supposed head of the church). So they had calling, gifting and hierarchy in the early church. They also had many names for leaders in the church.

What would happen if we started renaming the pastor of today? Some groups have actually begun to do just that. Certain charismatic circles have begun to refer to their leaders by the Ephesians 4 definitions of Apostle (see Bill Hamon) and Prophet (e.g. Bob Jones, Steve Thompson). There are others who feel that all the ministry positions have evaporated except pastor and teacher.

We recognize evangelists today (Billy Graham, Luis Palau) and teachers (Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Jack Hayford)...everyone else is mostly assumed to be a pastor (with perhaps one of the other labels added on). I have been called a Prophet from time to time when I have prophesied and when I have taught on how to hear God's voice. I have been called an evangelist when I have lead numerous people to Christ, a teacher when I have taught for longer than a half hour at a time and an Apostle when I planted churches. But since I do more counseling than almost every other ministry, I guess I fulfill some of the functions of pastor.

Our problem today is that we probably need some new labels. Or, we need to acknowledge that the pastor of yesteryear is gone and will never return. We have become more specialized and perhaps we need to be. Some need to devote their lives to reaching certain age groups. Others are devoted to specific handicaps (the blind, lame, emotionally bereaved) to the military, to other language groups.

Perhaps a good way to handle this is to start using terms like "director", "coordinator", "president" and then add their area of specialization: as in "Director of Worship", "Chaplains coordinator", "outreach President", etc. Even today's pastors can be called "Preaching Specialist" or "Teaching Elder" as they are sometimes referred to. Others who are gifted at administration or marketing can be called "Executive Director".

Is it helpful to change the names? It might aid this new postmodern generation that fears old institutions.