Blog Archives

“For you said, “We have cut a deal with Death … when the overwhelming scourge passes through it will not touch us…the LORD God said, ‘Look, I have laid a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; the one who believes will be unshakable” (Isaiah 28:15-16)

I am not the first or the most original to observe that our cultures deal with death is rapidly spiraling our of control However, as I was reading these words this morning I was challenged about my own role in making a deal with death. Whenever I choose to sin I make a deal with death- claiming that I am exempt or somehow safe from the consequences of sin. Yes, I know that in Christ there is no condemnation. But I also know that where sin abounds grace abounds. However there is no right to sin so that I may experience grace.

My sin has consequences. My heart becomes a little more deadened every time I choose to sin. My spiritual sensitivity is a little more deadened every time I choose to sin.

The promise of this passage is that God has provided a Rock, a place where I can withstand the powerful temptation to sin, In Christ I have been granted the resources I need to experience life, not death. In Christ I have the freedom to know genuine life- a life that is eternal not just in quantity but in quality!

May God grant us the wisdom to see how sin diminishes and how Christ enriches!

The Generals: American Military Command from WW II to Today

Thomas E. Ricks

New York: The Penguin Press, 2012

                What could a survey of the US Army’s treatment of general officers have to say to a pastor? What could compare Sunday after Sunday to leading men and women into battle, sending troops into danger that could cost them their lives?

                Ricks, a long time veteran of covering US military affairs, presents a deeply historical yet analytical look at how general officers in the US Army have been trained and how some of them were relieved, forced into retirement, or transferred into less noticeable roles across the Army landscape. Ricks focuses on the Army because it is still the dominant service in our nation’s military strategy. The Air Force, established in 1947 is too young to have a strongly developed tradition of generalship. The Navy and Marine Corps follow a distinctly different tradition in handling commanders. The Army has a clear and distinct history, particularly since WW II.

                No 20^th century history of the US Army could be understood apart from General George C. Marshall, the chief of staff, US Army from September 1, 1939- 1945. He shaped much of America’s military strategy from the firing of Admiral Kimmel and Army Lt. Gen. Short after the December 7^th bombing of Pearl Harbor. Marshall was responsible for the rise of a relatively obscure officer named Eisenhower, who was appointed as commander in chief of the allied forces that ultimately landed in France in 1944.

                One lesson observed during the Marshall era: incompetence was quickly dealt with but second chances were offered freely. Ricks points out that  at least five men were relieved of command during WW II but each of them was given a chance to redeem himself by leading troops again into combat.

                The MacArthur Era, also known as the Korean war years, saw a much different way of generals being treated. MacArthur tended to promote those who were loyal to him. MacArthur had a radically different way of dealing with the civilian command structure of the US military establishment- he pretty much ignored them doing as he pleased. President Truman finally was forced to take action and relieve MacArthur of his command during the Korean era.

                The generals of the Vietnam era also had challenging relationships with civilian authorities such as the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, and, of course, the President.  Ricks’ chapter on that era is titled, ‘The Collapse of Generalship in the 1960’s.” The picture he paints of Army leadership here in the states and in Vietnam is an ugly one. He connects the events at My Lai and the ultimate withdrawal from the conflict in Vietnam with the failure of generalship as well as the breakdown of effective communication between Army leaders and political leaders.

                During the post Vietnam years the army seemed to drift between training generals to be strategic thinkers or training generals how to be better managers. Ricks’ survey of that period (1968-1990) is an interesting reflection on some of the many challenges of that era.

                Since 1991 the army has been more or less engaged in several ongoing conflicts notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again Ricks is able to compare and contrast American generals an their widely divergent philosophies and the conduct of the military actions in those fields. Ricks reminds his readers that it is one thing to plan an invasion and a completely different thing to plan an occupation and a withdrawal. Generals tend to be great at planning large scale military operations such as invasions and not so good at long term actions- as is evident in the continuing debate over America’s military presence in both countries.

                Finally Ricks offers a several part solution by reflecting on what advice George Marshall might give today’s generals. First, Marshall might tell generals to keep their social distance from their political leaders, yet he would insist on being heard by those leaders. Second, Marshall might recommend that generals be more adaptive and flexible than ever before. We don’t face the Red Army who threaten to march over Eastern and Western Europe as they did in the 1950’s through the late 1980’s. Third, Ricks thinks Marshall would insist on training generals to think strategically instead of tactically. This bias of Ricks is clear throughout the entire book- and I think it is one worth reflecting on for pastors and other ministry leaders (more in a moment). Further, Marshall might recommend that we relieve commanders quickly but that we build in second chances. Ricks concludes his recommendations by writing, “abide by the belief that the lives of soldiers are more important that the career of officers – and that winning wars is more important than either” (461).

                So, what does a study of generalship have to do with a pastor or ministry leader? You could argue that we are in a spiritual war, and that the stakes are still life and death. I think however, a better argument can be made for the following suggestions:

                We need to know history. As a parent of two millennials and as a community member deeply involved in the public school setting in my community I am appalled at the lack of teaching regarding history in our schools. Second, we as pastors are often very well trained in tactics but not so schooled in strategies. Conferences abound on how to do small groups, how to improve worship teams, how to plan your messages for a year and so on. Many of the ads I receive for conferences still promise that if my team and I attend our church will grow like the host church grew.

                Over the decades of pastoring I have attended a few of those conferences, come home with the newest tactics and immediately implemented tactics for which the people I serve and the community in which I live are simply not applicable. Instead I need to spend more time thinking deeply about strategic issues. One observation that Ricks made that bears repeating:

“training tends to prepare one for known problems, while education better prepares one for the unknown, the unpredictable, and the unexpected.” (419-420).

The Generals: American Military Command from WW II to Today

Thomas E. Ricks

New York: The Penguin Press, 2012

                What could a survey of the US Army’s treatment of general officers have to say to a pastor? What could compare Sunday after Sunday to leading men and women into battle, sending troops into danger that could cost them their lives?

                Ricks, a long time veteran of covering US military affairs, presents a deeply historical yet analytical look at how general officers in the US Army have been trained and how some of them were relieved, forced into retirement, or transferred into less noticeable roles across the Army landscape. Ricks focuses on the Army because it is still the dominant service in our nation’s military strategy. The Air Force, established in 1947 is too young to have a strongly developed tradition of generalship. The Navy and Marine Corps follow a distinctly different tradition in handling commanders. The Army has a clear and distinct history, particularly since WW II.

                No 20^th century history of the US Army could be understood apart from General George C. Marshall, the chief of staff, US Army from September 1, 1939- 1945. He shaped much of America’s military strategy from the firing of Admiral Kimmel and Army Lt. Gen. Short after the December 7^th bombing of Pearl Harbor. Marshall was responsible for the rise of a relatively obscure officer named Eisenhower, who was appointed as commander in chief of the allied forces that ultimately landed in France in 1944.

                One lesson observed during the Marshall era: incompetence was quickly dealt with but second chances were offered freely. Ricks points out that  at least five men were relieved of command during WW II but each of them was given a chance to redeem himself by leading troops again into combat.

                The MacArthur Era, also known as the Korean war years, saw a much different way of generals being treated. MacArthur tended to promote those who were loyal to him. MacArthur had a radically different way of dealing with the civilian command structure of the US military establishment- he pretty much ignored them doing as he pleased. President Truman finally was forced to take action and relieve MacArthur of his command during the Korean era.

                The generals of the Vietnam era also had challenging relationships with civilian authorities such as the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, and, of course, the President.  Ricks’ chapter on that era is titled, ‘The Collapse of Generalship in the 1960’s.” The picture he paints of Army leadership here in the states and in Vietnam is an ugly one. He connects the events at My Lai and the ultimate withdrawal from the conflict in Vietnam with the failure of generalship as well as the breakdown of effective communication between Army leaders and political leaders.

                During the post Vietnam years the army seemed to drift between training generals to be strategic thinkers or training generals how to be better managers. Ricks’ survey of that period (1968-1990) is an interesting reflection on some of the many challenges of that era.

                Since 1991 the army has been more or less engaged in several ongoing conflicts notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again Ricks is able to compare and contrast American generals an their widely divergent philosophies and the conduct of the military actions in those fields. Ricks reminds his readers that it is one thing to plan an invasion and a completely different thing to plan an occupation and a withdrawal. Generals tend to be great at planning large scale military operations such as invasions and not so good at long term actions- as is evident in the continuing debate over America’s military presence in both countries.

                Finally Ricks offers a several part solution by reflecting on what advice George Marshall might give today’s generals. First, Marshall might tell generals to keep their social distance from their political leaders, yet he would insist on being heard by those leaders. Second, Marshall might recommend that generals be more adaptive and flexible than ever before. We don’t face the Red Army who threaten to march over Eastern and Western Europe as they did in the 1950’s through the late 1980’s. Third, Ricks thinks Marshall would insist on training generals to think strategically instead of tactically. This bias of Ricks is clear throughout the entire book- and I think it is one worth reflecting on for pastors and other ministry leaders (more in a moment). Further, Marshall might recommend that we relieve commanders quickly but that we build in second chances. Ricks concludes his recommendations by writing, “abide by the belief that the lives of soldiers are more important that the career of officers – and that winning wars is more important than either” (461).

                So, what does a study of generalship have to do with a pastor or ministry leader? You could argue that we are in a spiritual war, and that the stakes are still life and death. I think however, a better argument can be made for the following suggestions:

                We need to know history. As a parent of two millennials and as a community member deeply involved in the public school setting in my community I am appalled at the lack of teaching regarding history in our schools. Second, we as pastors are often very well trained in tactics but not so schooled in strategies. Conferences abound on how to do small groups, how to improve worship teams, how to plan your messages for a year and so on. Many of the ads I receive for conferences still promise that if my team and I attend our church will grow like the host church grew.

                Over the decades of pastoring I have attended a few of those conferences, come home with the newest tactics and immediately implemented tactics for which the people I serve and the community in which I live are simply not applicable. Instead I need to spend more time thinking deeply about strategic issues. One observation that Ricks made that bears repeating:

“training tends to prepare one for known problems, while education better prepares one for the unknown, the unpredictable, and the unexpected.” (419-420).

How the West Really Lost God: A New Theory of Secularization Mary Eberstadt

West Conshohocken, PA:Templeton Press. 2013. Kindle Edition.

What is the real reason for the rising tide of secularism that seems ready to drown any semblance of Christianity? She argues that the normally accepted theses describing the rise of secularism-the Marxist understanding that religion is merely an opiate for the people; the Enlightenment and the advance of science; the collapse of modernity during the early to mid-20^th century as two world wars swept our world; the floodtide of material progress all fall short of truly explaining the demise of religious attendance in the European west, Great Britain, and the United States. Instead, she writes, “[T]he process of secularization, I will argue, has not been properly understood because it has neglected to take into account this “Family Factor”—meaning the active effect that participation in the family itself appears to have on religious belief and practice.”

She seeks to put the normally accepted theories of secularization on their head- demonstrating that the real cause of secularization may very well be the demise of the two parent (husband and wife)family as typically defined in most of the West over the past few centuries.

She succeeds at raising a question that needs to be further researched and discussed. What is the relationship between the demise of the family and the deterioration of morality in our world? Instead of seeing the traditional family as the victim of secularization her research seems to point to an opposite conclusion. As the American poet, William Wallace famously wrote, “the hand that rocks the cradle Is the hand that rules the world.”

The implications for those of us in ministry, and indeed those of us who are engaged in social programs are profound. Unless there is a renewal of protection for the traditional family we may very well be looking at the collapse of whatever moral order we previously enjoyed. If the traditional family is indeed one of the causes of the rise of secularism we must act before it gets any later. Quoting the sociologist, Sorokin, she notes that calamity may very well be a catalyst for change. Let us pray that we who have influence in family ministry and social planning in our communities catch the urgency of the calamity in order that we might lead the charge to renew and reestablish a biblical understanding of the family.

Today and tomorrow are the summer meetings of the NWBC Executive Board. These are the first meetings that Randy Adams, our new Executive Director is leading. There is always an excitement and anticipation when new leaders come on board. Yet we cannot ignore the past and the journey that has brought us to this place. It has been my privilege to be personal friends with the past several executive directors- Cecil Sims; Jeff Iorg; Gus Suarez; Bill Crews. Each brought a distinct gifting and strength to the position. Each had a unique and compelling vision for what they understood God was calling them to do and what God was calling Northwest Baptists to be.

As Northwest Baptists we begin a new chapter this week. May we build on the best of the past and look forward to completing the assignment God has given us to penetrate the lostness around us with the good news of Jesus Christ!

I have been reading The Insanity of God by Nate Ripken over the past few days. When he and his wife were interviewed by the sending agency of their denomination the committee wanted to hear of his call to missions. Having no church background, only having been a believer for a few years, his answer was not what the committee wanted to hear. When asked why he felt called to missions his answer: “I read Matthew 28.” 

May God’s Word be so compelling in our lives that as we read it, we simply obey.

I was privileged to spend last week at the Summer Institute of the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Seminary in Ft Worth TX (see http://thelandcenter.org/). The staff did an excellent job of bringing world class scholars to the Center and we were given an opportunity to hear their research and to dialogue with them- and other pastors and seminary staff- regarding some of the most important issues facing our culture today. A couple of highlights tonight- and then as soon as the box of resources we were given arrives (I had to choose to bring home my luggage with my clothing or the books and resources they provided…I chose the clothes!)- I will review some of what I learned.

First, though it often appears that we are being defeated by those who stand against Christians and a biblical worldview, there are bright and energetic minds providing information we can use as we do battle.

Second, and perhaps as important: WE MUST CONTINUE THE BATTLE. Dr. Anthony Bradley, a professor at King’s College in New York City observed that he is teaching young people who are determined to live their biblical faith in communities all around the country. All of the speakers gave anecdotal evidence that there are a corps of young adults who are hungry to learn the things of God and to live in such a way so as to make a difference.

Finally, I was encouraged to keep up the fight. I live in a small community, but many small communities experiencing significant spiritual change can impact a region and regions experiencing spiritual renewal and revival can and will influence a country…and so it goes!

Throughout junior high school, high school, and college I trained to be a high school band director and dreamed of leading worship and music ministry in a local church. I spent countless hours in windowless practice rooms learning to play the alto saxophone (which I still play regularly- gasp! yes, even in worship services) and other instruments. One constant in learning any instrument is the mastering of scales (do, re, mi, etc…). Even today when I pick up my sax or my flute I generally warm up the instrument by playing a scale. Any one who listens to and appreciates any kind of music is familiar with scales. They are the alphabet of melody and harmony.

I’ve discovered that being a leader requires mastering some basics (like the scales). There are certain tasks we repeat as leaders on a regular basis- certain skills that we have to keep practicing in order to master. As a pastor I need to regularly practice the study of God’s Word- exegesis, context, theological interpretation and all the rest. As a leader I need to practice listening so that I can determine if the vision I’ve communicated is being understood. As a community leader I have to regularly place myself in community forums (chamber of commerce meetings; city council meetings; other formal and informal settings) to hear what the folks I live around are thinking, feeling, and experiencing. 

What ‘scales’ do you need to practice this week?

Revelation is not primarily the imparting of information but rather the self-giving and self-evidencing of God.

(Oden, Thomas C. (2009-07-23). Classic Christianity (p. 17). HarperOne. Kindle Edition.)

When we try to think through how God has made Himself known we cannot ignore His creation (see Genesis 1-2; Psalms 19; etc…) But as visible and evident as God is in His creation it is through Jesus Christ that God has chosen to give of Himself most fully (see John 14:1-6; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:1-3). This self-giving through Christ cannot be understood apart from the ways in which God gave of Himself to His own people, created by His call and guided by His hand in the Old Testament. From Genesis 12 when God called an idol worshiper named Abram to leave his immediate family and follow God to a land yet unknown, God was about creating a nation. This nation was not created to contain God’s revelation but rather that God might make Himself known more fully through them. Oden calls this revelation of God through a unique people who are descended from Abraham the ‘scandal of particularity’ (“There remains a “scandal of particularity” in all historical revelation. If God is to become known in history, then that must occur at some time and some place in history.” (Oden, Thomas C. Classic Christianity (p. 18)). Thus we read the OT and watch as God reveals Himself in actions, in words, and in a relationship with His people. Though this revelation is given to a particular people at a particular time in history we can come to a fuller and better understanding God’s nature and character.

I am often haunted by the words of Philip, one of Jesus’ earliest followers, asked of Jesus: “show us the Father” (John 14:8). With what must have been sadness and disappointment Jesus answered, “Have I been among you all this time without you knowing Me, Philip? The one who has seen Me has seen the Father…” (John 14:9). I am haunted because  I have often pled with God for the same thing- Lord, show me yourself! The answer, however, is right in front of me…wherever I see Jesus at work the Father is at work (John 5:19-20). All in need is for God’s Holy Spirit to open my eyes to see what is already true.

“Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.”[1]

“The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can ever engage the attention of a child of God, is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings, and the existence of the great God whom he calls his Father.”[2]

 Anyone attempting to think theologically, that is any believer who is serious about applying the truth of God’s Word in their lives, must begin with an understanding of the nature and character of God. The simplest child and the most learned philosopher both can learn of His nature. First and foremost is the fact that God has indeed revealed Himself. The world in which we live points to more than just a random accident,  the universe in which our world spins on its axis speaks of a design that demands more than just the answer that it is all random.

This revelation is defined and described by theologians and philosophers as two fold. There is general revelation- which the Psalmist described in Psalm 19:1-4:

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands. Day after day they pour out speech; night after night they communicate knowledge. There is no speech; there are no words; their voice is not heard. Their message has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.”

Certainly not everyone sees the plan of God and hears His voice when they observe the natural world. The reason: most people are seeing only what they choose to see. Even as believers we are often caught in the trap of seeing the world around us through the eyes of our middle school science class- as the result of a random series of molecules that happened to be at the right place and the right time.

Learning to discover the presence and personality of God in His creation requires that we learn how to see and listen all over again. We are called on to look beyond what we are accustomed to seeing and begin to see the depth and the complexity of what God has done. We are called to listen more carefully to the rich and diverse sounds of creation all around us. 

To change how we see and how we hear requires a spiritual transformation. Unless the Spirit of God somehow grants us new life- and the ability to see and hear spiritual truth and spiritual reality- we are dead to the true wonders of God’s creation.