Head Fakes for Jesus

Still clearing ...

The NY Times has an interesting article on Christian music worth reading. You may have already seen it. Music is certainly a hot button issue for many, and should be for many more. And while there is room for varying preferences in music, this article makes some points that are worthy of consideration ... and they probably didn't mean to. After all, the NYT has no axe to grind in the Christian music arena.

More often, MercyMe relies upon a familiar (though often effective) head-fake: the song seems to be about a romantic relationship, but it turns out to be a relationship with God.

Is this good? One has to wonder. What role do "head fakes" play in the communication of the message of Christ? What role do "head fakes" play in worship?

One of my concerns is that our theology, particularly in song, is not unique enough concerning Jesus to prevent those who believe in God but not Jesus to sing it. After all, the uniqueness of Christian theology is the "Christ" part of it, that Jesus is God. That's what sets us apart from everyone else. It seems at times like some have capitulated to thinking "We can't get their attention with Jesus, so let's get it with something else, and then tell them it's really about Jesus."

And is the "head fake" really a head fake, where you get someone leaning one way so you can go another? It sounds more like a bait and switch, where you get someone coming for one thing, and then tell them it's really about something else. Isn't the gospel worth more than that?

If the world likes it, is it really about the God who is Jesus?

Have You No Shame?

Clearing my mind this morning on a few news items ...

It appears that Micro$oft's new Internet Explorer 7 is the target of a Google complaint about search engines. Google, the company whose name has become a verb (cf. Xerox) is complaining that Microsoft's new IE7 has a search engine box in the the command line that defaults to Microsoft's search engine. They complain that users ought to be able to choose their search engine rather than have a default search engine.

Google vice-president Marissa Mayer says, "We don't think it's right for Microsoft to just set the default to MSN. We believe users should choose."

Of course not. It's only right to default if you default to Google.

My mind went back to the time when I first downloaded Firefox, the browser that I use. It, like IE7, has a search engine box in the upper right hand corner. That search engine has a default setting to ... wait for it ... you guessed it ... Google.

So let me lay this out for you. Google (the company whose name has become a verb) is complaining that M$ IE7 does what Google has been doing for a long time. It appears that Google's main complaint is, "We were doing this first, but ignore that, because M$ might cut into our profits."

Google is concerned about "preserving competition in the search market" in which they have 49% share, to Yahoo's 22%. M$ has 11%. Sounds like Google is all about competition in the search market.

How hypocritical. I can't help but notice that Google wasn't whining when they were the default search engine. I guess they were saving all that whine to complain when someone else decided to do what Google had been doing. Somebody bring some cheese and crackers to go with the whine.

Here's the bottom line. If you don't like the default search engine on your browser, then change it. How simple is that? Why do we need to tie up the Justice Department over this? Don't they have more important matters to deal with?

Has Pacifism Ever Worked?

On a political note, I was reading a A Different Perspective today and saw a reference to an article about pacifism. Alan says,

When it comes to taking human lives, the burden of proof should always be on the side taking the lives rather than those who advocate nonviolent responses to aggression.

It seem that he poo-poos the idea that war will stop war. He is a pacifist, and I have to me wonder why. Has it ever worked? I am no historian, but I can't think of a single war that has ever been won by pacifists. There is another name for pacifists that is used more often: Losers. Pacifists don't win wars.

WWII ended when the price of continuing the war was greater than the Japanese were willing to pay. You might quibble with the use of the atomic bomb, but it ended a six year war in two weeks, and by some estimates saved the lives of perhaps a quarter of a million American soldiers. How many lives would have been saved had that option been available in 1939?

I am a big fan of being the bigger guy, morally. I think the bully on the playground is best answered by walking away and laughing at the ignorance that brings bully-hood on. I am also a big fan of not picking battles you can't win. Nothing is more embarrassing than losing. Just go on about your business and let the bully rant.

But when it comes to international conflict, pacifism won't work. Idiots will fight until they get hit hard enough to make the pain of getting hit greater than the joy of hitting someone else. Diplomacy only works when it is backed up with something that will hurt. There were some reports that in the days just prior to the Iraq War, the build up of forces in the middle east brought Saddam to a place of negotiation that was refused by the coalition. Whether that's true or not, it is not surprising, because that is the way it is supposed to work.

It is true that might doesn't make right. But might does make people think twice. So let's use it, for the common good of civilization.

All of which reminds me of the great battle against God that has reigned since the dawn of sin in human history. And I am reminded that not even Jesus is a pacifist. He is willing to let Satan's little bullies have some room to work right now. And Psalm 2 describes it as a humorous thing for God. Men band themselves together against the Lord and his Christ, and God laughs. He knows that when the time comes, their bands will be like thread before the mighty power of the victorious Christ. When Jesus comes, he will be no pacifist. He will make war in a white outfit, and it is clear that he doesn't intend to dirty it except for the blood of his enemies.

While we must be careful arguing for war based on God's final victory, we must realize that pacifism is not God's approach to international conflict. There are battles worth fighting, and we must be willing to fight them.

Jesus calls us as believers to endure persecution peacefully and willingly, and not fight back. But there's a reason for that. Jesus is the one that will settle our problems, and he will do it in a way we cannot even imagine.

Here's the message of the Bible in two words: God wins.

Never forget that. But don't try to make international conflict the same as spiritual battles. They aren't.

The Walleye Are Here

I got out fishing last night for the first time this year. The Detroit River is one of the best walleye spots in the country this time of year. Yesterday, we headed out about 4pm, and within about 20 minutes, one guy landed a whopper ... one of the biggest walleyes I have ever seen. He was nailing them and the rest of us were relegated to working the net for him.

But alas, about 7:30 or so, I got on a little streak and managed to get five in the boat within about thirty minutes or so. We ended up with sixteen between the four of us. The wierd thing is that I do not even like fish. I am in it for the fun of catching them. If it were up to me, the river would have sixteen more fish than it does now. But I brought a few home for the wife and dutifully hacked them up. It's been so long since I cleaned a fish that I have forgotten the easy way. But fish guts are cool ... and we have some walleye filets ready for the stove.

Years ago I used to fish with a friend whose high school job was cleaning fish. He got paid by the pound, and he could clean fish like you can't believe. So I was the designated scaler, and he was the cleaner. And I could not keep up with him, even with an electric scaler. But fresh Lake Erie perch deep fried with some biscuits makes a good sandwich, and that's about the only kind of fish I will eat.

It is relaxing to be out in the fresh air with the spring breezes blowing in your face. However, since we were on the Detroit River, we just enjoyed the coolish breezes and watched the factories belch into the evening air.

Women in the Pastorate

The issue of women in ministry keeps popping up in some blogs that I read. It is an exceedingly frustrating discussion, and I don’t know why I comment. I should stay out of it. There are legitimate issues about church ministry today that the church should be wrestling with. Whether or not women should be in positions of authority over men is simply not one of them. Out of everything in Scripture that is explicit, this is one of them.

Let me quickly summarize a few key points.

We must first recognize that Paul’s prohibition of women having authority over men is not Paul’s. It is God’s, by virtue of inspiration. Some want to claim that it was merely Paul’s preference. But 2 Tim 3:16 makes it clear that it was God’s command.

We must also recognize that it is a command that cannot be restricted merely to first century culture. It is common to argue that Paul’s command was only about the first century, or only about the church at Ephesus. That is easily answered in two parts.

First, NT Christianity was not shy about shedding cultural norms for biblical obedience. Christ made a habit of breaking cultural norms that had religious significance attached to them (such as healing on the Sabbath, picking grain on the Sabbath, eating with women and Gentiles, etc.). If this prohibition were merely cultural, it seems clear that Christ would not have felt bound by such a principle.

Second, the exegetical reasons given for the prohibition have nothing to do with the first century. These reasons go back thousands of years to the time of creation and the fall. God says the reason that women are not to have authority over men is two fold: 1) Men were created first and 2) the woman was deceived.

For those who argue that the command is no longer valid, we need to figure out which foundational reason is no longer true. If Paul had argued that it was a first century reason, I could buy the argument that women are now permitted to have authority. But Paul expressly does not say that.

Some argue that the death of Christ removes the affects of the fall. Really?? Try telling that to the mother in labor, or the husband who comes home smelling like sweat, dirty as a pig. Try telling that to the rose gardener who hands are scratched by the thorns that protrude from the bushes. Try telling that the people whose bodies lay decomposing in the grave (returning to dust). The simple fact is that Christ’s death did not overturn the physical affects of the fall, nor the relational affects.

Some argue that both men and women have “the blessed opportunity to be filled with and gifted by the Holy Spirit” (an actual attempt at an argument). I would ask who disagrees with that? Egalitarianism certainly doesn’t. We believe that women should be honored and treated as the Bible prescribes. We should never lower the dignity and worth of womanhood by asking them to do something God has forbidden, or by allowing it.

There is much that women can do in ministry and should do. May God give to his church a great number of godly women who will model godly womanhood by good works that fit a woman who professes to follow God, who will teach the younger women how to be godly. May God protect his church from disobedient women who refuse to live by Scripture.

In the end, this is a discussion about biblical authority. Will we let the Bible dictate our theology and practice, or will we let culture? Will we honor women, or will we allow them to disobey God?