I’ve been thinking about this question ever since it was asked to me.  I love a good question, it exercises my thinking muscles, and processing it burns the fuzz off my thinking.

This question forces you to dig in the back of your brain and ask questions like, “how do we define, “good?”   Good in today’s society may be subjective. It is subjective precisely because we live in a society that claims that everyone’s own opinion is right.   In a world where everyone is right then everyone is their own version of good.   Many claim that humanity is basically “good,” in fact this is the claim of many world religions, but what does reality tell us?  Regardless of how we define “good”, does the reality that we are living in point toward the goodness of humanity or the flawed nature of humanity?

We live in a society where we glorify what is evil by calling it good.  Television and movies do this in spades, and you can read my thoughts about it here.  I live in a reality where people can be wrong, everyone else does too, and they just don’t realize it. If we believe that people can be wrong,  then, could it be possible that they are wrong about what they perceive to be good?  Good is so subjective because, we live in a world where everyone’s opinion is right.  If everyone perceives themselves as correct, then everyone’s definition of “good” is also correct. That makes for seven billion definitions of the word “good.”

Lets look at an age-old definition of the word, “love” for more insight to what is good.  The word, Agape means, love, and is used in the Bible to talk of love.  Because I am trying to make an argument that applies in secular circles, I am only going to talk about the usage of Agape in the context of Greek Philosophy.   The word Agape (among other things) means, “will-to good” or willing the benefit of what or who is loved.  In easier terms it means that you activity work for the benefit or good of others, and this is where we find a definition of the word “good” that is thousands of years old.

Can you love cake?  No, because you cannot work for its benefit, only its demise.  You can desire cake, which goes to show our confusion with the word love and therefore what is “good.”   If we accept that “love” and “good” work together, then I think we have a working definition of what is good.  “Good” and “love” work together because in order to do good or to benefit someone, you have to love them.

This all brings us back to the original question: “Can you have a good life if you’re not a good person?  Can you work for the benefit of someone else and hate them?  The fact of the matter is that you can hate someone and do something for their benefit, it is possible.  But, is it sustainable?  To hate someone and actively work for their benefit would make you hypocritical.  Ultimately, one cannot live in a state of sustained dualism for long without breaking.

I do not believe that you can have a good life if you are not a good person.  I think that these things go hand in hand.  In order to have a good life we need to think about what it means to be a good person.  Once we figure out what it means to be a good person and live it, then I think a good life will follow.

If you accept what I am laying out there as truth, then wouldn’t it make sense to then explore what love is?  When we learn how to live in this Agape type of love, then we will begin to find out what it means to be a good person.

My kids play, in watching them I am reminded that there is something Godlike in playing.  I wonder if that is one of the reasons why Jesus said, “let the little children come to me.”  Maybe kids get God on a deeper level because they still have an imagination.  Maybe their reality is far more limitless than ours.  Whatever it is, maybe there is something to playing.

It is in God’s unnecessary love that He lavished on humanity that we begin to see the necessity of love in our life.  According to scientist our brains are wired for love.  What was once unnecessary is now something that we cannot live without.  The fact that God is Love is revealed in the creation and His rejoicing over it.

You can tell your kids that you love them all the time, but I think it is in play that it’s realized.  It is simply unnecessary to get your toenails painted or play hide and seek when they always hide in the exact spot that you just hid in.  Play reveals a love that is inexpressible otherwise.  Their ability to conceive your verbal affirmation of love will only arrive far later than they need it.

May you understanding of God’s love for you grow as you realize that creation is the only way to express that which is otherwise inexpressible.

May you create a value that is unnecessary.

May you get your toes painted or throw a football just because you can.  In so doing, may you find a state of persistent wellbeing.

As Paul says to the people of Ephesus, “And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.”

 Kingdom work is supposed to be easy, joyful and restful.  We are supposed to find deep contentment in working with Jesus.  When Jesus tells people to come with him, that His yoke is easy and his burden is light, how many of us have said, “yeah right Jesus…you should try being a pasto, teacher, mom, lawyer…!”  Being a pastor for over 10 years I can tell you that there have been times of extreme burden and pain.  But I have come to realize that those are the times in which I try to pull the load alone.  The burden that Jesus was easing was keeping the religious commands of the scribes and Pharisees.  If the Pharisees and Scribes were around today, they would base their religious success off of Sunday morning attendance, sermon response and church growth.  How did Jesus measure success?  Probably more in the the renovation of the heart in individuals than in the amount of people who show up in a building a certain day of the week.

Making disciples is always a work of pulling, and if it is tough, there is a good chance that you are not doing it in fellowship with Jesus.  The entire idea of a yoke is two people sharing one burden.  Sometimes the work is tough because we are trying to force our will forward.  We end up pushing other people into things they are not ready for.  This is tough, forceful and ultimately damaging.  When we lead from a posture of pulling, we tend to exemplify the very thing we lead people into.

What is the burden that we are pulling?  It is our task to introduce people into a new reality of the Kingdom of God.  When we pull people into God’s Kingdom then the work will seem joyful, you will find contentment and you will ultimately say, “That was easy.”

May your work be joyful today…

May you pull instead of push today…

May you realize that you share the yoke with the king of the kingdom…

As a pastor, you can probably imagine that I’d like each person that reads this to find and follow Jesus.  Some are already following Jesus and some still have deep questions.  But I want to quote Jesus to bring up a third way and, don’t immediately write it off.  Here’s why; I was just listening to a philosopher and theologian named Dallas Willard and he makes a great point that we have taken the teachings of Jesus and moved it out of the realm of knowledge and into the realm of faith, therefore nullifying Jesus’ teachings as intellectual thought.  In the last two thousand years this is a very recent development.  In our culture, it would be a very normal thing to say we cannot have academic discussion about the Bible because it is faith not knowledge.  We can and should take the teachings of Jesus seriously and intellectually.  They are the basis of thousands of years of culture, shouldn’t they at least be examined the same way we study Egyptian pharaohs or Greek philosophers?

So lets take this very small amount from the Sermon on the Mount.

 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

-Matthew 5:39-41

Here Jesus deals with three common cultural issues that could invoke a violent response.  First, if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.  In the first century world, this would have been a back-handed slap using the right hand, meaning the person being hit was inferior.  The left hand was not used for things like this, in fact commentators reveal that the left hand was, “reserved for dirty things.”  Turning the other cheek would have forced the person to hit you with a close fist, effectually saying, “Hit me like a I’m your equal.”  Jesus was not advocating that we be doormats when violence comes our way, but in this response, the cheek turner forces the violent offender to admit that they are equals or walk away.  In order to make peace in a violent world we need to step up to violent offenders.  Think of a domestic violence situation, not only is there physical and emotional pain, but the abused often loses their dignity.  What if instead of looking for the bad guys for neighborhood watch, we checked in on our neighbors and stepped in the way of abuse?  What if we demanded that people all over were treated with dignity?

The second issue Jesus deals with is a lawsuit.  He said if someone sues you for your tunic let them take your cloak also.  In order to get this you have to understand something about the first century.  At that time, you only wore cloaks and tunics.  If you took both of these items, you’d be naked.  So Jesus told people to get naked…well not really.  If you were being sued for your tunic, you probably were very poor, and giving the rest of your clothes as well would have exposed the injustice greed in the person bringing the suit.  I think if you are working for peace the way Jesus teaches, then you expose greed and injustice wherever it is.

Thirdly, if someone forces you to go a mile, go two.  In these days a Roman soldier could lawfully take a Jew, give him his pack and make him walk a mile.  The response was probably after a specified point, the Jew would drop the pack, say something mean and run.  But what if the soldier was surprised by the grace that you showed?  What if they were taken aback by your generosity? What if on that second mile they found out you are the proud dad of two little girls?  Do you think that soldier would think twice when it came time to start killing your people?  What if we took a two-mile walk with our enemies simply to get to know them?  How long do you think they would stay enemies?

I don’t know how to solve our nations gun violence problems, but I do know we need third options.  We need to be willing to give and to suffer for this work.  I love the words of Martin Luther King JR when he said: We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering with our capacity to endure suffering, do to us what you will and we shall continue to love you.  I love this quote, because it captures what Jesus did for us.  What if we endured suffering, made peace and continued to love the world the way Jesus loved the people who he asked his father to forgive when he was suffering on the cross?

According to the American Psychological Association:

By the time the average child who watches 2-4 hours of TV a day finishes elementary school they will have witnessed at least 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence.[1]

This is powerful conditioning.

Studies repeatedly show that this kind of exposure can lead to aggression later in life.  Of course the debate against this argument is that, “its just good entertainment, it doesn’t change behavior!”   It just so happens that the folks who love this argument, are also the ones who produce this content.  It’s funny that they spend millions of dollars in advertising to persuade people to watch their shows.  If they are so convinced that media doesn’t have a powerful effect on behavior then they should stop advertising their content through television.

Since none of us, including me, are going to ditch our flat screen TV’s or put or Netflix accounts on hold, what do we do about this culture that we’ve created?

Here are some suggestions to create a different culture:

-Limit TV exposure in your homes.  Don’t be a Nazi about it, but something that I am grateful for now is that my mom made me read an hour if I wanted an hour of TV time.  And as a child I loved TV, so I read.

-Talk about violence that you see in your homes.  When kids get old enough they are going to start asking why people shoot up schools or beat people up.  Talk to your kids about it and allow them to ask questions.

-Model an alternative in the home.  A child will invariably ask you, “What do I do if someone hits me?”  Most parents I know say that you hit them back.  Not to say that Desiree and I have it all figured out, but other kids hit our girls all the time and what we teach them is to put a hand up and say, “stop don’t touch me.”  Obviously this works because our kids are really young.  When they’re older this may not work out so well.  We want to teach our kids to stand up for themselves but to be honest when they get a little older; I’m not really sure how we will go about doing this.

-Show your kids correct response.  So many times we respond in a way that does not fit the situation.  When you blow up at something little, guess what your kids learn the correct response is to something little?

-One of the things that studies continually show is that language builds culture.  Aggressive language usually builds an aggressive culture.  Model peaceful language at home and your kids will pick up on it.

I can’t prove that my claims are true; it is simply what I have been observing.  So the drawback when we approach a problem such as gun violence in our society we have two parties advocating for policies more so because they want to be re-elected rather than what is best for society or what makes logical sense.  Look at the current debate on gun control.

One group says, the more guns we have the safer we are.  They advocate arming teachers and basically everybody.  A little more extreme wing of this group sends threatening letters to congress warning what might happen if they try to take their guns.  They essentially say, “Come and get them” with the implications being that there will be a fight.  I am consistently amazed at the contradictory nature of this argument.  We will be safe if everyone has more guns, but come and get them and there is going to be war…Wait, what?  I thought that guns were going to keep us safe.

However the other side of this debate wants to pass legislation that will make law abiding gun owners, technically criminals.  If this happens we drastically confuse the fight against gun violence as a fight against law-abiding citizens.

Both of these arguments to me seem flawed and incomplete.  They both seem like they miss the point.  But how can we find a new way when our culture seems to be so entrenched in two ways of thinking?  Isn’t their a third or a fourth of a fiftieth way?

Is a third way possible?  Is there room in our consciousness for a third way?    Are there things that we can agree on, like the tragedy at Sandy Hook, Virginia Tec, or Columbine should never happen again?

What are we missing as a nation by drastically oversimplifying very complex issues?  Does limiting the debate also limit the solutions?

At the end of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus told a story about wise and foolish builders. You probably know the story. The wise built their house on a rock and the foolish built their house on sand. The idea is that when the storms of life come the ones who built their life on a solid foundation will withstand it and the one who didn’t will wash out. I think that this is what rule eleven is getting at.
At the end of every list of rules, that are life altering, then what’s wrong with saying, if you don’t listen to this then you’re foolish. So this is the last rule, if you’ve been following along with the rules for a preacher series  hopefully you’ve see the value in 125 year old wisdom.  If you don’t at least consider the wisdom of these rules and build some foundations on them, well  then, you might be foolish.

If you missed any of the previous posts you can see any one of them here

Rule 1
Rule 2
Rule 3
Rule 4
Rule 5
Rule 6
Rule 7
Rule 8
Rule 9
Rule 10

Eight years ago today I found myself in the passenger seat of a silver Mazda 626 staring at this woman who was a friend and nothing more.  The problem is, how do you cross the line from friend to something more?  We were talking, there was awkward silence, and I said, “I have to tell you something.” And she hesitantly responded, “Okay?”

“I think…um…that I am in love with you.”

Being the amazing woman that she is, Desiree didn’t leave me hanging.  She responded with, “Well if it makes you feel better, I do love you.”

Then I quickly removed the “I think” from my previous statement and said, “I love you too.”

We didn’t even realize until later that it was Valentines Day.

On that day, eight years ago is when I finally realized that this is the way it should be.  You should be best friends.  I am so grateful for the wife that she is, the mother that she has become and the ministry that she does.  God has given me a beautiful wife that loves me although I’m flawed, although I say stupid things, although I have the hardest time picking up after myself.

She loves me.

So sweetie, in the sappy words of Train, marry me…today and every day.

I love you.

My week starts on Sunday.  I get in to the office at 7:15 am.  I unlock the doors, walk through the bathrooms and make sure that everything is looking great.  Then I will go to my office read through the day’s message and re-look at Sunday school material.  Then we have a staff meeting at 8:45 to go through the service and pray, we do Sunday school and church and then we try to do lunch with new people.  We normally get home at around two, put the kids down and crash.   Monday is full rinse and repeat mode.  I have my regularly scheduled staff one on ones (through out the week) then I deal with things like, window repair, remodels, capital campaigns, follow up, rental contracts, sending notes, visitations, meeting with regional leaders, reading, writing, teaching, marketing, praying, dreaming and just about anything else you can think of.

So when this rule starts out, “you have nothing to do but save souls,” my first thought is, “yeah that’s because your building was new in 1888 and now I’m dealing with your old building.”  On one hand this rule is absolutely correct.  On the other, I have so much to do every week; sometimes it doesn’t all fit into the week.  However, the truth I have learned is that I need to prioritize studying and preaching and focus on the congregation.  All that other stuff I need to delegate or have minimal hands on with it.  The only redeeming part of my work is introducing and inviting people to begin a relationship with the Redeemer.

One of the things that Jesus told the religious was that it wasn’t the healthy that need a doctor but the sick.  When I read rule 10 this is the idea that goes through my head.   In 1888 the people who wanted to talk to a pastor the most were probably the sick, the dying, prisoners and people without hope?  Do we go to the people who need redemption the most or do we stay with who is safe?

The reliability of the messenger affects the credibility of the message.  When pastors do something unethical, everything they have ever said becomes suspect. How does being punctual relate to being ethical?  The answer is really in the idea of our word being our bond.

My mind goes immediately to Jesus’ saying, “let your yes be yes and your no be no.”  That is what this rule is about, keeping your word.  Doing what you say you will do goes a long way in the pulpit.  A hundred years ago, relationships were built on verbal agreements.  If you were punctual and you kept denominational rules then it said something about your integrity.  When you begin to slip into a lifestyle in which you don’t mean what you say your words become less and less powerful.

I always try to start and end church services on the exact time for a few reasons.

1.  I can not stand to be late to anything, it drives me crazy.

2. It builds trust with people who have other things happening on a Sunday.

3. It shows professionalism

The reliability of the messenger lends to the credibility of the message.

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes…Romans 1:16

As a pastor this question will invariably run through your head, “What if someone leaves the church because of something I said?”  “What if I offend someone?”  Jesus told the religious elite of his day that they were not honoring their farther and mother and it is what they do and say that makes them clean or unclean.  It was an offensive thing to say, in fact the disciples even said, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” (Matthew 15:12)  Of course Jesus knew he was offending people, the truth offends.

I just watched Dr. Ben Carson give the keynote address at the national prayer breakfast.  I think one of the most important things that he said, is that it is dangerous to be politically correct.  His point is that we are voluntarily censoring ourselves and in so doing, watching free speech fade away as a distant memory.  As pastors, this rule offered from 1888 gives timeless wisdom.  The Gospel is offensive, we don’t want to take away that offense, but we also don’t need to add to it.

May you speak boldly in whatever forum God has given you

May you speak the truth, regardless of who is in the audience

May you let the Gospel speak for itself

Now there is a word we don’t use much any more, affectation.  It means to speak with pretense or artificial speech that is meant to impress.  This is a great rule for anyone who speaks publicly but especially for a person whose main job it is to communicate the gospel.  There are two big reasons for this rule, theological and practical.

It is theologically inconsistent for people who communicate the gospel to put themselves on display.  As Paul says, He did not come to preach with human words of wisdom, least the cross be emptied of its power.   Preaching is different from any other speech precisely because the Holy Spirit is in it.  When personality gets in the way, guess what begins to lose power?  People begin to follow the preacher rather than Jesus.

Rule seven is practical for preachers as well.  Think about it, there is a guy (frequently male) every week that preaches the gospel.  Then maybe he throws in some stories that make him look like the hero, because we all tend to do that.  Then all of the sudden, there is a man on stage that begins to look better than most husbands in the audience.  Then one of the ladies casually mentions to a girlfriend, “I wish my husband read the Bible as much as the Pastor.” Boom! That’s how affairs of the heart begin.  Typically, we live out the desires of our heart.

For the longest time TV shows used to follow a traditional story line.  There was a clear antagonist and a clear protagonist.  A few years ago I re-watched all seven seasons of MacGyver (fun at first, then painful).  Each and every episode ends with MacGyver beating whatever evil he was facing then turning his head and smiling into the camera.  There was a good, clear idea of good and evil.

Just recently we have seen the fruit of post-modern philosophy on the entertainment industry (Post-modern philosophy is a huge topic, so for the sake of brevity, I’ll define it as moral relativity or moral ambiguity.  There is no clear moral authority).  Think of all of the shows that have been hugely popular in the last couple of years.

For Example:

Mad Men:  Follows the exploits of advertising genius Donald Draper.  The writers of this show have you rooting for Don and even sympathizing for the man when his marriage falls apart.  They have you hoping that Don doesn’t get caught cheating.  The writers have you rooting for a cereal adulterer, what?

Breaking Bad: This show has you sympathizing for Walter White.  He is a low-income teacher trying to provide for his family when he finds out that he has inoperable lung cancer.   Knowing he is going to die, Walter decides to use his skills as a chemist and cook meth.  Then Walter rises to the top of the drug world.  The entire time the writers have you rooting for Walter, hoping he doesn’t get caught.

This brings us to Christopher Dorner.  The man who posted a hit list, killed three people and is on the hunt for every single police officer out there.   Yeah, that guy.  One of the disturbing trends that I am noticing is that there is a small contingency of people rooting for him.  Now, there is always someone willing to root for the bad guy in every story, but there are groups of people out there calling him a hero.  I was just listening the radio a few hours ago and people called him a, “hero” and “brave” for taking on the LAPD.

Do we actually buy this post-modernity?  Most people don’t believe that Dorner is a hero, but it is disturbing that there is a growing amount of people out there that do.  To me, this begs the question of what our moral future holds.  If this is just a small contingency now, in twenty years what will the basic moral question of killing someone look like?

Is there still a clear right and a wrong? Have we moved into the era of the flawed and even evil hero?  It seems to me that we are living in a time where teaching basic moral truths are more important now than ever.

“Tell everyone in your care what you think wrong in his conduct and temper; and that lovingly and plainly, as soon as may be; else it will fester in your heart.  Make all haste to cast the fire out of your bosom.”

This rule reminds me of a verse in Ephesians that is highly quoted.

“In your anger do not sin” Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. –Ephesians 4:26-27

This beckons back to a time when people had a “peace” to say, you know, “speak now or forever hold your peace.”  Which no one ever says at weddings any more.  But the idea is that if we have something to say then we ought to say it.  Especially when what you have to say comes from a place of love and honest concern for the other person.

Whenever I taught from this verse in Ephesians I always just used the verse in 26, I never tacked on the verse that says, “and do not give the devil a foothold.”  That is to strange, it doesn’t necessarily fit into my line of thinking.  But the other day I was doing some studying on this passage and I realized the significance of this verse.  To give the devil a foothold is to have an open door for evil in your life. Hoarded anger becomes an open door for evil.  Anger that goes un-confessed begins to fester and brew and control more of your life.  This type of anger eventually becomes a dominant force in your life.   Unless this is confessed, it continues to build.

A preacher in 1888 would typically be the moral compass for the town.  People still ask me what I think is right and wrong.  However, the difference between 1888 and 2012 is that pastors have less perceived authority to speak into the lives of society.

What do you think? Have people become too accommodating to share their real thoughts and beliefs with others?    Are you scared to confront your friends if there was an issue in their life?

Today I was in my office reading when I got a text from my wife that read, “Emma snuck into the bathroom and tore her thumb apart on a razor.”  The injury is not life threatening, or even that bad, but I felt a cringe shudder through my body.  My poor baby, I want to take the cuts away from her, in fact I would have lost a thumb so she wouldn’t have gone through that pain.  I know it is ridiculous and insane and people heal from small wounds, but I love my kids with that kind of furiousness.  I expect that God loves me even more than that.

Brennan Manning writes, “The awesome love of our invisible God has become both visible and audible in Jesus Christ, the Glory of the Son filled with enduring love.”  The disciple who Jesus loved, John, said it like this, “the word became flesh and dwelt among us.”   In a moment of history, love became a walking reality.  In His reality, there was a drastic reunification with all of the people walking around with razor cuts on their thumbs and hearts.  My kids show me what God must have felt when he saw us suffering.  He poured out His love so that we could be healed. Because true love mends what is broken.  Perfect love pours light into the soul where only darkness exists.  We try to do things to prove that we are loveable all the time.  However, the consistent and persistent reality is that there is nothing we can do ant more or less to prove that we are worthy of love, that fact has been proven already.

The challenge then is to live boldly and comfortably in the love of the Father. This is a challenge when life experiences have given us a definition of love that says that we need to “do” or “feel” something.  Some life experiences have taught us that love is “doing better” or that love is one sided.  Still others have been physically or sexually abused, love becomes something that other people experience, but not me.   Love is associated with pain and darkness it is a deep void and when someone approaches it they have to go. The reality though is that Jesus is deeply, madly, relentlessly in pursuit of you.   He loves you to the point of death.  One of the things that I think highlights how much Jesus loves us is found in Luke 7:47.  A woman with a sinful reputation anointed Jesus in the presence of the religious elite, they criticized the action but Jesus said, “I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven-for she loved much…” It is almost the recognition that Jesus knows that this woman has known worldly love, the kind that uses up rather than gives, but now she is going to experience true love.

I wish everyone could sit back and realize how much they are loved.  How many problems would be solved?  If love covers a multitude of sins, how many people would be reconciled?  How many wounds healed?

“Speak evil of no one, because your word, especially, would eat as doth a canker.  Keep your thoughts within your own breast till you come to the person concerned.”

 When you read this rule, there is an emphasis on the word, “especially.”  This handbook is absolutely reminding the minister of their positional authority in the lives of people. The rule reminds the minister, “if your words are evil, they will be like a flesh eating virus.”  This is a vivid look at the power of the words of a minister.

The danger in speaking evil of someone is that your listener will believe you.  Jesus speaks primarily of transformation of the heart.  He says things like, “out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks” and, “you will be acquitted and condemned by the words you have said.”  Speaking evil of someone is reflective of a heart that is not transformed by the love of Jesus.  There is an even bigger problem; the chief job of the preacher is to proclaim truth.  Speaking evil of a person may cause people to not believe the truth that you have to tell.  When we proclaim evil, we teach others to do the same.

The person who is called to proclaim the good news of the gospel of Jesus has important words.  Therefore, in and out of the pulpit, every word said matters. The moment you begin to speak negatively of others is the moment that your pulpit loses authority.

 Guilty as charged.  I’m not sure about you but I find this rule very difficult. People can be hard to trust and I’ve been in youth ministry a long time.  I know when people are lying through their teethe.  However, ministers of the gospel cannot appear to be un-redemptive in their character or conduct.  I don’t think we can afford to look naive either.  The bottom line is that the preacher needs to maintain integrity in situations when it is far to easy to take sides.

I love the idea, “put the best construction on everything.”  To me this means to handle each situation with grace and to not assume anything of anybody.  The bottom line is that the preacher needs to maintain a seat at the table to speak Biblical truth into the lives of the members of the church.  The preacher who shows everything in a negative light will likely lose their congregation, or have an overly negative congregation.

The idea that the Judge is always on the prisoners’ side is reminiscent of Christ redeeming a world that sinful from birth.  A world that is filled with unredeemed good people.  Jesus was on their side. The tax collector, the prostitute, the adulterer and the drunkard, Jesus came for them.  Jesus came for us.  How great it is to always keep this in perspective. This is a perspective that a preacher can never afford to lose.

There are two parts to this that line up. To, “converse yourself sparingly” means to be humble and not overly obnoxious or self-promoting.  In other words, in conversation, Jesus should come out of you more than yourself.  Then there is this rule to, “conduct yourself prudently with women.”  In 1888, there were only men ordained to preach in the Methodist Episcopal Church, so this manual is written manly to men. These are great rules for any preacher.

The Bible talks about all kinds of temptations and it talks about them in terms of “resisting.”  However, when it talks about sexual temptation it says, “run.”  I think that sexual sin is so seductive that the biblical writers knew that if someone didn’t put physical distance between themselves and the temptation then they would become overwhelmed by it.

Over and over we have seen Christian leaders fall from grace. When I was a kid we went to a church where the pastor had an affair and we left, along with many others.  My parents had to make a decision and they decided that we could have stronger values outside of the church.  While I disagree, I see their point.  I think a lot of people logically reach that conclusion whenever a Christian leader falls from Grace.

The pulpit is an interesting place; I try to talk about how great my wife is and how much I screw up when I use personal examples.  Pastors tend to create the illusion that they have it all together.  Pastors that make it sound like they have it all together might make themselves look attractive.  I think this is what the Methodist Discipline is talking about when it says to “converse sparingly.”

So if you are a pastor, I think the questions are these:

-When you preach does more of Jesus come out than you?

-In conversation, who shines, you or Jesus?

-Do you have healthy boundaries with members of the opposite sex?

Rule 2:

I would have been fired in 1888.  The discipline is trying to communicate that their preachers should appear to be serious at all times, but that is simply not the way that God has wired me.  I think Jesus had a wicked sense of humor.

Part of the problem with clergy is that we appear, “holier than thou,” which is not very authentic.  Being “holy” is not the issue, the issue is self righteousness.   In 1888 people looked for authority in culture, authority was a lot more black and white than it is today.  Authority did not joke or speak out of turn.  And while we should never treat the gospel with lightness, I think it is important to build rapport with an audience.  I think one of the best ways to build rapport is if we all laugh together.

I do agree that the motto, “holiness unto the Lord” is a great motto and one that each person should adopt.  It is the recognition that we serve a Holy God who died and rose to life again in order that we might live with him.  He broke the power over of sin so that Holiness is not something that is unattainable.

How do you live out, “Holiness unto the Lord”?

What do you think about, “lightness, jesting & foolish talk”?

Rule 1. Be diligent.  Never be unemployed.  Never be triflingly employed.  Never trifle away time; neither spend any more time at one place than is strictly necessary.   

This first time I read this I had to look up the word “trifle,” it is simply has not been in my vocabulary.  It means to waste time or to spend time on things of little importance.  This rule gives a clear picture of how important the task of preaching is and just how high the calling is.  When it is your job & calling to tell the story of redemption, then what could be more important?

This makes me wonder, how many times have I been looking for a sermon illustration on You Tube only to go down the wormhole of random talking animal videos…  This rule reminds me of the seriousness of the task of teaching God’s word.  There are many more rules that will remind the preacher of the prominence of their position.  I can just imagine the older denominational leader talking to the new preacher asking them, “do you realize what you’re called to?”  “Do you even get the importance of what God is calling you to do?”

If you are a young preacher, how do you spend your time?  What are you doing that if you weren’t doing it, you could be far more effective?

I am just like that rock.  I can take the light tapping; in fact I can take some even bigger hits, but I have the tendency to completely crumble when hit in just the right spot.  When you completely crumble, your self-confidence begins to dwindle, when this happens you begin to ask what your self-confidence is even based on.  Do I draw my confidence from my own talent and accomplishments or do I get it from what Jesus has done and who He is?  Self-confidence is a crazy animal, when people lose it, there is no telling what they will do.

As much as I hate the crumbling feeling, I do appreciate the moments.  They remind me that at times I take over for God.  They remind me that I have a tendency to draw my identity from myself rather than the redeemer of the world.  In the end I think this issue of a crumbling invites me to lean into the king.  It invites me to reassess who is really in charge and what kind of leader I want to be.  Ultimately, something beautiful is built because of what was broken.

Do you guard your weak points?

or

Do you allow yourself to sit and wade in the waters of a complete crumble?

If we have deep questions about our society, they can usually be traced back to their origins in history.  I have always wondered why there were huge segments of people that say they believe in Jesus and look nothing like him.  When I became a Christian, I immediately read the entire New Testament.  I didn’t understand people who called themselves Christians but looked nothing like Jesus.

I found what I was looking for in the writings and beliefs of Plato and Socrates.  They believed that the body and soul were completely separate.  They believed that the soul pre-exists the physical body and that the body may indulge in whatever impulses it may have at the time.  The thought was that as long as the soul worshiped and the body took care of its needs, then the person would be fine, the soul lived beyond the physical anyway.

I think this belief has infiltrated our minds in a powerful way.  There is the old cliché of, “living like a saint on Sunday and a sinner the rest of the week.”  There are widely held societal beliefs as simple as, “YOLO.” (You Only Live Once) It’s what all the kids are saying these days.  The thought behind YOLO is since you only live once you should try everything once, for students who are trying to follow Jesus this flys in the face of denying yourself and taking up your cross. The implicit philosophy of this belief is everything is beneficial because you only live one time.  However, not everything is beneficial.

I think the idea of a separate body and soul that have the ability to live in opposition to each other has done a lot of damage to Christian witness.  This kind of duality allows you to physically partake in some activities that are damaging to your health or spiritual vitality.  Remember Paul tells the church in Corinth that their bodies were bought at a price, so honor God with your body.  I’m pretty sure Jesus, Paul or John don’t teach YOLO.  I think the New Testament idea is that you relinquish your rebellious spirit to God and allow him to fill you with His Spirit. When we relinquish our self to Jesus and are guided entirely by Him, this duality that I have described begins to die.

The denomination that I am a part of is a Holiness denomination,  Holiness simply describes what happens when you surrender your life to Jesus and allow Him to fill it.  It describes the change in thinking and desires to glorify God with your life rather than living for your own glory.  So, why is it so hard to call people to holiness? Maybe it has something to do with Plato and Socrates and YOLO.

I am reading a book right now called, “Covenant and Kingdom, the DNA of the Bible.”  The author goes through the Bible and demonstrates how the two themes, Covenant & Kingdom are the two consistent ideas that go from Genesis to Revelation.  The author, Mike Breen laid out the relationship between David and Saul and he said this about their leadership styles,

“But Saul had not learned.  God is not looking for a clever king, just one whose heart was surrendered to the Lord.  Saul had tried to take his own approach to kingship rather than the path of simple obedience.” 

How much time do church leaders give to gimmick?  How much time do we give to events that will, “bring people in”? How much of our lives are surrendered in obedience?  Some lead from their title and authority.  Some lead by their physical stature, Saul was noted to be the tallest Israelite.  I think the most powerful leaders I have served with have lead from a conviction that comes from their obedience to God.  We have all had someone in our lives who have led from sincere conviction.  They lead from their passion and not their gifting.  They lead from their heart rather than their stature.  When people lead this way they are hard not to follow.

I have two questions for church leaders.

1.  Are you leading from a simple obedience to the Lord?

2. Do you lead out of conviction and calling or power and authority?

There are several ways that the New Testament authors talk about the struggle of Christians in the first century. One of those ways is in the 13^th chapter of Revelation.  John talk about something called the Mark of the Beast. I think that the mark of the beast has a lot more to do with the struggle of how Christians interact with the empire, than it does the end of the world.  Revelation 13 talks about the mark of the beast being 666 on the forehead and hand, which is a reference to two things, Nero and also a reference to King Solomon’s relationship with the Queen of Sheba.  It is thought the Nero’s name numbered up to 666.  Solomon famously departed from the ways of his father and when his gold was added up weighed 666 talents.  This was a huge amount that highlighted his alliances with other countries, which highlighted a departure of a reliance on God.   666 is a reference to a massivly wealthy empire.[1]  The idea of the mark being on the head and hand is the antithesis of the Shema.[2]   This is where God says, bind these laws on your forehead and your hands.  Every good first century Jew would have known what phylacteries were.  It is a way to wear the Shema on your head and hand.   I simply think that John is warning the early church that the allure of the empire is huge and asking the question, “whose will image to you bear?”

I think the early church understood what the mark of the empire was.  In many places in Rome along with worshiping Caesar came the right to buy and sell goods.  I think the mark of the beast was clear to the first century church.  Those who lived in the image of God rejected the luxuries of the empire lived in poverty and martyrdom.  They refused to take part in celebrations that honored the gods of the day.  They refused military service, and attended to the sick and the poor. They had to take a bold stand in their culture.  There were two options, look like the empire or look like Jesus.

Would the first century church recognize the 21′st century church.  Do we look any different from the “empires” in which we live?  Or are we walking around with the mark of the beast?

I wanted to give you my take on the groundswell dilemma.  I know that to some extent, we gave a voice to the voiceless and now it seems like it is being taken away, when in reality it is just being moved. And please be assured, we can have great discussions on this new page.  It will be highly linked through facebook and this is a better move for the long term.  I know that many of you don’t see it but we are asking you to look into the future with us.  What we are saying here is that Groundswell deserves its own webpage because of the massive amount of content.  What we are hearing is, “don’t get away from your roots.”  We can consider ways to stay grounded to facebook.

I do want to unload on all of us and call us to something that I think is of massive importance:  Jesus is so in love with us it is stinking crazy.  I can’t fathom all of it and am in awe of His grace and mercy daily.  I think when we love each other; we display the gospel in ways that cannot be spoken.  When we show division we actually lessen the power of the cross.[1] The stakes are to high; we simply can not afford to treat each other poorly on facebook or in any other medium of exchange.

Some of us are ordained, licensed, commissioned or members but we are all believers.  Therefore we are all called.  We must continue in the spirit of unity.  We can work out the kinks in Groundswell on facebook or word press, but the bigger issue is the Gospel.  Will you put it on display or remain divided?

“In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.  In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.”[2]

We gave people almost complete autonomy to post what they were thinking and feeling.  Unfortunately we saw a number of comments and posts filled with rude and self-righteous tones.  This became the undercurrent of groundswell.   I can not tell you how many people have been turned off or how many private messages I’ve gotten from people who have said, “I’m sorry I posted, I’ll never do that again.”  The gentleman, who asked what the church’s response should be to the Occupy Wall Street movement, told me he would never post again on groundswell because of the type of response he got.  Since then he hasn’t even liked a post.  A friend told me that one of his Wesleyan college students who went away to school stumbled on Groundswell and was so disappointed with the tone of conversation that he found.  His response was that, “this wasn’t the Wesleyan Church he knew.”  People have written blogs or simply stopped engaging because of the tone of many contributors.  We have to remember that Jesus is bigger than the Wesleyan Church and far bigger than Groundswell.  It really has become difficult to find a loving and respectful tone on this site.  Therefore we have to ask the question, “is groundswell doing more harm than good?”  I think we are 50/50 on that and we can do better with monitored discussion on a Word Press site.

The World Wide Web is exactly that…worldwide.  People stumble across Groundswell all the time and I wonder what they think.  We can do better.  The world already hates us lets stop giving them reasons.