A Worship Response

Here is my response to this article by Todd Prueitt in which he summarizes the book True Worship by Vaughan Roberts.  His points are below in italics, and my responses follow.

A quick side note: I'm disappointed that many of the comment and rebuttals contained in the comments section of his article were less than Christian in tone.  I've strived to find common points, and I hope my style comes across as engaged and upbeat rather than combative.  I trust you will do the same.

1. God’s Word is marginalized.

In many Churches and Christian gatherings it is not unusual for God’s Word to be shortchanged. Music gives people the elusive “liver quiver” while the Bible is more mundane. Pulpits have shrunk and even disappeared while bands and lighting have grown. But faith does not come from music, dynamic experiences, or supposed encounters with God. Faith is birthed through the proclamation of God’s Word (Rom 10:17).

I agree with the heart here; God's Word and the worship of Him should be the focus rather than the style, the band, or the charismatic leader.  As for the pulpits shrinking and lighting growing... I don't think his argument is served by discussing furniture and electric systems--even as aesthetically important as they may be.  His last point is very important and I wholeheartedly agree: faith DOES come through the hearing of God's Word.  At the same time may I point out that as a worshiper and a performing musician I find great joy in proclaiming God's Word through song!

2. Our assurance is threatened.
If we associate God’s presence with a particular experience or emotion, what happens when we no longer feel it? We search for churches whose praise band, orchestra, or pipe organ produce in us the feelings we are chasing. But the reality of God in our lives depends on the mediation of Christ not on subjective experiences.

YES. I completely agree with the last sentence!  Let me address the first question, though.

What happens to a marriage when the feelings are no longer there?  I think the answer in both cases is "commitment."  The commitment we make in the thick of emotion is proved in the dryness that inevitably follows. Our walk with Christ will most certainly be filled with mountain tops AND deserted valleys with death-shadows.  Just as one can be committed to serving their spouse romantically and reviving their own deep feelings towards their partner, the same can be true in our relationship to God.  I believe this type of "commitment to feelings," as it might be derogatorily termed, is beneficial to both.  And of course, although worship has no more to do with music than does romance, both can be served by it.

3. Musicians are given priestly status.
When music is seen as a means to encounter God, worship leaders and musicians are vested with a priestly role. They become the ones who bring us into the presence of God rather than Jesus Christ who alone has already fulfilled that role. Understandably, when a worship leader or band doesn't help me experience God they have failed and must be replaced. On the other hand, when we believe that they have successfully moved us into God’s presence they will attain in our minds a status that is far too high for their own good.

I definitely don't want priestly status!  That's way too dangerous of a place to be.  However, the term worship leader is used for a reason (even in the Bible), and I do want to do my best to lead others into a worship of God that would be considered, as Jesus said, "In spirit and in truth."  If I am successfully leading OUR focus to be on God, then there should be no instance where I become too important in someone's eyes.  "Should," of course is the important word there.

4. Division is increased.
If we identify a feeling as an encounter with God, and only a particular kind of music produces that feeling, then we will insist that same music be played regularly in our church or gatherings. As long as everyone else shares our taste then there is no problem. But if others depend upon a different kind of music to produce the feeling that is important to them then division is cultivated. And because we routinely classify particular feelings as encounters with God our demands for what produce those feelings become very rigid. This is why so many churches succumb to offering multiple styles of worship services. By doing so, they unwittingly sanction division and self-centeredness among the people of God.

I agree about offering multiple worship services for the sake of worship (read music) style.  I can't seem to justify this in my head even though I've thought about it for some time.  As Todd said, it seems it's just a way for us to become more self-centered.

In a marriage relationship--as with our God-relationship--our focus should be selfless and centered on Christ.  If we are doing that relationship corporately, as in a worship service, we should be selfless in that context.  In my mind, that looks like a Christian willing to participate in whatever style of music or lack of music that it takes to please our Lord.  Since He has already said He's concerned about the softness and freshness our heart, my goal is to choose those styles which facilitate a newness and the freshness from the congregation that is expected in a relationship.

Flowers every Friday might be a nice tradition, but if that's the only affection a husband shows his wife, it has a high potential of turning stale.  Similarly, it IS good to have helpful traditions in our relationship with God, however, there must also always be a newness.  Furthermore, when the Psalmist said "sing to the Lord a new song," I believe he was talking about MUCH MORE than style and genre.  If this passage doesn't apply to the newness of our hearts (even with old songs!) our attempts to apply it to music itself will fall incredibly short.

Daniel's FIRST Stand

Over the last few weeks I've been taking the youth through the story of Daniel... backwards.  We've started in chapter 6, with Daniel taking a stand that ends him up in King Darius's iconic den of lions.  We also discussed the 3 Hebrew children and Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace (ch. 3), Belshazzar's debaucherous party with the hand literally writing on the wall (ch. 5), and Nebuchadnezzar's own personal testimony of a dream God uses to warn him he's going to lose his mind if he doesn't repent (ch. 4).  That leaves us now with only two other chapters in the history portion of Daniel.

This coming Sunday, we're talking about Daniel's first stand.  It's a boring one, as we'll see in a bit.  And it's one that doesn't seem to make a big difference, not even spiritually.  But the thing is, this is a big deal; and it's the reason I have been going backwards through the book.  I want the students to understand that his first stand is what allowed God to work through him and his friends so powerfully and publically.

His first stand was simple.  If you don't already know, in chapter one of this book, Daniel and his three Hebrew friends decide to remain true to their commitment to kosher food.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Really... it's not a big deal, and probably one that wouldn't even really be noticed.  Maybe it was a hard decision to make simply because the alternative was truly the best steaks and meat entrees available anywhere in the entire known world up to this point.  These guys were being "force fed" the best that Babylon had to offer.  Honestly... that would be a hard decision for me to make. :)

But Daniel and his three friends chose to stick with the commitment that their parents had made for them back before they had been taken away from their homeland and families.  You could argue it was just a symbol, but truly they were choosing to remain obedient to the Most High God.  God's purpose for this kosher food system was to keep them from being just like everyone else.  So many times in our lives we're worried about being mainstream.  Even when we choose to be different, we're often not choosing to be different but instead just choosing to be like a crowd that's distinct from our first group.  Read that last sentence again.

God wanted his people to be different, to be peculiar.  Daniel and his three friends chose God's way and what did it get them?  It got them a small amount of infamy with the guard and the others in charge.  But they stuck with it and asked the guard to test them and see if their "different" diet would really be worse for them as he thought.  After the test, it was proven that they looked better, not worse.

So what's the big deal anyway?  They made a little choice.  No flames, no lions, no disembodied hand writing on a wall, no king going insane--actually no miracle at all.

I believe this was a Godly setup.  God set up his kids and gave them an opportunity for huge success, but that setup started with this simple, boring story.  Without this stand, Daniel and the other 3 would have been seen as no different from the others court magicians and dream interpreters; they can do a nice party trick, but really nothing more than that.  But BECAUSE of this stand, God proves them to be different not just on the surface, but deeper, where it counts.  This stand makes them well known; it gives them the type of notoriety we are so often scared of.  But this very thing God uses as a platform for His glory!

And God wants US to be different on the deeper level, too.  So many times, we're looking for something showy, something flashy, but He's waiting for us to be "faithful with little," with the boring things of life.  And when we prove through our faithful obedience that we are truly His, He is ready to do amazing things through us.  I'm tired of boring life, aren't you?!?

Lord, we have heard of Your fame.
We stand in awe of Your deeds, O God!
Repeat them NOW, God.
In OUR time, make them known.
Though we deserve Your wrath, give us mercy.
Habakkuk 3:2

Submit, Woman!

Submit, Woman!

The Decline of Manhood in Contemporary Society

by
Jason Scott Vawter
(circa 2006*)

With the peak of the feminist movement in the late seventies and the growing trend toward homosexuality, there has been a major shift away from gender based roles in society. In many eyes, there is no longer a need for “manhood” as defined traditionally and/or biblically. Furthermore, this concept of manhood is seen by many (both male and female) to be a veritable “thorn in the flesh” of the general trend toward complete equality of the genders. The term “manhood,” however is oft misunderstood and prejudged. Many times it is only seen in the light of male dominance. For Christians, there is always difficulty in dealing with how the Bible addresses this issue of equality between the genders in conjunction with their differences and similarities. Does the Bible endorse gender roles, and must one sex be greater than the other? In this grand and oftentimes convoluted concern, biblical integration of both female equality and submissiveness can only be addressed with a correct understanding and a humble as well as generous display of manhood through appropriate servant leadership.

First of all, the term Manhood:

Merriam‑Webster’s Dictionary defines manhood as “qualities associated with men” or “the condition of being an adult male as distinguished from a child or female.” However for the purposes of this discussion, John Piper’s description will serve even better. He offers this definition, “At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships.”(35) He uses the term “mature masculinity” in line with Moore when quoted by Mohler, who explains that manhood, “is not simply a matter of being male and reaching a certain age. These are acts of nature; manhood is a sustained act of character.” (Barbarians) In this day and age, it is obvious that some people don’t see manhood as being defined in this way. Some women have even become lesbian separatist: so fed up with a male dominated society that they strive to rid their company of anything but. In cases of a more acute nature, when a lesbian couple gives birth by artificial insemination to a male, the consequences can be extreme. One lady “even feared that her lesbian partner would leave her,” and truly, later “their friends largely left them” because their house “exuded maleness.” What type of maleness could incur so much hate and aversion? Jess Wells, the lesbian writer of Lesbians Raising Sons, tells of doing everything in her power medically (referring to sperm selection) to keep from having a boy. When she found out that she was going to have a boy, her only consolation was this thought:

“My son cannot take me away from the struggle for women’s rights, nor can he force me to take an interest in anything that I don’t deem interesting. He cannot be my oppressor because he is my child, and he cannot be a second chance to relive my life because he has his own life. He and I will explore each other’s cultures, sharing what we can and respecting what we can’t…Both of us, respecting each other’s sovereignty, can rejoice in our foreignness and celebrate our diversity.” (Mohler FIRST)

This woman plainly points out what kind of maleness she (and others like her) wants to avoid. In her mind males are oppressors and tyrants forcing women to do things against their will. That is without a doubt the definition of male dominance, but it is starkly opposed to the definition of manhood given by Piper.

Now to Equality and Submission:

According to Wells’ quote above, equality means mutual and complete personal sovereignty and submission is seen only in the actions of a servant or a slave. There are two verses that are central in biblical teaching on these issues. Galatians 3:28 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This very evidently speaks on equality; the surrounding context speaks on coheir-ship and the similarities of childlike obedience even to slavery itself. So even when the New Testament speaks on equality, it seems to do so in the context of servanthood, not sovereignty. Likewise, the most quoted passage of scripture when it comes to the differing roles of a husband and wife, Ephesians 5:21-33, is preceded with an exhortation to all believers to submit to one another. Therefore, rather than submission being the degrading task of a slave or a yard-dog, the Apostle Paul elevated it to the high calling of the very children of God.

Furthermore, equality never necessitates there be no differences in the people being equated. A musician can be equally good at music as a baseball player is at playing his sport. Their separate proficiency would be a very difficult thing to measure or compare and relatively pointless at that, but no one should argue that the musician is a better person than the baseball player (or vice versa). Similarly, Johnson points out:

“We excel at different gifts, and all the gifts are needed. Let us hope that, by recognizing the existence of gender differences, we can better understand each other and help to maximize each other’s potentials. Likewise, by accepting our God-given gifts, we can resist cultural pressures to become what we are not, to seek to master gifts we don’t possess.” (Piper 293)

Compare that to this quote from Mathews, a pro-feminist writer, on what he believes to be the anti-feminists' reasoning:

Feminists had defiled women by attempting to force equality upon them whether wanted or not. Antifeminist women were saying in essence, “You have done men’s work. Fine, if you can do it. You have invaded men’s clubs, although it hardly seems worth the effort. And you have become, in effect men. Since you have already achieved what you want without ERA [the Equal Rights Amendment], there must be some secret agenda that we women don’t know about. But we can guess. The only think left is to change the traditional norms of behavior so that you can become the model of what women ought to do and be. You mean to make us like you, that is, like men. You have defiled us!” (166)

This seems to be a fair paraphrase of anti-feminist women’s reasoning except in one sense. The words “force equality” do not resonate with that line of thinking. One would be hard-pressed to find an emotionally balanced person who doesn’t want to be considered equal in worth or value to the rest of humanity. This quote shows Mathews firmly believes that in order to be equal one must be devoid of difference. He is right that anti-feminist women don’t want to be forced into the same standards of performance as men, but wrong in thinking that these same women don’t see themselves as equals with their male counterparts. “Equal” does not have to mean “completely similar to.” Roles can still differ.

It is apparent that Wells could not in anyway endorse the combination of the two traits: equality and submission. To her the answer is either-or, but one must wonder, why does she see it this way? It seems that she and countless other women like her have seen a grand pattern of male dominance and a tragic lack of godly manhood.

Servant Leadership?

Men must be leaders. However, once again, a definition is needed. John Piper points out that leadership must be exercised in many key ways. Here are a select few of his points on leadership that will assist this argument:

·1 Leadership never “demands to be served,” but to the contrary, takes the initiative to be the servant.

·2 Correct leadership does not “presume superiority,” but instead does it’s best to utilize the strengths of those it serves.

·3 A man should not feel compelled to be the sole initiator (leader); however, though the woman should have plenty of say in every issue (and should be allowed opportunities to lead), it would be a disservice to her to be forced to take initiative out of apathy and a lack of gumption on his part.

·4 As always, a good leader doesn’t tyrannically push and shove, but instead gently provides guidance and precedents to follow. (37-42)

Furthermore, a good leader offers solutions and choices but doesn’t impose them on those who chose to follow him. Piper closes his section on leadership with this point: “Mature masculinity recognizes that the call to leadership is a call to repentance and humility and risk-taking.” (41) Correct leadership is not easy because it is servanthood. It is a service provided. Whether or not this opportunity to be served is taken up by the woman should continually be her choice. Male leadership that is forced upon a female is male dominance, not servanthood.

Dominance:

In response to biblical evidence, Sanday considers even the Bible itself to be an example of patriarchal tyranny. She considers the early church leaders (whom she points out to have been all male) to have unfairly and systematically squelched the Gnostic tradition that was just as biblically sound as the traditions of orthodox Christians. She sites The Gospel of Phillip, The Dialogue of the Savior, The Apocryphon of John, and The Gospel of Mary as examples of Gnostic beliefs about the role of women in the church. She believes very adamantly that these books were excluded from the cannon mostly for their pro-feminine qualities. (227-231) The original canonization councils gave many other, more persuasive reasons for the books’ exclusion which they considered to be of greater importance. The pattern she speaks of in church leadership however is clearly that of male dominance and not that of servant leadership. Her problem isn’t with male servant-leadership, but with a perceived tyranny of the male gender within the church (and elsewhere). Lesbian separatists also speak of a patriarchal society dominated by male leadership that is completely against the advancement of women in any form (Mohler FIRST), but once again, this is male dominance, not servant leadership.

Barbarians and Wimps:

If there had been correct, servant leadership by responsible males, the issue of feminine equality wouldn’t be an issue. Females cry out for equality because the males they work with don’t have a correct understanding of servant leadership. Many men in America today often go to one of two extremes as pointed out by Mohler, they tend to be either “barbarians” or “wimps.”

Barbarians have little consideration for the female gender. They “demonstrate a crudeness, profanity, and violence that treats women merely as objects for sexual pleasure. Barbarians show women no respect, and are completely lacking in the manly virtues of protection and respect for the well being of women.” (Barbarians) These seem to be the type of males that the feminists are mainly against, and rightly so. This attitude flies in the face of Christianity and any red-blooded female as well. However, the type of male that the feminists seem to approve of the most (or have the least objections towards), is one that stands for nothing.

Mohler quotes Moore’s description of wimps: “whiny, incapable of making decisions, and in general of ‘acting like men.’” Why do feminist seem to like this type of male? Wimps constantly “look to women for emotional support, consider girlfriends to be conversational partners, and look to women for pity.” (Barbarians) In general this seems good—a fine improvement—but it is still lacking something. What happens when a woman looks to this man for emotional support? He can’t give it. He “is always looking for the easiest way out of a problem.” (Mohler Barbarians) So what is left?

The Gentleman:

A gentleman has to stand between these two types, firmly grounded in a correct understanding of “manhood.” He knows what true equality is. He understands that equals are almost never completely devoid of difference. He would never expect a woman to do a “man’s job,” but would be more than willing to give her that opportunity, if she wanted. In a personal relationship of any level (intimate or casual), the gentleman would do his best to lead the woman in a way that she would be comfortable following. As a servant leader, he must look out for her first and himself last. He would protect her interests, her safety, her purity, her emotional well-being, and most especially her relationship with God. He would do this at the cost of his own interests and desires. A true Christianly gentleman in a deeply committed, intimate relationship with a woman would sacrifice most anything but his own walk with God for her benefit. When a leader strives to be worthy of the task of leadership, his team is much more willing to support him and follow his lead. This is true in any leader/team relationship; how much more so in the most important and team of them all: a team that was instituted by God Himself.

But why Male Leadership?

A marriage, or any committed, two-person relationship for that matter, is undoubtedly a team of sorts with a leader and a follower. This is seen easily even in gay and lesbian relationships; though the two consider themselves fully equal, one generally leads and the other generally follows. This is easily seen in the existence of “butchish” women and effeminate men. In these gay situations, who leads? For lack of a better term, the more “manly” of the two. This has been the pattern from the beginning. Some believe that man’s “dominance” over women was Eve’s part of the curse, during the fall. Ortlund states that, “It follows, in this view, that a woman’s redemption in Christ releases her from the punishment of male headship.” So if “male headship” was part of the curse, then why did God make them “male and female”? (Gen. 1:27) He did not have to make the difference of gender; humans could have been asexual beings: both completely equal to one another and completely similar. But He did. In Ortlund’s essay, he points out the following:

·1 God created Adam first and gave Adam charge over the garden.

·2 When the fall happened, God went to Adam first.

·3 It was clearly Adam’s responsibility to take care of the garden and keep it in order.

·4 Adam, the first and only male, had the sole leadership role. (95-112)

However, Ortlund also uses the pre- and post-fall episodes to carefully point out the inherent equality between male and female. He states this, “They [man and woman] are spiritually equal, which is quite sufficient a basis for mutual respect between the sexes. But the very fact that God created human beings in the dual modality of male and female cautions us against an unqualified equation of the two sexes,” (emphasis is mine, though he adds it later). (99) He goes to great pains to point this out, later stating, “There is no necessary relation between personal role and personal worth.” (111)

As a wise friend of mine pointed out, “Either way, in a team of two, one person is going to end up being more of a leader; why shouldn’t it be the one God intended all along?” Doesn’t this make since? But once again, it can never be correctly realized without a mutual understanding of the full equality of the genders. Both man and woman are completely equal, while at the same time full of God-ordained differences.

Conclusion:

Without an understanding of what a true gentleman should embody, there can be no understanding or apprehension of the idea of submission. The Bible never instructs women to submit to “barbarians.” And submission means nothing unless both manhood and leadership are defined. It is only once these terms are grasped and their false, ill-connotations rejected, that the biblical perspective can rightly fall into place and men can stand up and be the men that God has called them to be.

Works Cited

Most of the following sources were found through Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper.

Holy Bible, New International Version. International Bible Society, 1984. BibleGateway.com. Gospel Communications International. 23 Oct. 2005 .

Mathews, Donald G. Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA : a State and the Nation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Merriam‑Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam‑Webster, Incorporated, 2005. MERRIAM‑WEBSTER ONLINE. 23 Oct. 2005 .

Mohler, R. Albert. “Barbarians and Wimps: America’s Boy Problem” Commentary by R. Albert Mohler. 12 July 2004. 19 Oct. 2005 .

Mohler, R. Albert. “FIRST‑PERSON: Lesbians raising sons; got a problems with that?” BPNews 30 Dec. 2004. 20 Oct. 2005 .

Piper, John, and Wayne Grudem, eds. Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. Female Power and Male Dominance : on the Origins of Sexual Inequality. Cambridge, NY:Cambridge University Press, 1981.

*Although you may not believe it, this was recently edited to remove the most embarrassing grammatical and spelling errors.

LAKE DAY!

Today, the youth and I will be going to the lake!

For our little devotional for today (because it can't be "Christian" without at least mentioning God once*) we will be playing a game with watermelon.  The game includes either eating or digging into the watermelon to get at the seeds and then either spitting or throwing the seeds into cups with different values.  Some of the cups will be easy target and will be worth very little.  Some of them will be harder and worth more.  At least one of them will be worth almost all the points and will also be almost impossible to hit.

The point of the game is... life.  What life targets do you aim for?  Are some easier than others?  Are some close to impossible?  Do you go for the things which are attainable and less risky, but which offer a more assured reward?

Enter Matthew 13:44-45, where Jesus states:

“The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure that somebody hid in a field, which someone else found and covered up. Full of joy, the finder sold everything and bought that field. 

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls.  When he found one very precious pearl, he went and sold all that he owned and bought it.

It makes me think of that news story from May were a couple found a huge trove of gold coins on their property.  Who hasn't at least considered wondering how long they had owned the property???  Can you imagine finding that, but not owning the field?  What would you have done to buy the field?!?  I think anything shy of $10,000,000 would have been too little a price for that field if you knew ahead of time what was in it.

SO... if that's what the Kingdom of Heaven is like... then what are you willing to do to acquire it?


I dare say it's worth reading a little in the Bible every day.  Maybe spending a little time in prayer with Someone Who loves you.  Maybe giving a tithe? Or more?  Yeah... it's probably worth it.



*For irony, see the book of Esther.

A Gay Parable

Here's an "outrageous" article for Christians to ponder.  Click the link if you care to read the whole thing.  But if you haven't heard this parable, please take time to read the rest of my post.  I got it from a wonderful sister-in-law.

Colorado Baker Forced to Make Wedding Cakes for Gay Couples

The Gay Parable

That article illustrates one half of that parable.  The baker that doesn't want to participate in a ceremony that goes against his beliefs... ending in a lawsuit or worse.  He feels justified in his outrage; his personal beliefs are being deeply violated.

But the other half is another Christian baker who once he finds out the cake is for a gay couple, continues as planned with the cake and on delivery gives them a note that reads similarly to this:

"Your cake is free.  You may or may not have realized it, but I believe a life of homosexuality goes against the happiness God has planned for all of us.  That said, I want you to know that this cake is not a picture of my agreement with your marriage, but rather a picture of my deep love for both of you.  My desire is for that love to be an accurate representation of God's love for you and me; He loves us long before we ever make it to perfection.  I hope you enjoy the cake and I pray that God will show you grace, peace, and deep love in your life as he has already shown me."

My belief is the second of the two bakers is a better picture of God's love than the piousness of the first.  While the first baker was well within his rights of free speech as an American, I don't believe he was acting in a spirit of servanthood or Christ-likeness.

For a friend--and for anyone else that needs it.

God is helping you a thousand times more than you are humanly capable of realizing.  There is nothing wrong with you feeling far from God or feeling like God doesn't care about you.  We all feel like that sometimes.  But let me encourage you to speak truth as much as you can.

In other words, you feel like God's not helping you, but you KNOW the truth of the Bible that God has promised to be a friend to the broken hearted.  Since you KNOW that truth (even though at times we don't feel that truth, then speak that TRUTH instead of repeating the lies that Satan is telling you.

Satan says you are alone and that God has given up on you.  But God says you are highly treasured and that He would do anything, to include giving up His own life to have a closer relationship with you.

So speak truth!  Say both in your heart and aloud, "God cares deeply for me."  It won't change your situation, but if you keep at it, it will change you.

It's just like Paul said:

"The one who sows to please their sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction (more discouragement and broken heartedness).  But the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life!  THEREFOR, do NOT become weary in doing good... for at the proper time, we WILL receive a harvest if we do not give up!"

YES!!!!! YES! and AMEN! :)

CAMP! (and a little soapboxing)

What's big, bright and yellow and comes each morning to brighten a mother's day???

The school bus.

Sadly, mothers the country over will have to find something else to make them happy for the next few months.  Schools out, or at least it will be a week from this Friday.  What are our little Methodist youth* going to be doing this summer?  We're going to CAMP!!!!  Woot-woot!

This summer there are at least three camps that FUMC students will be involved in.  Coming the first week in June is our District Youth Camp at Egen, for me and any high schooler (including incoming freshmen).  Immediately following that--the second week of June--I leave to go to TWEENS Camp for pre-teens.  Fun,  fun. :)  Finally, the last week of June, we have a couple students who will be signing up for CYME Leadership Camp for high schoolers who desire to be student leaders.  FUMC does a great job of financially encouraging their youth to sign up for camp; the church pays the first $100 for any children's or youth camp, and no kid is turned away because they can't pay.  I'm REALLY proud** of this church for their strong stance on youth camp.  I've already had a couple, ehhmm older folks make sure I knew they were ready to help student's who couldn't pay.  They obviously know how life-changing it can be!

~~

On the choral side of things, I was also very proud*** of the choir last night!  We went rehearsed a song with an African ostinato feel as well as some very modern songs like Oceans by Hillsong UNITED.  Furthermore, they did a little bit of improv and I was surprised at how well they took to it.

And here comes the soapbox... :)

As a side note, can I just say that worship is something that is important to practice!  I'm not talking about the music part, which is also important to practice.  I'm talking about worship itself.  I believe too often we get in the habit of thinking that in order for a choir or praise band to be effective worship leaders all they need to do is practice the songs to be used.  And whether or not that's our thinking, our doing definitely backs it up.  But we as worship leaders**** should be in the habit of practicing worship.  Part of each rehearsal should be spent worshiping our Lord and Savior. Pure and simple.  Not practicing music.  Not getting notes right or fixing rhythms.  Just worship.  And if in order to be ready to perform we need to practice our instrument at home by ourselves... then how much more should we also be practicing worship on our own?

God, help me to be a more effective worship leader.  Help me to lead my leaders in being true worshipers.  Teach me.  How else will I be able to teach them?  I need You.

* I'd rather say "our little Methies" but something about that just doesn't seem right.

** As if I had anything to do with it.

*** This time I did actually have something to do with it.

**** EVERYONE ON STAGE SUNDAY MORNING IS A WORSHIP LEADER!!!!  And I'm sorry, I know 4 asterisks are a little much.  They're just so fun!*******************************************

Change: it's such a loaded word

Change is change.

It's neither good nor bad.  One can change for the better just as much as they can change for the worse.

Change usually comes with a price.  Sometimes it's very difficult and sometimes its difficulties are small and insignificant; but it always costs something.  Even when the cost is well worth the reward.

Recently, I've experienced a good deal of change.  I've moved from Tennessee to Oklahoma; from hills to flat; and, from a large house to a trailer. By the way, I love my Airstream!

I've also changed from being a grad-student and high school teacher to full time ministry in Music and Youth.  I've changed from working at a Baptist church (a quick shout out to all my Dwight friends I miss so dearly!) to a return to my first denomination of employment: the United Methodist Church.

Thankfully, I have been welcomed with arms wide open here in Miami.  The people of First UMC have bent over backwards to pave my path here.  I've had meals bought for me and helping hands right when I've needed them.  The staff here has also warmly welcomed me by helping get me settled and accustomed to my new work.  They've also gladly picked up my slack as I learn the new ropes!  I couldn't have asked for a kinder set of people.

~

Another thing about change: living things have to change.  Something simply cannot stay the same and stay alive.  So... in that since: it's good to change.  We just have to make sure we're changing for the better.

I pray that in my walk with God and in my leadership of those who I have the responsibility to shepherd I will continue to change and to engender change.  And I pray that the measure of that change will keep step with the Holy Spirit and His work in my life and not with my own ability to "seek and destroy" those things which I think need to be changed.  God guide me!  I need You as I make these changes and as I grow and stretch according to the ways You show me.

My Stand on Select Contemporary Moral Issues

 As a pre-note to all this, allow me to point out my view on sin in general. I believe that God looks at sin in our lives in the same way a parent views a toddler touching a hot stove. He hates sin because He knows it will destroy us. In the church we often look at sin differently, as if its mere existence will ruin God’s reputation. My God is all-powerful and will not be ruined.

On earth, Jesus cared for the sinner and discussed them as needing a doctor. When we as a church care more about the existence of sin than we do the people who that sin is primarily hurting (the sinners), I believe we aren’t acting with Christ’s compassion. In the same vein, while all sin is equal in that it separates us from God, each sin has its own consequences. Parents do not view a toddler touching a hot stove the same as them playing with a loaded gun. Similarly, I believe God views some sins as being more severe than others, for the sake of our own spiritual safety. While all sin leads to death, some do so much more quickly.

Also, it’s important for me to state that I recognize I am a sinner. I’m no better than a bum on the street or a murderer. Except for God’s grace, that’s exactly what I would be.


Abortion
Abortion stops a human life that is genetically distinct from that of the mother. In my eyes this is no different than killing an innocent human being. Ironically it is often committed by someone who is scared and pressured into feeling like she has no other choice. We shouldn’t ignore the intense pressures felt by a mother who is contemplating abortion. She is in much greater need of encouragement than condemnation.


Divorce
God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). Similarly, doctors hate amputations. There may be situations where a husband or wife has the spiritual right to a divorce. And at times it truly may be the "best" option; but just like amputation, it is never a good option. It almost always brings more pain and brokenness than the situation already contains.


Pre-marital sex
This is a form of extra-marital sex (a.k.a. adultery) and is forbidden by God. I have no doubt that He forbade it because it sets up a budding relationship for failure and heartache. In a very simple sense, it allows the man to get what he is looking for without committing to the woman or giving her any sort of security in exchange.


Homosexuality
This is a sin forbidden by God multiple places in scripture. Although some may argue that it is lustful homosexuality that’s forbidden and not homosexuality itself, I find this to be an extremely evasive and week argument. Interestingly, someone might describe themselves as a homosexual even though they have never acted in a lude manner with another man. But remember in God’s economy, temptation is not the same as sin.
Also, this is almost the same sin as pre-marital sex, pornography, or erotic literature. All of these sins seek to destroy the pure and holy ecstasy God designed for a man and a woman to share in the safety of the marriage bed.


Addictions
God desires for us to live a life free from all other masters. We are not to be slaves to anything other than to Christ. Addictions to tobacco, prescription or illegal drugs, alcohol, or pornography are all forms of slavery. Addictions keep us from pursuing Him fully and slowly eat up our life. He longs for us to live an abundant life. Ask an addict what type of life they are living and few will describe it as "abundant." If they realize how hard it is to stop, they sadly might use words like, "surviving," "depressed," or even, "suicidal." God gives us boundaries and rules because He doesn’t want His children to deal with needless hardship.