If you haven’t heard(like me), Richard Land, an SBC ethicist and radio talk show host, recently made some comments on the Trayvon Martin case and race. Now, before getting into the comments themselves, let me say that I really don’t have any dog in this hunt. I’ve read all the public facts on the Trayvon Martin case, and I don’t really know what to say about it. Was it cold-blooded murder? Probably not. Was it an avoidable killing? Absolutely. Was Zimmerman right to eventually use his gun? That remains to be seen, but my own guess is no. Do I listen to Richard Land? No. If I want to listen to political talk radio, there’s always Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck, all of whom are way more entertaining than Land. I do have a dislike for Land, but that is because he and guys like Beck(and the preachers I grew up around) are constantly trying to wrap Jesus up in the American flag, and are far more concerned with politics than they are with Jesus Christ and His mission. Or at least that is how he seems to be. But I always try to give all parties a fair hearing. And I read Richard Land’s post carefully, to see what problems there are with it, if any.

To start with, much of what Richard Land has had to say on the Trayvon Martin case has been plagarized. This is an odd thing for an ethicist to do, especially a Christian ethicist. Land’s comments primarily focused on what he titled “race-baiting” in the case, accusing men like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson of fanning the fires of racial hatred. Now, whether or not that is true, that is not the point of my blog post. Richard Land is more of a political commentator, than a commentator on religious issues. Rather than being a servant of Christ and attempting to promote peace and unity in this situation, Land chose to go for the easy shot against those he perceives as political enemies.

Now, as a white man, I think that many white people tend to view accusations of racism and hate crimes quite differently than minorities. Why? Because most of us have never really experienced racism. And most of us don’t particularly think of ourselves as being “racist”, or “prejudiced”. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have prejudices. We do. Just like most people. Think about it, if you drive by “the ghetto”, how do you view most people living in that neighborhood? If you drive by a trailer park, how do you view the people there? What if you drive by an upper-class neighborhood? Or in a neighborhood like Spanish Harlem? Many of us look at people who are different than us, either ethnically, economically, religiously, or whatever, and our initial reaction is to pigeonhole those people and class them together with our general attitude about those people.

It’s a sinful attitude, when we look at a class of people and view them in a light based on our preconceived notions about that class. If we are suspicious of somebody we encounter who appears or is Arabic, and suspect them of being a terrorist, that’s sinful. If we walk through the store, see an African-American youth walking in our direction, and clutch our purse tighter or put our hands on our wallet, that’s sinful. If we see a white man wearing a NASCAR t-shirt and suspect them of being a racist redneck, that’s sinful. If we see an Hispanic family at Wal-Mart and suspect them of being illegals and think “let’s send them back to Mexico”, that’s sinful. If we see a rich man and think “he got his money through dishonest means”, that’s sinful. If we see a person buying groceries with food stamps and think “they’re milking the system and are lazy”, that’s sinful. Making a judgment about a person based on where they are ethnically, economically, religiously, or however else, is sinful. Absolutely sinful.

So now we’ve got that out of the way. And this is important, because Richard Land later made comments that justified the idea that being worried about a black man over a white man is an unfortunate, but legitimate concern.

Land says he stands by his assertion that President Barack Obama “poured gasoline on the racialist fires” when he addressed Martin’s slaying and that Obama, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton have used the case “to try to gin up the black vote for an African American president who is in deep, deep, deep trouble for re-election.”

Land, who is white, said in an interview he has no regrets about his remarks. He said he understands why the case has touched a nerve among black leaders, but he also defended the idea that people are justified in seeing young black men as threatening: A black man is “statistically more likely to do you harm than a white man.”

“Is it tragic that people react that way? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes? But it is understandable,” he said.

Now, regardless of the accuracy of Land’s statement above, it’s still a bad statement to make. Suppose that Land’s statement that a black man is “statistically more likely to do you harm than a white man” is actually true. What’s the point of making the statement? Isn’t Land here, essentially doing the same thing that he is accusing Sharpton and Jackson of doing? Trying to make out “that other ethnic group” as being somehow the enemy. But are Land’s statements true? I’m sure his statement could be argued. I’m sure that one could use statistics either way. Personally, I don’t care which way the statistics go. Crime is a problem, because sin is a problem. Some crimes are found more often among one ethnicity than in another. Statistically, you’re more likely to be murdered by a serial killer who is a white male than who is a black male. Statistically, if you are reading this and you’re white, you’re more likely to be killed by a white person than by a black person. It’s sin that is the issue, not race or ethnicity.

So really, let’s not pull out endless statistics about race and crime in the United States. It’s not important. What is important is that Richard Land made horrible comments, that really need to be addressed. Notice that Land said that this is simply a case of black leaders trying to “gin up the vote for Obama” among black people. Was it a necessary comment? Was it helpful? Did it add meaningful insight to the issue of Trayvon Martin’s killing? Or did it simply add fuel to the fire of those who see what is going on and say “this is all race-baiting without all the facts of what happened”? This was simply a case of another political commentator being ignorant in what he had to say. Like Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher, Land simply said something indefensible. But then Land decided to defend what he said, and piled more fuel on the fire by making the statement that a “black man is more likely to do you harm than a white man”. How on earth does that help? If you’re wanting to genuinely talk about racial issues, making statements like this doesn’t help.

Now, I know that Richard Land helped to push the SBC towards making an official apology to African-Americans some years ago. So what? Does that somehow exempt him from making dumb, stupid, sinful statements later on in his career?

One of the biggest problems with this, has been the noticable silence from other SBC voices on this. Richard Land is not exactly small potatoes in the SBC. He’s a major player, and has been for some time. For this reason, I would argue that major SBC voices need to publicly repudiate Land’s statements, and call him to repentance. Richard Land wasn’t engaging in conversation about race issues, he was taking a political position. He wasn’t discussing the case, he was taking a stand on how he viewed it, and firing at anybody who disagreed. In doing what he did, Richard Land has embarrassed many Southern Baptists, including myself. Richard Land really needs to step back and think about what he said and why he said it. I don’t believe this was something Jesus would have said. And I’m not perfect, I don’t always say what Jesus would say. But what I see here, is a proud man refusing to back down from comments that were wrong to make. I really hope that Richard Land is not representative of most Southern Baptists, because he’s certainly not representing me. But the problem is, as I said before, Richard Land is a major voice in the SBC. And for that reason, other major voices in the Convention need to come out and speak on this. Somebody like Al Mohler, Russell Moore, Bryan White, or even Fred Luter(the man thought to become the next president of the SBC-and the first African-American president).

Richard Land isn’t representative of the Southern Baptists I know. He isn’t representative of me. I hope, quite honestly, that somebody other than African-American pastors I haven’t heard of decides to step up to the plate and take on Land’s comments. They are a disgrace not only to the convention, but they also represent the Lord Jesus Christ very, very poorly. In fact, they don’t represent Christ at all. Land is speaking from his own heart, from his own prejudices. Not from Scripture, not from Christ, and not from God.

For those who read this blog who don’t know me personally, you may be a little surprised to find out that at thirty years old I’ve been hospitalized close to a dozen times(number is probably higher than a dozen), had three major surgeries, a stroke, heart attacks, atrial fibrillation, and bleeding ulcers. I had my first surgery at age 3, my second at 16, and my third at age 25. My last surgery was open heart surgery, to replace my mitral valve. Since my valve replacement, I’ve been in the hospital on average once a year.

In August of last year, I went into the hospital because I was in superventriculartachycardia, brought on by atrial flutter. In October, I had an ablation, a medical procedure that cauterizes a small bit of tissue within the heart to stop atrial flutter. In early March, I went back into the hospital for the same problem. While in the hospital, one of the doctors thought I may have pnuemonia. So besides my heart doctor, I also had an infectious disease specialist looking at me, and a hematologist who gave me a blood workup to try to find the cause of all my illnesses. After leaving the hospital, I had an appointment set up with the hematologist at his clinic, a clinic that mostly specializes in cancer treatment. He discovered that I probably have(we need one more test in June to confirm the diagnosis) Lupus Anticoagulant, an autoimmune disorder that attacks my blood cells(among other things, and causes migraine headaches which is a frequent problem for me). This is probably the reason for all of my major surgeries. Also, I learned that I have something on one of my lungs, which we are going to be keeping an eye on for the next year or so. It’s possible that it’s a bit of scar tissue from an infection, but it’s entirely possible that it’s something else(cancer). It wasn’t on any CT scans last year, so, who knows what it is. If it grows, then we know we have a problem.

Today, I spent time with my cardiologist, and we decided to perform another ablation. My doctor doesn’t want me to stay on this drug I was put on in the hospital, a fairly powerful drug designed to keep my heart in a proper rhythm, but that is also worse for my liver than a daily shot of whiskey. And the drug is fairly expensive, about half a week’s paycheck for a month’s supply.
In any event, I expect to be a fairly poor man again this year. I just can’t seem to find a job that pays well in this economy, especially with a bum ticker as well as another job impediment. I owe more money to hospital stays than 99% of people owe on the vehicles owned by their family. The other 1% would be people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.

It’s really quite frustrating for me. I could deal with the once-a-decade major medical problems. Those were nothing to me. But over the past few years, I’ve been getting frustrated with all the expense of the hospital stays, and the medical problems I’ve been having. I can’t get insurance, really haven’t been able to get on any. Or the stuff I can get costs more than I make. I think to myself “Really God? Why can’t you pick on somebody else?! It’s not fair! Why do I always have to be the one who is in pain, who winds up in the hospital, who has to owe gobs of money, who hurts? Why me?”

A few weeks ago, I went on a mission trip with my college and career group at church to East TN. One night, we sat around talking about Acts 12. We spoke about how God allowed James to be killed, but broke Peter out of prison. As we sat there talking about it, I started thinking about the passage. I thought about how it’s not always God’s will to free us from our circumstances. God let James be killed, but released Peter. Why? Because God had a purpose in it. His plan for Peter’s ministry went on longer than His plans for James’ ministry. And as I thought on the passage, I discovered that I was identifying myself with James. I feel like God desires for me to remain in this place, rather than to release me by healing me here and now. As much as I would love to be released from my circumstances, like Peter was, it seems that God’s plan for me, at least for now, is to be James.

As I’ve spent more time thinking about the subject, it also occurred to me that God will heal me, that it’s always God’s plan to heal His children. Now, don’t get concerned that I’m going off on some “faith healer” tangent here. See, I believe that God heals in three ways. First, He can and does heal miraculously, through divine intervention.(See Acts 3, where God uses Peter and John to heal a lame man, to allow Peter and John to draw an audience in order to preach the Gospel). Second, God uses medicine to heal(see 1 Timothy 5 where Paul instructs Timothy to drink a little wine for medicinal purposes). Some people into the word of faith nonsense claim that God doesn’t heal through medicine. But see, I believe that medicine exists because of God, and that God sometimes wills to heal people through medicine. Third, God heals by taking His people home to be with Him. In Revelation 21:4, God promises that there will come a time where there is no more sorrow, no more pain.

God’s plan for His children, is that we will eventually be healed from all our diseases. Our sickness exists for a couple of reasons. Because of the Fall, we have sickness and death. Sickness will always exist here on this present earth. But our sickness also exists because God allows it. Look at the story of Job, and how God permitted Satan to attack Job. God knew what Satan would do. But God allowed Satan to attack Job, in order to eventually purge Job of pride, and to show Himself righteous and mighty. God allows sickness in the life of His children for specific purposes. It might be to purge us of sin. It might be so that we can better be witnesses of Christ, and so that we can tell of His goodness in our suffering. It might be so that we cherish Christ more. There are any variety of reasons why God might allow sickness and suffering in our lives.
My problem, is that while I intellectually know all this, I struggle really feeling this in my heart. Too often my emotions get in the way, and argue with me about the pain and suffering I’m going through. I struggle with seeing God’s hand, with knowing that God loves me. And I struggle with loving God through it all. I struggle with treasuring Christ above my health and well-being. But I thank God that my love for Him does not determine His love for me. He loves me even when I struggle with loving Him. He is faithful to me, even when I am faithless. Look at Hebrews 11, the Hall of Faith, look at the names included. People who through faith conquered kingdoms, but who sometimes were faithless to God. Gideon, Samson, even David who committed adultery and murdered a woman’s husband. But God was still faithful. And even when I struggle with being faithful to God, God is still faithful to me.

God has continually provided for me in my sickness. I still have a job. I still have friends, family. I have a roof over my head, and food to eat. Maybe I can’t afford a better car that I’ll soon need yet. But mine still runs with over 200,000 miles on it. He has provided for me with a church family who willingly prays for me. I can still read, I can write. I can walk, I can run(sort of). And God may be allowing my sickness and pain, but He is a good Father, and this can only be good for me. I don’t know what He has in store, but it is for my benefit. So praise the Lord, O my soul, praise His name. For He is good, He is righteous, He is merciful, He is holy, He is just, He will provide. Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for my Lord is with me. His rod and staff comfort me. Let Him purge that from my life which is hindering my relationship with Him. May my sickness draw me closer to my Lord. May I be more useful to my Lord because of what I am going through.

Some further material:
Don’t Waste Your Cancer

The Resurrection and The Life
The Revelation of God in Suffering
Death, Disease, and the Gospel
The Faithful Endurance of Suffering

Here is a question for any pastors who read this blog, or anybody else in general. Would you be comfortable with an individual who is a Calvinist being a part of your church? Would you allow him to join, or only attend? Could he take part in ministry, or not? Does it depend on the individual? Please vote, and pass it along to your friends.

Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
(Col 3:9-11 KJV)

I was thinking this week, while I was listening to some music. I’m a big fan of country music, I enjoy Nascar and the Rodeo. I enjoy southern Gospel, Bluegrass Gospel, and Country Gospel. I’m more comfortable around a crowd of rednecks, typically, then I am around any other group of people. A few years ago, you’d have only found me hanging out with a bunch of rednecks. I didn’t care to hang around people who weren’t like me. I guess most people are like that, if we’re honest with ourselves. And as I was thinking about this, it occurred to me that most of my current friends aren’t anywhere close to being rednecks. Some of them prefer to listen to Christian rap(which I confess a fondness for as well, compared to most genres of Christian music), some of them to Hillsong, or Chris Tomlin, or Matt Redman. Some of them like punk rock, and some like Justin Bieber. Some are more into dining at restaurants I don’t like, or shop at stores that I consider snooty and pretentious. Some of them read crappy literature, and some barely crack a book open.

Some of these people that I consider among my closest friends, aren’t anything like me. In fact, they’re sometimes the opposite. Some of them are much younger. Some of them are talented musicians(I’m not). So why do I hang out with these people? Why do I spend my time with people who are nothing like me, who enjoy crappy films or listen to music I can’t stand? Why do I hang out with people who wouldn’t go with me to a country concert or a pro rodeo?

The answer is simple. We’ve got something in common far more important than musical tastes, clothing styles, and entertainment preferences. We’ve got Jesus Christ. That makes us family. It makes us closer than family in some cases. My best friend who I grew up with, a man that I can say that I love, he and I don’t have that in common. And even though I would enjoy going to a concert or out to dinner with that old boy, I wouldn’t enjoy our time together like I do with my friends who love Jesus. And even though some of these people drive me nuts at times, they’re my family. They’re my best friends. Christ brought us together into His family, where we are children of God. Being a Christian really is like being a member of a family. I think I’m the crazy and cranky uncle usually in this family, and there are the weird aunts, senile old men, overenthusiastic young people, and we’re all family. We are all in Christ. And that’s all that is needed. I still love country, wearing flannel shirts, big trucks, Wrangler jeans, white-tipped cigars, George Jones, and hanging out with rednecks. But I’d rather hang out with my brothers and sisters in Christ, even if they’re nothing like me. That’s my crowd.

I’ve been thinking on this for a few months now, what are good priorities to have in seeking a new church. Primarily, I have been thinking on this because I have been prayerfully considering leaving my current church. I won’t get into the why I’m leaving my church here, but I think that my reasoning is sound. I hesitated at first, when I thought of leaving my church. I’ve been with this church for a few years now. It’s been a place where I’ve grown spiritually, where I’ve met good Christian friends who love the Lord and who have encouraged me in my walk with the Lord. It’s a church that loves evangelism and missions, and places a high priority on those things. But there are other things, that have caused me to desire fellowship elsewhere.

So now, I’m seeking a new church. I’ve made a list of various churches in my area that I would like to visit over the next few months, or several months, however long it takes. I’ve been creating a spreadsheet, that will feature what I’m looking for in a church, what I think is a priority, and also some preferences, and how these churches “measure up”. Of course, the spreadsheet alone won’t make the decision for me. It may be that while seeking a new church family, I find one that doesn’t necessarily measure up to my spreadsheet but is a great fit for me anyway. Just as I’ve prayed for wisdom in leaving my church, I’m now praying for wisdom in seeking a church.

Here are some things I consider a priority:

1. Solid Biblical teaching and preaching. This is major. I don’t want to go to a church that simply preaches from the Bible, about Christ. But one that preaches Christ, and preaches Scripture. I don’t want to go to a church that teaches me that I have to try harder, that I have to do better, that I have to be better. I don’t want moralism. I don’t want legalism.

2. Being doctrinally sound. This one is a biggie, I don’t want a church that is waffly on doctrine, or that has faulty theology. I’ve been in those churches before, it’s not a good place to be. It helps if they are Reformed in their doctrine, and they must be Baptistic. No paedobaptism, thank you very much.

3. Provided I someday get married, this church should be a place where I would want my wife and children to learn about God and Jesus Christ. I can’t be a part of a church where I have to go home and explain what was wrong with what was taught from the pulpit every Sunday. I want my church to be my partner in teaching my family about Christ. While I would primarily be responsible for preaching the Gospel to my family, my church should be helping me in that. Just like I should be helping my church in preaching the Gospel. I want a church that will help teach me to teach the Gospel to my family.

4. Has to be a place where I can help serve in some way. I don’t want to be a pew warmer. I want to help in any way I can. At the same time, I don’t want to be overloaded with responsibility and work. I’ve been there before, and that can burn you out. But I don’t want to just be a “member”, where being a member really doesn’t require anything.

5. Understands and is willing to practice Biblical church discipline. Too many churches today don’t. I want a church that loves people enough, and where the leaders love the flock enough, to practice church discipline.

What I consider a preference:

1. The use of hymns. Now, every song doesn’t need to be a grand old hymn from 200 years ago. But it’s nice to have them, to sing them. I could care less about singing “I could sing of your love forever(27 times until it seems like forever)”, but give me a song that has meaning and depth and substance. The hymns have that. Hymns like “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God”, or “The Love of God”. But don’t necessarily leave out modern hymns like “In Christ Alone”. I love good Christian music that has sound theology(sidenote: the music must have sound theology, whether modern or old. That’s a priority). Music has the ability to shape the theology of the church. For further information on this point, check out the book “Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns”.

2. The use of hymnals(super-preference!). This is just one that would make me super-happy at a church. I love using songbooks during the music at church. I can sort of read music, and I know by looking at a songbook when I’m supposed to sing higher or lower. I prefer to sing harmony over melody. Project screens are fine and all, but not nearly as much fun as an entire congregation singing in harmony. Melody gets old after a while.

3. Has a standard translation for teaching and preaching. I’m not saying that they need to be KJV-Only, or ESV-Only, but I think it does something for a church when they say “in our teaching and preaching, we are primarily going to be using the _________ Translation.” Why? Because it kind of keeps everybody on the same page. Further, it encourages the memorization of Scripture. It is, I think, easier for the children of the church, and even the older folks, to memorize Scripture when their church is on the same translation.

These are just a few things that I’ve been considering. I’ve struggled long with this decision. I don’t want to simply be a “consumer”, and I don’t want to treat the church with a Consumerist Mentality. I don’t want to just say “well, the church isn’t doing this thing that *I* would like them to do, so it’s no good.”

Here are a couple links to check out on this:
When should I leave my church?-Tim Challies
What things should I look for in a church?-CARM
When to leave a church.-RC Sproul

Last night, I stayed up way past the normal time I turn in, reading a new Christian novel e-book that I found out about on Twitter, called Knox’s Irregulars by J. Wesley Bush. I was immediately intrigued, because it was Christian science fiction. It is rare that I read modern Christian novels, and even rarer that I enjoy them. I am a lover of classical literature, and most modern novels, particularly Christian novels, don’t really stand up well next to the classics. However, I was pleasantly surprised with Knox’s Irregulars.

Knox’s Irregulars is set in the 25th century, on a distant planet that humans have colonized. There are two groups of humans inhabiting the planet, the New Genevans, a small group of Reformed Christians and others living on the south end of the planet’s continent. The other group is the Abkhenazi, a much larger people group, whose religion and politics could best be described as a cobbling together of New-Age spirituality, Islam, Marxism and Nazism.

The Abkhenazi group is rather poorly off, economically, because of their political/religious reasons. As we see in Islamic and Marxist nations, the people always suffer greatly due to the political and religious views of those nations. But their soldiers fight with the fanatical devotion we see from Islamic fighters and the Nazi soldiers. Further, they attempt to engineer evolution in humans through experiments on their prisoners and subjects, something we’ve seen from Nazism.

The New Genevans, on the other hand, are a mostly Christian group, primarily Reformed Christian(read: Calvinist), although there are those who don’t adhere to Christianity in their midst. They tend to be more prosperous than their Abkhenazi, promoting jealous from their neighbors. What the Genevans lack in sheer force, they tend to make up for in technology. But technology isn’t everything when one is greatly outnumbered.

When war starts between New Geneva and the Abkhenazi, Corporal Randal Knox is forced to take the lead of a ragtag band of survivors who make it past the first clash with the Abkhenazi, and who are now attempting to make it back to the main force of the army. When this small band of survivors finally makes it to the primary city where the main force of the army was supposed to be, the Abkhenazi now occupy that city and are keeping the New Genevans prisoner. Knox is faced with a decision, attempt to make it back to the army much farther south, or attempt to get the underground milita groups working together to defeat the Abkhenazi. Knox is also drawn to the young medic that is part of his group, a beautiful young woman, and attempts to begin a relationship with her.

The writing in this book draws you in and engages you. The author is evidently a well-read man, judging by his use of different philosphers and thinkers and mentions of historical events. It has always been my experience that the best authors are men who read well, and this book would seem to prove my point. His characters have depth, although the author doesn’t go into needlessly long detail about who his characters are and what they do. Not only is the story engaging, the characters realistic, but there is also a bit of theological work in here, making it much more interesting for those of us who are Christians. I would strongly recommend this e-book for a read, particularly if you enjoy science-fiction. If you don’t, this book would still be enjoyable for you I think. It’s worth every penny you spend on it, and more.

Kevin DeYoung recently blogged a little about the state of Christian men and marriage, and I’d like to offer my own thoughts as well on this. While Kevin did make some good points, he also made some really lousy ones(in my opinion) as well. This is just a bit of a response to a hot button topic.

Go to almost any church and you’ll meet mature, intelligent, attractive Christian women who want to get married and virtually no men to pursue them. These women are often in graduate programs and may have started a career already. But they aren’t feminists. They are eager to embrace the roles of wife and mother. Most of the women I’ve met don’t object to the being a helpmate. There just doesn’t seem to be a lot of mates to go around.

What’s going on here? Why are there so many unmarried, college graduated, serious-about-Christ, committed-to-the-church, put-together young women who haven’t found a groom, and don’t see any possibilities on the horizon?

Well, for one thing, there’s a lot less Christian men in the church than there are Christian women. Let’s not forget that little factoid. Men, quite simply, aren’t going to church. Churches tend to cater to women. There are conferences for women, women’s bible studies, women’s retreats, women’s ministries, special events for women. Men’s ministries usually consist of the prayer and pancake breakfast, a wild game supper once every year or two, and possibly a men’s retreat every few years. Plus, men, “manly men”, just aren’t comfortable in church. Let’s face it, the soft, “I’m so in love with Jesus or my boyfriend/girlfriend-you-can’t-really-tell” music that has invaded Christian churches today just isn’t very manly. The men who are in church, are usually men who have grown up in church. It’s part of their culture, and they know their place. Men can’t be men, typically, within the church. As a result, there are far fewer men within the church. and that’s at least part of the reason that women aren’t able to find men in their church.

Maybe women have impossible standards. That is a distinct possibility in some circumstances. I’m sure there are guys reading this thinking to themselves, “I’ve pursued these young women, Kevin! And they pushed me over the edge of the horizon.” Some women may be expecting too much from Mr. Right. But in my experience this is not the main problem. Impossible standards? Not usually. Some standards? Absolutely.

In my experience Kevin, this is the main problem. I’m probably not the most attractive guy in the world, but I’m certainly not a three or four either. I don’t think anyway. I could be wrong. I’ve been in a number of churches in my life, and I’ve asked out some women…or girls…here and there. Usually, I get turned down. I usually find out that I’m stuck in the “friend zone”. Which, as any guy knows, once you get into the friend zone it’s easier to break out of the earth’s gravity pull than to get out of the friend zone. And let’s face it, in church, you’re kind of trained to “be friends” and “treat everybody like a brother or sister”. And so the cycle becomes self-repeating. Women say they are looking for men, but are they really? Ladies, are you really looking for a man? What is it exactly that you are looking for? Because us guys have no clue. We hear you say “I’m looking for a man”, but then when we ask you out, it’s “well, I’m just kind of content to be single right now”…two weeks later somebody better looking comes along and your contentedness flies out the window when he asks you out. Or, you say you’re looking for a man, but the guys you typically date are boys. Yeah, don’t think we don’t notice, we do. And we think to ourselves “Why is she out with him? What’s wrong with me? I’m a better man than that, I think. I actually go to church already, I’m planted in the Word, I’m working right alongside you in ministry. What’s wrong with me?”

First, the Christian men that are “good guys” could use a little–what’s the word I’m looking for–ambition. Every pastor has railed on video games at some point. But the problem is not really video games, it’s what gaming can (but doesn’t always) represent. It’s the picture of a 20something or 30something guy who doesn’t seem to want anything out of life. He may or may not have a job. He may or may not live with his parents. Those things are sometimes out of our control. There’s a difference between a down-on-his-luck fella charging hard to make something out of himself and a guy who seems content to watch movies, make enough to eat frozen pizzas in a one room apartment, play Madden, watch football 12 hours on Saturday, show up at church for an hour on Sunday and then go home to watch more football.

I think we need to be a bit more careful here Kevin, gaming is much more representative of things than you might think. I read a study recently(in the past year), that I can’t find for the life of me now that I need it, that puts a different spin on this. We live in a culture that is largely devoid of any sort of a clear definition of what it means to be a man. Hebrew boys begin their path to manhood at age 13. Once they hit that age, their life changes, and they focus more on becoming a man. Native American tribes had different rituals for boys to become men. Societies all across the world have had something, where a village would say “alright, these boys are now men once they do this or hit this age or whatnot”. Guys today don’t know what to do. We don’t have any really clear idea of what it means to be a man, and we aren’t taught anything. This is why guys tend to get involved in sports and video gaming. You get to progress through different levels, you can get achievements, you can accomplish something either in sports or video games that you can’t necessarily do in your everyday life outside of those things. Now, granted, this is no excuse for men spending all of their weekends gaming. But this study did explain a little why psychologically gaming made guys feel something that isn’t necessarily offered by society. Granted, gaming can become addictive. Or it can just be a little more than need be for a guy to participate in at times. I get that, I really do, and guys who spend all their time doing things like that are in the wrong. But ladies, aren’t there really some things that you do that guys just cannot identify with and like? Like, for example, spending all day at the mall or otherwise shopping. For stuff you don’t need. Really? And you think your boyfriend/husband really wants to spend all day shopping with you? Maybe some do, but guys just don’t see the point. Especially if you don’t have a clear idea of what you want to buy.

I don’t think young women are expecting Mr. Right to be a corporate executive with two houses, three cars, and a personality like Dale Carnegie. They just want a guy with some substance. A guy with plans. A guy with some intellectual depth. A guy who can winsomely take initiative and lead a conversation. A guy with consistency. A guy who no longer works at his play and plays with his faith. A guy with a little desire to succeed in life. A guy they can imagine providing for a family, praying with the kids at bedtime, mowing the lawn on Saturday, and being eager to take everyone to church on Sunday. Where are the dudes that will grow into men?

And I think men…real men…want some women with substance. A woman who can discuss the Bible–and not Beth Moore’s interpretation of the Bible[sidenote: No Beth Moore in my home. There, I said it. Beth Moore and her moralism will not be allowed in my home. Ever.] I(yes, this is me speaking my own preferences here) want a woman who can engage in *intelligent conversation* about anything from politics, to history, to Scripture, to whatever. I love to read. I love to read classical literature, NOT THIS TWILIGHT GARBAGE THAT HAS INFECTED OUR CHURCHES LIKE THE PLAGUE. There, I got that off my chest. I want a woman who can read John MacArthur, RC Sproul, JI Packer, Mark Dever, John Bunyan, William Shakespeare, Adam Smith, Charles Dickens, and talk about those things with me. Where are the girls who grow into women and have some depth to them? I mean, seriously. I don’t want a woman who watches soaps like Grey’s Anatomy or Twilight and talks about those constantly. Gah!

The second issue is that we may simply not have enough men in the church. Maybe the biggest problem isn’t with nice Christian guys who lack ambition, maturity, and commitment. Maybe we have lots of these men in the church, but they’re all married and there aren’t enough of their brethren to go around. I don’t know which is the bigger problem, the lack of good men or the lack of men in general. It’s probably a combination of both. The church needs to train up the guys it has. And by “training” I don’t mean “clean ‘em up, plug ‘em in the singles ministry and start matching them up with a spouse.” I don’t believe most unmarried Christians are looking for a church community full of Yentas. But a church full of godly, involved, respectable, respected, grown up men? That’s a project worth undertaking.

Yep. Pretty much.

Men, you don’t have to be rich and you don’t have to climb corporate ladders. You don’t have to fix cars and grow a beard. But it’s time to take a little initiative–in the church, with your career, and with women. Stop circling around and start going somewhere. It’s probably a good idea to be more like your grandpa and less like Captain Jack Sparrow. Even less like Peter Pan. Show some godly ambition. Take some risks. Stop looking for play dates and–unless God is calling you to greater service through singleness–start looking for a wife.

Ok, I fully agree with this. I’ll gladly admit, I’ve been single far too long. Part of it has to do with my leaving behind the branch of the church that I did. I was born and raised a Fundamental Baptist. I went to a Fundamental Baptist college. I had very clear goals on what to do with my life. I was going to go to college, within a few years of starting college I was going to get married, and then graduate and go off into pastoral ministry. And then I left Fundamentalism. And for those of you who have never been Fundamental Baptists, you don’t know what that’s like. For one thing, you lose all your friends. Further, you lose your identity. You lose the girl you were pursuing. I also lost my goals, because I didn’t have a good, solid church in my area, and further, I didn’t know what the path to ministry was in other churches. Then I moved down South, and became paralyzed by the myriad of choices in churches. When I finally found one, and settled down in it, I discovered that I was pretty much the oldest single person in the singles group. And when you’re over 26, and most of the single girls are 18, 19, 20, you kind of find yourself at a disadvantage. And further, the single ladies that are closest to your age that are eligible, you just plain aren’t attracted to. And I know, I hear you already, “looks aren’t everything!!!!!!”, and I’m not looking for a ten. I’m just looking for somebody who meets my criteria, but who is also physically attractive to me. Because let’s face it, you can’t realistically have a good marriage if you’re just not physically attracted to the person at any point in the relationship. Come one now, let’s be real.

Men do need to be men, and give up some of their things in order to be the man they need to be for marriage. But so do ladies. We can’t put all the blame on men, especially since men…single men, make up a minority in the church.

I don’t usually make it a point to discuss issues of pastors being arrested on my blog. But in this case, I’m going to make an exception. Why? Because this guy lives in the town I live in, and I know people who are close to him. This is something that is deeply hurting people in our community.

The long and short of the story is, [All alleged by the police]Sammy Nuckolls was preaching at a revival in Gosnell, Arkansas just a week ago. He was staying in the home of a couple in the church he was preaching at. When the woman of the house went to use her shower, she noticed Sammy’s items on the sink, and one of the items was a large pen that was sticking out of his toiletries bag, that looked suspicious to her. She examined the pen, and discovered that it contained a USB port, and appeared to have a camera inside of it. She apparently then knocked the pen into the sink, and continued with her shower. After she got out of the shower, Nuckolls then entered the bathroom, collected his items, and went back into the room where he was staying. After Sammy left(presumably to go to the church), the woman and her husband searched Sammy’s belongings to find the pen, and then contacted the police. The police took Sammy in for questioning, and say that he admitted to purposely videotaping the woman, as well as two other women in my town. The police went through his laptop, and discovered several videos that appeared to have been taken of various women undressing(presumably in a bathroom, or bedroom) surreptitiously. Nuckolls was then placed under arrest, and posted $50,000 bond the next day. The Gosnell police department contacted the two women in our town who had been videotaped, and let them know of what had transpired. The Olive Branch police were then notified, and they began an investigation, and have apparently uncovered more videos going back years, all on Sammy’s computers. Victims are being identified, and there is at least one other town in Arkansas that is investigating the possibility of charges against Sammy Nuckolls as well.
Links:
Accused Voyeur Evangelist Faces Judge In Olive Branch
More Victims Of Peeping Preacher Surface
Traveling Evangelist Charged With Video Voyeurism
Police Report On The Arrest
Link to a Blog Post with considerably more links.

Sammy was a camp pastor for Lifeway’s Fuge camps. As of his arrest, Lifeway has scrubbed his profile from their site, and has explained their actions saying “In light of the legal allegations and evidence of moral failure, the desire of FUGE camps is to clearly communicate the immediate termination of Nuckolls and LifeWay’s zero tolerance acceptance.”

Now, many people that I have read after on Facebook, Twitter, various news sites, might prefer to stay silent mostly on this at this time. I think that’s the wrong approach to take now, especially as more and more details are coming out and more victims are being identified. Sammy Nuckolls has been conducting Bible studies in his home with young people, ranging from underage to 18 and up. It is important to note that the police have found NO videos with underage girls on them. Incredibly important to note that, because at least at this point, it says that Sammy had not fallen that deep. Not that this isn’t deep enough already, but let’s face it, we all would think of that as being significantly worse than simply videotaping adult women. But, people do need to be notified, and pastors need to tell their people “hey, this is what the police say he has done, because of this we recommend that the young people from our church do not go to his home for Bible studies.” I don’t expect that at this time Sammy is holding any Bible studies at his home, but if he continued to do so, it would be tragic if pastors failed to warn their flock of a man who is alleged to be preying upon women.

If the allegations against Sammy are true, that he admitted to the police that he videotaped women secretly while they were undressing, that he kept videos on his computers dating back years, then this is a very serious issue. It is gravely important, because this is a man who used a church office to prey upon women. He’s more than a porn addict, he’s a man who makes his own pornography by secretly videotaping women, while they think they are alone. These are women who place a certain amount of trust in him, because he holds a title that is deserving of respect. The churches who have used Sammy at their services, who have allowed their young people to go to his home for Bible studies, have a responsibility to their people to discuss this openly and honestly. They also need to be the first to step in and come alongside Sammy, to pray for him, to help his wife and child, and to also come alongside his victims and help them heal. We do not and should not abandon those who have been caught in sin who name the name of Christ. We should be praying earnestly for them, that the Gospel will be present in their life, and that by looking to Christ they will conquer their sins. But we shouldn’t stay silent on the matter and avoid discussing it. God’s glory is not made manifest in staying silent on the sin here. God’s glory is concealed and made less in the eyes of others by keeping quiet and discussing it only in backrooms. We must glorify God by showing a proper response to sin, by loving and caring for the victims, including Sammy’s wife, and by seeking to see Sammy restored. And if Sammy is unrepentant, he should be placed under church discipline by his church, and witnessed to by those who know him.

I have seen a number of responses to this already, on news sites, on Facebook, on Twitter. Many of the responses have been of the sort that say “he who is without sin can cast the first stone”, and “God sees all sin the same”. These responses are unhelpful at best, and a bit unbiblical as well. Yes, all sin is sin to God, it is an act of cosmic treason. But first and foremost, let’s recall that those who are teachers within the church must face harsher judgment before God(James 3), and they are to be rebuked before all(1 Timothy 5). Not all sins are totally equal in God’s eyes, except that all sin makes one worthy of eternal damnation. But God does indeed view some sins as more grievous. Only one sin is unforgivable however, and that is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. As for the statement “let him without sin cast the first stone”, that passage is not saying that we cannot judge the sins of others. We can. We are supposed to do so, according to Scripture. Not judging those without the church, but those within(1 Corinthians 5). The “we all sin, and all sin is the same” is simply an attempt to excuse sin. It goes to the “well, he’s no worse than you or me”, but that’s not the point that should be made on this. The point that SHOULD be made is “this is a grievous sin. We are all sinners, we have all offended God, and we are all accountable for our sin. None of us are innocent before God, but we can be made innocent through Jesus Christ if we repent and put our trust in Him alone for our salvation. Sammy is a sinner in need of the Gospel, and we must condemn his sin, but we should also pray for him that he will repent. And the same is true of you, you must also repent or perish.” The other response has been to say “well, let’s just not talk about it, let’s just pray.” This response has been not just unhelpful, but results in the unsaved wondering why Christians are inconsistent. After all, we talk quite often about how homosexuality is wrong, about how living together outside of marriage is wrong, about how adultery is wrong, and yet when it comes to ministers like Sammy Nuckolls being arrested, we want to stay quiet and tell people to just keep quiet about it and that we can’t judge or cast stones.

Churches must find a way to deal with this in a mature, responsible, Biblical manner. Staying quiet and not addressing the issue will not make it go away. I don’t know how all the churches in this area who use Sammy Nuckolls have responded to this, but the silence so far has been deafening. Get it out in the opening, and shout it from the rooftops.

What exactly is evangelism? How is evangelism supposed to be done? Is it through preaching the Gospel and confrontation? Is it through building relationships with people? Yes. To both.

The reason for this post, is due to another blog post I made a few days ago. One person commented on my blog about “conversion”, and we sort of spun off on that for a bit, as it was at least a little relevant to the discussion. I’m going to post the entire conversation, and then add some thoughts and more detail from Scripture. The two characters in this conversation are Dr T and myself.

Dr T said:

However, none of that would be helpful at that moment. I would have to say that” the Jesus I follow is bigger than that. He walks beside you and meets you were you are. Fortunately, for me, he loves to much to leave me there. Most importantly, regardless of the reality of sin, You are a beloved Child of Christ. And as I am a beloved child of Christ as well, I will walk shoulder to shoulder with you in this. The most important commandment is Love your God with all your heart mind and soul, the second is the same, Love your neighbor as yourself. Love is Agape in this section, which means a whole love, a self sacrificial, complete love. When I am loving my neighbor, I am letting God shine through me and that creates a Namaste experience. (The God in me communes with the God in you.) Lets start there, the rest will come.”

And then:

agreed there isnt the ‘right’ answer, there is only the right motivation behind the answer. We are all Moses and stutter and have trouble with words. However, if the goal is relationship and conversation rather than conversion-God will aid in the reception.

Myself:

I don’t think the goal should ever be “relationship and conversation”. Those things should be a part of it, but our goal is always to preach Christ and Him crucified for the remission of sins.

Dr T:

Interesting, I would have to disagree. Without relationship and true conversation, then Christ becomes a weapon. Confrontation without Love is brutality. The great commission is to go make disciples (learners), so we are teachers, not preachers, right?

Myself:

So were Peter and Paul and the Apostles wrong to go and preach in the synagogues and town centers without building relationships first? I’m not against building relationships, but it is not primarily through relationships that conversion happens, but primarily through preaching the Gospel. The Great Commission is to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, to baptize them, and to then make disciples.

Dr T:

Fascinating, I think we see this very differently. I dont think we convert people at all, I think God does that. We also seem to read different versions of the Bible. sharing the Good News and preaching are different understandings of the original greek translation. Really irrelevant. Nothing can be done before loving God with all h,m,s and loving neighbor, right? Loving is relationship. sharing the Good News is conversation. Peter and Paul did have relationship in many of those environments, having been good Jewish men, and good persecutors of Christ (Paul). However, I thnk the most important thing is they spoke of their love for people and desire to be in community with them. They were most harsh on people who claimed to be followers of Jesus yet did not show that in their daily life. They had stopped relating and began reacting. Most of Pauls letters to churches spoke to this hypocritical life.
Thank you for you openness to discuss and for the conversation. I have learned alot, whether or not I agree. Good talk

So let’s take a look at what the Scriptures say, because that is what is most important.

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
(Mat 4:23 KJV)

This word “preaching” is often translated “proclaiming” in newer translations. It means “to herald (as a public crier), especially divine truth (the gospel): – preach (-er), proclaim, publish.”(Strong’s Concordance)

Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
(Act 8:4 KJV)

This is a different Greek word, which means “to announce good news (“evangelize”) especially the gospel:”(Strong’s Concordance)

So, when they had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, and were preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.
(Act 8:25 NASB)

So, when they had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, and were preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.
(Act 8:25 NASB)

On one of the days while He[my note: Jesus] was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders confronted Him,
(Luk 20:1 NASB)

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
(1Co 1:21 NASB)

Over and over in Scripture, when the Apostles went to a new city, they would go into the synagogue or the town square, and begin preaching and teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And their message is and was inherently confrontational. The message of the Gospel must confront people with their sinfulness, in order to present the good news that Christ came to save them from their sins, and from God’s wrath. Look at Acts 2, Peter didn’t stop and start building relationships with people in order to tell them of Christ. He stood and preached the Gospel message, one that spoke condemnation to the hearers, but then presented them with the good news that salvation was available through Jesus Christ. This is the pattern we see over and over through the Scriptures. Whenever God has a message, He sends forth people to proclaim the message. And it’s through preaching that God ordains to send that message. Now, can one build relationships with people, and then present the Gospel to them? Well, yes. But our goal should be to present the Gospel, not to make a friend.

I also agree that it is not us who “saves an individual”, that’s the work of the Holy Spirit. We are to proclaim the Gospel, but God will ultimately draw the person to Himself and save them. Not us. We are simply messengers. God does all the work, we are simply to be faithful in presenting the Gospel clearly and accurately. Any form of “friendship” as Christians, that does not ultimately lead to the proclamation of the Gospel, is not friendship but hatred.

Note: Because of the hot-button nature of this issue, I’m going to switch comments to need approval before being posted. I do not allow cursing on my blog, personal(ad hominem) attacks, trolling, topic-derailing, and otherwise obnoxious behavior is prohibited.

Over the past week, and several months in fact, there has been a bit of discussion among conservative Christians about our response to homosexuality, and how to converse with homosexuals, and how to properly respond to homosexuals about the Christian stance on this hot-button issue. There are several responses to the LGBT issue du jour, so I will quickly review them.
1. Homosexuality is a choice. This response says that homosexuals choose to be gay, and they can choose to become straight.
2. Homosexuality is genetic/the individual is born with it and it can’t be changed and is not a sin. This response is pretty much what it sounds like. Somewhere, inside the person, they are genetically or otherwise predisposed to be homosexual.
3. Homosexuality is not a choice, but is not exactly genetic either.

I’m sure there are other responses people have to this issue, but I think those are the main responses that we deal with regularly. Typically, the conservative Christian response is the first. The liberal Christian response is typically the second. And there tends to be a bit of flaming the other side whenever one side makes a stand on this issue. I’m primarily concerned with the conservative Christian response here.

Let me begin by saying, that the conservative Christian response is typically lacking. Lacking grace, lacking discernment, lacking love. I don’t believe that it is typically lacking Biblical truth. I am a conservative Christian. I believe that homosexual acts are sinful. I also think that conservative Christians have a tendency to miss the point. Most homosexual people that I’ve met, didn’t just wake up one day and say “hey, you know what? I think I like guys/girls now.” It’s something that many of them have struggled with, trying desperately to be normal, to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. And yet, they still find themselves attracted to members of the same sex. I believe that homosexual feelings are not a choice. I believe that they are a temptation that some people struggle with more than other sins. Some of us struggle with porn, with lying, with fornication, with lust, with stealing, and some of us with homosexual desires. As a result of the fall, we are all born sinners, and we all tend to have our own predispositions towards certain sins. And let’s be honest, Christians tend to be more against homosexuality than other sins. Now, conservative Christians do rightly point out that homosexual sex is indeed sinful, just as fornication, lust, adultery, theft, lying, and murder are all sins. But somehow we end up focusing entirely too much on homosexual sins rather than all sin. And that may be simply because it is very different than what we are used to.

Today, on Twitter, David Platt said “Homosexuality & heterosexuality: We don’t always choose our temptations; we always choose our reactions.”

Allow me to present a blog I discovered some time ago, and that I sometimes read. It’s titled “Gay and Evangelical“. In his “Why the blog title?” he says “What is my message? Despite my primary attractions being towards members of the same sex, my obedience to God’s commands stem from fruit keeping in step with repentance (Luke 3:8). I do not use my sexual attractions to excuse or hide my sin. Instead, I address those sins with repentance before God and before those with whom I struggle in my sanctification. I am in a church, have served periodically with my gifts of worship leading, choir direction, music composition and arranging and am currently attending seminary (which takes up a great deal of time).” This fellow is somebody who apparently struggles with same sex attraction. But he fights against his attractions and is celibate. He also has an interesting blog post on the “Born This Way” argument.

I’d also like to introduce a couple arguments that comes from the “homosexuality is okay” side. Well, I guess Justin Lee wouldn’t exactly characterize his position that way, but this is how most conservative Christians would summarize this position. Justin Lee is the executive director of the Gay Christian Network. Recently, he was featured on the blog belonging to Rachel Held Evans, in her “Ask a…” series. Justin was featured as the “Ask a Gay Christian” representative. He definitely had some interesting things to say, some of them quite worth reading. He does take a position against the “I was born gay so it can’t be wrong to have a same sex relationship” argument, stating “That’s a terrible argument. As Christians, we believe that we have all kinds of inborn temptations and desires that are wrong for us to act on. Just because someone is born with a certain desire doesn’t mean it’s automatically okay for them to follow through on it.” However, Justin also has some things to say that I don’t agree with, and I think he’s a little dismissive of the passage in Leviticus that condemns homosexual actions by saying ‘we keep some of the OT today, and dismiss the rest’(paraphrased). Justin’s personal blog can be read here.

Trevin Wax, on his amazing blog, made a post a few days ago titled “How I Wish The Homosexuality Debate Would Go“. Here’s a few excerpts.
“Pastor: I think Jesus’ teaching on sexuality shows us that there is something wrong with all of us – something that can only be fixed by what Jesus did for us on the cross and in His resurrection. That said, I understand why people might think I am attacking them personally. Most people with same-sex desires believe they were born with these tendencies. That’s why they often see their attraction as going to the very core of who they are, and so they identify themselves with the “gay” label. So whenever someone questions their behavior or desires, they take it as an attack on the very core of their being. That’s usually not the intent of the person who disagrees with homosexual behavior. But that’s the way it is perceived. I understand that.”
“It only seems that way because you believe sexual desire reflects the core of one’s identity. It would help if you and others who agree with you would understand that in your putting pressure on me to accept homosexual behavior as normal and virtuous, you are going to the very core of my identity as a follower of Jesus. The label most important to me is “Christian.” My identity – in Christ – is central to who I am. So I could say the same thing and call you intolerant, bigoted, and hateful for trying to change a conviction that goes to the core of who I am as a Christian. I don’t say that because I don’t believe that’s your intention. But neither should you think it’s my intention to attack a homosexual person or cause them harm merely because I disagree.”

Also, this video was tweeted this morning, with the comment “Christian’s have to address the issue of homosexuality. Tell me…what would you have said in this instance?”