Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Commentaries’ Category

R and R (and R)

Posted in Commentaries, Opinions, Social / Political, tagged , , , , , on May 5, 2010| 1 Comment »

 

Years ago, during a time of prayer, I felt as though the Lord spoke to me about the words rest, relaxation and recreation.  Some might view these words as being fairly synonymous, but in terms of the kingdom of God, they’re really quite distinct.

 

In our culture we’ve raised recreation and relaxation to the level of high art, and in spiritual terms, we’ve largely made them into an idol.  In the United States alone we spend trillions of dollars annually on entertainment, hobbies, leisure and recreation.  Not only do they consume a significant portion of our financial resources, they also devour a large portion of our time, energy and passion.  If we take seriously the call to “seek first the kingdom of God”, then we must begin to view these things from an eternal perspective.

 

At the root of the word recreation is the term “re-create” and on some level I believe that recreation was intended to be an avenue for restoration in our lives.  It certainly has the potential to bring an element of balance to a life of responsibility, and can allow for some of our childlike traits to be nurtured.  But with the intensity in which recreation is pursued within our society, I believe that we rarely realize that potential.  Instead we generally emerge from our times of recreation exhausted (e.g. physically, emotionally, financially…).

 

While these periods may help to distract us from the issues in our lives, they rarely help in resolving them or in making us more prepared to deal with them.  Frequently the cost of distracting ourselves from these unresolved concerns is that those problems become even more severe.  One of “Webster’s” definitions for recreation is, “a means of diversion” and from a spiritual standpoint, that is normally what it amounts to.  Most of our recreation is a very expensive form of escapism, but we rarely escape anything, we simply pile it up for later.

 

Closely coupled with our recreation is the idea of relaxation.  Many of us would claim that our periods of recreation help to relax us, but if we’re honest that is rarely the case.  The nature of relaxing is that we would be “less intense”, but generally we approach our recreation with more zeal and energy than we do our jobs and sometimes even our families.  As an observer of most recreational activities, one could hardly describe the participants as relaxed.

 

From a spiritual perspective the word relax is troublesome.  It can mean “casting off restraint” or “becoming lax” or as previously stated, “a loss of intensity”.  Those descriptives seemingly run counter to biblical images such as running the race with endurance, a watchman on the wall, a servant awaiting their Masters return, or a soldier who refuses to become entangled in civilian affairs.  Further, relaxation is largely experienced in the flesh and has little potential for restoration in or of our souls.  As such, our spiritual enemy loves much of what we call “relaxation”, as it amounts to little more than letting our guard down.

 

At the core of our being what we need more than recreation or relaxation is rest.  The word rest can be associated with inactivity or even sleep, but in the spiritual context it goes far beyond those things.  Rest is a freedom from labor (e.g. “My yoke is easy, My burden light…”), freedom from anxieties (e.g. “be anxious for nothing”), peace of mind or spirit (e.g. “the peace that surpasses understanding”) and to stand in confidence (e.g. “if God be for us, who can stand against us…”).

 

The rest that God offers is not the temporal kind that is only found in unconscious slumber, it is His profound provision in the midst of all that He’s called us to.  It is the unshakable peace that accompanies the knowledge that He is truly sovereign over all things; that He loves us unconditionally; that He works all things to the good of those who love Him and who are called to His purposes; and that He is faithful to complete the good work that He’s begun in us.

 

True rest can only be found in Him, and within that rest are renewal, revelation, restoration and healing.  I firmly believe that he Body of Christ in America suffers from an excessive amount of recreation and relaxation, and from a serious lack of divine rest.  We must learn to heed His call, “Come all you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest”.

 

Read Full Post »

Along the Path to Glory

Posted in Commentaries on April 19, 2010| 1 Comment »

The longer that I walk the journey of faith the more that I am convinced that our relationship with God is only as close as we want it to be and that if we feel that God is distant; it is because we’ve not done our part in cultivating that relationship. The scripture says that if we’ll draw close to Him, He will draw close to us; that if we’ll seek Him, we will find Him; and that if we’ll open the door to Him, He will come in. In every case, we’re called to take the first step and God promises to be responsive. Along the way I’ve encountered those who claim to be seeking Him and not finding Him, but I’ve noticed that many times these ones aren’t really as interested in finding Him as they are in finding something that they believe He can give them. In such cases, their faith and hope is not rooted in the person of God, but in that “something” that they believe that He can provide for them.

*

It seems to me that our first step toward God is generally driven by the realization of our need for Him; and while that is a necessary step, it is important that we not stop there. If our need becomes the motivation, the fulfillment of that need will generally cause us to cease our pursuit. In the scripture, we see an example of this in the story of the ten lepers. These men understood that they had a need and on some level they believed that Jesus could address that need; but once their issue was resolved, nine of them couldn’t even be bothered to come back and say thank you. We frequently see this in churches today; where a circumstance will drive a person to cry out to Jesus, but once that circumstance is resolved, we never see them again. Such a person can claim to believe in Jesus and they may even have a testimony of how He’s worked in their lives; but they cannot necessarily claim to have a relationship with Him or even to be a part of His family.

*

This needs based pursuit of God can be taken a step further, in that we can come to view Him as the source of all good things and therefore the provider for all of our needs. This too is a valid revelation to have, but again it keeps our needs at the center of our motivation and it doesn’t necessarily drive us toward relationship. I believe that the man healed through Peter and John at the gate (called Beautiful) to the temple could be symbolic of this mindset. He sat at the gate everyday, presumably because he recognized some virtue in God’s people and maybe even in what was going on there; but he himself didn’t feel as though he could enter in. Today, there are many in the church that come because they recognize that they have needs and that God has the ability to meet those needs; but they don’t feel personally connected to Him and/or as though others have been afforded access that hasn’t been granted to them. Such people can be identified by their tendency to exalt gifted ministers, to drift away when their needs are being met and to be angry with God when they perceive lack in their life. While it is Gods’ heart to meet the needs of His people, this paradigm threatens to reduce the mission of the “Body of Christ” to little more than that of a benevolent service organization (e.g. the Lions Club, Meals on Wheels…).

*

It seems to me that Gods intent since the fall of man has been to reconnect us to Him and that the hindrance to this has always been our insistence on doing things our own way. The Ark of the Covenant, the Temple, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, the tearing of the veil, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit… all demonstrate His desire to be in “direct” relationship with His people and yet mankind continues to find ways to squander these provisions. While the Lord revels in His role as our provider, His heart is to be so much more than that. The temple was never meant to be a monument to an historical God, it was meant to be a place to encounter the living God (i.e. in the present tense). As the Lord meets us at the place of our need, our thankful hearts bring us into the gates and our praise draws us into the courts. As He inhabits our praise, the tangible sense of His nearness moves us to the place of genuine worship (i.e. in Spirit and in truth) and of submission to His will. As we step toward Him, He steps towards us and His glory is revealed. As we behold His glory, we are transformed by it and we begin to reflect His image. Like Moses coming from the mountain or the Apostles emerging from the Upper room, our “unveiled faces” reflect His glory and it becomes apparent to those around us that we’ve been in His presence. Through this reflection of His glory within us, He draws men unto Himself and His commission for us is fulfilled.

*

We can be truly grateful for what He’s done and even be willing to sing His praises, yet never reach the place of genuine worship, submission, relationship, transformation or of Him being glorified in us. We can continue on to the place of worship, submission and even relationship, yet if we never get close enough to behold the glory of the Lord, it is doubtful that His glory will ever be revealed in us. Within the Charismatic movement there is much ado about “the anointing” (i.e. the spiritual gifts & supernatural abilities given by God for the work of ministry), which is no doubt a tremendous blessing; but it was never meant to become a substitute for the manifest presence of God (i.e. the glory). This emphasis on “the anointing”, without a corresponding pursuit of the person of God, only serves to divert our focus from the “Author & Finisher of our faith” and onto ministers and ministries. Evidence that such an imbalance exists would include ministers who are treated like superstars and church members who experience little or no genuine transformation. At the gate called beautiful, Peter & John did not give the crippled man what he thought he needed (i.e. money); instead they allowed the glory of God to be revealed in them. Beyond the physical healing that this man experienced, it says that he entered into the temple with them and that he praised the Lord. As we’ve become the temple of His Holy Spirit, we need to remember that the glory cloud did not descend upon the temple from the sky, but that it rose up from within the temple. It is Christ “in” us that is the hope of glory; and all of creation continues to wait in eager expectation for the revealing of the sons of God.

Read Full Post »

Palm Sunday

Posted in Commentaries, Opinions, Social / Political, tagged , , , , on March 29, 2010| 1 Comment »

As we approach what is arguably the most significant week on the Christian calendar, I find myself drawn to the scene known to Christians as “The Triumphal Entry”.  As Jesus heads toward Jerusalem for the Passover, He is met by crowds of people, who hail Him as King; laying down their cloaks and palm branches along the road.  The scene is filled with symbolic images that would be obvious to those immersed within the Jewish culture and it would seem to be a fitting response to the short, but amazing ministry of Jesus.  Unfortunately, just a few short days later, there would be crowds yelling, “Crucify Him!” in the heart of Jerusalem.  Years ago, I caught myself wondering how the people had managed to get from the elation of the Triumphal Entry to the scorn of the crucifixion; and as I was praying, I felt as though the Lord began to give me some insight.

 

The first realization was that the voices hailing Him as King on the road to Jerusalem were likely not the same voices shouting “Crucify Him!” in the center of town.  Luke’s gospel characterizes the people who met Him on the road as disciples, and John’s gospel explains that these were people who’d been touched by Jesus’ ministry; much of which had occurred outside of Jerusalem.  While there were a few amongst this crowd who weren’t supportive (i.e. Pharisee’s), these people were essentially His followers.

 

I also sensed that the location was significant; as these people met Him outside of town, on the road coming from the Mount of Olives.  While Jerusalem represented the center (i.e. the mainstream, the establishment…) of Jewish culture, this coronation took place on the outskirts of the city and ultimately of the culture.  These people were not necessarily the elite, the powerful, or the influential; they were just people who’d encountered Jesus and who had some sense of His significance.  Jesus Himself seems to make the distinction between these followers who were praising Him, and the mainstream of the culture, as He stops in the midst of this atmosphere and weeps for Jerusalem; stating that they did not understand the time of God’s coming to them.

 

Within the city the atmosphere was very different; with the most powerful and influential elements of the culture at least wary of Jesus, while most were deeply threatened by Him.  Jesus did not enter the city meekly, as He proceeded to the temple and immediately began to turn over the tables of the money changers.  The authority with which He spoke, and the influence He seemed to be having with the people were something that the (self-appointed) guardians of the culture could not tolerate.  While those who met Him on the road may have been totally sincere in their declarations, they were not powerful enough to stand against the mainstream of the culture.  The scripture doesn’t record any cries of rebuttal to the shouts for His crucifixion, nor any uprising amongst the people to come to His defense.

 

As I pondered the jubilant atmosphere of our Palm Sunday services, I realize that the followers of Jesus Christ in America are in much the same situation today.  The church in America has been relegated to the fringe of the culture, where our declarations of Christ’s kingship will not reach the ears of those in the mainstream.  Our gatherings are tolerated, as long as they remain on the outskirts of the national psyche.  Within the elements that mold and shape our culture (e.g. media, government, education…) there is no longer a tolerance for the name of Jesus.  While we as His people may be sincere in our convictions, we’ve been largely silenced within the mainstream of our society.

 

As I pondered all of this, I was reminded of Peter speaking to the people of Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.  Just days before Peter had been afraid to even admit that he knew Jesus; yet after being empowered by the Holy Spirit, he stood boldly before the very people who demanded the crucifixion, declaring their need to repent of killing the Messiah.  Isn’t it interesting that the Lord instructed the Apostles not to leave Jerusalem; after all the Holy Spirit could have come to wherever they were, but God wanted this to take place in Jerusalem.

 

What began on that day was not natural; the Apostles didn’t run for election to the city council, they didn’t circulate petitions around Jerusalem protesting the unfair treatment of Jesus; they didn’t buy up businesses within the city to gain influence over the people; they tapped into the promised, supernatural power of God.  While the Apostles position within the culture didn’t change, their influence can still be felt today.

 

As the followers of Jesus Christ in America plot to regain influence within our culture, I’d suggest that we too need to tap into the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit before we attempt to engage the culture.  While gaining positions of influence within the culture can certainly help to effect change, without the power of God, we risk being more influenced by the culture than being an influence for Christ.  Unless the Lord builds the house, we labor in vain; apart from Him we can do nothing, but through Him all things are possible.

Read Full Post »

Fruit Flavored

Posted in Commentaries, Opinions, tagged , , , , on February 12, 2010| 1 Comment »

As a father, I care about what my children eat and as such, I’ve become a lot more attuned to what’s written on the packaging of the food I buy for them. One of the patterns that I’ve noticed is some of the interesting claims associated with items that are fruit flavored.  One box proclaims in bold letters, “Real Fruit Flavors”, while a check of the ingredients reveals that it contains no real fruit.  This of course begs the question, “Where does the ‘Real Fruit Flavor’ come from, and what exactly qualifies it as ‘Real’?”

 

Another good one is the drink that says “Contains No Pulp”, when the ingredients list clearly shows that there is no actual fruit juice used to make the drink. These examples sort of make me grateful for the factual label that boasts “Made With 10% Real Fruit Juice”; but it also makes me wonder when only 10% of the real thing became something worth bragging about.  As I pondered these and other allusions to “real fruit”, I sensed the Lord begin to speak to me about the church that bears His name.

 

Indeed the scriptures are full of references to fruit and fruitfulness, and undoubtedly God means for it to be a key component of every believer’s walk. Jesus went so far as to tell us that He is the vine and we are the branches, and that any branch which does not produce fruit will eventually be cut off and thrown into the fire.  Not only does this tell us that producing fruit is not optional, it also let’s us know that we don’t get to decide on the variety of fruit our lives will produce.  After all, the branches don’t dictate to the tree what kind of fruit they bear.

 

I believe this is significant, because God isn’t interested in simply producing any fruit; He’s after a specific kind of fruit, which He describes in His word. John the Baptist challenged the Pharisee’s, who undoubtedly viewed themselves as being very fruitful, to produce the fruit of their supposed repentance.  Paul defined for the Galatians the fruit of the Holy Spirit, which in essence is Christ’s character, revealed in His people.  In today’s church there seems to be much that is considered fruitful, even though it doesn’t seem to fall anywhere near these orchards.

 

Years ago, I was in one of those jumping & shouting church services, which we Charismatic’s, and our Pentecostal brothers, seem to enjoy so much. It was loud, and there seemed to be a lot going on, when the man on the platform made the declaration that “Lives are being changed!”  And as much as I hoped that was true, I sensed a check in my spirit; so I inquired, “What do you see Lord?”  I immediately sensed the response, “Christmas Trees”.

 

After wrestling with what that might mean for a few minutes, I sensed the words, “lots of gifts, no fruit”. As I prayed throughout the rest of that service, I felt like the Lord said that we often mistake motion for movement (i.e. progress) and that we often settle for change (generally of our mood or circumstance) instead of seeking transformation.  Only genuine transformation has the potential to produce real fruit, and only real fruit contains the seeds of reproduction.

 

As I meditated further on this lively scene, the Lord gave me a vision of a chicken running around without its head and He said that even though the chicken still gives the appearance of being full of life, it was truly dead the second it became detached from its head.

 

Sometime later, a sister in the Lord gave me some interesting information on “hybrid” seeds, which I believe is pertinent to this discussion. A hybrid seed is one that is produced by artificially cross-pollinating plants and they were developed to improve the characteristics of the resulting plants (e.g. better yield, greater uniformity, improved color…).  While in some ways this has been very successful, in other ways it has been counter productive.  As opposed to natural seeds, hybrids tend to require a great deal of fertilizer, water, herbicides and pesticides to achieve the desired outcome; and more importantly most cannot be relied on to reproduce viable seed for a second generation of plants.  That means that the farmer must buy new seed every year.

 

It seems that the western church’s efforts to make itself relevant to the culture have in many ways compromised the gospel message, and I wonder if the seed we’re trying to sow hasn’t become something of a hybrid; one that is high maintenance and unable to reproduce itself.

 

Jesus told His followers that the way people would be able to identify them was by the way that they loved each other, which is essentially a manifestation of the fruit of the Holy Spirit. I doubt that many would claim that the church in America is living anywhere near that standard.  He later told them that the way they could differentiate between real and false prophets would be by their fruit; yet in today’s church, giftedness & personality seem to have become a viable substitute for a sincere expression of Christ’s character.

 

While there is still much being done in the name of Christ, Jesus warned that not everything done in His name would be found acceptable. He taught that it is only the fruit that is bore out of a direct connection to Him that really matters.  We who proclaim the name of the Lord Jesus can tell the world that we have been grafted to the tree of life, but until they see some worthwhile fruit in our lives, our message will likely remain an abstract to them.  Like a grape flavored drink, it may remind them of grapes, but there is nothing of the grape contained within it.

Read Full Post »

The Formula

Posted in Commentaries, tagged , , , , on February 12, 2010| 1 Comment »

Once upon a time, there was a man named Gideon, who God used to win a great battle.  This experience not only changed Gideon’s life, it helped to change the course of his nation.  Had there been Christian Bookstores in Gideon’s time, he would have undoubtedly written a book about this episode, and he might have called it something like “5 Steps to Victory with God”.  Based on his story, those steps could’ve been something like:

 

  1. Never take an angels word for it, always test God for yourself.
  2. Too many people being involved will rob God of the glory.
  3. God won’t use people who lap up water like a dog.
  4. You don’t need a sword, but always remember to bring an empty jar.
  5. The sound of trumpets & breaking glass will bring down the enemy.

 

Within the context of Gideon’s experience, these steps would seem pretty valid; but just because God worked within that framework, can it then be applied as the model for how God works?  While we may be able to derive some principles from Gideon’s story, it seems unlikely that God intended for this to become the model for seeing His hand move; and while that may be obvious in this example, I’d suggest that our Christian Bookstores are filled with books (& other media) that have been built on much the same premise (i.e. My Experience + God Moved = This is How God Works).

 

While I’m not saying that we shouldn’t study the ways in which God has worked in the past, I am suggesting that there is an element of our nature that wishes to find “the formula” for moving God’s hand, and that it is not necessarily a virtuous thing.  I believe this impulse is rooted in our desire to be “self-sufficient”, as opposed to being dependent on someone else (even a benevolent God).  It is much easier to memorize the formula and to insert our values into the equation, than it is to have an ongoing, dynamic relationship with a God who largely resides in another realm.  Like the children of Israel, we don’t want just a days’ worth of manna, and yet the Lord knows that if He gives us provisions for a full year, He’s not likely to see us again before that provision is gone.

 

As we develop our doctrine for how we think God works, we begin to contrive ideas about what that might look like and these “preconceived notions” often become the stumbling block that keeps us from experiencing the genuine move of God.  Just like the Pharisee’s, who’d spent their entire lives studying the scripture, we search for the true manifestation of God on the earth, only to fail to recognize it when it stands before us, simply because it doesn’t come in the way we’d imagined that it would (i.e. it doesn’t fit into our formula).  Generally these preconceived notions will lead us to disillusionment and eventually to discouragement.

 

It seems as though God delights in sending His blessings in packages that challenge our way of thinking.  Gideon was the least of his family, which was the least of his tribe, which was the least of the tribes of Israel.  Jesse didn’t even bother sending for David when the Prophet came looking for the next King nor did he bother to send him when Israel went up against the Philistines.  What self-respecting Jew would have picked Rehab or Ruth to be in the Messiah’s lineage?  The Gospel’s are littered with stories of Jesus touching “unclean” people, of healing on the Sabbath and in which He used pagans as examples of both great faith (e.g. the Canaanite woman, the Roman Centurion…) and of being a good neighbor (e.g. the Samaritan).  If God were insecure, I’m sure He’d package his blessings in a more marketable format, but considering that it is faith that pleases Him, I suspect that it’s never going to be exactly the way that we’d expect.  Though the Jews recognized that Jesus had unusual power, authority & knowledge, it was ultimately the form in which He chose to come that they could not accept.

 

Within the “Post-Modern” church, I believe that at least part of our problem is rooted in the concept of “Systematic Theology”; which I would characterize as man’s attempt to put God in a context that he can understand.  The problem with that idea is that God is under no obligation to remain within that context.  While it is not wrong to have a systematic approach to teaching God’s truth (as He has revealed it to us), I believe that we veer into presumption when we attempt to apply that approach in defining who He is and how He works.  The “system” itself is comprised of the things that we as men can conceive (i.e. finite) and yet God is beyond what we can conceive (i.e. infinite).  This system generally becomes the proverbial box and despite the popular saying, God refuses to abide in it.  Ultimately it becomes the confines for those who insist on this approach to understanding God.  The scripture clearly states that our knowledge and understanding of God is partial (e.g. that we see through a glass dimly); and I’d submit that no amount of effort on our part will ever be enough to render those words untrue.  I believe that this is why Jesus said that unless we become as little children we will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Mat 18:3).  Ultimately God hasn’t called us to understand Him, but to know Him, to love Him and to trust Him.

 

Throughout the Old Testament we see God orchestrate victory for His people through many different means.  We see Him bring Joshua victory through Moses upheld arms; we see the walls of Jericho fall to the shouts of His wandering tribes (Joshua 6); we see the angel of death wipe out 185,000 enemy soldiers in their sleep because of Hezekiah’s prayer (2Kings 18 & 19) and we see the enemy turn on each other as Jehoshaphat leads the people onto the battlefield while praising the Lord (2Chronicles 20).  While these and many other stories may cause us to conclude that there is no formula, it occurs to me that there is a common thread, which is that in each case they trusted and obeyed.  While that sounds simple enough, we must understand that before we can trust, we must first believe and that before we can obey, we must first receive direction from the Lord.  Whenever we see God’s people seek direction from the Lord and then act in obedience to that direction, we see victory.  When we see people who are unwilling to wait for direction & acting based on their previous experience (e.g. Israel marching against the Philistines & losing the Ark of Covenant – 1Samuel 4) we see defeat.

 

Though from God’s perspective I would suspect that “trust and obey” could work as a formula, I doubt that it would be very satisfying to our human nature, as it places us in a position of utter dependence on God.  Certainly Jesus Himself gave us the most explicitly stated formula in all of scripture when He said that He didn’t do “anything” until He saw His Father in heaven do it first.  If we would adopt that kind of relationship with His Holy Spirit, trusting and obeying would be the only formula we’d ever need.

Read Full Post »

Public Enemy #1 or Freedom Fighter ? (A Candid Interview with Lucifer)

Posted in Commentaries, Satire, Social / Political, Stories on February 12, 2010| Leave a Comment »

“Warning – the following story is satirical and not meant to be viewed literally.  The writer’s intention was simply to expose the absurd lengths to which ‘tolerance’ and ‘political correctness’ can be taken.”

            Back in the 1960’s, when I was studying Journalism at U of C, in Berkley; I learned that the success of a story isn’t so much about how well it is written, but about how much people want to read it.  To that end, I’ve made a career of picking intriguing and often controversial subjects to write about.  While many have disagreed with the things I’ve written, they’ve never ignored them and as a writer that is very gratifying.  When this assignment presented itself, even I had to think about it for a minute; but it was a short minute.  What journalist worth his salt wouldn’t want to sit down for a few minutes with arguably the most prominent figure in the earth’s history?  With assurances from both sides that everything would be handled with professionalism and respect, I embarked on this remarkable assignment.

Reporter:  Sir, I know we only have a few minutes, but I must say that I’m humbled to actually speak to you in person.

Lucifer:  Please call me Lucifer and the pleasure is all mine.  I’ve long admired your work.

R: I guess before we start I have to admit that I’ve been really surprised by this whole thing.  Did you ever think that you’d be doing an interview like this?

L:  Well, as recently as fifty years ago I wouldn’t have thought it was possible, but things have really changed in that period; there is such an openness now that didn’t exist in this country before.  I think that is what made this possible.

R:  Absolutely, we’ve really come a long way.  I’m hoping that people who read this interview will just come with an open mind.

L:  That’s all I’m after too.  I’m not one of those my way or the highway kind of guys, I think that everyone has to draw their own conclusions.  I’m just about being open to new things, new ways of thinking, not just accepting everything that you’ve been taught.  Unless we open our minds, we’ll never find new truths and we’ll never progress.  That’s what these last fifty years have been about, “progress”.

R:  It has been an amazing time.  As someone who’s observed a lot of history, what do you think has really made the difference in this last half century?

L:  I guess I’d have to say “freedom”.  You know a lot of the things that I’ve said and done over time have been misrepresented; I’ve always been about personal freedom.  I think that the rise of democracy in America and its eventual spread around the world have really ushered in a time of unprecedented freedom.  In this current era, we’re progressing from a time of national freedom, to a time of personal freedom.  Despite what my opposition has portrayed, that is all I ever wanted.

R:  Would you consider yourself a patriot?

L:  Absolutely!

R:  As a person who shares your passion for personal freedom, I guess I find it hard to understand why everyone wouldn’t be for that?

L:  I’m sure you’d get a variety of answers to that question, but if we’re really honest with ourselves no one wants to live in a cage.  Those who’ve traditionally opposed me have always wanted to throw up boundaries and I’m just against that. 

R:  What do you think that they hope to gain by putting all these boundaries in place?

L:  Control.  I mean honestly, what else could it be?  It’s all about one group trying to inflict their will on another; it is so base and animal like.

R:  On a personal level I’m right there with you, but how would you answer your critics who claim that there are absolute truths and standards that must be adhered to?

L:  I’ve got no problem with them adhering to those truths and standards, I’m just saying don’t inflict them on me or on my kids.  They certainly have a right to set those standards for themselves, but freedom dictates that every man should be able to decide for themselves.

R:  Well, I promised myself that I was going to steer clear of the whole religion issue, so maybe we ought to move on to something else.

L:  Well that’s fine, but for the record I’m not opposed to religion, even though much of it is opposed to me.  I believe that’s part of the freedom that every man has; I’d even go so far as to say that I’d love to see a whole lot more religions come to pass.  I think that there ought to be religions for every different type of belief system that’s out there.  I’m for people being passionate about what they believe.

R:  That’s really great and so opposed to how you’ve been portrayed by your adversaries.

L:  Well, as I mentioned before, I’ve been greatly misrepresented.

R:  That seems like a good segue way into the next part of my interview.  In journalism we often like to ask some kind of random questions, to give the people a greater sense of the person; you know your interests, your likes, your dislikes…  I can already see that you’re much different from the way you’ve been portrayed and I want to try to convey that to the people.

L:  Sounds good, shoot.

R:  What would you consider to be one of your hobbies?

L:  Music.

R:  Really, I wrote for Rolling Stone magazine for many years.  What kind of music do you like?

L:  All kinds really, though I must admit that I’m very partial to the oldies.

R:  Really, listening to your critics I would have thought Heavy Metal of Rap would be your thing.

L:  Don’t get me wrong, I certainly enjoy those too, but there’s nothing like those old songs to take you back.  There’s just something about them that goes right to the soul.

R:  Would you consider yourself to be sentimental?

L:  Definitely.

R:  How about television shows?

L:  I tend to like sitcoms, reality shows and every once in a while the Shopping Channel.

R:  Really, I think the stereotype of you has been more toward the heavier forms of entertainment.

L:  Well, like with the music, I have an appreciation for all of it; but I think that it’s good to laugh at ourselves and maybe a little at each other too; so the sitcoms are good for that.  I think reality TV has helped everyone to see that we’re all just people, with our little character flaws and our struggles.  I believe it has helped people to feel less guilty about just being human; and what can you say about the Shopping Channel: I mean sometimes you just got to have it.

R:  Again I find myself agreeing with you, but how do you respond to the critics who say that the entertainment industry is immoral and isn’t upholding good family values?

L:  Well, I guess I’d have to ask, whose family, whose morals and whose values are we talking about.  To me, if these programs didn’t represent someone’s values, then no one would watch them and they’d go off the air.  The fact that people love these programs tells me that they are representative of their values.  I think what you have is a very small group of people who want to control what everyone else is watching.

R:  Well I can see that our prescribed time is about up, is there any thought that you’d like to leave with our readers?

L:  Well, I hope that this bit of time that we’ve shared helps open people up to some new truths.  There are a lot of myths that have followed me through time and I certainly don’t have the time to try to dispel every one of them.  I just hope that as time goes on, the people of this country will continue to teardown those last vestiges of intolerance remaining from our early history and that democracy will now do for personal freedom, what it did for national freedom.

R:  Thank so much for your time Sir.

L:  You’re welcome and please call me Lucifer.

            As a reporter, all I can do is report what I saw and heard; or maybe in this case what I didn’t see or hear.  What I didn’t see was horns, a tail or a pitchfork; what I did see was a very open minded, rational being.  What I didn’t hear was the vehement, intolerant rhetoric of his critics, but instead the pleas of someone who passionately believes in tolerance and personal freedom for all men.  While I only spent a few minutes with him, it is hard not to find the man and his arguments compelling.  I believe that if anyone will just come with an open mind, he’ll make a lot of sense to them.  I believe his philosophy could be the vision for this country’s future.

Read Full Post »

Corporate Sponsorship

Posted in Commentaries, tagged , , , , , on February 12, 2010| Leave a Comment »

We live in a time of unprecedented “corporate sponsorship”, where everything from a college football bowl game (e.g. the “Tostitos” Fiesta Bowl…) to the stadium in which it’s played (e.g. the “RCA” Dome…) can bear its own commercial moniker.  In the business world this type of arrangement is viewed as a “win-win” situation, whereby the corporate entity generally provides much needed resources in exchange for the benefits of having their name associated with a particular venue, event, team…  While each arrangement can have its own unique characteristics, generally a sponsor will have a limited amount of control over the things that it promotes.  For instance, the corporate sponsors of a concert tour aren’t able to dictate which songs are played each night; the sponsors of a NASCAR team don’t have a say in when the car takes a pit stop, and the sponsors of a college football bowl game don’t get to call any plays. 

 

This is true of venues as well.  When the Ohio State University built its updated sports complex, the Schottenstein family brought their considerable resources to bear; and in exchange their family (and corporate) name was included on the facility.  While the arena is known as the “Schottenstein Center”, this family does not own the property, nor are they necessarily present when it is in use, nor are they the focal point of the activities within it, nor are they in control of those activities.  Ultimately their hope is simply that their name will eventually become synonymous with Ohio State University athletics, and the qualities ascribed to that program.

 

In the midst of a time of prayer, I felt like the Lord said that in much of the church His role has been reduced to that of a “corporate sponsor”.  That because of His benevolent gift of long ago His name has remained on the buildings, but that He is often not the focal point of the activities within them.  That His message of hope is frequently replaced with other messages, which are viewed as being more culturally relevant.  And that the pursuit of His will has generally been forsaken for the pursuit of other ambitions.  He said that a “spirit of antichrist” has infiltrated the church, and that many who have loved Him are now being taken captive through hollow and deceptive philosophies, which depend on human tradition and the basic principles of this world, rather than on Him.  And that though we still value our name being associated with His, He is often just invited in the hope that He might somehow subsidize (i.e. bless) our vision.

 

While I’m not much interested in the examination of demonic spirits, I must admit that there are some subtleties with the spirit of antichrist that warrant a closer look.  This spirit is not opposed to people connecting with a church, as long as they don’t become personally connected to Jesus.  It is not opposed to an active church, as long as that activity doesn’t result in lives being genuinely transformed.  It is not opposed to people being “spiritual”, as long as there isn’t any corresponding submission to the Spirit of God.  It is not opposed to people having faith, as long as that faith is never invested in the person of Jesus Christ.  It is not opposed to people being disciples of the church (or of Christian values), as long as they never become disciples of Jesus. 

 

The truth is that this spirit works closely with the spirit of religion and it actually thrives in a religious setting.  It seeks to keep our eyes focused on everything but “the Author and Finisher of our faith” and to make Christ “implicit” within the church; as it knows that it is solely our connection to Christ that will allow us to have any impact in this life or the next.  It opposes the centrality of Christ and the sufficiency of His “finished” work.  It seeks to reconstruct the veil that keeps us from coming directly into God’s presence and to reinstate the need for intermediaries in our relationship with Him.  It seeks to keep us focused on what is “seen”, so that we never access what has been attained for us in the “unseen” realm.

 

Based on what has been the popular Christian portrayal of the end times, it is easy to imagine the snarling manifestation of the spirit of antichrist, spewing venom against all of Christendom; but I sense that there is a far more dangerous manifestation of this spirit that has already taken root.  It thrives in an atmosphere where people call themselves Christian, but live in a way that is undiscernibly different from the world.  Where their leaders are attractive and gifted, but bear no resemblance to Jesus Christ.  Where people have a sense of being empowered by God with no corresponding sense of submission to Him.  Where accommodation and tolerance are valued above absolute truth.  An atmosphere where our natural senses are almost constantly stimulated, while our spirits remain largely dormant.  Where God is represented in symbols and rituals, but is not truly tangible to us.  Where prayer doesn’t move past petition/declaration and actually become communication.  Where people evoke the name of Christ, but feel no real sense of connection to Him.  Within such an atmosphere the spirit of antichrist has the ability to move about undeterred and undetected, while our own sinful nature propels us toward futility.  Under such conditions we become a people who have a form of godliness, but who live in way that denies His true power.  A people who honor His name, but whose hearts remain far from Him.

 

In times of prayer I’ve sensed that the pervasiveness of this spirit can be directly attributed to the church’s ongoing efforts to make itself relevant to a post-modern society.  With what I believe to be a misguided understanding of the “Great Commission”, the church seems to be desperately trying to reinvent itself in the hopes of attracting the culture to Christ; as though we might somehow package salvation in a way that eventually invalidates the scripture that says, “To those who are perishing, the cross is foolishness”.  Or as if we might attain some eternal gain through temporal means, despite the fact that all of our authority and strength come from the spiritual realm.  I believe that such efforts have largely resulted in the church losing focus on its true objective and in many cases to the compromise of its core values.  Instead of the church influencing the world, the church has simply become worldly. 

 

While this spirit may sound formidable, its extrication is simply a matter of putting Christ in the center of everything we do.  It is defeated when we have a personal and passionate relationship with our Lord and Savior; when we worship Him in Spirit and in Truth; when we speak directly to Him and allow Him to speak directly to us; and when we commit ourselves to live in response to Him alone.  If we lived in a way that genuinely demonstrated Christ’s character (i.e. the fruit of the Spirit); if we were known by the way that we loved each other; if we were true worshippers and partakers of the divine nature, Jesus could literally draw men unto Himself.  God has not commissioned us to build a bridge between the world and the church; He has commissioned us to be the bridge between the world and Him.

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts