Pastors' Blog

Have you been following the debate about change—the change in your pocket, that is? In order to save money President Obama is recommending that the composition of the U.S. penny be reconsidered.  All because of a long word nobody can spell, let alone pronounce: “seigniorage” (and that’s not Spanish for “Mr. Age”). Seignorage is the technical term that describes the difference between the value of a currency and its production cost. And right now our copper one cent piece (which is no longer copper, but zinc) costs  2 cents to produce. That’s why our neighbor to the north has decided to withdraw the Canadian penny from circulation, beginning February 4. Should the U.S. follow suit? Two thirds of Americans polled say No. Why such loyalty to an overpriced piece of zinc? Beyond the “what would we give to the Salvation Army?” quip, there is the fear that since many prices end in a 9, removal of the penny would be the equivalent of a “rounding tax” on consumers that one study suggests could be as high as $1.5 billion over a five-year period. And besides, if we got rid of the penny, we would have to mint more nickels, and a U.S. nickel now costs 10 cents to produce. But then there’s another study that concludes “getting rid of the penny could save $730 million per year by eliminating the time customers and cashiers deal with the coin in cash transactions” (TIME, February 4, 2013). So what’s a nation to do? What’s a God to do? Surely some have suggested to Him that the seven-billion-plus humans on this planet are hardly worth their original purchase price. Like the penny that in 1913 had “almost 25 times the purchasing power it does today,” even so the value of a single human being has surely plummeted beyond a reasoned defense for its salvation. But we humans are hardly pennies in the Treasury of Heaven, are we? Not if the worth of a single human soul is measured by the crimson price paid out on the auction block of Calvary. If the Good Shepherd was willing to lay down His life for just one hopelessly, miserably lost sheep, then the commensurate value of that one lamb is catapulted beyond calculation, is it not? “. . . He made a gift of such magnitude that it can never be said that God could have made His gift, His donation to the human family, greater. His gift defies computation” (Our High Calling 28). So if God so values the world—one lost human at a time—that He gave His Only Son, then should we not so value even just one lost soul—be it roommate, neighbor, classmate, peer or complete stranger? In seven days “iPerceive: A Future You Can Count On” begins (see www.iperceive.org for details). And if you can’t think of one lost friend or stranger to bring, would you please pray that Heaven will turn this short series into a salvation event for every lost soul who comes? Forget saving pennies—it’s people that are priceless.

It’s Sunday evening. Tomorrow I fly to the East Coast where the General Conference is convening the first meeting of the new Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC). These 102 men and women from around the world will gather for four three-day meetings over the next two years. Our task will be to prayerfully examine what the Bible teaches about ordination and the role of both men and women in the gospel ministry, come to a conclusion at the end of the two-year study, and recommend a course of action to the leadership of the world church. These church leaders will subsequently submit a recommendation to delegates of the world church gathered in 2015 at the quinquennial General Conference session. What prayer should we be praying? I am drawn to Jesus’ prayer on the eve of His death. “‘Holy Father, protect them [His disciples/His church] by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one’” (John 17:11 NIV). He had much He could have been interceding to the Father about—the safety of His disciples in the impending clandestine arrest and kangaroo trial He was facing, the global expansion of the fledgling movement He was leaving behind, the triumph of the new theology that would burst the seams of Judaism. But instead, four times in that single prayer, Christ pleads with the Father “that they may be one” (John 17:11, 21-23). Our unity was very much on the suffering heart of the Savior. Does His prayer for unity—“that they may be one”—imply that all His disciples would always “be one” as to their understanding of the will of God, even the Word of God? The subsequent events of the early church chronicled in the Book of Acts are sufficient, inspired evidence to conclude that the divine gift of unity is not premised upon unanimous agreement. Paul and Barnabas agreed to disagree. The church council in Acts 15 began with major disagreements. And yet throughout Acts as they humbly submitted to Christ, the bond of His unity continued to prevail—even when they disagreed. What does that mean for this new study committee? In the record of the early church there is surely embedded the promise that the unity of Jesus can prevail in our own community of faith as we seek agreement in the midst of our disagreement. Think of the witness, if our prayers for unity within the TOSC and the wider world church were answered! “Unity in diversity among God’s children—the manifestation of love and forbearance in spite of difference of disposition—this is the testimony that God sent His Son into the world to save sinners. . . . This unity is the most convincing proof to the world of the majesty and virtue of Christ, and of His power to take away sin. The powers of darkness stand a poor chance against believers who love one another as Christ has loved them, who refuse to create alienation and strife, who stand together, who are kind, courteous, and tender-hearted, cherishing the faith that works by love and purifies the soul. . . . In unity there is a life, a power, that can be obtained in no other way” (Sons and Daughters of God 286). So would you please join me in claiming the promise of unity in Jesus’ prayer? After all, when people as diverse as you and I, are bound together in unity by a radical love for one another, what could be more convincing of the gospel’s power to transform and elevate fallen humanity than that? For this reason alone unity is not an option for the church—it is Christ’s mandate, His passionate prayer.

I found CNN.com’s departing religion editor Dan Gilgoff’s observations this week insightful. His final blog before joining the National Geographic team lists “5 things I’ve learned” from his blogging on religion for CNN these last few years. Can we learn something from what he’s learned? (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/31/my-take-5-things-i-learned-editing-the-belief-blog/): 1. “The faith/meaning angles off breaking news can yield meaningful, important stories.”   He discusses the recent Connecticut school massacre. “Trying to make sense of seemingly senseless deaths and suffering is a fundamental human struggle.” And when he reported how people were struggling with the “Where was God?”, his blog elicited nearly 8,000 comments. The point? Irrespective of their religious persuasion (or the lack of it), people are eager to talk about belief and God and life’s meaning. Which means that you and I don’t have to hold back our convictions or conversations about faith and God, especially in a time of national tragedy. People want to talk—and that’s the right entre for your witness with stranger or neighbor. 2. “The explosion of people with no religion will be a huge story in this century, and the news media have only begun to explore its many implications.” As I noted here in a previous Fourth Watch blog, the religious “nones” are a growing slice of the American demographic—men, women, young adults who indicate “none” when surveyed about their religion. The church—and I’m thinking of my own congregation—cannot afford to hurry through the New Year assuming that everyone around it has an ear or a heart for God. More and more do not. What are we doing to connect with these who are building what Gilgoff calls “a post-religious existence.” 3. “Religion reporting shouldn’t be an inside game.” His point with this lesson is simply that an interest in the religion/faith angle of a story isn’t the curious domain for only the faithful. More and more political, social, even entertainment and sports stories are woven with the stuff of faith. Take, for example, the recent presidential campaign, which clearly bore the trappings of the candidates’ faith practice. To ignore the faith/religion angle to news events is to risk missing a defining DNA of the individuals or events. For those who believe, locating the faith nexus is another helpful entre in conversing with this generation about God. Look for the angles. 4. “The news media isn’t anti-religion.” While you and I may have concluded otherwise long ago, Gilgoff’s lesson deserves some reflection. His point is that news organizations like CNN are actually “fascinated by religion because it yields stories brimming with meaning, controversy and powerful characters.” Reporters and media outlets are not by definition anti-God or anti-religion (though there are plenty within their ranks who reflect that bias). Could it be that we will be open to fresh insights about the society Christ has called us to reach if we aren’t so quick to dismiss news and media commentators and commentaries as implicitly against God and religion. 5. “In the world of digital journalism, your voice matters more than ever.” Gilgoff ends his final religion blog with an appeal to his readers to voice their convictions. “With the proliferation of reader comments, social media and instantaneous metrics on what our audiences are clicking and how they’re responding, your choices and opinions are shaping our coverage more than ever.” Not a bad suggestion for Jesus’ third millennial disciples, is it? Gilgoff goes on, “Some of our best content from the last year was more about conversations happening around the news than about the news itself. We choose to do certain stories and skip others partly based on whether you’re engaged in those stories or not.” So as a believer don’t just blow away an urge to respond to a news event or a website/blog commentary. Your faith perspective in that collective cyberspace conversation  could plant the seed that will germinate the quest for faith in reader far away. After all, who do you suppose created cyberspace in the first place? “You are My witnesses” (Isaiah 43:10).

On Tuesday the Daily Beast website announced the latest Gallup poll findings with this headline, “Gallup Survey Finds a Majority of Americans Still Religious.” Based on 300,000 interviews the survey found that seven out of ten Americans consider themselves “moderate or very religious.” That’s 70% of this nation! The Gallup research “shows basically what American religion surveys always show: the country is overwhelmingly religious, with a very slowly increasing number of nonbelievers, and a slightly faster increase in ‘unbranded’ religious believers” (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/04/gallup-survey-finds-a-majority-of-americans-still-religious.html). “Overwhelmingly religious”—is this cause for celebration? Frankly, I’m grateful for every American heart (or non-American, for that matter) that seeks to find solace and security, even salvation, in God and/or faith. Why wouldn’t that be reason to be grateful? Naturally, none of us knows each other’s soul, and so no one is in a position to determine how many of these seven out of 10 are genuinely entrusting their lives to the Divine (however their religion or faith understands and describes God). But stay with this thought for a moment. A globally influential nation with a strong majority populace that considers itself “moderate or very religious” would be amenable (or susceptible), would it not, to overtly religious appeals or persuasion? I.e., if God and faith are dominant in my worldview, an appeal to me to support or take certain action —if that appeal were based upon God and faith—would gain my attention and perhaps even guide my response. Most would agree that a nation with seven out of 10 of its citizens self-identifying as “moderate or very religious” is a society certainly open to religious appeal. And if that appeal were made by a respected individual or even institution, for 70% of Americans the appeal would be favorably weighted, I suppose. But lest you conclude that to be bad news, consider this. For the last semester we have revisited the biblical description of the apocalyptic endgame just before the return of Christ: “The Dark Night Rises,” “Three Angels, One Warning,” and now “The Morning Star Rises.” Two realities are clear—(1) the endgame will happen suddenly catching most earth inhabitants by surprise, and (2) the final showdown will devolve around worship, worship of the Creator or worship of a counterfeit image of the Divine. The good news is 70% of Americans may be very open to considering the religious appeal that the Creator and His “Three Angels” community of faith must make. Rather than assuming they will all be manipulated by a deceptive religious appeal, why not pray that in fact they will be favorably open to the divine appeal, “Come out of her My people” (Revelation 18:4)? So let the nay-sayers who are decrying a godless Christmas season cry on. You and I can instead pray on—on behalf of the 70% and the 100%—that the Christ who came that starry night long ago and who is yet to come one glorious Day soon—that He might grant to you and me the winsome appeal to reach out for Him, not only to the seven out of ten but to the ten out of ten! Why not?