I heard a snatch of this on the news a while back, then a colleague sent me this link about the Hutaree. A so-called "Christian" militia group in the midwest. They are arming for a battle that they claim is predicted in scripture. According to the article linked above, the Hutaree

planned to "levy war" against the U.S. government. To incite such a war, the group planned to murder law enforcement officials and then follow up their initial attacks with a separate attack on the fallen officers' funeral(s), where a large number of law enforcement personnel would no doubt be gathered.

When I looked at the Hutaree website I didn't see that plan, but I can't say.

These folk appear to be serious. The story about a member fleeing from the FBI--crawling through a creek and then traveling by car, checking in on the internet at WIFI spots--reminded me of some friends from my youth who were caught up in a similar cultic organization. The sad thing is the communist takeover that my friends felt was sure to come and that caused them to run and hide, never did come. Sadly, their life has decimated by other problems. Could these real problems have been avoided or dealt with had my friends not used up so much time and effort fighting--or preparing to fight--a menace that never materialized?

It's STTA.

Vote, Don't Throw Rocks!

A politician not far from my home voted on the recent health care reform bill in a way that raised the ire of many constituents.
Some high powered political forces have joined with local activists in vowing to defeat this representative in the next election. That is an honorable way of dealing with the issue. A case can be made that we need more citizen activism. If you are making the case, I'm saying "AMEN!"
Some citizens, however, have chosen acts of vandalism, as the way to make their point. One act involving a gas-line--which could have had disastrous results. Other folk sent threatening and/or vulgar notes addressed not only to the candidate but to family members.
I've been reading the book of Judges in my devotions. Trust me. We don't want to live there.
It is understandable when people get very upset about decisions that affect them, their families, and people yet unborn (in both senses of the words), but it is utterly unacceptable to register our protest, or vent our spleen in ways illegal, dangerous, or dishonorable.
It's STTA.

What Is Solid?

A friend recently had an experience with which I'm familiar. She was driving on the interstate, I was on a country road, but both of us actually saw a large tree fall and block the road. Neither of us were driving during a storm or an earthquake. I remember the day the big pine blocked my route there was some wind, but nothing that tree hadn't withstood thousands of times. Likewise for the day my friend saw the lumber fall.

Both crashes were the result not of some catastrophic event, but long, slow, gradual processes. Saturated ground, the pull of gravity, changes in the balance of the crown of the tree, combined with a fairly gentle wind caused something that looked immovable to instantly stop somethng else that should be moving.

I'm old enough to see in my life, and observe in others, the accumulation of small forces. I've seen lives crash with great disaster, because those influences were allowed to continue unabated.

What is undermining your life?

lt's STTA.

A Donkey, A Congressman, And Me:

Will Rogers is reported to have begun one of his routines something like this: "Now suppose you take a donkey [actually, I'm euphemizing his reference to a small, male, beast of burden] and suppose I take a congressman . . . Oh, I'm sorry. I've repeated myself."
A lot of folk would find that bit of shtick particularly relevant right now.
The horse-trading, threatening, pressuring, and corresponding knuckling under have been impressive, and depressing. I am, however, trying to not merely gripe about my representatives in Washington. I figure that the kind of integrity that appears to be lacking in our nation's capital has to begin somewhere, and I figure the somewhere is right here.
Here is a start:
Jesus said, "let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil." (Matthew 5:37) James gives his commentary on the statement, ". . . your yes is to be yes, and your no, no." (James 5:12) In Jesus and James day there were folk who had learned to, so to speak, cross their fingers when they crossed their heart, thus making their oath nonbinding. No, the Bible teaches; say what you mean and mean what you say.
I can gripe about how little of that kind of talk I've heard out of Washington, but it would be more profitable if the sad lack of ethics from the tip become an encouragement for truth beginning here at the bottom.

It's STTA.

(I don't think the cowboy sage intended his mention of a donkey to single out one political party. I know I don't. The elephants seem to have forgotten what is important, as well.)

If I did pray, Who would I be talking to?

I remember going out to lunch with a fellow preacher I met because our kids were involved in the same activity. We sat across the table with our salads in front of us. I thought I was being polite, when I asked my new friend if he would like to lead us in prayer, giving thanks for our food. He looked at me with a panic-stricken look. "Out loud? How about if each of us just pray silently?" I just figured that my friend was shy, but further conversation, over the course of a couple months, revealed to me that this was a preacher who regularly purported to speak from the Bible who didn't believe it.

Al Mohler, in a recent article speaks of a sizeable group of such pastors. Some like the work, others are doing it for the money--a particular damning concept in light of 1 Timothy 6:5-10, others maintain their position as pastor because they believe, in spite of their unbelief, the position gives them an opportunity to help.

In a couple of months my church will be involved in ordaining a man to the Gospel Ministry. Bottom-line: Does he believe what he preaches? Unfortunately, not everyone does.

It's STTA.

"I Need To See Your License, Please . . .

"This is my worst night-mare." I joked.

It took me a while to recognize Nic. I'm told that Virginia Trooper-Cadets have a class on how to wear their broad-rimmed hats. Between his sunglasses--just like in countless movie scenes--and the hat tilted down at just the right angle, I didn't see that it was Nic until I got right next to him. There he was in all his uniformed splendor and authority.

As is common in my area the troopers had set up a traffic stop to check for driver's licenses. I rolled down the window and gave my night-mare line. I've known Nic since birth, watched him in the nursery, called him down in Sunday school, and, hopefully, taught him some values that remain behind those dark glasses.

"It could get worse," Trooper Nic said. "Do you have your Driver's License?"

Thankfully I did.

"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." (Romans 13:1) I wasn't dealing just with Nic. He stood there as the representative of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He represents my state well. I hope I live out a lesson I have tried to teach Nic--a message that our culture needs more of.--respect for authority..

When I see him without the hat though . . .

It's STTA.

Making sure the God in Whom we trust is the true God, worthy of that faith:

Sometimes I wonder why I don't just turn this more-or-less-daily email into a "Link a day" service. There are so many brilliant people out there like, like Al Mohler, and Churck Colson, who comment on our culture and how various issues interface with scripture. I could just do a little research and post a link.

I guess one problem is that I like to write, and sometimes the insights of these guys show me something significant further down the food-chain that I think you might be interested in, as well. Here is one:

In one of his recent posts Al Mohler commented on the recent ruling of a Federal Appeals Court that says it is OK for us to continue to have "In God we trust," on our money, and to recite, "Under God," in the pledge of allegiance. It sounds like a victory--and indeed it is, but not completely. part of the court's rationale for its ruling is, that these words that have become part of our American tradition have "no theological or ritualistic impact." In other words, the court says it is OK for Treasury Department to continue to print these words on our money and for school children to continue to recite them because they don't really mean anything anyhow. You can read the rest of Mohler's report here.

That is the problem with what has been called "Civic Religion." In trying to be acceptable and applicable to everyone, it retains power for no one.

There is value in maintaining a culture where God is recognized in the public realm, but let's make sure we understand, that the "God" in Whom we trust on a dollar bill, or Whom we claim to be "under" when we pledge allegiance to the flag is not capable of making a difference in our lives. (I know an argument can be made that our forefathers (and mothers) knew who that God was, and is, but that awareness has long since eroded from much of our culture.) Far more important than fighting to keep "God" on our money and in our pledge, is the proclamation that Jesus commanded, that "repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations." (Luke 24:47) Rather than using up all our energy to preserve the meaningless mention of a "God" who is neutered and impotent, we need to be more zealous in proclaiming the message of the God to Whom we are all accountable, and Who "so loved this world that He gave His only Son."

It's STTA.

Getting Along:

A couple of recent conversations, and a whole lot of problems I see in various realms, remind me of both the difficulties, and benefits of getting along.
A friend told me that her job was being restructured so that she would work from home and telecommute. I thought this would be a great benefit. My friend has a number of home based interests, loves her husband, and, I was thinking, "that's a lot of saving on gas, and time." But my friend said, "No. I'm a people person." Choices made on a corporate level are impacting her in a very social way.
I talked to another friend. Some loved ones are making choices that impact other loved ones and my friend feels caught in the middle.
A ministry with which I am involved had to make some difficult decisions over the past couple of years. In large part those decisions have been made necessary by the actions of folk I don't even know, yet one result for me has been that I missed seeing a friend at a recent meeting.
Friendships, relationships, and partnerships are more like fabric than individual threads. Decisions made, and actions taken affect others some distance away. Sometimes they rebound and affect us in ways that are entirely unexpected.
There are many much more important reasons to do so, but if I can't come up with a better reason, I ought to get along with others, because it is good for me.
It's STTA.

(Consider what Paul had to say about the Body, 1 Corinthians 12:14-26.)

Pointing the way, instead of being in the way:

We are working our way through the Gospel of Mark on Sunday mornings at CBC. The section that we looked at last week and the one I'm working on this week, Mark 2:1-13 & 14-17 make clear that often people who claim to be followers of God are a hindrance when it comes to encouraging others to follow Jesus. The four friends couldn't get their buddy who was in need to healing to the Lord because of all of those who thronged to hear Jesus. I wonder why they didn't make way. And, those who claimed to be right there, in regard to walking with the God, the Pharisees, were highly incensed that Jesus would have a meal with likes of Levi, and his tax-collector buddies. The concept that Jesus stated when He went to the home of another revenuer, Zaccheus--"The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost"--just didn't make sense to them.
I fear there are many present day Christians who share their exclusive views.

I encourage you to look at Mark.
And you might want to join me in praying:
Lord, help me to point the way, not block it. Amen.

It's STTA.

Further Thought on Marriage and Living Together:

(This is part 2 of an STTA that began last week. If you didn't see that one, you may want to go back and read it . . . . )

Couples that choose to be sexually active and or live together before marriage will often cite their upcoming wedding as part of the justification for their current arrangement. A friend of mine asks them, "Why are you getting married?" In asking the question, my buddy, a fellow-pastor, does not mean the question in the way that usually illicits the answer, "Because we love each other." (Accompanied by sweet looks at one another.) Rather what he means is: "If what you are currently doing is OK then why bother to get married?" Or looked at from the other direction: "If your marriage will actually accomplish something, if it really has any meaning, then how can you justify your present status of acting married before you are?"
My friend's question and my follow-ups are queries that are looking for a logical response in a realm that is powered more by emotion and libido, than clear thinking. But clear thinking and commited obdedience are precisely what is needed to build the kind of marriages that we so desparately need in this world that is falling apart.
There was a time when much of Western Society supported a Biblical view of marriage--One Woman, One Man, for One Lifetime. For a time the church sought to stand against the erosion of respect for the Sanctity of Marriage. Now, in far too many cases, the church, if not part of the problem, is doing very little to solve it.
In counseling the Christians at Ephesus Paul said concerning the immoral works of those in the world around them:
"Do not be partakers with them.
"Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness.
"Instead even expose them."
It is difficult to tell people we love, who are in love, that what they are doing is wrong. To do otherwise, though, is not only wrong. It is not good for them.
It's STTA.

TELL THEM TO GET MARRIED.

In 1 Corinthians 7:9 the Apostle Paul says ". . . if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Today many Christians add a third alternative: "They can move in together. Since our culture accepts it we won't make a big deal of it."
Frequently, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, other relatives and friends--even folk who profess to be Bible-believing Christian people--will tell me about such a couple. "Oh, they know we don't approve." The problem is, often the bed the couple is sleeping on actually belongs to the parents who claim to be opposed to the youngsters sleeping together in it. It likely is one of the objecting relatives who co-signed the lease. "Well, we couldn't let them do without."
Why?
I know such things are complicated, but at what point are we saying, "I think we should do right, but if it is hard, let's see what we can work out."?
These young people often use economic arguments to justify their cohabitation. They say that they can't get married until such-and-such time in the future. I fear it is a case of wanting to have their wedding-cake and eat it too. If you ask them, the couple can forward you the spreadsheet, justifying their claim. They'll produce it on their new laptop, transfer to their I-phone (Yes, there is an App. for that.), and send it over their wireless, broadband account. Or they can sit down with you, on the sofa they got from grandma--ten times nicer than the one she started house-keeping with--in their surround-sound equipped loft-apartment and tell you why they couldn't possible rent two places and still be able to pay the shipping on the wedding gown being hand-sewn in Paris. Enjoy the latte they bought at Starbucks, when they heard you were coming.
Some will object that I am exaggerating, and I am, but only a bit (and in some cases, not at all). The point I am making is undeniable. Just try making this offer to one of these couples and see how far you get: "I will make it possible for you to live apart until you get married."
Look at Hebrews 13:4 and ask the question, "What is the difference between the front and back end of this verse?" The same activity is contemplated, yet on the front end it is to be held in honor. while on the back it is said to bring about God's judgment. The difference is clear. It is marriage.
It's STTA (Stay tuned.)

The first part of the article, from Christianity Today, contains some interesting, perhaps depressing, statistics about cohabitation:
"Better Together?"

Here is an informative article by Dr. Bill Maier:
"Is Living Together A Good Test for Marital Compatibility?"