PreacherMike

If you need a fresh shot of courage, of hope, of faith, then listen to the interview on Competitor Radio with Shelly Shepherd about her daughter Haven:

- Whose biological parents in Vietnam had her out of wedlock;

- Whose parents, out of shame and knowing they couldn’t be together, strapped bombs to themselves while holding her, attempting a family suicide;

- Who survived the explosion, though her parents both died, but lost both of her legs;

- Who was welcomed by Touch-a-Life ministry and was brought to Missouri, where she was adopted by the Shepherd family;

- Who is competing with prosthetic running legs.

Take the time. The interview is here.

In Kathleen Norris‘s Amazing Grace she tells of a Saturday evening when she and her husband were eating at a local steakhouse and struck up a conversation with “an old-timer, a tough, self-made man in the classic American sense.” They had known him casually (“he knew us as oddball writers, misfits in the region”), but this evening, probably because he was about to enter chemotherapy, he was more talkative.

Out of the blue, Arlo began talking about his grandfather, who had been a deeply religious man, or as Arlo put it, “a damn good Presbyterian.” His wedding present to Arlo and his bride had been a Bible, which he admitted he had admired mostly because it was an expensive gift, bound in white leather with their names and the date of their wedding set in gold lettering on the cover. “I left it in its box and it ended up in our bedroom closet,” Arlo told us. “But,” he said, “for months afterward, every time we saw grandpa he would ask me how I liked that Bible. The wife had written a thank-you note, and we’d thanked him in person, but somehow he couldn’t let it lie, he’d always ask about it.” Finally, Arlo grew curious as to why the old man kept after him. “Well,” he said, “the joke was on me. I finally took that Bible out of the closet and I found that granddad had placed a twenty-dollar bill at the beginning of the Book of Genesis, and at the beginning of every book . . . over thirteen hundred dollars in all. And he knew I’d never find it.”

We laughed over this with Arlo, and he began talking about the interest he could have made had he found that money sooner. “Thirteen hundred bucks was a lot of money in them days,” he said, shaking his head.

In blog years, Preachermike.com is an octogenarian! It’s time for a facelift.

And that’s coming soon.

Along with more regular content!

I’ve been taking a blog break as I’ve launched a new ministry (“What Really Matters”), started preached regularly (Golf Course Road in Midland), and taken baby steps with my new role at Pepperdine as Director of Bible Lectures. (Even as I mention the latter, I’m breathing into a paper bag to prevent hyperventilation.)

So check back soon!

In a recent blog post, Scot McKnight talks about why he left Calvinism:

- – - -

I was fortunate to have gone to college at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, and one of the high fortunes was that Grand Rapids was filled with bookstores and book-reading folks. As a student I came into contact with some Calvinist friends, and that set me off into reading Calvinism, and beside the standard textbooks and theologies, the theologians I read the most were Calvin and John Owen. After four years, Kris and I moved to Chicagoland for seminary. When I got to Trinity in the Fall of 1976 as a student, the first thing I noticed was how tightly the theological discussion was ratcheted. These folks knew what they were talking about, and they knew biblical texts and theological discussions, and the history of the Church. It took some work just to be conversant. It was a challenge for which I am grateful to this day.

Calvinism was not a front-burner issue, but was on the stove top waiting for someone to say something uninformed. I had some wonderful lecturers: H. Dermott McDonald was an eccentric theologian from London who told us that our syllabus was the library and we should get over there and read up on “God, Man, and Christ” and then come take his exam at the end. David Wells taught Sin and Salvation, and began by telling us that his wife said that he could teach the first half of the class by giving an autobiography. McDonald was not a Calvinist; Wells was. My NT teachers didn’t raise such topics: Norm Ericsen and Murray Harris. But, then Grant Osborne came to TEDS. (So, I can blame this journey on Grant, which he’d be happy to take credit for.)

Here’s what happened. Grant is famous for his handouts, and he had one on Eternal Security. It was a lengthy handout and he asked me to work through it, add some bibliography, and generally re-write it. It was a big task for me, but it was the first real chance I had to do something at that level. To prepare for it, Grant suggested I read I. Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God. Which I did. From cover to cover; underlined it; took notes; checked commentaries. It took a good long while. When I came up for air in Hebrews I had been persuaded that I was wrong about Calvinism. Like C.S. Lewis getting on a bus and then getting off converted, but not knowing when or how, so with me: from the beginning of working through Grant’s notes to reading through Marshall and arguing with him until he wrestled me to the ground and pinned me, I had become convinced that I was no longer a Calvinist. Which didn’t mean I gave up the architecture of Calvinism, but I did then consider high Calvinism an inaccurate understanding of the fullness of the Bible.

It was and still is my conviction that the five points of Calvinism belong together, and both Horton’s and Olson’s recent books have confirmed that view. You might be able to give up #5 (Perseverance) somehow (I don’t think so, but some think so) and you might need to add a #6 (Responsiblity), but if the Arminian understanding of “losing salvation” is right, that is, if the effectual calling can be abandoned or undone, then high Calvinism is not right. (I’ll eventually show why the expression “losing salvation” isn’t optimal.) Let me say this more clearly: if God’s saving, effectual grace can be resisted somehow, if believers can somehow choose to forfeit their salvation, then unconditional election and irresistible grace (and probably limited atonement) and surely perseverance (as preservation) of the saints are not right.

There are (so I think) two major weaknesses in Calvinism’s theology (and also a disorientation in its architecture): first, the emphasis of its architecture is not the emphasis of the Bible. Its focus on God’s Sovereignty, which very quickly becomes much less a doctrine of grace than a doctrine of control and theodicy etc, and its overemphasis on human depravity are not the emphases of the Bible. The overemphasis of these two in high Calvinism comes more from Augustine and later Calvinists than from the rhetoric of the biblical authors. I do not dispute the presence of these themes; I dispute their narratival centrality and they are where the gravity of emphasis is found in the Bible. Yes, we all have metanarratives that put things together, and Calvinism is one such metanarrative. It works for some; it simply didn’t work for me.

Second, the exegesis of Calvinism on crucial passages is sometimes dead wrong. I was once standing, years later when I was teaching at Trinity, outside my door talking with two professors about my view of Hebrews, when I simply asked one of them, “Who do you think best answers the Arminian interpretation of Hebrews?” That professor said, “Philip Hughes.” I had just read Hughes and I thought it was weak. In fact, what I thought was this: “If that is the best, then there is no debate.” The other professor said, “I agree, Scot. Hughes doesn’t answer the questions.” Then he said, “I’m not sure any commentary really answers it well.” (Both of these professors were Calvinists, and still are, God bless ‘em.) What I’m saying is that the exegetical conclusions I was drawing (in all kinds of passages) were not answered adequately by the Calvinists I was reading. We all have to give them a fair shot. But at that time I had nothing to lose and it didn’t matter where I landed; I wanted to find out what the Bible said.

- – - -

To read the rest of Scot’s post, go here.

- – - -

I love these lines from a poem by John O’Donohue:

. . . Decide carefully
How you now can live
The life you would love
To look back on
From your deathbed.

It was so good to be at Highland this past Sunday (first time in months!) and to hear Padawan Josh Ross. I was asked to give the communion thoughts for this, the first Sunday of Advent. The communion meditation is below:

- – - -
In the beginning was the Word. The Word was close beside God, and the Word was God. In the beginning, he was close beside God. All things came into existence through him; not one thing that exists came into existence without him. Life was in him, and this life was the light of the human race. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. (John 1:1-5)

The speech therapist for Gabrielle Giffords—the US Congresswoman who was shot in the head while meeting with constituents in Arizona—focused on one word: LIGHT. “Can you say, Light?”

It’s a word pregnant with meaning for Believers around the world this morning as we live into the hope of Advent. We remember that God’s very first words in scripture, spoken to rebuke the chaos, were, “Let there be light!” We recall that when chaos struck again in Exile, the prophet Isaiah anticipated God’s new work by saying “Arise, shine, for the Light is come.”

And we believe, in the fulness of time that Light—the Light of the World—did shine among us. He exposed the darkness; he illuminated God’s Way; he brightened our hope.

But the damage to the left side of Giffords’ brain, the side that controls language, was so great that she couldn’t find the word. She tried again and again, but wound up with only frustrated tears. So the therapist began singing, and immediately Gabby Giffords joined right in word for word, “This little Light of Mine, I’m gonna let it shine.”

[PLAY CLIP]

The song, emerging from the right side of her brain, came out and helped restore the structure of her language center. It was the beginning of Rep. Giffords finding her own voice.

And for us, for those who still often feel like we live in the shadowlands, who seem to be groping about in darkness, we experience this meal in the same way. This simple meal helps retrieve our rhythm, pitch, and melody that gets lost in this damaged, wounded life. It sustains us once again, filling us with the life of the one who shines among us. The one who has illuminated our way. Who has invited us to join him as lights to his world.

This morning, on the first Sunday of Advent, as our brothers and sisters around the world remind each other that he who appeared once will appear again to restore all things, we affirm in this meal our belief that on that great day there will be no need for lamps or bulbs or candles or the sun, for he will be among us and will shine brightly.

Here’s my first video promo I shot for the 2013 Pepperdine Bible Lectures.

Ok, minor corrrections. I didn’t shoot it. It’s not mine. It’s not technically about the Pepperdine Bible Lectures. But check out where this guy ends up. Yes: that’s exactly where he’s heading!

A poem often associated with the life of Oscar Romero, the martyred Latin American bishop:

It helps, now and then, to step back and take a long view.
The kingdom is not only beyond our efforts,
it is even beyond our vision.
We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction
of the magnificent enterprise that is God’s work.
Nothing we do is complete, which is a way of saying
that the kingdom always lies beyond us.
No statement says all that could be said.
No prayer fully expresses our faith.
No confession brings perfection.
No pastoral visit brings wholeness.
No program accomplishes the church’s mission.
No set of goals and objectives includes everything.
It may be incomplete,
but it is a beginning, a step along the way,
an opportunity for the Lord’s grace to enter and do the rest.
We may never see the end results, but that is the difference
between the master builder and the worker.
We are workers, not master builders; ministers, not messiahs.
We are prophets of a future not our own.
This is what we are about.
We plant the seeds that one day will grow.
We water seeds already planted,
knowing that they hold future promise.
We lay foundations that will need further development.
We provide yeast that produces far beyond our capabilities.
We cannot do everything, and there is a sense of liberation
in realizing that. This enables us to do something,
and to do it very well.

Amen.

We have received word that the Italian stargazer, Galileo Galilei, ever so proud of his new “telescope,” is endorsing the heretical views of Copernicus.

He’s claiming, in constrast to the clear view of scripture, that the earth moves around the sun. This heliocentric heresy is a flat denial of all we believe about the reliability, authority, and inerrancy of the Word of God.

Take, e.g., this story from Joshua 10:

“On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.’ So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies.”

Could this be any clearer? The sun was stopped, not the earth. Scripture could not refute this heresy any more plainly.

We must urgently resist and reject and punish Galileo and heliocentrism! It comes down to whether we choose to believe the wild theories of science or the assured convictions of scripture.

I spoke for the first time at the Pepperdine Bible Lectures in 1986. I’ve been there every single year since then. There is nothing else even close in my travel and speaking experience. Even the year I was in a fog of grief, I accepted Jerry Rushford’s offer to teach in Smothers.

What’s that about? Why have I kept going?

Great lectures and worship experiences
Seafood
Close friends
Mountains
Insightful classes (where freedom to stretch is offered)
Ocean and seabreeze
Eager learners

Summary: friends, teaching (giving and receiving), and MALIBU

So now I’m gonna follow the most successful lectureship director in the history of the planet. (OK, in the history of the American Restoration Movement.) We all knew someone had to be foolish enough to try to follow Jerry. It might as well be me.

I said “yes” finally for these reasons: what the lectures have meant to me for a quarter of a century, my belief in Pepperdine, my love for my religious heritage, and my confidence in Andy Benton, the school’s president.

So now . . . as the clock ticks toward my official starting date (5/15/12) . . . HELP ME think about the future of the Pepperdine lectureship. If you’ve been, what do you like about it? What do you hope remains the same? What are some ways in which you hope it might evolve as time moves (and as churches and our culture change)?

Shoot me your best suggestions!!