Got Your Tickets? - To the Gun Show!

Christian cliches drive me up a wall.

There are several that set me off. (Of which I will refrain to mention in this post because I want to be selfish and use them in future posts.) But one that does me in every single time is in regards Christian fundraising. I wish I had a nickel every time a heard a meek little voice say:

“Well God owns the cattle on a thousand hills.”

(Typically those meek little voices belong to lifelong church going grandmas, women wearing denim dresses or men wearing tucked in pastel polo shirts.)

My first response when hearing that phrase is one of frustration. Quickly I try to discern in my head if the person needs to be rebuked or extended grace, but because I’m not a very bright person, thinking happens at a slower-than-required pace. I usually sigh, try to hide my eye rolling, and gently suggest that they used the verse out of context.

If you’ve ever used that verse in that way, I probably need to explain myself right now.

here’s what I mean...

Do you know where that verse is found?

It’s Psalm 50:10

(Most people have no idea, so clarifying is paramount)

If you did know it was Psalm 50:10, do you know what the 9 verses before and the 5 verses after it say?

Here’s the text:

1 The Mighty One, God the Lord,speaks and summons the earth from the rising of the sun to its setting. 2 Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty,God shines forth. 3 Our God comes; he does not keep silence; before him is a devouring fire,around him a mighty tempest. 4 He calls to the heavens above and to the earth, that he may judge his people: 5 “Gather to me my faithful ones,who made a covenant with me by sacrifice!” 6 The heavens declare his righteousness,for God himself is judge! Selah. 7 “Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you. I am God, your God. 8 Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before me. 9 I will not accept a bull from your house or goats from your folds. 10 For every beast of the forest is mine,the cattle on a thousand hills. 11 I know all the birds of the hills,and all that moves in the field is mine 12 “If I were hungry, I would not tell you,for the world and its fullness are mine. 13 Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? 14 Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and perform your vows to the Most High,15 and call upon me in the day of trouble;I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.”

The text really ought to speak for itself right now but let’s break it down anyways...

So God speaks to Israel and tells them that He’s unhappy. And it’s not because they fail to give Him the sacrifices He demanded but because even though they sacrifice everyday their hearts are unmoved by it. So God says “I will testify against you.”

Those are not the words you want to hear coming out of the mouth of God.

He continues to say “I will not accept a bull from your house or goats from your fold”. Even though they bring the correct offering required, God tells them that He wants no more of it. “For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills... if I were hungry, I would not tell you... do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?” God essentially tells Israel that even though He commands them to offer a sacrifice, that offering Him what he already owns does nothing for them and that what He really wants is a changed heart. We could probably paraphrase it this way:

“You think I want you to bring me bulls and goats?

I ALREADY OWN THEM!

Bulls and goats do nothing for you.

I want your heart changed.”

It seems a little messianic doesn’t it?

So we’re getting ready for a fairly large trip over spring break. You may have heard about it, you may not. We’re going to the ukraine and in order to get there, we’re going to have to raise a lot of money. If you’re one of the people going on the trip, I would ask that you not try to use that verse in your fundraising efforts. If you’re not going on the trip, I’m sure you will either go on a similar one soon or be in the presence of someone who’s trying to. I request the same from you.

Does this mean that God is incapable of providing?

Does this mean that God is unwilling to provide?

Of course not.

If you need to be reassured, I would suggest you read Matthew 6 & 7. There’s plenty enough in those 2 chapters to get you through.

I don’t point out these things to be mean or divisive or controversial but as someone who wants to see people come to a saving knowledge and relationship with Jesus, and as someone who wants to see that relationship evolve and grow out of how Jesus reveals Himself through scripture, it’s imperative that I correct false understanding and proof-texting when I see it.

God does provide.

God does own the cattle on a thousand hills.

God does not however, point that out to ensure us that He’s got our backs but rather, to make sure we understand who’s really in control around here whether we’re trying to give to Him or receive from Him.

Think of it as God inviting you to a holy gun show.

so i received an invite today to join a "cause" on facebook.

it was for ending world hunger in africa. now we can all agree that that would be a great thing. i don't think anyone is stupid enough to say that it would be a bad thing. so let's quickly put it to a vote and make it official.

all those in favor of "ending hunger in africa" signify by saying "AYE"

"AYE!"

all those who are opposed signify by the like sign.

"....silence...."

ok! so it's unanimous. we all would like to see hunger in africa go the way of the dodo bird. now that it's out of the way, i'd like to discuss causes as they appear on things like facebook.

i receive invitations like this on almost a daily basis. invites to "end hunger" and "fight global poverty" or stop oppression of women in _____ country". it seems like there is an endless number of causes one can be a part of this day in age. i'd like to officially go on the record and say that most of these thing are good and noble things to be a part of.

but here's my beef.

every time i look at the "cause" i'm being invited to, it quickly becomes clear that while the group may have several thousand members; the money raised toward the cause is generally under the $200 mark. often time even under the $50 mark.

we have thousands of people who say that they want to end hunger in africa but apparently only 5 of them are passionate enough about it to take action beyond a simple click of "yes, i'll join!"

now i'm fully aware that part of the solution is making more people ware of the problem, but at some point emails and social networking sites have gotten the job done and people are now aware.

it would seem that we've suddenly found ourselves living in a culture where it's trendy to be for something....

it's true.

when i turn down an invitation for a facebook cause i have a strange fear that people will think i'm against that issue.

i'm not a fan of tooting my own horn. mostly because i'm an arrogant person and it seems to happen all too easily for me....

but i've been to africa.

the person who sent me the invite to "end hunger" hasn't.

so why am i still worried?

because more than i think that we live in a culture that finds it trendy to be a part of something, i believe we live in a culture where it's trendy for people to think you're a part of something but secretly we have no compassion at all.

(it should be noted that the definition of the word compassion is to be "compelled to respond with action")

it would seem that more than actually feeling compelled to act, we are a people who are looking for what we get out of the deal. in this case (facebook causes) it's a comfort that the people around us believe we're socially conscious and caring.

we see the same thing in other arenas. AIDs has been around for years. yes it's worse now than before, but there's never been a not-so-shitty point in it's history. never before though, have we seen more public acknowledgement and support than we have the day motorolla teamed up with the (RED) campaign. the day we could receive a sexy cellphone to go with our donation. a physical "thank you" that we could proudly hold to our ear in smugness of anyone who wasn't "supporting the cause".

here's an idea- if you really, honestly want to see AIDs pushed back in africa, how about you not buy a brand new phone for $250 so that you can donate $8.50. (that's the actual amount donated according to motorolla's website. $8.50 per phone sold.) how about you give $250 straight to "global fund" which is the organization that actually uses the money raised by the (RED) campaign.

now, do i think (RED) is a bad thing? no.

do i think motorolla is wrong for marketing a product that they turn around and give away part of the profits to? of course not.

do i think that americans are much less concerned about AIDs in africa and much more concerned about having people believe they are concerned with AIDs in africa?

an emphatic yes.

i'm not sinless in this either.

i'm a proud owner of a pair of TOMS SHOES.

i think they're awesome. if you aren't familiar with them. look them up. for every pair of shoes you buy, they donate a pair to a child in need. i think they're a great company with a great mission.

a pair of toms runs about $48. a pair for me and a pair for a little kid. sounds great.

but i could get 4 pair of kids shoes at walmart for the same price and give it to kids in my area.

it's funny to me that i've never thought that giving shoes to kids was a good thing until i got a really sweet pair of kicks to go with it.

so i'm obviously no different here.

now this is a blog about my frustrations with the church and the differing factions their of. so how does it all tie in?

i'm currently reading "everything must change" by one mr. brian mclaren. he would obviously deny it, but he's the unofficial leader of the emergent movement. in his book (of which i'm nowhere near finished and can only speculate {and can potentially be very wrong.}) he consistently brings up issues that as christians we should be addressing. i don't know much about mclaren or what he's been a part of service wise in the past. i can only assume that he's a very passionate man and serves faithfully the things he advocates, but nowhere do i find him pushing actual movement on his readers.

now some would say that it isn't his responsibility. only to make aware.

but i would disagree.

as influential of a voice as he has in a culture that believes a (RED) cellphone in one of the best ways to spend money on advancing the "Kingdom"; i believe he has a responsibility to hol people accountable for these things.

one of my biggest frustrations of the emergent movement is their fear of stepping on toes.

if mclaren doesn't slap some sense into his readers soon, we'll find ourselves living in a world where it's Christlike to join a facebook group about the hungry in africa rather than going and actually feeding them.

don't waste God's money on crappy writing and bad illustrations.

today i received a very interesting piece of mail. bright and colorful. heavy card-stock. bold helvetica font. honestly speaking, it's a decent graphic design job.

it's an advertisement selling tracts.

i've never been much of a "tract guy". mostly because of the way i've seen them used.

i've witnessed people knock on a door- hand over the tract and then leave.

seriously.

they just left.

i've also witnessed more than one "christian" lay a tract on the table in lieu of a tip following a heavy sunday afternoon lunch. 

all in all, i've grown up to hate tracts.

now i understand that people have trouble sometimes articulating the gospel and may seek help from something like a tract.

i'm well aware that God's word does not go out and return void.

i'm also well aware that God is completely sovereign and at times chooses to use things like tracts to lead people to Himself.

it's these things that have softened my view (read: "hatred") on using tracts.

until today.

squeamishness turned into absolute nausea.

the ad i held in my hand had a picture of a gas pump ($4.25) and a variety pack of tracks ($3.96)

underneath the two pictures was the world "STEWARDSHIP" and it's definition.

i stopped.

i stared.

i felt anger well up inside of me.

according to this ad; i'll be a bad steward of the money that God has provided me if i spend it on a gallon of gas rather than this companies product?

i breathed deeply.

i read it again.

it still said what it had said earlier.

do people really respond to this kind of advertising? how well is "Good News Publishers" doing anyways?  are there enough people and churches out there buying this stuff to keep a tract publisher in business?

i've got to go fill up my car this afternoon.  i need the gas to get to various ministry activities and bible studies.  i think i'll go to a full service station today so i can actually TALK to someone about Jesus.

that seems like a good use of God's money.

tug-o-war

funny things happen in the world of theology.  sides never seem to get along. one side calls the other un-passionate, so the other responds with “heretic”.  there seems to be a polarization between different schools of thought. do they have common ground? if they did once, do they still?

i want to test theology and traditions against what scripture teaches.

but i also want to engage with content.

one side embarrasses me because of the stupid boundaries they create and the other side scares me because they fail to create boundaries at all.

can someone question traditional thought without being labeled a “heretical emergent”?

can someone hold fast to things they know are true without being labeled a “close- minded, arrogant, fundamentalist”?

i want to be that kind of theologian. 

i want to be that kind of Christ-follower.

this blog is dedicated to the frustrations and praises of the tug-o-war