My Name is Keith Brenton, and I Did Not Approve of This Message

This isn’t a political post.

It’s one of those techno-nerdy posts.

You see, last night my e-mail address of almost 10 years was used by one of those spamming software resellers as the originating e-mail address for a message sent to thousands of people about OEM (original equipment manufacturer) software.

I know this, because I have more than 500 returned-message notices in my inbox this morning.

Thank heaven it wasn’t a message for internet porn, or worse.

So today I’ll have to see what kind of remedies and recourses are available to me for the hijacking of my e-mail address.

If you received one of these messages, purportedly from me, you have my regrets.

And I would caution you against purchasing OEM software – from anyone.

Hard Words

Are you sure, Jesus?

If I want to follow You, I have to hate father, mother, wife, children, brothers and sisters?

If I want to follow You, I can’t invite friends to a dinner I host … only poor people?

If I want to follow You, I must sell my possessions and give the proceeds to the poor?

If I want to follow You, I have to see myself only as an unworthy servant?

Lord, that doesn’t sound very self-esteem-building. Or familial. Or even friendly.

And it certainly doesn’t sound very American.

Are you sure about all that stuff?

Give Me Patience, Lord – Right Now!

Last night I was called back to a post of mine from a few weeks ago (Worship, Gifts and Women) by a new comment, and I read through a few of the other comments with a measure of sadness.

One series of those comments became a conversation with a woman desperate to see immediate change in the perception of her church toward the idea of women being permitted to lead in worship. And I could sympathize with her, more than she could know or than I could express.

While I was rereading those comments, I thought about some things Lynn Anderson said in his 1994 work Navigating the Winds of Change:

Change won’t come immediately!
Back in the early days of our nineteen years at the Highland church, some of the elders and I prayed and worked towards changes that didn’t happen until fifteen years later! Be patient. (p. 175)

Change may not be ethical in some situations.
Some of us may be forced to hard choices. You may be driven by a passion to reach totally unchurched seekers or by a concern to keep from losing the boomer or buster generation from the church. But these people are not likely to be reached through traditional church models. You may have tried your best to get your congregation to retool so that it can connect with the unchurched or with a new generation of Christians. But others in your church, maybe even the founders who have invested their life’s blood in your congregation, may be driven by a different vision. In that case, to force your changes may not be ethical.

All churches don’t have to be the same. Some churches can change a little, some a lot. …. But remember, some churches won’t be able to change – not at all! Attempts to force 180 degree changes on such churches simply is not ethical. (pp. 175-176)

You may not agree with Lynn Anderson. (I don’t agree with him on all points – in fact, I think George Barna’s research since Navigating was written shows that many young professionals just drop out of church and there’s not much that anyone can do about it. But most come back a few years later, missing what they’ve left behind.) Still, Lynn has been there. He is an unashamed change agent. I’ve met him, and I think he has a heart for the Lord and for the lost and for the church.

And I believe he knows what he’s talking about when he makes these points.

Years ago there was an ad in Christian Chronicle for an album performed by the choir at my alma mater Harding, an album named after a famous old hymn featured on it. The clip-out coupon was phrased: “Rush me my copy of Teach Me Lord To Wait!”

Patience is still a virtue. So is brotherly-kindness.

But they don’t come easily to all of us, and they don’t come right away to any of us.

The Prodigal Mouse

Yesterday afternoon as the kids and I got home from school and work, we were plunged into the depths of tragedy.

Ten-year-old Laura’s pet mouse, Cheese, was missing from his cage.

Cheese is the more gregarious and adventurous of the two pet mice in our household. Matthew’s black-with-white-face-and-chest rodent is named Tuxedo, and even though he looks like he’s dressed to go out, he never does. He stays in his little purple igloo bubble within his cage and only exercises on the wheel at night.

But Cheese likes to be held, is up at all hours (between naps), and has been known to squeeze through the grille on the top of his cage to go out exploring.

It looked like he had made that mistake, and that there had been a struggle with one of our three cats. (Don’t ask why Angi let our children buy mice and cages and wheels and bedding and food when we have three cats. I had warned them both that when a cat sees a mouse, she usually thinks: “Snack!”)

Laura was distraught. She wailed, and I comforted. She searched, and I searched. We found nothing. No remains, no tiny drops of blood, nothing.

She was pretty much inconsolable all evening, though I managed to coach her through homework.

Then, right after her bath and just before bedtime, she began wailing again. I met her halfway down the hall and understood her to say, between sobs, “I … just … saw … Cheese!”

Fearing the worst, I followed her to her room, trying to calm her down. Then she said, “I saw him under the bed … and over there … and over there!”

Well, that changed matters a bit. I wondered briefly if she was hallucinating, but she had never displayed any truly hysterical behavior like that before. Within a few minutes (and after closing the door to the cats), we both spotted him: a flash of white fur with black spots, darting between toys and boxes on the floor. In a moment, I had him boxed in and presented him to Laura.

She spent the rest of the evening snuggling that mouse and telling me “Thank you!”

I mean that, literally. She must have told me “Thank you, Daddy!” and hugged me a couple dozen times.

Maybe there’s no real moral or point to telling this, but I couldn’t help but think of Jesus’ comment between the telling of the stories about a lost coin and a lost sheep recovered, and the return of a prodigal child: “In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

I understand the concerns of folks who feel uncomfortable when people clap after a baptism, or when they repeat aloud their praises and thanksgivings when a child of God is born again.

But I wonder if what’s actually happening in heaven is a lot of dancing and high-fiving and hollering and singing all at the same time – every time a reborn face breaks the surface of the water and his eyes are opened and he begins to seek his God.

Shouldn’t the rest of us be saying, “Thank you, Daddy!” over and over and over again?

Send Me All of Your Money

I love to read blogs. They make me think and ponder and seriously reconsider …

We interrupt this blog to bring you a special announcement:

Send me all of your money.

Right now. All you can spare. If you trust me, you don’t need to know what I’ll use it for.

Oh, all right. Don’t send it to me.

Send it to Larry James, c/o Central Dallas Ministries.

He needs it to close Friday on a housing opportunity for low income people there. He must have it by Friday.

Oh, okay. Maybe he doesn’t HAVE to have it by Friday.

But you could pretend, couldn’t you? Because Friday is the day he needs to close. And wouldn’t it be great if he had a whole bunch more donations to go into the closing with? Or to come back to afterwards? Wouldn’t you love to “make his joy complete” that way?

You can read more about the need here:

http://larryjamesurbandaily.blogspot.com/2006/10/providing-high-quality-downtown-homes.html

If you can’t send a lot of money, send a little. If you can’t send a little, and you have a blog, post this link. If you don’t have a blog and can’t post this link, tell somebody about it.

Right now. Today. Hurry!

Friday’s coming.

And now we return you to our regularly-scheduled blog:

The truth is, for each of the folks whose blogs I like to read because they make me think and ponder and seriously reconsider the things I believe, I wish there were a dozen Larry Jameses to boot me off of my butt by their humble, godly example; to encourage me to DO the things I believe.

Doughnuts and Coffee and Harps at the Lord’s Table

(Freed-Hardeman Bible Professor Ralph) Gilmore agreed that the Bible requires Christian unity. But he said, “There can be no genuine unity without truth.”

The issue boils down to how one understands God when he’s silent about something, Gilmore said. Ephesians 5:19 calls for “singing and making melody in one’s heart to the Lord.”

That verse “tells you where you’re supposed to pluck the string – in your heart,” Gilmore said. “It’s a purely vocal reference.”
The same logic that allows a piano in worship could lead to doughnuts and coffee in the Lord’s Supper, he said.

~ Unity Discussion Takes Center Stage at Freed-Hardeman, Christian Chronicle

Or, more accurately, roast lamb and bitter herbs, I might add.

– Which is probably what was served at the paschal meal that Jesus celebrated with His friends on the night He was betrayed.

In fact, doesn’t that same logic demand that we add them to the Lord’s Supper, since they are implied by the word “Passover”?

As well as fermented wine? In one cup?

Come to think of it, isn’t every Lord’s Supper unscriptural if not observed in an upper room?

Preceded by a foot-washing?

Followed immediately by the singing of a hymn and a walk in a garden?

If we’re going to exclude everything that isn’t mentioned in scripture, shouldn’t we include everything that is? Am I going outside of “the truth” here, as Professor Gilmore sees it?

By the way, should we have plates when we celebrate the Supper? They’re not mentioned in scripture.

And aren’t pitch pipes and tuning forks also musical instruments?

Should we check our iPods and mp3 players at the door of the church as we enter?

For that matter, Is a building dedicated only to worship ever commanded or authorized for Christianity to sing and commune in? Or should we just meet in synagogues and homes and rented lecture halls belonging to Tyrannus?

Shouldn’t we handle snakes and drink poison and speak in tongues?

Shouldn’t our women wear veils and our men avoid praying while wearing their hats at all costs?

Shouldn’t we have slaves so that they can be obedient to their masters?

The fact remains that scripture never says anything negative about instrumental music. Harps and trumpets appear to be part of what takes place in the heaven pictured in Revelation. All sorts of musical instruments are mentioned in the Old Testament, and the playing of them is pretty much assumed to be part of the culture of the worshiper.

Pretty much like fasting is assumed to be part of the culture of the follower of Christ.

I’ve just enjoyed an especially uplifting and meaningful hour or so of worship that centered on the Lord’s Table. We were encouraged, like the travelers to Emmaus, to recognize Jesus in the breaking of the bread. Our worship was accompanied by a cappella music and ordinary wafers and the blood of the grape.

No doughnuts. No coffee.

No lamb; no bitter herbs.

No psalteries, sackbuts, dulcimers or timbrels. No harps, flutes or tambourines. No trumpets, ram’s horns, lyres or cymbals.

They’re all biblical instruments, depending on your translation.

But to conclude that they are forbidden by God in worship because of their absence in a couple of verses – notwithstanding their presence in many, many others – requires the kind of logic that produces doctrines like salvation by faith only (or confession only or baptism only, etc.), or infant baptism to allay original sin, or any of a few dozen others I could name.

I don’t know that my church needed anything more than what we had at hand this morning in order to see Christ and give God glory. I loved it. It was pure and expressive. It was my tradition.

But not everyone is a minimalist. Not everyone is a reductionist.

Not everyone cheats himself out of opportunities and avenues for drawing closer to God through worship because he’s afraid of things he sees in scripture that aren’t there.

Those “silence-of-scripture” interpretations are unholy ghosts that claim to be “the truth;” that insist on their own way (“Why don’t you just give up fill-in-the-blank for the sake of unity?”); that lead to self-righteousness; that imply salvation by one’s own bootstraps.

They are not included in Peter’s response to the question “What must I do?”

They are not listed in the prophet Micah’s response to the question “What does the Lord require of you?”

They are not expressed in what Jesus said was His commandment. Or what He considered weightier matters.

They do not even comprise what James calls pure and faultless religion before God.

I leave it to you to determine whether they glorify God; whether they draw people closer to Him and to each other in the unity His Son prayed for – or drive them further apart.

The Silence of Scripture

“Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.”
– Thomas Campbell, heretic

As slogans go, I like this one. It’s brief, pungent, and pointed. It’s also extra-scriptural. You won’t find it in the Bible. So it is a slogan with the nugget of a great principle within it, and that’s all.

Now, it may or may not be inspired by I Peter 4:11:

“If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.”

That’s scripture, and you won’t find anything to quibble about in it.

It says nothing about scripture or silence. Yet it is frequently called into play when a proponent wishes to defend a doctrine of strictly observing the silence of scripture; i.e. not doing anything that isn’t specifically “authorized” by scripture.

I find that astounding.

And, if the stakes were not so high, I would find it hysterically funny.

For the slogan and the scripture have been used to prosecute all kinds of things which scripture does not mention, but not all of the things which scripture does not mention, and certainly not equally. That’s right. The very folks who claim Campbell’s slogan speak loudest where the Bible is silent.

Would God condemn someone to hell for doing something that His Word doesn’t mention, let alone pronounce wrong?

Does He really intend to legislate through silence?

Did He expect each of His inspired writers to leave that impression?

– Though Peter (and other New Testament writers) do have some things to say about people who distort the scriptures – to their own destruction.

My inclination is to speak the very words of God; not to try to preach my intuition of any “commands” that a just and loving God could possibly generate by His silence – and come off looking ignorant and unstable. (Even if that means being denounced as a heretic like Thomas Campbell – who would share in communion with anyone who wanted to remember Jesus in that way with him.)

I hope I succeed at just speaking God’s words, at least most of the time.

If not – as always – I will turn myself over to His grace.

The Pharisee Who Trumped Up A Molehill and Played Down A Mountain

It’s a striking passage, that Matthew 23.

It strikes the Pharisaic mind right between the eyes, pretty much blackening both of them.

These are the utterances of Jesus that may be titled in your Bible, “Seven Woes.” Or, in a more conversational translation, “Seven ‘Whoas!'”. Seven stop-and-rethink-these-items.

The one that draws my attention every time is right in the middle, which probably is at the heart of them for a reason:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices – mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law – justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

There’s some funny material in there to lighten it up. I can’t quite picture Jesus lambasting the Pharisees to the listening public like a red-faced, fiercely-toned, pulpit-pounding modern-day preacher and still saying those things. You know, about the gnat and the camel. And the “blind guides” part.

But I could be wrong. There’s some pretty serious lambasting in there, too.

For tithing to the extreme – but neglecting justice, mercy and faithfulness. The very things God expects/requires of us, according to Micah 6:8. That’s a lot to neglect. Especially when emphasizing compliance with the law in the tiniest matters.

Would such a Pharisee preach someone into hell for missing a sprig of mint or a shoot of dillweed? Yet conspire against an innocent man of God? Even His Son? To the point of murder?

Looks that way.

We Christians would never do that, would we?

Picket an abortion clinic with signs bearing hateful slogans, without offering to adopt, provide foster care, advocate equal pay for women, train and reward good parenting for those who keep rather than abort?

Castigate someone for an infraction against our worship tradition at the Lord’s table, while doing nothing to help thousands of starving refugees in Africa?

Condemn a brother for having a different opinion on doctrine, while lifting no finger to teach lost millions about Jesus?

Surely we know our mountains from our molehills.

Don’t we?

Are we concentrating on the majors – and not neglecting the minors with whatever time and energy the Spirit gives us after we have displayed Jesus’ good will in a major way? So that people will see our good works and praise our Father in heaven?

Are we being blind guides in such matters?

Or is it just that these verses give us a pair of black eyes, too?

“Whoa!” unto us.

But That’s What It Says!

This alone as a defense for any doctrine created by man, defended by a particular biblical scripture, is simply unacceptable.

Sorry. It’s not enough.

Because a literal-only reading of scripture will lead to unscriptural doctrine.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple.”

Ergo, we must hate our families or we can’t follow Him.

But that’s what it says!

“And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.”

Therefore if we covet or lust after something because of our eyes, we must blind ourselves.

But that’s what it says!

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

So we must engage in cannibalism of Christ’s risen body, or we can’t be saved. (That’s gonna make it tough for anyone to be saved, isn’t it?)

But that’s what it says!

“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.”

Hence, women cannot speak at all. Not to teach the little ones. Not even sing the songs. In fact, they can’t talk until they get out of the building.

But that’s what it says!

“An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.”

So if an elder’s children get a little rowdy, even once … or he sins even in the slightest way … or his wife dies, he must immediately resign – or face eternal damnation, taking his church with him. (Unless, of course, they gently depose him even in the middle of his grief as a new widower.)

But that’s what it says!

Give me a break.

If your scholarship in scriptural exegesis sees only the literal and temporal, and cannot also discern the contextual, the conditional, the metaphorical, the spiritual, the eternal – if you cannot derive the principle without demanding the perfect -then you do not grasp the heart of Christ. You do not understand grace, or what the fellowship of the Spirit means, or the inestimable value of Jesus’ blood. You have missed the point God sent Him to make if you only make His Word into a checklist of laws, rules, and regulations that must be extracted through the careful application of definitions from the original Greek.

And your interpretation is null and void.

The Bread And The Wine And The House That Christ Built

This is the life
that Jesus laid down.

This is the bread
that pictures the life
that Jesus laid down.

This is the body
consumed by the bread
that pictures the life
that Jesus laid down.

This is the church
comprising the body
consumed by the bread
that pictures the life
that Jesus laid down.

This is the life
required by the church
comprising the body
consumed by the bread
that pictures the life
that Jesus laid down.

This is the God
providing the life
required by the church
comprising the body
consumed by the bread
that pictures the life
that Jesus laid down.

This is the life
that Jesus laid down.

This is the blood
that nourished the life
that Jesus laid down.

This is the wine
that pictures the blood
that nourished the life
that Jesus laid down.

This is the people
revived by the wine
that pictures the blood
that nourished the life
that Jesus laid down.

This is the vessel
composed of the people
revived by the wine
that pictures the blood
that nourished the life
that Jesus laid down.

This is the pouring out
of this lowly vessel
composed of the people
revived by the wine
that pictures the blood
that nourished the life
that Jesus laid down.

These show the life
that Jesus laid down.

Minute by minute.
Day by day.
Year by year.
Lifetime by lifetime.

Poured out and broken.
Given and taken.
Passed among thousands.
Multiplied amply,
Like the loaves and the fishes.
Each one a gift.
Each one a sacrifice.
Each one a new life:
Hungering for righteousness.
Thirsting for faith.
Fed and replete.
Lived to the full.
Offered back freely.

These are the lives
that Jesus takes up.